|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 2, 2009 14:52:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Feb 2, 2009 15:44:29 GMT -6
I'm going to start using the term "egregious machinations."
|
|
|
|
Post by sam2 on Feb 2, 2009 16:20:30 GMT -6
Does anyone else find it interesting that when the SB wanted to rule out the current site, they cited the potential risks associated with the power lines, yet once they decided to go ahead, one of the negatives related to the current site was the "perception" of problems related to the power lines. So, when it suits their purpose, perception is enough to reject the site, now, it's only a "disadvantage" related to the site. And then, in January 2008, they get a report that states there is no problem related to the power lines.
I am not able to comment intelligently on the issue of safety related to the power lines. ( that issue has been hotly debated on this board. ) What I do find so objectionable is that the SB could reject the site on safety issues without any study to support their position.
Based upon the points in the Brach response, they apparently used the same methodology when it came to determining the value of the land -- only pick the information that supports their decision. The Daily Herald ran an article while quick take was underway, citing a number of the same points that are made in the Brach response. Simply put, Brach put the district on notice long before the trial, that they had support for their valuation numbers. Why the district refused to believe them is still incomprehensible. Of course at that time, Metzger famously stated that "cost was no object" we have the money....
I understand that there are many opinions about which site would better serve the district, or if any site were even necessary, and I'm not trying to re-ignite those debates. In view of the election, I just want to focus on the way our SB arrived at the decisions that led us to where we are......we need four new faces. I, for one, am unwilling to even consider anyone that the SB thought was acceptable to fill the last vacancy.....we cannot afford anymore people who think like the incumbents....with the possible exception of Vickers.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Feb 2, 2009 16:40:16 GMT -6
What I do find so objectionable is that the SB could reject the site on safety issues without any study to support their position.
-----------------------------------
I would like to hear this from the horses' mouth if it is true.
I have never heard any board member confirm or deny this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 2, 2009 16:49:59 GMT -6
Where I work, we let the data drive us to the conclusions... not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 2, 2009 16:56:33 GMT -6
Where I work, we let the data drive us to the conclusions... not the other way around. data ? Data? we don't need no stinkin' data ? traffic studies / costs how much have we spent how much for expediting 10,400 - 8400 all the same appraisal on a $12M piece of property comparables on property you're going to buy odds of winning a quick take what % of kids ctually live anywhere near your new HS etc etc etc... Data just seems to get in the way here:  |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Feb 2, 2009 23:39:33 GMT -6
Does anyone else find it interesting that when the SB wanted to rule out the current site, they cited the potential risks associated with the power lines, yet once they decided to go ahead, one of the negatives related to the current site was the "perception" of problems related to the power lines. So, when it suits their purpose, perception is enough to reject the site, now, it's only a "disadvantage" related to the site. And then, in January 2008, they get a report that states there is no problem related to the power lines. I am not able to comment intelligently on the issue of safety related to the power lines. ( that issue has been hotly debated on this board. ) What I do find so objectionable is that the SB could reject the site on safety issues without any study to support their position. Based upon the points in the Brach response, they apparently used the same methodology when it came to determining the value of the land -- only pick the information that supports their decision. The Daily Herald ran an article while quick take was underway, citing a number of the same points that are made in the Brach response. Simply put, Brach put the district on notice long before the trial, that they had support for their valuation numbers. Why the district refused to believe them is still incomprehensible. Of course at that time, Metzger famously stated that "cost was no object" we have the money.... I understand that there are many opinions about which site would better serve the district, or if any site were even necessary, and I'm not trying to re-ignite those debates. In view of the election, I just want to focus on the way our SB arrived at the decisions that led us to where we are......we need four new faces. I, for one, am unwilling to even consider anyone that the SB thought was acceptable to fill the last vacancy..... we cannot afford anymore people who think like the incumbents....with the possible exception of Vickers.
