Valley Voices Boundary chatter good for laughs

[sushi]

mandmmom said:

gatormom said:

Metea Valley no matter where it is located serves the entire district by virtue of relieving the overcrowding. When Neuqua was built, those attending Waubonsie benefitted through relief of overcrowding. Metea will do the same for both Neuqua and Waubonsie.

You have every right to voice your opinion that they are making the wrong decision. I have every right to support that decision based on the my opinion that the benefit of building this school is to improve the quality of education each and every student in this district will get.

Well at least we agree it is ok to disagree....but it is the SB responsibility to build any school on a safe piece of land and the current HS site has many questions surrounding its safety...the SB are the ones who initially discounted this current site; I am not sure what has changed in 2 years....but rushing to meet an unrealistic timeline is not benefiting anyone especially if 1 child develops a mysterious illness.

Everyone wants the land to be safe.

[mandmmom]

sushi said:

gatormom said:

Metea Valley no matter where it is located serves the entire district by virtue of relieving the overcrowding. When Neuqua was built, those attending Waubonsie benefitted through relief of overcrowding. Metea will do the same for both Neuqua and Waubonsie.

You have every right to voice your opinion that they are making the wrong decision. I have every right to support that decision based on the my opinion that the benefit of building this school is to improve the quality of education each and every student in this district will get.

Exactly. The problem is MV is not located close enough to the NV attendance area so the little darlings have to go to an "old school" with "bad people." I am not saying a certain person on this board said there were bad people there, it has been and is being said by many, I have heard it too much myself from people who are educated and I thought forward-thinking adults. It makes me hurl. Don't answer me - look yourself in the eye and answer yourself.

I am new and I knew nothing about WV, but you constantly state the negative comments that people say about WV....by doing this you are actually perpetuating this reputation...please stop stating these ugly comments, and start saying positive things about WV....b/c you are really contributing to the problem, even if you are not trying too.

[momto4]

mandmmom said:

I am not sure what has changed in 2 years....but rushing to meet an unrealistic timeline is not benefiting anyone especially if 1 child develops a mysterious illness.

Are you saying that no children at WV or NV have ever developed a mysterious illness? Sheesh, it happens everywhere and it seems unlikely that this would be attributable to the new location.

[mustangpride]

mandmmom said:

sushi said:

Exactly. The problem is MV is not located close enough to the NV attendance area so the little darlings have to go to an "old school" with "bad people." I am not saying a certain person on this board said there were bad people there, it has been and is being said by many, I have heard it too much myself from people who are educated and I thought forward-thinking adults. It makes me hurl. Don't answer me - look yourself in the eye and answer yourself.

I am new and I knew nothing about WV, but you constantly state the negative comments that people say about WV....by doing this you are actually perpetuating this reputation...please stop stating these ugly comments, and start saying positive things about WV....b/c you are really contributing to the problem, even if you are not trying too.

I agree. This type of talk does nothing but stir up more trouble IMO.

And the people I know who are concerned have no beef with WVHS.

[mandmmom]

momto4 said:

mandmmom said:

I am not sure what has changed in 2 years....but rushing to meet an unrealistic timeline is not benefiting anyone especially if 1 child develops a mysterious illness.

People are talking about lawsuits and my point was that I am more concerned with a lawsuit if the new site is built and a child develops a mysterious illness....b/c our own SB discounted the property 2 years ago and made public comments about it....by doing this they are opening themselves up to future type lawsuits if even 1 child develops a mysterious illness...

[concerned]

archwinsome said:

sushi said:

I am talking about lawsuits being planned against the board because of the way the boundary issue was handled. In retrospect, what the board should have done is publish the boundaries in the paper to let people know where they would attend and forget all the rest of this s**t.

Boundary based lawsuits will go nowhere, IMO. What remains is the suitability for a school at that location. Even today, the Administration, by our Project Manager's admittance does not even have the results of the Phase1 or Phase2 in hand. Yet, when you hear our Superintendent speak, you are led to believe otherwise. We are making HUGE financial decisions, again, without all of the proper data in hand to make an informed decision.

agree, the safety of the site is the most important issue!!!!!!

[mandmmom]

concerned said:

archwinsome said:

Boundary based lawsuits will go nowhere, IMO. What remains is the suitability for a school at that location. Even today, the Administration, by our Project Manager's admittance does not even have the results of the Phase1 or Phase2 in hand. Yet, when you hear our Superintendent speak, you are led to believe otherwise. We are making HUGE financial decisions, again, without all of the proper data in hand to make an informed decision.

agree, the safety of the site is the most important issue!!!!!!

I agree too!!

[mandmmom]

momto4 said:

mandmmom said:

I am not sure what has changed in 2 years....but rushing to meet an unrealistic timeline is not benefiting anyone especially if 1 child develops a mysterious illness.

