|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 24, 2006 12:29:08 GMT -6
And yes, I am pro BB site because I think it is central to the 204 geography as well as personally for the first time my kids wont have to go more than 4 - 5 miles to school. I listened to everyone at the board meetings complain about distance. Going 2.5 miles vs. 1.2 miles today etc. In my almost 20 years here, my kids have traveled 4.6 miles to middle school - across RR tracks and 2 major roads -- and almost 6 miles to HS -( I am a full mile coser to NV than WV) and I never complained. This time the new HS is <2 miles from my home...and many of the other schools that will attend there are far less than I travel today....
so when I look at Owen / Watts / Cowlishaw / WE & Fry etc and the small distance to the new school compared to the 6 miles I travel today, I like the location a lot. Didn't want to prestend like I don't have a personal opinion tied in here also.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 24, 2006 12:42:52 GMT -6
that was one option mentioned at a meeting I was at-- as was the even less popular east of / west of 59 options - not far off from what was proposed 10 years ago when NV opened -- either way I see very different scenarios. With the north side HS site - like JC mentioned - those on the bubble would be like Cowlishaw and Watts - if not in the new school then into NV. NV's northern southern attendance boundary could very well be the school itself.
Like I said, every site has mountains of issues to overcome...so sticking with BB is no surprise to me --
|
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Feb 24, 2006 12:48:26 GMT -6
I was a No voter last year for several reasons, one of the biggies being the BB site. The information about how it was selected, why it was selected, and why it is better than the others has satisfied me.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 24, 2006 13:04:01 GMT -6
I was a No voter last year for several reasons, one of the biggies being the BB site. The information about how it was selected, why it was selected, and why it is better than the others has satisfied me. Same here. I has made me feel better about it too....still don't like it though, but i would accept it. |
|
|
|
Post by fence on Feb 24, 2006 13:15:32 GMT -6
At first I thought it was a HIDEOUS site because I thought it was going to be right at the corner of 75th and 59. I remember ranting about how anyone in their right mind would put a school there.
I also think that they provided zero information until just recently about how they even selected it, and what other options might be out there. I clearly think the SB make a major mistake in not getting the public that information asap. They were very late to the dance IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by forthekids on Feb 24, 2006 13:24:05 GMT -6
At first I thought it was a HIDEOUS site because I thought it was going to be right at the corner of 75th and 59. I remember ranting about how anyone in their right mind would put a school there. I also think that they provided zero information until just recently about how they even selected it, and what other options might be out there. I clearly think the SB make a major mistake in not getting the public that information asap. They were very late to the dance IMO. Don't blame the school board because you were incorrect in your assumption as to the exact location of the site (there has been information out there from the beginning about the exact location). Also, the information regarding site selection has also been out there from the beginning. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 24, 2006 13:27:38 GMT -6
Even I thought, last year, it was on 59. The papers are the worst offenders of the mis infomation.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 24, 2006 13:31:21 GMT -6
Quote <"Even I thought, last year, it was on 59. The papers are the worst offenders of the mis infomation. <"quote
Indeed that is why the SB members speaking at the PTA's this day have a large chart on an easel to show exactly where the school is located. The papers sometimes rush things out and do little diligence to details ...............I have found the one reporter from the Sun, and the name escapes me right now-- Britt something I believe to have had the best information over the past few months.
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Feb 24, 2006 13:32:35 GMT -6
At first I thought it was a HIDEOUS site because I thought it was going to be right at the corner of 75th and 59. I remember ranting about how anyone in their right mind would put a school there. I also think that they provided zero information until just recently about how they even selected it, and what other options might be out there. I clearly think the SB make a major mistake in not getting the public that information asap. They were very late to the dance IMO. Don't blame the school board because you were incorrect in your assumption as to the exact location of the site (there has been information out there from the beginning about the exact location). Also, the information regarding site selection has also been out there from the beginning. I have to disagree. There was a pretty scarce amount of information from the SB last time, so I know I personally relied alot on the papers, which published 75th and 59 for quite some time. I think they just recently corrected it and started providing a map. Of course, I can just speak for myself, but everything I read said 59 and 75th Street. And don't tell WVHS Parent that the site information has been out from the beginning or his head's going to pop off! As a collective group we've been asking for that since day 1. It has been a really big deal for some people and they have just recently seen the data that they can be comfortable with. |
|
|
|
Post by stop204 on Feb 25, 2006 11:01:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Feb 25, 2006 11:39:23 GMT -6
But the voteNo.org site also says "CFO considers 9,200 a high end estimate for peak high school " and "Add it all up and you get current High School capacity above 10,200", so this "good" idea would be unnecessary, if voteNo.org believed its own numbers. What's the motivation for adding on on NV if they really believe their peak enrollment and capacity numbers? I wonder if some voteno people just want to stay at NV at all costs. So even though voteno's numbers show no need to expand capacity at the HSs, adding on to NV for "only" $15M (not sure I can trust this number, either) will allow some of the voteNO folks to stay at NV. "problem solved!". Sounds a bit self-serving (among other things) to me. BTW, I do not believe or endorse any of the numbers at voteno.org, I just hope that the voteNo folks would actually think all of this through before casting their vote. |
|
|
|
Post by charmant on Feb 25, 2006 12:13:14 GMT -6
But the voteNo.org site also says "CFO considers 9,200 a high end estimate for peak high school " and "Add it all up and you get current High School capacity above 10,200", so this "good" idea would be unnecessary, if voteNo.org believed its own numbers. What's the motivation for adding on on NV if they really believe their peak enrollment and capacity numbers? I wonder if some voteno people just want to stay at NV at all costs. So even though voteno's numbers show no need to expand capacity at the HSs, adding on to NV for "only" $15M (not sure I can trust this number, either) will allow some of the voteNO folks to stay at NV. "problem solved!". Sounds a bit self-serving (among other things) to me. BTW, I do not believe or endorse any of the numbers at voteno.org, I just hope that the voteNo folks would actually think all of this through before casting their vote. sounds to me like 'build where the alleged growth/overcrowed situation is' |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Feb 25, 2006 12:22:37 GMT -6
But the voteNo.org site also says "CFO considers 9,200 a high end estimate for peak high school " and "Add it all up and you get current High School capacity above 10,200", so this "good" idea would be unnecessary, if voteNo.org believed its own numbers. What's the motivation for adding on on NV if they really believe their peak enrollment and capacity numbers? I wonder if some voteno people just want to stay at NV at all costs. So even though voteno's numbers show no need to expand capacity at the HSs, adding on to NV for "only" $15M (not sure I can trust this number, either) will allow some of the voteNO folks to stay at NV. "problem solved!". Sounds a bit self-serving (among other things) to me. BTW, I do not believe or endorse any of the numbers at voteno.org, I just hope that the voteNo folks would actually think all of this through before casting their vote. sounds to me like 'build where the alleged growth/overcrowed situation is' Why not just change boundaries for $0, if the voteNO projected max enrollment and capacity numbers are right? |
|
|
|
Post by charmant on Feb 25, 2006 12:44:47 GMT -6
sounds to me like 'build where the alleged growth/overcrowed situation is' Why not just change boundaries for $0, if the voteNO projected max enrollment and capacity numbers are right? I'm all over that solution!!! |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Feb 25, 2006 12:51:46 GMT -6
Why not just change boundaries for $0, if the voteNO projected max enrollment and capacity numbers are right? I'm all over that solution!!! Yeah, you like that one, other than when you're saying "we'll need a 4th HS". |
|
