|
|
Post by newbie on Mar 4, 2008 17:29:26 GMT -6
I'll go on record saying that I don't believe our current school board has lied to us (nor do I know of any cases of prior SBs lying either). Being wrong about something and lying are two entirely different things IMO. I don't think the word "lie" is the correct term. I think that there is reason to believe the statements/data they've put out haven't been the total truth either. |
|
|
|
Post by mandmmom on Mar 4, 2008 17:35:19 GMT -6
Mark Metzger assured us that the freshman campuses would be sufficient so that we would never need a 3rd high school. They weren't. Mark Metzger assured us that we would be able to afford the Brach Brodie property. We couldn't. Mark Metzger assured us the quick take would work. It didn't. Now Mark Metzger assures us that the new Metea site is environmentally safe. Is it? I don't believe anything they say or do anymore....I have only been in 204 for a short period of time and I have no faith in our SB....MM does not treat people in 204 with respect and that is not acceptable to me. |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Mar 4, 2008 17:35:45 GMT -6
mom-not saying they lied, however the ends justify the means. They have OUR $$$ now. Have they ever really used any legit data regarding enrollment numbers - more current- environmental studies? Oh the comments I could refer back to - like the one M2 said that if only quick take went through, they could actually give back money to the taxpayers. Yea right. I could go on and on..............
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 4, 2008 17:47:59 GMT -6
What is your opinion about lying by omission or 'qualifying' (and even being wrong then too) ? What particular examples of this are you referring to? We are told of 'a pipeline' out by the railroad tracks and the gas company says it's safe. Come to find out we have 3 natural gas ON the property 1 crude oil by the tracks, one gasoline and another natural gas by the tracks. It was confirmed by our SB president that they knew that and they thought everyone did... But the Administration proposal only mentioned one out by the tracks and no one in the SB corrected that in the presentation when it was mentioned they knew about all of the others. So, did they know and let the 'dismissing' presentation continue forward for the public about how safe it all is or did they not know and later said they did know? Call it petty, but my Grandmother always said if I can't trust you on the little things, how can I trust you on the big things? There's another example about the diesel fuel too that went back and forth in an email as I was corresponding w/ M2 because Dr. D would not respond back to any of my emails. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 4, 2008 20:40:33 GMT -6
Sadly, prior to the recent debacle, criticism of our school board was clearly not welcome here. Perhaps it stems from this blog's origin as a site supporting the board, or perhaps it was a reflection of the majority of posters..... I hope that there will be more acceptance of minority opinion in the future -- the debate will be good for the district. I have never been the best of buds with the SB and have been critical of much. |
|
|
|
Post by jftb on Mar 8, 2008 9:22:53 GMT -6
I'm not sure the SB "lied," but one thing I am 100% sure of is that they are incompetent, biased, and disregarding. If I see a single one of them get re-elected (turn off Oprah and get to the voting booth ladies!), I will vomit.
|
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on Mar 8, 2008 11:01:05 GMT -6
mom-not saying they lied, however the ends justify the means. They have OUR $$$ now. Have they ever really used any legit data regarding enrollment numbers - more current- environmental studies? Oh the comments I could refer back to - like the one M2 said that if only quick take went through, they could actually give back money to the taxpayers. Yea right. I could go on and on.............. |
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on Mar 8, 2008 11:02:16 GMT -6
I sent the following letter to the school board this morning. I hope I get a response.
The purpose of this letter is to plead with you to walk away from the site for the Metea based on what you know and also what you don't know.
Let me explain myself. I am a parent of two children, one with Autism. What I know about my son's autism is that it was caused by at least two or three factors. Two of these factors are genetic and environmental. Hopefully in the next 20 years we will know specifically what those factors are and save countless children from growing up with this disability.
This ties in specifically to your situation with building Metea on the proposed site. What you know is what this land was used for. What you have been told is that it has and can be remediated. What you don't know is what the long term affects of this clean up will be. Will it work? Will it work beyond a reasonable doubt? You cannot answer these questions. Nobody can.
