The Ultimate NIMBYs in Burlington are Wealthy Condo/Mansion-Owners

(You can view a larger, full-screen map here.)

Last post I discussed how 25% of single and double-unit homes in Burlington are investment rental properties, making it harder for lower-income people to live and thrive in Burlington. While I mentioned that zoning plays a role in this, albeit a limited one, today I wanted to show how those with money and wealth, including Mayor Weinberger, are the ultimate NIMBYs, working to make sure that there are limited opportunities for new or different residents to move into their neighborhoods, while aggressively pushing denser development in other neighborhoods.

I have mapped all 670+ single-family mansions and luxury condos worth over $500,000*. Of these 670 homes, 120 (18%) are second homes. These homes make up the top 10% wealthiest single-unit homes in the city, making them the wealthiest 4% (by home value) residents in the city. Combined wealth is $465 million.

If we decided to create a luxury housing/mansion tax in the city on these homes, depending on our pricing scheme, which I will write about in a later post, (yearly flat home value tax of .1% (one tenth of one percent), flat tax of .5% (half of one percent), we could be raising anywhere from $500,000 to $2,500,000 A YEAR for low-income housing, which is a helluva lot more than we are doing now as a city.

The map is crude but you get the point.

What you will quickly notice is that the vast majority of wealthy homes, 94%, exist in only 4 spaces throughout the city. They are either in the south end on the hill section with nice lake views (Tracts 39-1 and 39-2), in the south end by the water (Tracts 10-2, and 11-2 ), downtown in luxury condos (Tract 10-1 ) or in the New North End by the water (Tract 2-3 without Rockpoint). These areas have some of the lowest population densities in the city, and if we tracked population by street or neighborhood I’m certain these numbers would be even lower.

Except for the luxury condos downtown, almost every mansion/luxury condo was built in areas that are zoned for low-residential density. In fact, our own Mayor Weinberger, a strong proponent of ‘in-fill’ development and ‘denser development by building up’ lives in one of these mansions on the hill, where he is protected by zoning from every worrying about losing his perfect lake view, from ever worrying about traffic, noise, pollution, trash, or any of the other issues that come with actual city living.

The ultimate NIMBYs aren’t small homeowners or renters concerned about the negative effects of gentrification, but rather the wealthiest 10% of homeowners who live in low-density neighborhoods, and who regularly vote for and advocate for, zoning that keeps their neighborhoods with few people and large homes, while pushing density to poorer neighborhoods that are already quite dense, like the Old North End.

*For data purposes, I included all housing that either had a recent sale price of over $500,000 or a home assessed at over $450,000 (homes are generally assessed at less than 90% of value).

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) offers False and Flimsy Promises

The city of Burlington loves Tax Increment Financing (TIFs) – whether it be for the Moran Plant, waterfront improvements, the mall redevelopment, or the nontransparent private marina process – even though TIFs are seriously flawed. TIFs are sold on flimsy and false promises – from helping low income communities to boosting the economy when it wouldn’t have been boosted otherwise. On top of this, TIFs in practice are undemocratic. Politicians will ask voters to approve a supposed done deal but they often amount to a blank check finalized behind closed doors by a select few. It’s time to end TIFs and invest public funds in low-income communities.

TIFs are districts where cities can ‘leverage’ private investment by borrowing on future property value increases. While there may be some benefits, those benefits are unproven and do not outweigh the many many downsides to TIFs.

The 6 problems with TIFs:

  1. Once you vote on the idea, you don’t get to choose the final product even if the final product is drastically different than the initial idea. See: private marina, mall redevelopment, City Hall Park.
  2. Since the goal line on TIF projects always changes, it’s impossible to hold elected officials responsible for failing to act on their words. For example, first the $20 million mall TIF would buy a couple streets and fix streets around the mall, but in the final weeks before the vote it included fixing an additional two streets to get voters to approve it.
  3. While TIF money may have originally been used to help struggling downtowns, it is now used in mainly wealthy downtowns to improve infrastructure for wealthy land owners. For example, the mall is owned by a multi-billion dollar investment company but supposedly wouldn’t build this project unless taxpayers gave them 9% of their funding costs for free. TIF money never seems to be used for programs to support those in poverty, like funding new low-income housing.
  4. TIFs hurts our public schools by taking desperately-needed millions out of the education fund for 20+ years, as TIFs money is split 75/25 education fund and general fund. The money used to improve our downtown never reaches Burlington’s low income children.
  5. TIFs raise rents and cost of living for everyone else by accelerating property values in urban areas past typical levels of inflation. They, like Downtown Improvement Districts, lead to accelerated gentrification.
  6. TIFs are sold as being integral to spurring new development, but are based on a false and unproven assumption that the development wouldn’t have occurred ‘but for’ TIF money. In fact, the ‘but for’ clause means ‘but for that specific design/development plan’. So we have no way of knowing if some level of development would have occurred regardless. Vermont State Auditor Doug Hoffer has made is clear that this ‘but for’ clause is impossible to prove or audit.

