|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 7, 2008 13:33:01 GMT -5
sure there are winners and whiners- we're the whiners - whatever you say. ( we know we're sure as hell not the winners in this) btw - no one is saying the site will change- that still doesn't make it a better decision. The site is what has caused the boundary issue- that part is a fact. You can choose to look at it as the being winners & losers, winners & whiners, etc. but you're the one choosing to do that, and you're the one chosing to "express negative feelings, especially of dissatisfaction or resentment: complain, grouch, grump". Sorry to hear that you can't view getting a 3rd HS built as being a win for everyone in the district. \ easy to say when you're on that end of the discussion. Oh btw, the post I originally replied to alluded we were basically those belaboring our fate without solutuions ( hence whiners and also not true) )- so No I did not start it, and I also didn't make the posts about 'getting over it' , 'take on for the district', 'move on' etc in the past -(I also didn't call out the fact that certain areas leaving and being replaced with others would be good for booster club $ and those kinds of comments as well- so whatever names people would like to attach - feel free and NO, I do not see it as a win for the entire district for various reasons, if that makes me somehow less of a person in some peoples eyes, so be it. We get to be the ones that live the short end of the stick here- forever. I believe there are areas that have been dealt a much worse hand than they have today, and the privilege of spending $150 to accomplish that doesn't sit well - sorry.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jul 7, 2008 13:37:22 GMT -5
You can choose to look at it as the being winners & losers, winners & whiners, etc. but you're the one choosing to do that, and you're the one chosing to "express negative feelings, especially of dissatisfaction or resentment: complain, grouch, grump". Sorry to hear that you can't view getting a 3rd HS built as being a win for everyone in the district. \ easy to say when you're on that end of the discussion. Oh btw, the post I originally replied to alluded we were basically those belaboring our fate without solutuions ( hence whiners and also not true) )- so No I did not start it, and I also didn't make the posts about 'getting over it' , 'take on for the district', 'move on' etc in the past -(I also didn't call out the fact that certain areas leaving and being replaced with others would be good for booster club $ and those kinds of comments as well- so whatever names people would like to attach - feel free and NO, I do not see it as a win for the entire district for various reasons, if that makes me somehow less of a person in some peoples eyes, so be it. We get to be the ones that live the short end of the stick here- forever. I believe there are areas that have been dealt a much worse hand than they have today, and the privilege of spending $150 to accomplish that doesn't sit well - sorry. I would think that going to an overcrowed MS for 3 years and/or an overcrowded HS for 4 years would suck a lot more than any hand that anyone's been dealt, but that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jul 7, 2008 13:39:41 GMT -5
Yeah, we are the lucky ones here without splits, I'llmake sure I bring that up the next time in discussion The split MS waould not have been an issue as most assumed we would be changing MS's I seriously am curious about this: the topic of not being at a split middle school rarely comes up with Watts parents?? I know you are fully aware of what this all entails. But do you find people unaware (or unconcerned) about the splits at Still and Scullen and some of the ES's? This was a huge factor in boundaries, as we all know. (part of the criteria) How can one have a discussion about boundaries from a district wide perspective and not talk about splits?
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 7, 2008 13:42:00 GMT -5
The site is what has caused the boundary issue- that part is a fact. What if Macom or Hamman were the site? We all know a very possible scenario would have had Watts going to MV at this location as well. (especially given the demonstrated reluctance to move areas that thought they were staying at NV from NV) You would have approximately the same distance (or maybe longer) to these sites as compared to the Eola road site! (plus its possible that Watts would have been assigned to a split Hill MS) I submit that another site may have made for Watts similar (or even worse) boundaries that what was ended up with. I truly hope the conversations and thinking go beyond the surface of just the boundaries are "bad for us". yes all sites were discussed and NO site would have taken us the time it will to get to MV now - period. Hold all your google maps - it is the time that everyone ignores. The number of lights and congestion in rush hour. I was never a fan of the Hamman site because of the environmental issues ( yeah, it wasn;t just AME) - and MACOM had issues as well, although not as many as AME. As far as HS adssignment - very unlikely we would have been sent to either based on the fact 2/3 of the district kids live between us and those sites. That what if ? scenario makes little sense Our options were to stay at WVHS ( 2nd closest school) - or move to NV ( clsosest school to our house). NV is 1/3 the driving time as MV will be in busy times - couldn't be simpler to get to and avoid 59 and 4 other major E-W streets. Oh and we would arrive there to face a complete school, instead of a trek across the district for much less in 2009. I do not know a single person who would have wanted to kill either of these deals because of a split Hill-- the communities are split land wise as it is. Either of the 2 choices would havw allowed Owen East and Watts to likely go to school together as we once did as land neighhors. So I really fail to see your point.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 7, 2008 13:43:17 GMT -5
