|
|
Post by fence on Feb 21, 2006 23:06:32 GMT -6
[quote author=charmant board=school I don't spend $40 a month on gas. I sincerely doubt that this referendum when all is tacked on to it will ever be as cheap as $40 a month. I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that this would not be a severe financial strain on the vast majority of residents within our district. BTW - You don't spend $40 per month on gas? That comes out to about 8 miles per day. Is that even possible? Between kids' activities, work, errands, health club, volunteer work etc. I'm sure I easily log 3-4 times that. Dont be presumptuous!!!! I don't spend $40 on gas, I don't belong to a health club, my kids are in activities that they can walk, ride their bikes to and I volunteer within walking distance of my house. Dont spend my hard earned dollars either. Since $40 for 480 months is not attached to the referendum, my bad assumption is that it will be $140 per month for longer than 480 months. But this is not about the money solely. This is about credible numbers and I'm 'just looking' for the moment.[/quote] Without question, it is perfectly acceptable for someone who sincerely doesn't have the money to vote against the referendum because they personally have no choice. And I also would say that people questioning the credibility of the numbers presented by the SB or even the options absolutely have their own reasons for doing so and clearly have the personal right to do so. This is about as affordable as it can possibly be for the taxpayers, and saying that this area as a general rule is going to have to stretch it to invest in the school is silly. If people don't agree that there is a need, or they don't believe what the SB is presenting, or they need time to run the numbers and see for themselves, that's something else again. |
|
|
|
Post by charmant on Feb 21, 2006 23:19:36 GMT -6
] Dont be presumptuous!!!! I don't spend $40 on gas, I don't belong to a health club, my kids are in activities that they can walk, ride their bikes to and I volunteer within walking distance of my house. Dont spend my hard earned dollars either. Since $40 for 480 months is not attached to the referendum, my bad assumption is that it will be $140 per month for longer than 480 months. But this is not about the money solely. This is about credible numbers and I'm 'just looking' for the moment. Without question, it is perfectly acceptable for someone who sincerely doesn't have the money to vote against the referendum because they personally have no choice. And I also would say that people questioning the credibility of the numbers presented by the SB or even the options absolutely have their own reasons for doing so and clearly have the personal right to do so. This is about as affordable as it can possibly be for the taxpayers, and saying that this area as a general rule is going to have to stretch it to invest in the school is silly. If people don't agree that there is a need, or they don't believe what the SB is presenting, or they need time to run the numbers and see for themselves, that's something else again. [/quote] It's not so one dimensional for many. It's numerous reasons factored into their vote, either way. |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Feb 21, 2006 23:22:52 GMT -6
The rezoning is definitely a problem and it's one that needs a full court press each and everytime something comes up in front of the plan commission or city council. Thank you for going and speaking up when you do. Its a liittle too late to start the full court press. It should have started 5-10 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 21, 2006 23:36:49 GMT -6
The rezoning is definitely a problem and it's one that needs a full court press each and everytime something comes up in front of the plan commission or city council. Thank you for going and speaking up when you do. Its a liittle too late to start the full court press. It should have started 5-10 years ago. Better late than never. Bending the ears of city hall to be sympathetic to the situation of school district is not a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 22, 2006 1:45:14 GMT -6
You're right. The point isn't that all will be lost and swept away. Life will not end regardless of it passing or not. BTW, the levee failure wasn't from not spending money on it. There was an engineering flaw by using 'averaging' in soil consistency over great distances. This allowed variances and inconsistencies in the subsurface to go unnoticed. Had they been observed at the time, the calculations would have been different requiring a different design. 50-60 ft below sea level pilings would have been required instead of 17.5 foot. Second mistake was using that same wrong assumptions about the soil strength when doing slope stability analysis.... You can read about it here: www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1135925892299960.xmlSo, money thrown at the wall would not have 'fixed' anything because it was the *WRONG* design based on WRONG interpreted data gathered in the first place. It wasn't about someone being 'cheap'. |
|
|
|
Post by kae on Feb 22, 2006 1:48:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by stinks on Feb 22, 2006 8:29:57 GMT -6
Your point is? From what I gather from your link, it is about the money. That's what I've been asserting. Trying to hide behind the smokescreen of the oh-so-bad-untrustworthy SB and their inability to emulate Karnak is just utter silliness. Just a bunch of excuses to justify a NO. I doubt there would be any circumstance under which most no people would say YES, short of someone donating the land and the school, so that they wouldn't have to spend anything. If you live in a house that is at least the median price, then it shouldn't be about the money. And those who live in the more upscale neighborhoods and more expensive houses, shame on you if you can't afford the nominal extra payment per month. Maybe cut down on your Starbucks or smoke fewer cigarrettes. Stop driving the big SUV. Gah, I have little patience for cheap people hiding behind excuses. |
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Feb 22, 2006 9:05:56 GMT -6
My neighborhood can least afford the extra taxes. We have very moderate homes at the low end of district averages and a large percentage of renters. We have single-income, single-parent, and dual-incomes just to make ends meet households. I support the new HS because we can least afford an education that does not give every one of its students the best education possible.
