|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 11, 2008 20:42:24 GMT -6
slp, I respectfully disagree. I believe what was voted on was a third HS. Maybe my ballot was the only one in the district that didn't have the BB wording on it. So, is NSFOC trying to enforce what THEY THINK we all voted on, or are they just trying to flush the third HS down the toilet? We'll see in a few days. I hope you are right and the district wins the golden ticket and the BB folks decide to suddenly become saints. Otherwise, it is something else and the lawsuit continues. I really am tired of all this ' what the ballot said' nonsense. The referendum was sold night and day, 24 x 7 by everyone from the SB to the Admin to 204tk as the school will be at BB and here are the boundaries. It may be convenient to hide behind the ballot wording - but if you remmeber the reason given for the ballot wording - by our SB and admin ( mentioned many times at PTA meetings) was ithat the boundaries were decided too late to change the wording on the ballot - or else we would have had to update it and not vote until the election after it. I was part of the group who wrote a lot of that exact stuff for presentations and fliers - under direction as to what we were to say. So please stop the what the ballot said .... unless you're telling me it was orchestrated to purposely mislead the population - which is a whole other charge , this is what was sold to everyone who read a paper/ answeredtheir door to someone coming around, read any flier they got at a grocery store, or read the districts own web site..... hundreds of copies of officla documents as well as PAC generated documents sit in the hands of those saying - give us what you sold us... Guess that makes two of us doc. I am tired of NSFOC thinking they can speak for the whole district and do things that will affect the whole district's children. I guess we'll see how important the district's wording was on the ballot when this goes to trial. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 11, 2008 20:51:07 GMT -6
I really am tired of all this ' what the ballot said' nonsense. The referendum was sold night and day, 24 x 7 by everyone from the SB to the Admin to 204tk as the school will be at BB and here are the boundaries. It may be convenient to hide behind the ballot wording - but if you remmeber the reason given for the ballot wording - by our SB and admin ( mentioned many times at PTA meetings) was ithat the boundaries were decided too late to change the wording on the ballot - or else we would have had to update it and not vote until the election after it. I was part of the group who wrote a lot of that exact stuff for presentations and fliers - under direction as to what we were to say. So please stop the what the ballot said .... unless you're telling me it was orchestrated to purposely mislead the population - which is a whole other charge , this is what was sold to everyone who read a paper/ answeredtheir door to someone coming around, read any flier they got at a grocery store, or read the districts own web site..... hundreds of copies of officla documents as well as PAC generated documents sit in the hands of those saying - give us what you sold us... Guess that makes two of us doc. I am tired of NSFOC thinking they can speak for the whole district and do things that will affect the whole district's children. I guess we'll see how important the district's wording was on the ballot when this goes to trial. If the SB and SD Admin didn't want the referendum sold as 3rd high school at BB with these exact boundaries - then they should never have sold it that way. People aren't stupid, they know what they were sold, night and day and over and over and all we went thru as a district before that vote was taken. You were there, I know you remmeber. If they wanted it sold as just a 3rd HS - that's the way they should have marketed it - we're going to build a 3rd hs somewhere and we don't know where or who will attend it. They chose ( or had chosen for them by the firm they hired) the path that has led to this. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 11, 2008 21:00:55 GMT -6
I really am tired of all this ' what the ballot said' nonsense. The referendum was sold night and day, 24 x 7 by everyone from the SB to the Admin to 204tk as the school will be at BB and here are the boundaries. It may be convenient to hide behind the ballot wording - but if you remmeber the reason given for the ballot wording - by our SB and admin ( mentioned many times at PTA meetings) was ithat the boundaries were decided too late to change the wording on the ballot - or else we would have had to update it and not vote until the election after it. I was part of the group who wrote a lot of that exact stuff for presentations and fliers - under direction as to what we were to say. So please stop the what the ballot said .... unless you're telling me it was orchestrated to purposely mislead the population - which is a whole other charge , this is what was sold to everyone who read a paper/ answeredtheir door to someone coming around, read any flier they got at a grocery store, or read the districts own web site..... hundreds of copies of officla documents as well as PAC generated documents sit in the hands of those saying - give us what you sold us... Guess that makes two of us doc. I am tired of NSFOC thinking they can speak for the whole district and do things that will affect the whole district's children.I guess we'll see how important the district's wording was on the ballot when this goes to trial. b] I am tired of NSFOC thinking they can speak for the whole district and do things that will affect the whole district's children.