Boundaries with MS-North

[macy]

Total agreement here!

ETA: I will vote no on any operating fund as well if the SB decides on a northern site without any opportunity for residents to offer comment. I'm pretty sure I won't be in the minority of TG folks either with that opinion.

[justvote]

I originally posted this in the wrong place, so now I'm posting it here:

I think the majority agree that BB is the best site choice, but let's face it, we cannot build on that site w/o sacrificing something that the public has been very clear is not acceptable to sacrifice (i.e. - athletic fields, swimming pool). So what is the alternative besides a referendum for additional funds that won't have a snowball's chance in h*ll of passing? We need a third high school, so if someone says to me it's a northern site or nothing, then build it north and build it now. I admit that I'm in an area that is unaffected by the outcome (whether it be north, BB or Macom), so I will not be personally affected. I just want the h.s. built. Period. Many of us on the south & southeast side feel that way. Honestly, most in my area could care less if the site is north. Although I do care because the boundaries are blatantly unfair to some, I still would rather have a north h.s. than no h.s.

Yes, it's not ideal. Yes, it could be construed as bait and switch. But it's better than the alternative, which is no high school at all. I'm not sure that I agree that Macom is better than a north site (they both stink - IMHO). Macom is much too close to NV, and if WV ever closes, we have two high schools on the south end of the district within about a mile of each other. But if Macom is selected, then fine. Let's just get it built.

[justvote]

macy said:

Total agreement here!

ETA: I will vote no on any operating fund as well if the SB decides on a northern site without any opportunity for residents to offer comment. I'm pretty sure I won't be in the minority of TG folks either with that opinion.

For the record, I WILL be voting for the OPS referendum regardless where the high school is located, because taking your anger out on the kids is the wrong course of action, which is exactly what you would be doing if you vote "no" to fund the operation expenses for the new high school. The school cannot open w/o passing this referendum, and who will that hurt the most (hint: not the SB)?

Your anger is justified, but please redirect your anger to voting the current board out of office not to preventing the 3rd high school from opening.

[gatormom]

Very well said justvote. I agree with you 100%. I definitely understand Watts situation and I would be furious if AME is selected, I lived in the Watts area and was sent to that school. Couldn't be further from their homes.

I just don't understand other's problems with it. Is it the RR tracks, the ones that Gombert, McC, and Georgetown kids cross every day twice a day to and from both ES and MS? Is it the distance? Or, is it Waubonsie? I am not sure.

I am with you justvote, I will vote for the operating referendum no matter where the school is built. Holding the kids for ransom because they had to change schools, that is just sad in my opinion.

[macy]

justvote said:

I originally posted this in the wrong place, so now I'm posting it here:

I think the majority agree that BB is the best site choice, but let's face it, we cannot build on that site w/o sacrificing something that the public has been very clear is not acceptable to sacrifice (i.e. - athletic fields, swimming pool). So what is the alternative besides a referendum for additional funds that won't have a snowball's chance in h*ll of passing? We need a third high school, so if someone says to me it's a northern site or nothing, then build it north and build it now. I admit that I'm in an area that is unaffected by the outcome (whether it be north, BB or Macom), so I will not be personally affected. I just want the h.s. built. Period. Many of us on the south & southeast side feel that way. Honestly, most in my area could care less if the site is north. Although I do care because the boundaries are blatantly unfair to some, I still would rather have a north h.s. than no h.s.

Yes, it's not ideal. Yes, it could be construed as bait and switch. But it's better than the alternative, which is no high school at all. I'm not sure that I agree that Macom is better than a north site (they both stink - IMHO). Macom is much too close to NV, and if WV ever closes, we have two high schools on the south end of the district within about a mile of each other. But if Macom is selected, then fine. Let's just get it built.

