|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 22, 2006 11:08:01 GMT -6
I think the SB has addressed whether or not the ES can be converted into a MS. I don't recall anything except not practical. Knowing the differences between the two types of schools, I think that might be an understatement. I do not want to hear about the freshman centers being a mistake, I do not want to hear about plans that may or may not work, i.e. ES converted to a MS, and I certainly don't want to hear about property values and cost to the taxpayer; I have heard a lot about all of that and am intelligent enough to make my own decisions based on what I have heard, read, and seen. I want to know why the 3rd high school will be a mistake. We all want what is best for our children and for the children to come. We want our SD to maintain its excellent standards and prepare our children for whatever comes after HS. That we agree on, what we don't agree on is the road needed to be taken. Why would a 3rd high school be a mistake? The logical, rational reason appears to be a question about how long the high enrollment will sustain and therefore, a short-term, more affordable solution may be a better solution to solve that type of problem, rather than a large investmet in something that may eventually become unnecessary. That position requires what is essentially a "guess" that the enrollment will eventually go down. I've heard alot of speculation but I haven't really seen hard evidence that this will be a bubble and not a boom. Other reasons would be that the information provided by the SB is not complete, and it is too hard for residents to evaluate the need when they are not provided with the data necessary. For example, the site evaluation, the operating budget projections, etc. The other reasons I've heard which I personally am not sure are based in logic are that people don't trust the SB for whatever reason, that someone is "on the take," that the costs associated with the school are not in line with fair market value, that some people are retirees that don't want to invest anymore in this district, that the boundaries are not fair, or that people are in such dire situations that they simply can't afford it. WOW  I think you just covered it all!!! Way to go Fence! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 23, 2006 8:39:53 GMT -6
Gatormom posed a question to me and it needs to be looked at.
I personally have never seen Peterson. If the land around Peterson is plotted that is going to be very costly.
|
|
|
|
Post by cantretirehere on Feb 23, 2006 9:03:06 GMT -6
The logical, rational reason appears to be a question about how long the high enrollment will sustain and therefore, a short-term, more affordable solution may be a better solution to solve that type of problem, rather than a large investmet in something that may eventually become unnecessary. That position requires what is essentially a "guess" that the enrollment will eventually go down. I've heard alot of speculation but I haven't really seen hard evidence that this will be a bubble and not a boom. Other reasons would be that the information provided by the SB is not complete, and it is too hard for residents to evaluate the need when they are not provided with the data necessary. For example, the site evaluation, the operating budget projections, etc. The other reasons I've heard which I personally am not sure are based in logic are that people don't trust the SB for whatever reason, that someone is "on the take," that the costs associated with the school are not in line with fair market value, that some people are retirees that don't want to invest anymore in this district, that the boundaries are not fair, or that people are in such dire situations that they simply can't afford it. WOW I think you just covered it all!!! Way to go Fence! ;D Here's one Fence forgot: The BB site came up and some voted no last year cuz they didn't like the site. Cost and location. Not because they didn't think that there wasn't a need for a 3rd HS. These people were befuddled that the district didn't give up on BB for a HS, and were confused that they bought 25 acres for a MS there when Still is right there. (Still was initially built in the industrial park area and with an "office building" type floor plan because it was believed that the district's enrollment was declining and we were going to sell that building to some business eventually - Actually Scullen was built where it is and with that same design for the same reason) Now the cost is even worse and the whole boundary discussion fiasco kind of highlights some of the problems with building a school there. Then to top things off we get this new situation with the condemnation proceedings. It just goes from bad to worse. I heard somewhere (wish I could remember where - maybe someone could help me out with this) that the enrollment population center for the district is located somewhere SE of NV. That would mean the density of the SE corner of the district is quite high. Building a HS at BB would mean that two HS's are in the less dense portion of the district. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Feb 23, 2006 9:07:41 GMT -6
The land surrounding Peterson is all platted for single family homes. You can visit Kamin Builders website or Macom's and see the community site plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 23, 2006 9:09:46 GMT -6
That can't be just for the fact of Fry,Welch,WE, Clow,Springbrook would offset anything in the SE. Then throw in the rest of the SD and it would pull it toward BB.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 23, 2006 9:10:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 23, 2006 9:25:56 GMT -6
<Now the cost is even worse and the whole boundary discussion fiasco kind of highlights some of the problems with building a school there. Then to top things off we get this new situation with the condemnation proceedings. It just goes from bad to worse.
