2005

[doctorwho]

Jun 2, 2009 21:12:49 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

Jun 2, 2009 21:01:10 GMT -6 Arch said:

Just to clarify the fact: The district won the condemnation lawsuit and had the right to purchase the land. In the 11th hour they said... Nah. Then went and did a financial deal that will cost us more in the long run than building at BB would have.... and both of which are overbuilds anyway based on bullshit enrollment numbers.

all was good in the world until BB fell through.

Not True @ all.

Some like Chris Vickers were trying to get the word and correct numbers out long before BB fell through. She was mocked by a few of her peers, it's amazing she has continued forward after that. In fact when she repeated what is acknowledged now as 100% fact even by the SB in terms of population #'s in the meeting before we bought the land - she again took crap from Jeannette Clark who was getting her Taj Mahal for her peeps and M2..at the public SB meeting. The powers that be knew the numbers --however suppressed that information. They continued to suppress the information even when they had to file the district financial statements in March 2009 -- however they got out...

Just because there might have been more people happy before BB fell through -( many were only happy because the end of the world scenarios told to them about 10,400 HS students / split shifts etc. were going to be warded off-- too bad all we were told was bullshit) - that doesn't make it all good in the world
It was all a ruse....so it was bad then and it's bad now.


I would be unhappy today also based on what we know ( and knew before we built) - whether the school was on BB or AME. It is an unnecessary burden on all 204 taxpayers that we will be paying for for the next 20 years.

[Arch]

Jun 2, 2009 21:12:49 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

Jun 2, 2009 21:01:10 GMT -6 Arch said:

Just to clarify the fact: The district won the condemnation lawsuit and had the right to purchase the land. In the 11th hour they said... Nah. Then went and did a financial deal that will cost us more in the long run than building at BB would have.... and both of which are overbuilds anyway based on bullshit enrollment numbers.

all was good in the world until BB fell through.

Overbuying capacity there wasn't a smart move either. Putting unwarranted capacity in a less safer location just makes it even more of a stupid dumbass move.

[blankcheck]

Steckdad- all was not good before BB fell through. We never knew how much anything was going to cost building on the BB property. How can you vote for something without knowing how much it will cost? Would you build a house like that? I think not.

They took the failed referendum, added a PR firm, twisted the numbers and finally it passed. Then they screw the voters who said yes by changing the property site? You tell me, do you really think it would have passed if people really knew where the HS would be built?

[steckdad]

Jun 3, 2009 8:06:44 GMT -6 blankcheck said:

Steckdad- all was not good before BB fell through. We never knew how much anything was going to cost building on the BB property. How can you vote for something without knowing how much it will cost? Would you build a house like that? I think not.

They took the failed referendum, added a PR firm, twisted the numbers and finally it passed. Then they screw the voters who said yes by changing the property site? You tell me, do you really think it would have passed if people really knew where the HS would be built?

based on the last election, I would say yes...It would have passed.

[macrockett]

Jun 4, 2009 20:59:41 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

Jun 3, 2009 8:06:44 GMT -6 blankcheck said:

Steckdad- all was not good before BB fell through. We never knew how much anything was going to cost building on the BB property. How can you vote for something without knowing how much it will cost? Would you build a house like that? I think not.

They took the failed referendum, added a PR firm, twisted the numbers and finally it passed. Then they screw the voters who said yes by changing the property site? You tell me, do you really think it would have passed if people really knew where the HS would be built?

based on the last election, I would say yes...It would have passed.

It must be true then.

[doctorwho]

Jun 4, 2009 20:59:41 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

Jun 3, 2009 8:06:44 GMT -6 blankcheck said:

Steckdad- all was not good before BB fell through. We never knew how much anything was going to cost building on the BB property. How can you vote for something without knowing how much it will cost? Would you build a house like that? I think not.

They took the failed referendum, added a PR firm, twisted the numbers and finally it passed. Then they screw the voters who said yes by changing the property site? You tell me, do you really think it would have passed if people really knew where the HS would be built?

based on the last election, I would say yes...It would have passed.

The only problem with that logic is the areas with the 3 highest vote totals FOR the ref- were Watts/White Eagle and TG -- guess what - the AME site loses all of them as put the HS and ALL boundaries back on the table- and many areas with 7% turnout suddenly rise to 2006 levels. and you'd be right back to where the 2005 vote came in.


of course we'll never know because the SB knew better than to take that to the public

[steckdad]

Jun 4, 2009 21:21:01 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Jun 4, 2009 20:59:41 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

based on the last election, I would say yes...It would have passed.

The only problem with that logic is the areas with the 3 highest vote totals FOR the ref- were Watts/White Eagle and TG -- guess what - the AME site loses all of them as put the HS and ALL boundaries back on the table- and many areas with 7% turnout suddenly rise to 2006 levels. and you'd be right back to where the 2005 vote came in.


of course we'll never know because the SB knew better than to take that to the public

the areas getting the (alleged) new school turn out in the biggest numbers....the north would have came out in force IMO

[steckdad]

Jun 4, 2009 21:11:32 GMT -6 macrockett said:

Jun 4, 2009 20:59:41 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

based on the last election, I would say yes...It would have passed.

It must be true then.

well played.

