Daily Herald: Lawsuit not the answer to boundary c

[Arch]

steckmom said:

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.

True, and there are those that mistakenly think that what's best in the short run will automatically carry over and be best for the long run. This is never a given and often ends up being quite the opposite.

The second mouse gets the cheese.

[slp]

sushi said:

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.

In fairness to our friends from the May Watts area, this is not true for them. They are truly concerned with the potential long term affects of sending their kids to the AME site and the methodology used in determining whether or not the site is safe or not.

As far as the motivations behind the lawsuit...I think there are many. I don't think it is fair to say that the only motivation has to do with not attending WVHS. That motivation may be true for some, but I certainly don't think it is true for all people backing the lawsuit.

I think most people who are backing the suit are backing it due to the principle of it. "The school board repeatedly said it would do one thing and did another". I understand why people are upset about the breach of that principle.

The next question in my mind becomes, "What can be done about it?" and "Will that action result in a better outcome?" It is the answers to those two questions that prevented me from supporting the lawsuit.

I think it will shoot us all in the foot.

But I respect and understand why they felt they had to file it.

[sushi]

slp said:

sushi said:

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.

In fairness to our friends from the May Watts area, this is not true for them. They are truly concerned with the potential long term affects of sending their kids to the AME site and the methodology used in determining whether or not the site is safe or not.

As far as the motivations behind the lawsuit...I think there are many. I don't think it is fair to say that the only motivation has to do with not attending WVHS. That motivation may be true for some, but I certainly don't think it is true for all people backing the lawsuit.

I think most people who are backing the suit are backing it due to the principle of it. "The school board repeatedly said it would do one thing and did another". I understand why people are upset about the breach of that principle.

The next question in my mind becomes, 'What can be done about it? and Will that action result in a better outcome?" It is the answers to those two questions that prevented me from supporting the lawsuit.

I think it will shoot us all in the foot.

But I respect and understand why they felt they had to file it.

I agree with you on all counts, except I do NOT understand why they felt they had to file a lawsuit. It is a knee-jerk reaction of a spoiled child who did not get their way. If anyone believes the SB did not really want BB then you could justify this. There is only one motive here. I go to the school I want and if not, derail the whole project.

[chicoryowl]

snerdley said:

chicoryowl said:

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.

I agree that some Springbrook residents might not want to go to WV. But who is the "they" that is creating the buffer to ensure they stay at NV. And are AT's actions are part of some master plan to ensure that Springbrook stays at NV? Is it just AT who is part of this plan or are other SB members in on it?

[d204mom]

chicoryowl said:

d204mom said:

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?

The district agreed to set aside $600K/acre in escrow to PROVE that we could and would pay that much when the jury award was announced in September. They knew exactly when the trial would end.

This was in end of June to mid July. They did this in order to get Linda Holmes on board to sponsor quick take because she was concerned the verdict would come back too high and the district wouldn't be able to pay it. "Too high" meaning the upper limit the judge had set over a year earlier - $600K/acre.

Quick Take fizzled anyway, maybe because Linda knew Metzger was confusing the truth? Who knows?

The verdict came back and our attorney sent a letter asking to buy the 40 acres for $20 M because we couldn't afford the jury award. In that letter they state that they can't afford the jury award because hurry up costs were $10 million dollars.

Now they put in the financial analysis that hurry up costs are $5 million. And we could have "afforded" the $20 M offer for 40 acres. The numbers don't make any sense and never have.

Maybe Metzger is sincerely confused and is not being intentionally deceptive (I won't use the "L" word).

[slp]

sushi said:

slp said:

In fairness to our friends from the May Watts area, this is not true for them. They are truly concerned with the potential long term affects of sending their kids to the AME site and the methodology used in determining whether or not the site is safe or not.

As far as the motivations behind the lawsuit...I think there are many. I don't think it is fair to say that the only motivation has to do with not attending WVHS. That motivation may be true for some, but I certainly don't think it is true for all people backing the lawsuit.

I think most people who are backing the suit are backing it due to the principle of it. "The school board repeatedly said it would do one thing and did another". I understand why people are upset about the breach of that principle.

The next question in my mind becomes, 'What can be done about it? and Will that action result in a better outcome?" It is the answers to those two questions that prevented me from supporting the lawsuit.

I think it will shoot us all in the foot.

But I respect and understand why they felt they had to file it.

I agree with you on all counts, except I do NOT understand why they felt they had to file a lawsuit. It is a knee-jerk reaction of a spoiled child who did not get their way. If anyone believes the SB did not really want BB then you could justify this. There is only one motive here. I go to the school I want and if not, derail the whole project.

From the people I have talked to I think the answer is...anger and frustration.

[d204mom]

sushi said:

d204mom said:

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.

Glawe mentioned the sizable number of emails that people sent before the Jan 22 vote showing support for BB and asking that the district to pursue the site. These emails were dismissed in a disrespectful manner. IIRC Glawe laughed at them.

