|
|
Unity
Apr 27, 2008 18:05:38 GMT -6
Post by WeBe204 on Apr 27, 2008 18:05:38 GMT -6
We NOW know that enrollment figures are not panning out as anticipated, and that would probably influence voters quite a bit. You're right...it would influence voters depending on what they choose to believe about the numbers. I'm not being flip, but just pointing out that this is still an area of question of what thses numbers are for some people. But good point - this would probably influence they way people would vote. Oh, you can be flip. It helps. I appreciated your post before. There is nothing wrong with taking time to express your honest opinion. Just to explain my vote further. One of the reasons, I have switched to a No until further data is available is I was honestly surprised when I saw the most current enrollement projections. Edit: Basically, what I am saying is I think the case should be made again from the bottom up. Based on the current facts as opposed to facts that expired in 2006. |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 27, 2008 18:53:28 GMT -6
Post by doctorwho on Apr 27, 2008 18:53:28 GMT -6
If the choice were put to the voters: BB, AME, or none - what would you all say? I don't know but let's face it, the lawsuit will be the only thing now that will stop the SB from moving ahead with Eola. If these 3 choices were put on a ballot, knowing the land prices of both parcels or the alternative of no HS, I would vote for AME land because of the price. Keep in mind that BB would be a much smaller commute for me, personally, as I am in Owen "west", but if the price of each were known, I'd vote for AME. If this were truly what could have been presented to me in 2006 with some KNOWN variables, this is how I would have voted. I will reiterate, knowing this will probably fall on deaf ears again, that while BB was anticipated, I don't feel it was ever promised. I know there are some who disagree - I don't want to debate that again and again. Yes, when I went to vote, I believed that the high school would end up at BB, but that didn't affect my vote. I was voting for a 3rd HS, period. I believe the district as a whole felt the huge stomach punch when the verdict was announced and wondered then "now what?" I can tell you that I, personally, thought BB would be off the table then and there would be no 3rd HS. When other land was sought out, I became hopeful again. I just desperately wanted a 3rd HS and 7th MS. There are many of us out there who wanted the same thing. Again, when the MWGen land was found, I listened to the reports and read them carefully. After all, MY kids will go to this school. I wanted to feel comfortable with them going there. I am certain that they will not be harmed simply by walking the grounds and the halls at this site. Then MWGen pulled out. Again, another stomach punch because I thought the 3rd HS was not an option again. Then the good people (my opinion) at St. John's AME came forward and offered their land to us. Yes, they made a profit - oh well. If only I owned the land and could have such good fortune. Whether this was "God's Will" or not, I am a firm believer in the theory that "things happen for a reason". Much of my life is my own proof of that. I don't need to, nor will I, go any further into that. Now the district owns land which has been deemed "safe" and I am hopeful for the HS to be built, as I voted for. Do I wish it were at BB? Absolutely! If the prices were the same or even within 100K of each other, I would probably still want BB, but that is a purely selfish reason because of its location to my home. But to spend almost twice as much is not being fiscally responsible in my opinion. Again, this detail has been argued ad nauseum, so we can spare everyone the points/counterpoints yet again. This entire thread is about Unity. My wish now is that this district can pull together and move together to make this the great district that it has been known for. At this point, it will be difficult to do, but I would like to think it is not impossible. It will take a great deal of time, I'm sure. I've thought very hard about this particular question posed by casey and I think it's a good question that deserves some reflection. Based on what has transpired still have to go to AME. We didn't KNOW it would be at BB - all of us voters knew we didn't own the land yet. If we had owned the land at BB, and then the property got switched because we found a "sale" on the land at AME, then I would be very uspet with the current location. But that's not what happened. In an effort in "Unity", think about casey's question with what we know NOW and answer accordingly. Good evening. "It will take a great deal of time, I'm sure. " The qustion will be how much time, and how much more damage gets done in the process ? I base the how much time