The reality is that MANY people, when they vote for TIF, they vote for a specific project without realizing they’re writing a blank check for politicians who may be more interested in making wealthy interests and donors happy over ensuring the community meets everybody’s needs.

In the end, TIF money gambles on the future with little oversight or proof of its effectiveness. It takes badly needed property tax revenue, money that our schools desperately need, and gives it to investors so that they can boost their profits and wealth for the next 20 years while taxpayers pick up the tab. It’s time to end TIFs and fund local government through taxes, and if necessary, bonds.

Many Low-Income Families are Being Gentrified Out of Burlington

For years now we have been hearing anecdotes about the harmful effects of gentrification on low income families in Burlington. The data in this post shows that elected officials have done nothing to slow the destruction of the widening income gap, while the low-income families remaining in Burlington are those living in worsening, abject poverty.

Over the past decade, elected Burlington officials have sat idly by as the city has morphed from one of the most livable places in America into a town that only the wealthy can afford. Businesses that served low-income communities closed, were priced out and evicted like Resource, while megalandlords like the Bissonnetes legally evicted over 300 low-income tenants and families.

Over a year ago I asked Mayor Weinberger about what he would do to stop poor residents from being legally evicted by ever-increasing gentrification, and he told me that this was “the best system we had” and offered no solutions to help these families. I clarified. “Are you saying that the best we can do in Burlington is let 300 poor families be priced out of the city?” Weinbeger said yes.

A year ago I researched childhood poverty in Chittenden County from 2003-2016 using free/reduced public school lunch data*, and discovered that while Burlington had lowered childhood poverty by 8%, nearly every surrounding communities’ childhood poverty increased. I believed at the time that this was likely a result of gentrification, poor families being priced out.

Data from https://education.vermont.gov/student-support/nutrition/school-programs/free-and-reduced-meals

The data shows that my theory is correct – within just 7 years, upwards of 30% of Burlington’s poor families have been priced out of Burlington.

While the overall number of BTV households have increased by 6% since 2009, and median income (adjusted for inflation) increased 8% ($3,445), low-income folks have not shared in this wealth. In fact, the income gap during this time increased 18% between households making under $35k a year and those making over $75k a year.

When you look a bit more into the data, low-income families have clearly been hit the worst by, so much so that in Burlington their share as a percentage of all families has decreased by 19% and 17% respectively. Yet 40% of Burlington’s children live in poverty because the families that are able to remain, thanks to public housing, limited housing vouchers, and limited nonprofit housing, are in ever greater poverty.

We are in a housing crises and our elected officials keep promoting trickle-down market-rate housing as a solution, which does nothing to slow the ravages of gentrification. After 7 years of failed policies under conservatives and centrists like Mayor Weinberger, council Democrats, and council Progressives, isn’t it time we tried some better policies that have a proven track record of helping low-income families, like investing money in low-income housing, rent protections, and higher minimum wage?

*A family of 3, average Burlington size, cannot make more than $37,167, or 1.85 times the federal poverty rate, in 2016 dollars, to qualify for free or reduced lunch.

The Burlington Business Association and Mayor Weinberger Rigged the Downtown Improvement District Process

This is Part 3 of a 4 Part series on how Mayor Weinberger and the Burlington Business Association don’t represent regular Burlingtonians and are using their influence to push a rushed and rigged Downtown Improvement District that gives a handful of wealthy folks even more power at the expense of actual Burlington residents. Parts 1, 2, 4, are here.

The Burlington Downtown Improvement District was rigged from the starts, with the vast majority of members coming from the Business Community, particularly the Burlington Business Association.

I came across a document (also shared by other community members just a few days ago) that was way too important to save. It shows the level of coziness and conflicts that exists between our elected officials and businesses in Burlington.

6 out of 9 members of the Downtown Improvement District Advisory Committee were either directly picked by, owned businesses that were members of, or have business partners that work for, the Burlington Business Association.

