The Macom Deal

[confused]

warriorpride said:

slp said:

I agree. The decision made by the board needs to be in the best interest of the kids in this district and not based on personal biases and/or personal feelings.

IMO the school needs to get built ASAP, on budget. For those of you not likely to go to WV, you're probably less inclined to care about that fact that WV will be crowded for 2 years AFTER MV is opened, as they condense down to the Green campus.

I think I learned how to quote! Why are you talking about getting the school built ASAP, on budget, as if that is in conflict with doing something in the best interest of the kids and the future of the district? How much of a delay are we really talking about with Macom vs the north site? I heard the complaint about Wolf's Crossing going in - it doesn't mean they couldn't get construction vehicles to the site in the meantime - I've driven by and it's completely accessible. I think that by the time the school would open in 2009 to Freshman & Sophomores they could have adequate access. What are the other hold ups?

I keep hearing about the couple who live there? Is that really still an issue? Would they be o.k. with leaving? Should I go to their door and ask them?

What is the problem with opening the school ASAP at Macom? Warrior Pride, this continues to be one of your comments - what does that mean for site selection?

[warriorpride]

confused said:

warriorpride said:

IMO the school needs to get built ASAP, on budget. For those of you not likely to go to WV, you're probably less inclined to care about that fact that WV will be crowded for 2 years AFTER MV is opened, as they condense down to the Green campus.

I think I learned how to quote! Why are you talking about getting the school built ASAP, on budget, as if that is in conflict with doing something in the best interest of the kids and the future of the district? How much of a delay are we really talking about with Macom vs the north site? I heard the complaint about Wolf's Crossing going in - it doesn't mean they couldn't get construction vehicles to the site in the meantime - I've driven by and it's completely accessible. I think that by the time the school would open in 2009 to Freshman & Sophomores they could have adequate access. What are the other hold ups?

I keep hearing about the couple who live there? Is that really still an issue? Would they be o.k. with leaving? Should I go to their door and ask them?

What is the problem with opening the school ASAP at Macom? Warrior Pride, this continues to be one of your comments - what does that mean for site selection?

1) Time
There are some that have younger kids, not quite affected by the MS and/or HS crowding that do not have have as much of a sense of urgency about this that I do. I worked on ref. to help my kids. If my kids were just about out of HS, I honestly don't think I would have cared about the ref. So, I want the school built ASAP. Fair enough?

2) Cost
I been consistent about Macom. IMO Lehman's done damage to 204 with his comments & actions. I've also said that if Macom offers a VERY sweet deal, then fine, as long as there's a huge savings to 204 AND no impact to the timeline. As I said, we shouldn't bail Macom out here - he's the one that owes US - so just offering us the land (at a market price) just isn't good enough for me.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me or even like me for my opinion. Yes, I have a strong feeling about this - and, like I said, only someone who feeds onto WV and will likely be staying there after MV is built could even have a chance at feeling this way. I know most on this board don't fall into this category. You can keep talking purely about cost and boundaries, but I've referred to intangibles before, and for me, there are some big, hairy ones that come with Macom.

There's nothing more to read into my comments. I think I've been very consistent with what I say. if some people are allowed to tag a north site as least desireable, then I think I should be allowed to tag Macom as my least desireable.

BTW, I don't think that 204 will collapse, no matter where MV is build, or probably when. There'll initially be unhappy people (actually, it'll just be the parents, the kids will be fine), no what ther outcome. Then, it'll calm down over time.

[warriorpride]

casey said:

...Why is the SB doing nothing to work this deal? Judging by the many posters speaking out on how wrong the northern site is, I should think we'd be happy that there is a deal out there like Macom. ...

BTW, this comment was made early yesterday, but I just wanted to point out that I have a different defintion of "many": it's much greater than 7 or 8. And I'd be interested if anyone that's excited about this isn't from the "middle" (definitions may vary) of the SD.

[lacy]

WP,

I hear what you're saying about the urgency regarding the kids who are affected.