on the fact that there obviously was still unsolved animosity between some areas in the north and some areas in the south ( notably W/E because they actuaslly left WVHS to go to NV ) that they had somehow built the school for them ( NV ) - and the SD made is a Taj Mahal ( their words ) - and now it was their turn. No it is not everybody, but the fact that it is anybody after 10 + years is amazing to me. May Watts was built in the late 80's - we paid for every school in the 'south' also yet I never heard anyone ehre complain that we didn't get to attend. People were more than happy with WVHS.So why the issue ? The battle between members of the SB still here since that confrontaion ? Rumors of sceret 'deals' and alliances even back then on switching boundaries from 59 East and West to 83rd street North and South. I used to think that was nonsense - now I believe things like that likely did occur. Makes a good case for term limits on positions. |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 27, 2008 18:53:39 GMT -6
Post by casey on Apr 27, 2008 18:53:39 GMT -6
Basically, what I am saying is I think the case should be made again from the bottom up. Based on the current facts as opposed to facts that expired in 2006. You are right, Brad and I'd think that many would feel the same way. Heck, we now have a SB member even questioning the need for the third school based on enrollment. I think the new enrollment numbers would change a few YES votes to NO votes. |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 27, 2008 18:59:24 GMT -6
Post by doctorwho on Apr 27, 2008 18:59:24 GMT -6
We NOW know that enrollment figures are not panning out as anticipated, and that would probably influence voters quite a bit. You're right...it would influence voters depending on what they choose to believe about the numbers. I'm not being flip, but just pointing out that this is still an area of question of what thses numbers are for some people. But good point - this would probably influence they way people would vote. I can tell you there were a number of people who used to be on this board also ( now not on either ) that were on the fence or leaning no based on analysis, The problem was it appears the CFO group was close to the actual numbers- but also stepped in doo too many times by what appears to have been some made up stuff that killed their credibility for most. They were so intent on getting their headcount message across that the rest of the FUD they spread killed the message ( sound like any others ? ) I am still leaning to a 3rd HS, but am open to listen at least. And I would like to see the case for what we need to build based onthe facts today - as we know them. I, like many others bought into the 10,400 ( and likely more ) - and at that number it is a slam dunk. Hell I wrote fliers on this topic. Today it seems we have a different bogey we are looking to accomodate, so why still be rushing ahead with yesterday's plans ? Would we be using Columbus's maps to cross the ocean ? Let's actually make the good sound business decisions the community deserves. |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 27, 2008 18:59:46 GMT -6
Post by eb204 on Apr 27, 2008 18:59:46 GMT -6
Basically, what I am saying is I think the case should be made again from the bottom up. Based on the current facts as opposed to facts that expired in 2006. You are right, Brad and I'd think that many would feel the same way. Heck, we now have a SB member even questioning the need for the third school based on enrollment. I think the new enrollment numbers would change a few YES votes to NO votes. CV has always been in the "no" camp for a third HS. Her change of heart recently was her simply goinb back to what she argued for 2-3 years ago. |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 27, 2008 19:00:44 GMT -6
Post by doctorwho on Apr 27, 2008 19:00:44 GMT -6
Basically, what I am saying is I think the case should be made again from the bottom up. Based on the current facts as opposed to facts that expired in 2006. You are right, Brad and I'd think that many would feel the same way. Heck, we now have a SB member even questioning the need for the third school based on enrollment. I think the new enrollment numbers would change a few YES votes to NO votes. to be fair, she has always questioned it based on need so there has been no change. It just appears her numbers were better up front - who'd have known ? |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 27, 2008 19:09:08 GMT -6
Post by overtaxed on Apr 27, 2008 19:09:08 GMT -6
Of topic a little, while food shopping in Michael’s today I had a good laugh. Sitting with all the hot dogs was brand called “FUD”. Don’t care where you are with the 204 issues; it was funny! They seem to cater to the Hispanics, it was all written in Spanish.
