|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 13, 2008 22:49:35 GMT -6
I disagree. That proposal splits 5 grade schools - Steck, McCarty, Owen, Watts and Cowlishaw. Plus there would be lots of splits associated with the middle schools. you can blame the boundaries for 3 of those splits -- these are satellite locations - nowhere near the main school-- they were supposed to clean up the ES boundaries - why didn't that happen. Why are kids from rt 59 and the train station and Longwood now attending Watts MS ? Not only wasn't it fixed- they added the LW satellite. How much are those kids from 5 miles north of the area going to feel part of the ES ? The MS splits were addressed.I would rather be split from my MS ( which btw is at the north end of the distict also) than from those actual land neighbors.[/quote] I too was disappointed the SB did not take the opportunity to clean up the ES boundaries - it was the perfect time and may have prevented the problems with the current HS boundaries. The most obvious example being Owen.[/quote] yep-- all one has to do is look at the MS color map -- look at Watts 3 separate satellite locations for a minute and tell me it doesn't make one wonder - what the heck were they thinking.
You would think we were a magnet school ---
Look at Cowlishaw also. |
|
|
|
Post by warriordiva on Feb 13, 2008 23:00:27 GMT -6
Lets also not forget the current White Eagle 6th graders who will be pulled from Scullen in 8th grade and sent to Still with kids they do not know. That is a very fragile time for kids and to pull them after two years at Scullen is REALLY taking one for the team. Not fair for the kids. The right thing to do for these kids is to allow them to finish up at Scullen. At least allow that as an option and parents would have to provide their child's transportation. Moving 8th graders is the equivalent , IMO, to moving Seniors in high school from one school to another...not fair and not usually done. I would agree 100%, slp. It's wrong to move kids at 8th grade. I think that you should have a real issue with that and I hope that they do look into that! I'm all for 8th graders finishing out the year. 8th grade is just the WRONG time to be moving kids and as you said it's like moving your senior year. I'm with you - 6th grader at Granger - will be moved to the "New/old middle school". She has been crying for 2 days whenever it's brought up. I can't believe how many current 6th graders will be moved into a school they don't know with people they don't know in what is supposed to be their best year of middle school. Thanks SB! |
|
|
|
Post by confused on Feb 13, 2008 23:33:44 GMT -6
Trying to optimize boundaries for this site is a waste of time because... It's the wrong site in the wrong location!!!
Amen! And, after BB files their damages and legal fees, it will end up costing the taxpayers even more than BB would have. |
|
|
|
Post by confused on Feb 13, 2008 23:35:16 GMT -6
I disagree. That proposal splits 5 grade schools - Steck, McCarty, Owen, Watts and Cowlishaw. Plus there would be lots of splits associated with the middle schools. you can blame the boundaries for 3 of those splits -- these are satellite locations - nowhere near the main school-- they were supposed to clean up the ES boundaries - why didn't that happen. Why are kids from rt 59 and the train station and Longwood now attending Watts MS ? Not only wasn't it fixed- they added the LW satellite. How much are those kids from 5 miles north of the area going to feel part of the ES ? The MS splits were addressed.I would rather be split from my MS ( which btw is at the north end of the distict also) than from those actual land neighbors. I too was disappointed the SB did not take the opportunity to clean up the ES boundaries - it was the perfect time and may have prevented the problems with the current HS boundaries. The most obvious example being Owen.[/quote] yep-- all one has to do is look at the MS color map -- look at Watts 3 separate satellite locations for a minute and tell me it doesn't make one wonder - what the heck were they thinking.
You would think we were a magnet school ---
Look at Cowlishaw also. [/quote] Why do the minimal changes they did when clearly a larger overhaul was needed at the ES level? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 13, 2008 23:39:21 GMT -6
Trying to optimize boundaries for this site is a waste of time because... It's the wrong site in the wrong location!!!
