Indian Prairie mum on potential sites

[momof3]

archwinsome said:

Nah, there's enough people here that would argue if someone said the sky appears blue.

It's not blue it's brown!

No, wait, I can't see it because we're in a ditch. And that's mud in my eye.

[momof3]

momof3 said:

Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:11 PM

The referendum presented to the community was based on the Brach-Brodie land and boundaries were determined. Those boundaries would no longer be in effect if the location of the school changed. In our opinion, the location of the land and boundaries are contributing factors to why people voted
as they did. A promise was made to the community and the community supported the district by passing the referendum.

I was thinking about Howie's 'promise to the voters' email.
Before the ref, the sb made several 'promises' that were not legally binding in the ref.
1 - site and boundaries
2 - cost 124.6 M
3 - amenities - I would argue that by virtue of posting the sketches, all assumed it would have same basic amenities as WV and NV
4 - will open in Fall 2009

Now unless they pull off some kind of miracle, they have to break one or more of these promises.

How are they going to decide which promises are ok to break and which ones aren't? Statements have been made regarding cost and amenities, but they never asked the community.

Hopefully when the final decision is made, the sb will fully explain why they chose to keep some promises and break others and why that is in the best interest of the kids in the district (and voters and taxpayers too).

eta - And the community reinterated their expectation of above 'promises' by re-electing 3 people that vowed to keep them.

[momof3]

Oh, and before anyone posts that #2 is legally binding, there is no language stating that they can't come back and ask for more $$. They did it for NV.

[rew]

MO3, you got me thinking..

Is there anyone who thinks the ref would not have passed if it had been for $130M or $135M?

Is there anyone who thinks the ref would not have passed if they said the school would not be ready until 2010?

Is there anyone who thinks the ref would not have passed if they said they might have to delay the building of the stadium/pool/gym? (not eliminate)

Is there anyone who thinks the ref would not have passed if they had not specified the site?
or the boundaries? (right or wrong)

It is interesting, IMO, the cost, the amenities (being delayed), the opening all had some wiggle room. The one thing they would not have passed the ref without was the site and by their admission, the boundaries, and yet this is the one thing they seem committed to changing??

[Arch]

I can't say for certain who would have had any of those tip them from yes to no or brought out more apathetic no voters, but none of that would have made a difference. I would have still voted yes in 2006

[doctorwho]

archwinsome said:

I can't say for certain who would have had any of those tip them from yes to no or brought out more apathetic no voters, but none of that would have made a difference. I would have still voted yes in 2006

I voted yes in 05 ( under similar guides ) and 06 -- the difference was I voted ina ghost town in '05 -- most everyone else stayed home

[casey]

IMHO, that's why they went after BB with guns loaded. No matter what, they wanted BB and they counted on that site for the passage of the referendum. People can cry foul now but site location wasn't included in the verbiage of the referendum. The SB has the $$$ now to build that 3rd HS regardless of the fact that it's not the deal that many thought it was. Again, we won't know where it will be built, how much it will cost, when it will be finished, or who is going there. How's that for a deal? Just imagine such shenanigans in the business world?

[gatormom]

Myself and a lot of the Gator families I know voted yes despite the boundaries. We were not happy but figured to make the best of it.

[Arch]

casey said:

IMHO, that's why they went after BB with guns loaded. No matter what, they wanted BB and they counted on that site for the passage of the referendum. People can cry foul now but site location wasn't included in the verbiage of the referendum. The SB has the $$$ now to build that 3rd HS regardless of the fact that it's not the deal that many thought it was. Again, we won't know where it will be built, how much it will cost, when it will be finished, or who is going there. How's that for a deal? Just imagine such shenanigans in the business world?

Yes, imagine that... Businesses keeping certain information about deals in the works on the hush hush before it's officially worked out and announced in a Press Release. The scandal!

[doctorwho]

casey said:

IMHO, that's why they went after BB with guns loaded. No matter what, they wanted BB and they counted on that site for the passage of the referendum. People can cry foul now but site location wasn't included in the verbiage of the referendum. The SB has the $$$ now to build that 3rd HS regardless of the fact that it's not the deal that many thought it was. Again, we won't know where it will be built, how much it will cost, when it will be finished, or who is going there. How's that for a deal? Just imagine such shenanigans in the business world?

www.boardgamegeek.com/image/44731[/img]

I keep trying to insert images - I'm getting closer i think -- just the term Shenanigans brought back an image from the past

[casey]

Spin it any way you'd like but it's not what we voted on. In the real world, persons are fired and reprimanded for missing deadlines, miscalculating costs, etc.

[casey]

FWIW, I think the term "shenanigans" is fun. It sounds like something my mother would say! Besides, how many times in life does one get to use that word? ;D

[doctorwho]

casey said:

FWIW, I think the term "shenanigans" is fun. It sounds like something my mother would say! Besides, how many times in life does one get to use that word? ;D

not often - likely why it conjured up images of the game show on TV and the board gme from like the mid 60's --( shown on my link) - it is a fun word

[momof3]

casey said:

IMHO, that's why they went after BB with guns loaded. No matter what, they wanted BB and they counted on that site for the passage of the referendum. People can cry foul now but site location wasn't included in the verbiage of the referendum. The SB has the $$$ now to build that 3rd HS regardless of the fact that it's not the deal that many thought it was. Again, we won't know where it will be built, how much it will cost, when it will be finished, or who is going there. How's that for a deal? Just imagine such shenanigans in the business world?

casey -
I pointed out that there were lots of things not stated in the verbiage. They could cut the pool & stadium. They could not offer Chinese or German or anatomy at MV. They could make class sizes at MV 50. None of that was in the ref.

Not crying foul, just pointing it out.

eta - as far as new favorite words, mine is kerfuffle. Saw it in a Trib headline the other day.

This whole MV site situation is causing quite the kerfuffle!

[rew]

My point is why is the SB looking to change the one thing people voted on...the site. Why not choose to change the other variables?? Cost, timing, amenities etc?