MV@BB

[doctorwho]

Jun 13, 2009 19:22:21 GMT -6 southsidesignmaker said:

I voted yes the second time around because of the overcrowding at the middle and high school level. I did not believe we would see the day of 10,400 high school students, but did feel the #'s could be as high as 9400+/-. I never felt BB was "in the bag", but also felt the district did not work hard enough to get the property.

In light of what has gone down in the past two years.. Would I vote the same... I don't know.

I am in agreement with Arch with regard to safety concerns at the locations he noted. Simply put BB was the best location and we lost that location. A location that is still vacant today .

I am glad to hear you say you don't know how you'd vote with what you know now.
Think if you knew not only 10,400 would never happened as you said you had a hunch, but that 9400 would never happen either - and that 8800-8900 was max to- and that only for a few year - with 8200 or so in the foreseeable future - yet that info was withheld from you.


Every time I drive by the BB site ( which is often) - I think of the AME site and shake my head in disgust over the choice ( I have driven by AME exactly twice- once to measure the time /distance for a poster on green and the other time to show a former disbelieving neighbor where the school was at) --If they were going to build a 3rd HS and eventually close another - at least do it with some regard to safety. I also would have vetoed Macom or Hammens - you just do not put people purposely in harms way.


Also please remember - we did NOT lose the right to buy the land- AND if we chose to buy BB and NOT expedite it ( open 2010/11) , seeing as though the supposedly critical need was based on FUD - the cost difference would have been minimal ( <$5M) - which would have been made up for in transportation saved and likely far less change orders --PLUS, the school would have opened for those kids COMPLETE, not missing many components.

The movement to BB had far less to do with $$ than a desire ( agenda ?) to place the school in the far northwestern corner and to try and somehow stick it to the BB attorneys ( whom I agree were no angelic figures either)

[warriordiva]

I voted no both times. I attended a huge high school (there were over 900 kids in my class), and never thought it was an issue. We had (*gasp*) portable classrooms, and remarkably I still did okay and didn't need therapy! We should have added on to NV, built a new middle school or converted Peterson elementary to a middle school (it sat empty for 1 entire school because it wasn't needed and then they closed Wheatland elementary to fill it).

In the city where I grew up, they built a second high school after I graduated, and are now saddled with 2 marginal high schools when they had 1 great high school, because they don't have the resources to fully make each one great. I'm afraid that this is what will happen in 204 - instead of 2 great schools, we will have 3 marginal ones. That is to say, until the SB in their wisdom tells us that the numbers are down, and that we will close Waubonsie (being the older building and lower "performing" school *wink*wink*), and divide the district back into 2 high schools. Waubonsie will be gone (so long wonderful traditions) and everyone will have their "new" building. I give it 5 years.