Are you saying that no children at WV or NV have ever developed a mysterious illness? Sheesh, it happens everywhere and it seems unlikely that this would be attributable to the new location.

Do you have information about anyone at WV or NV developing a mysterious illness? I wasn't here when NV was built, but did they have environmental concerns with that land?

[fryfox]

archwinsome said:

sushi said:

I am talking about lawsuits being planned against the board because of the way the boundary issue was handled. In retrospect, what the board should have done is publish the boundaries in the paper to let people know where they would attend and forget all the rest of this s**t.

Boundary based lawsuits will go nowhere, IMO. What remains is the suitability for a school at that location. Even today, the Administration, by our Project Manager's admittance does not even have the results of the Phase1 or Phase2 in hand. Yet, when you hear our Superintendent speak, you are led to believe otherwise. We are making HUGE financial decisions, again, without all of the proper data in hand to make an informed decision.

I'm totally with you, arch. I think anyone trying to file a lawsuit on boundaries would have a weak case, but the site location is riddled with problems.

Sushi and gatormom - I'm in total agreement we need a third high school, but do you really want a short term solution? Are you really happy that the number of kids bussed longer distances will only increase in time with this site? The population is going to mature, it is inevitable. Doesn't it bother you that this site we put so much money in could be a drag on the district for the life of the district?

I don't know how this couldn't. If you could explain to me how it will not be a drain on the district, I'd love to hear it.

[sushi]

Fryfox, what location do you suggest?

[d204mom]

fryfox said:

archwinsome said:

Boundary based lawsuits will go nowhere, IMO. What remains is the suitability for a school at that location. Even today, the Administration, by our Project Manager's admittance does not even have the results of the Phase1 or Phase2 in hand. Yet, when you hear our Superintendent speak, you are led to believe otherwise. We are making HUGE financial decisions, again, without all of the proper data in hand to make an informed decision.

I'm totally with you, arch. I think anyone trying to file a lawsuit on boundaries would have a weak case, but the site location is riddled with problems.

Sushi and gatormom - I'm in total agreement we need a third high school, but do you really want a short term solution? Are you really happy that the number of kids bussed longer distances will only increase in time with this site? The population is going to mature, it is inevitable. Doesn't it bother you that this site we put so much money in could be a drag on the district for the life of the district?

I don't know how this couldn't. If you could explain to me how it will not be a drain on the district, I'd love to hear it.

The numbers speak for themselves. 2400 at MV. Are the townhouses at BB really going to generate 600 high school students? I think Tuesday night was a temporary reprieve for Owen E. When Ashwood picks up they (Owen E) will trekking 8-10 miles north.

Or, depending on the next school board election, it was a temporary reprieve for Steck or McCarty, or both.

[momto4]

mandmmom said:

Do you have information about anyone at WV or NV developing a mysterious illness? I wasn't here when NV was built, but did they have environmental concerns with that land?

Generally kids' illness is fairly private unless the family agrees to have a story in the newspaper or have a fundraiser. There have definitely been illnesses and deaths in both schools that have made the news. I'm just saying that this happens in any large population of people and is not related to environmental hazard.

As for the people who keep talking about giant tomatoes and the like, if the farming there was really so awesome the land probably wouldn't be for sale. People have been farming that land for ages now and it doesn't look different than the few other area farms that are still here.

I hate to think that there might be a set of people who will attribute everything that goes wrong with people at the new building to environment, when in real life people get sick all the time.

[sushi]

I also wondered how many outlawed chemicals and how much spilled fuel could be right under my house or in my yard. Who really knows what went on when this was farmland? The standards were different then and the land was privately held. We all know our enrivonment is polluted. It IS overwhelming to think about.

[fryfox]

sushi said:

Fryfox, what location do you suggest?

At this point, I think they'd be better off to try to negotiate with BB outside of the courts and see if they can come to an agreement. I think Macom is a better site for the money, but I can see that it would cause an uproar in the north. So I guess I would rather see them try to make that work.

Unfortunately, now they have the AME land which they'd have to sell.

[momto4]

fryfox said:

sushi said:

Fryfox, what location do you suggest?

At this point, I think they'd be better off to try to negotiate with BB outside of the courts and see if they can come to an agreement. I think Macom is a better site for the money, but I can see that it would cause an uproar in the north. So I guess I would rather see them try to make that work.

Unfortunately, now they have the AME land which they'd have to sell.

But BB was NOT willing to negotiate or we'd have the land. Our SB and Admin tried everything they could to get that land and many who weren't that keen on the site thought they held on too long as it is. I don't think anything more could have been done outside of paying the jury price.

When could a school open on Macom site, realistically? It doesn't seem like it would be anytime soon and I thought they had some of the same concerns as AME? Power lines, tracks? Plus others.