Middle and Upper Income Traditional Families in Grand Rapids

[suydam]

Not to stereotype, but if I am correct, inner-city kids have a much lower graduation rate than suburban kids, and tend to be ethnic minorities as well. These are the types of students that most colleges are really trying to attract, so giving them an additional incentive to work hard in high school by giving them a college scholarship is a major win-win-win-win situation for the kids, the community they come from, the high schools they go to, and the colleges that attract them.

You're not stereotyping...inner-city kids have a lower graduation rate than suburban kids. That's just facts.

The Kalamazoo Promise seeks to reverse that by providing the light at the end of the tunnel. Face it, the majority of people on this board probably grew up in a life of suburban priviledge. I don't mean silver spoons and mansions on Lake Michigan. I mean middle class, "you had a meal every day without worrying about where it would come from," and your parents just assumed you'd go to college some day.

All the Kalamazoo Promise does, is deliver the assumption of college to a group of people who largely couldn't afford to pay for it on their own. It's genius. Pure genius.

Personally, I'm even more impressed that the donors are completely anonymous. It's not the "Upjohn Promise" or the "Stryker Promise" (as it could be...since we all know they're 2 of the families paying for this).

FYI: The Kzoo Promise was featured on ABC News last night. Here's the URL: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2402365

[Beavis]

Whoops! Credit where credit is due. That was Lighthouse Communities in partnership with Ludell-White Development, LLC, not ICCF.

Sorry, I got them mixed up. From what little I know, it appears they are both doing great things for the community.

[Sunlover38]

Blame the NIMBY-ism attitude of many suberbanites. Gosh we would not want to spoil their view of that corn feild out their picture window with somthing that would be good for every body. Seriously, there has always been a conflict between rich and poor for as long as humanity has walked the face of the Earth. Why? It's simple, dispite the human ability to show compasion to those in need of help, there is always a strong temptation to kick dirt in the faces of those down on their luck. That temptation is especialy magnified by the wealth and power the afluent have gained. Thus its up to individuals esp. those that have it made in the shade to fight that temptation and offer a helping hand when the need arises.

This post seems rather harsh. First of all, some people prefer the quiet of a corn field (i.e. nature) vs bricks and concrete out their window . . . second, a corn field is good for people in that it yields CORN which you can eat!!!!

Just b/c you live in the burbs does not mean you want to . .how did you put it . ."Kick the dirt in the faces of those down on their luck" . . .that doesn't even make sense.

[suydam]

This post seems rather harsh. First of all, some people prefer the quiet of a corn field (i.e. nature) vs bricks and concrete out their window . . . second, a corn field is good for people in that it yields CORN which you can eat!!!!

Just b/c you live in the burbs does not mean you want to . .how did you put it . ."Kick the dirt in the faces of those down on their luck" . . .that doesn't even make sense.

I have to agree...removing a corn field and replacing it with something that is "good for everybody" doesn't make sense to me. Agricultural preservation is a buzz-phrase right now for good reason: Farmland is good for everybody too.

[francishsu]

Also, I don't see the tie between suburban and cornfield. Isn't the typical suburban residence in a subdivision with lots ranging from 1/4 to 1 acre, with the stereotypical modern suburban residence being in a subdivision where all the houses look the same? Cornfield is more rural than suburban to me.

And I think the typical NIMBY suburban concerns with non-residential development nearby are increased noise, traffic and decreased property values. With specific types of developments, crime is a concern. Being against replacing cornfield with development to me suggests someone who wants a rural feel and is resisting the transformation of the area into a suburb.

[Mark Miller]

I have to agree...removing a corn field and replacing it with something that is "good for everybody" doesn't make sense to me. Agricultural preservation is a buzz-phrase right now for good reason: Farmland is good for everybody too.

There isn't anything wrong with people wanting to live at both ends of the urban-rural spectrum (and everything else in between). Not everyone desires to live on a 40' wide lot or have "bricks and concrete out their window", just as everyone does not want to live next to a cornfield and smell manure all day long.

But the bigger picture is that many of the people living in "the cornfields" are moving there to enjoy what they view as rural, when in fact they do not want real rural next to them. By real rural I mean operational agriculture that is engaging in the act of food production, primarily because it is dirty and smelly and who wants to get caught behind a tractor doing 15mph down the country road.

As far as removing a cornfield for something that is either "good for everyone" or a higher and better use, it really is up for debate. But from my perspective, a conventional housing tract or a lifestyle center, does not justify the loss of that cornfield or that orchard.

