Just read a large marketing study from 2013 focused on "Millennials With Children." 71% of millennials with children live in suburban or rural areas. Lots of good comments here: I agree and am happy that a lot of "status" symbols may be dead (at least in the near term), but I think critical urban planning prophets are grossly missing the ball by thinking of millennials as strictly educated childless nomads. The public schools thing is probably the horse before any cart, but I'm frankly annoyed by all the urban planning decisions that cater to a demographic that is probably in a finite window time wise.
Catering to childless 20 somethings that have the free time and are "liquid rich" because they have the flexibility to spend an inordinate amount of their income in the experience / entertainment industry is not a sustainable demographic to plan around. Many of the millennial families that live in midtown can only do so because they have generational familial wealth that enables them to do so. That is a fact, whether or not they disguise it by not being otherwise into material consumerism. Real progress would be trying to figure out how to keep middle class young families in the core---and the realization that this includes even double working parents with college degrees who have high incomes, but maybe zero liquid / available familial wealth. Those are just the facts.
The problem with this piece is the unwritten, yet foundational presumption that the seperation of powers is dead. Frankly, it's par for the course coming from a hardcore democrat because, to them, they have already crowned the executive as King, with such a fate cemented over the last 8 years. But if you actually believed in our system of government as written, there's only so much fear any 1 person could engender. But that doesn't even cross the mind of democrats, who each believe that they are the single most enlightened beings in world history and should wholesale change the government because..they know best.
I simply don't understand the left's rush to import refugees from inside a conflict zone where the enemy's main goal is to (a) destroy the West and (b) do so by clandestine ambush of any vulnerable individuals (aka terrorism). The enemy's means of potential entry and attack are part and parcel of the same tactic.
Of course, a terrorist can be a homegrown American citizen (Orlando).......but you're opening a whole new realm of danger if you let battle hardened holy warriors fresh from the killing fields into your country. Even in the face of Orlando, I don't need a study or chart for me to know that somebody who has already participated in beheadings and other heinous crimes against humanity will move into action a lot quicker than a homegrown person on the edge by virtue of his computer screen.
ISIS has said they want to infiltrate refugee settlements in the West. Our CIA director reiterated this today or yesterday. Why is ISIS the only political football that is not taken at its word ? If you bring in 50,000 Syrian / Iraqi refugees and only 1/2 of 1 percent are ISIS affiliates, you may have just put 250 BATTLE HARDENED warriors of the caliphate on US soil. Why take the chance ?
What bothers me is that none of you have mentioned the root cause of this problem. THE PEOPLE who put these dogs in this position in the first place ! Here's to guessing its the same 5-10% of the population that (1) commit crime (2) use the city school systems as a daycare for their neglected and mal-adjusted children (3) and fill the cages at the animal shelter.....(not to mention, total government dependency, drug addiction, I digress....).
Unfortunately, none of these people will ever read the articles, much less the (sometimes) insightful comments on here and the CA website. So at the end of the day, all of the good people in this city sit around blaming each other while the people at fault continue to coast through life like a feather in the breeze.......on our tax dollars and at the expense of our safety and our children's welfare.
A no-kill shelter will never work because there are way too many morons in this city that could care less about what happens to their pets. So, you're talking about massive hurdles in just trying to reduce the intake numbers through public education. Do we even need to go into the tax burden ramifications of trying to feed, shelter, and market 16,000 pets per year ? We're a city with a dwindling tax base (again, because of this 5%) and its probably a pipe dream to think we can run a functional no-kill shelter. Just see what happens if you raise property taxes to subsidize a no-kill shelter. More flight, more blight and, in all likelihood, a higher number of stray pets.
By Chris Davis, Susan Ellis, Toby Sells, and Maya Smith
download this issue
click here to see more »