|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Oct 23, 2008 17:18:42 GMT -6
Leave the third and fourth quarter statements unopened. Look at zillow now, just don't look in months to come. Again nice graphics guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Oct 23, 2008 20:20:34 GMT -6
Arch, Where were you a couple hours ago when I made my satire debut (very short lived) Your concern is probably one of the bigger pieces as the concerns to the north rage. Any more data on the systems to keep us all safe and sound. I've been waiting since June to hear anything from the SB/Admin on the topic. When I hear from them, you'll know. In the meantime, research and data gathering continues... but D204 leaders are not concerned about it (unless silence = concern), so I won't waste any more of their time with it. I've made enough inquiries and explicitly stated why; with supporting documentation and real-world citations. One thing is for certain, the ignorance card can not be played. Outside of the age of the pipelines(again how old and where can this data be retrieved?), what data have you gathered about our pipelines? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 23, 2008 20:34:21 GMT -6
I've been waiting since June to hear anything from the SB/Admin on the topic. When I hear from them, you'll know. In the meantime, research and data gathering continues... but D204 leaders are not concerned about it (unless silence = concern), so I won't waste any more of their time with it. I've made enough inquiries and explicitly stated why; with supporting documentation and real-world citations. One thing is for certain, the ignorance card can not be played. Outside of the age of the pipelines(again how old and where can this data be retrieved?), what data have you gathered about our pipelines? Kinder Morgan's report/letter to the District was the source for the age of those pipes. I would accept that as fact or if an error, to be understated. Usually a company doesn't say something in service is older than it is. Other data includes causation information from NTSB reports and data about prior failures and why they failed as well as ages of those pipes, size, pressure and results of the product release (damage, distances, heat temperatures, etc). Included in those reports are also inspection information and how they were considered 'safe' at the time. Toss in some data from the department of the Navy (there's one out of left field) and other relative information from PHMSA, FEMA and DHS and an unmentioned state agency and call it a bank shot. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Oct 23, 2008 20:38:55 GMT -6
Outside of the age of the pipelines(again how old and where can this data be retrieved?), what data have you gathered about our pipelines? Kinder Morgan's report/letter to the District was the source for the age of those pipes. I would accept that as fact or if an error, to be understated. Usually a company doesn't say something in service is older than it is. Other data includes causation information from NTSB reports and data about prior failures and why they failed as well as ages of those pipes, size, pressure and results of the product release (damage, distances, heat temperatures, etc). Included in those reports are also inspection information and how they were considered 'safe' at the time. Toss in some data from the department of the Navy (there's one out of left field) and other relative information from PHMSA, FEMA and DHS and an unmentioned state agency and call it a bank shot. maybe I wasn't clear...other than age, what do we specifically know about the pipes on the eola property? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 23, 2008 20:40:20 GMT -6
Kinder Morgan's report/letter to the District was the source for the age of those pipes. I would accept that as fact or if an error, to be understated. Usually a company doesn't say something in service is older than it is. Other data includes causation information from NTSB reports and data about prior failures and why they failed as well as ages of those pipes, size, pressure and results of the product release (damage, distances, heat temperatures, etc). Included in those reports are also inspection information and how they were considered 'safe' at the time. Toss in some data from the department of the Navy (there's one out of left field) and other relative information from PHMSA, FEMA and DHS and an unmentioned state agency and call it a bank shot. maybe I wasn't clear...other than age, what do we specifically know about the pipes on the eola property? That is the 24 million dollar question, now isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Oct 23, 2008 20:41:25 GMT -6
maybe I wasn't clear...other than age, what do we specifically know about the pipes on the eola property? That is the 24 million dollar question, now isn't it? Nothing? |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Oct 23, 2008 20:44:42 GMT -6
maybe I wasn't clear...other than age, what do we specifically know about the pipes on the eola property? That is the 24 million dollar question, now isn't it? so what is the policy at kinder morgan regarding replacement of the pipes? replace after they explode? What kind of maintenance/monitoring do they do on the pipelines? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 23, 2008 20:45:21 GMT -6
That is the 24 million dollar question, now isn't it? Nothing? There's definitely more than nothing out there to find. What has the district disclosed since this Spring, if anything? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 23, 2008 20:46:10 GMT -6
maybe I wasn't clear...other than age, what do we specifically know about the pipes on the eola property? That is the 24 million dollar question, now isn't it? actually it's the $124 million dollar question  |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 23, 2008 20:46:50 GMT -6
That is the 24 million dollar question, now isn't it? so what is the policy at kinder morgan regarding replacement of the pipes? replace after they explode? What kind of maintenance/monitoring do they do on the pipelines? You can search for their citations on the federal sites. I've noted a few on here in other threads. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Nov 1, 2008 9:39:15 GMT -6
Arch,
Sorry to get back to you a week later on the issue of "what side" the district takes on commercial real estate issues. I am going to assume by the tone of the last board meeting and the interest and questioning by a board member, that the district represents it's interests in these tax issues.
Of course I am no lawyer and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Nov 1, 2008 12:13:40 GMT -6
Arch, Sorry to get back to you a week later on the issue of "what side" the district takes on commercial real estate issues. I am going to assume by the tone of the last board meeting and the interest and questioning by a board member, that the district represents it's interests in these tax issues. Of course I am no lawyer and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night. 'Their' interest is simply getting the tax money they levy. The source matters not (residential or commercial) as it spends the same. So, really... which side are they on? The business's (to reduce their share) or the resident's (to reduce their share).... or neither... just as long as they (the district) gets their share.. ? |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Nov 1, 2008 12:18:59 GMT -6
Arch, I am going to go out on a limb (hope you don't have a sharp saw), and assume the board is looking to keep commercial assessments above what the commercial owners would be fighting for. I.E. the district would be looking after it's own interests when commercial owners were trying to lower their assessments.
|
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on Nov 1, 2008 18:55:54 GMT -6
Back to the topic, the district has a policy in place about split school exceptions. A family who had a legitimate claim that their student be kept at a school based on policy could claim that the district violated their policy by making an exception. Being on different sports teams is not a hardship; it is an unfortunate turn of events and placing the students together violates policy that is in place. It's tough luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Nov 1, 2008 20:10:11 GMT -6
Back to the topic, the district has a policy in place about split school exceptions. A family who had a legitimate claim that their student be kept at a school based on policy could claim that the district violated their policy by making an exception. Being on different sports teams is not a hardship; it is an unfortunate turn of events and placing the students together violates policy that is in place. It's tough luck. I have a tough time viewing something completely under district control as tough luck. Is it tough luck I guess for the poor kids who will have NO varisty sports next year, and those that will spend well over an hour a day on the bus every day- and those whose parents will have to chose what school event they attend - while the other kid gets no one ? The last I checked policy's were guidelines. If the policy is not providing the best for all the people in the district it needs to be changed. Crappy leadership hides behind policy -whether it be management at corporations and banks that now have to be bailed out - or school admin, strong leadership steps up and makes necessary changes. It takes effort to make things right and keep them that way. An unfortunate turn of events, is the whole scenario in 204 over the last 18-24 months |
|
