|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Mar 6, 2008 9:34:53 GMT -6
I think many people don't believe that BB is dead because the total costs involved with BB are not made clear to the public. Once the BB damages are known, it might be wise of the school board to release complete costs regarding BB. If it is true that the costs are greatly in excess than AME I think it would go a long way to ease the mis-trust of many angry people. Why use the jury award price in the financial analysis? I have heard that they came down a bit in price from the jury award. Is this true? I have NO idea but other things that have been rumors have turned out to be true. And I don't trust Daeschner or anyone currently on the school board to give us the straight facts. I know it's a lot like a game of hesaid/she said. Which is why I again find myself agreeing with Sushi. Please tell us all the facts. The truth shall set you free sort of session... What I was told about BB from a board member was that one side was willing to deal after the trail and one side said no way. The price is what the price is. I have accepted that the BB laywers were not on the same page. But that certianly does not mean its true. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 6, 2008 9:37:32 GMT -6
If Howie didn't try because they like BB better, then why continue the fairy tale we were sold two years ago that it was not available? I guess they don't care one bit about credibility. Just continue with the same old sales job. And the park district baloney.
If they continue to mislead/tell half truths/lie by omission about the small stuff, what about the big stuff? Like my kids' safety? Like bus times?
|
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 6, 2008 9:41:04 GMT -6
I absolutely have my suspicions that they already know AME will cost the same or more than Brach-Brodie in the end. Now, your making the assumption that BB would have come in on budget and we know what this SB is about staying on time and on budget.  I'd say it would be a wash as far a construction costs go and the land at AME is less costly. Of course, the longer we wait the more expensive the construction price will be. And before you say any environmental crap, Arch, we don't have the information--positive or negative about the MWGEN site. From Dr. D's comments, it sounds like a dig and haul maneuver. You can EMF till the cows come home, but I don't buy it. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 6, 2008 9:44:05 GMT -6
I'd say it would be a wash as far a construction costs go and the land at AME is less costly. At least they will admit that construction costs on AME are more than Brach-Brodie. AME = 121,719,100 BB = 118,504,700 www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17229_3.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by newbie on Mar 6, 2008 9:47:08 GMT -6
If Howie didn't try because they like BB better, then why continue the fairy tale we were sold two years ago that it was not available? I guess they don't care one bit about credibility. Just continue with the same old sales job. And the park district baloney. If they continue to mislead/tell half truths/lie by omission about the small stuff, what about the big stuff? Like my kids' safety? Like bus times? Credibility would be nice: 600k an acre.... "we can afford it, so please, please lobby for quick take" "I have a back up plan A, B, C and D" Don't worry vote for me! Bridge memo, not the truth Park District swap information, not the whole truth. I've also heard Macom is disputing the final price the district quoted in the site selection information. Original site selection report: AME site is environmentally not safe. Now, it's safe folks, don't worry... trust us! And to add, I am personally getting sick of being labeled as selfish, a bad person, WVHS Hater, anti kid, etc. for just looking for the truth and some accountabililty. I think the district's best offense is to shame those who question. I'm getting tired of it! |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 6, 2008 9:48:07 GMT -6
At least they will admit that construction costs on AME are more than Brach-Brodie. AME = 121,719,110 BB = 118,504,700 That's due to extra crews to get the site open by 2009. (I think. Someone who knows better can correct me.) However, if this group sues the district and slows things down, that price will go up even more--for both sites! |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Mar 6, 2008 9:49:05 GMT -6
I think the lawsuit would carry more weight if it specifically asked for (its goal) ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE RELEASE OF ALL INFORMATION.
I don't think there are many in this entire district that would be against that.
eta: i have to agree that the misrepresentations that have surfaced have even the most dye-hard sb supporters questioning what has really happened. That was evident by the number of 204thekids and election campaign workers that were at the meeting the other night just to hear what the NSFOC had to say. People have lost their trust in the board based on info that has surfaced. These folks don't necessarily agree a lawsuit is the way to go, but they don't blindly trust the sb like they once did.
|
|
we4
Junior
Girls Can't Do What?