|
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 27, 2008 19:44:00 GMT -6
Post by doctorwho on Apr 27, 2008 19:44:00 GMT -6
Of topic a little, while food shopping in Michael’s today I had a good laugh. Sitting with all the hot dogs was brand called “FUD”. Don’t care where you are with the 204 issues; it was funny! They seem to cater to the Hispanics, it was all written in Spanish. In the good spirit of humor: qu'est-ce qui fait FUD moyen ? ¿qué hace FUD medio? Che significa FUD? Perché il Giocatore tiene gli Evviva di detto? Ciao bella! The first person to translate my post is the grand prize winner? ETA: flippant di essere in grado di essere così divertente! I odore di un ratto. Ciao Bella! put it in German and I have a chance, know very little Italian. Something about a Gambler ? |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 27, 2008 20:00:13 GMT -6
Post by snerdley on Apr 27, 2008 20:00:13 GMT -6
If the choice were put to the voters: BB, AME, or none - what would you all say? I don't know but let's face it, the lawsuit will be the only thing now that will stop the SB from moving ahead with Eola. If these 3 choices were put on a ballot, knowing the land prices of both parcels or the alternative of no HS, I would vote for AME land because of the price. Keep in mind that BB would be a much smaller commute for me, personally, as I am in Owen "west", but if the price of each were known, I'd vote for AME. If this were truly what could have been presented to me in 2006 with some KNOWN variables, this is how I would have voted. I will reiterate, knowing this will probably fall on deaf ears again, that while BB was anticipated, I don't feel it was ever promised. I know there are some who disagree - I don't want to debate that again and again. Yes, when I went to vote, I believed that the high school would end up at BB, but that didn't affect my vote. I was voting for a 3rd HS, period. I believe the district as a whole felt the huge stomach punch when the verdict was announced and wondered then "now what?" I can tell you that I, personally, thought BB would be off the table then and there would be no 3rd HS. When other land was sought out, I became hopeful again. I just desperately wanted a 3rd HS and 7th MS. There are many of us out there who wanted the same thing. Again, when the MWGen land was found, I listened to the reports and read them carefully. After all, MY kids will go to this school. I wanted to feel comfortable with them going there. I am certain that they will not be harmed simply by walking the grounds and the halls at this site. Then MWGen pulled out. Again, another stomach punch because I thought the 3rd HS was not an option again. Then the good people (my opinion) at St. John's AME came forward and offered their land to us. Yes, they made a profit - oh well. If only I owned the land and could have such good fortune. Whether this was "God's Will" or not, I am a firm believer in the theory that "things happen for a reason". Much of my life is my own proof of that. I don't need to, nor will I, go any further into that. Now the district owns land which has been deemed "safe" and I am hopeful for the HS to be built, as I voted for. Do I wish it were at BB? Absolutely! If the prices were the same or even within 100K of each other, I would probably still want BB, but that is a purely selfish reason because of its location to my home. But to spend almost twice as much is not being fiscally responsible in my opinion. Again, this detail has been argued ad nauseum, so we can spare everyone the points/counterpoints yet again. This entire thread is about Unity. My wish now is that this district can pull together and move together to make this the great district that it has been known for. At this point, it will be difficult to do, but I would like to think it is not impossible. It will take a great deal of time, I'm sure. I've thought very hard about this particular question posed by casey and I think it's a good question that deserves some reflection. Based on what has transpired still have to go to AME. We didn't KNOW it would be at BB - all of us voters knew we didn't own the land yet. If we had owned the land at BB, and then the property got switched because we found a "sale" on the land at AME, then I would be very uspet with the current location. But that's not what happened. In an effort in "Unity", think about casey's question with what we know NOW and answer accordingly. Good evening. Eb, what tests have been conducted on the AME land to determine that it is, in fact, safe? It is my understanding that the SB has ordered no testing on this land and no independent agency will be doing anything (EPA or other). Am I correct? As for the issue of BB, it was my distinct impression during the referendum process that the SB reassured the voters time and time again that they would get BB. I was doubtful myself (they didn't own it and there was a pending lawsuit), so I paid close attention to their responses. They were so confident they were quite frankly patronizing IMO. I believe they had the same attitude when asked what would happen if the jury price came in too high. I felt that they went out of their way to reassure the voting public that they would in fact get BB (it wasn't a question of if, it was how much and they could afford it). When pressed about Plan B's, it's my recollection they said they didn't have one and didn't need one (not sure how that jives with reports that they had tried to secure the AME land previously). So my question is.....why go to so much trouble to convince the public that NO MATTER WHAT...they were building on BB? Now they're not. Why? These are matters that I am happy will be sorted out in court in an orderly fashion pursuant to the rule of law. I am quite frankly weary of all the finger pointing and blame going around. I look forward to an objective party making an objective decision. Then at that point, hopefully a decision can be made about how to move forward in the best interest of all the kids of the district. At this point, I will be very suspicious of doomsday predictions (I didn't read that into your very thoughtful post BTW). I just think that's what will be coming our way prior to 5/23. My prediction is a ratcheting up on the personal attacks on NSFOC as well as the doomsday prediction there will be no 3rd high school if NSFOC doesn't drop their suit. (sort of like the split shifts, etc. if the referendum doesn't pass). I myself am looking forward to the judge ruling on the many legal issues raised by NSFOC. I think they are valid issues/questions. |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 27, 2008 20:17:04 GMT -6
Post by eb204 on Apr 27, 2008 20:17:04 GMT -6