[/b] You mean just like the marketing firm hred to put this strategy together on how to sell the referendum did, or 204tk did, or Voteyes did, or wind204 did -- or every speaker at every boundary meeting and PTA boundary discussion did. This is their creation -- and it wasn't like it was some passing comments - we literally went thru Hell as a district to get to the point where people were told explicitely - you are voting for a 3rd HS at BB , and this is the school you'll attend. Did Brookdale vote 80% no because no one there wanted just a 3rd HS ? No - they voted no because they felt they were being screwed by what everyone was voting on. Even the NO voters did not head to the polls thinking they were voting on just anything - they knew the specifics also. So yes a judge will decide - but pretty daming will be the official 204 pages explaining where the 3rd high school was going and who was going there. No disclaimers, no maybe's. The PTA minutes on whether to support a 3rd HS at BB or not. so no - the nsfoc does not speak for all people on all things, but when it comes to framing EXACTLY what was sold to this district to vote on - they have it 100% right - whether one voted yes or no. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 11, 2008 21:01:16 GMT -6
Guess that makes two of us doc. I am tired of NSFOC thinking they can speak for the whole district and do things that will affect the whole district's children. I guess we'll see how important the district's wording was on the ballot when this goes to trial. If the SB and SD Admin didn't want the referendum sold as 3rd high school at BB with these exact boundaries - then they should never have sold it that way. People aren't stupid, they know what they were sold, night and day and over and over and all we went thru as a district before that vote was taken. You were there, I know you remmeber. If they wanted it sold as just a 3rd HS - that's the way they should have marketed it - we're going to build a 3rd hs somewhere and we don't know where or who will attend it. They chose ( or had chosen for them by the firm they hired) the path that has led to this. I understand what you are saying. But events change and our elected officials have the right to change course IMO. I guess that is what will be decided in court -- do they have the right to change their path when events change. It's like the politicians promoting certain things to get elected and then changing their minds when the economy gets bad after they are elected. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 11, 2008 21:08:32 GMT -6
If the SB and SD Admin didn't want the referendum sold as 3rd high school at BB with these exact boundaries - then they should never have sold it that way. People aren't stupid, they know what they were sold, night and day and over and over and all we went thru as a district before that vote was taken. You were there, I know you remmeber. If they wanted it sold as just a 3rd HS - that's the way they should have marketed it - we're going to build a 3rd hs somewhere and we don't know where or who will attend it. They chose ( or had chosen for them by the firm they hired) the path that has led to this. I understand what you are saying. But events change and our elected officials have the right to change course IMO. I guess that is what will be decided in court -- do they have the right to change their path when events change. It's like the politicians promoting certain things to get elected and then changing their minds when the economy gets bad after they are elected. And maybe soon we will be able to recall those politicians also. I can't believe you are defending a wrong with an example of another wrong. Other politicians have scewed us over from time to time, so it is OK this time also ? If one believes they have a right to change course - put it back to a vote and be specific as to where our tax dollars will be used -- or back to a vote that is sold as and says - just give me your money and we'll spend it how we like. Good luck with that passing. much like has been demo'd before -- you go put money down on a BMW after being 'sold' a particular car, and price and when you show up to pick it up, you get a Yugo. Hey, it's still a car, are you going to honor that agreement ? Car salesman have a rep for mis selling all the time..so I guess you'd be OK with that ? I somehow doubt it, and that is exactly how many ( not 200, not a handful, not 9 ) voters feel. |
|
|
|
Post by entitled on Apr 11, 2008 21:14:50 GMT -6
So how does one explain the shift in voting? Springbrook and White Eagle, for example, voted no in 2005 but once location and boundaries were clarified, they voted yes in 2006.
Tall Grass, on the other hand, voted yes in both elections. Even when unhappy about the boundaries, they wanted to support a 3rd high school. Some neighborhoods wanted to support desired outcomes. The hypocrisy is mind boggling.
Let's face it. NSFOC could only pose a threat to this multi-million dollar transaction if there was liability that MWG did not want to assume.
Where is the outrage that our SD/SB went through the charade on Monday night when they knew the deal was falling apart? This was not some last minute decision. SD's weak letter was designed to point the finger at some minority, insignificant, disgruntled individuals when he knew that he had made a tremendous mistake suggesting that a school should be built on land needing remediation. There is no measure to how much remediation is minor when children are at stake.
Can you just see the coach directing Sally or Harry to slide into home base with a medical mask on so they wouldn't get any dirt in their mouths?
