|
|
Post by movingforward on Aug 20, 2007 21:39:01 GMT -6
Wow! What a discussion! Unfortunately not new... Lacy, I think you are absolutely correct in saying that the community did NOT vote on BB. They voted for a 3rd high school. However, they really voted for the boundaries. If the community REALLY just wanted a 3rd high school they would have been screaming for a plan B long ago. I am personally open to ANY alternate location. I am also totally opposed to over spending (by at least double IMO) for BB. Therefore, I am vocally opposed to QT. Unfortunately, it is BB at all costs and always has been. justme, I too would be open to an alternate location if it could produce an opening any sooner than BB. I just don't see any other alternative at this point that could do that. We can all bicker back and forth about the past and what decisions should and should not have been made, but it is a waste of energy IMO. What we need to focus on now is getting our kids into better learning environments; less crowded middle and high schools. Like Momto4 said, we all win with 3 high schools and I for one am sick of the self-serving motivations of some who &*%ch and moan at every turn because they didn't get what they wanted. They would love nothing more than to see BB fall through (even if it means years added to an opening of a 3rd hs) because it means they have a chance to stay at their prescious NVHS! ok, I said it! We all need to get over which building our kids attend and get this darned building built. I am modifying since reading Harry's posts; IMO Macom is out of the question. I had hoped it would work but as a parent was totally turned off by the Comm ED substation. I don't think any of us would want children attending classes next to that or the railroad tracks. Your thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 20, 2007 21:41:49 GMT -6
Wow! What a discussion! Unfortunately not new... Lacy, I think you are absolutely correct in saying that the community did NOT vote on BB. They voted for a 3rd high school. However, they really voted for the boundaries. If the community REALLY just wanted a 3rd high school they would have been screaming for a plan B long ago. I am personally open to ANY alternate location. I am also totally opposed to over spending (by at least double IMO) for BB. Therefore, I am vocally opposed to QT. Unfortunately, it is BB at all costs and always has been. Justme ...very accurately and succinctly put... However, people who voted for boundaries made an error as boundaries were not on the ballot and neither was BB . Both can and at this point have a big possibility of being changed. If the SB doesn't look for a new locale now, and they feel that they can 'wait' until 2010/11 for a MV soft open, ,,,,then truly it points to the fact that there is no over crowding and we can make do. Otherwise, we would be hearing about Plan B and see trailers ordered and MS overcrowding addressed. The SB has, again, led us astray and let us down...End of story Of course.... and if the SB orders the trailers and we end up not needing them because the school opens in 2009 - then they will once again let us down by shirking their fiduciary responbsibilities...... Those who voted with the boundaries and BB as part of their decision also voted for a 3rd HS first and foremost, so not sure how they erred. The boundaries and BB served to get people to the polls. and once again I ask the same question -- what property do you recommend ? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 20, 2007 21:45:24 GMT -6
As far as the spending - what property is going to be acquired at this point in time for anywhere near the $257K riding on BB ( due mainly to the reference date) and that total for the 80 acres ? We keep hearing about plan B however we have been over the list of available properties, again in the last few days, including the other top sites that also were not available for sale -- where is plan B supposed to be ? If there was a plan B available at a cost similar to the bid on BB I do believe you would have heard more firestorm for it -- however that low cost - land available option does not exist. That size parcel in this district isn't exactly plentiful. 257 is pie in the sky.. The SB already said that they have latitude to pay more so GET OFF YOUR DUFFS AND DO IT FGS!!!! Macom and up North is what I have heard so far. Since both properties are as ready as BB, then we are starting at square one for all. Blank or get off the pot (SB) already.!!! ARGH what North side property is that ? And Macom is also significantly higher than $257 - or is that OK because it is not BB ? Yes, the SB was up front and said they had room built into the referendum to go higher on BB -- so how exactly do you want them to proceed to get the deal done ? Do you have a magic bullet that makes the BB estate close the deal ? And if I get a choice between north side and MACOM, it would be north side without question.... if we had to leave BB WVP -- you can thank me any time ;D |
|
|
|
Post by harry on Aug 20, 2007 21:51:17 GMT -6
