Ad in Sunday Sun by Parents for 204

[bob]

I don't hear one person complaining about the facts as presented.

Here are a few problems

1) Bonds issued over above amount voters approved.

Not true. They did not issue more. What they did was take a higher interest rate for more money. We are have to pay back the $124 million in principal. It was a back door way to get more money and it sucks.
The ad should have known the difference,

2) 25 acres cannot be returned
Do we know that yet? Has BB say no and it wasn't reported.

3) Classic Bait and switch
Not really. In order for this to happen, the SB/Admin would have to know the jury would come in too high and then said move to AME. The jury, the lawyers, the SB, and BB would all have to be in on this.

There are some other small points that are more opinions than facts at this point.

The authors should have taken some more time with the ad and it could have been more effective. Being so wrong on the bond issue fact opens up a credibility issue on the whole thing. IT should have been more airtight.

[southsidemom]

archwinsome said:

wvhsparent said:

Never said it was illegal or immoral...I said it was cowardly.

We're all cowards then because we all have handles and are not using our real names on here.

Speak for yourself Arch. At the meeting where the lady got up and insulted "the people in the South part of town" I personally went up to her, corrected her statement, introduced myself, provided address and name on this blog. That is how pissed I was at the ignorance of generalizations being made in the community about any one group of people.

[bob]

The whole this is not the Referendum You Supported is a bit of an opinion.

Only the person that marked in the yes bubble really knows why they supported the referendum.

[doctorwho]

bob said:

The whole this is not the Referendum You Supported is a bit of an opinion.

Only the person that marked in the yes bubble really knows why they supported the referendum.

there were plenty of people who also marked no because of what was presented- including entire areas -- I don't think there is any way of saying what was presented did not influence the vote - it did. Even those who would have voted the same way regardless ( yes or no) still knew exactly what we were told we were getting, and we got something very very different.

[bob]

doctorwho said:

bob said:

The whole this is not the Referendum You Supported is a bit of an opinion.

Only the person that marked in the yes bubble really knows why they supported the referendum.

there were plenty of people who also marked no because of what was presented- including entire areas -- I don't think there is any way of saying what was presented did not influence the vote - it did. Even those who would have voted the same way regardless ( yes or no) still knew exactly what we were told we were getting, and we got something very very different.

Agreed.

I am beginning to think we should have just sucked up and paid BB.

[doctorwho]

doctorwho said:

bob said:

Agreed.

I am beginning to think we should have just sucked up and paid BB. The dollar cost for peace is unmeasurable.

Agree also, wasn't that what we were told directly would happen ? We could afford anything. We even had to put the money up before the trial. No one had any reason to believe it would be anything else - regardless of verdict. That is part of the bait and switch in my opinion, was the virtual 'guarantee' this is what we were getting.

I know it is pure speculation, but based on feedback now- do we think the ref still would have passed with this site ? It is questionable at best

I still think if we try and open AME in Fall 2009- and I believe they will attempt to move mountains to do so -- this will cost us more or equal to if we just went forward wth BB.....and we get a site with at least potential physical issues, absolute physical perception problems, 1/2 the school that does not want to attend there, and 1/2 the district in an uproar

[bob]

We even had to put the money up before the trial.

If I remember correctly, it was during QT that this was brought up. Since QT did not happen, no money was actually put up.

[Arch]

Doc, hard to say. If we were voting on site, then no I do not believe it would have passed. As indicated by the need to pull kids from 40 minutes away, the site would not have had the number of local supporters because it the people just are not there in large enough quantities. The site is surrounded by residential, commercial and even INDUSTRIAL zoning. It would not have flown.

The referendum language, as we all know, did not specify site. That was pointed out ahead of time, but I don't know if enough people would have looked at it without regards to the selection to have passed it in the scenerio you describe.

[d204mom]

bob said:

I don't hear one person complaining about the facts as presented.

1) Bonds issued over above amount voters approved.

Not true. They did not issue more. What they did was take a higher interest rate for more money. We are have to pay back the $124 million in principal. It was a back door way to get more money and it sucks.
The ad should have known the difference,

I find that description more accurate than Metzger saying the money came from "a more favorable interest rate" which isn't exactly true either.

They left out one word - if they would have added "premiums" but then who'd know what they were talking about?

[d204mom]

doctorwho said:

doctorwho said:

Agree also, wasn't that what we were told directly would happen ? We could afford anything.

Certain board members said that to get re-elected. And it worked.

[Arch]

d204mom said:

doctorwho said:

doctorwho said:

Agree also, wasn't that what we were told directly would happen ? We could afford anything.

Certain board members said that to get re-elected. And it worked.

Not sure of the motive for saying it, but they did say "Our data is better than their data".

Turns out lately that MY data is better than THEIR data.. and he admitted that

[d204mom]

archwinsome said:

The referendum language, as we all know, did not specify site. That was pointed out ahead of time, but I don't know if enough people would have looked at it without regards to the selection to have passed it in the scenerio you describe.

Lemme ask people this - D203 just passed their ref and in the financial FAQs they stated that they WOULD NOT issue bond premiums. But that was not in their referendum language.

IF they turn around and issue bond premiums, will those voters be justified in being upset or, like us, will they be told "You people were just SUCKERS for TRUSTING those elected officials to keep their word."

So why bother publishing "FAQs" associated with the referendum?

[d204mom]

bob said:

doctorwho said:

there were plenty of people who also marked no because of what was presented- including entire areas -- I don't think there is any way of saying what was presented did not influence the vote - it did. Even those who would have voted the same way regardless ( yes or no) still knew exactly what we were told we were getting, and we got something very very different.

Agreed.

I am beginning to think we should have just sucked up and paid BB.

I think it's funny that people actually think this new site will turn out cheaper in the end. If the school doesn't open on time we'll be short $900K. If BB ties up the 25 acres for any period of time we'll be short $6.4M. If BB gets an award more than $5M we'll be short $who knows$.

[fence]

I would have been surprised if I didn't see an ad given this particular situation. Set expectations one way, then turn everything around and you're going to have alot of angry people. Pick a site requiring over 2/3 of the district to move, add a little environmental hazard talk, increase a few commute times here and there, split schools apart, and widen the achievement gap, and do that in an already difficult economic/housing climate and you are probably not going to get all sweetness and light.

I am sure that the SB thinks they're doing the best they can, but I don't blame people for being upset and I don't blame them for taking it public. I would expect nothing less from this district given what we went through to get the referendum passed in the first place.

[slp]

fence said:

I would have been surprised if I didn't see an ad given this particular situation. Set expectations one way, then turn everything around and you're going to have alot of angry people. Pick a site requiring over 2/3 of the district to move, add a little environmental hazard talk, increase a few commute times here and there, split schools apart, and widen the achievement gap, and do that in an already difficult economic/housing climate and you are probably not going to get all sweetness and light.

I am sure that the SB thinks they're doing the best they can, but I don't blame people for being upset and I don't blame them for taking it public. I would expect nothing less from this district given what we went through to get the referendum passed in the first place.

Fence,

A great assessment. Well said.