Daily Herald: Lawsuit not the answer to boundary c

[d204mom]

We are all hypocrites. We say we only want what's best for "the district" but when it comes right down to it, we want what's best for our kids the most.

WE ARE PARENTS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. It's our job.

If this lawsuit is the only way of keeping the district from exposing my kids to a hazardous site, I'm in. If eveyone else's kid has to be crowded to keep mine safe, well then I'm sorry it had to come to that.

[d204mom]

Oh, and I guess I don't really blame JHB. She has always been the lapdog of the SB and admin. They have resorted to name-calling and scoffing, so I'm sure she thinks that's fair game too.

[JB]

brooksmom said:

rural said:

This isn't just grumbling anymore, and it's wrong to assume that just because there are some vocal members of this group from ANY area does not mean that the WHOLE areas supports it. This was an opinion piece and had no place mixed in with regular news.

Don't get me wrong, I think this No School for Our Children Group are hijacking our school district. I don't agree in any way shape or form to what they are doing or what they represent. However, this "article" was not journalism.

Again: She is a columnist, not a reporter, so it is not meant to be an unslanted report. For you sports fans, think Marrioti, Couch and Telander in the Sun Times. They don't report the scores or the blow-by-blow of the game. They write about how the Bears have screwed things up or how Barry Bonds is bad for baseball. None of this is fact. It is their opinion with their spin.

The problem with the sports analogy is that teams constantly change, fans constantly change, and we're talking about people who know that "monday morning quartebacking" is part of the game, so to speak.

She's using the power of the pen as a sword to further divide the district.

[researching]

d204mom said:

Oh, and I guess I don't really blame JHB. She has always been the lapdog of the SB and admin. They have resorted to name-calling and scoffing, so I'm sure she thinks that's fair game too.

Exactly. The only thing her column has done for me is strengthen my resolve. I think that this is going to also re-motivate those she is insulting. Who wouldn't want to prove her wrong? She may just turn out to be her own biggest enemy.

[sushi]

I think we have all been clear that neither TG or WE are entirely represented by NSFOC. But make no mistake, some people in these neighborhoods had no concern at the boundary meetings about safety. They wanted the district split into thirds from north to south. WE was slated to stay at WV with Welch according to the proposal presented by TG. Of course, TG would stay at NV. Funny thing, the site was ok then. I am not trying to single out TG but really their neighborhood has been the most vocal from the beginning about leaving NV. Many people in WE just want the school built, but not all. It is fair to say that the grumbling is mostly coming from our two areas, but not every resident feels the same.

I like Joni, may not always agree with her, but she is dead-on.

[secondtimearound]

sushi said:

I think we have all been clear that neither TG or WE are entirely represented by NSFOC. But make no mistake, some people in these neighborhoods had no concern at the boundary meetings about safety. They wanted the district split into thirds from north to south. WE was slated to stay at WV with Welch according to the proposal presented by TG. Of course, TG would stay at NV. Funny thing, the site was ok then. I am not trying to single out TG but really their neighborhood has been the most vocal from the beginning about leaving NV. Many people in WE just want the school built, but not all. It is fair to say that the grumbling is mostly coming from our two areas, but not every resident feels the same.

I like Joni, may not always agree with her, but she is dead-on.

Still, even though it's a vocal group, it's only a very small minority of these two areas. No need to keep taking potshots at them. Also, for some people both inside and outside of these areas, it is more about the environmental and/or transportation issues and their valid concerns are getting lumped in with the WE/TG group to diminish them. In any case, I was hoping there would have been an opportunity for dialogue rather than the lawsuit, but it appears to late for that. At least, if the full environmental reports are released after the SB meeting, at least some of the issues can be publicly addressed.

[steckmom]

d204mom said:

We are all hypocrites. We say we only want what's best for "the district" but when it comes right down to it, we want what's best for our kids the most.

I agree. Of course some people think what is best for the district will be best for their own kids in the long run. Even if it isn't what works out best for their kids in the short run.

[d204mom]

brad204 said:

Why didn't Andrews and his group get organized to help the district get that land?

Because Metzger sent us emails* telling us that everything was under control and BB was proceeding nicely. Oh, and when he asked us to call to support QT, we called to support QT. Now we find out that he lied to us just like he lied to Dunn and Holmes.

*Oh, but now, WE'RE SORRY, THIS NEWS ITEM IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE.
www.ipsd.org/newsevents/news_item_detail.asp?id=15115

[sushi]

I am not trying to take a potshot, merely defending JHB's right to do so. As I stated, Mwgen site was ok when the district was divided into thirds north to south.

[chicoryowl]

d204mom said:

brad204 said:

Why didn't Andrews and his group get organized to help the district get that land?

Because Metzger sent us emails* telling us that everything was under control and BB was proceeding nicely. Oh, and when he asked us to call to support QT, we called to support QT. Now we find out that he lied to us just like he lied to Dunn and Holmes.

*Oh, but now, WE'RE SORRY, THAT NEWS ITEM IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE.
www.ipsd.org/newsevents/news_item_detail.asp?id=15115

How did he lie? Was he wrong or did he lie?

[sushi]

d204mom said:

brad204 said:

Why didn't Andrews and his group get organized to help the district get that land?