Posts: 245
|
Post by we4 on Mar 6, 2008 9:50:15 GMT -6
I'd say it would be a wash as far a construction costs go and the land at AME is less costly. At least they will admit that construction costs on AME are more than Brach-Brodie. AME = 121,719,110 BB = 118,504,700 What about what we will still need to pay BB? Do we know this? I don't think we could put a final cost on things when we do not know the cost of everything. I admit sometimes when I have not read for a while and there are over 5 pages of stuff to catch up on I don't really go back and read, so this may have been discussed. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 6, 2008 9:50:25 GMT -6
At least they will admit that construction costs on AME are more than Brach-Brodie. AME = 121,719,110 BB = 118,504,700 That's due to extra crews to get the site open by 2009. (I think. Someone who knows better can correct me.) However, if this group sues the district and slows things down, that price will go up even more--for both sites! No. Those costs are for either to be open in fall of '09. |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 6, 2008 9:51:00 GMT -6
MWGen was still operating on the site. I don't know what the heck Howie did, I'm just assuming since they had BB and it was available, why pursue the other site that had 2 sellers and a possible envirnmental issue? This makes sense to me, I don't know why its still an issue. The board admits BB is a better choice but they have exhausted all efforts to negotiate with the two trusts. Brad, I heard the same thing about the Atty's; one would negotiate, the other would not.
By the way, Brad, why is it so awful to agree with me? I'm your neighbor.
|
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 6, 2008 9:53:16 GMT -6
I think the lawsuit would carry more weight if it specifically asked for (its goal) ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE RELEASE OF INFORMATION. I don't think there are many in this entire district that would be against that. I don't think that's what they're ponying up their $204 checks for.  |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Mar 6, 2008 9:55:50 GMT -6
I think the lawsuit would carry more weight if it specifically asked for (its goal) ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE RELEASE OF ALL INFORMATION. I don't think there are many in this entire district that would be against that. eta: i have to agree that the misrepresentations that have surfaced have even the most dye-hard sb supporters questioning what has really happened. That was evident by the number of 204thekids and election campaign workers that were at the meeting the other night just to hear what the NSFOC had to say. People have lost their trust in the board based on info that has surfaced. These folks don't necessarily agree a lawsuit is the way to go, but they don't blindly trust the sb like they once did. I moved this post since I added a lengthy eta. |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 6, 2008 9:58:52 GMT -6
I think the lawsuit would carry more weight if it specifically asked for (its goal) ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE RELEASE OF INFORMATION. I don't think there are many in this entire district that would be against that. I don't think that's what they're ponying up their $204 checks for. Have to agree with you. They want boundary changes. It will not happen. I still think that details would satisfy a lot of people, but not all. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 6, 2008 9:59:34 GMT -6
eta: i have to agree that the misrepresentations that have surfaced have even the most dye-hard sb supporters questioning what has really happened. That was evident by the number of 204thekids and election campaign workers that were at the meeting the other night just to hear what the NSFOC had to say. People have lost their trust in the board based on info that has surfaced. These folks don't necessarily agree a lawsuit is the way to go, but they don't blindly trust the sb like they once did. I would agree that lots of eyes have been opened in the past two months. People that used to be supportive and worked hard for the district in the past that are now being shut out and scoffed at, that's a little hard to take. People that have been uninvolved probably aren't taking it so hard. |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Mar 6, 2008 10:00:05 GMT -6
I think the lawsuit would carry more weight if it specifically asked for (its goal) ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE RELEASE OF INFORMATION. I don't think there are many in this entire district that would be against that. I don't think that's what they're ponying up their $204 checks for. Then maybe we should all create a group for accountability. I'll tell which groups I personally dislike the most. 1. The I do not want to go to a certain HS group 2. The I am so glad I got my HS assignment I am going to over look all the other issues. Oh, and I will be self righteous about it My self righteous behavior will be masked as caring, "For The Kids". I hold both groups with the same level of disdain. |
|
I'd say it would be a wash as far a construction costs go and the land at AME is less costly. Of course, the longer we wait the more expensive the construction price will be.
