|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 25, 2008 17:31:50 GMT -5
It's no real secret that the district was looking at 3 parcels of land prior to the final decision/approval by the board on Jan. 22. I don't think one needs any "inside information" to know that. The very fact that other land parcels were being considered during that time frame and that BB wasn't one of them would lead me to believe that these phone calls were quite possibly initiated by those listed on the lawsuit or their attorney. And even if they weren't initiated by that group, both parties were obviously in contact. It seems as if efforts to de-rail building anywhere but BB were already underway. By that, I mean why would the BB legal team initiate contact with the NSFOC group? What's in it for them? However, I can see why the NSFOC group might want an "alli" in their efforts. Just my observation. BTW, at one of the SB meetings, prior to the Jan. 22 meeting where they approved the MWGEN land, there was a gentleman sitting in front of me that had a legal size file folder with "Tall Grass Lawsuit" written on the tab. Not NSFOC, but Tall Grass. Now it makes sense. And since the boundary meeting was in mid to late Feb, that kind of puts to bed that the lawsuit was all because of boundaries. If they were kicking around the idea back then, it seems to me to be more tied to the land/location as they said it was. I guess we can all speculate, but since MV @ BB put TG away from MV - it wouldn't have been a stretch to think that a northern site would move TG to WV.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 25, 2008 17:45:31 GMT -5
And since the boundary meeting was in mid to late Feb, that kind of puts to bed that the lawsuit was all because of boundaries. If they were kicking around the idea back then, it seems to me to be more tied to the land/location as they said it was. I guess we can all speculate, but since MV @ BB put TG away from MV - it wouldn't have been a stretch to think that a northern site would move TG to WV. Honestly, the only location scuttle I heard was the desire by many in that area for the SB to take the Macom offer more seriously or re-approach the developer about it especially considering the willingness to drop the price. Understandable. The only thing negative with regards to WV I heard was from PTA presidents (and elects) from north of N. Aurora Rd claiming some form of clairvoyance in knowing the mindset of those living south of 95th street.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 25, 2008 17:52:01 GMT -5
I guess we can all speculate, but since MV @ BB put TG away from MV - it wouldn't have been a stretch to think that a northern site would move TG to WV. Honestly, the only location scuttle I heard was the desire by many in that area for the SB to take the Macom offer more seriously or re-approach the developer about it especially considering the willingness to drop the price. Understandable. The only thing negative with regards to WV I heard was from PTA presidents (and elects) from north of N. Aurora Rd claiming some form of clairvoyance in knowing the mindset of those living south of 95th street. We're starting to get off track & I'm going to start repeating some things that have been said, but if it wasn't about boundaries (what HS they went to) then why did some of the nsfoc mouthpieces publicly talk about how WV was unreasosnably far for them (when, in fact, BB would have been a very similar distance)?
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 25, 2008 18:14:50 GMT -5
And since the boundary meeting was in mid to late Feb, that kind of puts to bed that the lawsuit was all because of boundaries. If they were kicking around the idea back then, it seems to me to be more tied to the land/location as they said it was. I guess we can all speculate, but since MV @ BB put TG away from MV - it wouldn't have been a stretch to think that a northern site would move TG to WV. Ditto.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 25, 2008 18:16:14 GMT -5
Honestly, the only location scuttle I heard was the desire by many in that area for the SB to take the Macom offer more seriously or re-approach the developer about it especially considering the willingness to drop the price. Understandable. The only thing negative with regards to WV I heard was from PTA presidents (and elects) from north of N. Aurora Rd claiming some form of clairvoyance in knowing the mindset of those living south of 95th street. We're starting to get off track & I'm going to start repeating some things that have been said, but if it wasn't about boundaries (what HS they went to) then why did some of the nsfoc mouthpieces publicly talk about how WV was unreasosnably far for them (when, in fact, BB would have been a very similar distance)? And why did some very vocally say that they did not want their children to go to "that school in Aurora", or "please don't take my children out of Neuqua" ?
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 25, 2008 18:18:39 GMT -5
Honestly, the only location scuttle I heard was the desire by many in that area for the SB to take the Macom offer more seriously or re-approach the developer about it especially considering the willingness to drop the price. Understandable. The only thing negative with regards to WV I heard was from PTA presidents (and elects) from north of N. Aurora Rd claiming some form of clairvoyance in knowing the mindset of those living south of 95th street. We're starting to get off track & I'm going to start repeating some things that have been said, but if it wasn't about boundaries (what HS they went to) then why did some of the nsfoc mouthpieces publicly talk about how WV was unreasosnably far for them (when, in fact, BB would have been a very similar distance)? Back on topic. ;D It has been stated by some here that contact with Brodie was a few members of NSFOC calling on their own to ask questions. This kind of punches a hole in that, IMO, 31 hours?