Back to the real topic of this thread. There is no doubt that the urban schools suffer from many things, including the lack of resources, concentrated poverty and parents who are not able to be as active as their counterparts in the more affluent suburban schools. That is a major hurdle to making the GRPS more attractive to the middle and upper income people.

The fact that GRPS suffers from these ills, is the biggest single reason why more of this demographic is not moving into the city and why a huge percentage of this demographic that desire to live in a fairly urban place choose EGR.

Those that choose to live in EGR, while paying slightly higher property taxes, pay a premium for quality housing stock on desireable streets. A heritage hill type house, similar to those on my street, can easily cost twice as much. Likewise, a relative banal ranch style house East of Breton will have a premium on it compared to similar homes in GR. People pay these premiums because of the schools and many times, when the kids are out of the house, they move out of East.

Sure there are other issues, like crime statistics and the overall idyllic appearance of EGR, with beautifully maintained yards and great street trees. But the truth of the matter is, that until the schools show measurable improvement (and the perception changes) the same issues will persist and the demographic will be under represented in the city of GR.

When we bought our Heritage Hill house, we also actively looked in EGR. But we could never find a house that met our desires in design, character, quality and neighborhood while still fitting in our price range. In the end the quality of both the house and the neighborhood over ruled the school issue (we are architects afterall). But that that leads to us having to make tough, uncomfortable and hard decisions as they relate to our children's education. Most people, don't want to have to go through that.

[Beavis]

Also, I don't see the tie between suburban and cornfield. Isn't the typical suburban residence in a subdivision with lots ranging from 1/4 to 1 acre, with the stereotypical modern suburban residence being in a subdivision where all the houses look the same? Cornfield is more rural than suburban to me.

And I think the typical NIMBY suburban concerns with non-residential development nearby are increased noise, traffic and decreased property values. With specific types of developments, crime is a concern. Being against replacing cornfield with development to me suggests someone who wants a rural feel and is resisting the transformation of the area into a suburb.

The tie between suburban and cornfields is all too evident in Byron Center where I grew up on a 100-acre horse farm. I was out there for a wedding this past weekend. It brings tears to my eyes to see it. All the fields where we worked, grew crops, fed our livestock and spent many happy days riding our horses and hunting pheasant, deer and rabbits with our Dads are gone. The old fields are full of subdivisions, cookie-cutter houses. Byron Center has for all intents and purposes become a suburb of Wyoming. There were over 200 working farms there when I was a kid, none now - just a few hobby farms. It is easy to see why it happened. In the late 80's in the midst of a severe recession, double digit inflation and home / land interest rates hovering around 18%, a lot of the family farms went under, sold at auction. Developers bought the land and made a fortune on subdivisions. I do think more townships today are beginning to take the issue of disappearing farmland more seriously and trying to achieve some balance between the need for people to have somewhere to live and the need for land to grow the nation's food and livestock.

[francishsu]

The tie between suburban and cornfields is all too evident in Byron Center where I grew up on a 100-acre horse farm. I was out there for a wedding this past weekend. It brings tears to my eyes to see it. All the fields where we worked, grew crops, fed our livestock and spent many happy days riding our horses and hunting pheasant, deer and rabbits with our Dads are gone.

I understand what you're saying, but my point was to dispute the characterization of suburbanites as people who don't want their view of the cornfield destroyed. That's what I meant by not seeing the tie between suburbs and cornfields. Most people who like the suburban lifestyle are relatively content living in these cookie cutter subdivisions that have no views of cornfields. And most would not object to new, similar subdivisions being built on neighboring undeveloped land. But some would object to certain types of non-residential developments nearby are due to the issues I mentioned.

A recent example is property along Wilson Ave. between 52nd and M-6. Developers want to essentially make it into a commercial corridor. Some residents in neighboring subdivisions don't want to see a bunch of retail go up there, but are open to office buildings being built instead.

[DSchoon]

Amazing.. once again a discussion about problems in GR somehow turns into bash Wyoming. I was tempted to ask DSchoon about his definition of stagnation and more specifics, but I figured that this thread was really about Grand Rapids, and not Wyoming. But I guess Wyoming is going to get dragged into the discussion and somehow made the scapegoat.

There's no doubt that changes in the manufacturing industry have hit Wyoming hard, but I think Wyoming's biggest challenges will be in the next decade. Wyoming has a variety of housing and almost of it is affordable. School district reputation, while not stellar, is decent. Crime rate is below the national average and lower than GR, Kentwood, Holland, Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Lansing(*)... the budget is in good shape. These characteristics will always be appealing to middle class families.

