|
Post by lacy on Feb 17, 2008 16:14:04 GMT -6
When the group is identified, I'm sure the SB will be even more willing to work with them If I were a SB member (and thank God I am not), I would just vote to keep the boundaries the way they are now. I would put my selfish face forward and say, "Screw you, you are now all going to suffer because of what a few people did." I have never met a more thick headed group of people that live in this community. Other districts just pick some land and put a school on it and the folks are happy. But WE in Dist. 204 are so special that we deserve to vote on where that school should be. Other districts just send you a card in the mail and tell you where your child should go and the folks there accept that. But WE in Dist. 204 are so much better than them that we deserve to tell the board where they should send our kids. I have tried to be so supportive of the Owen/Watts/Fry people and I have tried to make things better for them. I don't believe I can be supportive of you all anymore. I'm sorry to label you guys in with the people that published that ad. And I don't know who put that article out there but I am so embarrassed to be part of this district when I see things like that. Let's just try and divide the district more than it already is. I would love to meet the kids of the parents who published this letter. I hope they are not as selfish as their parents. How is this letter helping the kids? I think this ad will backfire on the people that wrote it. Some people feel like the district already said "screw you". Came through loud and clear with that bridge memo. I am embarrassed to be part of a district that does something like that. You need to remember that this is America - not a communist country. People have every right to speak up if they are dissatisfied with something. That doesn't make them selfish - it makes them Americans.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 17, 2008 16:14:54 GMT -6
I was thinking more like how diesel fuel oil was only used twice and then only under an hour each time... but that works too. Wait, oh I know, it was about EMF levels being lower than they were on october 30th 2007... but stated in a presentation to be well below those readings... Hey Arch - what were the EMF readings on 10/30/07? I have not heard about that and I'm interested. And what were they stated at the presentation? Stated {Timestamps of the video are in ()s} EMF Power lines.. 1 along the tracks, 1 along the path (30:48) EMF Study -- 40 readings, "Clearly we have got a paper that says the average is about 2.4" (31:32) "When you get close to the lines, it may move up in the area of 5 or 6" (Then he went on to talk about giving a perspective) "The people who have done this have given us a clean report, there are no problems with any electromagnetic on that site no matter where we are planning to build, even on the fields or any of those things and we will be happy to share that with you" (32:15) Todd's map showed: If you follow the 3 N/S pipelines through the middle of the property, there's a 7.2 at the north by the path, moving south comes to 2.08, 2.64 then between the PE&practice field and the baseball fields was 4.2, then at the southern edge of the property above the 3 pipelines was 6.24 As for 1 along the path and 1 along the track, there are actually MULTIPLE lines along the track and MULTIPLE lines along the path. Anyone with a set of working eyeballs can see that.
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Feb 17, 2008 16:18:10 GMT -6
When the group is identified, I'm sure the SB will be even more willing to work with them If I were a SB member (and thank God I am not), I would just vote to keep the boundaries the way they are now. I would put my selfish face forward and say, "Screw you, you are now all going to suffer because of what a few people did." I have never met a more thick headed group of people that live in this community. Other districts just pick some land and put a school on it and the folks are happy. But WE in Dist. 204 are so special that we deserve to vote on where that school should be. Other districts just send you a card in the mail and tell you where your child should go and the folks there accept that. But WE in Dist. 204 are so much better than them that we deserve to tell the board where they should send our kids. I have tried to be so supportive of the Owen/Watts/Fry people and I have tried to make things better for them. I don't believe I can be supportive of you all anymore. I'm sorry to label you guys in with the people that published that ad. And I don't know who put that article out there but I am so embarrassed to be part of this district when I see things like that. Let's just try and divide the district more than it already is. I would love to meet the kids of the parents who published this letter. I hope they are not as selfish as their parents. How is this letter helping the kids? I think this ad will backfire on the people that wrote it. What do you mean by "backfire"? Does the district play favorites? Do they retaliate against those who exercise their first Amendment rights? Please explain.