I believe that the new HS will provide the opportunities that all our children require. Stuffing 10,000 students into a system designed to hold less will definitely impact the quality of education everyone recieves. It is not a matter of numbers to me, money or students, but a matter of quality.
The extra cost from my pocket is worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stinks on Feb 22, 2006 9:12:55 GMT -6
I have always believed that a good education raises all ships in ways that we can't foresee. The damage to the community and to the children by shortchanging their needs in this area is life-long with a far-reaching rippling effect.
Haven't we all seen enough evidence proving the value of a good education? The social, and socio-economic benefits justify the building of a new school.
|
|
|
|
Post by kae on Feb 22, 2006 11:25:34 GMT -6
I think it's funny how you guys constantly complain about the people that live in $500K homes. Have you ever thought that some of the people that live in those homes didn't pay anywhere near $500K for them?
Since my point seems to bounce off the dim witted ones, I'll spell it out.
I don't think that I should have to mortgage my home value to pay for this districts mismanagement of their education funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 22, 2006 11:27:23 GMT -6
This is a warning for a personal attack.
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Feb 22, 2006 11:37:25 GMT -6
I think it's funny how you guys constantly complain about the people that live in $500K homes. Have you ever thought that some of the people that live in those homes didn't pay anywhere near $500K for them? Since my point seems to bounce off the dim witted ones, I'll spell it out. I don't think that I should have to mortgage my home value to pay for this districts mismanagement of their education funds. 1) Those $500k houses have gotten to that value in part due to the district's good reputation. 2) Please document the mismanagement that has taken place under the current SB. 3) Would you really have to take our a 2nd mortgage to pay the minimal (long-term) increase in property taxes? |
|
|
|
Post by charmant on Feb 22, 2006 11:40:10 GMT -6
I think it's funny how you guys constantly complain about the people that live in $500K homes. Have you ever thought that some of the people that live in those homes didn't pay anywhere near $500K for them? Since my point seems to bounce off the dim witted ones, I'll spell it out. I don't think that I should have to mortgage my home value to pay for this districts mismanagement of their education funds. 1) Those $500k houses have gotten to that value in part due to the district's good reputation. 2) Please document the mismanagement that has taken place under the current SB. 3) Would you really have to take our a 2nd mortgage to pay the minimal (long-term) increase in property taxes? Documentation of mismanagement under current SB PETERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Feb 22, 2006 11:43:43 GMT -6
1) Those $500k houses have gotten to that value in part due to the district's good reputation. 2) Please document the mismanagement that has taken place under the current SB. 3) Would you really have to take our a 2nd mortgage to pay the minimal (long-term) increase in property taxes? Documentation of mismanagement under current SB PETERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Give us a call in a few years & tell us that it's not needed. |
|
|
|
Post by charmant on Feb 22, 2006 11:47:09 GMT -6
Documentation of mismanagement under current SB PETERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Give us a call in a few years & tell us that it's not needed. PETERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL |
|