I'm not seeing how Wyoming is somehow being confused as misrepresenting Grand Rapids.

(*) based on 2004 crime statistics from areaconnect.com

Stagnant: not advancing or developing. Also, stale, as in "long disuse had made the air stagnant and foul."

I think that fits. I also think that if we're going to be talking about problems in GR compared to Ada or Walker, then Wyoming is also fair game.

Yes, much of Wyoming is swell. But we're obviously talking about two different parts of the city (of Wyoming). If you're trying to argue that the Kelloggsville or Godfrey Lee areas aren't the most rapidly decaying areas in the county, I'd advise you to drive down Division or Clyde Park sometime. Yes, they're no worse than the really bad areas in Grand Rapids, but it's quite clear that one is going up while the other is going down. All the negative factors in GR are present, but with trailer parks, too.

As this relates to the larger discussion, and my original aside: WHY DO PEOPLE THINK GRAND RAPIDS IS SO BAD WHEN SOME NEIGHBORING AREAS ARE WORSE?

That's a fair question. I don't think I was suggesting Wyoming is misrepresenting GR, but it seems like a valid notion. Moreover, if the negative perception isn't present for, say, the Godwin Heights school district, why is it for GRPS?

I hadn't thought of this before, but maybe, just maybe, to some degree it already is, and the same problems we're discussing here about GR are also present in Wyoming. If that were true, maybe the two communities have some common enemies, and maybe the discussion isn't "Why won't people move to Alger Heights?" But "Why won't people move to diverse urban areas in West Michigan?"

[michaelskis]

Just some thoughts

[suydam]

As for the Kalamazoo Promise

[michaelskis]

Kzoo passed a bond last election cycle to pay for improvements to existing schools. In fact, much like urban Grand Rapids, I think people are willing to pay for school improvements if you can demonstrate they're needed and beneficial. It happened in GR and Kalamazoo in the past few years, there's no reason to fear (especially with new energy in the city, more affluent families moving in and new homes going up within city limits) that it won't happen again when it's needed.

Kalamazoo is a city. There's not much open land left for development. So when you talk about the new homes being built and maintenance of roads, we're talking about projects more akin to Uptown Village in scope than a lifestyle center in GR Township. I highly doubt there are people in Kalamzoo fretting about their road maintenance costs because of the dastardly Kalamazoo Promise.

Everyone I know who lives in Kalamazoo's public school district, whether they have kids or not, sees this as overwhelmingly (almost immeasurably) positive.

As for whether they go to UofM or stay in Kzoo and go to WMU, I think the benefits to the city are there in either case. Sure, a graduate of WMU who opens a business in Kalamazoo might be a more tangible benefit to the city than someone who goes to UofM and never comes home again. Thing is, even that UofM graduate gives KPS more success stories to point toward when people come asking "how is this urban district going to help my affluent child succeed in life."

Part of the Kalamazoo Public School District spills over into neighboring Oshtimo, and one of the local builders have already constructed quite a few new homes in a few plats. It was previously farm land, so the cross street has already noted a significant increase in traffic.

I am not saying that it

[francishsu]

Stagnant: not advancing or developing. Also, stale, as in "long disuse had made the air stagnant and foul."

I think that fits. I also think that if we're going to be talking about problems in GR compared to Ada or Walker, then Wyoming is also fair game.

Yes, much of Wyoming is swell. But we're obviously talking about two different parts of the city (of Wyoming). If you're trying to argue that the Kelloggsville or Godfrey Lee areas aren't the most rapidly decaying areas in the county, I'd advise you to drive down Division or Clyde Park sometime.

Yes, they're no worse than the really bad areas in Grand Rapids, but it's quite clear that one is going up while the other is going down. All the negative factors in GR are present, but with trailer parks, too.

I have driven down Division and occasionally shop at a few stores along Division. Clyde Park is more residential, so I don't drive along that road much. I guess the rest of the county must be doing great, because "rapidly decaying" is not the impression I get. Stagnant? Perhaps. One of the issues with Division is that it's Wyoming on one side and Kentwood on the other. So any significant changes along that corridor needs agreement from both cities. I disagree with the singling out of Wyoming for sure in comparison to other cities in West Michigan. If large parts of Wyoming were declining rapidly, we wouldn't be seeing crime rates that have decreased consistently for the past 5 years. And this is despite the economic downturn that has hit Wyoming harder than most areas in West Michigan.