Since when was "if WV ever closes" a criteria for a third school? Why on earth would we close down WV? I haven't heard the rationale for shutting WVHS down from anyone with real knowledge of such a thought, just rumor and it's certainly NEVER been discussed to residents of 204 (to my knowledge) by the district or the SB. If that was a reason for passing the 06 referendum, it should have been communicated to the voters, it wasn't.

And to me, although I hate to say this, if it's a northern site or nothing, I'm moving to the "nothing" real fast. Although I see the need in terms of students today, based on enrollment trends, I'd rather have portables than build up north. Also, by the time this school get's built, many of the kids that have endured the hardship of overcrowding will not benefit. Call me selfish, but aren't we all to a certain extent? It's our kids, right?

It's easy to be in an area that's unaffected and have a simple "just do it" solution. I wish I was and honestly, if I were you, I just might agree with you.

[doctorwho]

justvote said:

I originally posted this in the wrong place, so now I'm posting it here:

I think the majority agree that BB is the best site choice, but let's face it, we cannot build on that site w/o sacrificing something that the public has been very clear is not acceptable to sacrifice (i.e. - athletic fields, swimming pool). So what is the alternative besides a referendum for additional funds that won't have a snowball's chance in h*ll of passing? We need a third high school, so if someone says to me it's a northern site or nothing, then build it north and build it now. I admit that I'm in an area that is unaffected by the outcome (whether it be north, BB or Macom), so I will not be personally affected. I just want the h.s. built. Period. Many of us on the south & southeast side feel that way. Honestly, most in my area could care less if the site is north. Although I do care because the boundaries are blatantly unfair to some, I still would rather have a north h.s. than no h.s.

Yes, it's not ideal. Yes, it could be construed as bait and switch. But it's better than the alternative, which is no high school at all. I'm not sure that I agree that Macom is better than a north site (they both stink - IMHO). Macom is much too close to NV, and if WV ever closes, we have two high schools on the south end of the district within about a mile of each other. But if Macom is selected, then fine. Let's just get it built.

I respect your opinion but you can't possibly understand the ramifications for my area -- you have no change coming. If they build the northern school and send your area there -- yep all the way there -- now do you feel the same ?

as for sacrificing this or that -- that is based on the premise that it is going to be that much cheaper to build elsewhere. I argue that it will not be. We have so much money tied up in walk away costs as well as looking at a 10% a year inflationary cost on a $90M nut for the building itself.

How are you going to feel if they build it where the majority of those who go there hate going there, and they spend as much money as if they would have built at BB ? That is certainly a possibility.

Alka is at Watts PTA tonight, I believe she may hear about the northern site tonight -- of course most people are unaware of it yet.

[macy]

gatormom said:

Very well said justvote. I agree with you 100%. I definitely understand Watts situation and I would be furious if AME is selected, I lived in the Watts area and was sent to that school. Couldn't be further from their homes.

I just don't understand other's problems with it. Is it the RR tracks, the ones that Gombert, McC, and Georgetown kids cross every day twice a day to and from both ES and MS? Is it the distance? Or, is it Waubonsie? I am not sure.

I am with you justvote, I will vote for the operating referendum no matter where the school is built. Holding the kids for ransom because they had to change schools, that is just sad in my opinion.

Gatormom,

I can only speak for myself in my answer. It's not RR tracks and certainly not Waubonsie as the reason I think a Northern site makes no sense. I've said it many times and will say it again, Waubonsie is a great school, but it's much farther from Fry than NVHS or Metea at BB.

68% of the student population is SOUTH of 75th. That's it. period. It's where the growth is in the district. As Dr. W said, geography is important to him, and to me as well.

[doctorwho]

macy said:

gatormom said:

Very well said justvote. I agree with you 100%. I definitely understand Watts situation and I would be furious if AME is selected, I lived in the Watts area and was sent to that school. Couldn't be further from their homes.

I just don't understand other's problems with it. Is it the RR tracks, the ones that Gombert, McC, and Georgetown kids cross every day twice a day to and from both ES and MS? Is it the distance? Or, is it Waubonsie? I am not sure.