If these 3 choices were put on a ballot, knowing the land prices of both parcels or the alternative of no HS, I would vote for AME land because of the price. Keep in mind that BB would be a much smaller commute for me, personally, as I am in Owen "west", but if the price of each were known, I'd vote for AME. If this were truly what could have been presented to me in 2006 with some KNOWN variables, this is how I would have voted. I will reiterate, knowing this will probably fall on deaf ears again, that while BB was anticipated, I don't feel it was ever promised. I know there are some who disagree - I don't want to debate that again and again. Yes, when I went to vote, I believed that the high school would end up at BB, but that didn't affect my vote. I was voting for a 3rd HS, period. I believe the district as a whole felt the huge stomach punch when the verdict was announced and wondered then "now what?" I can tell you that I, personally, thought BB would be off the table then and there would be no 3rd HS. When other land was sought out, I became hopeful again. I just desperately wanted a 3rd HS and 7th MS. There are many of us out there who wanted the same thing. Again, when the MWGen land was found, I listened to the reports and read them carefully. After all, MY kids will go to this school. I wanted to feel comfortable with them going there. I am certain that they will not be harmed simply by walking the grounds and the halls at this site. Then MWGen pulled out. Again, another stomach punch because I thought the 3rd HS was not an option again. Then the good people (my opinion) at St. John's AME came forward and offered their land to us. Yes, they made a profit - oh well. If only I owned the land and could have such good fortune. Whether this was "God's Will" or not, I am a firm believer in the theory that "things happen for a reason". Much of my life is my own proof of that. I don't need to, nor will I, go any further into that. Now the district owns land which has been deemed "safe" and I am hopeful for the HS to be built, as I voted for. Do I wish it were at BB? Absolutely! If the prices were the same or even within 100K of each other, I would probably still want BB, but that is a purely selfish reason because of its location to my home. But to spend almost twice as much is not being fiscally responsible in my opinion. Again, this detail has been argued ad nauseum, so we can spare everyone the points/counterpoints yet again. This entire thread is about Unity. My wish now is that this district can pull together and move together to make this the great district that it has been known for. At this point, it will be difficult to do, but I would like to think it is not impossible. It will take a great deal of time, I'm sure. I've thought very hard about this particular question posed by casey and I think it's a good question that deserves some reflection. Based on what has transpired still have to go to AME. We didn't KNOW it would be at BB - all of us voters knew we didn't own the land yet. If we had owned the land at BB, and then the property got switched because we found a "sale" on the land at AME, then I would be very uspet with the current location. But that's not what happened. In an effort in "Unity", think about casey's question with what we know NOW and answer accordingly. Good evening. Eb, what tests have been conducted on the AME land to determine that it is, in fact, safe? It is my understanding that the SB has ordered no testing on this land and no independent agency will be doing anything (EPA or other). Am I correct? As for the issue of BB, it was my distinct impression during the referendum process that the SB reassured the voters time and time again that they would get BB. I was doubtful myself (they didn't own it and there was a pending lawsuit), so I paid close attention to their responses. They were so confident they were quite frankly patronizing IMO. I believe they had the same attitude when asked what would happen if the jury price came in too high. I felt that they went out of their way to reassure the voting public that they would in fact get BB (it wasn't a question of if, it was how much and they could afford it). When pressed about Plan B's, it's my recollection they said they didn't have one and didn't need one (not sure how that jives with reports that they had tried to secure the AME land previously). So my question is.....why go to so much trouble to convince the public that NO MATTER WHAT...they were building on BB? Now they're not. Why? These are matters that I am happy will be sorted out in court in an orderly fashion pursuant to the rule of law. I am quite frankly weary of all the finger pointing and blame going around. I look forward to an objective party making an objective decision. Then at that point, hopefully a decision can be made about how to move forward in the best interest of all the kids of the district. At this point, I will be very suspicious of doomsday predictions (I didn't read that into your very thoughtful post BTW). I just think that's what will be coming our way prior to 5/23. My prediction is a ratcheting up on the personal attacks on NSFOC as well as the doomsday prediction there will be no 3rd high school if NSFOC doesn't drop their suit. (sort of like the split shifts, etc. if the referendum doesn't pass). I myself am looking forward to the judge ruling on the many legal issues raised by NSFOC. I think they are valid issues/questions. I'm not going to debate this again. I"ve said as much in my post. I was simply responding to casey's question of "if you had to vote for AME, BB or none, what you you vote?" I gave my answer after much thought. Quite frankly, I'm tired of repeating myself. For me to allow myself to heal, I cannot continue to argue my points. I know where I stand and I know where a few others stand. On some points, we agree and on others we do not. But since this is a Unity post, for any healing to begin, we need to stop the constant arguing of the same issues. At least that's what I'm choosing to do. Perhaps you may not have noticed that I haven't been posting as much. I simply am tired of all of this bickering. It just further increases the divide, IMO. Like when my kids say "He started it", "No, she did", "no YOU did", I usually, say "I don't care who started it, I want you both to STOP it now." This is what I'm doing - stopping. |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 27, 2008 20:26:54 GMT -6
Post by macy on Apr 27, 2008 20:26:54 GMT -6
eb204,
In all fairness, your post was not all about unity.
|
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 27, 2008 20:36:48 GMT -6
Post by snerdley on Apr 27, 2008 20:36:48 GMT -6
Eb, I too am tired of all the arguing. It doesn't accomplish anything and I also have not posted much lately. But I started my response to you with a question about the AME land. If anyone can answer, please do.
