North site location benefits?

[wvhsparent]

eagledad said:

Here's an idea - just like the contract on the acreage at Brach Brodie was contingent on the passage of the building referendum....

Make the contract on a new site contingent on the passing of a confrimation and operating funds referendum. Brinng the whol package back out:

"I approve district 204 to continue with plans to build a third highs school and issue operating bonds in the amount of $XYZ/year."

Sounds good in theory....but has a snowball's chance in hades of passing......which then would mean no 3rd HS at all. Is that what you would want? I think it would probably please harry.

[doctorwho]

wvhsparent said:

eagledad said:

Here's an idea - just like the contract on the acreage at Brach Brodie was contingent on the passage of the building referendum....

Make the contract on a new site contingent on the passing of a confrimation and operating funds referendum. Brinng the whol package back out:

"I approve district 204 to continue with plans to build a third highs school and issue operating bonds in the amount of $XYZ/year."

Sounds good in theory....but has a snowball's chance in hades of passing......which then would mean no 3rd HS at all. Is that what you would want? I think it would probably please harry.

there were those who predicted the last referendum would fail also - Not so sure the same people who voted yes last time wouldn't do so again. I admit it would not be an easy sell-- but either will the AME site and all the trickle down moves for those areas that voted heavily yes last time, which will affect ( right or wrong ) future ops ref and all other ref - including A/C.

[rew]

The benefit I can see for AME is a) shorter distance for LW and BD, and the folks in Ginger Woods etc. Period. Even the shorter distance for BRKS is not worth having a HS across the street. Just head down Eola and 95th near the HSs at arrival/dismissal and game times etc. You want the HS close but not across the street. And sadly, look at the Sun blotter...teenage crimes, vandalism etc happen right around the HSs.

[momof3]

doctorwho said:

you mean like the better citizens in some areas that voted NO, but yet might get rewarded ?

iirc that area was 80%+ no

I wonder if the areas that are angry about the new location will be an 80% NO on the op ref

I expected a no vote out of that area but was shocked at how high the turnout was and how high the NO vote was, so I think it's possible on the OP ref

[gatordog]

doctorwho said:

gatordog said:

I am afraid this sentiment is very real. And it does concern me.

Ultimately, however, this is a political cost. and my thinking here pretty much avoids this. Intentionally!

I am not saying this is the case for you or anybody in particular. But something bugging me was, I dont want any of the logical and financial assessment about what to do next to come down to "one area gets rewarded because they heavily vote yes, while another area should not receive the 'fruits' because they voted no."

Politically, I understand this. But rationally, for the broad interests of the district, such thinking should not be allowed to enter in to this. That is the junk you expect from Springfield andWashington. Lets be better citizens than that here in 204. I hope I am expressing this thought ok...

you mean like the better citizens in some areas that voted NO, but yet might get rewarded ?

to be regrettably blunt....yes.

I strongly feel that such political reasons for site selection as describe above should not be a factor. Maybe I am being naive or idealistic, but thats not my view of my 204 citizenship.

In my opinion, the political aspects of unacceptably high cost overruns are my prime concern.

[bob]

80% no?

That should mean they should travel the farthest and get the least amount of benefits of a new HS.

[gatormom]

bob said:

80% no?

That should mean they should travel the farthest and get the least amount of benefits of a new HS.

So what do you suggest? Sending them to Neuqua and taking more people out of that building who don't want to go.

[bob]

gatormom said:

bob said:

80% no?

That should mean they should travel the farthest and get the least amount of benefits of a new HS.

So what do you suggest? Sending them to Neuqua and taking more people out of that building who don't want to go.

No, but if they didn't want a new HS then they should stay at WV.

I would be pretty pissed if I worked my butt off for a referendum and then see an area benefit that voted against it.

[Arch]

Class A motor coaches that swing by the excess student's homes and drive them around in a mobile classroom for their studies.

I wonder what that cost would be. According to the AllDay salespeople, studies do show that students do better when the teacher comes to them and not the other way around.

At current rates for a nice one w/ 3 slideouts (2K/week BEFORE a bulk discount) we could do 62,000 motor-weeks (like man hours) for the approved budget. Gas is a wash w/ regular busing that would have been scheduled for a HS.

When the 'bubble' is passed we can sell them on ebay. Boy, it's been a long week already

[doctorwho]

bob said:

gatormom said:

So what do you suggest? Sending them to Neuqua and taking more people out of that building who don't want to go.

No, but if they didn't want a new HS then they should stay at WV.

I would be pretty pissed if I worked my butt off for a referendum and then see an area benefit that voted against it.

get ready

and then one's own area who had tons of workers & who voted as heavily yes as any - get totally hosed -- gotta love it

[macy]

Ditto for my area... double hosed, in fact.

But yet, somehow we managed to get out the Yes vote... I'm not sure the support will be there in the future for requests for funding.

[momto4]

bob said:

gatormom said:

So what do you suggest? Sending them to Neuqua and taking more people out of that building who don't want to go.

No, but if they didn't want a new HS then they should stay at WV.

I would be pretty pissed if I worked my butt off for a referendum and then see an area benefit that voted against it.

I think it's questionable as to "who benefits" when there's a new school. I feel that my family would benefit if we could stay at our current HS. I don't feel that it's a benefit to have children in two different high schools or have to be in a school when it starts up a new PTA, new music and sports programs, etc. The people who didn't want a new HS should be happy to stay at WV or NV unless they are in a situation like Brookdale where that is a big split from the rest of their MS.

I worked my butt off for the referendum and my area voted against it. Should I benefit from a new HS or not? I feel that I benefit if there IS a new HS and I benefit even more if my family is not assigned to attend it...

[bob]

Maybe I am being too hard on Brookdale. They voted No and that's it. They were the minority but everyone's kids will get a benefit.

It is just a shame that they voted No overwhelmingly because they didn't like the boundaries. Fry and WE didn't want to leave NV but they still voted YES.

[macy]

bob said:

Maybe I am being too hard on Brookdale. They voted No and that's it. They were the minority but everyone's kids will get a benefit.

It is just a shame that they voted No overwhelmingly because they didn't like the boundaries. Fry and WE didn't want to leave NV but they still voted YES.

yes, but isn't it strange how politics works? One could think the school is being considered at AME to appease Brookdale.

I'm not sure I believe that, but, heck at this point it's a possibility.

[EagleDad]

bob said:

gatormom said:

So what do you suggest? Sending them to Neuqua and taking more people out of that building who don't want to go.

No, but if they didn't want a new HS then they should stay at WV.

I would be pretty pissed if I worked my butt off for a referendum and then see an area benefit that voted against it.

How about throwing in everyone wanting to immediately kick you out of your Middle School and having a Walmart go up down the street instead.