What I don't agree with is letting emotions regarding PL guide which site we choose. If Macom's the best choice, then they should go for it. It shouldn't have to be "free" to be the best choice.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think the SB and SD should look at all the options and then make an objective choice of which site is best for the entire district (that would include looking at the cost, possible boundaries - everything).

To allow personal feelings regarding the owner of the land to influence them would be terribly childish.

[warriorpride]

lacy said:

WP,

I hear what you're saying about the urgency regarding the kids who are affected.

What I don't agree with is letting emotions regarding PL guide which site we choose. If Macom's the best choice, then they should go for it. It shouldn't have to be "free" to be the best choice.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think the SB and SD should look at all the options and then make an objective choice of which site is best for the entire district (that would include looking at the cost, possible boundaries - everything).

To allow personal feelings regarding the owner of the land to influence them would be terribly childish.

I think it'd be terribly childish for people to not support the 09 ref if they are unhappy with the location or boundaries - I've heard plenty of threats that it might happen, tho

[warriorpride]

lacy said:

WP,

I hear what you're saying about the urgency regarding the kids who are affected.

What I don't agree with is letting emotions regarding PL guide which site we choose. If Macom's the best choice, then they should go for it. It shouldn't have to be "free" to be the best choice.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think the SB and SD should look at all the options and then make an objective choice of which site is best for the entire district (that would include looking at the cost, possible boundaries - everything).

To allow personal feelings regarding the owner of the land to influence them would be terribly childish.

sorry - I'm going to post against the same quote again...

Do you think that Lehman stands to significantly benefit from MV being built @ Macom? I do

Why should he not be expected to provide a deep discount in exchange for the benefits that he's getting?

[confused]

I think the whole time argument is another excuse in the waiting for the SB - trying to find some viable reason why they would select a north site when this site is clearly the better choice for the district. And your argument about it being childish for people to not support the 09 referendum when unhappy with location or boundaries...if voters feel they have been handed a childish decision, it would be completely expected that many will feel it is within their right to show their discontent by voting against the 09 referendum.

Voting is the only power the community has been given - it's their only opportunity to show their disapproval of the board's actions. Should that happen, one would have to ask which came first...the poor, unprofessional actions of the SB or the consequences reflected in the votes?

[gatormom]

lacy said:

WP,

I hear what you're saying about the urgency regarding the kids who are affected.

What I don't agree with is letting emotions regarding PL guide which site we choose. If Macom's the best choice, then they should go for it. It shouldn't have to be "free" to be the best choice.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think the SB and SD should look at all the options and then make an objective choice of which site is best for the entire district (that would include looking at the cost, possible boundaries - everything).

To allow personal feelings regarding the owner of the land to influence them would be terribly childish.

Lacy, I agree with you, kind of scary isn't it.

There are many emotions at play here and it is important that the district and the SB remain objective.

I hope for all our children's sake, these emotions are left out of the decision and the best possible site is selected, and again, I really don't have a preference. I truly believe that for as many negatives as there are with a northern site, Macom has just as many.

[confused]

In answer to your comment about Lehman...I agree that he should pay a discount. How deep is enough? Isn't there a song...Oh no - I guess that's "How deep is your love?" Don't think there's any love there...

[warriorpride]

confused said:

I think the whole time argument is another excuse in the waiting for the SB - trying to find some viable reason why they would select a north site when this site is clearly the better choice for the district. And your argument about it being childish for people to not support the 09 referendum when unhappy with location or boundaries...if voters feel they have been handed a childish decision, it would be completely expected that many will feel it is within their right to show their discontent by voting against the 09 referendum.

Voting is the only power the community has been given - it's their only opportunity to show their disapproval of the board's actions. Should that happen, one would have to ask which came first...the poor, unprofessional actions of the SB or the consequences reflected in the votes?

voting for or against someone in the SB election is one thing - voting against an operating Ref (especially out of spite) is another - but you're right, it's a free country - people can shoot themselves in the foot if they really want to - can anyone show me what good comes of the 09 Ref failing?

