|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 7, 2010 9:10:49 GMT -6
Mac, my point and I will make it again is straight forward. When I look down 95th st and see a freshman center and then a high school (grades 10-12), and then another office type building for yet more of an over flow I have to think "WHAT PLANNING". What makes more sense to me is to have (3) high schools grade 9-12, get rid of the extra buildings (frontier campus, and NV freshman center), when necessary. I felt the freshman center and frontier campus were stop gap measures that did not address the main symptom: 9000+/- high school students. We have 3 high schools now and I will have to pay for that via higher real estate taxes, I am prepared and have budgeted for that situation. I do not take what you write personally but will call you on it when it comes to lumping folks in certain groups. The lumping of folks in groups can at times be counter productive. I do appreciate much of the technical knowledge you bring to "old Blue". SSSM - there are 2 issues here. What you see as lack of planning, ( and maybe some of it was) - was also a means to get the bubble thru and then not be stuck with more than you need. 1/ Who is going to buy the freshman center where it is located 'on campus' ? That is inventory that has got to be used- or else it is a waste of resource. 2/ in 2016 or so when we are much closer to 8000 students than 9000 students in HS - what the hell are we going to do with 3 HS's ? and this attendance is 'in the pipeline' as they like to say 3/ why add more brcks & mortar when you already have 2-3 ES's that will not be utilized- and in 5 years at least 1 MS ? To me this is as short sighted as Sector G you reference. The freshman centers were built to take the bubble and any future bubbles--howver now we have added another $150M piece of inventory which will not remotely be needed 5 years from now. And you're not even remotely planning for the impact of 'on-line' learning already being implemented in many parts of the country. Real Estate is NOT the investment - even corporate America has figured that out which is why so many peole work from home - the bricks and mortar add nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 7, 2010 9:23:00 GMT -6
Mac, my point and I will make it again is straight forward. When I look down 95th st and see a freshman center and then a high school (grades 10-12), and then another office type building for yet more of an over flow I have to think "WHAT PLANNING". What makes more sense to me is to have (3) high schools grade 9-12, get rid of the extra buildings (frontier campus, and NV freshman center), when necessary. I felt the freshman center and frontier campus were stop gap measures that did not address the main symptom: 9000+/- high school students. We have 3 high schools now and I will have to pay for that via higher real estate taxes, I am prepared and have budgeted for that situation. I do not take what you write personally but will call you on it when it comes to lumping folks in certain groups. The lumping of folks in groups can at times be counter productive. I do appreciate much of the technical knowledge you bring to "old Blue". So your "solution," to close existing buildings, build another high school spending approx $100 million more than necessary, putting it in a place where 17% of the kids are makes sense? I can live with that, but in is one persons opinion. This District as a whole, however, was miss-informed at best, and just as likely was pushed down a path leading to an intended result. In addition, you can "call me on" anything you want. I have a solid foundation for every conclusion I reach. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Apr 7, 2010 9:24:34 GMT -6
Mac, my point and I will make it again is straight forward. When I look down 95th st and see a freshman center and then a high school (grades 10-12), and then another office type building for yet more of an over flow I have to think "WHAT PLANNING". What makes more sense to me is to have (3) high schools grade 9-12, get rid of the extra buildings (frontier campus, and NV freshman center), when necessary. I felt the freshman center and frontier campus were stop gap measures that did not address the main symptom: 9000+/- high school students. We have 3 high schools now and I will have to pay for that via higher real estate taxes, I am prepared and have budgeted for that situation. I do not take what you write personally but will call you on it when it comes to lumping folks in certain groups. The lumping of folks in groups can at times be counter productive.
[/color] I do appreciate much of the technical knowledge you bring to "old Blue". [/quote] Yes, indeed. Much of what occurred in the district was counter-productive and will be for a long time to come. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Apr 7, 2010 9:26:11 GMT -6
Lacy it is quite simple sector G had a long range plan that was never followed through. Greed took over and larger homes were built that attract families. City/ planning officials knew the downside risk to this helter skelter type development. Build 4-5 bedroom 3000 + sq. ft homes and you can not possible think grand ma and grand pa will be moving in. I have no objection to setting up large subdivision with lots of kids, just a bit concerned with the lack of planning for servicing this population. So....call the families who moved into these areas racists, incite a north/south war to accomplish the much "needed" high school. Whose brilliant idea was that?? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 7, 2010 9:31:24 GMT -6
Lacy it is quite simple sector G had a long range plan that was never followed through. Greed took over and larger homes were built that attract families. City/ planning officials knew the downside risk to this helter skelter type development. Build 4-5 bedroom 3000 + sq. ft homes and you can not possible think grand ma and grand pa will be moving in. I have no objection to setting up large subdivision with lots of kids, just a bit concerned with the lack of planning for servicing this population. So....call the families who moved into these areas racists, incite a north/south war to accomplish the much "needed" high school. Whose brilliant idea was that?? Oh I think we can list the names of the guilty pretty easily-- was done as a means to an end- which they have now accomplished |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 7, 2010 9:46:56 GMT -6
I want to be clear. When I say "others in the District that wanted to have their own high school" it is pointed at people with a similar mind set, i.e., their motivation above all else; facts, cost, best interest for the community, logic, etc., was getting that school built.
