|
|
Post by overtaxed on Sept 4, 2008 11:08:06 GMT -6
let me get this straight. OK to use as ammo against the SB, but not rooting for a decision in favor for BB? I surely am not going to root against our collective selves - I don't think anyone is either - not sure why that would even have been portrayed - but sometimes any shot against some areas seems relevant as far as calling it ammo - was not my word- belonged to another poster elsewhere. I would call it a history of bad data or no data, failures in key items that were targeted to be done and bad decisions - more recently including what certainly appears to be some favoritism or at least some form of indifference to some areas, and dislike for others, up to and including playing area vs area. Not saying there haven't been some good things also- because there have - but they are overshadowed by miscues - and when it bcomes so personal ( both ways ) size=2] it is time for new leadership IMHO.[/size] pick any word that fits that you like...I don't particulary like ammo either.[/quote] that's the quote of the day... |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Sept 4, 2008 17:35:46 GMT -6
let me get this straight. OK to use as ammo against the SB, but not rooting for a decision in favor for BB? My take: Call it what you want.. information, facts, past history, current doings. Calling it 'ammo' makes it sound like there's a war and those that we pin the word ammo onto are 'the enemy'; you know.. those bad guys... Nice PR stunt there. I think it's intentional but it's also 'double speak' because the original poster of it can say "that's not what I meant". Everyone can form their own opinion on that one. Rooting for a decision in favor of the BB estate means you are rooting for a higher tax bill.I'd like to see anyone honestly say they are rooting for that. Mine's high enough, I don't need more on it... but I have a bad feeling it's still coming and will never go down... kind of like sueing yourself? |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Sept 4, 2008 17:37:29 GMT -6
let me get this straight. OK to use as ammo against the SB, but not rooting for a decision in favor for BB? I surely am not going to root against our collective selves - I don't think anyone is either - not sure why that would even have been portrayed - but sometimes any shot against some areas seems relevant as far as calling it ammo - was not my word- belonged to another poster elsewhere. I would call it a history of bad data or no data, failures in key items that were targeted to be done and bad decisions - more recently including what certainly appears to be some favoritism or at least some form of indifference to some areas, and dislike for others, up to and including playing area vs area. Not saying there haven't been some good things also- because there have - but they are overshadowed by miscues - and when it bcomes so personal ( both ways ) it is time for new leadership IMHO. pick any word that fits that you like...I don't particulary like ammo either. gotcha on the "ammo" and I don' think anyone would stand up for the SB on some of the miscues with BB |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Sept 4, 2008 17:49:39 GMT -6
My take: Call it what you want.. information, facts, past history, current doings. Calling it 'ammo' makes it sound like there's a war and those that we pin the word ammo onto are 'the enemy'; you know.. those bad guys... Nice PR stunt there. I think it's intentional but it's also 'double speak' because the original poster of it can say "that's not what I meant". Everyone can form their own opinion on that one. Rooting for a decision in favor of the BB estate means you are rooting for a higher tax bill.I'd like to see anyone honestly say they are rooting for that. Mine's high enough, I don't need more on it... but I have a bad feeling it's still coming and will never go down... kind of like sueing yourself? It after the major change to what was originally told to voters the issue would have been taken back to the voters I would doubt a lawsuit would have ensued. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Sept 4, 2008 18:52:06 GMT -6
My take: Call it what you want.. information, facts, past history, current doings. Calling it 'ammo' makes it sound like there's a war and those that we pin the word ammo onto are 'the enemy'; you know.. those bad guys... Nice PR stunt there. I think it's intentional but it's also 'double speak' because the original poster of it can say "that's not what I meant". Everyone can form their own opinion on that one. Rooting for a decision in favor of the BB estate means you are rooting for a higher tax bill.I'd like to see anyone honestly say they are rooting for that. Mine's high enough, I don't need more on it... but I have a bad feeling it's still coming and will never go down... kind of like sueing yourself? WELL now that is an interesting commentary. When Mr. Quick Take spent his own dough to hire a lobbyist to oppose quick take, he was portrayed as evil incarnate, and was doing us all a huge disservice. NOW via their actions, the school board and administration should be sending him a giant bouquet of flowers for saving them from their own stupidity. That's kinda how I view the lawsuit. Folks were trying to save them from their own stupidity. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Sept 4, 2008 19:55:40 GMT -6
kind of like sueing yourself? It after the major change to what was originally told to voters the issue would have been taken back to the voters I would doubt a lawsuit would have ensued. possibly.....I think nsfoc might had found another angle to force the hand of the SB. but I think the SB knew taking it back to the voters was unnecessary...technically they were right. was it the right thing to do? that's another question.... |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 4, 2008 20:16:19 GMT -6
