Boundaries with MS-North

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

doctorwho said:

What's changed is if an area voted no - they voted no for the HS period - if now someone wants it built ASAP to relieve the overcrowding - that is not a change in stance ?

Of course no one wants to wait untold time - but just like when I built my house, I wanted it built ASAP, but not at the cost of putting it somewhere that did not work.

I am not claiming to speak for any specific area - doesn't pretty much everyone want the darn school built & opened soon?

anyone who wanted the school - yes I would agree. For those who did not want the school - I am not seeing how they could want it built and open soon ?

[EagleDad]

warriorpride said:

gatormom said:

What does that mean? Should the high school should be built only to benefit the areas who voted for it? I just don't understand that. I thought Metea was for the benefit of the entire district, whether one voted yes for the referendum or not. After all, whether you voted yes or not, you are still paying the taxes on it.

Here's way-out-there comparison: suppose you didn't vote for President Bush, but he pushed through a tax cut. Do only the people that voted for Bush get the tax cut?

Sorry, but I am not interested in hearing what areas "deserve" or don't "deserve" the site or boundaries to be more or less benefitial than any other area based on how an area voted for the last Ref, or what they've "gone though" in the past. All areas have "gone through" the growing pains of 204 in variuos ways. And the there are people in all corners of the SD that HAVE and HAVE NOT supported past referendums.

I'd like to point out that SLP did say that any areas do not deserve a high school, so please stop putting words in his mouth.

He was just seeking clarification that majority of Brookdale voted against the referendum.

[warriorpride]

casey said:

warriorpride said:

I am not claiming to speak for any specific area - doesn't pretty much everyone want the darn school built & opened soon?

Of course everyone wants the darn school built and opened soon but not at the wrong location. We only get one chance to get it right and choosing the wrong one will have permanent implications.

I'm still hoping that when everything is said and done the SB goes back to the public with choices: Here's what it costs at BB, here's what it costs at Macom, here's what it costs at AME, etc. Lay out the pros/cons - walk away costs, legal costs, environmental issues (train tracks, power lines, etc.), traffic issues, etc. Let the public share their input. Do people still want BB at a higher cost/lesser amenities, etc.? Do people think it makes sense to save $ on land going north but adding "other costs". How does Macom play into the picture - cost, timing, etc. Let us have a voice!

IMO, I think the SB should be recognizing that 2009 isn't possible. Sure there are those that believe a school can be built in 18 months but at what cost? We can't afford to pay any extra $$$ to expedite the building schedule. Focus on 2010 and put the money into getting it right. It's crowded in the district all right but we've made do. Don't spend the extra money forcing us to have a barely finished school at a higher cost. It makes no sense.

I don't see a "wrong" location - I don't even see a "best" location - some disagreed that BB was selected - some will disagree with any location. There are pros & cons to any location.

[warriorpride]

eagledad said:

warriorpride said:

Here's way-out-there comparison: suppose you didn't vote for President Bush, but he pushed through a tax cut. Do only the people that voted for Bush get the tax cut?

Sorry, but I am not interested in hearing what areas "deserve" or don't "deserve" the site or boundaries to be more or less benefitial than any other area based on how an area voted for the last Ref, or what they've "gone though" in the past. All areas have "gone through" the growing pains of 204 in variuos ways. And the there are people in all corners of the SD that HAVE and HAVE NOT supported past referendums.

I'd like to point out that SLP did say that any areas do not deserve a high school, so please stop putting words in his mouth.

He was just seeking clarification that majority of Brookdale voted against the referendum.

I didn't intend to put words in anyone's mouth - however the topic is "Boundaries with MV North", and the comment was in the context of how Brookdale would "benefit". I don't see why else the question would be asked other than to make a point about Brookdale not deserving something based on their area's Ref vote. Other people have basically come out & said that, and I assumed that was the point. Sorry if I was wrong, but I don't think I was.

[d204mom]

gatordog said:

rew said:

What I would say is the SBs definition of "no addtl costs" may not reflect the true cost of a different site to the community. If your kid passes your nearest school to go to another one...that is a cost, a cost to you and your family.

It doesn't show up on the SD balance sheet, but it's real, and the community needs to think very seriously about that "cost" when considering the alternatives.

Addt'l monies to build at BB eventually go away. They are real as well, but they go away. Other sites have costs that may be lasting and may worsen over time.

The SB needs to recognize all the costs to the community as it proceeds.

Good points, rew. Time for some back of the envelope figuring:

From new Oswego HS bldg construction notes posted some months ago, I recall their bldg cost est for 3000 seat HS was $105. I believe this was 2006.(same time frame as our referendum) Assume 5% const cost incr, then 2008 price would be about $115 mil.

