Stupid U - Sponsors Demography Lecture Series

Mr. Peanuts Second Theory of Baloney: People in Rental housing don't have school aged kids.


Kowboy K Kurtass said...

I noticed the OTBL statistician forgot to include the 2006 figure for housing starts. I wonder why that was? Must be trying to hide something.

Anonymous said...

Even a "cubicle" lawyer should know that you don't ask a question unless the answer is known. In the Hudson School District the housing starts dropped from 195 in 2005 to 105 in 2006, a decrease of nearly 45%. So kowbow, your ignorant point was?

Kowboy K Kurtass said...

Calling me 'ignorant" doesn't bother me. Ignorance is curable. So the numbers of housing starts through where as follows: 195 in 2005, 105 in 2006 and 49 in 2007.

Obviously, the economy is to blame for X percent of the downturn. Since the Republicans have been in charge, I suppose they get a large part of the economy portion of the down turn. Another factor that is in this year's numbers is the winter weather. I recall a bit more snow than usual this year. I'm starting to see a number of house under construction in the area.

It's interesting to note that Bob. M's tsuami prediction seems to have been a little overblown. On the flipside, have the OTBL'ers been telling us how strong the economy is and what a good job Bush has been doing? Oh yea, that's right. They've sort of dumped Bush from their blog conversations. Gee and to think they were all polishing Bush's shoes in the front when W came to Hudson in 2004.

What do think about them apples anonymous?

Real Estate boomer said...

What you can't get through your dense shell anonymous is that the high school is already OVER capacity, and building something of the magnitude of a High School is not a "just in time" process. It will take 4 years from the time if and when a referendum is approved to complete a new high school during which time the student population will increase further regardless of the number of housing starts. People already in house have more kids. People living in rental unit or pre-existing housing
have kids. Housing starts does does
not have a direct cause/ effect correlation to the student population.
People selling their omes may not necessarily be moving from the area. The same is the case with foreclosures. If these people stay in the area they will live somewhere, most likely rentals, and will still have kids in the schools.

Anonymous said...

Kowbow you are true to form, When presented with the facts, change the subject. it will be interesting to see the kindergarten numbers this year. Hazel predicted somewhere between 460 and 480. The school district has been mum about their kindergarten round-up numbers. Rumor has it the real number is going to be embarrassingly low. We will let the numbers speak for themselves.

Anonymous said...

As for you real eastate boomer, please define what you mean by over-capacity. I believe there are somewhere around 80-90 classrooms at the high school. With an enrollment of 1700 students that would mean the average class size is about 20-22 students. i have a hard time believing anyone would consider that over crowding.

Kowboy K Kurtass said...

I guess I missed where I changed the subject. Please enlighten me on where that happened.

I suspect what Hazel provide was an estimate. Usually those estimates include about three or more ranges: high end, middle and low end. There are often additional estimates. Obviously, if you'd care to admit it, these estimates have been high and low in the past. When were the estimates made? Hazel isn't accountable to the estimates becoming reality. That silliness on your part. You are talking a data point here -- a data point that really won't be know until Septmeber. How was the estimate last year? How will it be in 2008? It depends on many factors.

Real Estate boomer said...

anonymous says:
"With an enrollment of 1700 students that would mean the average class size is about 20-22 students. i have a hard time believing anyone would consider that over crowding."

Beating the same dead horse again eh?
This is the same tired argument you gave as a retort to Hazel 3 or 4 years ago when she presented her first projections. After a lengthy process of explaining their methodology, you retort with a simple arithmatic problem. Rooms have different purposes and as usual you try to simplify much more complex analysis with the mind of a simpleton.
What classes are being taught when,
should we arbitrarily place 22 students to fill a German class if only 10 sign up. Maybe you could devise a schedule that meets all the state graduation requirements for 1700 kids and has an equal number in each classroom for each period. I doubt it!
You know that this school was designed for a capacity in the 1500s not 1700.
If there are 2 people sitting in your living room and you have seating for 6 is that room 66% underutilized. Maybe you should host some an illegal immigrant family to bring it up to capacity or maybe you should downsize to a tent and an outhouse!
Simple is as simple does!

Internut fashion consultant said...

Hey, Mr. Peanut, I like the new hat!

Anonymous said...

Kowbow, you went off topic by bringing George Bush and who supported him into the equation. The housing bubble is a function of the inlated money credit policies of the Federal Reserve, just like it is for all bubbles. Hudson is not immune from these effects. All in all, this has caused too many units to be built for the underlying demand. Secondly. demographics of the local area have shown that a great many of those moving into the area do not have small children. Finally, do you really believe a huge increase in property taxes will make this area attrtactive. New Richmond will be a great case study after passing their last referendum. As I said before, we will let the numbers speak for themselves.

Real estate, it seems if we have classroom being used for ten students, then what we are dealing with is a curriculum problem and not a space issue. If you have a counter top piled with junk, then of course you can make the claim that you do not have room; or you can keep just the things that are really important which leaves frees up space.

Real Estate boomer said...

I'm sure that the students studying German will be thrilled to learn they are learning "junk".
Let's get back to basics, like 11th grade remedial arithmetic.

666 said...

I thought the Federal Reserve under Allan Greenspan was following the monetary policies endorsed by the likes of Milton Friedman. I don't think those policies have changed much. The interest rates went up.

We have also seen real estate specualtion that wasn't very forward looking. It was basing the future on the past and, as my stock borker tells me, past performance is not an indicator of future results. Also we have a tremendous amount of people that are financially ignorant maxed out on their home equity and learning the realities of adjustable rate mortgages. Added to that we have cleaver bank lending schemes that put people into home ownership that really aren't financially equiped to deal with the realities.

