|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 19, 2007 11:41:17 GMT -6
To answer your earlier post, no, I don't think my biases are better or worse than yours or Metzger's or Daeschner's. But earlier you said that trying to come up with an objective way to rank the sites was not productive. So therefore I guess we are stuck with the school board and admin's biases. Even if I form my own opinion, if there is no objectivity possible on the site selection, then it doesn't matter. That's pretty much true of the decisions made by any elected official? Absolutely, yes, I agree. To my earlier point that anyone that thinks that Daeschner and the board are trying to come up with the best solution for "the good of the district" is kidding themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Dec 19, 2007 11:44:01 GMT -6
That's pretty much true of the decisions made by any elected official? Absolutely, yes, I agree. To my earlier point that anyone that thinks that Daeschner and the board are trying to come up with the best solution for "the good of the district" is kidding themselves. How would any particular solution benefit the administration or Daeschner in particular? I think having the school at AME would not be much benefit to him personally and in fact would cause an increase in already bad traffic in an intersection he must use regularly. |
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Dec 19, 2007 11:46:49 GMT -6
That's pretty much true of the decisions made by any elected official? Absolutely, yes, I agree. To my earlier point that anyone that thinks that Daeschner and the board are trying to come up with the best solution for "the good of the district" is kidding themselves. Why? I would point out that the best solution is different depending on your position. For many of us, BB is the best solution, cost be danged. For others, don't spend a nickle more than you asked for. For others, hate BB want it somewhere else, both north and south. There are still others who don't even want Metea built, best solution is not even on the table for them. The district is in a no win situation. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 19, 2007 11:46:55 GMT -6
Absolutely, yes, I agree. To my earlier point that anyone that thinks that Daeschner and the board are trying to come up with the best solution for "the good of the district" is kidding themselves. How would any particular solution benefit the administration or Daeschner in particular? I think having the school at AME would not be much benefit to him personally and in fact would cause an increase in already bad traffic in an intersection he must use regularly. I think for the same reason that walkers and those very close to the Brach-Brodie site voted yes. People want to go to school close to them. Everybody does. That's why Brookdale - Fry - Gombert was upset at the boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Dec 19, 2007 11:49:32 GMT -6
That's pretty much true of the decisions made by any elected official? Absolutely, yes, I agree. To my earlier point that anyone that thinks that Daeschner and the board are trying to come up with the best solution for "the good of the district" is kidding themselves. Sorry you feel that way. If you find potential SB members that you think will do a better job, support them in 09. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 19, 2007 11:51:48 GMT -6
Absolutely, yes, I agree. To my earlier point that anyone that thinks that Daeschner and the board are trying to come up with the best solution for "the good of the district" is kidding themselves. Why? I would point out that the best solution is different depending on your position. For many of us, BB is the best solution, cost be danged. For others, don't spend a nickle more than you asked for. For others, hate BB want it somewhere else, both north and south. There are still others who don't even want Metea built, best solution is not even on the table for them. The district is in a no win situation. Why? to what? Some on the board are trying to come up with an objective way to analyze the sites. Others say there is no objective way. My only point was that if there is no objective way then we are subjected to the biases of the admin and board. Me, I would rather push back all day K for a year and build at Brach-Brodie. We don't get reimbursed for the extra students until the year following anyway so we have to come up with the money the first year. Just push back that first year and you've got the money. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 19, 2007 11:53:21 GMT -6
Absolutely, yes, I agree. To my earlier point that anyone that thinks that Daeschner and the board are trying to come up with the best solution for "the good of the district" is kidding themselves. Sorry you feel that way. If you find potential SB members that you think will do a better job, support them in 09. Will do. I now realize that it is folly to support someone outside of your subdivision or elementary school thinking that they will do what's best for all. I put my money on the wrong people this spring. It won't happen again. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Dec 19, 2007 11:55:02 GMT -6
I have crunched way too many numbers, but when the population eventually dips, you will see a north AME site with boundaries south of 75th st and you will see WV with boundaries south of 95th.
It is not unworkable, but the community must accept that we will see a majority of students traveling a lot of miles and we will have continued boundary tweaks, and we will disrupt a lot of walkers and send a lot of students away from their closest HS and in some instances to their furthest HS.
