|
|
Post by steckdad on Jan 17, 2009 10:21:42 GMT -6
so the districts version was made up then ? - like the original review of the property under MV ? Seems to happen often then - they review land - call it bad or unbuilable - then reverse later when it suits them . Find it hard to believe certain members would do anything like that for PL -- but revisionalism is a trademark Well, if the district document published known false information in order to get a referendum passed and to move the location then I find that yet another reason in the long list to vote out those members that voted in favor of it. It certainly calls into question the 'assurances' about site safety we got from them.[/quot I speaking speaking specifically about the patterson site only...not MV or the site selection process. one line in a document does not sum up the events that occurred back when patterson was moved.
that,s why I was looking for more info.... |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 17, 2009 10:22:12 GMT -6
you are not sure about a developer involved with the moving of the patterson site? You are calling falsehood on the site selection report; a district published document? It was either a reason like they published, or it wasn't (and was a lie). |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jan 17, 2009 10:23:19 GMT -6
you are not sure about a developer involved with the moving of the patterson site? You are calling falsehood on the site selection report; a district published document? that is like saying the HS site was moved because of a court case. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 17, 2009 10:25:29 GMT -6
You are calling falsehood on the site selection report; a district published document? that is like saying the HS site was moved because of a court case. The site was being moved before the court case existed. It was either a reason or it wasn't. If you're saying they published false back-fill information to support picking the BB site, then just say so. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jan 17, 2009 10:30:05 GMT -6
that is like saying the HS site was moved because of a court case. The site was being moved before the court case existed. It was either a reason or it wasn't. If you're saying they published false back-fill information to support picking the BB site, then just say so. ok...exercise in futility over... if you can give me more specifics about the moving of patterson other than 10 words on a report, please do so.... |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jan 17, 2009 10:30:59 GMT -6
that is like saying the HS site was moved because of a court case.
The site was being moved before the court case existed. It was either a reason or it wasn't. If you're saying they published false back-fill information to support picking the BB site, then just say so. the condemnation suit? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 17, 2009 10:40:46 GMT -6
The site was being moved before the court case existed. It was either a reason or it wasn't. If you're saying they published false back-fill information to support picking the BB site, then just say so. the condemnation suit? With regards to that one... Some meeting minutes years ago have board members talking about a site up in the north and how there would be no way to get the district to approve that... does call into question whether or not if it was on the table all along since 2004/2005. Offering a lowball amount on the BB land in the first place also calls into question whether or not they were even serious about obtaining it and did set the stage for a much higher verdict price from the onset to be able to claim "oh whoa-is us, those greedy lawyers... there's no way we can afford that!!!!" and shift everything back to the north...and build an even more expensive HS due to delays...again calling into question motivations and intentions. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 17, 2009 10:41:20 GMT -6
The site was being moved before the court case existed. It was either a reason or it wasn't. If you're saying they published false back-fill information to support picking the BB site, then just say so. ok...exercise in futility over... if you can give me more specifics about the moving of patterson other than 10 words on a report, please do so.... If you can even produce 1 district published document that claims anything to the contrary...... |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jan 17, 2009 11:08:19 GMT -6
Steckdad, I lived here when the Patterson school uproar occurred. I was not intimately invovled because it was not my neighborhood that was impacted, but I do recall LTEs and parents showing up at SB meetings to voice opposition specificaly about the power lines.
I can't give you "specifics", but I can tell you that I saw it as a "power line issue".
And let me add, that at that time there was a lot of jockeying for new schools. Subdivisions were lining up to get "their" school next on the construction timeline.
I do recall White Eagle neighbors trying to use the power line snafu as a reason to try to get the district to table the Ashbury school and start building White Eagle's school first.
So while I didn't attend the meetings and hear the arguments, I was following the events from a distance and hearing the fallout constantly from those invovled in my neighborhood with the SD at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by researching on Jan 17, 2009 13:12:09 GMT -6
The site was being moved before the court case existed. It was either a reason or it wasn't. If you're saying they published false back-fill information to support picking the BB site, then just say so. ok...exercise in futility over... if you can give me more specifics about the moving of patterson other than 10 words on a report, please do so.... 10 more words than you have produced. If you are truly interested in anything other than hearsay then do the research like many others have. If not, your opinion appears to be baseless. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 17, 2009 20:51:58 GMT -6
ok...exercise in futility over... if you can give me more specifics about the moving of patterson other than 10 words on a report, please do so.... 10 more words than you have produced. If you are truly interested in anything other than hearsay then do the research like many others have. If not, your opinion appears to be baseless. SD- you seem to be insinuating that somehow those of us who lived here remember everything wrong ? I too was here at that time and ABSOLUTELY there was uproar over the power lines- - as well as the aforementioned jockeying for who gets the next school. How we ended up with Owen that has never been over 60% capacity since being built - there are plenty more than 10 words the district produced on the site we're on now- just 2 years prior - that doesn't have any meaning either ? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 17, 2009 20:53:21 GMT -6
so the districts version was made up then ? - like the original review of the property under MV ? Seems to happen often then - they review land - call it bad or unbuilable - then reverse later when it suits them . Find it hard to believe certain members would do anything like that for PL -- but revisionalism is a trademark Well, if the district document published known false information in order to get a referendum passed and to move the location then I find that yet another reason in the long list to vote out those members that voted in favor of it. It certainly calls into question the 'assurances' about site safety we got from them.[/quot I speaking speaking specifically about the patterson site only...not MV or the site selection process. one line in a document does not sum up the events that occurred back when patterson was moved.
that,s why I was looking for more info....I'm working on getting you the info you seek on Patterson - give me a little time. You'll see those of us who have been here that long and a lot longer haven't lost our minds on what we remember. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jan 17, 2009 21:34:40 GMT -6
And, for completeness sake, I will add that there was controversy and disagreement about what risks the power lines represented. Just like now there were folks who expressed concern and some who didn't think it was relevant.
But at the time the SDs attitude was "why take the risk?" I think that same attitude was reflected in the site selection report.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jan 18, 2009 10:27:56 GMT -6
With regards to that one... Some meeting minutes years ago have board members talking about a site up in the north and how there would be no way to get the district to approve that... does call into question whether or not if it was on the table all along since 2004/2005. Offering a lowball amount on the BB land in the first place also calls into question whether or not they were even serious about obtaining it and did set the stage for a much higher verdict price from the onset to be able to claim "oh whoa-is us, those greedy lawyers... there's no way we can afford that!!!!" and shift everything back to the north...and build an even more expensive HS due to delays...again calling into question motivations and intentions. this is exactly what I am getting at. is your version of the story presently documented somewhere? probably not. conspiracy theories and what not run rampant here. I was just looking for someone to share the other side of the story. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jan 18, 2009 10:28:24 GMT -6
Steckdad, I lived here when the Patterson school uproar occurred. I was not intimately invovled because it was not my neighborhood that was impacted, but I do recall LTEs and parents showing up at SB meetings to voice opposition specificaly about the power lines. I can't give you "specifics", but I can tell you that I saw it as a "power line issue". And let me add, that at that time there was a lot of jockeying for new schools. Subdivisions were lining up to get "their" school next on the construction timeline. I do recall White Eagle neighbors trying to use the power line snafu as a reason to try to get the district to table the Ashbury school and start building White Eagle's school first. So while I didn't attend the meetings and hear the arguments, I was following the events from a distance and hearing the fallout constantly from those invovled in my neighborhood with the SD at the time. thanks rew |
|