I am curious. outside of changing her vote, (pressure from who knows where) What qualities does CV have to keep her on the SB? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 3, 2009 6:31:58 GMT -6
Does anyone else find it interesting that when the SB wanted to rule out the current site, they cited the potential risks associated with the power lines, yet once they decided to go ahead, one of the negatives related to the current site was the "perception" of problems related to the power lines. So, when it suits their purpose, perception is enough to reject the site, now, it's only a "disadvantage" related to the site. And then, in January 2008, they get a report that states there is no problem related to the power lines. I am not able to comment intelligently on the issue of safety related to the power lines. ( that issue has been hotly debated on this board. ) What I do find so objectionable is that the SB could reject the site on safety issues without any study to support their position. Based upon the points in the Brach response, they apparently used the same methodology when it came to determining the value of the land -- only pick the information that supports their decision. The Daily Herald ran an article while quick take was underway, citing a number of the same points that are made in the Brach response. Simply put, Brach put the district on notice long before the trial, that they had support for their valuation numbers. Why the district refused to believe them is still incomprehensible. Of course at that time, Metzger famously stated that "cost was no object" we have the money.... I understand that there are many opinions about which site would better serve the district, or if any site were even necessary, and I'm not trying to re-ignite those debates. In view of the election, I just want to focus on the way our SB arrived at the decisions that led us to where we are......we need four new faces. I, for one, am unwilling to even consider anyone that the SB thought was acceptable to fill the last vacancy..... we cannot afford anymore people who think like the incumbents....with the possible exception of Vickers.
I am curious. outside of changing her vote, (pressure from who knows where) What qualities does CV have to keep her on the SB? Lack of fear to actually dive into real numbers/data. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 3, 2009 7:48:27 GMT -6
Does anyone else find it interesting that when the SB wanted to rule out the current site, they cited the potential risks associated with the power lines, yet once they decided to go ahead, one of the negatives related to the current site was the "perception" of problems related to the power lines. So, when it suits their purpose, perception is enough to reject the site, now, it's only a "disadvantage" related to the site. And then, in January 2008, they get a report that states there is no problem related to the power lines. I am not able to comment intelligently on the issue of safety related to the power lines. ( that issue has been hotly debated on this board. ) What I do find so objectionable is that the SB could reject the site on safety issues without any study to support their position. Based upon the points in the Brach response, they apparently used the same methodology when it came to determining the value of the land -- only pick the information that supports their decision. The Daily Herald ran an article while quick take was underway, citing a number of the same points that are made in the Brach response. Simply put, Brach put the district on notice long before the trial, that they had support for their valuation numbers. Why the district refused to believe them is still incomprehensible. Of course at that time, Metzger famously stated that "cost was no object" we have the money.... I understand that there are many opinions about which site would better serve the district, or if any site were even necessary, and I'm not trying to re-ignite those debates. In view of the election, I just want to focus on the way our SB arrived at the decisions that led us to where we are......we need four new faces. I, for one, am unwilling to even consider anyone that the SB thought was acceptable to fill the last vacancy..... we cannot afford anymore people who think like the incumbents....with the possible exception of Vickers.
I am curious. outside of changing her vote, (pressure from who knows where) What qualities does CV have to keep her on the SB? The only dissenting vote on some of what's gone on Kids in the system who actually are affected by changes being passed - and volunteer in the district before that ( PTA etc.) The only SB member to raise concerns with how we refinanced our debt and really the taxpayers have zero clue exactly what happened there. The only SB member who raised the questions on the attendance projections and need for a 3rd HS - and was totally ignored. Funny because she was involved with the group who did the original 8500-8600 estimates ( how does that est look now ??) - then was mocked by some current SB members for her stance and to continue to 'fear factor' she was tied to the infamous CFO group. She said there was going to be no need for split shifts in 2008 or 2009 - or ever) - also said the 5000+ student high schools in all the presentations were a myth. Who was the only SB member to step up in all the nasty SB meetings and tell speakers to tone down the rhetoric against their neighbors - while others seemed to enjoy some areas being ripped a new one ? The only SB member to run on a platform of 'transparency' with regards to financial dealings and major decisions Please show me where she was wrong on these issues ? I agree as a voice of one, we haven't been able to see what she could accomplish to this point. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Feb 3, 2009 7:52:29 GMT -6
The legal responses make for some interesting reading. I found it particularly interesting the involvement that Senator Linda Holmes had initially in trying to help all sides mediate and come to terms. At one time MM was singing her praises. It's only when the whole QT thing went south that he and many others jumped on the "Senator Holmes is evil" train.
IMO the SB and MM hung Senator Holmes up to dry. She did what she could to make BB work and it just didn't but it certainly wasn't her fault or her lack of trying. Maybe if the SB would have had sense and used legitimate and current appraisals to determine the value of the land and they could have quite being so arrogant in their position of knowing exactly what the land was worth (gee, how'd that work out with the jury's ruling of land value) we wouldn't be sitting in this position.
