PREIT

[bob]

and Wickes. Don't forget Wickes.

[lacy]

bob said:

Here was your quote

lacy said:

I wasn't aware that teens had much money to spend - they don't have much income.

This has nothing to do with BB so I don't know why you are saying I want BB at all costs when I certainly haven't.

If you don't think teens had much money to spend how about these articles

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/02/20/MN187355.DTL&nl=fix

From 2002


www.merchandisegroup.com/merchandise/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001772548



www.marketresearchworld.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=615&Itemid=

Chicago, IL, November 12, 2004 -- According to a new report from Mintel on teen consumers, teen spending was valued at $175 billion in 2003 and is on the rise. The estimated spending power of teens, those age 12 to 17, is expected to top $190 billion by 2006, a figure that surpasses the gross domestic product of many
countries in the world. In addition, families with teens spent $100 billion on them with projected spending for 12 to 17 year olds as $128.5 billion in 2006.

Teens represent the first significant demographic change in the past decade. Not since the Baby Boom's teenage years has this age group been so large.
Twenty-five million strong in 2004, teens constitute 8.5% of the total US population in 2004. By 2010, teens are projected to comprise 10% of the US population.

Today's teens are the most affluent generation of young people to date. Over one-third receive some kind of allowance from their parents, and nearly three-quarters work around the house to earn it. Almost one third of teens work while going to school and participating in other teen activities. Marketers should recognize that a considerable amount of teens work and treat them accordingly when encouraging them to spend money on their products and services.

Teen girls have generally been regarded as the primary spenders. This has now shifted. For example, teen boys are the new darling of the health and beauty industry spending an estimated $2.1 billion on personal care in 2003. Teen boys buy shampoo and hair gels, often spending on hair coloring, too. They also purchase their own soaps, deodorants, shaving products and moisturizers. This new target market represents an entirely new opportunity for marketers of many
products.

Teens' dollars are primarily spent on themselves. This increase in their spending power will be fueled by higher earnings from jobs held by teens, increased teen savings and expansion of family expenditures on teens. Parents will always have a difficult time saying "no" to their children and teens will continue to receive hand outs from parents, grandparents and relatives. Their spending clout will wield tremendous economic power and drive overall consumer trends through their purchases.

Bob, it is really almost laughable to suggest that teens will be spending every dime they have at a Walmart. I never knew teens were clamoring for Walmart clothes. And if the school isn't built there it will not have any measurable affect on Walmart's sales.

If that was the case, why wouldn't Walmart try to build near schools everywhere? When was the last time you saw a major retailer butt up to a high school? Retail feeds off more retail as well as easy access. They certainly will get both at this site. They don't need a school to back up to them to beef up their sales.

And I still contend that alot of parents wouldn't want their kids driving near such a heavily congested area. (probably another reason you don't typically see schools right next to major retailers)

[lacy]

bob said:

Then what about all the Macom rumors.

BB is almost dead.

Having people float rumors that a northern site would doom the 09 referendum also is part of the scare tactic IMO

Nope no one told me to say that. It was it called poltical speculation. Make about 40% of the yes voters mad plus the always No voters and you get a No on the referendum.

If they overspend (like to buy BB) or cut back the school, I think the 09 referendum will fail.

[bob]

The argument has nothing to do with Walmart. You said teens don't spend money. I gave you the facts that they did and in huge amounts. The whole point is that th emall would have loved to be next to a HS with a built in teen base. The mall loses a huge selling point with the MV not going there. Most retailers would have loved having that HS there.

A&F, AE and Hollister would probably have loved having stores right there.

[lacy]

bob said:

Then what about all the Macom rumors.

BB is almost dead.

Having people float rumors that a northern site would doom the 09 referendum also is part of the scare tactic IMO

Nope no one told me to say that. It was it called poltical speculation. Make about 40% of the yes voters mad plus the always No voters and you get a No on the referendum.

I haven't heard anything about Macom in a long time - except of course about how much the SB dislikes PL.

If the SB doesn't consider a perfectly viable option because they don't like someone, are they good stewards of the taxpayer's money? How do the kids in the district factor into such thinking?