As this relates to the larger discussion, and my original aside: WHY DO PEOPLE THINK GRAND RAPIDS IS SO BAD WHEN SOME NEIGHBORING AREAS ARE WORSE?

It depends on the criteria you're basing your judgement on. I don't know if there's an overall negative perception about GR, but my guess is that high crime in certain areas and the problems with GRPS cast a shadow on positive developments occuring in the city.

You pick a few school districts in Wyoming and put them on par with GRPS, but they're really not.

I hadn't thought of this before, but maybe, just maybe, to some degree it already is, and the same problems we're discussing here about GR are also present in Wyoming. If that were true, maybe the two communities have some common enemies, and maybe the discussion isn't "Why won't people move to Alger Heights?" But "Why won't people move to diverse urban areas in West Michigan?"

Personally I don't feel that the biggest challenges for GR are the same as those for Wyoming, although I'm sure there is common ground in certain respects. I think GR is way ahead of Wyoming in diversifying its economic base, while Wyoming seems to be resigned to staying mostly industrial. But I think Wyoming has and will continue to be viewed as attractive to middle class families, and that's not a bad thing.

[Rizzo]

Why don't we just consolidate all the core suburbs with GR. Then that way when something goes wrong, like a failed school system, we can just blame ourselves?

This isn't directed towards anyone, just a thought.

[GRDadof3]

In case anyone missed reading the rules, city vs. city threads are off-limits here, for exactly the way this thread is digressing.

[michaelskis]

I noticed that several people mentioned the Grand Rapids School System. What do you think needs to be done to improve it? Additionally, do you feel that a terrific school system would be enough to increase the numbers of upper middle income and upper income families back into the city?

Personally I think that it is wide range of things ranging from the school systems, to crime, to streets, to over all perception of many of the neighborhoods.

I do have to say that I think that for the most part I think that the City and private developers have been doing a terrific job with everything on that list, other than the school system. (Only because I don

[GRDadof3]

I noticed that several people mentioned the Grand Rapids School System. What do you think needs to be done to improve it? Additionally, do you feel that a terrific school system would be enough to increase the numbers of upper middle income and upper income families back into the city?

Personally I think that it is wide range of things ranging from the school systems, to crime, to streets, to over all perception of many of the neighborhoods.

I think the two are inextricably linked. The neighborhoods in Grand Rapids that are well kept and have lower crime rates most likely have a high homeownership to rental ratio. I'm not saying that renters are bad and that there shouldn't be any rental properties, but when a neighborhood starts to pass the 35 - 40% rental ratio, definitely the neighborhood starts to reflect that. It's just simply that a homeowner takes better care of his/her home than a landlord, and stay longer in the home to help stabilize the neighborhood. If the schools were better, than you'd have more primary homeownership, which would have positive repurcussions on the neighborhoods surrounding the schools.

How to fix the schools? Good question. The goal should be excellent test scores, very low (if any) dropouts, safety, high-parental involvement, low student-to-teacher ratios, high (if not 100%) graduation rates, high percentage of college-bound graduates, advanced placement courses in conjunction with area colleges, intensive math and science courses, music and art, extensive array of extra-curricular and community involvement programs, and excellent service to the parents. Sound like a lot? It's available in the suburbs, and not out of the reach of middle-class families (yet anyway). The downside: You forsake many of the other important aspects of living in an "urban environment".

How to fix many inner-city schools around the country that are not there? That's the question of the 21st century.

As someone mentioned, there used to be a time when GRPS was THE school system to attend, and the suburban districts were sub-par. If you can figure out when and why that was, and what has changed since, you might be able to determine root cause.

I posted this in the general UrbanPlanet poll area, that even if you don't have kids and never plan to have kids, cities cannot survive on young professionals and empty nesters. There just aren't enough of them. And the massive baby boomer generation is going to start dying in 20 - 30 years, taking a large chunk of that age group out of the equation.

[ModSquad]

I have a white paper that my staff and I have been working on. It basically describes Lighthouse's "brand," if you will, of community development. It is a bit of a heady piece, but I think much of it fits in the context of this conversation. Here are the opening two paragraphs. Eventually in this paper we get to schools, housing, access to capital etc. All of these things have an effect on community health. My point is that every aspect of a community is intrinsically linked.