I heard somewhere (wish I could remember where - maybe someone could help me out with this) that the enrollment population center for the district is located somewhere SE of NV. That would mean the density of the SE corner of the district is quite high. Building a HS at BB would mean that two HS's are in the less dense portion of the district. <<
1. do you actually believe the boundary issues are going to be any better no matter where the building is. The most upset group right now is in the far north section, unless a HS is built there I don't see that changing. Building real far south will cause a shift so that NV may be the southern boundary for the middle section of 204 - and I can;t see that moving any more schools from what they view as nirvana is going to improve the general acceptance of boundaries
I also thought I heard the just SE of NV comment also in one of the PTSA info meetings-- however the BB site is only 2 miles from that ! How close does anyone think the SB is going to find 80 acres to the eipicenter- even if that is true-- although personally I would think the epicenter would be just SW - which would put it even closer to the BB site.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 23, 2006 9:30:01 GMT -6
The population center being SE of NV would mean more than half of the population lives SE of NV which we know isn't true.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 23, 2006 19:40:38 GMT -6
"Hey Doc, I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy reading your posts. You sound like a very intelligent, logical person. Way to go!"
Thank you , I try hard to stick to facts, but like everyone else I am emotionally attached also, so I can stray. I can say I have been more involved in this effort than any community effort since I have lived here. I have learned a lot from both sides.....( or should I say from the many sides ) --
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 23, 2006 19:46:06 GMT -6
"I thought that the upset group in the far north was upset becasue they were being seperated from the rest of the middle school - they have repeated stated that they were very happy at WV."
well I am going to steer around this one for a bit as I have a lot of friends there and they are upset enough without getting into a lot of opinion..I hope you don't mind-- but the short answer is it depends who you ask from there. Being separated from the other feeders is certainly one issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Feb 23, 2006 22:37:51 GMT -6
The population center being SE of NV would mean more than half of the population lives SE of NV which we know isn't true. According to the site selection report the population center is North and East of NVHS. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 24, 2006 11:10:52 GMT -6
The population center being SE of NV would mean more than half of the population lives SE of NV which we know isn't true. According to the site selection report the population center is North and East of NVHS. I actually spoke with Metzger about this "population center" comment in the site selection report. While it sounds good, the flaw with it is that it is only really appropiate IF you have one facility to service said population....we are possibly going to have 3. He understood my point, but I don't expect a change due to it. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 24, 2006 12:03:56 GMT -6
That makes sense - there would really have to be 3 locii to be totally useful --
|
|
|
|
Post by cantretirehere on Feb 24, 2006 12:15:05 GMT -6
The population center being SE of NV would mean more than half of the population lives SE of NV which we know isn't true. According to the site selection report the population center is North and East of NVHS. Okay - I see that. My Bad. But the fact remains that some NO votes from last year (not sure how many were voting no for that reason - just my own personal poll of aquaintances) were due to the site, and now that same site is on the referendum again. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 24, 2006 12:19:32 GMT -6
I don;t doubt that this is correct, but the No's for the site are somewhat of a known entity for the BB site, they are unknown for every other possible site. How many NO's do you think would come from the south if a site by I88 was chosen and potentialy 1/2 the schools from NV were forced to move ? Think of how that site would shift the attendance boundaries to even them out at 3,000 each.
Much like boundaries, there is no one site that would not have a NO vote portion tied to it.
|
|