|
|
|
Post by mclovin on Jun 25, 2008 18:32:56 GMT -5
Tall Grass lawsuit calls in January? MMMkay. Some are dated before the MWGEN land announcement too. Was the 'word out' on the site selection at the time of the first call (we all know some people have an 'inside' so let's not even pretend they don't) and did they catch wind of it? It's no real secret that the district was looking at 3 parcels of land prior to the final decision/approval by the board on Jan. 22. I don't think one needs any "inside information" to know that. The very fact that other land parcels were being considered during that time frame and that BB wasn't one of them would lead me to believe that these phone calls were quite possibly initiated by those listed on the lawsuit or their attorney. And even if they weren't initiated by that group, both parties were obviously in contact. It seems as if efforts to de-rail building anywhere but BB were already underway. By that, I mean why would the BB legal team initiate contact with the NSFOC group? What's in it for them? However, I can see why the NSFOC group might want an "alli" in their efforts. Just my observation. BTW, at one of the SB meetings, prior to the Jan. 22 meeting where they approved the MWGEN land, there was a gentleman sitting in front of me that had a legal size file folder with "Tall Grass Lawsuit" written on the tab. Not NSFOC, but Tall Grass. Now it makes sense. I completely find this very difficult to believe. Are you sure of what you saw?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 25, 2008 18:33:31 GMT -5
We're starting to get off track & I'm going to start repeating some things that have been said, but if it wasn't about boundaries (what HS they went to) then why did some of the nsfoc mouthpieces publicly talk about how WV was unreasosnably far for them (when, in fact, BB would have been a very similar distance)? Back on topic. ;D It has been stated by some here that contact with Brodie was a few members of NSFOC calling on their own to ask questions. This kind of punches a hole in that, IMO, 31 hours? I didn't believe for a second that it was just to 'ask questions'. One doesn't bill for that. It wouldn't be so far 'out there' to think that it may have been to make sure one didn't step on the other's toes. Distance is a factor for everyone, like it or not and anyone can pin 'boundaries' to any discussion of distance or any discussion of a 'destination'. Point was it appears it was underway well before any 'official boundary' discussion transpired, was put forth or even voted upon. The reality is that BB is a more convenient location to get to from the TG neighborhood than WV is, especially 2 times a day. One could pin boundaries on my stance but the fact is land location is the real reason and since my children are slated to go to that location, boundaries then fall on top of that. If it were at any other location without those things I absolutely adore (or anything else approaching that capacity), I wouldn't have much problem or concern even if it were 10 miles away. Since it's parked where it's going to be parked, location is now moot and what's left for anyone pro or con, fud or anti is boundaries which we've all been reminded can be changed in the future (and historically, they do).
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 25, 2008 18:34:22 GMT -5
We're starting to get off track & I'm going to start repeating some things that have been said, but if it wasn't about boundaries (what HS they went to) then why did some of the nsfoc mouthpieces publicly talk about how WV was unreasosnably far for them (when, in fact, BB would have been a very similar distance)? And why did some very vocally say that they did not want their children to go to "that school in Aurora", or "please don't take my children out of Neuqua" ? If I said "Please don't take my kid our ot WVHS" is that a 'bad thing' ? Who actually said 'that school in Aurora' and what is their position with respect to the District?
|
|
|
Post by mclovin on Jun 25, 2008 18:41:15 GMT -5
I'd like to know who said that as well as I think they are morons.
In all honesty, I did hear one bonehead from Tall Grass at the boundary meeting speak negatively against WVHS. I heckled him at the time as it made me sick.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 25, 2008 18:46:18 GMT -5
Back on topic. ;D It has been stated by some here that contact with Brodie was a few members of NSFOC calling on their own to ask questions. This kind of punches a hole in that, IMO, 31 hours? I didn't believe for a second that it was just to 'ask questions'. One doesn't bill for that. It wouldn't be so far 'out there' to think that it may have been to make sure one didn't step on the other's toes. Distance is a factor for everyone, like it or not and anyone can pin 'boundaries' to any discussion of distance or any discussion of a 'destination'. Point was it appears it was underway well before any 'official boundary' discussion transpired, was put forth or even voted upon. The reality is that BB is a more convenient location to get to from the TG neighborhood than WV is, especially 2 times a day. One could pin boundaries on my stance but the fact is land location is the real reason and since my children are slated to go to that location, boundaries then fall on top of that. If it were at any other location without those things I absolutely adore (or anything else approaching that capacity), I wouldn't have much problem or concern even if it were 10 miles away. Since it's parked where it's going to be parked, location is now moot and what's left for anyone pro or con, fud or anti is boundaries which we've all been reminded can be changed in the future (and historically, they do). I disagree that BB would have been easier to get to to than WV. I spent a fair amount of time seeing if those complaints had any validity to them - I don't think they did. Regarding boundary changes at any time: I'd like to think that no matter who is on the SB or where they're from, any discussion of boundary changes is not taken lightly, and there needs to be a very valid reason for considering changes, other than a tweak (and I do not consider changing an ES assignment to an MS or HS to be a tweak).
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 25, 2008 18:49:18 GMT -5
WP, Rt 59, 3 lanes all the way north and south and it actually moves because there is no 'pinch' with a lane going missing. Make a left at 75th. Boom, done in the morning. Afternoon= Right (onto 75th), right (onto 59) straight... then a right onto 95th. Welcome home. Again, all moving decently because there are no pinch lanes like happen up by Target on Rt, 59 further up. No RR crossings, to boot.
|
|
|
Post by mclovin on Jun 25, 2008 18:53:25 GMT -5
I agree that the RR question is the biggest at this point. After reading what the delays at RR crossings might be if the merger is approved, I'm very concerned about time spent on a bus as well as safety.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 25, 2008 18:57:50 GMT -5
I agree that the RR question is the biggest at this point. After reading what the delays at RR crossings might be if the merger is approved, I'm very concerned about time spent on a bus as well as safety. I believe the southern most above/below grade crossing is McCoy, up west of the mall.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 25, 2008 19:03:44 GMT -5
I agree that the RR question is the biggest at this point. After reading what the delays at RR crossings might be if the merger is approved, I'm very concerned about time spent on a bus as well as safety. Yeah. Some of us have been dealing with those tracks for years and will continue to deal with it. That potential purchase of that line impacts many.
|
|