A total of 66% of the committee members were directly influenced by the Burlington Business Association, and 89% were influenced by the BBA or by the Mayor, who seems to favor the BBA over other local political advocacy groups.

In an RFP written by the Burlington Business Association in 2017 for the new Downtown ‘Improvement’ District, I came across two parts that raise serious concerns about the entire process as we vote in a couple days to privatize our downtown and put it in he hands of a select wealthy few.

First, the RFP discusses the DID working group. Do you know anything about them, like maybe how many public meetings they had? Hard to tell, but a quick Google search suggests few people knew about them and that 0 meetings were open to the public.

The DID Working Group includes representatives from key organizations leading the project for the City of Burlington. It includes a single representation from the following organizations: a.) Burlington Business Association, Kelly Devine b.) Church Street Marketplace BID, Ron Redmond c.) Community and Economic Development Office, City of Burlington, Gillian Nanton d.) Department of Public Works, Patrick Mulligan 2 This group meets regularly, up to weekly. This group will work closely with the selected contractor to provide input, direction and local leadership on the project. They will serve as the key point of contact for the contractor. Kelly Devine of the Burlington Business Association will be the key contact and will call on DID Working Group members to support this effort as needed and as their areas of expertise warrant.

Okay but at least the DID Advisory Group was democratic, open to the public, and received input from lots of citizens, yes?

Turns out Google also comes up with a whopping 0 results for any meeting times or announcements of public meetings made by the advisory group. But I did find a city document suggesting 21 people voted on the question of a DID in a ‘Town Meeting’. Yes, 21 people, along with the 9 DID advisory members, may have decided all of this for us.

Downtown Improvement District Advisory Committee Members with Nominating Organization

City Council: Councilor Adam Roof
● City Council: Downtown Resident – to be appointed
● Church Street Marketplace: Jeff Nick, Chair
● Mayor Weinberger – Legal Professional – Robert DiPalma, Paul, Frank & Collins, Burlington Resident
● Mayor Weinberger – Financial Professional – vetting of candidates underway
● BBA Nominee, Downtown Property Owner – David Schilling, Investors Corp of Vermont
● BBA Nominee, Downtown Office Tenant – Ashley Bond, University of Vermont Medical Center Manager of Property and Real Estate
● BBA Nominee, Downtown Retail Tenant – Kara Alnaswari, Leibling
● BBA Nominee, Marketing Professional – Rich Price, Select Design

Please, think about this.

The committee that has been paraded around as fully supporting the privatization plan was formed 4/9ths by the BBA, 2/9ths by the Mayor who supports and works closely with the BBA, 1/9th the Church Street Marketplace Chair who is a member of the BBA, 1/9th a citizen chosen by the council and 1/9th Councilor Roof who runs a business in a clear conflict of interest with an employee of the BBA (and his roommate).

Councilor Adam Roof (I, Ward 8) clear conflict of interest voting on items that are submitted by and affect the Burlington Business Association and his Business Partner.

As Councilor Roof so eloquently stated about the vote,

…he was excited that after nearly two years of work the proposal was before the council to send to the Charter Change Committee.  “From the beginning there was one real guiding principle that we knew we must operate from if this eventual proposal was going to earn the support of a majority of this council and of course the voting public. We must ensure this proposal be built upon a foundation of both common ground and common good in so far that it must deliver both economic and social vitality to our downtown for the benefit of our entire community. I believe that after a lot of work this proposal strikes that balance.”

Could anyone help me understand how this Downtown ‘Improvement’ District process was done in a thoughtful, democratic way, where the vast majority of residents and workers were fairly represented in this drastic change, and how the public was included in this advisory committee? Because this looks like crony capitalism to me.

Are Poor Families and Children Being Priced Out of Burlington?

The data below suggests that Burlington is becoming a city for the wealthy, as working class families are being priced out of Burlington and forced to move further and further away from jobs and social services. What does this mean for Burlington, for our schools, for our values of inclusion?

Burlington’s childhood poverty rate has been dropping from a post-recession high of 51%. While it may seem obvious to give credit to a rebounding economy and maybe even local policies, the truth seems to be a bit less rosy. Since 2004 the percentage of children receiving free and reduced lunches has fallen from 42% to 40%, but when compared to the high of 51%, the data looks promising. Yet when we look at data from surrounding districts, the data suggests that poverty is increasing in nearly every other school district but Burlington. A reason for this may very well be that families are being priced out of Burlington due to gentrification, legal mass-evictions, and anemic affordable housing growth under the current administration.

