|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 5, 2008 9:12:47 GMT -6
If it works out that no additional costs are involved to flip back because someone may be persuaded to make a better land deal, what is the downside? Honestly, answer that question. What is the downside of going back to the first choice site if the money works out evenly?
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Mar 5, 2008 9:16:01 GMT -6
I was at the meeting last night and came away unimpressed and slightly amused. The bozo who ran the meeting accused an unnamed SB member that lives in WE of threatening to outspend any lawsuit. Later the guy admitted it wasn't BG but another SB member. My favorite was a woman who said the judge in the BB trial wasn't on our side and if we could get a judge that leaned in favor of us. Some of the questions asked were very good; others indicated a large number of people just didn's have the facts. I too was amazed at how quickly the checkbooks opened. This a desperate longshot that even Collins said would be difficult to win. More money down the drain for #204 taxpayers. People just don't want to come to terms that in all reality the Horse has probably left the barn. Wow is that a defeatist attitude. So what do you propose? We let this Admin and SB run wild and do nothing? Oh, that's right. We've already been doing that and look where it got us. About the money... I think this is an extremely small price to pay to right the OUTRAGEOUS wrongs this SB has brought about in this district. Are you just as concerned about the amount of damages we will have to pay BB? Doesn't that matter? Remember, this SB is willing to buy the environmental nightmare of property BEFORE we even know what the BB damages are. Do they have that "money tree" my Mom always referred to growing up? If not, where is all of this money coming from? researching. ... I totally understand your posts about righting the wrongs our SB has done. I agree they have left a mess and we are wallowing in it. But until you prove that this site is an environmental nightmare, I wll continue to give the SB the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that makes me stupid. I too, am concerned about the undisclosed $$ that the BB trial may cost us. So use your powers to tell the SB to slow down or at least disclose information to us. Don't try to stick it to the SB by squashing the third HS. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Mar 5, 2008 9:18:27 GMT -6
If it works out that no additional costs are involved to flip back because someone may be persuaded to make a better land deal, what is the downside? Honestly, answer that question. What is the downside of going back to the first choice site if the money works out evenly? Honestly, if the money works out to be the same, I would be happy with BB. I just don't see that as happening. Don't you think if the money were the same, the SB would have gone back to BB? Or are they too far into this to change their minds and look stupid.? I don't have the answer to that. |
|
|
|
Post by swimmom on Mar 5, 2008 9:20:09 GMT -6
Sleepless, you shouldn't be tared and feathered, you deserve an award. As part of the silent majority, you are right on the money. Pardon the pun. I am disgusted that a lawsuit is even being talked about.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 5, 2008 9:26:16 GMT -6
If it works out that no additional costs are involved to flip back because someone may be persuaded to make a better land deal, what is the downside? Honestly, answer that question. What is the downside of going back to the first choice site if the money works out evenly? Honestly, if the money works out to be the same, I would be happy with BB. I just don't see that as happening. Don't you think if the money were the same, the SB would have gone back to BB? Or are they too far into this to change their minds and look stupid.? I don't have the answer to that. I heard somewhere that Daeschner lost his patience and vowed to not work with BB anymore. Kind of like he's made up his mind and counted to 10. Can't remember if I read that here or someone told me that. So moving forward with another site was more of a personality conflict than anything else. And as far as not looking at other sites before rushing into Eola/Molitor - I believe Metzger was quite clear about the reasons for that decision. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Mar 5, 2008 9:29:03 GMT -6
Honestly, if the money works out to be the same, I would be happy with BB. I just don't see that as happening. Don't you think if the money were the same, the SB would have gone back to BB? Or are they too far into this to change their minds and look stupid.? I don't have the answer to that. I heard somewhere that Daeschner lost his patience and vowed to not work with BB anymore. Kind of like he's made up his mind and counted to 10. Can't remember if I read that here or someone told me that. So moving forward with another site was more of a personality conflict than anything else. I don't know what went on behind closed doors. I do think that the Brach didn't always agree with the Brodie. So IMO the SB tried to really make this work but had to walk away. Maybe their sin is their arrogance in not letting go of this sooner. Unfortunately, we will all be paying for this decision with our tax dollars. Yes, I am mad that they have misspent my money. But again, whether I like them or not, I voted them in to represent me. I also don't like what good ol' Rod is doing in Springfield either with my money, but I'm not going to sue him. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 5, 2008 9:31:30 GMT -6
he wrongs our SB has done. I agree they have left a mess and we are wallowing in it. But until you prove that this site is an environmental nightmare, I wll continue to give the SB the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that makes me stupid. I too, am concerned about the undisclosed $$ that the BB trial may cost us. I have waited patiently for over a month for said data from the Administration/School board and they keep telling me they do not have it yet. Hard to prove anything one way or the other when the discovery can not happen and is blocked/stalled. Corrosion in pipelines is also now approaching the leading cause of explosions for the past 15 years. All it takes is one single pit in the coating to start accelerating the process. That pit can come from something as benign as a small stone from the dirt 'fill' around the pipeline. Some of those pipes have been there almost 40 years based on the information I have been able to gather. I don't believe people have any appreciation for what a 'nightmare' really can be with thousands of kids around. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Mar 5, 2008 9:34:25 GMT -6
