|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 1, 2007 8:59:51 GMT -6
Macy, could you please list your options in your priority order? I'd be interested in knowing them. 1. Same size school with same amenities- different location that is less expensive. 2. 2500 seat high school is a new concept that I'd have to hear more about (on BB if that is our only land option). That's where I'm at right now. Most importantly, I'd like to hear more about the possibility of building on the Macom land. If it's possible without a huge time delay and it's substantially less expensive, it's a no brainer for me. Also, it would be possible to almost replicate the same boundary map for that land. if you have put together the boundaries ( that work size wise) for a school now located so much further south, and without entire areas driving past schools to get to the new one - or driving though areas going somewhere else - I would be interested to see it. A lot more travel for many of us is what I fear -- and all that extra traffic and distance our jrs and srs have to negotiate ( not really that huge a concern for me but was a huge issue for some when the distance was only a mile or 2 different so should be the same concern for all) |
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Oct 1, 2007 9:06:11 GMT -6
Also, it would be possible to almost replicate the same boundary map for that land. I have to completely disagree here. Longwood to Macom site is 30 minutes on a good day, 45 on a bad.. I think that is ureasonable. Also, in reality, a good portion of Owen, Watts, and Cowlishaw would cut down Book or Plainfield - Naperville and drive past NV to get to that site. I can see one ES driving past one HS to get to theirs, but not half the school. I am all for redrawing boundaries - however ugly - if they go with the Macom site. Also, it just makes more sense for WV to keep their freshman center and NV to give theirs up if Macom site is used. |
|
|
|
Post by harry on Oct 1, 2007 9:09:33 GMT -6
I wouldn't be in favor of condemnation. That could be not only bad Karma but also another long legal battle. I would be in favor if the property owner could come to agreement with the district. I have spoken with several parishioners of St. Johns and selling land is definately not an option. ssm maybe if those parishioners knew the asking price, they might be pursuaded to believe in the money god instead ;D SB needs to 'kish' the BB property and MOVE ON!! |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 1, 2007 9:10:36 GMT -6
Also, it would be possible to almost replicate the same boundary map for that land. I have to completely disagree here. Longwood to Macom site is 30 minutes on a good day, 45 on a bad.. I think that is ureasonable. Also, in reality, a good portion of Owen, Watts, and Cowlishaw would cut down Book or Plainfield - Naperville and drive past NV to get to that site. I can see one ES driving past one HS to get to theirs, but not half the school. I am all for redrawing boundaries - however ugly - if they go with the Macom site. Also, it just makes more sense for WV to keep their freshman center and NV to give theirs up if Macom site is used. agree -- I make that drive to see Vb games at Crone for instance - and it is not a fun drive in busy times AM or PM. Also why would they want to bus kids 15 minutes past another school ? Better be picking them up mighty early. MACOM imho will require more of an east - west ( vs north south ) boundary look and the shifts will not be minor. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 1, 2007 9:11:14 GMT -6
Macom site
WV keeps freshman campus
Longwood to WV
Colishaw,Owen and Watts to NV
Kendall, Graham Peterson to MV
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 1, 2007 9:12:10 GMT -6
I have spoken with several parishioners of St. Johns and selling land is definately not an option. ssm maybe if those parishioners knew the asking price, they might be pursuaded to believe in the money god instead ;D Good one, Harry. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 1, 2007 9:18:46 GMT -6
I wouldn't be in favor of condemnation. That could be not only bad Karma but also another long legal battle. I would be in favor if the property owner could come to agreement with the district. You would not be in favor of condemning the church because it is bad karma but it would be okay to evict the elderly couple from the Macom land? Who said anything about evicting "the elderly couple"? The land adjacent to them is going to be developed into something - plain and simple - and they know that because they sold it - right? I think the situation is completely different from what you are trying to imply. And if I were them, a high school would be preferable to a car wash or something else. Until the "elderly couple" speaks or someone with some actual knowledge clues us into their position, let's stop painting this as a bad thing for the "elderly couple". Seems like FUD to me. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 1, 2007 9:21:27 GMT -6
You would not be in favor of condemning the church because it is bad karma but it would be okay to evict the elderly couple from the Macom land? Who said anything about evicting "the elderly couple"? The land adjacent to them is going to be developed into something - plain and simple - and they know that because they sold it - right? I think the situation is completely different from what you are trying to imply. And if I were them, a high school would be preferable to a car wash or something else. Until the "elderly couple" speaks or someone with some actual knowledge clues us into their position, let's stop painting this as a bad thing for the "elderly couple". Seems like FUD to me. I think Macom said the elderly couple can stay as long as they want. They mentioned we can build around them. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 1, 2007 9:24:03 GMT -6
I was thinking that was the situation too. Thanks, Bob. Correct me if I'm wrong, but their land wasn't condemmed and I'm pretty sure they made a handy profit.