I am with you justvote, I will vote for the operating referendum no matter where the school is built. Holding the kids for ransom because they had to change schools, that is just sad in my opinion.

Gatormom,

I can only speak for myself in my answer. It's not RR tracks and certainly not Waubonsie as the reason I think a Northern site makes no sense. I've said it many times and will say it again, Waubonsie is a great school, but it's much farther from Fry than NVHS or Metea at BB.

68% of the student population is SOUTH of 75th. That's it. period. It's where the growth is in the district. As Dr. W said, geography is important to him, and to me as well.

you'd be traveling to the middle distance of 3 HS's -- imagine being asked to travel to the furthest of 3 - with that distance being double the others.

[macy]

Dr. W,

I understand and agree with you. Watts gets completely hosed in a Northern site.

It's not right! Part of my anger. Not good for the ENTIRE district.

[justvote]

doctorwho said:

justvote said:

I originally posted this in the wrong place, so now I'm posting it here:

I think the majority agree that BB is the best site choice, but let's face it, we cannot build on that site w/o sacrificing something that the public has been very clear is not acceptable to sacrifice (i.e. - athletic fields, swimming pool). So what is the alternative besides a referendum for additional funds that won't have a snowball's chance in h*ll of passing? We need a third high school, so if someone says to me it's a northern site or nothing, then build it north and build it now. I admit that I'm in an area that is unaffected by the outcome (whether it be north, BB or Macom), so I will not be personally affected. I just want the h.s. built. Period. Many of us on the south & southeast side feel that way. Honestly, most in my area could care less if the site is north. Although I do care because the boundaries are blatantly unfair to some, I still would rather have a north h.s. than no h.s.

Yes, it's not ideal. Yes, it could be construed as bait and switch. But it's better than the alternative, which is no high school at all. I'm not sure that I agree that Macom is better than a north site (they both stink - IMHO). Macom is much too close to NV, and if WV ever closes, we have two high schools on the south end of the district within about a mile of each other. But if Macom is selected, then fine. Let's just get it built.

I respect your opinion but you can't possibly understand the ramifications for my area -- you have no change coming. If they build the northern school and send your area there -- yep all the way there -- now do you feel the same ?

as for sacrificing this or that -- that is based on the premise that it is going to be that much cheaper to build elsewhere. I argue that it will not be. We have so much money tied up in walk away costs as well as looking at a 10% a year inflationary cost on a $90M nut for the building itself.

How are you going to feel if they build it where the majority of those who go there hate going there, and they spend as much money as if they would have built at BB ? That is certainly a possibility.

Alka is at Watts PTA tonight, I believe she may hear about the northern site tonight -- of course most people are unaware of it yet.

If our area was sent to the northern site, I readily admit that I would not feel the same way (although, unlike a few on this board, I would have had no problem being assigned to BB, even though it's much further away). In that sense, I guess I am being selfish. I just really want the 3rd h.s. built, so I still maintain that if it's north or nothing, then build it north. This is the prevailing opinion down here.

I agree that it may not be cheaper to build it north, but whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant. If the SB deems it impossible to build on BB w/o these sacrifices and they won't make these sacrifices due to public outcry, then an alternative site must be selected. I was just trying to be practical.

[gatormom]

macy said:

Dr. W,

I understand and agree with you. Watts gets completely hosed in a Northern site.

It's not right! Part of my anger. Not good for the ENTIRE district.

And BB is? Lets not forget Brookdale in all of this or Gombert or any other area that had to make a concession as to school placement, including Fry.

I am not defending a northern site, I am just saying there are few choices left.

[Arch]

Please don't sit there and say we're all being selfish. Like JV and GM, I too will be voting for the operating referendum regardless of how good or bad I think their site location is or their boundary choice. It's needed, so they need to stop all the 'activity' and actually 'accomplish' something.