A friend who lives in the New Richmond school district said his taxes have increased approximately 1 percent annually of the past six years. He also said that at least 10 homes are under construction within a two mile radius of his home.

Time will tell whether or not the school system over builds to the future demand. Do you have examples where local school districts have overbuilt to demand?

Personally, I think schools may offer more electives than may be needed. But the again, that probably why states like Wisconsin rank so high in the Quality of Education rankings.

Real Estate boomer said...


"Personally, I think schools may offer more electives than may be needed"

Sixes. Maybe yes maybe no. Dropping electives isn't going to create more space for an over crowded school.

Anonymous said...

Real estate you first argue that the reason for over capacity is due to classes which may hold only ten students instead of twenty. If you get rid of those classes as you point out, it certainly does free up space and increases capacity. Your logic is wanting.

Back to the original point, kowbow posts a comment insinuating that OTBL is hiding something even though they have been preety much spot on with the housing decline. These numbers are not hard to find.

The question kowbow should have asked is why the school district has never been forthright about the decline in new home starts and the demographics of people moving in. By the way new construction does not tell you whether it is a spec house or who is moving in. Good luck in New Richmond.

JPN said...

Gee Anon, so you are "spot on" with your housing predictions. In a cyclical market like housing, that's like predicting in October that the weather is going to get colder and it will snow in the next few months. Then come April pat yourself on the back and say you were "Spot on" on your weather prediction.

Living in the New Richmond area, I can tell you the number of houses being build has slowed. A three mile drive to the south, north or west counts me two to three houses under construction in each direction. A year ago, it was three to four. Two years ago, it was four to five. The point is that it is two to three houses being built. It's not a negative number.

Cyclical means it goes up and down. The market is slowing down and will pick back up. I predict the house building market in the New Richmond area will pick back up in the next two years. I'll let you know how "spot on" I am in 2009.

You're into data points not trends. You are of the school that a data verifies your arguement. The fact is that the number of housing being built in Hudson and New Richmond is increasing the number of houses that people live in.

And so it goes...

Anonymous said...

666 says this "Do you have examples where local school districts have overbuilt to demand?"

Are you kidding? The ENTIRE COUNTRY is riddle with cities that have overbuilt and then had to sell or demolish schools. Over in the Twin Cities you can count ALL of the inner ring suburbs in that category. How about Edina and Bloomington just to name a few?

Give me a break. You guys will say anything to try and build a new school. Try using some common sense once in awhile. Although looking at this blog, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of clear thinking going on.....

Real Estate boomer said...

I found this article interesting:

Projecting School-Age Enrollment:
Use of the Cohort Survival Technique
By Peter K. Ashton & Mary Ann Buescher
Innovation & Information Consultants, Inc.
Concord, MA
While our friend "anonymous" along with Mr. Peanut is transfixed on a single parameter to predict future school enrollment, consultants with a successful prediction rate rely on 8 factors.
The are as follows:

Determinants of School-Age Enrollment
A number of different factors contribute to changes in enrollment for grades kindergarten through 12. Such factors include the following:
Trends in population
Birth rates
Migration in and out of a city or town
Average household size
School retention rate
New housing construction
School policies
General economic conditions

While New housing construction is included in the list, one might note that it is the 6th factor in the list of eight.

666 said...

Good points RE Boomer. It shows the of variables that among those involved in projecting school enrollment and new school construction. As I stated earlier, Anon focuses on a single data point to support his argument, e.g. housing starts are down in 2007. Of course, housing starts are down from record levels that no one expected to continue.

I suppose that Anon's observation that this blog doesn't exude the lock-step "clear thinking" supposedly demonstrated on another local blog could be tied to his fixation on one data point. The model gets more complicated as you add more variables. Anon is used to the black-and-white issue argument where it's black or white. Few, if any issues, are that simple. Certainly the building of public schools isn't one of those simple issues.

Personally, I don't want to spend a nickle of my tax dollars on something that isn't need. Taking into consideration the whole taxation pie -- federal, state, local, etc. -- there are all kinds of questions concerning spending our tax dollars. Nothing that I've ever written or said on any blog or in letters to the editor, etc. would indicate that I am in favor of building schools just to build schools.

Of course, Anon is ideologically opposed to the idea of public schools and therefore searchs for data points that back his ideology and ignores the facts that don't back him up.

Anonymous said...

I think the whole point that the clear-headed logical thinkers of this blog seem to miss is the thought of building something based on a projection. When did we get to this point? Why do we hire demographers in the first place? They can't predict anything. Did Hazel Reinhart predict the downturn in the housing market? We should NEVER build based on a projection. It's not about whether or not you "believe" in public education, it's about whether or not we will be able to live in our own homes.

666 said...

Anon your statement about building on projections seems truly naive. Maybe you have little or no experience at what goes on in public and private enterprise.

Private industry builds on projection ALL the time. Any small or large company for small and large prjects generally use ROIs (return on investment) projections to give projects a go or no-go.

I don't have the details of what went into Hazel's projections. But I am sure she had a number of estimates about what the numbers would be. Likewise, I'm sure other factors and considerations It's like you have a personal grudge against that woman. What estimates of her's are on the mark? My guess is that you would NEVER point out those predictions. No, when you argue from the ideological corner you've painted yourself into, you can bring yourself to admit that where Hazel's predictions where right on or high -- especially if they provide support for public school construction.