he wrongs our SB has done. I agree they have left a mess and we are wallowing in it. But until you prove that this site is an environmental nightmare, I wll continue to give the SB the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that makes me stupid. I too, am concerned about the undisclosed $$ that the BB trial may cost us. I have waited patiently for over a month for said data from the Administration/School board and they keep telling me they do not have it yet. Hard to prove anything one way or the other when the discovery can not happen and is blocked/stalled. Corrosion in pipelines is also now approaching the leading cause of explosions for the past 15 years. All it takes is one single pit in the coating to start accelerating the process. That pit can come from something as benign as a small stone from the dirt 'fill' around the pipeline. Some of those pipes have been there almost 40 years based on the information I have been able to gather. I don't believe people have any appreciation for what a 'nightmare' really can be with thousands of kids around. Yes, Arch, your voice is always in the back of my head, and I appreciate your dilegence on this. If the site is a bad one, we need to know and move on. I too am frustrated with the silence from the SB on this. I hope it is because they have no data and I hope no news is good news. We all want the site to be safe for the kids that will be going there. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 5, 2008 9:40:42 GMT -6
This lawsuit makes me so angry. I can see being disappointed and frustrated with the school board. I can see not liking how the boundaries worked out for one's family. But to cost the taxpayers of this district money on a lawsuit that is going nowhere infuriates me. I don't buy for a second that the courts will take this seriously. And if the courts do take it seriously, so much the worse for our district. We elected these officials. We voted for the referendum. We all can read. You would have to have been an idiot to think the boundaries couldn't change. I don't care what was 'implied.' I guess it's just the American way. I didn't get my way so I'm going to sue. Gee maybe I can sue because we didn't find WMDs in Iraq. You are missing the whole point of this.  I am sorry you think that this is only about boundaries. That is an extremely narrow minded view IMO and exactly why the SB and Admin. established the boundaries now. Smoke and mirrors. Some of us have had our eyes wide open since voting for Freshman centers to avoid the need for a 3rd HS. Others eyes were opened when the numbers were not what was predicted for enrollment. Others eyes were opened while watching the legal bungling of 204 during the BB trial. Still more people's eyes were opened when this SB decided to build the school on a site that had been deemed unfit environmentally during the last go around. The list could go on and on of the errors they have made NOT related to boundaries but I would be here all day. I am grateful that you continue to have the luxury of view this Admin. and SB through rose colored glasses. However, please don't be ridiculous enough to think that this is simply about boundaries. As MANY have previously stated, there isn't a legal case there. No matter how many people are unhappy. But you go ahead and keep those rose colored glasses on while others in this district look out for EVERYONE's best interests and not just best interests based on the narrow minded view about boundary decisions. Of course it all about the boundaries....Try to change the site, each of which would have it's own unique set of boundaries. Hey, I have not liked how the SB has handled this whole mess from day 1. They have made so many mistakes/missteps/incorrect assumptions/etc, etc. it's not funny. I however, do not believe for a moment that this was their plan all along. They really wanted BB, but in the end could not afford it. BTW - How much do you think BB would cost now if they were to try to get it? I bet it would be more than the jury award now, and the BB folks would still find a way to make the SD pay their legal fees. |
|
|
|
Post by susan on Mar 5, 2008 10:24:04 GMT -6
Hi,
This message is directed at the momma bear protecting her cubs. I am also a momma bear and I live in Tall Grass. I would appreciate it if you would top referring to the group who is putting forth a law suit as Tall Grass. As I stated above, I am a resident of Tall Grass and have nothing to do with that group and nor do any of my direct neighbors. From what I understand that meeting was attended by people of all kinds of neighborhoods in the district. I feel that many were there for all kinds of reasons. I personally do not like the way the school board has treated parents, but from what I can see there is nothing I can do about it, I am just making the best of a bad situation. Those people who attended the meeting may feel they can do something, that is their choice. Please stop referring to that group at Tall Grass. I find it very insulting.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Mar 5, 2008 10:47:41 GMT -6
Hi, This message is directed at the momma bear protecting her cubs. I am also a momma bear and I live in Tall Grass. I would appreciate it if you would top referring to the group who is putting forth a law suit as Tall Grass. As I stated above, I am a resident of Tall Grass and have nothing to do with that group and nor do any of my direct neighbors. From what I understand that meeting was attended by people of all kinds of neighborhoods in the district. I feel that many were there for all kinds of reasons. I personally do not like the way the school board has treated parents, but from what I can see there is nothing I can do about it, I am just making the best of a bad situation. Those people who attended the meeting may feel they can do something, that is their choice. Please stop referring to that group at Tall Grass. I find it very insulting. I apologize if I offended you, susan. The only reason I mentioned TG/WE in my long and drawn out ranting above is that the man who asked the question specifically said "What about the repercussions to the TG and WE folks." I'm just quoting what he said. |