Because Metzger sent us emails* telling us that everything was under control and BB was proceeding nicely. Oh, and when he asked us to call to support QT, we called to support QT. Now we find out that he lied to us just like he lied to Dunn and Holmes.

*Oh, but now, WE'RE SORRY, THAT NEWS ITEM IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE.
www.ipsd.org/newsevents/news_item_detail.asp?id=15115

We have known for a long time that BB was going down the tubes.

[snerdley]

chicoryowl said:

fryfox said:

This will be a shocker, but JHB lives in the Springbrook attendance area and she's probably a neighbor of AT.

I'm not following the gist of your post. How is living in Sprinbrook and being a neighbor of AT relevant?

What would JHB be saying if her area was slated to attend WVHS? Her comments seem to echo the editor of the Sun blog who also lives in the Sprinbrook attendance area. They each accuse certain neighborhoods of having a bias against WVHS - but is that really their "gig"? I'm beginning to think it is.

I think there is a very vocal push to demonize the people who are questioning the SB. But what are the true motivations of people who are saying the things she is?

Are they happy with how things turned out for them? Are they actually the ones who don't want to go to WVHS as she puts it? Is she concerned it there's a "do-over" it might be her area that goes instead?

I think she's the one having a tantrum because she might not get her way.

I found it interesting that AT pushed hard for Owen East to attend NVHS. Add to that they pulled Kinlock into Sprinbrook. It seems to me they were creating a "buffer" of sorts to protect Springbrook and keep them in the NVHS attendance area.

The fact is that the better boundary plans (that didn't make a mess of the middle schools) would have included the middle portion of the district at WVHS.

It seems to me that it's Springbrook residents who want to avoid WVHS at all costs - so they accuse others of this and are clinging like crazy to the current proposal. (just my opinion - but it's starting to add up).

[chicoryowl]

snerdley said:

chicoryowl said:

I'm not following the gist of your post. How is living in Sprinbrook and being a neighbor of AT relevant?

What would JHB be saying if her area was slated to attend WVHS? Her comments seem to echo the editor of the Sun blog who also lives in the Sprinbrook attendance area. They each accuse certain neighborhoods of having a bias against WVHS - but is that really their "gig"? I'm beginning to think it is.

I think there is a very vocal push to demonize the people who are questioning the SB. But what are the true motivations of people who are saying the things she is?

Are they happy with how things turned out for them? Are they actually the ones who don't want to go to WVHS as she puts it? Is she concerned it there's a "do-over" it might be her area that goes instead?

I think she's the one having a tantrum because she might not get her way.

I found it interesting that AT pushed hard for Owen East to attend NVHS. Add to that they pulled Kinlock into Sprinbrook. It seems to me they were creating a "buffer" of sorts to protect Springbrook and keep them in the NVHS attendance area.

The fact is that the better boundary plans (that didn't make a mess of the middle schools) would have included the middle portion of the district at WVHS.

It seems to me that it's Springbrook residents who want to avoid WVHS at all costs - so they accuse others of this and are clinging like crazy to the current proposal. (just my opinion - but it's starting to add up).

So all residents of Springbrook are part of a plan to keep themselves at NVHS using the coordinated efforts of AT and 2 local papers.

But you're OK with everything if Springbrook goes to WV in place of somebody else? That would make for a better boundary plan.

[snerdley]

chicoryowl said:

snerdley said:

What would JHB be saying if her area was slated to attend WVHS? Her comments seem to echo the editor of the Sun blog who also lives in the Sprinbrook attendance area. They each accuse certain neighborhoods of having a bias against WVHS - but is that really their "gig"? I'm beginning to think it is.

I think there is a very vocal push to demonize the people who are questioning the SB. But what are the true motivations of people who are saying the things she is?

Are they happy with how things turned out for them? Are they actually the ones who don't want to go to WVHS as she puts it? Is she concerned it there's a "do-over" it might be her area that goes instead?

I think she's the one having a tantrum because she might not get her way.

I found it interesting that AT pushed hard for Owen East to attend NVHS. Add to that they pulled Kinlock into Sprinbrook. It seems to me they were creating a "buffer" of sorts to protect Springbrook and keep them in the NVHS attendance area.

The fact is that the better boundary plans (that didn't make a mess of the middle schools) would have included the middle portion of the district at WVHS.

It seems to me that it's Springbrook residents who want to avoid WVHS at all costs - so they accuse others of this and are clinging like crazy to the current proposal. (just my opinion - but it's starting to add up).

So all residents of Springbrook are part of a plan to keep themselves at NVHS using the coordinated efforts of AT and 2 local papers.

But you're OK with everything if Springbrook goes to WV in place of somebody else? That would make for a better boundary plan.

So all residents of WE/TG are elitists?

What I said - and you twisted around - is that I think some residents of Springbrook want to avoid WVHS. That's becoming crystal clear to me.

Obviously the lawsuit is not about boundaries. And if it has legal merit, the rest of you can throw as many tantrums as you want - but a judge will decide what happens.

[sushi]

Snerdly, it is ALL about boundaries. Some of us do have concerns about the environmental issues. This lawsuit is using that concern as a smoke screen.