|
|
Post by steckdad on Jan 18, 2009 10:29:58 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. no opinion here....this is doing research. several long time, well connected 204 parents post here |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 18, 2009 10:36:47 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. My version with regards to Patterson are documented, and I gave you a link to the PDF where they are. The authors of said document are our school district. The rest are my own opinions about how the whole MV site selection played out and are simply that... opinions. Again, I ask you... where is your documentation supporting any other reason or cause for the Patterson move like you keep alluding to? I provided a District Document stating powerlines and concerns thereof. You said something about a developer making more money.... where's your documentation for this supposed theory you are tossing around? I even tried to 'go with' this theory of yours and I keep finding that homes along powerlines, like those in Ashbury, sell for less than those around the actual school site on the outer edges near 104th where the school actually is located (not paying attention to the township area adjacent to the west)... By that, one could say a developer would make MORE money where the school is if they were homes than if they used land in the center of the subdivision for the homes (near the power lines)... One would think a developer would want to set aside the 'cheaper and less desirable' land for school/park... so even this theory of yours doesn't seem to mesh right. Again, I'm very open to proof that it was what you say it was and not powerlines...but so far you've produced Zippo to support it. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Jan 18, 2009 13:43:25 GMT -6
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. no opinion here....this is doing research. several long time, well connected 204 parents post here It is to a point. Blindly following anyone is never a good idea. That's why second opinions are needed in medicine. There is always a margin of error involved. I am just wondering why you are so resistant to hearing anything about the powerlines factoring into the moving of the Patterson location. Is it possible that your home backs up to powerlines? Just trying to understand why this line of debate continues when documentation has been produced. The district used the powerline concern as a reason to move Patterson. Plain and simple. Whether or not that is the real reason is neither here nor there. It is the reason they used. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 18, 2009 16:05:51 GMT -6
no opinion here....this is doing research. several long time, well connected 204 parents post here It is to a point. Blindly following anyone is never a good idea. That's why second opinions are needed in medicine. There is always a margin of error involved. I am just wondering why you are so resistant to hearing anything about the powerlines factoring into the moving of the Patterson location. Is it possible that your home backs up to powerlines? Just trying to understand why this line of debate continues when documentation has been produced. The district used the powerline concern as a reason to move Patterson. Plain and simple. Whether or not that is the real reason is neither here nor there. It is the reason they used. It was also one of the reasons given for why they did not pick the Eola/Molitor site in 2005 but instead picked the BB as the site for a HS...due in part to any potential health hazards with regards to HV power lines and power substations. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jan 18, 2009 19:22:59 GMT -6
The difference seems to me to have been, in the case of the Patterson site there was an easy fix. The developer wanted the school and the district wanted a changed site, voila!
But in the case of the AME site, the alternative would have to have been a different site that no longer fit their agenda.
They were happy to abandon the MWGen site for the AME, with no discussion of the larger AME price tag. The $$ didn't matter, the move served their intentions and it was done in a blink of an eye.
Seems the regard for the community is never really at the heart of their actions. They listen to the community only when it serves them or they feel forced to as in when a vote is necessary.
The 2005 site selection report was fabricated to appease the far north of the district which was demanding the AME site. The powers knew it wouldn't get the YES vote, so they made up some "out of their control" reasons to reject the site.
So I guess that makes it obvious that it's all a game of chess to them and we're the pawns. This is how politics is played.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jan 18, 2009 19:27:36 GMT -6
The real issue is they will open the school and statistics say there will be students diagnosed with cancer while attending or soon after graduation. How will the district react when a parent says, the school site/HV liines caused this? Will the site selection report be admissable? Will someone argue that they knew of the risks and proceeded anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 18, 2009 20:12:29 GMT -6
The real issue is they will open the school and statistics say there will be students diagnosed with cancer while attending or soon after graduation. How will the district react when a parent says, the school site/HV liines caused this? Will the site selection report be admissable? Will someone argue that they knew of the risks and proceeded anyway? There's ample documentation that they were made aware of the potential risks. We will all pay dearly for any and all judgments against the district. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Jan 18, 2009 20:31:06 GMT -6
The real issue is they will open the school and statistics say there will be students diagnosed with cancer while attending or soon after graduation. How will the district react when a parent says, the school site/HV liines caused this? Will the site selection report be admissable? Will someone argue that they knew of the risks and proceeded anyway? There's ample documentation that they were made aware of the potential risks. We will all pay dearly for any and all judgments against the district. The greatest tragedy is that some innocent family will be dealing with the nightmare of cancer or another equally horrific illness along with self doubt. It makes me so sad. I don't understand this at all. Pro-AME people keep falling back on the "boundary wars" to justify a potentially lethal site. They try to say that the only reason anyone says anything against this toxic wasteland is because they are unhappy with the boundaries. It's a flimsy and desperate argument IMO. There is no fact to that assumption, only speculation. The environmental issues, on the other hand, have much documentation to the contray. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 18, 2009 22:42:30 GMT -6