When someone repeats something long enough ("evicting the elderly couple"), it can become fact in some people's minds. We need to be careful with that at this stage of the game. Let's just deal with facts and try to do what's best for the district.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 1, 2007 9:29:27 GMT -6
For the St John's AME property: For his congregation, the pastor wants land to the south and east....he doesnt want to move further west. This info was in the site analysis report. Its not just a matter of us saying SD can maybe get this land for less. The church has land right now that meets their needs. Unless the church knows that they can get other land that also meets there needs...I cant see them making a deal. This isnt a for-profit outfit that will be happy with a big profit on their land purchase if they are unable to buy land south and east. Would a land swap with Wheatland ES be a possibility? I am doubtful... the size of a church built at Wheatland would be way smaller than what St John's can do at Eola/Molitor. Given the valuable route 59 frontage, would a swap even be financially advantageous to the SD? Maybe not. Unless somebody can point to replace land to the south and east for the church...I am doubtful that this church property is seriously "on the table". How big is this parcel? Is there enough room for a church and MVHS? A M-F institution and a primarily Sunday building could be good neighbors. They could share parking...like WVHS does with the church just to north. I am not sure if this is feasible from a land-layout perspective. But maybe this would be an enticement to make it a good deal for the church too. South and East? Hmmmm was'nt the Bonk farm that way?, How about the parcel at Ferry and 59? It's further East and would have nice exposure for the Church? Ooooh! How about that area at 75th and Book behind the Home Depot. They wanted to put apts/townhomes there (That the SD opposed)...why not a church? Those are just a few possible land swaps that might work. |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 1, 2007 9:31:25 GMT -6
I was thinking that was the situation too. Thanks, Bob. Correct me if I'm wrong, but their land wasn't condemmed and I'm pretty sure they made a handy profit. When someone repeats something long enough ("evicting the elderly couple"), it can become fact in some people's minds. We need to be careful with that at this stage of the game. Let's just deal with facts and try to do what's best for the district. Look like people have a variety of things that they believe are best. It hasn't been mentioned yet, but "balancing" the 3 HSs was a factor when the boundaries were determined. I think it should still be a factor with any proposed change. |
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Oct 1, 2007 9:31:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 1, 2007 9:34:21 GMT -6
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would not be condemning a church.. it would just be virgin land owned by the church (no place of worship) for which they would get compensated (and nicely too as we found out).
If there was a structure in place then I would say no way. Is it still empty land or is there an actual place of worship there?
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 1, 2007 9:36:14 GMT -6
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would not be condemning a church.. it would just be virgin land owned by the church (no place of worship) for which they would get compensated (and nicely too as we found out). If there was a structure in place then I would say no way. Is it still empty land or is there an actual place of worship there? Nothing but farmland & a St Johns sign that's been there for about 2 years. Atually there is one house on the property, too. Oh, no - another single house getting in the way of progress :-( |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 1, 2007 9:37:00 GMT -6
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would not be condemning a church.. it would just be virgin land owned by the church (no place of worship) for which they would get compensated (and nicely too as we found out). If there was a structure in place then I would say no way. Is it still empty land or is there an actual place of worship there? Corn field with a house( Rental IIRC)...and 2 St John's signs..... |
|
