District 204 growth slows

[harry]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

You do not know all the associated costs to say BB costs millions more other than one segment of the multitude of costs that make up the bill to the taxpayer.

I was not around nor did I give a rat's butt about previous spite. I'm sure it happened but that was then, this is now. Just because people acted that way before does not give a blank check for people to act that way again.

If it was wrong then, it is wrong now.

The district needs to provide to the taxpayers the detailed financial differences between BB, Macom and St. John's. Throwing a few numbers around in the paper doesn't cut it.

That is optimism at it's best. The SD will rest on "you voted in SB members to make the best decisions. Your voice does not count"

Time to picket!! ;D

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

You do not know all the associated costs to say BB costs millions more other than one segment of the multitude of costs that make up the bill to the taxpayer.

I was not around nor did I give a rat's butt about previous spite. I'm sure it happened but that was then, this is now. Just because people acted that way before does not give a blank check for people to act that way again.

If it was wrong then, it is wrong now.

The district needs to provide to the taxpayers the detailed financial differences between BB, Macom and St. John's. Throwing a few numbers around in the paper doesn't cut it.

being missed in the article is another very interesting point - land from Calvary ??

1/ If this was to happen BB gets built out and even more growth for 204 to house - and likely will not be trying to sell million dollar homes in a down market 2/ if the land is even cheaper than BB - it keeps the central location and ends the $$ discussion. 3/ would require no boundary changes for HS from BB........ Interesting, would like to hear more

[Arch]

doctorwho said:

doctorwho said:

I was here and yes SOME of it did exist - by small minded people. It is not a majority viewpoint by any stretch, and was not then either.

And now some of the reverse type opinions exist, but they are overlooked and some pretend they don't exist.

btw - it appears the Sun has taken down the 204 blog - it is no longer there -- that is how bad it had gotten. Glad it is gone ! But opened a lot of eyes.

Archives --> sep2007

As Harry (Cubs Harry, not harry here) used to say: Holy Cow!

[Arch]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

You do not know all the associated costs to say BB costs millions more other than one segment of the multitude of costs that make up the bill to the taxpayer.

I was not around nor did I give a rat's butt about previous spite. I'm sure it happened but that was then, this is now. Just because people acted that way before does not give a blank check for people to act that way again.

If it was wrong then, it is wrong now.

The district needs to provide to the taxpayers the detailed financial differences between BB, Macom and St. John's. Throwing a few numbers around in the paper doesn't cut it.

Then why are people throwing just land prices around and acting like that "cuts it" to make the decision to relocate?

[harry]

doctorwho said:

doctorwho said:

I was here and yes SOME of it did exist - by small minded people. It is not a majority viewpoint by any stretch, and was not then either.

And now some of the reverse type opinions exist, but they are overlooked and some pretend they don't exist.

btw - it appears the Sun has taken down the 204 blog - it is no longer there -- that is how bad it had gotten. Glad it is gone ! But opened a lot of eyes.

Yet one more shining example of censorship and big brother watching...that is so wrong

[doctorwho]

archwinsome said:

doctorwho said:

btw - it appears the Sun has taken down the 204 blog - it is no longer there -- that is how bad it had gotten. Glad it is gone ! But opened a lot of eyes.

Archives --> sep2007

As Harry used to say: Holy Cow!

was just informed it was not removed - just moved ...still there in all it's ugliness I guess

[bob]

harry said:

doctorwho said:

btw - it appears the Sun has taken down the 204 blog - it is no longer there -- that is how bad it had gotten. Glad it is gone ! But opened a lot of eyes.

Yet one more shining example of censorship and big brother watching...that is so wrong

Harry, it is the Sun's blog so they could do what they want with it.

[harry]

bob said:

harry said:

Yet one more shining example of censorship and big brother watching...that is so wrong

Harry, it is the Sun's blog so they could do what they want with it.

If it were taken down and not merely moved, it is still censorship no matter who 'owns' it

[Arch]

That's a sad blog. Someone thinks Rupert Murdoch is the second coming.

[lacy]

archwinsome said:

lacy said:

The district needs to provide to the taxpayers the detailed financial differences between BB, Macom and St. John's. Throwing a few numbers around in the paper doesn't cut it.

Then why are people throwing just land prices around and acting like that "cuts it" to make the decision to relocate?

Why are some people throwing around numbers to justify staying at BB?

We need full disclosure so we can see the real differences. I think we're not getting them because they would be shocking.

[Arch]

harry said:

bob said:

Harry, it is the Sun's blog so they could do what they want with it.

If it were taken down and not merely moved, it is still censorship no matter who 'owns' it

If you use their site, you agree to these:

www.suntimes.com/aboutus/terms.static

You've said they can do whatever they want to with your submissions, including not display it at all.

[Arch]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

Then why are people throwing just land prices around and acting like that "cuts it" to make the decision to relocate?

Why are some people throwing around numbers to justify staying at BB?

We need full disclosure so we can see the real differences. I think we're not getting them because they would be shocking.

When you are trying to quantify a moving target (and the costs are a moving target because they are increasing with many variables attached to it) any number you derive will be out of date the minute it hits the paper.

What one has to do in this case if come up with a math model to plug in time frames, features, etc into in order to get a 'best guess'. The other problem with this is more time will be wasted coming up with the formula that everyone accepts. And let's face it, everyone will never accept it.

[bob]

archwinsome said:

That's a sad blog. Someone thinks Rupert Murdoch is the second coming.

Murdoch hasn't owned it, in quite some time.

[Arch]

bob said:

archwinsome said:

That's a sad blog. Someone thinks Rupert Murdoch is the second coming.

Murdoch hasn't owned it, in quite some time.

I'm referring to all of the idolizing and gospel acceptance of the extremist pundits.

Someone either has a few screws loose or is upside down on their house equity which leads back to the first guess.

[warriorpride]

archwinsome said:

lacy said:

Why are some people throwing around numbers to justify staying at BB?

We need full disclosure so we can see the real differences. I think we're not getting them because they would be shocking.

When you are trying to quantify a moving target (and the costs are a moving target because they are increasing with many variables attached to it) any number you derive will be out of date the minute it hits the paper.

What one has to do in this case if come up with a math model to plug in time frames, features, etc into in order to get a 'best guess'. The other problem with this is more time will be wasted coming up with the formula that everyone accepts. And let's face it, everyone will never accept it.

I might be stating the obvious, but my guess is that the people that didn't want BB in the first place or that didn't want the ref. to pass are just finding any possible excuse to change the plans, based on the final cost of BB.