|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 18, 2007 17:51:38 GMT -6
Same exact thoughts for me as well. I have said it before - I support the 3rd hs regardless of location. (not to say I don't have an opinion, but if the board has another choice I will set that aside and not hold a grudge) Yes - agreed - let's see a decision made within the next week or two & move on to the next chapter in 204 |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Oct 18, 2007 18:35:03 GMT -6
In today's Beacon News. Indian Prairie running out of options[/b] October 18, 2007
... because land doesn't suddenly become vacant, presumably the four locations now under consideration consist of sites rejected during the initial search. A reminder -- that search came to the conclusion the Brach-Brodie parcel was the very best choice, so much so the district decided to go to court to get it... What bothers me about the Beacon/Sun is that the whole premise of this editorial is faulty. Macom was not available at the time of the referendum and their own publication alluded to the fact that Calvary Church might have 40 acres they may be considering selling that come right up to the 25 acres we already own. The potentially high price that the school board may have pay for land may or may not have brought St. Johns to the table. I favor BB because it is the best location. If another site saves a ton of money then great but I have my doubts whether that will happen (except for perhaps Calvary). The paper may have came to the right conclusion but it bothers me that they have the wrong reasoning on an issue this important. |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Oct 18, 2007 18:39:39 GMT -6
In today's Beacon News. Indian Prairie running out of options [/b] October 18, 2007
... because land doesn't suddenly become vacant, presumably the four locations now under consideration consist of sites rejected during the initial search. A reminder -- that search came to the conclusion the Brach-Brodie parcel was the very best choice, so much so the district decided to go to court to get it... What bothers me about the Beacon/Sun is that the whole premise of this editorial is faulty. Macom was not available at the time of the referendum and their own publication alluded to the fact that Calvary Church might have 40 acres they may be considering selling that come right up to the 25 acres we already own. The potentially high price that the school board may have pay for land may or may not have brought St. Johns to the table. I favor BB because it is the best location. If another site saves a ton of money then great but I have my doubts whether that will happen (except for perhaps Calvary). The paper may have came to the right conclusion but it bothers me that they have the wrong reasoning on an issue this important. [/quote] Interesting point and logic. I concur. |
|
|
|
Post by soon2bwvhs on Oct 18, 2007 20:47:46 GMT -6
I would have to agree with your statement arch. It is an individual preference. I live in what would be considered the north end of the district. I am a pro 3rd HS supported (no matter where it ends up). I have support BB until the verdict; paying twice what was expected for land is a hard pill for me to swallow. I guess I just need to understand the options before passing judgment one way or the other. I agree with your sentiments. I guess this is exactly why we elect people to make these decisions for an entire community; if we had to do it ourselves it would not be easy as everyone has their own ideas/agendas. The question then becomes who will accept that decision and move on? I am prepared to accept whatever decision is made as I am confident that it will be made with the best interest of ALL of our kids in mind. I too share these sentiments. BB, not BB; I'll even accept Macom (I do admit that I will be angry if Macom comes with any strings attached as to who PL thinks should attend MV on his site) but will accept it. The battle wounds have been open for far too long; time to let them heal and move on. |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 18, 2007 20:57:25 GMT -6
I agree with your sentiments. I guess this is exactly why we elect people to make these decisions for an entire community; if we had to do it ourselves it would not be easy as everyone has their own ideas/agendas. The question then becomes who will accept that decision and move on? I am prepared to accept whatever decision is made as I am confident that it will be made with the best interest of ALL of our kids in mind. I too share these sentiments. BB, not BB; I'll even accept Macom (I do admit that I will be angry if Macom comes with any strings attached as to who PL thinks should attend MV on his site) but will accept it. The battle wounds have been open for far too long; time to let them heal and move on. I'm not letting Lehman off that easy. He's the one that opened the wounds. He needs to be the one to heal them by giving us the land & not making any requests about the boundaries. Then I'll be OK with Macom. |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Oct 18, 2007 21:09:47 GMT -6
I want to see the SB make the best decision possible. Macom is not as good of location as BB so if Macom is selected I will accept if its based on rational thought. I will resent it if I feel that the school board was pushed into it.
If Macom is selected boundaries will have be redrawn.
We gave up on moving any low income students into NVHS because it did not make sense geographically. So how can it make any sense to send them to Macom?
There are no boundary solutions with Macom that make geographic sense so there is no reason not to have ecomonic and acheivement balancing in 204.
|
|
