|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 13, 2007 8:08:02 GMT -6
To add my 2 cents.....
It's a trust/past practices issue. Had they not come out and said they would not seek an increase later, many would have assumed they might, and tied it to the Op Ref in 09. and made it an all or nothing proposal like before.
Also like this last ref which was for BB or nothing else, even though the language had nothing to do with BB....that is the way they "sold" it to the public.
Someone asked for proof the SB made the old ref "all or nothing" blank provided it......thanks blank.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 13, 2007 8:17:16 GMT -6
WVHSPARENT,
How one 'sells' it is and can be different from how one is allowed to vote on it. From a legal perspective, it's was not all or nothing. From an advertising perspective it was.
Interesting how if the SB says something we like, it's Gospel. As soon as they don't they are incompetent.
|
|
|
|
Post by kae on Jul 13, 2007 8:24:00 GMT -6
Kae, let me spell out the speculation. Blank said "You are correct however if the education fund did not pass, they would not proceed with construction (even if that one passed) That is why the campaign was call "Vote Yes - Twice"" It did pass. He speculated that construction would not proceed if it did not. It did pass. So, the speculation was on something that DID NOT HAPPEN in 2001, because the education fund was passed.. and Blank was speculating on if it did not pass. The non-passage IS WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN. You can say his speculation was based on statements from the school board, but it still did not go down in the IF/THEN way because they both passed. Does that clear up the semantics now? This time around, guess what? Construction was passed. Now what is left is the education fund, as we were already told way ahead of time. So how is this like 2001 where they were 'tied together' ? Are you suggesting that construction will wait until 2009 to see if the education fund passes too before starting construction of MVHS? If you are I must admit, you have me baffled. If you are balking at the order of these (construction first, then education fund) would you balk at prematurely voting on the education fund in 2006 with the referendum for construction of a new HS? Perhaps having the education fund vote a few years earlier in say 2005 before the construction vote would have made it 'sit better'? Or, is the truth that no matter HOW these votes happen or in what order people would be upset and complain ? I'm putting my peanuts on the last statement, but please Blankcheck and Kae, answer in which order and when you would have preferred the votes to happen. You complained about blankcheck speculating, when I believe he was only stating what the school board had said would happen if both referenda had not passed (it's in the archive), but now you want me to speculate about some situation that you've made up in your mind? Why would I do that? I've already stated what I think will happen in 2009. |
|
|
|
Post by kae on Jul 13, 2007 8:25:18 GMT -6
WVHSPARENT, How one 'sells' it is and can be different from how one is allowed to vote on it. From a legal perspective, it's was not all or nothing. From an advertising perspective it was. Interesting how if the SB says something we like, it's Gospel. As soon as they don't they are incompetent. It just means you can't believe a word the SB says. They will do what they want, not what they say. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 13, 2007 8:28:31 GMT -6
Kae, let me spell out the speculation. Blank said "You are correct however if the education fund did not pass, they would not proceed with construction (even if that one passed) That is why the campaign was call "Vote Yes - Twice"" It did pass. He speculated that construction would not proceed if it did not. It did pass. So, the speculation was on something that DID NOT HAPPEN in 2001, because the education fund was passed.. and Blank was speculating on if it did not pass. The non-passage IS WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN. You can say his speculation was based on statements from the school board, but it still did not go down in the IF/THEN way because they both passed. Does that clear up the semantics now? This time around, guess what? Construction was passed. Now what is left is the education fund, as we were already told way ahead of time. So how is this like 2001 where they were 'tied together' ? Are you suggesting that construction will wait until 2009 to see if the education fund passes too before starting construction of MVHS? If you are I must admit, you have me baffled. If you are balking at the order of these (construction first, then education fund) would you balk at prematurely voting on the education fund in 2006 with the referendum for construction of a new HS? Perhaps having the education fund vote a few years earlier in say 2005 before the construction vote would have made it 'sit better'? Or, is the truth that no matter HOW these votes happen or in what order people would be upset and complain ? I'm putting my peanuts on the last statement, but please Blankcheck and Kae, answer in which order and when you would have preferred the votes to happen. You complained about blankcheck speculating, when I believe he was only stating what the school board had said would happen if both referenda had not passed (it's in the archive), but now you want me to speculate about some situation that you've made up in your mind? Why would I do that? I've already stated what I think will happen in 2009. I asked how you would prefer it to be with construction and operating fund. I did not ask for you to speculate on how it might be, I asked how *YOU* would like it. If you don't have an answer to that then you answered my previous question and fall into the last category about being upset at anything they do. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 13, 2007 8:29:31 GMT -6
WVHSPARENT, How one 'sells' it is and can be different from how one is allowed to vote on it. From a legal perspective, it's was not all or nothing. From an advertising perspective it was. Interesting how if the SB says something we like, it's Gospel. As soon as they don't they are incompetent. It just means you can't believe a word the SB says. They will do what they want, not what they say. Yet, you believe them when it suits your liking (implying things are tied together)... *THEN* we can believe them.. otherwise, we can't ?? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 13, 2007 8:32:12 GMT -6
Vote yes on tax increase No on bonds things go on without the buildings.
