The Eola School Site

[proschool]

parentadvocate said:

I much prefer to read instead of posting, so this is going out a bit on a limb for me. Thank you to all of you who have helped me to better understand the many aspects and issues on the 3rd high school. This board is the best place I have to get information, and I appreciate your time and efforts.

I have a pretty simple question, but no simple answers. My question is "What do you see as the viable alternatives now available to our citizens to get our district leadership to slow down and to fully examine and fully answer all the valid concerns?"

Thanks in advance for sharing your constructive ideas.


So that you know my perspectives and biases, please let me share the following. The legal complaint is the only option that I can see right now to stop the land purchase and\or halt construction in order to have a chance to get the leadership to respond to those who believe much differently.

I believe we need a 3rd high school, and I voted YES in the 2006 referendum. I abstained in the 2005 referendum when I thought the district did a poor job of presenting the case to the public. Boundaries were not a major concern of mine, but I am now concerned about the long-term transportation issues of time, cost, and safety with the far north location. I don't believe it makes sense to place our children at unnecessary risk to pipeline and other possible environmental issues when we have the financial ability to purchase the BB property at the fair market value decided in court. My family has children with disabilities, and we do not have a very good relationship with the leadership due to our disability advocacy efforts.

Finally, I am dismayed by an apparent lack of transparency and accountability that prevents me and our community from knowing the hows and whys of the decisions and actions of the past several years.

Thank you for your well thought post and your outstanding questions. I share your dismay about he lack of transparency of the school district. I thought the board made some great strides forward but I fell like they have returned to old habits lately.

I support abandoning the Mid Gen site because there is still a large petroleum tank and the remnants of a peaker plant on the site. I would expect final environmental tests to to performed after the hazards have been removed and I would never buy a piece of land before the environmental tests were completed.

The site wouldn't be so good even if the peaker plant was never there. Gas lines, crude oil pipelines, trains, power lines, switching stations, interstate on ramps and grade railroad crossings are all factors that make this location ls than desirable.

The prospect of saving money there seems doubtful. The SB said that it would only spend so much but they never asked if we would be willing to spend more. They specifically said that it would not be at the AME location when we were asked to vote.

If it's not Mid Gen then it's BB or something else. If there's nothing else then it is BB. At least BB gives us the opportunity to tie up all of the loose ends with the BB estate at the same time as the land is purchased.

[JB]

parentadvocate said:

I much prefer to read instead of posting, so this is going out a bit on a limb for me. Thank you to all of you who have helped me to better understand the many aspects and issues on the 3rd high school. This board is the best place I have to get information, and I appreciate your time and efforts.

I have a pretty simple question, but no simple answers. My question is "What do you see as the viable alternatives now available to our citizens to get our district leadership to slow down and to fully examine and fully answer all the valid concerns?"

Thanks in advance for sharing your constructive ideas.


So that you know my perspectives and biases, please let me share the following. The legal complaint is the only option that I can see right now to stop the land purchase and\or halt construction in order to have a chance to get the leadership to respond to those who believe much differently.

I believe we need a 3rd high school, and I voted YES in the 2006 referendum. I abstained in the 2005 referendum when I thought the district did a poor job of presenting the case to the public. Boundaries were not a major concern of mine, but I am now concerned about the long-term transportation issues of time, cost, and safety with the far north location. I don't believe it makes sense to place our children at unnecessary risk to pipeline and other possible environmental issues when we have the financial ability to purchase the BB property at the fair market value decided in court. My family has children with disabilities, and we do not have a very good relationship with the leadership due to our disability advocacy efforts.

Finally, I am dismayed by an apparent lack of transparency and accountability that prevents me and our community from knowing the hows and whys of the decisions and actions of the past several years.

parentadvocate, thank you for an outstanding post, which I think summarizes where many of us are. You should consider posting more frequently

The only alternative I see outside of the lawsuit is for a massive public rally, with enough press coverage to put pressure on the SB. However, I don't think there are enough effected people you could get together to make that work. Some want a back-yard school, some want a school and don't share our concerns, some are unaffected or don't care, and most have no clue what is going on. Even if the logistics could be arranged, there's a good chance the SB would simply write it off.

Just brainstorming before the coffee is done. It's a great question though - maybe separate thread worthy.