While Winooski’s poverty rates returned to 2003 levels after a tumultuous 15 years, four districts doubled their poverty rate, while two others increased 5%-6%. Milton doubled from 16% to 36%, Colchester doubled from 13% to 27%, Williston doubled from 8% to 16%, Essex doubled from 11% to 22%, while Georgia has increased from 16% to 21% and South Burlington 11% to 17%.

The truth seems to be that lower poverty rates are a reflection of low income families being priced out of Burlington, and less with Burlington making meaningful policy decisions to help low income residents. With stagnant wages, a city council and mayor that won’t raise the minimum wage or strengthen our livable wage ordinance, growing housing costs and a widening income inequality gap, it makes sense that working class families continue to struggle. More seem to be struggling outside Burlington. With Bissonette mass-evicting folks out of their 300+ units of housing, it’s no wonder that folks are moving further and further away from social services and jobs.

All data can be found here.

Bissonette and Legal Mass-Evictions

Over the course of a couple years, Bissonette has legally evicted nearly all of their tenants by upgrading their housing; the vast majority of said tenants were using Section-8 vouchers. This is not only entirely legal in an unregulated housing market like Burlington, but it is putting a huge, terrible housing crisis on Burlington’s low income residents as the city loses hundreds of units of affordable housing. While Mayor Weinberger regularly talks about the need to build market-rate housing to meet our city’s housing crisis, this crisis seems to exist outside of the Mayor’s reality. In fact it wasn’t until CEDO, the mayor, and city councilors wanted to sell city land to known slumlord Rick Bove that any elected officials recognized this severe loss of housing.

Just look at the numbers – in the past few years nearly 300 units of housing, most of which is located in the Old North End, over 540 bedrooms, are no longer affordable. The average price per bedroom in a Bissonette apartment, based off of their own numbers online, is $843 per bedroom. This is how gentrification raises the rents of previously affordable apartments, as $1700 for a 2 bedroom apartment is about the price for new Redstone apartments.

As far as I know, no elected officials have offered solutions on how to mitigate these legal mass evictions, or how to protect our city’s most vulnerable residents. These are the sort of issues that really define gentrification, and are the issues that our elected officials need to be actively fighting so that our must vulnerable neighbors are’t priced out the city entirely.

Are Burlington’s Boards and Commissions Representative? Part 1 of 3


In the coming week I will discuss, in a several part series, why our board and commission process, from public outreach to voting, is deeply deeply flawed. It is so flawed, in fact, that it’s impressive our boards and commissions have any diversity, but homogeneity isn’t as far off as you may think.

Today I’d like you to take a look at the commission and board data I collected from the 2016-2017 year. Names were removed to protect privacy (even though this is all public information, which I’m happy to share for the doubters among us), and the points on the map are congregating in a general location so as to keep home addresses private. It is also important to note that ‘home value’ is actually ‘assessed value’, which means housing values are only around 85% of the true value. I’ve chosen to stick with the assessed numbers, for consistency and for reasons that will be come clear in later posts.

Burlington Needs to Hold Slumlords like Bove Accountable

The city council recently did business with local slumlord Rick Bove in overwhelming support, voting 9-3. It seems that the 70 housing codes the Bove family amassed over the past few years, did not factor into the minds of our elected leaders. The priority to build up our downtown core seems more important to our city than ensuring that working class residents can live with dignity. As our city continues to grow, now is the time to create more protections for our most vulnerable neighbors, to ensure that slumlords like Rick Bove are held responsible for their actions.

A little background is needed to understand why I would make such a bold claim against a renowned Burlington family. Over the past 4 years the Boves have amassed over 70 housing code violations on their 16 properties, not far behind notorious slumlord Soon Kwon, with one property falling into such disrepair it was condemned by the city and tenants were forced to move. According to Seven Days, in 2013 the city even held their liquor license hostage so that the Boves would pay and fix over 40 housing code violations.

Rick Bove’s response to Seven Days? “You can write whatever you like, it doesn’t matter to me.” Clearly, it also doesn’t matter to him what terrible, heartbreaking conditions his tenants live in.

At my NPA, I wanted to understand why slumlords like the Boves are given countless chances to change without any serious repercussions or consequences. While it was heartening to hear Councilor Roof admit that the Boves have been slumlords for decades, it was discomforting to know that he and other elected officials have done little (to little effect) to curb these criminal behaviors. Several councilors even stated that the ends, more housing in the city, justified the means, slumlords being encouraged to develop and own more property in Burlington.