Our government was founded on the principle of giving the minority interest a voice.
Stand tall NSFOC sometimes, the little guys and gals are heard.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 11, 2008 21:16:42 GMT -6
I understand what you are saying. But events change and our elected officials have the right to change course IMO. I guess that is what will be decided in court -- do they have the right to change their path when events change. It's like the politicians promoting certain things to get elected and then changing their minds when the economy gets bad after they are elected. And maybe soon we will be able to recall those politicians also. I can't believe you are defending a wrong with an example of another wrong. Other politicians have scewed us over from time to time, so it is OK this time also ? If one believes they have a right to change course - put it back to a vote and be specific as to where our tax dollars will be used -- or back to a vote that is sold as and says - just give me your money and we'll spend it how we like. Good luck with that passing. much like has been demo'd before -- you go put money down on a BMW after being 'sold' a particular car, and price and when you show up to pick it up, you get a Yugo. Hey, it's still a car, are you going to honor that agreement ? Car salesman have a rep for mis selling all the time..so I guess you'd be OK with that ? I somehow doubt it, and that is exactly how many ( not 200, not a handful, not 9 ) voters feel. Only we are not getting a Yugo vs. a BMW. We are getting a BMW delivered to a different dealer 5 miles away from the original dealer. You may be mad that you have to drive the extra 5 miles to pick up the BMW that looks like a Yugo to you but many in this district just want the BMW and don't care where it is delivered. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 11, 2008 21:21:50 GMT -6
So how does one explain the shift in voting? Springbrook and White Eagle, for example, voted no in 2005 but once location and boundaries were clarified, they voted yes in 2006. Tall Grass, on the other hand, voted yes in both elections. Even when unhappy about the boundaries, they wanted to support a 3rd high school. Some neighborhoods wanted to support desired outcomes. The hypocrisy is mind boggling. Can you point me to where I can verify this? And did you interview everyone in those subdivisions? Could it be that some people just didn't get out and vote the first time? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 11, 2008 21:27:47 GMT -6
So how does one explain the shift in voting? Springbrook and White Eagle, for example, voted no in 2005 but once location and boundaries were clarified, they voted yes in 2006. Tall Grass, on the other hand, voted yes in both elections. Even when unhappy about the boundaries, they wanted to support a 3rd high school. Some neighborhoods wanted to support desired outcomes. The hypocrisy is mind boggling. Can you point me to where I can verify this? And did you interview everyone in those subdivisions? Could it be that some people just didn't get out and vote the first time? explain Brookdales vote to me... how dramatic was that. And I am not cirticizing the vote here, I know why they were upset and if I lived there I would have been upset also. I am just using it as an example of what they were voting on. Did they march to HQ on the last day to protest a 3rd high school- or a 3rd HS at BB that they were not going to attend. They completely understood the site and the boundaries before they voted. They had no comprehension problem - nor did anyone else. I know you have no comprehension problem of what occured, it is either denail or revisionalism. No one who lived here for that period had any comprehension problem with what we went thru. We read about it in articles all the time in our papers. |
|
|
|
Post by entitled on Apr 11, 2008 21:30:58 GMT -6
If the SB and SD Admin didn't want the referendum sold as 3rd high school at BB with these exact boundaries - then they should never have sold it that way. People aren't stupid, they know what they were sold, night and day and over and over and all we went thru as a district before that vote was taken. You were there, I know you remmeber. If they wanted it sold as just a 3rd HS - that's the way they should have marketed it - we're going to build a 3rd hs somewhere and we don't know where or who will attend it. They chose ( or had chosen for them by the firm they hired) the path that has led to this. I understand what you are saying. But events change and our elected officials have the right to change course IMO. I guess that is what will be decided in court -- do they have the right to change their path when events change. It's like the politicians promoting certain things to get elected and then changing their minds when the economy gets bad after they are elected. In this case the elected officials were adament that they would not change locations. In fact when others suggested they consider alternatives they insisted that the location was a done deal. "Only price and timing" needs to be negotiated. Their data was better and suggested other prices were "ludicrous". Our SB screwed themselves with their egos. And frankly, those who make excuses, do so for their own egos. Perhaps, they were just "doing the best they could". Or perhaps they were just less than truthful. Oh no duck, sniper fire!! Run straight for the cars!! No time for flowers.  |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 11, 2008 21:33:06 GMT -6