That is not "lumping," which is, for example, calling everyone in Tall Grass a racist, whether it is true or not.
There is a big difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Apr 7, 2010 9:56:50 GMT -6
Doc, you are correct when it comes to adding freshman centers for the "bubble". My point is both the freshman centers and Frontier campus are symptoms of a larger concern. LACK of PLANNING going back to the early 1990's. This bubble you speak of is no different than the bubble of the late 1970's when all the boomers were in school. Now the boomers have school age kids. In 5 -10 years we will have another lull until the boomer's kids have school age kids.
Some may be concerned that grade schools are starting to empty out but the school age kid cycle will start up again. Boomers will have to take less cash for their homes, (and finally live within their means). The folks moving into these 4 bedroom homes will not be the grand pa's that are moving out. Kids will reinvigorate the subdivisions again and the cycle continues. After all Doc when you hit that "Florida sunshine" do you think an old fart will be purchasing your residence or wil it be a thirty something looking to raise a family.
Lacy, as a attendee of many meetings you note, there is no doubt some hurtful words were said. Hopefully there has been some healing since that low point.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Apr 7, 2010 10:35:42 GMT -6
Unfortunately, those who believed the ends justifies the means didn't look down the road at the trainwreck that was coming. They burned bridges that probably can't be re-built - but hey, they got their school, right?
There was clearly a lack of leadership that resulted in the out-of-control situation. Sadly, that leadership is still in place.
And as to your last post, the explosive growth and turnover in the district is over. The district will need to downsize and get their spending under control. The go-go days are done.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Apr 7, 2010 11:06:40 GMT -6
...... Oh and what did the people want? They wanted to add on to existing buildings. An overwhelming margin wanted that. 53% wanted that and only 5% were against that. Re a 3d HS, 38% were favorable to that and 14% were against it. ..... mac, you keep bring up this survey as some kind of proof of what people wanted to do. You are cherry-picking survey results here to say some "overwhelming margin wanted to add on to existing space." Well, if you read the very next question in the survey it says 65% also find it acceptable to build a comprehensive 3rd HS. My point is there is much ambiguity in this survey. Often times that is the case with surveys, isnt it? I understand that lawyers arguing their case never acknowledge such ambiguity. I can think of one "survey" about what our district should do about a third HS which was unambiguous. It was one I participated in.  |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Apr 7, 2010 11:22:43 GMT -6
..... As far a the cost to add to NVHS, I talked with the architect that did the original work for Howie (and also did at least one of the freshman centers) using current day figures adding 24 class rooms to the wings, two stories high, adding addition space to the lunch room, connecting the wings to eliminate the congestion in the main hall way, and on and on (also building a MS which isn't needed either), so I padded the cost somewhat. HS going from 3000 to 3750 students. I disagree that adding on to NV was THE solution. For example, how would that have helped address the issue that the MV attendance area is growing in student population? (almost certainly due to SSSM's older area population turnover). Maybe to the old NV attendance area, this would be seen as some solution to their issues. But not for the rest of the district. I disagree that this would have been a superior solution. |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Apr 7, 2010 11:36:04 GMT -6
I felt the freshman center and frontier campus were stop gap measures My personal experience was that the WV Freshman Center, due to it being so isolated across two busy roads, did not work so well in being inclusive for the freshman into the HS experience. I am glad its gone. I think WV will be better off without it. I think (I have no direct experience of course) that the NV Gold campus integrates much better into the campus life. I think this structure makes much more sense here. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 7, 2010 12:15:03 GMT -6
...... Oh and what did the people want? They wanted to add on to existing buildings. An overwhelming margin wanted that. 53% wanted that and only 5% were against that. Re a 3d HS, 38% were favorable to that and 14% were against it. ..... mac, you keep bring up this survey as some kind of proof of what people wanted to do. You are cherry-picking survey results here to say some "overwhelming margin wanted to add on to existing space." Well, if you read the very next question in the survey it says 65% also find it acceptable to build a comprehensive 3rd HS. My point is there is much ambiguity in this survey. Often times that is the case with surveys, isnt it? I understand that lawyers arguing their case never acknowledge such ambiguity. I can think of one "survey" about what our district should do about a third HS which was unambiguous. It was one I participated in. You will have to post something to support what you say Gatordog. In the conclusions on page three of this document (and others for that matter that I site in the long and winding road) winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/8_18_2005_Report.pdf quite clearing the preference is add to existing buildings. I do not see any ambiguity, with respect to that issue, in any of the three documents I have posted in the other section. It appears that the Beacon agrees with that conclusion as well: winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/Beacon082205.pdf In big bold letters in the heading of the article it says "Build additions" gatordog. That is also the conclusion of the CCO its summary of conclusions: "This series of questions was introduced with the following language: “Because there will be more students in the district’s schools than the buildings were designed to accommodate the Indian Prairie School District needs to create additional classroom space. There are a number of ways the district can create the space it needs. To get your reaction to some of these options, I am going to read a list of some of the options the district has available. For each, tell me if you believe the option is very acceptable, somewhat acceptable, somewhat unacceptable or very unacceptable.” This ranking is presented in the following table. Pct. Very_______ Pct. Very_____ Option Acceptable_____ Unacceptable 53.3%__________ 5.5% _______ 19A. Add permanent classrooms to the schools in the district that need additional classroom space. 