One would think our elected officials should be doing everything in their power to discourage criminal behavior, and recognize that positive ends rarely justify destructive means.

Why are landlords allowed to have outstanding fines for so long? Why hasn’t the city council enacted and funded more vigorous protections and enforcement? What are they now going to do to start addressing a long-ignored problem?

There is some hope coming from our Code Enforcement Director, Bill Ward. He has been working with a city attorney to find ways to revoke landlords’ rental licenses when they act like slumlords and amass many fines.

While this is a really great start, now more than ever we need to ask our elected leaders to ensure all residents have stable, safe housing, and that landlords who racks up fines will be held responsible – particularly by the city taking away their rental license, and refusing to do business with them until they have made a long-term effort to change their past behavior.

The YMCA’s Early Education Expansion Will Help Itself, Hurt Others

As someone who works directly with vulnerable populations, it’s often hard to feel optimistic in the current national and local political environment. It’s particularly difficult to see policy decisions and actions taking place in our city that inadvertently end up negatively impacting the vulnerable populations they are meant to help. The YMCA’s planned early education expansion is a good example of this, where they will add 100 more classroom spaces, 50% for families on childcare subsidy. On the surface this looks like a clearly positive addition to the city and especially for children living in poverty, but without any coordination from the larger early education community, this decision will likely do more damage than good.

Last week I wrote about how Burlington’s early education system is strained to the point of full-blown crisis. One critical part of this crisis is that preschools, in programs throughout the spectrum, have significant trouble finding and retaining highly educated teachers who can work with traumatized populations. A friend of mine at a different highly rated center said it took them an entire year to fill a single teaching spot. It turns out that when the cost of living is high and early educators make under $15 an hour, graduates choose to move elsewhere. That’s not even considering the nearly $30,000 in average debt students have when they graduate UVM, with debt repayments equaling 6 weeks of pay for 10+ consecutive years.

My school offers a good example, and I hope this information won’t get me into trouble, but I do believe it’s important to be honest and open about how our school struggles. My school is one of the best in the city if not the state (I say this to brag about the amazing work of my coworkers and directors, because if I was as good as them I’d be more focused on curriculum, not on political blogging!), and we recently put out an ad to hire substitute teachers on a per diem basis. After 3 months, only one person sent in an application. I think it’s pretty clear that the situation is dire.

Now, in a system where quality teachers are already scarce, the YMCA is looking to add 50 infant/toddler spots and 50 preschool spots. If we assume that 2 FT and 1 PT teachers will be hired for every classroom, which is fairly common, and each infant/toddler classroom has 8 children while each preschool classroom has 16 children, the Y will need to hire conservatively 27 teachers, most of whom will need 4-year college degrees and a teaching license. So, while it is nearly impossible to find lower-qualified substitutes, the Y will need another 27 highly trained educators. Add the fact that last year at the governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission, after reading this letter that my staff and I wrote discussing our successes and challenges, newly hired YMCA CEO Kyle Dodson commented that the letter was overly dramatic. I have a lot of doubt that these new positions will pay a fair, livable wage. I feel sorry for the unlucky worker who has to hire for the expansion.

Just to reiterate: The YMCA will expand way too quickly in an environment when every center is struggling. At best, schools like mine, that already cannot compete with the Y in terms of fundraising and advertising, will need to raise salaries just to keep staff and not have to compete in an even tighter labor market. This means that tuition will rise for families, especially those in the middle of the income ladder. More spots for those with wealth and those without, but the middle and lower middle class will be squeezed even worse. On top of that, without highly trained staff who know how to work with children with trauma, the Y will likely see incredibly high rates of teacher and student turnover, and all quality in all centers will start to suffer. Worst case scenario, the Y pushes centers like mine out of business, leaving a handful of larger early childhood ‘factories’, like Heartworks, to choose from.

It’s a lose-lose, and I think any gains for the few families who get the new spots will be eaten up by system destabilization and potential closure of other centers. Is the risk of destabilizing the system worth it? Or should the city take its time, actually work with early childhood educators, and make sure the centers that are currently open can improve on quality and teacher retention until we as a community figure out a sustainable plan?