I am looking forward to a legal ruling on the questions/matters raised. We can all go back and forth all day and night, but what will really matter is what the judge rules.
|
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 27, 2008 20:49:18 GMT -6
Post by Arch on Apr 27, 2008 20:49:18 GMT -6
Leaving points of contention unsettled and set off to the side does not equal unity.
|
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 27, 2008 21:36:49 GMT -6
Post by fence on Apr 27, 2008 21:36:49 GMT -6
I agree with you, I don't want to debate anything point for point anymore either. This is all tiresome and rehashing the details has become almost irrelevant to the main idea. The only reason the technicalities of whether BB was promised or not matters to me is how the outcome of that realization in court might influence whether or not we remain on the trajectory. For those who say some want BB at all costs, it seems somehow to me now that people want the 3rd HS at all costs. When I say that, I feel like I somehow warped into a time machine and became a CFO person from 2005  But that's really how I'm starting to feel. For those who know my history, this is actually amusing.... So my basic premise is that now that our plan for BB is no longer viable, it would actually be the perfect time to reevaluate our situation. And I base that on the fact that things have changed since the referendum that would influence whether or not we are still on the right path. Like I've said before, we are in the future, and we have been given the chance to see it before we take action. I think that's a pretty good opportunity based on: a) enrollment numbers not realized, declining market, peak happening potentially before the school can be built, living through the worst of it already... b) whether or not, all in, we could get the 3rd HS built for the $ we approved. Because for me, damages from BB in principle must be count towards the nut I voted for. I don't care what the specifics of the balance sheet are. We are accruing cost for the HS that needs to be reconciled somewhere. Taking it out of my pocket and saying "oh, well, that was for operating expenses" is just a complete crock. I mean, seriously, hello governance..... So anyway, about unity, I think that getting hung up on unity implies we had it to begin with. I think a truce was about as good as we ever had. At this point I'd be happy if we settled for cool heads prevailing and worry about world peace later.  I'm not going to debate this again. I"ve said as much in my post. I was simply responding to casey's question of "if you had to vote for AME, BB or none, what you you vote?" I gave my answer after much thought. Quite frankly, I'm tired of repeating myself. For me to allow myself to heal, I cannot continue to argue my points. I know where I stand and I know where a few others stand. On some points, we agree and on others we do not. But since this is a Unity post, for any healing to begin, we need to stop the constant arguing of the same issues. At least that's what I'm choosing to do. Perhaps you may not have noticed that I haven't been posting as much. I simply am tired of all of this bickering. It just further increases the divide, IMO. Like when my kids say "He started it", "No, she did", "no YOU did", I usually, say "I don't care who started it, I want you both to STOP it now." This is what I'm doing - stopping. |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 27, 2008 22:27:12 GMT -6
Post by eb204 on Apr 27, 2008 22:27:12 GMT -6
eb204, In all fairness, your post was not all about unity. Sorry, macy...I guess I'm not up on all the "rules" about posting under a certain topic. Since when does anyone stay on topic every single time? "In all fairness"  WTH? I have seen others "wander" off the subject, but you don't call them out. I was merely reflecting on my own personal journey over the last 2 years. I wasn't arguing any points, just stating how my opinions have come to be. I even stated I didn't want to debate anything, so I was trying to stay on the Unity topic. I now regret having posted my thoughts here, as time and again, they have been picked apart by you and others. So much for trying to extend an olive branch over here. You nearly make it impossible. This is why I don't post much anymore. Many of you have been courteous, even when there isn't agreement. I want to extend a thank you to those who have welcomed different viewpoints and opinions. |
|
But that's really how I'm starting to feel. For those who know my history, this is actually amusing....
WTH? I have seen others "wander" off the subject, but you don't call them out. I was merely reflecting on my own personal journey over the last 2 years. I wasn't arguing any points, just stating how my opinions have come to be. I even stated I didn't want to debate anything, so I was trying to stay on the Unity topic. I now regret having posted my thoughts here, as time and again, they have been picked apart by you and others. So much for trying to extend an olive branch over here. You nearly make it impossible.