|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 27, 2007 8:35:02 GMT -6
Now that we know BB is even more expensive than before, we should be ready to suggest to the SB/Admin the alternate sites out there.
Personally (broken record time) we need to go North.
Sites to consider.
#1 St. John's AME. Try to renegotiate, help them find a different spot that does not need to be within the district. They have had the site since 2003 with no activity. There is corn being grown on it now. I am certain the SB could come up an offer much lower than the what BB is now going to cost.
#2 Land around Eola and Ferry/Bilter.
W/O Eola on Bilter are VERY large bean fields, and there are a couple of sites to the east of the EJ&E tracks to consider.
Yes, I think these are a bit too far north, but if we are going to consider sites such as Macom which is far south, then these need to be looked at also.
#3 Vacant site on North Aurora Rd e/o EJ&E. While smaller, maybe the SD could also talk to AT&T which has a service yard that could be phased out and added to the vacant land for a total of just under 80 acres.
These are the sites I would suggest, before considering anything south.
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Sept 27, 2007 9:43:49 GMT -6
#4 Wagner Farms
#5 Macom Property
# 6 Quarry
|
|
|
|
Post by movingforward on Sept 27, 2007 11:19:17 GMT -6
Agreed we must now look at other sites...
I hate to say it, but I think looking more closely at the Macom site makes the most sense at this point. I am concerned about the safety of that site and need some questions answered about the power sub-station and would demand , as a parent, to have a large baracade/fence block access to the train tracks for loitering teens.
The growth in the district has been in the south so It makes no sense to me to have the facility built up north unless it was a last resort.
As far as re-drawing of boundaries goes....I hope the community has learned a valuable lesson in how NOT to conduct themselves on this matter in the future. Also, Macom allows nearly same boundaries as BB site?? Very few modifications anyway.
I wish our kids well and do not blame the SB for the jury's ridiculous verdict. The SB stuck to BB because they truely believed it was best for our entire community and the kids in this district. No one on the SB stood to gain personally from the selection of BB (unless someone can prove otherwise) and I find it without merit when comments are made on this board that insinuate that some alterior motive was involved.
Should be interesting now to say the least. My only hope is that our kids don't fall through the cracks while adults get ugly again.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 27, 2007 11:24:43 GMT -6
Macom site
Peterson (all of it including the new students from the BB site), WE, Fry, +3 of Gombert, Owen, Colish, Georgetown, McCarty, Watts
What were the schools destined for MV/BB site?
|
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Sept 27, 2007 11:29:37 GMT -6
Boy are you guys doing some major backpeddling now:)
|
|
|
|
Post by movingforward on Sept 27, 2007 11:31:40 GMT -6
Blankcheck, It is not backpeddling. It is called looking to Plan B because Plan A may not work afterall.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 27, 2007 11:33:07 GMT -6
Boy are you guys doing some major backpeddling now:) Backpedaling? I don't think I ever said I would want BB at any cost. You can either gloat/cry over what the jury decided or you can work and move foward on what is given to you. |
|
|
|
Post by movingforward on Sept 27, 2007 11:34:17 GMT -6
Boy are you guys doing some major backpeddling now:) Backpedaling? I don't think I ever said I would want BB at any cost. You can either gloat/cry over what the jury decided or you can work and move foward on what is given to you. ditto |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Sept 27, 2007 11:45:53 GMT -6
Whatever - I suggest you guys look back at some of your other posts regarding Paul.
Bob- (although I'm kinda liking Bobby) - You talk out of both sides of your mouth.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 27, 2007 11:48:42 GMT -6
Whatever - I suggest you guys look back at some of your other posts regarding Paul. Bob- (although I'm kinda liking Bobby) - You talk out of both sides of your mouth. I believe the rule of the board is that you shouldn't alter one's usernames when addressing them. |
|
|
|
Post by movingforward on Sept 27, 2007 11:55:21 GMT -6
Whatever - I suggest you guys look back at some of your other posts regarding Paul. Bob- (although I'm kinda liking Bobby) - You talk out of both sides of your mouth. I stand by all of my comments about Paul and his actions to attempt to sabotage the plans of the SB . That is really not the issue at this point anymore is it? What is most important now is how we can get the space necessary for the kids in the district. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 27, 2007 11:56:49 GMT -6
Whatever - I suggest you guys look back at some of your other posts regarding Paul. Bob- (although I'm kinda liking Bobby) - You talk out of both sides of your mouth. I stand by all of my comments about Paul and his actions to attempt to sabotage the plans of the SB . That is really not the issue at this point anymore is it? What is most important now is how we can get the space necessary for the kids in the district. ditto If the SB can buy Macom's site, there is a whole bunch of issues and they can't start building until they move Wolf's Crossing. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 27, 2007 12:54:33 GMT -6
Agreed we must now look at other sites... The growth in the district has been in the south so It makes no sense to me to have the facility built up north unless it was a last resort. Question....Why does the criteria have to be "where the growth is"? If that's the case I will say there is "growth within the district as a whole" How about a better criteria of: Is there enough of a student population to support said HS? I submit to you for a Northern site that there indeed is. Two MS, Granger and Hill. There will eventually be 7 MS's and it was already stated that NVHS will be the largest school, and most likely get 3 MS which leave Still and The New MS (Old Gold) at WVHS. Why would that not work? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 27, 2007 13:04:00 GMT -6
Agreed we must now look at other sites... The growth in the district has been in the south so It makes no sense to me to have the facility built up north unless it was a last resort. Question....Why does the criteria have to be "where the growth is"? If that's the case I will say there is "growth within the district as a whole" How about a better criteria of: Is there enough of a student population to support said HS? I submit to you for a Northern site that there indeed is. Two MS, Granger and Hill. There will eventually be 7 MS's and it was already stated that NVHS will be the largest school, and most likely get 3 MS which leave Still and The New MS (Old Gold) at WVHS. Why would that not work? lots of assumptions -- one that MS boundaries stay the same - ( I doubt ES would change much ) Also just throwing this out there as food for discussion - is there anything that says the SB - SD has to come to the public for input on boundaries or involve us in the process as much as last time? Not trying to say that they should or shouldn't - but some have already complained that they 'used' this process last time to do everything from pit one area against another, to get the referendum passed, and many other things more sinister..... So what if we get the boundaries in the form of a note ? |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 27, 2007 13:12:17 GMT -6
Of course the MS boundaries are going to change.....that is a given, as they will be adding a 7th MS to the mix. Think more in the range of MS capacity to each HS. Could be that Still splits as does possilbly Scullen or Crone.
Personally I hope they do boundaries on their own and just notify everyone of the outcome.
|
|