[confused]

warriorpride said:

confused said:

I think the whole time argument is another excuse in the waiting for the SB - trying to find some viable reason why they would select a north site when this site is clearly the better choice for the district. And your argument about it being childish for people to not support the 09 referendum when unhappy with location or boundaries...if voters feel they have been handed a childish decision, it would be completely expected that many will feel it is within their right to show their discontent by voting against the 09 referendum.

Voting is the only power the community has been given - it's their only opportunity to show their disapproval of the board's actions. Should that happen, one would have to ask which came first...the poor, unprofessional actions of the SB or the consequences reflected in the votes?

voting for or against someone in the SB election is one thing - voting against an operating Ref (especially out of spite) is another - but you're right, it's a free country - people can shoot themselves in the foot if they really want to - can anyone show me what good comes of the 09 Ref failing?

No one knows how much a less desirable site selection would effect the 09 referendum. It's a total guess. But you could definitely see that the more people feeling happy with the job the SB is doing, the more likely they are going to be to support an SB request for more money. There is so much we don't know that maybe the SB will be able to make a very good case for whatever site they select and as long as the majority of the 204 population feels that it was a job well done, there should not be a problem.

[lacy]

warriorpride said:

lacy said:

WP,

I hear what you're saying about the urgency regarding the kids who are affected.

What I don't agree with is letting emotions regarding PL guide which site we choose. If Macom's the best choice, then they should go for it. It shouldn't have to be "free" to be the best choice.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think the SB and SD should look at all the options and then make an objective choice of which site is best for the entire district (that would include looking at the cost, possible boundaries - everything).

To allow personal feelings regarding the owner of the land to influence them would be terribly childish.

I think it'd be terribly childish for people to not support the 09 ref if they are unhappy with the location or boundaries - I've heard plenty of threats that it might happen, tho

I agree. I'll support the 09 referendum unless I feel that the end deal is in some way not fair to the kids (like if they build an incomplete school at BB)

[confused]

That's the SB's responsibility & we just have to hope they're able to do their jobs well.

[lacy]

warriorpride said:

lacy said:

WP,

I hear what you're saying about the urgency regarding the kids who are affected.

What I don't agree with is letting emotions regarding PL guide which site we choose. If Macom's the best choice, then they should go for it. It shouldn't have to be "free" to be the best choice.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think the SB and SD should look at all the options and then make an objective choice of which site is best for the entire district (that would include looking at the cost, possible boundaries - everything).

To allow personal feelings regarding the owner of the land to influence them would be terribly childish.

sorry - I'm going to post against the same quote again...

Do you think that Lehman stands to significantly benefit from MV being built @ Macom? I do

Why should he not be expected to provide a deep discount in exchange for the benefits that he's getting?

See, this is where we differ - it doesn't make a hill of beans difference to me what he stands to gain.

If it's a win to the district and the kids then I don't care.

So it doesn't have to be free or almost free. If it's a better deal than the others and it "works" concerning all the variables at play - then do it.

[lacy]

gatormom said:

lacy said:

WP,

I hear what you're saying about the urgency regarding the kids who are affected.

What I don't agree with is letting emotions regarding PL guide which site we choose. If Macom's the best choice, then they should go for it. It shouldn't have to be "free" to be the best choice.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think the SB and SD should look at all the options and then make an objective choice of which site is best for the entire district (that would include looking at the cost, possible boundaries - everything).

To allow personal feelings regarding the owner of the land to influence them would be terribly childish.

Lacy, I agree with you, kind of scary isn't it.

There are many emotions at play here and it is important that the district and the SB remain objective.

I hope for all our children's sake, these emotions are left out of the decision and the best possible site is selected, and again, I really don't have a preference. I truly believe that for as many negatives as there are with a northern site, Macom has just as many.

Maybe it's the Christmas season, GM!