|
|
Post by 204parent on Apr 16, 2008 7:55:21 GMT -6
Yes, the "anti-Albatross plan". On one hand, everyone says WVHS is just fine. On the other hand, the SB says we need a "new WVHS" or it will be an Albatross. It makes no sense to me. The referendum was for a 3rd HS to alleviate overcrowding. It had nothing to do with creating a "new WVHS". That idea didn't exist until after Dash joined the district... Yes it did. I believe JCs' Option 6 during the BB boundary meetings was her vision of the new WVHS. Watch out Tamarack. cb, You're right. I almost forgot about option 6. Actually, I think I repressed that memory because it was such a nightmare. Is it fair to say the SB rejected option 6 (and the concept of a "new WVHS") prior to the referendum? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 16, 2008 7:59:20 GMT -6
Yes it did. I believe JCs' Option 6 during the BB boundary meetings was her vision of the new WVHS. Watch out Tamarack. cb, You're right. I almost forgot about option 6. Actually, I think I repressed that memory because it was such a nightmare. Is it fair to say the SB rejected option 6 (and the concept of a "new WVHS") prior to the referendum? I think it's fair to say it didn't fit their agenda at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on Apr 16, 2008 8:04:50 GMT -6
cb, You're right. I almost forgot about option 6. Actually, I think I repressed that memory because it was such a nightmare. Is it fair to say the SB rejected option 6 (and the concept of a "new WVHS") prior to the referendum? I think it's fair to say it didn't fit their agenda at the time. Agree. Their agenda being to get the referendum passed. I don't believe the referendum would have passed if they had chosen option 6. Therefore, it would not have passed if they had chosen the AME site. Simply put, what they are doing now is not what the public voted for. I'm not part of NSFOC, but I do agree that they have a valid case. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 16, 2008 8:26:30 GMT -6
IMO everything boils down to broken promises. The NSFOC says the SB broke a referendum promise. BB says we broke a promise to buy their land. I do not know anything about contract law, but it seem like there werre never any physical contracts between two parties. Just verbal promises. Yes, people have emails floating around from Mark and others but again, that is not a legal contract between the SB and us. Just a verbal opinion that was put in writing. We were negotiating with BB but never signed a contract. Did we ever sign anything in court?
So the way I see it is a judge will have to determine if making a promise to someone and then changing your mind because you feel it is in the best financial interest of the people who elected you is improper.
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Apr 16, 2008 10:51:30 GMT -6
IMO everything boils down to broken promises. The NSFOC says the SB broke a referendum promise. BB says we broke a promise to buy their land. I do not know anything about contract law, but it seem like there werre never any physical contracts between two parties. Just verbal promises. Yes, people have emails floating around from Mark and others but again, that is not a legal contract between the SB and us. Just a verbal opinion that was put in writing. We were negotiating with BB but never signed a contract. Did we ever sign anything in court? So the way I see it is a judge will have to determine if making a promise to someone and then changing your mind because you feel it is in the best financial interest of the people who elected you is improper. When someone tells you that you are getting one thing in order to get you to sign a contract to buy another that is fraud. Helen Brach was led to believe she was buying prize horses when she was only buying ordinary horses. That was fraud even though the sales contract did not specify that she was buying prize horses. |
|
|
|
Post by snerdley on Apr 16, 2008 10:55:44 GMT -6
IMO everything boils down to broken promises. The NSFOC says the SB broke a referendum promise. BB says we broke a promise to buy their land. I do not know anything about contract law, but it seem like there werre never any physical contracts between two parties. Just verbal promises. Yes, people have emails floating around from Mark and others but again, that is not a legal contract between the SB and us. Just a verbal opinion that was put in writing. We were negotiating with BB but never signed a contract. Did we ever sign anything in court? So the way I see it is a judge will have to determine if making a promise to someone and then changing your mind because you feel it is in the best financial interest of the people who elected you is improper. When someone tells you that you are getting one thing in order to get you to sign a contract to buy another that is fraud. Helen Brach was led to believe she was buying prize horses when she was only buying ordinary horses. That was fraud even though the sales contract did not specify that she was buying prize horses. And sadly, some shady characters in the horse business shot her. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 16, 2008 10:58:51 GMT -6
IMO everything boils down to broken promises. The NSFOC says the SB broke a referendum promise. BB says we broke a promise to buy their land. I do not know anything about contract law, but it seem like there werre never any physical contracts between two parties. Just verbal promises. Yes, people have emails floating around from Mark and others but again, that is not a legal contract between the SB and us. Just a verbal opinion that was put in writing. We were negotiating with BB but never signed a contract. Did we ever sign anything in court? So the way I see it is a judge will have to determine if making a promise to someone and then changing your mind because you feel it is in the best financial interest of the people who elected you is improper. When someone tells you that you are getting one thing in order to get you to sign a contract to buy another that is fraud. Helen Brach was led to believe she was buying prize horses when she was only buying ordinary horses. That was fraud even though the sales contract did not specify that she was buying prize horses. Here we go with the "intent" thing again. Where is my dead horse picture?. If our SB members had it in their minds to want Eola all along and devised a plan to manipulate us to vote yes and then, heck, let's spend a huge amount of time in the condemnation suit persuing this just so we look good, but thank goodness the jury came up with $500K/acre so we have a reason to walk away from property we never wanted in the first place....yes that it fraud. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 16, 2008 11:13:05 GMT -6
When someone tells you that you are getting one thing in order to get you to sign a contract to buy another that is fraud. Helen Brach was led to believe she was buying prize horses when she was only buying ordinary horses. That was fraud even though the sales contract did not specify that she was buying prize horses. Here we go with the "intent" thing again. Where is my dead horse picture?. If our SB members had it in their minds to want Eola all along and devised a plan to manipulate us to vote yes and then, heck, let's spend a huge amount of time in the condemnation suit persuing this just so we look good, but thank goodness the jury came up with $500K/acre so we have a reason to walk away from property we never wanted in the first place....yes that it fraud. the sad thing with the types of half releases of info we get, or wrong data, or nothing but attitude sometimes, that this doesn't seem like the stretch it probably should be. The behavior has made anything potentially believable |
|
|
|
Post by promark on Apr 16, 2008 11:22:49 GMT -6
When someone tells you that you are getting one thing in order to get you to sign a contract to buy another that is fraud. Helen Brach was led to believe she was buying prize horses when she was only buying ordinary horses. That was fraud even though the sales contract did not specify that she was buying prize horses. Here we go with the "intent" thing again. Where is my dead horse picture?. If our SB members had it in their minds to want Eola all along and devised a plan to manipulate us to vote yes and then, heck, let's spend a huge amount of time in the condemnation suit persuing this just so we look good, but thank goodness the jury came up with $500K/acre so we have a reason to walk away from property we never wanted in the first place....yes that it fraud. "devised a plan to manipulate us to vote yes" Bingo...that is the crux of the matter, and is really not a debatable point. From the hiring of the PR firm onward. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Apr 16, 2008 11:33:51 GMT -6
Slpls, No I don't beleive in any grand conspiracy theory, on the other hand, I agree with Doc that once the trust is gone, people are going to beleive the worst.