For BB land, cost is $31 mil.

Then Tot Cost = $146 mil

Available funds are $125 mil from ref. Also $17 mil from various land-cash, int, etc (per MM in paper as I recall), which I will assume is all available.

Avail funds = $142 mil.

Thus, shortfall ~$4 mil

Very approx of course. I wonder if the starting point for price est was more of a "boxy Oswego East style" constr, not the "multiple wing" MV artists concepts. You might add a couple more million for the archetectural flair.

Are we then talking about shortfall for BB of ~$5-6 million ?

Couldn't we make that up by pusing back all day K implementation by one year? Delay for one year - put the money in BB. The additional revenue from the state is delayed by a year so we are coming up with that much in the first year anyway.

[lacy]

eagledad said:

lacy said:

Some kids would be passing their nearest high school to attend MVHS at BB. So that was something that would have affected BB as well. I'm not sure there are any sites where this issue wouldn't affect someone.

Hi lacy, I'm just curious what schools would have passed their nearest HS in the way to BB?

Hi ED, maybe I should say farther from the closest (using Dr. Who's words). Although if you can see the closest high school as you drive to the further one, isn't that the same thing? I'm just curious - is it O.K. that some neighborhoods would have to do this under the BB plan but it's not O.K. for other neighborhoods under a different scenario? Just trying to understand. I agree that the more neighborhoods who face this the worse it is on the whole.

On a side note, I think it was WP who asked if the school should be built quickly. I would say yes.

A solution has already been delayed - why delay it further if we can get it done. If we don't open the school in 09 will the district have to put portables at some schools? If so, that cost would have to be factored in as well. That would mitigate any cost of expediting the project.

[d204mom]

slp said:

rew said:

I think it much improves the commute for Brookdale and Longwood and Ginger Woods section of Young. I have never heard Brooks, or Young complain about their commute to WV? I won't argue it improves it for them, but more like from OK to great, rather than unreasonable to reasonable.

Didn't Brookdale vote against the 3rd highschool?

I also believe they are the only neighborhood in the district with 2 board members - Jeannette and Curt. In my opinion, Jeannette showed her true 'colors' by wearing an orange shirt. She was always in it for Brookdale first, rest of the district, second.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

eagledad said:

Hi lacy, I'm just curious what schools would have passed their nearest HS in the way to BB?

Hi ED, maybe I should say farther from the closest (using Dr. Who's words). Although if you can see the closest high school as you drive to the further one, isn't that the same thing? I'm just curious - is it O.K. that some neighborhoods would have to do this under the BB plan but it's not O.K. for other neighborhoods under a different scenario? Just trying to understand. I agree that the more neighborhoods who face this the worse it is on the whole.

On a side note, I think it was WP who asked if the school should be built quickly. I would say yes.

A solution has already been delayed - why delay it further if we can get it done. If we don't open the school in 09 will the district have to put portables at some schools? If so, that cost would have to be factored in as well. That would mitigate any cost of expediting the project.

Lacy, I know what you're saying and get it, but still you would not be traveling to the furthest school from your home - under the BB scenario that would be WV.
( and not that it matters in that scenario but none of them would be a 50 minute bus ride away - correct ?) -

I would agree with having to factor in portables cost if that is something we would incur - however i am not a builder but have to believe expedite costs would be more than portables ( and would not be an asset - just expense ) - of course depending on how many needed

[gatormom]

eagledad said:

warriorpride said:

Here's way-out-there comparison: suppose you didn't vote for President Bush, but he pushed through a tax cut. Do only the people that voted for Bush get the tax cut?

Sorry, but I am not interested in hearing what areas "deserve" or don't "deserve" the site or boundaries to be more or less benefitial than any other area based on how an area voted for the last Ref, or what they've "gone though" in the past. All areas have "gone through" the growing pains of 204 in variuos ways. And the there are people in all corners of the SD that HAVE and HAVE NOT supported past referendums.

I'd like to point out that SLP did say that any areas do not deserve a high school, so please stop putting words in his mouth.

He was just seeking clarification that majority of Brookdale voted against the referendum.

Thank you for clarifying that. I have another nugget of information. Gombert had very few votes compared to other areas even though we supported the referendum. Why not just switch out Gombert for MW in any boundary option and then the 2009 operting referendum is assured, Watts is happy, and that will be that.

For what its worth, I don't care. Send Gombert to AME, send us to Neuqua, send us to Nebraska. I want to see a high school built. I want the overcrowding that my child will experience by this delay avoided.

