|
|
Post by steckmom on May 16, 2008 15:12:37 GMT -6
I appreciate and value your input, Smon. Thanks, Arch. I definitely appreciate and value what you have to say--I always have, even back when I just read here, but didn't post. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 16, 2008 15:30:52 GMT -6
I'm surprised as well by the confidence on both sides of this as well. It is probably due to the fact that this is a very unique situation and opinion on the lawsuit is driven (in my opinion) on perspective. I guess you're right. I feel like I'm somewhat objective in that although I disagree with the lawsuit, at this point I don't care what the outcome actually is. I have a slight preference for seeing it dismissed based on public policy--I think it's a slippery slope. But I'm irritated with the SB and I'm starting to think that long term we'd probably be better off without a third school at all. That and the pipelines.  I am surprised by people now saying that they voted no and now have changed their mind and think we need the school. The quantitative data (enrollment) is less supportive of a 3rd HS now than when we voted in 2006. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 16, 2008 15:59:19 GMT -6
I guess you're right. I feel like I'm somewhat objective in that although I disagree with the lawsuit, at this point I don't care what the outcome actually is. I have a slight preference for seeing it dismissed based on public policy--I think it's a slippery slope. But I'm irritated with the SB and I'm starting to think that long term we'd probably be better off without a third school at all. That and the pipelines. I am surprised by people now saying that they voted no and now have changed their mind and think we need the school. The quantitative data (enrollment) is less supportive of a 3rd HS now than when we voted in 2006. Perhaps not everyone based their yes/no on enrollment. I know, I know.. Captain Obvious flies again! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by rew on May 17, 2008 7:05:35 GMT -6
The ref said 'build a third high school'.
It said nothing about amenities, size etc. So if the SB decided to build a fine arts HS, or a gifted student school, or a school without athletic facilities, or a 1500 student facility...
At what point would the voters be "misled" as opposed to "uninformed"?
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on May 17, 2008 8:57:55 GMT -6
The ref said 'build a third high school'. It said nothing about amenities, size etc. So if the SB decided to build a fine arts HS, or a gifted student school, or a school without athletic facilities, or a 1500 student facility... At what point would the voters be "misled" as opposed to "uninformed"? I think the word "mislead" implies that the information was placed out there to direct you to some specific action and 'misinform" could have been information that was jus out there F.Y.I. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on May 17, 2008 10:24:09 GMT -6
If that's the definition, then the SB did boundaries to direct a vote. Wouldn't we all agree?
The concept of doing boundaries before the vote was precedent setting for the district in 06, not the norm at all, and in direct response to the 05 failed ref. Wouldn't we all agree?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 17, 2008 10:36:33 GMT -6
If that's the definition, then the SB did boundaries to direct a vote. Wouldn't we all agree? The concept of doing boundaries before the vote was precedent setting for the district in 06, not the norm at all, and in direct response to the 05 failed ref. Wouldn't we all agree? Didn't Curt cast a boundary vote 'to get the referendum passed' ? |
|
|
|
Post by rew on May 17, 2008 11:18:56 GMT -6
I wonder if the marketing firm consulted by the SB would have an opinion of what %age of voters were swayed by the boundary info? They did the research, they conducted the survey, and told the SB what was needed to pass the ref, so they must know "what makes a voter vote YES".
Their research/survey, I'm guessing, came up with a result like 32% of no voters said they wanted boundary info before voting yes. Wouldn't that translate to the numbers a judge could look at?
|
|
