|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 16, 2008 17:08:40 GMT -6
Let's pull this back into perspective though...
There are errors with the document and the timeline, and we are not lawyers or investigators.
So, any conclusions drawn from this are JUST OPINION.
As such, we must ensure that it does not get represented as FACT about motives or anything else.
Fact is the year is wrong in 2 places. WHY it is wrong is unknown.
It is something I personally feel is worthy of an official explanation both from the School board and the Architecture firm.
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Apr 16, 2008 17:49:49 GMT -6
Could just be a typo. Although that would be about the worst typo one could make given the pending litigation. Can you imagine? Our school board is totally Charlie Brown! No matter what your opinion is on the site, you have to admit they're being followed by a rain cloud....  Weird they just crossed out the date and reposted tho - maybe someone will phone it in with an explaination.... I'm paranoid too. Could this just have been the SB realizing a few months before the verdict that things might not go the way they had hoped and we better have a plan B? Maybe they thought in case the jury would come back at $700K/acre, they better have a fallback? Maybe they did this for all the sites? Just wanted to continue the posturing until the trial played out? Is that against the law? I'm not trying to debate, I'm trying to get reassured from someone!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 16, 2008 18:56:02 GMT -6
Could just be a typo. Although that would be about the worst typo one could make given the pending litigation. Can you imagine? Our school board is totally Charlie Brown! No matter what your opinion is on the site, you have to admit they're being followed by a rain cloud.... Weird they just crossed out the date and reposted tho - maybe someone will phone it in with an explaination.... I'm paranoid too. Could this just have been the SB realizing a few months before the verdict that things might not go the way they had hoped and we better have a plan B? Maybe they thought in case the jury would come back at $700K/acre, they better have a fallback? Maybe they did this for all the sites? Just wanted to continue the posturing until the trial played out? Is that against the law? I'm not trying to debate, I'm trying to get reassured from someone!!!!! I do find it odd that the date was exactly one year ago from the big news day of 4/11/08. I still think it was a typo. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 16, 2008 19:45:56 GMT -6
Could just be a typo. Although that would be about the worst typo one could make given the pending litigation. Can you imagine? Our school board is totally Charlie Brown! No matter what your opinion is on the site, you have to admit they're being followed by a rain cloud.... Weird they just crossed out the date and reposted tho - maybe someone will phone it in with an explaination.... I do find it odd that the date was exactly one year ago from the big news day of 4/11/08. I still think it was a typo. I'd expect the Admin to print something up and clear it up. What I'm confused about is that this isn't a D204 doc, it's from Roake, and I'd expect them to be pretty precise. To have the daea and the copyright off is 2 mistakes. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Apr 16, 2008 19:55:58 GMT -6
These are not one page documents and they are CAD drawings (computer aided design). No one is typing in the copywright date.
|
|
|
|
Post by researching on Apr 16, 2008 20:04:37 GMT -6
These are not one page documents and they are CAD drawings (computer aided design). No one is typing in the copywright date. Sorry if this is a silly question but I am not versed in CAD. Does that mean that the date is automatically generated? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 16, 2008 20:05:20 GMT -6
I agree, JB.
Not a good sign to find numerical errors on a site plan. It's sloppy on something where accuracy and perfection mean everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Apr 16, 2008 20:16:32 GMT -6
I am trying to confirm this with someone better versed in it than I am.
