Post by doctorwho on Mar 29, 2008 12:39:03 GMT -6
fence said:
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.I also have never been able to just throw money at things and fix them. First I find that would likely never really 'fix' anything anyway.
The money I have to ' throw' to fix this issue for my household is a huge financial burden for us, you have no idea how much impact this is going to have.... I will never get past that. I wish I had money to just throw at my problems - I never have and I am rsigned to the fact I never will. But much like fence says, I begrudge no one who does that right - most have earned that privilege through hard work and sacrifice - I am happy for them.
I view this as the SB-SD wasiting my money - then making a decision I cannot live with for my public school choice ( and no - not the boundaries part ) - and now I have to pay again to protect my child. I am sorry but that sucks 8 ways from Sunday.They did not do what they said they were going to do and spare me the rhetoric, I absolutely believe they could if they wanted to - they no longer want to. They promised me and everyone else the best school site possible and that they would pay a premium for it - that was obviously a flat out lie. So I am angry over that. People like me get totally screwed over this..I have to pay huge taxes for a school site I would never send my child to...then pay again to get a school that is safe.
Paying $5M - $10 M in expedite charges to open a crappy shell of a school is also NOT fiscally responsible - regardless of site. And I predict that cost will escalate well beyond that.
Maybe one day I will be able to look back and say I got the better end of the deal anyway....but today I have to figure out a way to squeeze a 2nd job into my life to make this happen, so I have little time to be thrilled about it.
Luckily I have a child who has more common sense than my SB - and understands and agrees with the choice we have made.
so also when I get told to just move on and accept it, that also makes me angry.