|
|
|
Post by cornholio on Mar 5, 2008 11:00:19 GMT -6
I have waited patiently for over a month for said data from the Administration/School board and they keep telling me they do not have it yet. Hard to prove anything one way or the other when the discovery can not happen and is blocked/stalled. Corrosion in pipelines is also now approaching the leading cause of explosions for the past 15 years. All it takes is one single pit in the coating to start accelerating the process. That pit can come from something as benign as a small stone from the dirt 'fill' around the pipeline. Some of those pipes have been there almost 40 years based on the information I have been able to gather. I don't believe people have any appreciation for what a 'nightmare' really can be with thousands of kids around. Yes, Arch, your voice is always in the back of my head, and I appreciate your dilegence on this. If the site is a bad one, we need to know and move on. I too am frustrated with the silence from the SB on this. I hope it is because they have no data and I hope no news is good news. We all want the site to be safe for the kids that will be going there. It's either good news or nothing from the SB. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 5, 2008 11:12:12 GMT -6
Hi, This message is directed at the momma bear protecting her cubs. I am also a momma bear and I live in Tall Grass. I would appreciate it if you would top referring to the group who is putting forth a law suit as Tall Grass. As I stated above, I am a resident of Tall Grass and have nothing to do with that group and nor do any of my direct neighbors. From what I understand that meeting was attended by people of all kinds of neighborhoods in the district. I feel that many were there for all kinds of reasons. I personally do not like the way the school board has treated parents, but from what I can see there is nothing I can do about it, I am just making the best of a bad situation. Those people who attended the meeting may feel they can do something, that is their choice. Please stop referring to that group at Tall Grass. I find it very insulting. I apologize if I offended you, susan. The only reason I mentioned TG/WE in my long and drawn out ranting above is that the man who asked the question specifically said "What about the repercussions to the TG and WE folks." I'm just quoting what he said. The fear that the school board and administration will attempt to "punish" certain areas for speaking out or other areas for what - they don't like the guy that built their homes - !? is so sad but very indicative of how our school board and new administration operates. |
|
|
|
Post by corky on Mar 5, 2008 11:12:18 GMT -6
This attempt at a lawsuit is a reaction to the new boundaries, not because of environmental concerns or deception by the SB/Admin.
Where were all these concerned people 2 years ago when people in the district felt a 3rd HS was not necessary because of declining enrollment numbers. These people argued about under performing schools with high enrollment. Kids unable to participate in HS activities because of such large populations. How "Mega High Schools" would affect property taxes, etc.
These people were only concerned (selfishly) with how they would be affected with a new HS and not what was best for the whole district. It was obvious when the first referendum for a 3rd HS in 2005 didn't pass, but once boundaries were decided, the referendum passed! They would do anything to avoid going to WVHS.
They prove this self-serving mentality once again with this lawsuit and it is embarrassingly obvious to the whole district.
Do people realize that if a 3rd HS is delayed or not built at all, the district will have to look at how to relieve the overcrowding at NVHS even if they use portables. How do you think they will re-draw the boundaries then? My guess is WE and TG to WVHS, again!
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 5, 2008 11:19:04 GMT -6
This attempt at a lawsuit is a reaction to the new boundaries, not because of environmental concerns or deception by the SB/Admin. Where were all these concerned people 2 years ago when people in the district felt a 3rd HS was not necessary because of declining enrollment numbers. These people argued about under performing schools with high enrollment. Kids unable to participate in HS activities because of such large populations. How "Mega High Schools" would affect property taxes, etc. These people were only concerned (selfishly) with how they would be affected with a new HS and not what was best for the whole district. It was obvious when the first referendum for a 3rd HS in 2005 didn't pass, but once boundaries were decided, the referendum passed! They would do anything to avoid going to WVHS. They prove this self-serving mentality once again with this lawsuit and it is embarrassingly obvious to the whole district. Do people realize that if a 3rd HS is delayed or not built at all, the district will have to look at how to relieve the overcrowding at NVHS even if they use portables. How do you think they will re-draw the boundaries then? My guess is WE and TG to WVHS, again! It's cumulative. How many people were unhappy with being lied to or mislead or fed half-truths about every situation starting with the freshman centers that the district KNEW WERE INADEQUATE before they even opened? Every bungle created more anger. Maybe the boundaries were the final tipping point. Also, your neat and easy labeling of this situation is disrespectful to those seriously concerned with transportation cost increases and site safety. |
|
I am sorry you think that this is only about boundaries. That is an extremely narrow minded view IMO and exactly why the SB and Admin. established the boundaries now. Smoke and mirrors. Some of us have had our eyes wide open since voting for Freshman centers to avoid the need for a 3rd HS. Others eyes were opened when the numbers were not what was predicted for enrollment. Others eyes were opened while watching the legal bungling of 204 during the BB trial. Still more people's eyes were opened when this SB decided to build the school on a site that had been deemed unfit environmentally during the last go around. The list could go on and on of the errors they have made NOT related to boundaries but I would be here all day.
