|
|
Post by gatordog on Oct 25, 2007 10:58:36 GMT -6
I am at the same place as many other posters. (though not all posters, certainly!)
It has not been shown to me, nor have I been able to figure out, how another site is definitely going to "save" us money.
You must factor in:
1. BB walkaway cost
2. construction cost increase due to delay
3. nonmonetary cost of overcrowding for extra school year (carried by every high school student in 2009 and most middle school students)
4. long term operating cost increase , as well as significant nonmonetary cost, due to longer commutes due to suboptimal (not central) location
5. nonmonetary (or are there monetary?) costs of site negatives such as power lines.
Is another site clearly less expensive in terms of overall cost?
Personally, I am surprised the other options have stayed on the table this long. I agree with archwinsome and others, to me the only way other land is viable is if its sold for way less than market-value. For the seller to do that, he/she either has to be an altruist, or has other motivations. Well, maybe the SB has in fact found some landowners willing to come down in price, I dont know.
|
|
|
|
Post by movingforward on Oct 25, 2007 13:37:14 GMT -6
The person I will actively campaign against re electing is Linda Holmes, and yes I am in her district. You will have company there. And I am also in her district. same here. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Oct 25, 2007 13:37:36 GMT -6
You mean in your opinion the lands are not equal. What's going in on that Preit land anyway? I've heard rumors it's a Super Walmart. Doesn't seem like a great place for a high school. PREIT does not build Super Walmarts, they build lifestyle malls. Oh wait, this relates back to the rumor that PREIT flipped their property.  Say it enough times and people will believe it. That is the danger of spreading rumors. Actually preit does place Walmarts and Targets as anchors in their locations. |
|
|
|
Post by movingforward on Oct 25, 2007 13:39:38 GMT -6
She questioned whether the jury price for the land would come in much higher than predicted, and she was right. She also thought it was a local decision that Springfield should stay out of. Agreed. I would be happy to vote for her and support her in any way - and I know many of my neighbors feel the same way. We are also in her district. She decided that people in $800k -$1million houses get their way with boundaries meant more than the kids in the rest of her district getting a 3rd HS in time. It seems to me that wave enough influence at her and she will change her view. Maybe she has been taking lessons from Blago. exactly; her vote is for 'sale' That was very clear. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 25, 2007 13:41:05 GMT -6
PREIT does not build Super Walmarts, they build lifestyle malls. Oh wait, this relates back to the rumor that PREIT flipped their property. Say it enough times and people will believe it. That is the danger of spreading rumors. Actually preit does place Walmarts and Targets as anchors in their locations. I can't think of any Walmart that close to another Walmart. Even if they open a new one and close the existing one, why would that matter? What's the problem with that on another piece of property? |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Oct 25, 2007 13:41:13 GMT -6
She decided that people in $800k -$1million houses get their way with boundaries meant more than the kids in the rest of her district getting a 3rd HS in time. It seems to me that wave enough influence at her and she will change her view. Maybe she has been taking lessons from Blago. I totally disagree! Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps Senator Holmes was contacted by our beloved SB and led to believe that all her constiuents supported QT? Maybe, just maybe MM led her to believe that the "little boundary" dispute of Ashwood Creek/Park was something minor that was getting in the way of support of QT. Perhaps MM orchestrated the deal that boundaries should change allowing a switch and Senator Holmes jumped aboard without knowing the whole history (her name gets attached to the boundary change and MM's reputation stays clean). Then when people catch wind of the whole QT deal and cry "foul" Senator Holmes chooses to pull her support of the QT deal. MM hangs her out to dry and makes it look like she created the whole thing. IMHO, Senator Holmes did not create the potential boundary change of Ashwood but rather it was MM's idea. Simple politics to me though I don't agree with them. Call it a conspiracy, call it whatever you want. Did anyone actually contact Senator Holmes to find out her side of the story? Things are not always as they appear. I will stand and support Senator Linda Holmes just as many of my neighbors (and her constituents) do ;D. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 25, 2007 13:44:48 GMT -6
Oh, I'm grabbing the popcorn for this one....