And maybe soon we will be able to recall those politicians also. I can't believe you are defending a wrong with an example of another wrong. Other politicians have scewed us over from time to time, so it is OK this time also ? If one believes they have a right to change course - put it back to a vote and be specific as to where our tax dollars will be used -- or back to a vote that is sold as and says - just give me your money and we'll spend it how we like. Good luck with that passing. much like has been demo'd before -- you go put money down on a BMW after being 'sold' a particular car, and price and when you show up to pick it up, you get a Yugo. Hey, it's still a car, are you going to honor that agreement ? Car salesman have a rep for mis selling all the time..so I guess you'd be OK with that ? I somehow doubt it, and that is exactly how many ( not 200, not a handful, not 9 ) voters feel. Only we are not getting a Yugo vs. a BMW. We are getting a BMW delivered to a different dealer 5 miles away from the original dealer. You may be mad that you have to drive the extra 5 miles to pick up the BMW that looks like a Yugo to you but many in this district just want the BMW and don't care where it is delivered. We were going to be delivered a high school on land that had numerous safety issues ( I know your area wasn't sending your kids there, mine was )- so that YUGO - ( and yes it was a Yugo - especially on delivery with no gym - no pool - no auditorium - construction all around - fenced off remediation areas etc ) that was going to be my childs and my areas childrens high school experience. Oh and I had to be worried that it was parked over the gas mains , and under high tension wires - just near the tracks. But as long as I didn't eat the dirt off the tires - the PCB issue was deemed OK. Again, if Springbrook was assigned there, I doubt we'd be having this conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 11, 2008 21:36:34 GMT -6
OK, Doc. I'll concede. Everyone in the entire distict was voting on BB except me and the people in 2005 that voted yes when they didn't know where the HS would be.
I really am naive on the SB's function. Is it to act in what they feel is our best interests? Or is it to go back to us at every little problem and seek our approval before going forward? If it is the latter, then it's no wonder we don't have a third HS. We have a pretty big district and you are not going to make everyone happy. What do other districts do? Yes, they sit down and talk to people (unlike 204), but don't they still go ahead and make the decisions? If it is not to make decisions for us, why are they here?
|
|
|
|
Post by entitled on Apr 11, 2008 21:40:37 GMT -6
OK, Doc. I'll concede. Everyone in the entire distict was voting on BB except me and the people in 2005 that voted yes when they didn't know where the HS would be. I really am naive on the SB's function. Is it to act in what they feel is our best interests? Or is it to go back to us at every little problem and seek our approval before going forward? If it is the latter, then it's no wonder we don't have a third HS. We have a pretty big district and you are not going to make everyone happy. What do other districts do? Yes, they sit down and talk to people (unlike 204), but don't they still go ahead and make the decisions? If it is not to make decisions for us, why are they here? Life must be very good for you when $150 million dollars is every little problem - the safety of children is no little problem. Land requiring a little bit of remediation is land that a child should not be forced to step foot on. But perhaps that is just a little problem. |
|
|
|
Post by entitled on Apr 11, 2008 21:43:15 GMT -6
So how does one explain the shift in voting? Springbrook and White Eagle, for example, voted no in 2005 but once location and boundaries were clarified, they voted yes in 2006. Tall Grass, on the other hand, voted yes in both elections. Even when unhappy about the boundaries, they wanted to support a 3rd high school. Some neighborhoods wanted to support desired outcomes. The hypocrisy is mind boggling. Can you point me to where I can verify this? And did you interview everyone in those subdivisions? Could it be that some people just didn't get out and vote the first time? Perhaps you could check with the PTA president for Sprinbrook in 2005. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 11, 2008 21:47:22 GMT -6
OK, Doc. I'll concede. Everyone in the entire distict was voting on BB except me and the people in 2005 that voted yes when they didn't know where the HS would be. I really am naive on the SB's function. Is it to act in what they feel is our best interests? Or is it to go back to us at every little problem and seek our approval before going forward? If it is the latter, then it's no wonder we don't have a third HS. We have a pretty big district and you are not going to make everyone happy. What do other districts do? Yes, they sit down and talk to people (unlike 204), but don't they still go ahead and make the decisions? If it is not to make decisions for us, why are they here? Life must be very good for you when $150 million dollars is every little problem - the safety of children is no little problem. Land requiring a little bit of remediation is land that a child should not be forced to step foot on. But perhaps that is just a little problem. I'm not defending their choice of Eola. I am defending their choice to "bait and switch" as everyone loves to call it. That's what the lawsuit is about. |
|
