|
|
Post by sam2 on Oct 12, 2007 11:29:03 GMT -6
We all know that if the SB was able to get quick take they would of started construction the next day and us tax payers would be stuck with the huge bill.
! [/quote]
If they used it. we would have less attorney fees, less construction cost increases and less interest penalties since the verdict. We would have the land and construction could start. That's the positive side and 20/20 hindsight.
The downside is the price could have been decided to be $700K+ for all we knew. OUCH.[/quote]
Yes, in hindsight, you are correct.
Again, I submit that the district is only posturing to justify going ahead at BB. Quick take would have allowed them to easily blame BB for the cost associated with rushing to build without owning the land. Now, they'll have to work a little harder to blame BB, but they will. In fact, they've already started: high legal fees, increased cost due to construction delays, interest, etc....In the end, the school will be at BB, the cost will be much higher than estimated and life will go on, taxpayers will pay and the members will get re-elected once again. The total costs associated with past board decisions is huge. The freshman centers instead of a third high school , the conversion of the freshman centers back into middle schools. ( how about the increase in construction costs due to those decisions.)
Of course, the community voted for those decisions and we did re-elect every incumbent.
I have a related question: How can the district push for a referendum for 2009 operating expenses if there is no school? If the school is delayed until 2010, when will they have the referendum? By design, it's always on the ballot in an election with low turnout. Is there a 2009 election? I believe that timing of the referendum will have to be a factor in any decision the board will make. Clearly, they need money to operate the school whenever and wherever it's built. Does anyone know what the timetable would be for the operating referendum?
|
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Oct 12, 2007 11:30:08 GMT -6
A lot of the voters were voting on boundaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 12, 2007 11:33:46 GMT -6
I recall reading that they needed the 2009 referendum to make up the operating expense gap thanks to taxes which is capped by law to the CPI, which has not kept up with the rate of inflation.
So either way they say they need one. We just don't know how much for 'the rest of it without the HS'.
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Oct 12, 2007 11:34:32 GMT -6
linkIt looks like someone planned for access to 83rd. Looking at that pic again I count 5 retention ponds adjacent or touching the property we own and the Calvary property. Surely that changes / modifies the acreage needed for retention if the sd can buy the Calvary property. I always thought it would be smart to replace those two adjacent retention ponds with one big pond. On the other hand...I don't think anyone knows this... but if you may be able to form a walkway on that little strip of land between those two lakes and continue it trough to Teasel Lane because there is a small area (5-12 feet wide) between Thatchers grove and Chicory Place that is not owned by any homeowner. That could turn some bussers into walkers. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 12, 2007 11:36:16 GMT -6
kinda funny how within about 5 minutes harry managed to both shoot down the Calvary site AND complain about not hearing about it before - how many sides can one mouth have? Warrior please re-read this thread slowly and thoughtfully before you take swings @ people....up north (St Johns)and Calvary are 2 different things if they are both potential options - how are they different ? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 12, 2007 11:37:59 GMT -6
But is Calvary a "willing seller"? don't know but we know St John's is not at this point |
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Oct 12, 2007 11:39:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 12, 2007 11:41:22 GMT -6
But is Calvary a "willing seller"? don't know but we know St John's is not at this point Let's recap- Who, so far HAS been a willing seller. Of all the potential sites, only Macom was/is and his had strings attached, AND at the initial time Macom was not even a site under consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 12, 2007 11:46:00 GMT -6
Oy. It's Friday. Time for a beer.
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 12, 2007 11:46:57 GMT -6
kinda funny how within about 5 minutes harry managed to both shoot down the Calvary site AND complain about not hearing about it before - how many sides can one mouth have? Warrior please re-read this thread slowly and thoughtfully before you take swings @ people....up north (St Johns)and Calvary are 2 different things Side #1 of mouth: Being as I was never for BB from day 1. I too was surprised to hear of the Calvary connection......How much land do they own next to BB? And once again, like Macom, how come the SB didn't disclose??? Side #2 of mouth: ...I wonder what the anti-BB and anti-3rd HS people are going to do to foil that option. Start with Rte 59 being the only access onto the property ;D ... ETA: I apoligize - it actually took 12 minutes for the flip-flop ;D |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 12, 2007 11:49:46 GMT -6
Oy. It's Friday. Time for a beer. Or at the very least....Boxed wine.... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by harry on Oct 12, 2007 13:53:56 GMT -6
Warrior please re-read this thread slowly and thoughtfully before you take swings @ people....up north (St Johns)and Calvary are 2 different things Side #1 of mouth: Side #2 of mouth: Start with Rte 59 being the only access onto the property ;D ... ETA: I apoligize - it actually took 12 minutes for the flip-flop ;D So what is your point??? I know it is hard for someone who is All About BB to think out of your paradigm. I can and do Calvary wasn't disclosed to the public, neither was Macom and neither has ANY OTHER plan B because the Sb in inept. I know you don't like to hear that P.s. I think that we should build MV with one of the retention ponds as the main Atruim ;D |
|
|
|
Post by harry on Oct 12, 2007 13:58:19 GMT -6
don't know but we know St John's is not at this point Let's recap- Who, so far HAS been a willing seller. Of all the potential sites, only Macom was/is and his had strings attached, AND at the initial time Macom was not even a site under consideration. Exactly and the postering as pointed out by more than a few, has begun (Like an old widow, clawing her face) "What shall we do??? No willing sellers, increased construction costs, timing, 2009 referendums....." All signs point to them being lazy by NOT investigating all other options and throwing their hands up, saying, well the ONLY solution is BB. The BB lawyers are snickering all the way to the bank. |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 12, 2007 14:19:29 GMT -6
Side #1 of mouth: Side #2 of mouth: ETA: I apoligize - it actually took 12 minutes for the flip-flop ;D So what is your point??? I know it is hard for someone who is All About BB to think out of your paradigm. I can and do Calvary wasn't disclosed to the public, neither was Macom and neither has ANY OTHER plan B because the Sb in inept. I know you don't like to hear that P.s. I think that we should build MV with one of the retention ponds as the main Atruim ;D Most people can see this for themselves, but my point is to highlight that you will jump on each an every point to complain about the SD. It sure seems like you're unhappy the ref. passed, and on top of that maybe you're unhappy with BB, maybe because of the boundaries. Whatever your motivations are, your complaints have gotten to the point where they conflict with each other. At some point - probably reached by some already - you're going to be tuned out - it'll be just white noise. I continue to wonder why you even participate here, other than to try to get under the skin of some. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 12, 2007 14:24:10 GMT -6
So what is your point??? I know it is hard for someone who is All About BB to think out of your paradigm. I can and do Calvary wasn't disclosed to the public, neither was Macom and neither has ANY OTHER plan B because the Sb in inept. I know you don't like to hear that P.s. I think that we should build MV with one of the retention ponds as the main Atruim ;D Most people can see this for themselves, but my point is to highlight that you will jump on each an every point to complain about the SD. It sure seems like you're unhappy the ref. passed, and on top of that maybe you're unhappy with BB, maybe because of the boundaries. Whatever your motivations are, your complaints have gotten to the point where they conflict with each other. At some point - probably reached by some already - you're going to be tuned out - it'll be just white noise. I continue to wonder why you even participate here, other than to try to get under the skin of some. I'm sorry.. did someone say something? |
|