|
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Oct 25, 2007 13:49:11 GMT -6
She decided that people in $800k -$1million houses get their way with boundaries meant more than the kids in the rest of her district getting a 3rd HS in time. It seems to me that wave enough influence at her and she will change her view. Maybe she has been taking lessons from Blago. I totally disagree! Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps Senator Holmes was contacted by our beloved SB and led to believe that all her constiuents supported QT? Maybe, just maybe MM led her to believe that the "little boundary" dispute of Ashwood Creek/Park was something minor that was getting in the way of support of QT. Perhaps MM orchestrated the deal that boundaries should change allowing a switch and Senator Holmes jumped aboard without knowing the whole history (her name gets attached to the boundary change and MM's reputation stays clean). Then when people catch wind of the whole QT deal and cry "foul" Senator Holmes chooses to pull her support of the QT deal. MM hangs her out to dry and makes it look like she created the whole thing. IMHO, Senator Holmes did not create the potential boundary change of Ashwood but rather it was MM's idea. Simple politics to me though I don't agree with them. Call it a conspiracy, call it whatever you want. Did anyone actually contact Senator Holmes to find out her side of the story? Things are not always as they appear. I will stand and support Senator Linda Holmes just as many of my neighbors (and her constituents) do ;D. Well I did speak to her directly and she told me her change of heart came from an "event" in the Ashwood neighborhood the weekend prior. She told me how the SB chose those boundaries on purpose because they did not like a particular builder. I am sure that M2 told her that too right? I was told by LH that the district can change boundaries at any time so once MV got overcrowded, they could move students out. Kind of heartless if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Post by movingforward on Oct 25, 2007 13:57:46 GMT -6
She decided that people in $800k -$1million houses get their way with boundaries meant more than the kids in the rest of her district getting a 3rd HS in time. It seems to me that wave enough influence at her and she will change her view. Maybe she has been taking lessons from Blago. I totally disagree! Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps Senator Holmes was contacted by our beloved SB and led to believe that all her constiuents supported QT? Maybe, just maybe MM led her to believe that the "little boundary" dispute of Ashwood Creek/Park was something minor that was getting in the way of support of QT. Perhaps MM orchestrated the deal that boundaries should change allowing a switch and Senator Holmes jumped aboard without knowing the whole history (her name gets attached to the boundary change and MM's reputation stays clean). Then when people catch wind of the whole QT deal and cry "foul" Senator Holmes chooses to pull her support of the QT deal. MM hangs her out to dry and makes it look like she created the whole thing. IMHO, Senator Holmes did not create the potential boundary change of Ashwood but rather it was MM's idea. Simple politics to me though I don't agree with them. Call it a conspiracy, call it whatever you want. Did anyone actually contact Senator Holmes to find out her side of the story? Things are not always as they appear. I will stand and support Senator Linda Holmes just as many of my neighbors (and her constituents) do ;D. Honestly, I don't have the energy for this anymore. I will say that I did personally speak with Linda Holmes and disagree with your comments completely. That is not what she lead me to believe occurred. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Oct 25, 2007 13:58:33 GMT -6
And you're ok with "the SB choosing boundaries on purpose because they did not like a particular builder?" That is utterly outrageous (or were you being sarcastic?).
|
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Oct 25, 2007 14:00:23 GMT -6
And you're ok with "the SB choosing boundaries on purpose because they did not like a particular builder?" That is utterly outrageous (or were you being sarcastic?). No, I am not okay with that. I was being sarcastic. Sorry for the confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Oct 25, 2007 14:00:33 GMT -6
I will say that I did personally speak with Linda Holmes and disagree with your comments completely. That is not what she lead me to believe occurred. Then she lied to one of us  . |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 25, 2007 14:01:10 GMT -6
While I am not a fan of M2, even that senario is a stretch for me to believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 25, 2007 14:06:39 GMT -6
That sort of petty crap (and that is what it is) is the stuff that usually floats up from constituents calling or writing to bitch and hold hostage a 'vote' in a group effort sort of thing to get their way.
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Oct 25, 2007 14:07:49 GMT -6
While I am not a fan of M2, even that senario is a stretch for me to believe. It's no surprise that I'm not a big fan of MM but I had never had contact with Senator Holmes before this and I can't figure out why she would make this up. For the record, I also spoke with Senator Halvorson regarding this issue. Again, I think it's all politics. MM gets support for QT with boundary changes and Senator Holmes gets support from the SB and taxpayers (especially Ashwood). Remember, there can be some deep pockets involved. The truth of the matter is it happens all the time in politics - one hand washes the other. |
|
.