|
WHY?
Sept 9, 2008 11:06:11 GMT -5
Post by asmodeus on Sept 9, 2008 11:06:11 GMT -5
No one is saying there is.
So your stance is that the public input and discussion was a bad thing? Your comment would seem to indicate so.
It's certainly likely that under an "ideal" boundary solution (whatever the definition of ideal is), some areas will be happier than others. But this is a NOT a zero-sum game. Finding improvements to one area do not automatically offset and create pain in another.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 9, 2008 11:47:38 GMT -5
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 9, 2008 11:47:38 GMT -5
It's certainly likely that under an "ideal" boundary solution (whatever the definition of ideal is), some areas will be happier than others. But this is a NOT a zero-sum game. Finding improvements to one area do not automatically offset and create pain in another. Then prove it.....Show us what your "improvements" would be. We have tried many different combos and have not found it yet. Maybe we missed yours.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 9, 2008 14:36:00 GMT -5
Post by asmodeus on Sept 9, 2008 14:36:00 GMT -5
It's certainly likely that under an "ideal" boundary solution (whatever the definition of ideal is), some areas will be happier than others. But this is a NOT a zero-sum game. Finding improvements to one area do not automatically offset and create pain in another. Then prove it.....Show us what your "improvements" would be. We have tried many different combos and have not found it yet. Maybe we missed yours. I don't have the time or inclination to do it (and I don't believe it is an easy undertaking), but as a taxpaying citizen I have an expectation that the people in charge -- the elected officials -- will spend the proper time and put the priorities in a fair order. That's why I think there should be more balanced representation on the SB. It's nice to think the SB members are completely impartial but human nature suggests each member brings their own biases and priorities, sometimes subconsciously.
|
|