no opinion here....this is doing research. several long time, well connected 204 parents post here It is to a point. Blindly following anyone is never a good idea. That's why second opinions are needed in medicine. There is always a margin of error involved. I am just wondering why you are so resistant to hearing anything about the powerlines factoring into the moving of the Patterson location. Is it possible that your home backs up to powerlines? Just trying to understand why this line of debate continues when documentation has been produced. The district used the powerline concern as a reason to move Patterson. Plain and simple. Whether or not that is the real reason is neither here nor there. It is the reason they used. I am one of those 20 year - at least somewhat well connected residents- and rews version is exactly how it played out. Did the SB have another motive for moving - now based on past history- I am open to listening to anything as anything is believable - but the power line reason is what was used to justify the move- it's what played out in the papers as well The recent demonization of one land developer by the SB has deeper issues ( call them what you want) and any revisionalism on their part will be remembered by people like those long time residents you mention. Those same power lines came into question then with regards to soccer practice fields and the like...because of the reasoning used to move the school. I follow stories related to power lines for reasons I already stated - |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 18, 2009 22:45:44 GMT -6
The real issue is they will open the school and statistics say there will be students diagnosed with cancer while attending or soon after graduation. How will the district react when a parent says, the school site/HV liines caused this? Will the site selection report be admissable? Will someone argue that they knew of the risks and proceeded anyway? I would say the site selection document of the 20 or so sites originally will be 'exhibit A' not only proceeded, but did so post haste. I sincerely hope it never comes to that and there are zero issues - but common sense tells me otherwise and a reason I made the decisions I made I wish it wasn't true - I spent a lot of time the last 2 days with 5 sets of parents from Middle School ( volleyball ) - and I've got to be honest, I miss them all. Great People. But the risk is more than I can take- and for the record they are all aware of it also - and none is cavalier about the concerns. Regardless of what some want us to believe - people are concerned and are aware, and don't just blow it off. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jan 19, 2009 7:28:17 GMT -6
I don't understand Part 2: the demonetization of PL. Yes I know the SD fought to rein in the development of SW sector and PL won. But it is not like PL was developing "shanty towns" in the SW sector. He developed what I think we can all agree, are upscale communities that brought well educated families, who support the school district.
When the SD needed to fund the referendum campaign (204TK), who footed the bill? Where did they have their organizational meetings?
So I have to say, the enemies they choose are quite baffling to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 19, 2009 7:39:11 GMT -6
I don't understand Part 2: the demonetization of PL. Yes I know the SD fought to rein in the development of SW sector and PL won. But it is not like PL was developing "shanty towns" in the SW sector. He developed what I think we can all agree, are upscale communities that brought well educated families, who support the school district. When the SD needed to fund the referendum campaign (204TK), who footed the bill? Where did they have their organizational meetings? So I have to say, the enemies they choose are quite baffling to me. I don't know the reason only the animosity -- there had to be something that occurred between PL and specific SB members to cause this - but I don't have that answer. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jan 19, 2009 8:13:13 GMT -6
Like you Doc, I was here when the SD was fighting against "new customers". I understood and was living through myself the repercussions of the lightening fast development. White Eagle opened overcrowded...then Owen got built and those kids moved, then Welch got built and those kids moved, then Fry got built and those kids moved. And in the meantime we had no music room, no art room, classes of 32 kids etc.
But look at those schools now, and all the others built recently to handle the growth PL(and plenty of others) brought the district. They are great additions, not stones around the SDs neck. I just don't get it.
Unless, like BB, it reflects E-G-O-s. Persons on the board and admin who can't see the forest from the trees. It's all about them winning, even if that's not what's in the best interest of the district.
I have said this before. I pay a lot of taxes to the district, I have volunteered a lot of time and money to the district. I send them my well behaved, high achieving kids and yet when I go to the SB meetings I am made to feel like the bad guy. I am made to feel unwanted.
Maybe PL and I have something in common??
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 19, 2009 10:06:26 GMT -6
Are these PL customers are the same ones the WV Booster Club President was salivating over to help 'level the playing field' in the funding department between WV and NV?
Maybe PL had to be the 'bad guy' so a long term person on the board could finally 'have her Neuqua'. Who the heck knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by researching on Jan 19, 2009 10:33:08 GMT -6
Like you Doc, I was here when the SD was fighting against "new customers". I understood and was living through myself the repercussions of the lightening fast development. White Eagle opened overcrowded...then Owen got built and those kids moved, then Welch got built and those kids moved, then Fry got built and those kids moved. And in the meantime we had no music room, no art room, classes of 32 kids etc. But look at those schools now, and all the others built recently to handle the growth PL(and plenty of others) brought the district. They are great additions, not stones around the SDs neck. I just don't get it. Unless, like BB, it reflects E-G-O-s. Persons on the board and admin who can't see the forest from the trees. It's all about them winning, even if that's not what's in the best interest of the district. I have said this before. I pay a lot of taxes to the district, I have volunteered a lot of time and money to the district. I send them my well behaved, high achieving kids and yet when I go to the SB meetings I am made to feel like the bad guy. I am made to feel unwanted. Maybe PL and I have something in common?? Absolutely! I feel the exact same way. My family has been through all of those situations (except WE) and was impacted directly by the "crowded" Welch and Fry buildings, not to mention the waaaaaaay overcrowded Scullen. The beauty of it all is that my kids are smart, happy, and emotionally well adjusted kids who have had really good school experiences (with the exception of the last half of 8th grade last year @ Scullen). What I find particularly interesting is that while we proceed with building an astronomically expensive unneeded 3rd high school on a toxic wasteland based on this farce of "severe overcrowding" classrooms sit empty of students across the district. I say empty of students because the district covers this by using the empty classrooms as storage or offices. Sneaky huh? You all have hit the nail on the head when you say this is just about winning to this SB at this point and the egos of it's members will not get these individuals to do what is right for the district at large. Sad, sad, sad. |
|