Justme ...very accurately and succinctly put... However, people who voted for boundaries made an error as boundaries were not on the ballot and neither was BB . Both can and at this point have a big possibility of being changed. If the SB doesn't look for a new locale now, and they feel that they can 'wait' until 2010/11 for a MV soft open, ,,,,then truly it points to the fact that there is no over crowding and we can make do. Otherwise, we would be hearing about Plan B and see trailers ordered and MS overcrowding addressed. The SB has, again, led us astray and let us down...End of story Of course.... and if the SB orders the trailers and we end up not needing them because the school opens in 2009 - then they will once again let us down by shirking their fiduciary responbsibilities...... Those who voted with the boundaries and BB as part of their decision also voted for a 3rd HS first and foremost, so not sure how they erred. The boundaries and BB served to get people to the polls. and once again I ask the same question -- what property do you recommend ? trailers $150.000 each trail lawyer fees thus far?  ? I would venture to say that we could have had 10 trailers in use for said fees.. Of course, just a guess and still no land in site and I repeat Church land and Macom Since you are in favor of a 3rd hs and happy @ WV, please come up with additional lands that we can bring to the SB for another look/see pps I know it is in the archives...but does anyone recall how many acres WV and NV are built on?? IIRC it issignificantly less than 80 acres If that is in fact true, then it might open up new land offerings. Again,,,,more ideas thrown out here than at the SB pow wows. |
|
|
|
Post by harry on Aug 20, 2007 21:55:13 GMT -6
257 is pie in the sky.. The SB already said that they have latitude to pay more so GET OFF YOUR DUFFS AND DO IT FGS!!!! Macom and up North is what I have heard so far. Since both properties are as ready as BB, then we are starting at square one for all. Blank or get off the pot (SB) already.!!! ARGH what North side property is that ? And Macom is also significantly higher than $257 - or is that OK because it is not BB ? Yes, the SB was up front and said they had room built into the referendum to go higher on BB -- so how exactly do you want them to proceed to get the deal done ? Do you have a magic bullet that makes the BB estate close the deal ? And if I get a choice between north side and MACOM, it would be north side without question.... if we had to leave BB WVP -- you can thank me any time ;D I want them to be fiscally responsible with our tax $$$$ Find a new location now that is NOT $565.0/acre and a parcel that can be dug into this Fall Surely you can think of land that meets this critieria Dr W or is it BB at all costs to you as well?? |
|
|
|
Post by movingforward on Aug 20, 2007 21:57:38 GMT -6
Of course.... and if the SB orders the trailers and we end up not needing them because the school opens in 2009 - then they will once again let us down by shirking their fiduciary responbsibilities...... Those who voted with the boundaries and BB as part of their decision also voted for a 3rd HS first and foremost, so not sure how they erred. The boundaries and BB served to get people to the polls. and once again I ask the same question -- what property do you recommend ? trailers $150.000 each trail lawyer fees thus far? ? I would venture to say that we could have had 10 trailers in use for said fees.. Of course, just a guess and still no land in site and I repeat Church land and Macom Since you are in favor of a 3rd hs and happy @ WV, please come up with additional lands that we can bring to the SB for another look/see pps I know it is in the archives...but does anyone recall how many acres WV and NV are built on?? IIRC it issignificantly less than 80 acres If that is in fact true, then it might open up new land offerings. Again,,,,more ideas thrown out here than at the SB pow wows. And I repeat....Macom is out of the question.....It is not an acceptable location to educate our kids.... Do some homework Harry and find us some land!!! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 20, 2007 21:58:46 GMT -6
Of course.... and if the SB orders the trailers and we end up not needing them because the school opens in 2009 - then they will once again let us down by shirking their fiduciary responbsibilities...... Those who voted with the boundaries and BB as part of their decision also voted for a 3rd HS first and foremost, so not sure how they erred. The boundaries and BB served to get people to the polls. and once again I ask the same question -- what property do you recommend ? trailers $150.000 each trail lawyer fees thus far? ? I would venture to say that we could have had 10 trailers in use for said fees.. Of course, just a guess and still no land in site and I repeat Church land and Macom Since you are in favor of a 3rd hs and happy @ WV, please come up with additional lands that we can bring to the SB for another look/see pps I know it is in the archives...but does anyone recall how many acres WV and NV are built on?? IIRC it issignificantly less than 80 acres If that is in fact true, then it might open up new land offerings. Again,,,,more ideas thrown out here than at the SB pow wows. You mean the church that has told us repeatedly they will not sell ? I am not looking for additional lands as I do not see them and am happy with the BB choice -- you keep arguing for a 2nd site - you come up with the plan. As for MACOM why is it OK to pay them far more and for all the issues with that property ? With what has gone on with that property I wouldn't want to see a dime go to them. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 20, 2007 22:02:07 GMT -6
what North side property is that ? And Macom is also significantly higher than $257 - or is that OK because it is not BB ? Yes, the SB was up front and said they had room built into the referendum to go higher on BB -- so how exactly do you want them to proceed to get the deal done ? Do you have a magic bullet that makes the BB estate close the deal ? And if I get a choice between north side and MACOM, it would be north side without question.... if we had to leave BB WVP -- you can thank me any time ;D I want them to be fiscally responsible with our tax $$$$ Find a new location now that is NOT $565.0/acre and a parcel that can be dug into this Fall Surely you can think of land that meets this critieria Dr W or is it BB at all costs to you as well?? BB is the best centrally located site to me period. It is not at all costs but I do not see a better alternative, if one ever appears I would consider it for it's merits at that time. The available properties were all listed 2 years ago - the homework has already been done - an acceptable one does not exist - so unless you can create one or come up with another solution I see no point to the discourse |