I probably can't have an answer until tomorrow, sorry
|
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 16, 2008 20:17:01 GMT -6
These are not one page documents and they are CAD drawings (computer aided design). No one is typing in the copywright date. Sorry if this is a silly question but I am not versed in CAD. Does that mean that the date is automatically generated? The copyright is what struck me - I'd expect that to be auto-generated, as you suggest. To catch this mistake in mid-April? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 16, 2008 21:12:45 GMT -6
Sorry if this is a silly question but I am not versed in CAD. Does that mean that the date is automatically generated? The copyright is what struck me - I'd expect that to be auto-generated, as you suggest. To catch this mistake in mid-April? The previous copyright was supposedly right, 3 months ago... Things like that are usually not "Fill in the blank" |
|
|
|
Post by thebeefeater on Apr 16, 2008 21:40:40 GMT -6
I didn't say 'no one'. The people making the decisions would not put THEIR house on that land. None of them would consider it. I have not read all of the pages previous to this post, but I believe you are speaking to people deciding to live next to the Peaker Plant and powerlines....I agree with Arch. That is their personal decision and not one that everyone would make, thus the difference in home prices or land prices are usually lower if next to power lines etc. And yet the TG pool and club house sits less than 100 feet from an electrical sub station? Do you think any of them hesitate to go to the pool becuase of this? I don't. Geegh, talk about the blow dryer in the bath tub. My point is that there are no issues with the TG pool site or with the AME land. Again, this whole thing is nothing but a boundary dispute. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 16, 2008 22:02:37 GMT -6
I have not read all of the pages previous to this post, but I believe you are speaking to people deciding to live next to the Peaker Plant and powerlines....I agree with Arch. That is their personal decision and not one that everyone would make, thus the difference in home prices or land prices are usually lower if next to power lines etc. And yet the TG pool and club house sits less than 100 feet from an electrical sub station? Do you think any of them hesitate to go to the pool becuase of this? I don't. Geegh, talk about the blow dryer in the bath tub. My point is that there are no issues with the TG pool site or with the AME land. Again, this whole thing is nothing but a boundary dispute. I disagree with you there. Some of us are concerned for safety and the future lawsuit bill that will magically find its way to our tax bills after B&B are done mopping the floor with us. Of course, this is 'worth it' because the new HS is 'cheaper'  |
|
we4
Junior
Girls Can't Do What?
Posts: 245
|
Post by we4 on Apr 16, 2008 22:12:35 GMT -6
And yet the TG pool and club house sits less than 100 feet from an electrical sub station? Do you think any of them hesitate to go to the pool becuase of this? I don't. Geegh, talk about the blow dryer in the bath tub. My point is that there are no issues with the TG pool site or with the AME land. Again, this whole thing is nothing but a boundary dispute. I disagree with you there. Some of us are concerned for safety and the future lawsuit bill that will magically find its way to our tax bills after B&B are done mopping the floor with us. Of course, this is 'worth it' because the new HS is 'cheaper' You have no idea (or maybe you do) how worried am I about this right now. I may have to go watch Miss Teen South Carolina or read d204mom's post about Nana Hazel for a laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 16, 2008 22:24:11 GMT -6
Could just be a typo. Although that would be about the worst typo one could make given the pending litigation. Can you imagine? Our school board is totally Charlie Brown! No matter what your opinion is on the site, you have to admit they're being followed by a rain cloud.... Weird they just crossed out the date and reposted tho - maybe someone will phone it in with an explaination.... I'm paranoid too. Could this just have been the SB realizing a few months before the verdict that things might not go the way they had hoped and we better have a plan B? Maybe they thought in case the jury would come back at $700K/acre, they better have a fallback? Maybe they did this for all the sites? Just wanted to continue the posturing until the trial played out? Is that against the law? I'm not trying to debate, I'm trying to get reassured from someone!!!!! No typo, in my opinion. FOIA the document and the invoice for the survey. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 16, 2008 22:25:53 GMT -6
I have not read all of the pages previous to this post, but I believe you are speaking to people deciding to live next to the Peaker Plant and powerlines....I agree with Arch. That is their personal decision and not one that everyone would make, thus the difference in home prices or land prices are usually lower if next to power lines etc. And yet the TG pool and club house sits less than 100 feet from an electrical sub station? Do you think any of them hesitate to go to the pool becuase of this? I don't. Geegh, talk about the blow dryer in the bath tub. My point is that there are no issues with the TG pool site or with the AME land. Again, this whole thing is nothing but a boundary dispute. Beefeater, Cut the crap! This is beyond Tall Grass at this point. Give it up. |
|