[sushi]

archwinsome said:

It's not an impossible thing to overcome but I seriously doubt anyone in the Administration or on the School Board has the negotiating skills to acquire the land because they all seem to lack the one thing needed (IMO) to approach BB again and start constructive talks: Humility and the ability to say they are sorry for what happened in the past.

(typo corrections)

Arch, this is the one thing we really agree on 100%. I feel there is no way we're going back to BB; I wish it could happen, (somone wave a white flag) but I don't see it. That is the reason for my previous post. I think the Eola sight is where we will build the school. In my heart I don't see anything stopping it; not anything.

[bbc]

jb said:

parentadvocate said:

I much prefer to read instead of posting, so this is going out a bit on a limb for me. Thank you to all of you who have helped me to better understand the many aspects and issues on the 3rd high school. This board is the best place I have to get information, and I appreciate your time and efforts.

I have a pretty simple question, but no simple answers. My question is "What do you see as the viable alternatives now available to our citizens to get our district leadership to slow down and to fully examine and fully answer all the valid concerns?"

Thanks in advance for sharing your constructive ideas.


So that you know my perspectives and biases, please let me share the following. The legal complaint is the only option that I can see right now to stop the land purchase and\or halt construction in order to have a chance to get the leadership to respond to those who believe much differently.

I believe we need a 3rd high school, and I voted YES in the 2006 referendum. I abstained in the 2005 referendum when I thought the district did a poor job of presenting the case to the public. Boundaries were not a major concern of mine, but I am now concerned about the long-term transportation issues of time, cost, and safety with the far north location. I don't believe it makes sense to place our children at unnecessary risk to pipeline and other possible environmental issues when we have the financial ability to purchase the BB property at the fair market value decided in court. My family has children with disabilities, and we do not have a very good relationship with the leadership due to our disability advocacy efforts.

Finally, I am dismayed by an apparent lack of transparency and accountability that prevents me and our community from knowing the hows and whys of the decisions and actions of the past several years.

parentadvocate, thank you for an outstanding post, which I think summarizes where many of us are. You should consider posting more frequently

The only alternative I see outside of the lawsuit is for a massive public rally, with enough press coverage to put pressure on the SB. However, I don't think there are enough effected people you could get together to make that work. Some want a back-yard school, some want a school and don't share our concerns, some are unaffected or don't care, and most have no clue what is going on. Even if the logistics could be arranged, there's a good chance the SB would simply write it off.

Just brainstorming before the coffee is done. It's a great question though - maybe separate thread worthy.

Sounds like you are admitting only a minority of people share your concerns if you couldn't get enough people together to rally against the school site decision. Most of the people who voted YES were the same people who fully supported the board members in the last election. I did not support the newly elected sb members but realized that the democratic process worked and the majority of voters got their way. Now a vocal minority (a minority by your own admission above) don't like a decision made by your elected board and you can't understand why they don't "listen" to you. Once again, I do not support our current SB but if they had to make sure that everyone was happy with all of their decisions before proceeding nothing would ever get done. On the otherhand, if you could actually get a majority of the district to rally against this decision, then I agree that the SB should stand up and listen. So far, all I have witnessed is that a majority voted for a 3rd high school and a majority voted in (naively IMO) a SB and agreed to let them make decisions for them regarding that high school. The democratic process is working.

[sushi]

I agree with your most of your post, bbc. If the site is safe then it is our SB's responsibility to ALL of the taxpayers to build a school that is fiscally responsible. Many of us are used to throwing money to get what we want (self included). Not all people feel that way and the board must be responsible to those people as well. There is not a scenario boundary-wise to please everyone. This is where we are now.

[Arch]

sushi said:

I agree with your most of your post, bbc. If the site is safe then it is our SB's responsibility to ALL of the taxpayers to build a school that is fiscally responsible. Many of us are used to throwing money to get what we want (self included). Not all people feel that way and the board must be responsible to those people as well. There is not a scenario boundary-wise to please everyone. This is where we are now.

Their own concern with regards to possible future abandonment of the site due to health or safety reasons is something I think will play itself out in the future if we build there. At that moment, *ALL* money spent there will be p!ssed away and unrecoverable. That is fiscal irresponsibility because it will need to be spent from the ground up again elsewhere.

Think of it as the choice to buy a Meijer brand skillet for $20 or a nice T-Fal or AllClad one for $50. You buy the $20 and in a few months you realize it's a piece of crap and throw it away and go spend the $50 for the good one.