Burlington’s Early Childhood Education is in Crisis

As a preschool teacher, a graduate of the Snelling Center’s Early Childhood Leadership Institute and as a 2017 city council candidate who campaigned for universal publicly funded early childhood education, it is fair to say I’m pretty passionate about early childhood education, especially at the public policy level. Last year my school even wrote a letter to the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Early Childhood Education to discuss how much it costs to run a high quality top-rated program, how hard it is to run that program and how everyone in the system suffers due to a severe lack of funding.

While our own Mayor Weinberger promotes his market-based funding scheme for increasing early childhood education in the city, (twice now remaining relatively silent on the matter in non-election years), now is the time to discuss the many, many challenges Burlington’s early education community is facing, and how these challenges are bringing many centers onto the verge of a full blown crisis of care. Since last May, I have reached out to Weinberger’s office multiple times, but my request to meet with him about these issues have been repeatedly ignored. So I’m hoping that if I put my concerns out into the world, maybe just maybe this will make its way to our mayor and he will choose to listen.

Here are the biggest issues.

1) I take no joy in writing this, as I know firsthand the pressures of keeping a sometimes chaotic room full of children safe. That being said, there are real problems right now with several of the ‘high quality’ programs already operating in Burlington, where two centers have lost a STAR, one because children were left unattended and another because no one knew a child had wandered several blocks away from the school. Our STARS rating system does not take into account the work and cost needed to adequately support families with trauma, living through drug addiction, poverty, etc. A program can have 5-STARS but still be unprepared to work with the 70% of young Burlington children who come from homes making below 200% of the federal poverty level. Most, if not all, highly rated programs struggle acutely with these challenges.

2) Centers have real trouble retaining teachers, especially high quality teachers, and some centers have yearly turnover rates as high as 50%. That’s essentially every teacher leaving ever 2 years. Not only do centers struggle to build consistent teaching teams and a clear set of values and expectations, but children who see staff high turnover suffer academically. For children who already come from families where adults are constantly coming into and out of their lives, this can be incredibly stressful and triggering.

3) The typical early childhood educator works two jobs, because most of the best private early childhood educators in the city are paid less than $16 an hour, or $33,000 a year, while the city’s 2018 livable wage with health benefits is only a few thousand dollars less, at $29,619 a year, while neither come close to covering Burlington’s high costs of living. Teachers end up coming to school tired and short-tempered, either because they are burnt out from being tired/sick from overworking, stressed financially, or both. Public schools are incredibly attractive alternatives: while teachers in public schools put in more hours of work during the week, they are compensated, with the help of strong unions, upwards of 50%-70% more than private preschool teachers and early educators, to say nothing of the myriad vacations, health benefits, CTO time, tax breaks, loan forgiveness programs, and secondary education/professional development benefits. When even the Bagel Market on Shelburne Road offers a starting salary of $15 an hour, it’s hard to feel like your community values your work.

4) Most centers also have trouble retaining substitute teachers for when staff are sick, which is why one highly rated center last year had to close their doors for several days at a time due to lack of staff. Imagine what this does to overburdened staff, who may not use sick time even when they should so as to not burden their center. It happens a lot more than you think.

5) Schools often lack the necessary professional development/trainings to prepare teachers to work with children with high levels of stress and trauma due to generational poverty, drug addiction, learning delays, and English Language Learners. My school regularly enrolls ‘problem children’ from other highly rated centers in the area. These centers, which as our mayor will tell you, are a business that should make money, do not have the capacity to deal with these children (often class size-ratios, 8:1 children to teachers, are too high to effectively manage, never mind teach, but that’s the only way to try to break even as a business!) and often parents say they and their children feel much more respected and valued over their previous center.

6) School are ill-funded.  If not for the United Way, my own center would be tens of thousands of dollars in the red every year, just to cover operating expenses. Meanwhile, our executive director, with a masters’ degree and over two decades of experience, makes $45,000 a year. Neither staff nor lower-middle class and working class families win in this system.

7) To reiterate, early education will always be, and should be, a money losing business! It’s a terrible business to get in to because our community has recognized that education from K-12 is not a money-making business but rather a public good. I wish Mayor Weinberger agreed.

8) No centers really want to expand. It’s hard enough to make ends meet, keep children safe, hire competent staff, all the while according to the governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission,  a high-quailty toddler/infant slot costs over $35,000 a year. In most centers, the preschool classrooms ends up subsidizing infant and toddler classrooms, all of which are subsidized by charity, small grants, families (who can’t afford it), and most importantly ridiculously low paid teachers and staff.
Adding money to the system right now will be like building a new bedroom on a burning house. Let’s correct the problems current centers face BEFORE we add more capacity.