|
|
Post by momof156graders on Feb 9, 2008 13:21:51 GMT -6
Did anyone who submitted a boundary proposal receive feedback or acknowledgement of their proposal? Just curious. I was sort of expecting a generic thanks for taking the time of submitting type reply, and haven't.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 9, 2008 13:37:45 GMT -6
Do you really think the district would purposely build a high school on an unsafe piece of property? This is so simple for the sb and administration. Just post the reports on the website. That would end any and all speculation. At the meeting it was stated that safety was the #1 priority. So why publish financials and boundaries and all of the other secondary stuff first? Last time I checked they in fact HAD posted reports on the site that they currently have, which say the site is safe....However many, including you d204, choose not to believe them. I do agree though when they get a new report on the site, good, bad or inconclusive, they need to post/disseminate it ASAP. So far the reports I have seen, and my own personal experience tell me the site is safe. steckmom, and anyone else...DO NOT stick your head in the sand and pretend anything. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 9, 2008 13:43:47 GMT -6
That is where we differ. I'm not satisfied with two bullet points on a powerpoint slide stating that the building site and athletic fields are within "safe" readings. What are the readings and what about between the fields? Again, you can complain about it or do something about it. File a FOIA request. d204...Did you miss the Environ report at the end of this document? I know whatever they do will not be good enough for you, and that's too bad. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Feb 9, 2008 15:03:05 GMT -6
WVHS P did you notice this was a revised report and refers to a follow up observation? What was the intial observation? What prompted a follow up?
Did you notice the standards used were occupational standards, which implies adults?
People have asked to see the raw data for the site, the full report, and not just the summarized opinion of the retained firm.
I would not say the site is safe or unsafe, it is not a field that I am expert in. But the SD has an obligation to answer questions and parent's concerns and I will defend anyone's right to ask, especially in regards to their children's well being.
"i know whatever they do will not be good enough for you, and that's too bad". Too bad for who? The SD? The kids who attend the school? The parents who have concerns?
I have not seen anyone label the site dangerous or unsafe, merely ask questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by rural on Feb 9, 2008 15:19:21 GMT -6
WVHS P did you notice this was a revised report and refers to a follow up observation? What was the intial observation? What prompted a follow up? Did you notice the standards used were occupational standards, which implies adults? People have asked to see the raw data for the site, the full report, and not just the summarized opinion of the retained firm. I would not say the site is safe or unsafe, it is not a field that I am expert in. But the SD has an obligation to answer questions and parent's concerns and I will defend anyone's right to ask, especially in regards to their children's well being. "i know whatever they do will not be good enough for you, and that's too bad". Too bad for who? The SD? The kids who attend the school? The parents who have concerns? I have not seen anyone label the site dangerous or unsafe, merely ask questions. I agree that the SB should post any information it has about safety issues, and truly believe they will when they have the information to post. On a personal note, I have lived closer to the same power lines than the school will be for over fifteen years with no poor health. My children are exceptionally healthy and strong. We ride the prairie path past where MWGEN was actually active for as many years without any ill effects. To be frank, I believe there is a small faction of people out there that are looking for any excuse to complain about this property that they can find. |
|
|
|
Post by confused on Feb 9, 2008 15:44:09 GMT -6
The SB declared it unsafe two years ago, due to electromagnetic radiation. I think they should definitely be heavily questioned as to the turnaround in opinion regarding the site's safety. Were they wrong the first time or are they wrong now? When people have seen the SB shift their opinions to fit their agenda, it should make us question what the reality is. I think they should be so thorough that there is no room for error in this matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by brooksmom on Feb 9, 2008 15:52:05 GMT -6
WVHS P did you notice this was a revised report and refers to a follow up observation? What was the intial observation? What prompted a follow up? Did you notice the standards used were occupational standards, which implies adults? People have asked to see the raw data for the site, the full report, and not just the summarized opinion of the retained firm. I would not say the site is safe or unsafe, it is not a field that I am expert in. But the SD has an obligation to answer questions and parent's concerns and I will defend anyone's right to ask, especially in regards to their children's well being. "i know whatever they do will not be good enough for you, and that's too bad". Too bad for who? The SD? The kids who attend the school? The parents who have concerns? I have not seen anyone label the site dangerous or unsafe, merely ask questions. I agree that the SB should post any information it has about safety issues, and truly believe they will when they have the information to post. On a personal note, I have lived closer to the same power lines than the school will be for over fifteen years with no poor health. My children are exceptionally healthy and strong. We ride the prairie path past where MWGEN was actually active for as many years without any ill effects. To be frank, I believe there is a small faction of people out there that are looking for any excuse to complain about this property that they can find. It is interesting. The people who are most concerned about environmental issues seem to have another bone to pick with the location. I have asked several parents from Brooks and Young families if they were concerned, and NOT ONE person whose children are certain to be attending MV had any concern at all. The people who are expressing such dismay are disappointed with the northern location or the potential length of their commute. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Feb 9, 2008 16:02:38 GMT -6