You now spent $70 when spending $50 early on would have saved you $20 and a bunch of grief.

[sushi]

Are you referring to the "sales job" we got to sell a more expensive piece of property over one not available with potential remediation?

[bbc]

archwinsome said:

sushi said:

I agree with your most of your post, bbc. If the site is safe then it is our SB's responsibility to ALL of the taxpayers to build a school that is fiscally responsible. Many of us are used to throwing money to get what we want (self included). Not all people feel that way and the board must be responsible to those people as well. There is not a scenario boundary-wise to please everyone. This is where we are now.

Their own concern with regards to possible future abandonment of the site due to health or safety reasons is something I think will play itself out in the future if we build there. At that moment, *ALL* money spent there will be p!ssed away and unrecoverable. That is fiscal irresponsibility because it will need to be spent from the ground up again elsewhere.

Think of it as the choice to buy a Meijer brand skillet for $20 or a nice T-Fal or AllClad one for $50. You buy the $20 and in a few months you realize it's a piece of crap and throw it away and go spend the $50 for the good one.

You now spent $70 when spending $50 early on would have saved you $20 and a bunch of grief.

Shocking! This won't be the first time elected officials pissed away money. The SB has already pissed away tons of money with their ill-conceived condemnation plan on BB.

[doctorwho]

sushi said:

Are you referring to the "sales job" we got to sell a more expensive piece of property over one not available with potential remediation?

it was a sales job over another piece of property that WAS available ( MACOM) - but then the sales job was made easier by the fact that BB actually was the site with the least issues - period. And they said they would pay a premium for that - another bogus statement in the end.

If we were so willing to go to plan B -- then why wasn't MACOM selected earlier when it WAS available ? Similar issues but less of them -- and it was located where the most population is -

oh yeah, the BS about the park district - who is now ticked because they were portrayed as something they weren't in this deal.

[doctorwho]

sushi said:

archwinsome said:

It's not an impossible thing to overcome but I seriously doubt anyone in the Administration or on the School Board has the negotiating skills to acquire the land because they all seem to lack the one thing needed (IMO) to approach BB again and start constructive talks: Humility and the ability to say they are sorry for what happened in the past.

(typo corrections)

Arch, this is the one thing we really agree on 100%. I feel there is no way we're going back to BB; I wish it could happen, (somone wave a white flag) but I don't see it. That is the reason for my previous post. I think the Eola sight is where we will build the school. In my heart I don't see anything stopping it; not anything.

why do you see NO chance for BB is the question ?

we have the plans drawn up, the land is still available, even you admit it is the best site for a number of reasons, -- AND if we use some common sense and actually open a COMPLETE high school and not totally screw over that first class in there it will be in 2010 and that HUGE difference comes down to $3M give or take - since we do not have to pay all kinds of penalties on BB ..

and take away the risk of a precendent setting case of huge penalties from walking away from a condemnation we won. You seemt o think there is NO chance we can lose that - I think those odds are faulty. Even if there is a 25% chance- that could make Eola easily $10M over budget - or do you not care and now it is really Eola full steam ahead no matter what.


If tomorrow they change your area and send your areas chldren to that site - instead of some other areas - how do you think they will react then. WE is no further than some areas being asked to go there now - so let's say that new SB ( and yes I believe there will be new people on it next time who could make up a majority vote )- coudl change the boundaries - just as they have done now ?

[sushi]

doctorwho said:

sushi said:

Arch, this is the one thing we really agree on 100%. I feel there is no way we're going back to BB; I wish it could happen, (somone wave a white flag) but I don't see it. That is the reason for my previous post. I think the Eola sight is where we will build the school. In my heart I don't see anything stopping it; not anything.

why do you see NO chance for BB is the question ?

we have the plans drawn up, the land is still available, even you admit it is the best site for a number of reasons, -- AND if we use some common sense and actually open a COMPLETE high school and not totally screw over that first class in there it will be in 2010 and that HUGE difference comes down to $3M give or take - since we do not have to pay all kinds of penalties on BB ..

and take away the risk of a precendent setting case of huge penalties from walking away from a condemnation we won. You seemt o think there is NO chance we can lose that - I think those odds are faulty. Even if there is a 25% chance- that could make Eola easily $10M over budget - or do you not care and now it is really Eola full steam ahead no matter what.