You are all good people with children and grandchildren. Maybe some of you are even planning on having more children. Let me ask you this: would you buy a house on that site knowing what the history has been? Of course not. Nobody would. There are just too many red flags. Therefore, how in good conscience can you consider building a school there?
None of us can move forward and predict what will happen to us and our families. All we can do as moral and ethical human beings is act responsibly on the information we have in hand. That is precisely what I am asking you to do. Do the right thing. None of you wants to know that twenty years from now the children who ran in the soccer fields on this land don't get sick or have children that are sick. I couldn't live with that and if I were a school board member I would be shouting this out.
Please, please walk away from this site. It is the right thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by gman413 on Mar 10, 2008 8:18:21 GMT -6
What particular examples of this are you referring to? We are told of 'a pipeline' out by the railroad tracks and the gas company says it's safe. Come to find out we have 3 natural gas ON the property 1 crude oil by the tracks, one gasoline and another natural gas by the tracks. It was confirmed by our SB president that they knew that and they thought everyone did... But the Administration proposal only mentioned one out by the tracks and no one in the SB corrected that in the presentation when it was mentioned they knew about all of the others. So, did they know and let the 'dismissing' presentation continue forward for the public about how safe it all is or did they not know and later said they did know? Call it petty, but my Grandmother always said if I can't trust you on the little things, how can I trust you on the big things? There's another example about the diesel fuel too that went back and forth in an email as I was corresponding w/ M2 because Dr. D would not respond back to any of my emails. Don't we all have natural gas pipelines running thru our neighborhoods? |
|
|
|
Post by gman413 on Mar 10, 2008 8:19:58 GMT -6
I sent the following letter to the school board this morning. I hope I get a response. The purpose of this letter is to plead with you to walk away from the site for the Metea based on what you know and also what you don't know. Let me explain myself. I am a parent of two children, one with Autism. What I know about my son's autism is that it was caused by at least two or three factors. Two of these factors are genetic and environmental. Hopefully in the next 20 years we will know specifically what those factors are and save countless children from growing up with this disability. This ties in specifically to your situation with building Metea on the proposed site. What you know is what this land was used for. What you have been told is that it has and can be remediated. What you don't know is what the long term affects of this clean up will be. Will it work? Will it work beyond a reasonable doubt? You cannot answer these questions. Nobody can. You are all good people with children and grandchildren. Maybe some of you are even planning on having more children. Let me ask you this: would you buy a house on that site knowing what the history has been? Of course not. Nobody would. There are just too many red flags. Therefore, how in good conscience can you consider building a school there? None of us can move forward and predict what will happen to us and our families. All we can do as moral and ethical human beings is act responsibly on the information we have in hand. That is precisely what I am asking you to do. Do the right thing. None of you wants to know that twenty years from now the children who ran in the soccer fields on this land don't get sick or have children that are sick. I couldn't live with that and if I were a school board member I would be shouting this out. Please, please walk away from this site. It is the right thing to do. If possible, can you elaborate on the environmental cause, as it relates to the swirl of concerns about the AME site? |
|
|
|
Post by momof156graders on Mar 10, 2008 9:07:35 GMT -6
As far as enviornmental concerns, here is the original site report with the districts own concerns about the Eola/Molitor site. This is what is concernig - now these issues are okay???
The original location of the Patterson Elementary school in sight
of electrical power lines caused uproar over the possibility that electromagnetic radiation
might create health issues for the students, and the site was moved to its current location.
While the Patterson site created the possibility of exposure to electromagnetic radiation,
the Eola/Molitor site is somewhere between a probability and a certainty for exposure to
such radiation. Although the scientists studying the question of whether such exposures
do or do not create health concerns continue to disagree, the Board sees no advantage in
constructing a third high school in such a location if there is any possibility of
abandonment for health reasons.
THE OPTIONS FOR A SITE
The Eola/Molitor parcel
This parcel is presently owned by the St. John’s African Methodist Episcopal Church.
Some have suggested that because the Church has traded parcels twice, they might be
open to selling the land to the school district and pursuing a different parcel elsewhere.