38.5% _________ 14.8%_______ 17. Build a third comprehensive high school. As to the vote: What were the facts given to the public Gatordog? In addition, read "the long and winding road" Is there any fact or conclusion that is wrong or inaccurate? If so, please bring your facts and conclusions, documents, etc. I need to see more than your statement above, which doesn't support your conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 7, 2010 12:24:41 GMT -6
..... As far a the cost to add to NVHS, I talked with the architect that did the original work for Howie (and also did at least one of the freshman centers) using current day figures adding 24 class rooms to the wings, two stories high, adding addition space to the lunch room, connecting the wings to eliminate the congestion in the main hall way, and on and on (also building a MS which isn't needed either), so I padded the cost somewhat. HS going from 3000 to 3750 students. I disagree that adding on to NV was THE solution. For example, how would that have helped address the issue that the MV attendance area is growing in student population? (almost certainly due to SSSM's older area population turnover). Maybe to the old NV attendance area, this would be seen as some solution to their issues. But not for the rest of the district. I disagree that this would have been a superior solution. Again, you provide no facts to support your conclusion. A statement, without more, proves nothing. Beyond that, show me how you can justify putting a school in an area where approximately 17% of the student population is (using elementary school attendance). By that metric, approximately 50% of the student population is south of 87th street. Approximately 70% of the student population is south and east of route 34. The District itself places the center of the student population density just north and east of NVHS The fact is gatordog, you may want the HS where it is, but the majority of the kids are in the southern third of the District. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. In addition, buildable lots on the southern end of the District dwarf those on the northern end. That is a fact, not an opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 7, 2010 12:30:48 GMT -6
..... As far a the cost to add to NVHS, I talked with the architect that did the original work for Howie (and also did at least one of the freshman centers) using current day figures adding 24 class rooms to the wings, two stories high, adding addition space to the lunch room, connecting the wings to eliminate the congestion in the main hall way, and on and on (also building a MS which isn't needed either), so I padded the cost somewhat. HS going from 3000 to 3750 students. I disagree that adding on to NV was THE solution. For example, how would that have helped address the issue that the MV attendance area is growing in student population? (almost certainly due to SSSM's older area population turnover). Maybe to the old NV attendance area, this would be seen as some solution to their issues. But not for the rest of the district. I disagree that this would have been a superior solution. Do you have facts to back up that northern growth statement ? I have facts that say that ES populations is down 4 consecutive years in 204 -- totalling over a 9% drop. I also have facts that show Watts base attendance area has dropped by almost 30% from it's 'hey say' when the addition was put on. Yes the north got the solution THEY wanted- and no one else -- some areas got totally screwed ( and may get it again if there is a future need to close ES's) - so one needs to be careful when throwing around the phrase "rest of the district'. Is Watts in that ' rest of the district' you mention ? My area has one of the longest MS commutes- the longest HS commute and may soon have a long commute to ES... the add on was NOT only a NV solution, sorry. And an extra $125M or so for any solution over another workable solution should not be something that makes anyone proud..it's easy to throw someone else's money at a problem- it actually takes a plan to work out a difficult solution.. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 7, 2010 12:34:32 GMT -6
I felt the freshman center and frontier campus were stop gap measures My personal experience was that the WV Freshman Center, due to it being so isolated across two busy roads, did not work so well in being inclusive for the freshman into the HS experience. I am glad its gone. I think WV will be better off without it. I think (I have no direct experience of course) that the NV Gold campus integrates much better into the campus life. I think this structure makes much more sense here. Those are all opinions gatordog. You are certainly entitled to them. Perhaps a walking bridge could have been build over 34 and eola to more properly integrate the gold and main campus. In the end, what you or I want is a small part of the equation. The only thing important to me was a fully vetted set of facts upon which the community could make an informed vote in D204 matters. That vetting process should have included outside professionals to determine what our capacity needs were and how best to satisfy them. In addition, when material facts changed from the time of the initial referendum to the April 08 Board vote, I believe the public deserved to know where we stood at that point in time. |
|