If a northern site is selected I can see a very ugly period of time as boundaries are selected. Honestly, I see some ugliness with any site selected even BB.

[warriorpride]

d204mom said:

slp said:

Didn't Brookdale vote against the 3rd highschool?

I also believe they are the only neighborhood in the district with 2 board members - Jeannette and Curt. In my opinion, Jeannette showed her true 'colors' by wearing an orange shirt. She was always in it for Brookdale first, rest of the district, second.

<sarcam>
Yep - her vote on the BB boundaries sure confirms this
</sarcam>

[doctorwho]

gatormom said:

eagledad said:

I'd like to point out that SLP did say that any areas do not deserve a high school, so please stop putting words in his mouth.

He was just seeking clarification that majority of Brookdale voted against the referendum.

Thank you for clarifying that. I have another nugget of information. Gombert had very few votes compared to other areas even though we supported the referendum. Why not just switch out Gombert for MW in any boundary option and then the 2009 operting referendum is assured, Watts is happy, and that will be that.

For what its worth, I don't care. Send Gombert to AME, send us to Neuqua, send us to Nebraska. I want to see a high school built. I want the overcrowding that my child will experience by this delay avoided.

If a northern site is selected I can see a very ugly period of time as boundaries are selected. Honestly, I see some ugliness with any site selected even BB.

As much as I appreciate the sentiment - no area deserves to get the worst case scenario IMHO - regardless of how they voted or how many voted.
p.s. be careful about Nebraska --I'm not trying to start any rumors but I hear this is the mystery site:

www.landsalelistings.com/2411

;D

[warriorpride]

doctorwho said:

gatormom said:

Thank you for clarifying that. I have another nugget of information. Gombert had very few votes compared to other areas even though we supported the referendum. Why not just switch out Gombert for MW in any boundary option and then the 2009 operting referendum is assured, Watts is happy, and that will be that.

For what its worth, I don't care. Send Gombert to AME, send us to Neuqua, send us to Nebraska. I want to see a high school built. I want the overcrowding that my child will experience by this delay avoided.

If a northern site is selected I can see a very ugly period of time as boundaries are selected. Honestly, I see some ugliness with any site selected even BB.

As much as I appreciate the sentiment - no area deserves to get the worst case scenario IMHO - regardless of how they voted or how many voted.
p.s. be careful about Nebraska --I'm not trying to start any rumors but I hear this is the mystery site:

www.landsalelistings.com/2411

;D

I think Brookdale & Peterson felt they were getting the worse case with BB - not going to closer HSs and being split from their MSs

[d204mom]

warriorpride said:

d204mom said:

I also believe they are the only neighborhood in the district with 2 board members - Jeannette and Curt. In my opinion, Jeannette showed her true 'colors' by wearing an orange shirt. She was always in it for Brookdale first, rest of the district, second.

<sarcam>
Yep - her vote on the BB boundaries sure confirms this
</sarcam>

She already knew she'd lost at that point.
I guess you are going to tell me now that her option 6 was for "the good of the district."

[d204mom]

warriorpride said:

doctorwho said:

As much as I appreciate the sentiment - no area deserves to get the worst case scenario IMHO - regardless of how they voted or how many voted.
p.s. be careful about Nebraska --I'm not trying to start any rumors but I hear this is the mystery site:

www.landsalelistings.com/2411

;D

I think Brookdale & Peterson felt they were getting the worse case with BB - not going to closer HSs and being split from their MSs

Anyone with a commute over 6 miles has a right to gripe even if that's "what they signed up for" when they bought their house. Brookdale had a chance to cut their commute significantly - 2 miles or so. In my opinion that is the main reason for that area's NO.

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

doctorwho said:

As much as I appreciate the sentiment - no area deserves to get the worst case scenario IMHO - regardless of how they voted or how many voted.
p.s. be careful about Nebraska --I'm not trying to start any rumors but I hear this is the mystery site:

www.landsalelistings.com/2411

;D

I think Brookdale & Peterson felt they were getting the worse case with BB - not going to closer HSs and being split from their MSs

A case could be made for Peterson not having to go to the furthest school - objectively I agree with that -- as for Brookdale and the MS split - they have a MS walking distance to their homes ( as well as an ES )- and Hill would likely have been reboundaried - at least to add 1 more ES going to WV - wasn't that the discussion ? Only Longwood is in the general area of Hill that was being split. And they stayed at the HS they were always at.
Objectively is that a worst case scenario ?
btw - I agree one more WV school should have been added to Hill when reboundaring was to occur - I have no problem with split MS - but not 3:1.