District representatives met with the Church Pastor to discuss the Church’s intentions for
the parcel. The Pastor reminded District representatives that in his meetings with them
previously, he had expressed the Church’s desire to build at this location. He reiterated
that the Church has no interest in selling the parcel, except at a price so high as to ensure
the District’s lack of interest. Part of the reason for the Church’s lack of interest in
selling stems from the fact that this parcel is now at the northern and western edges of the
area in which the Church’s members live. The Pastor (correctly, in our opinion) believes
that any replacement site would likely be substantially to the west, and therefore of
limited interest to the congregation.
The parcel is planned for residential purposes. The parcel is unplatted.
Location wise, this parcel is distant from the student population center of the School
District.
Utilities are all located adjacent to parcel.
The northeast parts of the site are immediately adjacent to two high energy electrical
switching substations. That means relatively high electromagnetic radiation would be
present at that location. The original location of the Patterson Elementary school in sight
of electrical power lines caused uproar over the possibility that electromagnetic radiation
might create health issues for the students, and the site was moved to its current location.
While the Patterson site created the possibility of exposure to electromagnetic radiation,
the Eola/Molitor site is somewhere between a probability and a certainty for exposure to
such radiation. Although the scientists studying the question of whether such exposures
do or do not create health concerns continue to disagree, the Board sees no advantage in
constructing a third high school in such a location if there is any possibility of
abandonment for health reasons.
The area is nearly fully improved. The District would incur moderate road and site
improvement costs related to the construction of a high school.
The buildable part of this site is just under 80 acres, but workable. There is no exposure
to a “damage to the remainder” claim.
Access is constrained only by the fact that Eola is a relatively congested road already.
The land is very flat.
There are limited wetlands issues on the easternmost part of the parcel.
- 10 -
This parcel falls within the Aurora planning area, with which the District has enjoyed
good working relationships in the past.
The price for a non-litigated acquisition of this parcel is, as noted above, deliberately at a
level to ensure a lack of interest in purchase. The Board is not entirely convinced that the
power of eminent domain (i.e., condemnation) extends to land owned by a church, but
even if it does, the Board anticipates that the jury in such a cause would look with
hostility on such a taking, making the price quite high.
There is the possibility of the School District acquiring a different parcel to trade with the
Church, but the location of this site, the proximity of potential electromagnetic radiation
and the cost of land elsewhere make such a possibility unattractive.
Wetlands
If a site includes wetlands, abatement would be required. The precise scope of what
constitutes wetlands is outside the scope of this report. It is sufficient to note that certain
areas in which water is nearly always present qualify for this status. If improving the
land requires removal or elimination of any area of wetlands, an equivalent amount of
wetlands must be established elsewhere. In large part, “abating” wetlands is the process
of securing alternate wetlands.
Beyond the environmental issues, the cost of constructing a proper base and foundation
for a building can be influenced by the presence of wetlands, which require different
degrees of effort to achieve the necessary soil compaction to support a building or
structure. To a small extent, abatement of wetlands is also concerned with the
construction difficulties such a situation can impose.
Overall, the nature and extent of the wetlands drives the cost of the necessary abatement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 10, 2008 10:47:30 GMT -6
We are told of 'a pipeline' out by the railroad tracks and the gas company says it's safe. Come to find out we have 3 natural gas ON the property 1 crude oil by the tracks, one gasoline and another natural gas by the tracks. It was confirmed by our SB president that they knew that and they thought everyone did... But the Administration proposal only mentioned one out by the tracks and no one in the SB corrected that in the presentation when it was mentioned they knew about all of the others. So, did they know and let the 'dismissing' presentation continue forward for the public about how safe it all is or did they not know and later said they did know? Call it petty, but my Grandmother always said if I can't trust you on the little things, how can I trust you on the big things? There's another example about the diesel fuel too that went back and forth in an email as I was corresponding w/ M2 because Dr. D would not respond back to any of my emails. Don't we all have natural gas pipelines running thru our neighborhoods? Not that size, pressure or volume. |
|