|
|
|
Post by harry on Aug 20, 2007 22:02:48 GMT -6
trailers $150.000 each trail lawyer fees thus far? ? I would venture to say that we could have had 10 trailers in use for said fees.. Of course, just a guess and still no land in site and I repeat Church land and Macom Since you are in favor of a 3rd hs and happy @ WV, please come up with additional lands that we can bring to the SB for another look/see pps I know it is in the archives...but does anyone recall how many acres WV and NV are built on?? IIRC it issignificantly less than 80 acres If that is in fact true, then it might open up new land offerings. Again,,,,more ideas thrown out here than at the SB pow wows. And I repeat....Macom is out of the question.....It is not an acceptable location to educate our kids.... Do some homework Harry and find us some land!!! ;D Macom is out of the question for you...you are entitled to your opinion I am not a SB member cause if I were, I would CERTAINLY have had plans in place for a 2nd or 3rd location for a HS and I would have plans to relieve the overcrowding TODAY But I think that the SB knows that there is just a few crowded years that the SD will have to gut out and deal with and then, no overcrowding OTHERWISE,,,,we would see progress |
|
|
|
Post by movingforward on Aug 20, 2007 22:07:57 GMT -6
And I repeat....Macom is out of the question.....It is not an acceptable location to educate our kids.... Do some homework Harry and find us some land!!! ;D Macom is out of the question for you...you are entitled to your opinion I am not a SB member cause if I were, I would CERTAINLY have had plans in place for a 2nd or 3rd location for a HS and I would have plans to relieve the overcrowding TODAY But I think that the SB knows that there is just a few crowded years that the SD will have to gut out and deal with and then, no overcrowding OTHERWISE,,,,we would see progress Yes, I am entitled to an opinion on Macom, and parent to parent I would urge you to look into the safety issues with that property before you jump on the 'at least it ain't BB' bandwagon. Regarding handling the overcrowding today...this is where we owe our thanks to the teachers/principals for working well with what they have been dealt. The way they have adjusted to help our kids is remarkable. Not a long term solution, but a testament to their love of teaching and making the best of a situation they have no control over. Regarding alternatives...How do you know that the SB doesn't have a plan B /alternative. I think it was 'justme' that said none of these discussions are new...we have gone through all of this. If the SB disclosed Plan B it jeopardizes Plan A and possibly undermines their future negotiations with Plan B as well. With that, I must sleep. Good Debates and Good Nite!! Harry aren't you supposed to be working? |
|
|
|
Post by harry on Aug 20, 2007 22:09:37 GMT -6
Macom is out of the question for you...you are entitled to your opinion I am not a SB member cause if I were, I would CERTAINLY have had plans in place for a 2nd or 3rd location for a HS and I would have plans to relieve the overcrowding TODAY But I think that the SB knows that there is just a few crowded years that the SD will have to gut out and deal with and then, no overcrowding OTHERWISE,,,,we would see progress Yes, I am entitled to an opinion on Macom, and parent to parent I would urge you to look into the safety issues with that property before you jump on the 'at least it ain't BB' bandwagon. How do you know that the SB doesn't have a plan B and altenative. I think it was justme that said none of these discussions are new...we have gone through all of this. If the SB disclosed Plan B it jeopardizes Plan A and possibly undermines their future negotiations with Plan B as well. With that, I must sleep. Good Debates and Good Nite!! Yes it is shut eye time but understand that PLAN A IS IN JEOPARDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW WHAT??? |
|
|
|
Post by movingforward on Aug 20, 2007 22:21:17 GMT -6
Yes, I am entitled to an opinion on Macom, and parent to parent I would urge you to look into the safety issues with that property before you jump on the 'at least it ain't BB' bandwagon. How do you know that the SB doesn't have a plan B and altenative. I think it was justme that said none of these discussions are new...we have gone through all of this. If the SB disclosed Plan B it jeopardizes Plan A and possibly undermines their future negotiations with Plan B as well. With that, I must sleep. Good Debates and Good Nite!! Yes it is shut eye time but understand that PLAN A IS IN JEOPARDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW WHAT??? ok, one last reply! Now I look like my son ; addicted to his computer game! I don't feel at this point that Plan A is in jeopardy. This is where our opinions differ. I think once the SD gets into court we will be better able to assess whether or not the Plan is in jeopardy or not. Until that point any talk is simply speculation. The BB lawyers love this speculation; we are feeding right into them if we bail now. That is what they are hoping for when they speak to the media as they did yesterday/day before?? I am open to alternatives if once the court system has this case it appears that it will be dragged on indefinitely. (Lets hope a Judge will not allow that.) Until then, bailing at this point is premature IMO. Good Nite!!! |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Aug 20, 2007 22:44:13 GMT -6
It is very interesting how some have chosen to read malice into a simple question.
