|
|
Post by bob on Oct 3, 2007 7:22:12 GMT -6
WOW...The silence in deafening....... My vote is not build it due to the change in the plan v. actual enrollment,,,We should poll it once official enrollment figures emerge. Please correct me if I am wrong....a new referendum can be brought to a vote to NOT build a 3rd hs. WE, the people, are in charge. If we do build a 3rd, logistically there should be a North (MV) Central (WV) and south (NV) location . My vote is for ST. Johns Your new referendum has to be approved by the SB. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Oct 3, 2007 7:24:45 GMT -6
WOW...The silence in deafening....... My vote is not build it due to the change in the plan v. actual enrollment,,,We should poll it once official enrollment figures emerge. Please correct me if I am wrong....a new referendum can be brought to a vote to NOT build a 3rd hs. WE, the people, are in charge. If we do build a 3rd, logistically there should be a North (MV) Central (WV) and south (NV) location . My vote is for ST. Johns Harry, when I mentioned the new found interest in the church's land to my neighbors, they laughed and asked if these were the same people who threatenedd to send the IRS in with guns ablazing. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Oct 3, 2007 7:25:31 GMT -6
I'm in no matter where it is built, but like WVHS Parent I have my preferences (St Johns is not at/near the top of my list).
WVHSParent, and all other St Johns proponents. Here's an interesting questions for you:
What do you think of putting some of St John's skin in the game during negotiation? That is how would you feel about saying "Negotiate in good faith with us, or you need to stop using school district property (essential for free) to continue holding your services and in essence raising money for your church".
I'll be honest that I've never supported the wide-spread use of our taxpayer paid school properties to allow churches who hold huge tracts of land (St John's AME, Crossroads) to basically have free facilities and continue raising large sumes of money, while never doing anything with their own land year after year. There has to some dis-incentive to get them to have a concrete plan to move out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 3, 2007 7:27:01 GMT -6
I was a NO person until about 2 weeks before the 2006 vote when I finally got through going over the enrollment history, the buildouts, worked through turnovers in older neighborhoods, etc. For me it worked out that we would grow and sustain an elevated population (even if it never made it to the 10,000 mark) enough to substantiate and justify building a 3rd HS.
There are things I do not like about each location that was on the drawing board (some relate to just money, others relate not only to location but also nearby hazards), but in the end will support it being built regardless of where it goes because I know my kids will go to a great high school, whichever of the 3 the boundaries dictate. My Junior @ WVHS has been having a great time and we couldn't be more happy. If we have to change schools to MV or NV for the other 3 kids as a result of where it gets built, fine. Just build it and get it over with. Rip the bandaid off and get it built.
|
|
|
|
Post by harry on Oct 3, 2007 7:27:47 GMT -6
My vote is not build it due to the change in the plan v. actual enrollment,,,We should poll it once official enrollment figures emerge. Please correct me if I am wrong....a new referendum can be brought to a vote to NOT build a 3rd hs. WE, the people, are in charge. If we do build a 3rd, logistically there should be a North (MV) Central (WV) and south (NV) location . My vote is for ST. Johns Your new referendum has to be approved by the SB. If 10,000 taxpayers demand it, the SB will have no choice. This could turn into a lawsuit quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Oct 3, 2007 7:27:58 GMT -6
I am a north person who voted no the 1st time and then after fianlly getting reliable data, voted yes the 2nd time around. Right now, there are enough students in the system to need the 3rd HS...I do believe that. While I do support a 3rd HS, and yes if it really comes down to it, I could live with BB (Holding nose), but I would really like them to find another spot (North). So put me in the camp of we need the 3rd HS wherever it is...........How many else here can say that? I mean you can have your own site preference, but in the end will support wherever it ultimately set. A fair and reasonable position (I would expect nothing less from wvhsparent!) I think all this goes without saying. Ultimately those of us who voted Yes, said "build a third HS" and "this is how much to spend on it". |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Oct 3, 2007 7:28:47 GMT -6
I want to know....how many people who, as of two weeks ago, were 1) supportive of the third HS, 2)supportive of the BB location, and 3) supportive of the boundary decision, have changed their opinion?