I worked so hard to help pass this referendum, the SB supported the community and I supported them, but back in October the SD shut me out.
And when decisions were made they decided I could not be trusted. The SB did not want my input, they did not answer my questions. I have never sent them an inflammatory or inappropriate email. I have always gotten responses from them in the past. But since the verdict, NOTHING. I have not had a single email responded to.
They have made me feel like I am the enemy, a pariah on the district and I haven't done ANYTHING.
Are there some in the district who have not been supportive, who have selfish motives etc etc sure, but the vast majority of people in the district and especially those of us with kids in it, are willing to listen to reason and support what is best for the community at large.
They should have had more faith in the democratic process, they should have had more faith in us. The questions I had back in October will never go away and they will replay in my mind every time they ask for more support.
And I would like to add that the new site plan is BETTER than the MWGEN site plan, and for that if it's NSFOC we need to thank or the church or whomever, it is not the SB.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 16, 2008 11:38:10 GMT -6
And I would like to add that the new site plan is BETTER than the MWGEN site plan, and for that if it's NSFOC we need to thank or the church or whomever, it is not the SB. I second this rew. Thank you to the NSFOC, the all-AME plan is better than the half-MWGEN plan. EVERYONE assigned to MV should be thanking NSFOC for this very reason. It's still bad but it's not as bad as it could have been and for that I am grateful. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 16, 2008 11:43:58 GMT -6
And I would like to add that the new site plan is BETTER than the MWGEN site plan, and for that if it's NSFOC we need to thank or the church or whomever, it is not the SB. I second this rew. Thank you to the NSFOC, the all-AME plan is better than the half-MWGEN plan. EVERYONE assigned to MV should be thanking NSFOC for this very reason. It's still bad but it's not as bad as it could have been and for that I am grateful. I am grateful changes are occuring because of their efforts, but in reality it fixed precious little. It's like saying a punch in the stomach is better than 2 punches in the stomach, I don't want either when there are alternatives. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 16, 2008 11:52:21 GMT -6
......... the vast majority of people in the district and especially those of us with kids in it, are willing to listen to reason and support what is best for the community at large. I understand your feelings rew and you are certainly entitled to them as is everyone that is not happy. We need a fresh change to this SB I think. And I hope you are right about your above statement. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 16, 2008 11:53:43 GMT -6
Here we go with the "intent" thing again. Where is my dead horse picture?. If our SB members had it in their minds to want Eola all along and devised a plan to manipulate us to vote yes and then, heck, let's spend a huge amount of time in the condemnation suit persuing this just so we look good, but thank goodness the jury came up with $500K/acre so we have a reason to walk away from property we never wanted in the first place....yes that it fraud. Here's where the river goes from clear to something along a slight shade of charcoal. We specified INTENT to acquire BB. We did not follow up with those INTENTIONS as laid out to the public to secure the vote. We COULD have afforded it after the verdict. The difference is at that moment in time, we DID NOT WANT TO. Later, we now all of a sudden have a way to pay well above and beyond the cost it would have been THEN for the total PROJECT with expedited costs due to a LATE START of not breaking ground in October of 2007. I think the district is miscalculating things here believing there had to be prior INTENT to secure eola... the fact is they specified an INTENT for BB but then did not follow through with it after puting forth statements that said they COULD follow through with the INTENT to secure BB and COULD AFFORD a price HIGHER than the jury award. There are always two sides to a coin and sometimes the dang thing stands on its edge when you least expect it. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Apr 16, 2008 11:57:58 GMT -6
And I would like to add that the new site plan is BETTER than the MWGEN site plan, and for that if it's NSFOC we need to thank or the church or whomever, it is not the SB. I second this rew. Thank you to the NSFOC, the all-AME plan is better than the half-MWGEN plan. EVERYONE assigned to MV should be thanking NSFOC for this very reason. It's still bad but it's not as bad as it could have been and for that I am grateful. Very true, and very ironic. |
|