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Feb 17, 2008 16:29:48 GMT -6
Well the add says the group are "parents of students in School Dist. 204" But you're right, I think the school board and the district stopped "working with" that group a while ago. Probably about the time this fall when everything shifted to executive session and limited public comment. I still hold hope that we don't have a board that chooses which parts of the community to work with. I really do think they are trying to work in the best interest of the district as whole. However, I hope they take into account all of the good input the last few weeks (i.e recommended changes on this board). OK, I've had a few hours to cool off. I apologize for my ranting. As you can tell by my name, I haven't been getting a lot of sleep lately. I just think there is a better way to get what you want than by doing that ad. I do hope the board doesn't say "screw you" to you guys. I know that you guys want all the criteria applied evenly to you and that is understandable. But I just don't see a way to make everyone happy. I agree that if others can be moved out for Owen and Watts they should, but I'm sure there is some good (?) reason why they haven't been moved. Hopefully the school board will address those issues. And hopefully they will explain why Welch wins and Fry loses. I do agree I guess that we need an explanation as to why the board decided the way they did. And I hope at Tuesday's meeting that everyone can be calm and civil. And I also hope the board disregards this ad and doesn't see it as a personal attack or everyone loses.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 17, 2008 16:31:25 GMT -6
Backfire could also come from loss of support from other areas sympathetic to your cause.
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Feb 17, 2008 16:40:01 GMT -6
Beefeater, I LOVE this. I smelled it from the moment I opened the paper. How do you get these tidbits? Any legal minds out there - do they have a leg to stand on??? Global-wide? ? Not a lawyer, so I'll state that up front. Boundaries were never promised, neither was site, neither was the 'total cost'. The only thing voted on was to sell bonds of a specific amount and throw that specific amount (but it wasn't exclusive to only that specific amount) towards buying land and building a school. What remains now is whether the site is suitable/safe for a school. The biggest smoking gun that I can see is the district's own prior work with regards to disqualifying that site properly the first time around due to concerns over health, hazards and the potential of having to close a school years down the road due to health concerns. That alone might be enough to at least hit the pause button for an unknown amount of time. I agree and have always thought the same regarding the multiple environmental concerns.
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Feb 17, 2008 17:19:03 GMT -6
I really do think they are trying to work in the best interest of the district as whole. However, I hope they take into account all of the good input the last few weeks (i.e recommended changes on this board). OK, I've had a few hours to cool off. I apologize for my ranting. As you can tell by my name, I haven't been getting a lot of sleep lately. I just think there is a better way to get what you want than by doing that ad. I do hope the board doesn't say "screw you" to you guys. I know that you guys want all the criteria applied evenly to you and that is understandable. But I just don't see a way to make everyone happy. I agree that if others can be moved out for Owen and Watts they should, but I'm sure there is some good (?) reason why they haven't been moved. Hopefully the school board will address those issues. And hopefully they will explain why Welch wins and Fry loses. I do agree I guess that we need an explanation as to why the board decided the way they did. And I hope at Tuesday's meeting that everyone can be calm and civil. And I also hope the board disregards this ad and doesn't see it as a personal attack or everyone loses. O.K., I was with you until the last sentence. And for the record, I didn't place the ad. But I can understand the position of the people who did. The suggestion is that the SB conducts themselves in such a way as to "take things out" on certain people - or maybe lots of people - if they are mad. Is that what you're saying? If that's the case, then we all need to demand that they step down. Because quite frankly, if we all showed up and collectively mooned them, they should still act in the best interests of all the students. But the feeling I get is that they like certain areas and don't like others and that affects their decisions. And you just can't expect people to keep taking that.
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Feb 17, 2008 17:20:10 GMT -6
Backfire could also come from loss of support from other areas sympathetic to your cause. This is not a popularity contest. Nor is it a political contest. This SB is duty bound to apply the same standards to everyone. If they can't or won't do that, then people will look to other remedies.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 17, 2008 17:32:44 GMT -6
Backfire could also come from loss of support from other areas sympathetic to your cause. This is not a popularity contest. Nor is it a political contest. This SB is duty bound to apply the same standards to everyone. If they can't or won't do that, then people will look to other remedies. Re-read what I posted....You want support from my area to your cause? Articulate a reason.....don't just complain and threaten, which in my opinion is all that ad really did.