Vote no on tax increase and yes on bonds. SD won't build until money is found for operating it. It doesn't mean the SD would not build, it meant the SD has the money ready to build when they have the funds to operate it.
The tax increase is not tied to the bonds at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 13, 2007 8:34:34 GMT -6
WVHSPARENT, How one 'sells' it is and can be different from how one is allowed to vote on it. From a legal perspective, it's was not all or nothing. From an advertising perspective it was. Interesting how if the SB says something we like, it's Gospel. As soon as they don't they are incompetent. Correct arch. That goes both ways too pro and con....... and I use BB as the prime example (in my case ;D) |
|
|
|
Post by kae on Jul 13, 2007 8:41:34 GMT -6
You complained about blankcheck speculating, when I believe he was only stating what the school board had said would happen if both referenda had not passed (it's in the archive), but now you want me to speculate about some situation that you've made up in your mind? Why would I do that? I've already stated what I think will happen in 2009. I asked how you would prefer it to be with construction and operating fund. I did not ask for you to speculate on how it might be, I asked how *YOU* would like it. If you don't have an answer to that then you answered my previous question and fall into the last category about being upset at anything they do. I don't trust the SB. It appears that they (the SB) will say anything in order to get my vote. Am I upset at anything they do? Well, not every part of anything, but when it comes to construction or education funding I'm skeptical because of their past behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 13, 2007 8:50:45 GMT -6
I asked how you would prefer it to be with construction and operating fund. I did not ask for you to speculate on how it might be, I asked how *YOU* would like it. If you don't have an answer to that then you answered my previous question and fall into the last category about being upset at anything they do. I don't trust the SB. It appears that they (the SB) will say anything in order to get my vote. Am I upset at anything they do? Well, not every part of anything, but when it comes to construction or education funding I'm skeptical because of their past behavior. Are you upset with the finished product and the education that comes from the facilities and the faculty or just the price tag? |
|
|
|
Post by kae on Jul 13, 2007 8:52:05 GMT -6
<snip>... Interesting how if the SB says something we like, it's Gospel. As soon as they don't they are incompetent. Isn't that human behavior? I mean, just look back at all the commentary on this board and the previous boards. The lines of trust are clearly laid. If the source is trusted, it's Gospel truth. Was that rhetorical? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 13, 2007 8:59:19 GMT -6
Doctorwho, Maybe the zing of asking for Additional gym NVHS $1.0M in a total 109.5 million referendum was just way too painful. I mean, .91% of the entire 2001 building referendum must have just sent ripples through the district; the pains of which are still fresh and sore on everyone's tax bill today. I wonder just how much that 1.0 M really added to everyone's tax bill. Maybe 1 cup of coffee, if even? It's the part I don't get. I was here for that also. I am a taxpayer who did not get to use the extra gym at NV -- in the grand scheme of things - so what ? If they scrimp on a school they get criticized , if they overbuild they get criticized -- Is it the same SB that was here for NV - 5/7 of that answer is no. For some the SB will be wrong whatever they do....makes no difference |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 13, 2007 9:00:14 GMT -6
For some the SB will be wrong whatever they do....makes no difference Yup, that part is ringing true loud and clear in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 13, 2007 9:01:43 GMT -6
<snip>... Interesting how if the SB says something we like, it's Gospel. As soon as they don't they are incompetent. Isn't that human behavior? Maybe for some humans. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 13, 2007 9:14:28 GMT -6
Is it the same SB that was here for NV - 5/7 of that answer is no.
Correct
but on the same hand, one of the 2 that were is now Prez.
|
|