[lacy]

bob said:

The argument has nothing to do with Walmart. You said teens don't spend money. I gave you the facts that they did and in huge amounts. The whole point is that th emall would have loved to be next to a HS with a built in teen base. The mall loses a huge selling point with the MV not going there. Most retailers would have loved having that HS there.

A&F, AE and Hollister would probably have loved having stores right there.

If retailers would love to abutt a high school, then why don't we see more of that?

Is it because the parents of such kids would not be comfortable with that?

And is it also because retail is generally placed near other retail sites and schools are generally placed closer to residential areas.

[bob]

lacy said:

bob said:

Then what about all the Macom rumors.

BB is almost dead.



Nope no one told me to say that. It was it called poltical speculation. Make about 40% of the yes voters mad plus the always No voters and you get a No on the referendum.

I haven't heard anything about Macom in a long time - except of course about how much the SB dislikes PL.

If the SB doesn't consider a perfectly viable option because they don't like someone, are they good stewards of the taxpayer's money? How do the kids in the district factor into such thinking?

Well I guess you should do some reading around here.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

bob said:

Then what about all the Macom rumors.

BB is almost dead.



Nope no one told me to say that. It was it called poltical speculation. Make about 40% of the yes voters mad plus the always No voters and you get a No on the referendum.

If they overspend (like to buy BB) or cut back the school, I think the 09 referendum will fail.

there are now many scenario's where the 09 referendum might fail - BB may or may not be the one with the greatest odds...but not spending the money there will cause some to vote the other way also. There is no win- win decision left to be made.

[warriorpride]

bob said:

Then what about all the Macom rumors.

BB is almost dead.

Having people float rumors that a northern site would doom the 09 referendum also is part of the scare tactic IMO

Nope no one told me to say that. It was it called poltical speculation. Make about 40% of the yes voters mad plus the always No voters and you get a No on the referendum.

I don't agree with your speculation. All I've heard suggested is that some of the "unhappy" areas may not work hard on the Ref - not that suddenly everyone is voting no - there's a difference.

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

bob said:

Then what about all the Macom rumors.

BB is almost dead.



Nope no one told me to say that. It was it called poltical speculation. Make about 40% of the yes voters mad plus the always No voters and you get a No on the referendum.

I don't agree with your speculation. All I've heard suggested is that some of the "unhappy" areas may not work hard on the Ref - not that suddenly everyone is voting no - there's a difference.

trust me WP - there are plenty that will vote no because they had to be convinced last time to vote yes -- so that will occur ( just as it did in other areas the last time out) - but I agree likely an equal number of people will just not vote at all and disconnect from the process - that will happen also.

but I agree with Bob's assessment ( and I know you worked door to door also) - there is a built in no vote regardless of what the referendum is for - schools/parks etc. - add to that people ticked off in any area - and that will be a No area.

[lacy]

I agree with you Dr. Who that is now a no-win situation. It's really a mess.

But regarding BB, how many people who voted yes would do the same if the vote were held today? We are no closer to building the school now than when we were being sold on the idea. BB is now considerably more expensive than everything we were told and now we hear there's a SuperWalmart going in.

Probably chosing an alternative with the least changes from the original plan (in terms of boundaries and plans for the school) is the best idea.

[bob]

Probably chosing an alternative with the least changes from the original plan (in terms of boundaries and plans for the school) is the best idea.

We agree on something.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

I agree with you Dr. Who that is now a no-win situation. It's really a mess.

But regarding BB, how many people who voted yes would do the same if the vote were held today? We are no closer to building the school now than when we were being sold on the idea. BB is now considerably more expensive than everything we were told and now we hear there's a SuperWalmart going in.

Probably chosing an alternative with the least changes from the original plan (in terms of boundaries and plans for the school) is the best idea.

I agree that is likely what would cause the least churn -- outcome of more churn is speculative, but having people ( voters ) consider the least amount of changes likely helps keep fewer people from changing their minds.

[EagleDad]

wvhsparent said:

Barring your distaste for WalMart, it would fit in with what is already built in the area (Lowes/Staples/Costco)

Yes like Walmart and Costco go together like Chateaubriand and Schlitz

Did I mention I hate Walmart?