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Feb 17, 2008 17:33:58 GMT -6
This is not a popularity contest. Nor is it a political contest. This SB is duty bound to apply the same standards to everyone. If they can't or won't do that, then people will look to other remedies. Re-read what I posted....You want support from my area to your cause? Articulate a reason.....don't just complain and threaten, which in my opinion is all that ad really did. I didn't place the ad. Fry will have the 2nd longest commute. And the bridge would allow our children to walk. Period.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 17, 2008 17:42:11 GMT -6
Re-read what I posted....You want support from my area to your cause? Articulate a reason.....don't just complain and threaten, which in my opinion is all that ad really did. I didn't place the ad. Fry will have the 2nd longest commute. And the bridge would allow our children to walk. Period. The "you" was meant as a generic term. I did not mean you, lacy, specifically. Sorry if you took it that way. OK I will take your word that you did not, but there are indications it came from the TG/Pencross area. Can you refute that? Seeing as the Ad placers were cowards and did not sign their names to the ad we may never know who placed the ad. Anyone here want to claim responsibilty for the ad?
|
|
|
Post by confused on Feb 17, 2008 17:48:25 GMT -6
I don't see it as they were cowards. It appears they are starting a group - similar to CFO (Citizens for Options, right?). It seemed to be a vehicle to communicate to others who are upset with what's happening and might want to share in their efforts. That's how I read it.
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Feb 17, 2008 17:48:35 GMT -6
I didn't place the ad. Fry will have the 2nd longest commute. And the bridge would allow our children to walk. Period. OK I will take your word that you did not, but there are indications it came from the TG/Pencross area. Can you refute that? Seeing as the Ad placers were cowards and did not sign their names to the ad. Cowards? They exercised their very American First Amendment rights to express their displeasure and concern at the SB's current direction. Why does this threaten you? If you disagree - that's fine. The campaign to crucify whoever did it is pretty sad. So there's people who don't support what the district is doing...if you do, that's fine. What I see is a pattern of trying to silence or shame anyone who disagrees with the district or SB. I don't know who placed the ad - but I do know there are a large number of people in my area who are upset - not a handful.
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Feb 17, 2008 17:49:30 GMT -6
The suggestion is that the SB conducts themselves in such a way as to "take things out" on certain people - or maybe lots of people - if they are mad. Is that what you're saying? If that's the case, then we all need to demand that they step down. Because quite frankly, if we all showed up and collectively mooned them, they should still act in the best interests of all the students. But the feeling I get is that they like certain areas and don't like others and that affects their decisions. And you just can't expect people to keep taking that. No, Lacy, I'm sure the board won't act like I would. I tend to take things personally, and you are right, eveyone has a right to their own opinions and I believe the board respects that. However, to demand the board treat everyone fairly is a huge demand IMO. IF it can be done, the board should treat everyone fairly. And given where the new school is, I just don't see that happening. Several schools WILL be treated unfairly. I think several schools were treated unfairly in the last boundary proposal too. And it will be more this time. And I do feel for everyone that this affects. I can see a light at the end of the tunnel for Owen and maybe Watts if there is a distance respect for the north and McC/Steck are switched. But as for Fry, I don't see how swapping Welch which are walkers for Fry which are walkers is going to do anyone any good. I personally hope they choose to address Petersen issues too although I think only a small portion of Petersen is truly unhappy there so that may be looked over (sorry, Ashwood folks). That's why I believe if people would rally around these poor folks, maybe they have a chance of being heard.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 17, 2008 17:51:25 GMT -6
Seeing as the Ad placers were cowards and did not sign their names to the ad we may never know who placed the ad. Anyone here want to claim responsibilty for the ad? Undercover officers often don't give their name either out of fear of repercussions. I see this as the same thing. They still did the job they set out to do, but shielded themselves from targeted personal backlash.
|
|