Amen! And, after BB files their damages and legal fees, it will end up costing the taxpayers even more than BB would have. What is the worst case figure that can come of this? Jury price Minus current FMV ?? I honestly don't know how bad this can get, so I am asking if anyone has any real insight here as to what the worst damage they (BB) can do to the district financially because we locked up their land for years and in the end, walked away. |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Feb 14, 2008 7:58:02 GMT -6
I would agree 100%, slp. It's wrong to move kids at 8th grade. I think that you should have a real issue with that and I hope that they do look into that! I'm all for 8th graders finishing out the year. 8th grade is just the WRONG time to be moving kids and as you said it's like moving your senior year. I'm with you - 6th grader at Granger - will be moved to the "New/old middle school". She has been crying for 2 days whenever it's brought up. I can't believe how many current 6th graders will be moved into a school they don't know with people they don't know in what is supposed to be their best year of middle school. Thanks SB! This is an opportunity for parents to speak out for what is best for our kids. Moving them in 8th grade to a school where they know few is not in their best interest. We should demand that our 8th graders be allowed to finish out at their current middle school. I hope that even those unaffected by this would be supportive of such a request since you never know in this district when you might need a little help from a friend. (if the 3rd high school opening is delayed it may be your child who will fall into this same predicament) |
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on Feb 14, 2008 8:30:35 GMT -6
Amen! And, after BB files their damages and legal fees, it will end up costing the taxpayers even more than BB would have. What is the worst case figure that can come of this? Jury price Minus current FMV ?? I honestly don't know how bad this can get, so I am asking if anyone has any real insight here as to what the worst damage they (BB) can do to the district financially because we locked up their land for years and in the end, walked away. Here's an interesting hypothetical scenario from the Sun Potlock blog: |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 14, 2008 8:35:21 GMT -6
I'm with you - 6th grader at Granger - will be moved to the "New/old middle school". She has been crying for 2 days whenever it's brought up. I can't believe how many current 6th graders will be moved into a school they don't know with people they don't know in what is supposed to be their best year of middle school. Thanks SB! This is an opportunity for parents to speak out for what is best for our kids. Moving them in 8th grade to a school where they know few is not in their best interest. We should demand that our 8th graders be allowed to finish out at their current middle school. I hope that even those unaffected by this would be supportive of such a request since you never know in this district when you might need a little help from a friend. (if the 3rd high school opening is delayed it may be your child who will fall into this same predicament) you support opening the shell of a school with freshman only - not move someone already in HS and I would support not moving 8th graders -- likely they would consider neither - but it sounds good |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 14, 2008 8:35:26 GMT -6
What is the worst case figure that can come of this? Jury price Minus current FMV ?? I honestly don't know how bad this can get, so I am asking if anyone has any real insight here as to what the worst damage they (BB) can do to the district financially because we locked up their land for years and in the end, walked away. Here's an interesting hypothetical scenario from the Sun Potlock blog: Oy, Is there any recent appraisals of land to have a determination of what it is worth today? Is it customary or is there even precedence of this sort of 'damage' claim being successful? If this guy is even partially right it might look like the final costs of BB versus MWGEN is equal enough. Which was the preferred site again? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 14, 2008 8:37:09 GMT -6
Here's an interesting hypothetical scenario from the Sun Potlock blog: Oy, Is there any recent appraisals of land to have a determination of what it is worth today? Is it customary or is there even precedence of this sort of 'damage' claim being successful? If this guy is even partially right it might look like the final costs of BB versus MWGEN is equal enough. Which was the preferred site again? preferred by who -- the voters or those making the decisions ? |
|
|
|
Post by jwh on Feb 14, 2008 9:13:41 GMT -6
Here's an interesting hypothetical scenario from the Sun Potlock blog: Oy, Is there any recent appraisals of land to have a determination of what it is worth today? Is it customary or is there even precedence of this sort of 'damage' claim being successful? If this guy is even partially right it might look like the final costs of BB versus MWGEN is equal enough. Which was the preferred site again? There's no way the BB land has gone down to $300K per acre. Perhaps in the high $400s (worst case). |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 14, 2008 9:20:14 GMT -6
Oy, Is there any recent appraisals of land to have a determination of what it is worth today? Is it customary or is there even precedence of this sort of 'damage' claim being successful? If this guy is even partially right it might look like the final costs of BB versus MWGEN is equal enough. Which was the preferred site again? There's no way the BB land has gone down to $300K per acre. Perhaps in the high $400s (worst case). What are you basing this on? Any recent sales of similar parcels in the area that you can quote? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 14, 2008 9:22:03 GMT -6
There's no way the BB land has gone down to $300K per acre. Perhaps in the high $400s (worst case). What are you basing this on? Any recent sales of similar parcels in the area that you can quote? How about the negotiaion the SD had with BB? Wasn't there a 420k bid for less acres? BB passed on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 14, 2008 9:27:11 GMT -6
What are you basing this on? Any recent sales of similar parcels in the area that you can quote? How about the negotiaion the SD had with BB? Wasn't there a 420k bid for less acres? BB passed on it. Actually, wouldn't this be decided by a jury? We all know how favorable that went last time. Are we confident again that the number will be what we are expecting and can 'easily afford it' ? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 14, 2008 9:32:43 GMT -6
How about the negotiaion the SD had with BB? Wasn't there a 420k bid for less acres? BB passed on it. Actually, wouldn't this be decided by a jury? We all know how favorable that went last time. Are we confident again that the number will be what we are expecting and can 'easily afford it' ? No, the SD passed on the jury price. After that, I believe someone here or in the papers stated that the SD bid on BB land at $420 acre price but for less land. I also heard that the SD gave a top $ amount they could pay for the 55 acres around $400K; Brach was interested but Brodie passed. |
|