We all know that excludes some of you and you have adequately voiced your objections. I would like to know for whom the price has changed your opinion of BB from a positive to a negative??.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 3, 2007 7:29:10 GMT -6
Your new referendum has to be approved by the SB. If 10,000 taxpayers demand it, the SB will have no choice. This could turn into a lawsuit quickly. Why don't you get to work on it and report back about your success. I know I couldn't find 10,000 people to support your beliefs, but I wish you luck trying. Keep us posted. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 3, 2007 7:29:16 GMT -6
My vote is not build it due to the change in the plan v. actual enrollment,,,We should poll it once official enrollment figures emerge. Please correct me if I am wrong....a new referendum can be brought to a vote to NOT build a 3rd hs. WE, the people, are in charge. If we do build a 3rd, logistically there should be a North (MV) Central (WV) and south (NV) location . My vote is for ST. Johns Harry, when I mentioned the new found interest in the church's land to my neighbors, they laughed and asked if these were the same people who threatenedd to send the IRS in with guns ablazing. I don't think guns ablazing were ever mentioned. If nothing was wrong, why did a certain committee financials contribution decreased by $2000 from it's pre-election report to post election report? Did someone have to return some money? |
|
|
|
Post by harry on Oct 3, 2007 7:30:31 GMT -6
I'm in no matter where it is built, but like WVHS Parent I have my preferences (St Johns is not at/near the top of my list). WVHSParent, and all other St Johns proponents. Here's an interesting questions for you: What do you think of putting some of St John's skin in the game during negotiation? That is how would you feel about saying "Negotiate in good faith with us, or you need to stop using school district property (essential for free) to continue holding your services and in essence raising money for your church". I'll be honest that I've never supported the wide-spread use of our taxpayer paid school properties to allow churches who hold huge tracts of land (St John's AME, Crossroads) to basically have free facilities and continue raising large sumes of money, while never doing anything with their own land year after year. There has to some dis-incentive to get them to have a concrete plan to move out. It's a great negotiating tool, no doubt. I have always thought that holding 'church' in a 'state' school was a huge violation anyway. Question,,,they do not PAY to use our schools?  |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 3, 2007 7:31:06 GMT -6
I'm in no matter where it is built, but like WVHS Parent I have my preferences (St Johns is not at/near the top of my list). WVHSParent, and all other St Johns proponents. Here's an interesting questions for you: What do you think of putting some of St John's skin in the game during negotiation? That is how would you feel about saying "Negotiate in good faith with us, or you need to stop using school district property (essential for free) to continue holding your services and in essence raising money for your church". I'll be honest that I've never supported the wide-spread use of our taxpayer paid school properties to allow churches who hold huge tracts of land (St John's AME, Crossroads) to basically have free facilities and continue raising large sumes of money, while never doing anything with their own land year after year. There has to some dis-incentive to get them to have a concrete plan to move out. I totally agree with you...in fact I thought I brought that very suggestion up a long time ago. But I do believe they have to pay to use the facilities. I know there are several churches who use the FVPD Eola Center for services and they have to pay for it. (many are past due too) Our Lady of Mercy used WVHS for a while before it had enough funds to build it's church, They paid the SD to use the auditorium. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 3, 2007 7:31:45 GMT -6
WOW...The silence in deafening....... I had to go back to the 6-day enrollment figures before I answered. No matter which 4 grades I add up, I can't come up with much more than about 1000 additional kids beyond what we are housing now. And we aren't hearing about crowded classrooms at NVHS or Scullen (the most frequently mentioned overcrowded schools) - hallways yes, but not classrooms. What's also concerning is the drop off in enrollment at K and 1st grade. If that continues, the "bubble" is already in the system and will barely be addressed by the time we build anything anywhere. If the district was really concerned about the kids currently in the system, they would have moved much quicker. When the first referendum failed, they could have built a middle school. Instead, they came back to the public with threats of split shifts, 5000 student highschools, etc. With the enrollment looking to be vastly different than the doom and gloom scenarios presented during the referendum, I think we need to look at some alternatives before we build a 3000 seat high school for 1000 kids. I do however think we need additional space at some level. What I would like to see is a very thoughtful and careful analysis of different options that is presented to the public. This would include looking at other sites as well as other alternatives to a 3000 seat high school. Just because we have land cash donations or other funds available, it doesn't mean we should spend full steam ahead. If the landscape has changed (enrollment and much higher land costs), we should take a second look. Otherwise, we could have another Petersen on our hands (and a very expensive one at that). |
|
|
|
Post by harry on Oct 3, 2007 7:32:02 GMT -6
If 10,000 taxpayers demand it, the SB will have no choice. This could turn into a lawsuit quickly. Why don't you get to work on it and report back about your success. I know I couldn't find 10,000 people to support your beliefs, but I wish you luck trying. Keep us posted. You might not be able to but CFO can ;D |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Oct 3, 2007 7:34:27 GMT -6
I want to know....how many people who, as of two weeks ago, were 1) supportive of the third HS, 2)supportive of the BB location, and 3) supportive of the boundary decision, have changed their opinion? We all know that excludes some of you and you have adequately voiced your objections. I would like to know for whom the price has changed your opinion of BB from a positive to a negative??. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Oct 3, 2007 7:34:56 GMT -6
As far as I understand it there is a minimal fee, primarily for janitorial services only. Does anyone know the specifics?
I'd rather see them pay 1/7th the operataing and amortization schedule of the building, with 20-50% on top of that for additional funding of the SD and an incentive to move out.
Renting should cost more than owning your own, or people will never buy.
|
|