It after the major change to what was originally told to voters the issue would have been taken back to the voters I would doubt a lawsuit would have ensued. possibly..... I think nsfoc might had found another angle to force the hand of the SB. but I think the SB knew taking it back to the voters was unnecessary...technically they were right. was it the right thing to do? that's another question.... You have my curiosity tweaked... what do you mean by the bolded part? force what in what way? |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Sept 4, 2008 20:44:17 GMT -6
possibly..... I think nsfoc might had found another angle to force the hand of the SB. but I think the SB knew taking it back to the voters was unnecessary...technically they were right. was it the right thing to do? that's another question.... You have my curiosity tweaked... what do you mean by the bolded part? force what in what way? sorry...typing and sending without proofing... forcing the SB to buy BB for starters.... |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 4, 2008 20:51:33 GMT -6
You have my curiosity tweaked... what do you mean by the bolded part? force what in what way? sorry...typing and sending without proofing... forcing the SB to buy BB for starters.... N/P I wasn't sure what you meant... You think nsfoc would have formed to attempt a BB purchase even if the SB took the site back to the voters for a re-vote after the jury verdict/amount was set in 9/07 ? Personally, I don't think they would have formed in the first place had that step been done. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Sept 4, 2008 20:54:28 GMT -6
sorry...typing and sending without proofing... forcing the SB to buy BB for starters.... N/P I wasn't sure what you meant... You think nsfoc would have formed to attempt a BB purchase even if the SB took the site back to the voters for a re-vote after the jury verdict/amount was set in 9/07 ? Personally, I don't think they would have formed in the first place had that step been done. I think it would depend on the outcome of said vote..... |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 4, 2008 21:20:54 GMT -6
N/P I wasn't sure what you meant... You think nsfoc would have formed to attempt a BB purchase even if the SB took the site back to the voters for a re-vote after the jury verdict/amount was set in 9/07 ? Personally, I don't think they would have formed in the first place had that step been done. I think it would depend on the outcome of said vote..... Personally, I don't think a north site would get the votes and I believe statements to that effect were made during some of the early meetings of the 3rd HS 'task force' (for lack of a better name). I'm not sure if a macom land vote to the general public would have passed either but I would make a personal guess that it would get more votes than a north site based on how the population is spread throughout the district. In a macom OR megen/ame showdown to the general population I would put my $$ on macom by a country mile and if that happened I still don't think nsfoc would have formed. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 4, 2008 22:02:51 GMT -6
I think it would depend on the outcome of said vote..... Personally, I don't think a north site would get the votes and I believe statements to that effect were made during some of the early meetings of the 3rd HS 'task force' (for lack of a better name). I'm not sure if a macom land vote to the general public would have passed either but I would make a personal guess that it would get more votes than a north site based on how the population is spread throughout the district. In a macom OR megen/ame showdown to the general population I would put my $$ on macom by a country mile and if that happened I still don't think nsfoc would have formed. As someone who worked on the referendum and passage diligently ( and for many hours each week) for a long time, I can tell you not only was the BB site deemed the best from a safety standpoint, and closest site to the population epienter, it was also determined to be the site that would generate the 25% trunround in yes-no that needed to happen to get the referendum to pass. The research paid for was thorough ( and accurate). From those I know asssociated to nsfoc, I agree with Arch that I do not believe that coalition ( remember this was not one group to start with but 3 or 4 separate ones who united for what they viewed as their cause )- would ever have come to be without the fact that we voted on one property ( yes I read the ballot, but I also heard 3-4 different SB members as well speaking at ES's and telling people the wording didn't need to be on there and couldn' t be because it was too late to change it without delaying the vote while they showed their poster board of the site location ) - we worked diligently to convince people to vote for that site, we put untold hours into the boundaries for that site etc.-- only to be successful in overcoming the 2005 vote and groups working hard to defeat the proposal - only to have the SB spend the money on a different location - with a huge set of issues ( ones they themselves pointed out only a year earlier) - and place a school as far from the population epicenter as possible without placing it in the next county. The bastardization of the electoral system was monumental , but obviously a SB can legally do ANYTHING they like ( which will cause people to think twice before they allocate another dime to them) - ethics be damned. Based on population and voting trends I don't believe there was a snowballs' chance in Hell that site passes - especially adding in the environmental issues/ commute issues / CN-EJE issues ( yes they new this was pending just like the Eola off ramp) - They knew fully well this was true which is why it would never be allowed to go to a vote if they didn't have to. The MACOM site had a different set of challenges to pass- although again I believe with Arch that it would garner more support than the northern site - just based on where it was. Howeer due to the SB roadblock to any deal with MACOM - Lehman would have had to donate the land in order to have enough public pressure to override that and get the school placed there IMHO. There were some things about the MACOM site I didn't like as well ( just like the site we bought) - however I beliee to a lesser degree than what we bought - and especially compared wo what we tried to buy first. |
|
