|
Post by blankcheck on Feb 16, 2006 14:38:59 GMT -6
Topher- your comment that Peterson will fill eventually hits the nail on the head "Eventually" while we have already paid 11 million dollars for a school just to sit there. Not a very responsible choice.
|
|
|
Post by fence on Feb 17, 2006 9:19:32 GMT -6
What would have been a more responsible choice? To have to pay for the land instead of have it donated, and pay for the school instead of take advantage of a program that funded the construction? I am just not following the logic on this one..... If anyone is a city planner with detail on how this was a huge misstep, I would like to hear what could have been done differently.
|
|
|
Post by stinks on Feb 17, 2006 9:43:29 GMT -6
CWFL - Can't win for losing. There will always be a way to turn anything into a negative to support one's cause.
The flip side to criticising the SB would be to say that there were fiscally responsible decisions being made. They took advantage of the incentives provided to put a school in place that will house all the kids in the future. Thus, they eliminated the need to rush into things if all of a sudden the crush of kids hit earlier than expected. Plus, they saved money to boot. Forward and fiscally responsible thinking, really.
Why are people so negative? I have a hard time understanding that.
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on Feb 17, 2006 9:59:04 GMT -6
If the SB didn't take advantage of the free land from the developer and funds from the State, one could probably make a good case that they were negligent.
In a few years, we'll be very glad we have that school.
|
|