[Arch]

Jun 4, 2009 21:42:53 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

Jun 4, 2009 21:21:01 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

The only problem with that logic is the areas with the 3 highest vote totals FOR the ref- were Watts/White Eagle and TG -- guess what - the AME site loses all of them as put the HS and ALL boundaries back on the table- and many areas with 7% turnout suddenly rise to 2006 levels. and you'd be right back to where the 2005 vote came in.


of course we'll never know because the SB knew better than to take that to the public

the areas getting the (alleged) new school turn out in the biggest numbers....the north would have came out in force IMO

Not for a tax-hike with the economic indicators that existed last year. I'd bet you a nice tasty Churchill or Robusto on that one.

[slp]

Jun 4, 2009 21:42:53 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

Jun 4, 2009 21:21:01 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

The only problem with that logic is the areas with the 3 highest vote totals FOR the ref- were Watts/White Eagle and TG -- guess what - the AME site loses all of them as put the HS and ALL boundaries back on the table- and many areas with 7% turnout suddenly rise to 2006 levels. and you'd be right back to where the 2005 vote came in.


of course we'll never know because the SB knew better than to take that to the public

the areas getting the (alleged) new school turn out in the biggest numbers....the north would have came out in force IMO

But the North DID come out in force to vote against the 3rd high school when they had that chance...remember? And it passed anyway.

[doctorwho]

Jun 5, 2009 5:12:37 GMT -6 slp said:

Jun 4, 2009 21:42:53 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

the areas getting the (alleged) new school turn out in the biggest numbers....the north would have came out in force IMO

But the North DID come out in force to vote against the 3rd high school when they had that chance...remember? And it passed anyway.

Huge No votes from 2 areas - yet lost.....

remember 17% of the kids live in the immediate MV area-- that likely equates to a similar number of parents and voters. It's not the number of voters but those that turn out -- in 2006 the turnout was far more equitable - this time some kept home fearing they might lose what they have...if they actually had to come out to keep what they have-- different story it seems. Sad, but true.

[macrockett]

Jun 5, 2009 7:05:12 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Jun 5, 2009 5:12:37 GMT -6 slp said:

But the North DID come out in force to vote against the 3rd high school when they had that chance...remember? And it passed anyway.

Huge No votes from 2 areas - yet lost.....

remember 17% of the kids live in the immediate MV area-- that likely equates to a similar number of parents and voters. It's not the number of voters but those that turn out -- in 2006 the turnout was far more equitable - this time some kept home fearing they might lose what they have...if they actually had to come out to keep what they have-- different story it seems. Sad, but true.

"Keep what they have," an interesting concept. I have a feeling that is just about as illusory as the $17 million in the MVHS "funding." I estimate that each household will pay out of pocket about $1500 in unnecessary taxes for MV.

That is above and beyond adding on to NV and the MSs as needed. That also doesn't include the additional operation costs of running a third HS nor the additional transportation cost of transporting kids in a boundary area that spans nearly two thirds of the district.

Finally that doesn't include having to consolidate in the near future to get rid of that excess capacity at the HS level that was never needed. The most logical target is NVGoldCampus.

The net effect, other than the unnecessary cost, is we shifted our HS capacity far north when approximate 17% of students live north of liberty, approx 33% live between liberty and 87th st and finally approx 50% live south of 87th st. Oh and where are the available building lots that do exist? I estimate 80% of those are south of 87th street.

[doctorwho]

Jun 5, 2009 7:27:13 GMT -6 macrockett said:

Jun 5, 2009 7:05:12 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Huge No votes from 2 areas - yet lost.....

remember 17% of the kids live in the immediate MV area-- that likely equates to a similar number of parents and voters. It's not the number of voters but those that turn out -- in 2006 the turnout was far more equitable - this time some kept home fearing they might lose what they have...if they actually had to come out to keep what they have-- different story it seems. Sad, but true.

"Keep what they have," an interesting concept. I have a feeling that is just about as illusory as the $17 million in the MVHS "funding." I estimate that each household will pay out of pocket about $1500 in unnecessary taxes for MV.

That is above and beyond adding on to NV and the MSs as needed. That also doesn't include the additional operation costs of running a third HS nor the additional transportation cost of transporting kids in a boundary area that spans nearly two thirds of the district.

Finally that doesn't include having to consolidate in the near future to get rid of that excess capacity at the HS level that was never needed. The most logical target is NVGoldCampus.

The net effect, other than the unnecessary cost, is we shifted our HS capacity far north when approximate 17% of students live north of liberty, approx 33% live between liberty and 87th st and finally approx 50% live south of 87th st. Oh and where are the available building lots that do exist? I estimate 80% of those are south of 87th street.

I really want to see the work behind the $1500/year extra for MV that we don't need. I think that can be a powerful statement to those who decided it was not in their best interest to come out and vote on board members this last time because it didn't affect them.

That is a staggering number....

[gekfromthefarnorth]

Yesterday at 9:59pm, steckdad wrote:

Jun 3, 2009, 9:06am, blankcheck wrote:
Steckdad- all was not good before BB fell through. We never knew how much anything was going to cost building on the BB property. How can you vote for something without knowing how much it will cost? Would you build a house like that? I think not.

They took the failed referendum, added a PR firm, twisted the numbers and finally it passed. Then they screw the voters who said yes by changing the property site? You tell me, do you really think it would have passed if people really knew where the HS would be built?



based on the last election, I would say yes...It would have passed.


It must be true then.

***********************************************

Of course it would have PASSED. Does anyone acknolage that ONLY ONE referindum has not passed in 204. The last operating fund that passed was for $0.90, unheard of. Out west of the fox they were trying to pass a dime and were failing. The SB originally couldn't believe that it had not passed. Truth be known the SB probably didn't need boundaries selected or a site selected to pass it the second time just explain the need.

[macrockett]

Well there's two votes anyway...