Lighthouse Communities is a non-profit community development organization that views communities as complex systems. A system is an interaction of agents that has an emergent quality. Emergence means that the whole is more or different than the sum of its parts. Emergence results because of the way things interact. In the human body the interaction of various cells allows for the occurrence of cognition, emotion and even life. Life can not be explained by the parts of the body but emerges from the interactions of these parts as something greater. So to call communities

[Mark Miller]

How to fix the schools? Good question. The goal should be excellent test scores, very low (if any) dropouts, safety, high-parental involvement, low student-to-teacher ratios, high (if not 100%) graduation rates, high percentage of college-bound graduates, advanced placement courses in conjunction with area colleges, intensive math and science courses, music and art, extensive array of extra-curricular and community involvement programs, and excellent service to the parents. Sound like a lot? It's available in the suburbs, and not out of the reach of middle-class families (yet anyway). The downside: You forsake many of the other important aspects of living in an "urban environment".

All of those things are important and I really think that, as compared to even five years ago, they are positively changing for the GRPS. There seems to be a very strong board of very dedicated people along with a very solid new superintendant. But they are still a far far cry from the "good" schools of the suburbs. East Grand Rapids schools received an A grade from the state for ALL of their schools, while GRPS didn't receive any A's (I think) and many C's. This is highlighted on a big banner for all to see on the fence surrounding the field at EGR High.

This is a huge chip to play for EGR as it can continue to lure upper and middle class families into the district, while the GRPS loses these families. I am not even sure what all these grades mean, and frankly do not put that much stock in them, but they speak to potential residents, none the less. (Note that I have recently heard that there may need to be a wait list at some of the new buildings in GRPS, so maybe things are changing!)

I will stand by what I said earlier, that the biggest detriment to this demographic moving into the city, is the schools. Crime is a distant second or third or fourth place. The crime issue is interesting because it is primarily in isolated pockets and always portrayed worse than it actually is. Heritage Hill has substantially less crime than the areas to the south and to the east. A police officer who works in the area south of HH has told me that it is almost as if there is a fence around Heritage Hill and that crime just does not enter it very often. There is crime of course, regular break-ins to garages seem to be the crime of the summer. But I do not think that crime is the factor here.

In regards to the schools, there is a bigger question here. While the suburban schools have all the appearances of higher achievement and the urban schools have the appearances of lesser achievement, what about the comparisons between American schools, in general, and schools in other countries, which by most accounts can run circles around our education system. As a whole we are deficient relative to global competitors and that should be cause for concern. Does our system need a wholesale overhaul?

There is not only a deficit between our urban and suburban schools (in some cases manifested by racial lines) but also between the U.S. and international schools. So while we should be concerned about test scores, we should also be concerned if we are testing for the right things. Are we teaching knowledge and if we are, why does reading comprehension drop so far in the middle and high school grades?

[ModSquad]

Man, I feel like the only time I post here is when I am defending Grand Rapids Public Schools. the grading system the State uses for schools is one of the biggest forms of institutional racism and classism I have ever seen.

Here is how it works:

Every school must test every ethnic and people group in its school. For example there are 85 languages spoken by Grand Rapids Public School Students. A student that has just moved to the City from Somalia and speaks no English must take the test. All of our special education students are a group and all must take the test. My wife was a one on one teacher for a student with SEVERE autism. He had to take a pencil and fill out the bubbles on the test. A student with a learning disability must take the test. You get the point?

To make matters worse Grand Rapids Public Schools runs center programs. Because Special Education is so costly to provide and GRPS has built such a wonderful infrastructure for providing it, we provide special education for 90% of the special education students in Kent County. Here is the kicker. Whatever school a special education program happens to reside in, that school has to count those kids as their kids.

Special education prograns are disbursed throughtout the district. There are special ed. classrooms in every building. Sibley school has two whole classrooms for elementary kids with autisim. This is not because the neighborhood around Sibley School has so many children with autism...it is where the program is housed. Sibley school has to count all these kids on test day.

Suburban schools have significantly fewer special education students taking their bubble tests. Suburban schools which are homogenous have significantly fewer language deficient students taking their tests

This is where the rubber hits the road however: if any one cultural or people group fail to make adequate yearly progress the entire school is failed. If any one cultural group or people group...regardless of language or disability score low...the whole school scores low.

So when one judges a school by this stupid grading system it is no wonder GRPS is viewed as failing. Students that attend GRPS that have invovled parents and a solid supportsystem around them do as good or better than any other student in any other district. Ottawa Hills scored a failing grade. My dughter graduated from OHHS and completed 2 years at Aquinas with a 4.0 and is graduating from Grand Valley with honors.

