|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jan 20, 2008 9:01:39 GMT -6
Hi all,
I just wanted to pop on here real quick and say that for those of you in the silent (or, at least, less-vocal) majority, that support the recommended site to build MV, please let the SB know of your support. The ipsd.org site provides a way to email your feedback about this, as well as a way to send email to the SB members. Please make your voice heard. I'm sure those against the site have.
And, if you can, please show your support at the SB meeting on Tuesday. Sign up to speak, if you feel so inclined. Again, I'm sure that those against it will.
I am sure that the combination of people that really don't care where MV is built (i.e. they just want the school built soon) and those that support the location outnumber those opposing it. We just need to make sure that the SB & Admin know that.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 20, 2008 9:05:07 GMT -6
I've already left my feedback, and I plan on going on Tues
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 20, 2008 11:09:16 GMT -6
Consider this a gift. I will be doing an Eagle Scout Board of Review that evening and will not be present to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Jan 20, 2008 12:36:14 GMT -6
Just curious - do you think many who voted NO originally now support the 3rd school at AME because of the change in location? Or are the people who opposed the school generally sticking with their position, and not supporting AME?
I know there are some here who voted NO and are really sticking to their guns. And others from the north who voted YES are in support of AME. I'm just curious if the change in location has any NO voters supporting the YES, now that it's for AME.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 20, 2008 12:39:39 GMT -6
There seems to be some amount of NO voter areas who are now YES due to closeness.
|
|
|
|
Post by dpc on Jan 20, 2008 13:37:07 GMT -6
There seems to be some amount of NO voter areas who are now YES due to closeness. Probably true...perhaps they voted "No" because of location whereas many "Yes" voters would have voted "No" if AME were the original location vs. BB. JMHO based on the ardent "Yes" voters who will now do anything humanly possible to prevent the AME land purchase. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 20, 2008 13:48:14 GMT -6
There seems to be some amount of NO voter areas who are now YES due to closeness. Probably true...perhaps they voted "No" because of location whereas many "Yes" voters would have voted "No" if AME were the original location vs. BB. JMHO based on the ardent "Yes" voters who will now do anything humanly possible to prevent the AME land purchase. Still yet to be done: Without using MONEY as a consideration, explain how AME is the BEST site for the district over others like BB. Approving a HS and picking the site are 2 different things. I voted YES because we need it. I also do not like the AME site because I feel it is substandard with the past/present/future baggage. Looking at hazards and potential hazards (or lack thereof), I think BB and Wager are near the top of the list for BEST. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Jan 21, 2008 12:57:54 GMT -6
Looking at hazards and potential hazards (or lack thereof), I think BB and Wager are near the top of the list for BEST. I'm not trying to be a snot here but why keep bringing up Wagner? As far as I know it has never been one of the sites that the SB has been legitimately considering. Do you know something else? I'd love to think that we had Wagner as our mystery site but I just don't think that's the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 21, 2008 13:02:12 GMT -6
Looking at hazards and potential hazards (or lack thereof), I think BB and Wager are near the top of the list for BEST. I'm not trying to be a snot here but why keep bringing up Wagner? As far as I know it has never been one of the sites that the SB has been legitimately considering. Do you know something else? I'd love to think that we had Wagner as our mystery site but I just don't think that's the case. I only bring it up because it was talked abut at some point in the past. Without using money as a consideration (unwilling seller which means a very high price) it still is worth mentioning due to having fewer hazards. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Jan 21, 2008 13:03:36 GMT -6
I'm not trying to be a snot here but why keep bringing up Wagner? As far as I know it has never been one of the sites that the SB has been legitimately considering. Do you know something else? I'd love to think that we had Wagner as our mystery site but I just don't think that's the case. I only bring it up because it was talked abut at some point in the past. Without using money as a consideration (unwilling seller which means a very high price) it still is worth mentioning due to having fewer hazards. I would agree with you then. Wagner would be a top site choice especially given our alternatives. |
|
|
|
Post by MustangSix on Jan 21, 2008 22:43:29 GMT -6
Where is Wagner? I would guess it didn't meet the baseline criteria for sites and that's why it was never on the lst. But just a wild guess.
I voted YES simply because I feel 3 high schools would benefit the District. I didn't care where they put the new high school. Today I am in WVHS and that has always been fine.
What is wrong with the AME property - is it simply because it is up North and South doesn't want to go to WVHS?
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jan 21, 2008 23:02:28 GMT -6
Where is Wagner? I would guess it didn't meet the baseline criteria for sites and that's why it was never on the lst. But just a wild guess. I voted YES simply because I feel 3 high schools would benefit the District. I didn't care where they put the new high school. Today I am in WVHS and that has always been fine. What is wrong with the AME property - is it simply because it is up North and South doesn't want to go to WVHS? The problems with the Midwest Generation/AME have been discussed. You can read the posts. Today I am at WVHS and that we be fine as long as it stays that way. How would you feel if you were transferred to the Midwest Generation/AMe site? If you are from MCC you are one f the closest schools to the site. |
|
|
|
Post by MustangSix on Jan 21, 2008 23:16:39 GMT -6
I don't see any problems with AME - the lines are unfairly represented from what I've seen from the actual property - the people in that area have been living with the lines for years, so they apparently are fine with them.. The environmental issues have been reviewed by the Board and the city. They are obviously privvy to more details than the rest of us.
There is problems with any site selected to be worked thru.
I am fine with where ever they send us.
Nope, it still looks like the south will do anything to stay away from WVHS.
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jan 21, 2008 23:28:51 GMT -6
I don't see any problems with AME - the lines are unfairly represented from what I've seen from the actual property - the people in that area have been living with the lines for years, so they apparently are fine with them.. The environmental issues have been reviewed by the Board and the city. They are obviously privvy to more details than the rest of us. There is problems with any site selected to be worked thru. I am fine with where ever they send us. Nope, it still looks like the south will do anything to stay away from WVHS. I am a bit confused by your statements. What I am seeing are actual photographs of a switching station from google maps and there is no one living around them. High voltage power lines are a concern too but I never heard of anyone living under a high voltage power line. I don't understand how you got on the property to view for yourself. Of course the transformers are near the property if they were on the property they would be coming down. Why should the school board and the city be more privvy to the environmental tests than the parents? Are you from MCC? Are there a lot of people in the MCC attendance area who would be happy at AME because I have some friends at MW who would love to know. |
|
|
|
Post by MustangSix on Jan 21, 2008 23:43:01 GMT -6
Look at where the school is actually going to be. I don't know what MCC is?? So I guess I'm not from there. Once again, if the people whose kids are going there are comfortable with it, I don't see the problem.
The SB and city have been working directly with the current owners gathering info. I would find that more legitimate than what parents dig out honestly.
There are high voltage lines that run at the north, west edge of SB that buzz and people have talked about them for years ... wondering if there would be long term effects. Maybe it's a different thing, I don't honestly know. But I know those appear to be the same people who are sending their kids and not mumbling a word about them.
I just don't believe the SB has not done its due diligence with this site.
How many Northerners are complaining about the site? It appears (I could be wrong) that its the southerners who are complaining - and those kids won't even be there. How odd.
|
|