If tomorrow they change your area and send your areas chldren to that site - instead of some other areas - how do you think they will react then. WE is no further than some areas being asked to go there now - so let's say that new SB ( and yes I believe there will be new people on it next time who could make up a majority vote )- coudl change the boundaries - just as they have done now ?

Doc, I have said before many times. I wish BB would happen. It is a better site. I just don't see it happening. It is time to try and digest the idea that Eola is the site. I don't see a stop in sight. Contractors have been lined up and the ball is rolling.

[doctorwho]

sushi said:

doctorwho said:

why do you see NO chance for BB is the question ?

we have the plans drawn up, the land is still available, even you admit it is the best site for a number of reasons, -- AND if we use some common sense and actually open a COMPLETE high school and not totally screw over that first class in there it will be in 2010 and that HUGE difference comes down to $3M give or take - since we do not have to pay all kinds of penalties on BB ..

and take away the risk of a precendent setting case of huge penalties from walking away from a condemnation we won. You seemt o think there is NO chance we can lose that - I think those odds are faulty. Even if there is a 25% chance- that could make Eola easily $10M over budget - or do you not care and now it is really Eola full steam ahead no matter what.


If tomorrow they change your area and send your areas chldren to that site - instead of some other areas - how do you think they will react then. WE is no further than some areas being asked to go there now - so let's say that new SB ( and yes I believe there will be new people on it next time who could make up a majority vote )- coudl change the boundaries - just as they have done now ?

Doc, I have said before many times. I wish BB would happen. It is a better site. I just don't see it happening. It is time to try and digest the idea that Eola is the site. I don't see a stop in sight. Contractors have been lined up and the ball is rolling.

all contracts are on contingencies....easily remediated ( to borrow a phrase) -

Why is is such a hurry to open 2009 and send kids to half a school ? That is NO HS experience reagrdless of where the school is located. It STINKS for those kids - ...


and as far as overcorwding - I have had a child in WVHS when there were more kids than now or the next 1-2 years projections - they survived and did fine- and the kids who went to NV weren't cheated out of experiences. ?

The kids will be juniors - ( at least) before their HS experience is anything like it should be. -- and again, I don't care what site this is it's wrong. Some of the same people clamoring to get Eola open ASAP ( not you ) were the same ones grousing about ANY work going on while kids would have been in the school at BB -- why is that ?

[Avenging Eagle]

doctorwho said:

easily remediated ( to borrow a phrase)

Good point doc.

That phrase also reminds me of the fact that the pushers of the Eola site would like you to believe that "it is easily remediated" as they repeat that in seemingly every post.

It reminds me of the old game show "Name That Tune" where the overconfident contestant declares "I can name that tune in ONE NOTE!!!"

Unfortunately, we shouldn't be gambling on exactly how much cleanup there really is by buying and building the school beforehand.

Our only crew to evaluate the remediation requirements is by a green board poster and his son riding their bikes near the site and delivering reports to the anxiously awaiting fraudsters.

[sushi]

Yep, it could be stopped, but I don't believe it will. Wish I had a crystal ball.......

[fence]

I agree with bbc's post too. The keyword here is the IF in "if the site is safe." All this requires is an agreement on the definition of safe. Once we do that, we can all get on the same page.

Obviously throwing out the top and bottom extremes in the process, we would negotiate an agreement as to what facts and evidence logically would be required to demonstrate that the site was safe. From there, you decide what the backup plan will be if the site does not meet those requirements.

If there is such a thing as a majority in this district, then the proof of that would be that we can agree to the criteria that would demonstrate that the site is safe. Of course you can't please everyone, which is why the extremes on both sides are not part of the equation. For example, those that say "who cares, build it on a toxic waste dump" would get thrown out. Those who say "what about the recent diseases we're catching from air" would get thrown out.

And in case it comes as a surprise, I'M personally not used to being able to throw money at something to get what I want. But I also don't harbor some kind of twisted hate for the people who use this behavior - it just happens to be a way I'd never personally act.

sushi said:

I agree with your most of your post, bbc. If the site is safe then it is our SB's responsibility to ALL of the taxpayers to build a school that is fiscally responsible. Many of us are used to throwing money to get what we want (self included). Not all people feel that way and the board must be responsible to those people as well. There is not a scenario boundary-wise to please everyone. This is where we are now.