[suydam]

I have to agree with the GR Town Planner here. Schools are the single biggest reason families spurn the city BY FAR.

GR Town Planner points to EGR as an example of a district that sells itself to prospective buyers. This is clearly the case, but I feel the need to point out that this isn't an EGRPS vs. GRPS battle for the city. The truth is, nearly every suburban district that caters to middle/upper income traditional families does better on its school report card than GRPS. That's a whole lot of choice for middle/upper income families looking to move into the Grand Rapids area. I suspect they never even consider the city schools once they see the number of outstanding suburban districts (Forest Hills, EGR, Rockford and many more).

All those other factors (crime, streets, neighborhood) come into play after potential families have identified school districts that work for them.

I moved here (GR-metro) 2 years ago. We started by looking for school districts that worked for us, selected 5 or 6 to go look at, and then started looking at neighborhoods and crime (and everything else) from within those districts we liked.

If the schools don't look good to people relocating, you won't get the families. Period. The sand thing is, as LighthouseDave points out, perception isn't always reality. I stand by my statements though...when someone's moving here from out of the area, the only thing they have to go on is reputation and no matter how you shake it, GRPS isn't in anybody's top 3 or top 5 if they're looking at the normal measures.

[WOT]

I have to agree with the GR Town Planner here. Schools are the single biggest reason families spurn the city BY FAR.

GR Town Planner points to EGR as an example of a district that sells itself to prospective buyers. This is clearly the case, but I feel the need to point out that this isn't an EGRPS vs. GRPS battle for the city. The truth is, nearly every suburban district that caters to middle/upper income traditional families does better on its school report card than GRPS. That's a whole lot of choice for middle/upper income families looking to move into the Grand Rapids area. I suspect they never even consider the city schools once they see the number of outstanding suburban districts (Forest Hills, EGR, Rockford and many more).

All those other factors (crime, streets, neighborhood) come into play after potential families have identified school districts that work for them.

I moved here (GR-metro) 2 years ago. We started by looking for school districts that worked for us, selected 5 or 6 to go look at, and then started looking at neighborhoods and crime (and everything else) from within those districts we liked.

If the schools don't look good to people relocating, you won't get the families. Period. The sand thing is, as LighthouseDave points out, perception isn't always reality. I stand by my statements though...when someone's moving here from out of the area, the only thing they have to go on is reputation and no matter how you shake it, GRPS isn't in anybody's top 3 or top 5 if they're looking at the normal measures.

Thats an exact ditto for my situation. I moved to GR 6 years ago. After the realtor I chose asked me about my family and job backround, literally his 1st words to me were, "well we need to focus our search in the FH, EGR or Rockford area because of the school system." As I began to meet people while staying here before my family moved to join, I heard almost the same thing - "you have to be in FH, East or Rockford and then they added -"dont let your agent show you anything in GRPS." Having just moved to a new area with ZERO family or friends that had been in the area, I immediately (and at the time, innocently) made a pre-judgement about GRPS. Was it fair? Probably not, but these were the first recommendations to my family from people FROM GR.

[gvsusean]

I wish we had the Kzoo promise in GR, Fred Meijer if your there heres a chance for your legacy to truly live on forever, please help

[AlexPKeaton]

Any change in perception is not going to happen overnight either. Assuming things are turning around at GPRS, I'd still only expect a trickle of middle-class families moving into the city limits at first.

-nb

[suydam]

I wish we had the Kzoo promise in GR, Fred Meijer if your there heres a chance for your legacy to truly live on forever, please help

How much money would it really take to enact a Grand Rapids Promise?

One thing working in Kalamazoo's favor was the realtive small size of its district (it has 10,000 total students, with 2 high schools) compared the the relatively high number of billionares in the city (for its size).

Up here in GR, with a district comprising 23,000 students, you'd need more than double the donations. It might be more than old Fred could do alone.

So, to help him out, here are Michiganders on the Forbes Top 400 list;

61. Bill Davidson, Bloomfield Hills

65. Richard DeVos, Ada

116. Ronda Stryker, Kalamazoo

133. Roger Penske, Bloomfield Hills

133 (tie). Jon Stryker, Kalamazoo

164. William Pulte, Bloomfield Hills

283. William Clay Ford, Sr., Grosse Pointe Shores

320. John Brown (Stryker), Kalamazoo

320 (tie). Alfred Taubman, Bloomfield Hills

346. Richard Manoogian, Grosse Pointe Farms

384. Daniel Gilbert, Livonia

That's it for Michigan. Fred, make the call...let's get this done.