I want them to make a decision, and I'll just deal with it however I choose to deal with it... but make the darn decision and get the ball rolling so the district has a 3rd HS and a converted back MS which is what was voted on by the public.

[doctorwho]

justvote said:

doctorwho said:

I respect your opinion but you can't possibly understand the ramifications for my area -- you have no change coming. If they build the northern school and send your area there -- yep all the way there -- now do you feel the same ?

as for sacrificing this or that -- that is based on the premise that it is going to be that much cheaper to build elsewhere. I argue that it will not be. We have so much money tied up in walk away costs as well as looking at a 10% a year inflationary cost on a $90M nut for the building itself.

How are you going to feel if they build it where the majority of those who go there hate going there, and they spend as much money as if they would have built at BB ? That is certainly a possibility.

Alka is at Watts PTA tonight, I believe she may hear about the northern site tonight -- of course most people are unaware of it yet.

If our area was sent to the northern site, I readily admit that I would not feel the same way (although, unlike a few on this board, I would have had no problem being assigned to BB, even though it's about 3 times further). In that sense, I guess I am being selfish. I just really want the 3rd h.s. built, so I still maintain that if it's north or nothing, then build it north. This is the prevailing opinion down here.

I agree that it may not be cheaper to build it north, but whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant. If the SB deems it impossible to build on BB w/o these sacrifices and they won't make these sacrifices due to public outcry, then an alternative site must be selected. I was just trying to be practical.

I appreciate hearing the opinion of your area- as it helps with the overall picture. What I am concerned about is what seems practical right now may turn out to be impracticle. There is zero guarantee anywhere else will cost less - short term or long term than BB. Let me be clear, I don't see myself voting against a referendum, but I can tell you after having spent a lot of time door to door canvassing for the referendum and SB elections - I may be almost alone in this area if they sense no one cares about us. It will not be pretty - I spend a lot of time right now answering to this on the many email lists I am on from the teams I have been on the last few years...

[Arch]

doctorwho said:

justvote said:

If our area was sent to the northern site, I readily admit that I would not feel the same way (although, unlike a few on this board, I would have had no problem being assigned to BB, even though it's about 3 times further). In that sense, I guess I am being selfish. I just really want the 3rd h.s. built, so I still maintain that if it's north or nothing, then build it north. This is the prevailing opinion down here.

I agree that it may not be cheaper to build it north, but whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant. If the SB deems it impossible to build on BB w/o these sacrifices and they won't make these sacrifices due to public outcry, then an alternative site must be selected. I was just trying to be practical.

I appreciate hearing the opinion of your area- as it helps with the overall picture. What I am concerned about is what seems practical right now may turn out to be impracticle. There is zero guarantee anywhere else will cost less - short term or long term than BB. Let me be clear, I don't see myself voting against a referendum, but I can tell you after having spent a lot of time door to door canvassing for the referendum and SB elections - I may be almost alone in this area if they sense no one cares about us. It will not be pretty - I spend a lot of time right now answering to this on the many email lists I am on from the teams I have been on the last few years...

Unfortunately and embarrassingly, there are quite a few 'poison the well' mentalities around this area.

[macy]

gatormom said:

macy said:

Dr. W,

I understand and agree with you. Watts gets completely hosed in a Northern site.

It's not right! Part of my anger. Not good for the ENTIRE district.

And BB is? Lets not forget Brookdale in all of this or Gombert or any other area that had to make a concession as to school placement, including Fry.

I am not defending a northern site, I am just saying there are few choices left.

Here we are, right back to the beginning. No boundary switch makes all happy, not even Metea at BB, just look at Brookdale for anger.

The bigger question is, how does the Northern AME site make a bigger majority happy? I don't see how it could as it would be a major disruption to BB established boundaries.

Do you not see a greater number of people unhappy with such a selection? I realize that Brookdale might be very pleased, but the majority will not be.