|
|
Post by lacy on Jan 4, 2008 9:50:45 GMT -6
The fact is that the bridge is a pedestrian bridge. It's built to allow people to walk or ride their bikes across 59. So if it allows students a pathway to the gold campus, the main campus and back and forth to after school activities, then that should be considered. I think unfortunately, some who don't live in the vicinity have tried to frame any discussion of it in a bad light. But it really just is what it is: A pedestrian bridge meant to provide access across 59. And what's across 59? NVHS, the library, and Frontier Park mainly. I don't think it is being built so that people can walk or ride their bikes to McDonald's and Blockbuster. So if people who live in the vicinity want to express their views, then I see no problem with that - that's not a "bad" thing regardless of whether others want to spin it that way. That may have been effective when the bridge didn't exist - but that has changed. Lacy I would be singing the same song if I lived in TG , believe me. I don't disagree with the fact that it is a pedestrian bridge. I am simply stating that your argument for remaining at NVHS is better supported by demonstrating your minimal distance to NVHS and not about a bridge. I will send you a bill for my consulting services.  You can keep your bill. Could it be that you are motivated by making sure TG remains with your area? |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Jan 4, 2008 9:55:35 GMT -6
You can advocate for a pure geographical criteria if you desire. But I believe that is a steep uphill battle district-wide in that it goes COUNTER to decisions very recently made and precendent just established. How recent? Isn't Daeschner determining boundaries? Only precedent he's set is making offhand comments about Rt. 59 that pretty much everyone has chalked up to his inexperience. Which brings me to another question - why go spouting off before you know what you're talking about? That to me is a more worrysome precedent. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jan 4, 2008 10:31:44 GMT -6
The fact is that the bridge is a pedestrian bridge. It's built to allow people to walk or ride their bikes across 59. So if it allows students a pathway to the gold campus, the main campus and back and forth to after school activities, then that should be considered. I think unfortunately, some who don't live in the vicinity have tried to frame any discussion of it in a bad light. But it really just is what it is: A pedestrian bridge meant to provide access across 59. And what's across 59? NVHS, the library, and Frontier Park mainly. I don't think it is being built so that people can walk or ride their bikes to McDonald's and Blockbuster. So if people who live in the vicinity want to express their views, then I see no problem with that - that's not a "bad" thing regardless of whether others want to spin it that way. That may have been effective when the bridge didn't exist - but that has changed. lacy, you are right in your assumptions, however I would challenge you to check with the State standards which probably due to Rt 59, still designate TG to be a bussed area, bridge notwithstanding. In other words I don't think the bridge would convert TG into a walker area in the eyes of the State, and that is what matters. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. Yeah, that's it, let's find some technicality in the way a state law is worded and use that to explain to families/parents why they can't walk to school. That should make them feel a lot better about it. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 4, 2008 10:38:15 GMT -6
lacy, you are right in your assumptions, however I would challenge you to check with the State standards which probably due to Rt 59, still designate TG to be a bussed area, bridge notwithstanding. In other words I don't think the bridge would convert TG into a walker area in the eyes of the State, and that is what matters. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. Yeah, that's it, let's find some technicality in the way a state law is worded and use that to explain to families/parents why they can't walk to school. That should make them feel a lot better about it. You forget, it also has a bit to do with funding. The State kicks in so much for Transportation, based on certain criterea. If it meets said standards then the State kicks in a portion, if not, then the SD is on the hook if it provides bussing. Can also be a tax benefit for families. In that if the State claims they should be bussed, but the family has to provide their own transport, you get to take a deduction for that. I will get that this year as the bus does not come early enough for my son to catch the TCD bus at WVHS, and has to drive himself. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jan 4, 2008 11:15:34 GMT -6
WVHSparent/bob, I'm just curious, do you have the wording or reference (link) to the state wording that we're talking about here? I'd like to see it and I'm sure others would as well.
Also curious, what is a TCD bus?
|
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jan 4, 2008 11:15:43 GMT -6
Lacy I would be singing the same song if I lived in TG , believe me. I don't disagree with the fact that it is a pedestrian bridge. I am simply stating that your argument for remaining at NVHS is better supported by demonstrating your minimal distance to NVHS and not about a bridge. I will send you a bill for my consulting services. You can keep your bill. Could it be that you are motivated by making sure TG remains with your area? No, not a factor when discussing the bridge. There may be other instances where keeping TG and WE together makes sense though. It's not an end-all though in my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 4, 2008 12:59:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jan 4, 2008 19:42:16 GMT -6
Ah thanks, I didn't know that. I didn't know that you got a deduction for self-transportation costs. So if my daugther has choir practice or sports after school, I can write it off?
Probably doesn't matter anyways - with the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) they'll get it in the end anyways (The AMT is actually pretty funny)
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 4, 2008 19:44:41 GMT -6
I thought they just fixed the AMT for this year.....Did they?
|
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Jan 4, 2008 19:54:16 GMT -6
I thought they just fixed the AMT for this year.....Did they? Yes - but I can't remember the details or the article I read didn't include them. But I took it to mean though that lots of people are off the hook. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jan 4, 2008 19:57:06 GMT -6
It's a one year patch - it cost 50 Billion
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Jan 5, 2008 18:21:22 GMT -6
Hey more archives info regarding Mr. Bridge's point. IF 10% or so of FRY are walkers to NV with the bridge, then I absolutely think SB should go to WV if site is north and FRY should stay NV. They have a legit reason, they are walkers. Mr. Bridge is probably in the 10% Curt Bradshaw refers to as walkers. With the bridge under construction it will be interesting to see what tact Alka takes to keep SB at NV. ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=school&action=display&thread=1142368214&page=1I was curious about the bridge and how it impacted Fry becoming walkers. I emailed CB this morning and asked. "With the bridge, all of Fry would not be walkers. The district estimated that, following the State’s guidelines, under 10% of Fry would be walkers to the main building." My question was answered. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Jan 5, 2008 18:24:00 GMT -6
I wonder why Curt specifically references the main building? Probably because the number would be higher if you included the frosh center.
Maybe there is some legal precedent out there to say that the frosh center and main building should be considered one campus to define "walkers."
|
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jan 5, 2008 18:38:51 GMT -6
I wonder why Curt specifically references the main building? Probably because the number would be higher if you included the frosh center. Maybe there is some legal precedent out there to say that the frosh center and main building should be considered one campus to define "walkers." maybe because frosh centers could change (be eliminated) over time whereas a main building would likely not. ... or perhaps because only 25% of the time spent in high school will be a walk to the freshman center and the remaining 3 years requires the longer distance to the main campus. who knows at this point ...any decision will not surprise me. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Jan 5, 2008 18:46:34 GMT -6
Well at this rate the bridge will be finished by the time the new high school opens so it should be considered. Bottom line = Fry has walkers. SB does not.
|
|