So what exactly else were people to do to show support for BB? It is revisionist to go back and say "well why didn't these people form a group supporting BB?" They kept us in the dark for months after the jury verdict in order to squelch any public feedback.

[chicoryowl]

d204mom said:

chicoryowl said:

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

The district agreed to set aside $600K/acre in escrow to PROVE that we could and would pay that much when the jury award was announced in September. They knew exactly when the trial would end.

This was in end of June to mid July. They did this in order to get Linda Holmes on board to sponsor quick take because she was concerned the verdict would come back too high and the district wouldn't be able to pay it. "Too high" meaning the upper limit the judge had set over a year earlier - $600K/acre.

Quick Take fizzled anyway, maybe because Linda knew Metzger was confusing the truth? Who knows?

The verdict came back and our attorney sent a letter asking to buy the 40 acres for $20 M because we couldn't afford the jury award. In that letter they state that they can't afford the jury award because hurry up costs were $10 million dollars.

Now they put in the financial analysis that hurry up costs are $5 million. And we could have "afforded" the $20 M offer for 40 acres. The numbers don't make any sense and never have.

Maybe Metzger is sincerely confused and is not being intentionally deceptive (I won't use the "L" word).

I will grant you that you have a great point about the escrow moneys. However, things change and costs change. And with that, I would think that unless you have all the information that they had, it's best to characterize that he (along with the whole SB, it's not just him in tjos) were wrong and not liars.

[d204mom]

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).

She also says that no one in Stonebridge has any concerns about the environmental problems. I suppose she went door to door and asked every person if they were aware of the high EMF readings, the soil remediation, and the pipeline hazards and if they were 100% on board with all of those risks?

[snerdley]

sushi said:

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.

Are you all-knowing? Of course not.

But you claim to know the intentions of all the people who feel differently than you.

And I find that insulting.

I do not belong to NSFOC, but I found the complaint well-written and well thought out.

And I find their arguments much more substantial than your's - which are just really pot-shots.

Sorry.

[sushi]

Quick take was lobbied against to the tune of $18,000 by one resident that I know of.

[d204mom]

chicoryowl said:

d204mom said:

The district agreed to set aside $600K/acre in escrow to PROVE that we could and would pay that much when the jury award was announced in September. They knew exactly when the trial would end.

This was in end of June to mid July. They did this in order to get Linda Holmes on board to sponsor quick take because she was concerned the verdict would come back too high and the district wouldn't be able to pay it. "Too high" meaning the upper limit the judge had set over a year earlier - $600K/acre.

Quick Take fizzled anyway, maybe because Linda knew Metzger was confusing the truth? Who knows?

The verdict came back and our attorney sent a letter asking to buy the 40 acres for $20 M because we couldn't afford the jury award. In that letter they state that they can't afford the jury award because hurry up costs were $10 million dollars.

Now they put in the financial analysis that hurry up costs are $5 million. And we could have "afforded" the $20 M offer for 40 acres. The numbers don't make any sense and never have.

Maybe Metzger is sincerely confused and is not being intentionally deceptive (I won't use the "L" word).

I will grant you that you have a great point about the escrow moneys. However, things change and costs change. And with that, I would think that unless you have all the information that they had, it's best to characterize that he (along with the whole SB, it's not just him in tjos) were wrong and not liars.

Point taken. I will try to be more respectful/charitable in my characterization.

I too wish we had all of the facts.

[d204mom]

sushi said:

Quick take was lobbied against to the tune of $18,000 by one resident that I know of.

Agreed. Not everyone agreed with Brach-Brodie. After the verdict came back many were thanking this guy for saving us from ourselves. According to the numbers on the financial analysis he was dead-on right and truly did stop the district from making a terrible mistake.

But at the time, he was characterized as a demon.

I see lots of parallels here.

[sushi]

snerdley said:

sushi said:

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.

Are you all-knowing? Of course not.

But you claim to know the intentions of all the people who feel differently than you.

And I find that insulting.

I do not belong to NSFOC, but I found the complaint well-written and well thought out.

And I find their arguments much more substantial than your's - which are just really pot-shots.

Sorry.

Snerdly, no pot shots. Everything I stated is true and verifiable by every boundary meeting ever held. The majority of the people filing this lawsuit are doing so because they are not getting the HS they want. Period. I will agree with you, the lawsuit was well written! A+!

[JB]

d204mom said:

She also says that no one in Stonebridge has any concerns about the environmental problems. I suppose she went door to door and asked every person if they were aware of the high EMF readings, the soil remediation, and the pipeline hazards and if they were 100% on board with all of those risks?

I've had the unintentional good fortune over the past few days to field numerous calls and e-mails about this issue. I can tell you that a vast majority of those Watts parents had absolutely no idea of the environmental issues we are discussing. It's quite hard to be concerned about something of which you are completely unaware.