Let's face it, there are many agendas at play in our SD:
those who want less crowding in the schools for the good of all
those who would not vote for a school until they knew boundaries
those who would not vote for a school once they knew boundaries
those who still don't believe a school is needed and other buildings could be used to provide classrooms temporarily until the bubble passes
those who believe the BB property is desired so WV can be closed sometime in the future
those who want a school but don't want BB to profit from this venture
those who think another location is more fair to residents who haven't had the benefit of a new school but bear the tax burden
and the list goes on.....
So don't hate me because I'm curious about agendas. Like I said, I am the proud parent of a WV grad.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Aug 20, 2007 22:51:48 GMT -6
Yes, I am entitled to an opinion on Macom, and parent to parent I would urge you to look into the safety issues with that property before you jump on the 'at least it ain't BB' bandwagon. How do you know that the SB doesn't have a plan B and altenative. I think it was justme that said none of these discussions are new...we have gone through all of this. If the SB disclosed Plan B it jeopardizes Plan A and possibly undermines their future negotiations with Plan B as well. With that, I must sleep. Good Debates and Good Nite!! Yes it is shut eye time but understand that PLAN A IS IN JEOPARDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW WHAT??? From my memory, having paid attention to the school board election, wasn't the question asked to the current board members whether or not there was a back up plan if BB land fell through from a time perspective or became too expensive in terms of land cost?.... Does anyone else have the recollection of a current board member saying they had a plan A.B.C and D in terms of the third school? Now, the new super says he doesn't know of any other plans? Could it be they haven't clued him in yet of plan b,c and d? Really, I don't mean to be a jerk here but those were statements made... Board members were quoted in the paper saying there were backups to BB. Was I on another planet at the time? I swear these statements were made. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Aug 20, 2007 23:15:04 GMT -6
Wow! What a discussion! Unfortunately not new... Lacy, I think you are absolutely correct in saying that the community did NOT vote on BB. They voted for a 3rd high school. However, they really voted for the boundaries. If the community REALLY just wanted a 3rd high school they would have been screaming for a plan B long ago. I am personally open to ANY alternate location. I am also totally opposed to over spending (by at least double IMO) for BB. Therefore, I am vocally opposed to QT. Unfortunately, it is BB at all costs and always has been. justme, I too would be open to an alternate location if it could produce an opening any sooner than BB. I just don't see any other alternative at this point that could do that. We can all bicker back and forth about the past and what decisions should and should not have been made, but it is a waste of energy IMO. What we need to focus on now is getting our kids into better learning environments; less crowded middle and high schools. Like Momto4 said, we all win with 3 high schools and I for one am sick of the self-serving motivations of some who &*%ch and moan at every turn because they didn't get what they wanted. They would love nothing more than to see BB fall through (even if it means years added to an opening of a 3rd hs) because it means they have a chance to stay at their prescious NVHS! ok, I said it! We all need to get over which building our kids attend and get this darned building built. I am modifying since reading Harry's posts; IMO Macom is out of the question. I had hoped it would work but as a parent was totally turned off by the Comm ED substation. I don't think any of us would want children attending classes next to that or the railroad tracks. Your thoughts? I agree, to some extent with you, movingforward, we all win with three schools, but, I see the other end of the spectrum. Personally I don't see how can you blame this delay on people unhappy with the boundary decision??? really? How? On the flip side, aren't there some 204 residents and board members, in my opinion at least, who have dragged this on and delayed the building/opening of the third school because they are dead set on pursuing the BB property for one reason or another? There were other parcels that were easier to acquire when we went out for referendum for the third school. There have been MAJOR red flags out there in terms of acquiring the BB land (since the referendum). At some point, a reevaluation of the location in terms of the risk should have been done and other parcels should have been looked at REGARDLESS of the boundary quagmire it would have presented to the district. Believe me when I say, I do NOT want to go through that again but would if it would build the school sooner with a lesser cost why would that not be a good thing to pursue? At this point, is there really no other alternative to BB? But now we are hearing there are no alternate plans? For some, in my opinion, it's been BB at ALL costs. Delay, cost, etc. is that what the voters approved? I don't think so. just my opinion. |
|
? I would venture to say that we could have had 10 trailers in use for said fees..