Ohio goes after failing charter schools: is Florida next? by gimleteye

The New York Times reports this morning, “Ohio became a test tube for the nation’s charter school movement during a decade of Republican rule here, when a wide-open authorization system and plenty of government seed money led to the schools’ explosive proliferation. But their record has been spotty. This year, the state’s school report card gave more than half of Ohio’s 328 charter schools a D or an F.”

The story struck my attention because an enduring irritation about the repeat application by Lowe’s to move the Urban Development Boundary in far west Dade is the promise by the corporation to sell at cost adjacent land for a new school: an offer snapped up by a local charter school operator but not the public schools.

Not too long ago in Miami-Dade County, a school board policy rejected new schools within a mile of the Urban Development Boundary. That rule was called the McAliley Line and it remained school board policy until Janet McAliley retired.

The reason for the rule was simple: new schools attract new houses attract new businesses attract more land speculators attract more pressure for zoning changes to build in wetlands near the Everglades.

The reason for the Growth Machine objecting to the rule was even more simple: more schools attract lots of business for engineers, lobbyists, and campaign contributions that accompany zoning requests by land speculators.

Even though Lowe's has enough land inside the UDB adjacent to the parcel outside the UDB to build a store, the point is this: no matter what the professional planning staff for the county say, the Growth Machine wants to move the Urban Development Boundary somewhere, every two years at least. For the Growth Machine--even in the worst housing crash in a century!--exerting control over local legislatures is a matter of principle: it is like beating a dog to show who is boss.

At a recent Planning Advisory Board meeting (in advance of the upcoming November meeting--Thanksgiving Week--for the County Commission to decide on the applications) Lowe's paid a bus load of people to come down to County Hall and "show" their support for a new Lowe's outside the UDB.

Lowe’s offer for a new school is the carrot so that the stick can puncture the Urban Development Boundary. It is meant, like an icebreaker, to open new territory to its business lines-- never mind that it edges ever closer to the Everglades.

It is always this way with major corporations like Lowe’s or Lennar or Walmart with massive budgets and needs to consume more land.

Here is the kicker: at the recent Planning Advisory Board meeting—the lobbyists for Lowe’s were asked by one of the PAB members: why didn’t Lowe’s offer the land to the public school system?

It so happens that a public school official was in attendance, and he hemmed and he hawed. It is public knowledge that school enrollments are declining throughout Miami-Dade County. That’s one manifestation of the race to the bottom promoted by production home builders as a public good.

But the private charter operator was more than willing to pick up the land, at Lowe’s “cost”. For this, the public is to be thankful?

When asked, would the charter operator agree to surrender the land if his operation did not work out, well to that question the Lowe's lobbyist, Juan Mayol said, this charter school operator is highly successful (and, we wonder, does he also contribute to local political campaigns?)

In 2004, then Planning Advisory Board member Gonzolo Sanabria and LBA member chastised citizens concerned about the impacts of new schools and new Lowe’s and new housing closer and closer to the Everglades, “That’s what we have environmental regulations for,” Sanabria solemnly said.

Of course he didn’t disclose, at the time, that his real estate business had related financial interests in moving the Urban Development Boundary. Sanabria was not alone: the biggest game in town for lobbyists was moving the Urban Development Boundary.

Then county commission chairman Joe A. Martinez, buoyed by Natacha Seijas and the rest of the Growth Machine, toyed with opponents like a cat playing with a mouse. He clearly relished his role, supported as it was by favorable deals on land and a home he was building--by the same interests promoting the movement of the UDB.

This, and the charter school movement, is what laissez faire orthodoxy has given us: it’s called the “free” market, or otherwise, the best democracy money can buy.