I would find it very difficult to believe that we can walk away owing nothing. We've held up the BB land for all these years. We have seen the value of the land dramatically increase as well as completely fall flat, we've wasted countless legal hours (there's and ours), we've invested in using lobbyists ($80,000!!), as well as wasted a LOT of everyone's time. Our SD should not get off without owing a thing. Hey maybe the SB will get lucky once again and get a Popejoy-type judge and everything will be honky-doory!
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 3, 2009 7:57:40 GMT -6
...and maybe they'll get a judge who really does value property-owner rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by JB on Feb 3, 2009 8:30:15 GMT -6
I would find it very difficult to believe that we can walk away owing nothing. We've held up the BB land for all these years. We have seen the value of the land dramatically increase as well as completely fall flat, we've wasted countless legal hours (there's and ours), we've invested in using lobbyists ($80,000!!), as well as wasted a LOT of everyone's time. Our SD should not get off without owing a thing. Hey maybe the SB will get lucky once again and get a Popejoy-type judge and everything will be honky-doory! Here's an issue I have of the current admin/SB - they appear to be somewhat cavalier with their use of the legal system. They have almost unlimited funds thanks to the size of our district and the Tort Immunity Fund - which should be used for risk management, not as a shield of invincibility to be used as we bull rush property owners. Maybe this is a question for the candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Feb 3, 2009 8:38:56 GMT -6
I am curious. outside of changing her vote, (pressure from who knows where) What qualities does CV have to keep her on the SB? While I have disagreed with her a majority of the time, I do appreciate her digging into the numbers, and her willingness to stand alone based on her opinion, even when ridiculed by others. If the other 6 had adopted a "Seek First to Understand" approach, I think we could have had more productive discussions. |
|
|
|
Post by sam2 on Feb 3, 2009 10:47:14 GMT -6
What I do find so objectionable is that the SB could reject the site on safety issues without any study to support their position. ----------------------------------- I would like to hear this from the horses' mouth if it is true. I have never heard any board member confirm or deny this. I doubt we will hear this from the horse's mouth directly. However, it is documented that when Midwest Gen was rejected, one of the reasons cited was the "possibility" the the building mightr have to be abandoned due to issues related to the power lines. Rather than take that risk, they rejected the site. That is documented by the SB. After the AME site was selected, a study was done addressing the hazards of EMF at the site. That was Januaury 2008. A copy of the report is attached to either the Brach or the Brodie response that are in the first post on this thread. It may not be directly from the horse's mouth, but the facts are the facts. The statements were made and the study was done. The timing is accurate. If they had data to support the "possibility" of risk at one time, where is it now? Don't you think they would have released it? After all, at that time the agenda was all about getting BB approved. A study would have carried more weight than an opinion -- which is all they offered. Today, we have a January 2008 study that says there is no risk. That's my only point, this SB will say or do most anything to accomplish their objectives -- and we pay for their mistakes. It's time for change. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Feb 3, 2009 11:44:02 GMT -6
What I do find so objectionable is that the SB could reject the site on safety issues without any study to support their position. ----------------------------------- I would like to hear this from the horses' mouth if it is true. I have never heard any board member confirm or deny this. I doubt we will hear this from the horse's mouth directly. However, it is documented that when Midwest Gen was rejected, one of the reasons cited was the "possibility" the the building mightr have to be abandoned due to issues related to the power lines. Rather than take that risk, they rejected the site. That is documented by the SB. After the AME site was selected, a study was done addressing the hazards of EMF at the site. That was Januaury 2008. A copy of the report is attached to either the Brach or the Brodie response that are in the first post on this thread. It may not be directly from the horse's mouth, but the facts are the facts. The statements were made and the study was done. The timing is accurate. If they had data to support the "possibility" of risk at one time, where is it now? Don't you think they would have released it? After all, at that time the agenda was all about getting BB approved. A study would have carried more weight than an opinion -- which is all they offered. Today, we have a January 2008 study that says there is no risk. That's my only point, this SB will say or do most anything to accomplish their objectives -- and we pay for their mistakes. It's time for change. What's that joke about politicians? "How can you tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving."  We need 4 new SB members. (at least then we have the "hope" for change) |
|