steckmom, and anyone else...DO NOT stick your head in the sand and pretend anything. Suppose on the next report we get something back that says the site had readings of 8 mG for a significant portion of the building. That is well below occupational standards and probably will be deemed safe. But is it? I don't know. There's alot of anecdotal evidence that goes both ways. Call it paranoia or whatever, but I'm the crunchy kind of person that buys organic. It will be pretty tough to fight the SB on that one would be my guess. So I'll send my kids to school and just ignore the risk. Just like I will when I let them hold cell phones up to their heads on a regular basis (actually I plan to be fairly strict about that). Or when I install wireless internet in my home. That's what I meant by burying my head in the sand. |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Feb 9, 2008 16:07:30 GMT -6
The SB declared it unsafe two years ago, due to electromagnetic radiation. I think they should definitely be heavily questioned as to the turnaround in opinion regarding the site's safety. Were they wrong the first time or are they wrong now? When people have seen the SB shift their opinions to fit their agenda, it should make us question what the reality is. I think they should be so thorough that there is no room for error in this matter. MWGEN was still in service at that time. From my understanding of the Board Meeting, the Phase II study is as a result of concerned parents and also the fact that they found deisel oil from the trucks that were parked there in soil samples. MWGEN is responsible for cleaning the site to EPA(?) or whatever standards. It is not a sick site, and I'm tired of people who have never even seen it commenting on it. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Feb 9, 2008 16:13:44 GMT -6
It is interesting. The people who are most concerned about environmental issues seem to have another bone to pick with the location. I have asked several parents from Brooks and Young families if they were concerned, and NOT ONE person whose children are certain to be attending MV had any concern at all. The people who are expressing such dismay are disappointed with the northern location or the potential length of their commute. Most people I've talked to from Steck don't seem too worried either. After all Steck is already commuting there to Granger. Most are fairly happy with Granger so the commute doesn't bother them. Maybe it's easier to take one or the other. Maybe it's the potential hazards coupled with a long commute that are getting people upset. It's hard to blame them. |
|
|
|
Post by pof2 on Feb 9, 2008 16:37:41 GMT -6
Momof156graders-
I did submit a boundary proposal and I received back the following e-mail
Thank you for your proposal. - Dr. Kathy Birkett
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 9, 2008 17:42:08 GMT -6
Momof156graders- I did submit a boundary proposal and I received back the following e-mail Thank you for your proposal. - Dr. Kathy Birkett yep - same response |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Feb 9, 2008 20:57:42 GMT -6
Does anyone who submitted a proposal care to Share?
|
|
|
|
Post by westernburbmom on Feb 9, 2008 22:31:43 GMT -6
This is my first post, so I'm going to quickly "introduce myself". I have one child at Steck (a walker) and one at Granger (takes the bus about 4 miles away). I've read earlier posts of people wondering what Steck/McCarty residents thought, so I thought I would throw in my two cents.
I can go either way on which high school my children will attend i.e. WVHS is 1 1/2 miles away by bus, is well established and we know numerous college kids in the neighbhorhood who did great at WVHS. Metea is a commute not much different than my Granger student has now and it would be nice to stay at Granger and continue with the Nancy Young and Stonebridge students (who I'm assuming will be going to Metea). But, Tuesday can't get here soon enough. From what I've been reading under this topic, I was almost convinced we will be continuing at Steck, then Granger and onto Metea. However, last night a neighbor told me "absoutely not", that we are walkers and she heard that it hasn't been decided whether the dividing line will be New York Street or Liberty for who will attend Metea. Who she heard this from, she did not say.
Also, I recently talked to a Steck Mom who lives in Lakewood (subdivision along Ogden between Eola & Montgomery) and she told me there is speculation that Lakewood will be switched to McCarty from Steck. Is that because they are walkers to WVHS?
So, I'm really confused. Should I just "sit tight" until Tuesday. Is this all speculation or rumor? Did I miss something?
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Feb 9, 2008 23:09:14 GMT -6
This is my first post, so I'm going to quickly "introduce myself". I have one child at Steck (a walker) and one at Granger (takes the bus about 4 miles away). I've read earlier posts of people wondering what Steck/McCarty residents thought, so I thought I would throw in my two cents. I can go either way on which high school my children will attend i.e. WVHS is 1 1/2 miles away by bus, is well established and we know numerous college kids in the neighborhood who did great at WVHS. Metea is a commute not much different than my Granger student has now and it would be nice to stay at Granger and continue with the Nancy Young and Stonebridge students (who I'm assuming will be going to Metea). But, Tuesday can't get here soon enough. From what I've been reading under this topic, I was almost convinced we will be continuing at Steck, then Granger and onto Metea. However, last night a neighbor told me "absolutely not", that we are walkers and she heard that it hasn't been decided whether the dividing line will be New York Street or Liberty for who will attend Metea. Who she heard this from, she did not say. Also, I recently talked to a Steck Mom who lives in Lakewood (subdivision along Ogden between Eola & Montgomery) and she told me there is speculation that Lakewood will be switched to McCarty from Steck. Is that because they are walkers to WVHS? So, I'm really confused. Should I just "sit tight" until Tuesday. Is this all speculation or rumor? Did I miss something? Welcome aboard. I hope you become a frequent poster. There are alot of rumors flying around. I don't think anyone here has discussed any specific rumors regarding Steck. We do know that that they are trying to avoid splitting elementary schools at all and avoiding splitting middle schools. We have noticed that the old rule of never bussing walkers was not discussed by the SB this time. Instead Dr. D said something about minimizing transportation costs. Some are some from Steck who walk to WVHS but some of us are wondering is sending Steck to MVHS would increase transportation costs at all since many of the walkers may be added to bus routes already in the neighborhood and the new bussers may be eligible for transportation funds. Members here have looked at MV as a school that needs to be filled. Obviously Young, Brooks, Brookdale and Longwood will go to MV but hen you need two or three more schools. Steck looks like a strong possibility because of its relationship with Granger and the fact that it is a reasonable commute. We can only guess on the effects of transportation costs based on what we know here. |
|