If that is good for the district and acceptable to the majority, then fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Dec 19, 2007 12:00:30 GMT -6
Absolutely, yes, I agree. To my earlier point that anyone that thinks that Daeschner and the board are trying to come up with the best solution for "the good of the district" is kidding themselves. Why? I would point out that the best solution is different depending on your position. For many of us, BB is the best solution, cost be danged. For others, don't spend a nickle more than you asked for. For others, hate BB want it somewhere else, both north and south. There are still others who don't even want Metea built, best solution is not even on the table for them. The district is in a no win situation. With all the time and effort spent here by many people with many different viewpoints -- if there was a solution that even close to worked for all- I think at the very least we would have stumbled across it by now, and we haven't. I agree whatever is done someone - somewhere is going to be pissed off - I would like it not to be me, but we all have a chance at this happening to us. Agree on the no win at this point. BB was not a perfect solution for all, but at least we know it was one where the majority voted Yes - we do not know that about any other scenario for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Dec 19, 2007 12:48:11 GMT -6
I think Brookdale & Peterson felt they were getting the worse case with BB - not going to closer HSs and being split from their MSs White Eagle and Talgrass were in the same situation (Both were split from their Middle School and not going to closer HS). They were overwhelmingly YES. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Dec 19, 2007 13:10:39 GMT -6
Absolutely, yes, I agree. To my earlier point that anyone that thinks that Daeschner and the board are trying to come up with the best solution for "the good of the district" is kidding themselves. How would any particular solution benefit the administration or Daeschner in particular? I think having the school at AME would not be much benefit to him personally and in fact would cause an increase in already bad traffic in an intersection he must use regularly. Are you kidding? How would Dr. D. personally benefit? Let's see a northern site would give his neighborhood (Stonebridge right?) a new HS 5 minutes away. Yes, everyone that's at WVHS is happy with their HS but a brand new HS that close. Don't you honestly see the benefit? That's a great neighborhood - beautiful houses, close to 88, close to train station, pool community, brand new HS, Aurora taxes (cost a little less, right?). You don't see how that is a win-win for Daeschner? He'll make big bucks in the few short years that he'll be here (real estate as well as his pension!). And then let's talk JC and CB. Brookdale ends up moving to the new HS. Do you think that affects their property value? You betcha! Please don't be naive enough to think that each SB is completely altruistic. I agree with whoever said it earlier, they look after their own neighborhood first and foremost! |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Dec 19, 2007 13:22:45 GMT -6
How would any particular solution benefit the administration or Daeschner in particular? I think having the school at AME would not be much benefit to him personally and in fact would cause an increase in already bad traffic in an intersection he must use regularly. Are you kidding? How would Dr. D. personally benefit? Let's see a northern site would give his neighborhood (Stonebridge right?) a new HS 5 minutes away. Yes, everyone that's at WVHS is happy with their HS but a brand new HS that close. Don't you honestly see the benefit? That's a great neighborhood - beautiful houses, close to 88, close to train station, pool community, brand new HS, Aurora taxes (cost a little less, right?). You don't see how that is a win-win for Daeschner? He'll make big bucks in the few short years that he'll be here (real estate as well as his pension!). And then let's talk JC and CB. Brookdale ends up moving to the new HS. Do you think that affects their property value? You betcha! Please don't be naive enough to think that each SB is completely altruistic. I agree with whoever said it earlier, they look after their own neighborhood first and foremost! Yeah - I guess you got him all figured out - I wonder how evil his replacement will be FYI. Aurora actually pays more in taxes. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Dec 19, 2007 13:31:50 GMT -6
Yeah - I guess you got him all figured out - I wonder how evil his replacement will be FYI. Aurora actually pays more in taxes. I don't understand your evil replacement comment  . I was simply stating that IMO, Dr. D would benefit in the short term regarding his real estate if a new HS is placed at a northern site. Why discredit my comment by turning it into a conspiracy-theory? Facts are facts, ask a realtor and they'll tell you high schools definitely help determine the bottom-line with regards to real estate. Why is that wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 19, 2007 13:39:58 GMT -6
Again, I think that the Brookdale NO was a function of two things:
- Could have cut over 2 miles from their commute to high school
- Would not be split from their middle school
I don't agree with anyone that says going 2 miles or more "farther" is no big deal. It is. Witness Gombert and Fry's unhappiness with going 2 miles farther.
Brookdale going to MV at BB would have chopped about 3 miles off their commute, more for areas closer.
I personally think it stinks for an elementary school to go 6 miles to high school. Brookdale got majorly screwed.
Now the board wants to fix that by putting the school in a location that 3 to 5 schools will have to travel that far to high school.
It stinks and is short-sighted.
Many with kids in middle school right now may feel differently than me because opening the school as soon as possible is their #1 priority, and being short sighted about location is ok in that situation.
I posted earlier that the wording on Daeschner's goals, approved by the board, note that MONEY and TIMELINESS are the only priority.
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Dec 19, 2007 13:41:20 GMT -6
Yeah - I guess you got him all figured out - I wonder how evil his replacement will be FYI. Aurora actually pays more in taxes. I don't understand your evil replacement comment . I was simply stating that IMO, Dr. D would benefit in the short term regarding his real estate if a new HS is placed at a northern site. Why discredit my comment by turning it into a conspiracy-theory? Facts are facts, ask a realtor and they'll tell you high schools definitely help determine the bottom-line with regards to real estate. Why is that wrong? Oh, so are you saying that some people that are complaining about certain possible sites or boundaries might be motivated because they may not get this "bottom-line benefit"? I guess I see your point (about people, in general, having certain motivations for preferred sites & boundaries) |
|
. I was simply stating that IMO, Dr. D would benefit in the short term regarding his real estate if a new HS is placed at a northern site. Why discredit my comment by turning it into a conspiracy-theory? Facts are facts, ask a realtor and they'll tell you high schools definitely help determine the bottom-line with regards to real estate. Why is that wrong?