Yeah, we are the lucky ones here without splits, I'llmake sure I bring that up the next time in discussion The split MS waould not have been an issue as most assumed we would be changing MS's I seriously am curious about this: the topic of not being at a split middle school rarely comes up with Watts parents?? I know you are fully aware of what this all entails. But do you find people unaware (or unconcerned) about the splits at Still and Scullen and some of the ES's? This was a huge factor in boundaries, as we all know. (part of the criteria) How can one have a discussion about boundaries from a district wide perspective and not talk about splits? I consider 'splits' as a convenient justifier to do what one wants without enforcing it across the entire district. This is why distance trumped splits in some boundary proposals, because distance equates to money and distance is something everyone can hang their hat on.. ie: You are not going to the most distant school. That can be enforced across the entire district without anyone being 'left out'.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 7, 2008 13:44:17 GMT -5
Yeah, we are the lucky ones here without splits, I'llmake sure I bring that up the next time in discussion The split MS waould not have been an issue as most assumed we would be changing MS's I seriously am curious about this: the topic of not being at a split middle school rarely comes up with Watts parents?? I know you are fully aware of what this all entails. But do you find people unaware (or unconcerned) about the splits at Still and Scullen and some of the ES's? This was a huge factor in boundaries, as we all know. (part of the criteria) How can one have a discussion about boundaries from a district wide perspective and not talk about splits? we assumed we would be changing MS's and hence those we would be attending with would have been new to us anyway. It comes up briefly - but again I know no one who thinks this is anywhere near the major issue distance and time are here. We are not land locked to BD or LW by any stretch of the imagination, maybe that's why it comes up little.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 7, 2008 13:44:35 GMT -5
Macom has the sodium hydroxide facility upwind and Hamman has the landfill. Both disqualify each site, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jul 7, 2008 13:46:15 GMT -5
Yeah, we are the lucky ones here without splits, I'llmake sure I bring that up the next time in discussion The split MS waould not have been an issue as most assumed we would be changing MS's I seriously am curious about this: the topic of not being at a split middle school rarely comes up with Watts parents?? I know you are fully aware of what this all entails. But do you find people unaware (or unconcerned) about the splits at Still and Scullen and some of the ES's? This was a huge factor in boundaries, as we all know. (part of the criteria) How can one have a discussion about boundaries from a district wide perspective and not talk about splits? But if you're not on that end of the discussion, as doctor who says, it doesn't affect you so I would venture to guess that is why it doesn't come up in the MW area. They aren't affected by splits. They are affected by the commute, so that is what gets discussed. Those affected by splits will talk about it. Again, difference being in whether or not those discussions veer off into an unhealthy obsession about why it sucks and becomes all consuming to the parties affected.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jul 7, 2008 13:49:59 GMT -5
I can tell you there was a block party here on the 4th and a MAJOR topic was the boundaries and how they suck for us - Doesn't sound like much of a party then.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jul 7, 2008 13:51:54 GMT -5
I consider 'splits' as a convenient justifier to do what one wants without enforcing it across the entire district. This is why distance trumped splits in some boundary proposals, .... Convenient justifier?? You are playing with words now, arch Splits were part of the criteria. Along with geography and enrollment balance. A tricky thing to balance/optimize as we all know!
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 7, 2008 13:52:20 GMT -5
\ easy to say when you're on that end of the discussion. Oh btw, the post I originally replied to alluded we were basically those belaboring our fate without solutuions ( hence whiners and also not true) )- so No I did not start it, and I also didn't make the posts about 'getting over it' , 'take on for the district', 'move on' etc in the past -(I also didn't call out the fact that certain areas leaving and being replaced with others would be good for booster club $ and those kinds of comments as well- so whatever names people would like to attach - feel free and NO, I do not see it as a win for the entire district for various reasons, if that makes me somehow less of a person in some peoples eyes, so be it. We get to be the ones that live the short end of the stick here- forever. I believe there are areas that have been dealt a much worse hand than they have today, and the privilege of spending $150 to accomplish that doesn't sit well - sorry. I would think that going to an overcrowed MS for 3 years and/or an overcrowded HS for 4 years would suck a lot more than any hand that anyone's been dealt, but that's just my opinion. and with 8900 ( not 10,400 as advertised) kids predicted for 2013 in HS - adding a 7th MS and keeping both freshman centers with enhancement to Frontier Campus & NV would not have been the worst thing in the world IMHO - so I choose to disagree. You are welcome to your opinion and I understand why you choose to have it. My oldest dealt with worse crowding at WVHS than we have today and seemed to do just fine. Build MV as a smaller school, because in reality that is what we will have, 3 smaller schools - and force no one to travel those lengths to get there.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 7, 2008 13:54:11 GMT -5
I can tell you there was a block party here on the 4th and a MAJOR topic was the boundaries and how they suck for us - Doesn't sound like much of a party then. No, people aren't dancing in the streets here over this..sorry. It affects a lot of people in a lot of ways, I guess they haven't 'just moved on ' either. We'll leave the partying to those areas who can..
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 7, 2008 13:54:42 GMT -5
I consider 'splits' as a convenient justifier to do what one wants without enforcing it across the entire district. This is why distance trumped splits in some boundary proposals, .... Convenient justifier?? You are playing with words now, arch Splits were part of the criteria. Along with geography and enrollment balance. A tricky thing to balance/optimize as we all know! Please show how no one got the short end of the stick on splits. Someone got split, therefore it's not across the board and not equitable to everyone in the district.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 7, 2008 13:56:31 GMT -5
Macom has the sodium hydroxide facility upwind and Hamman has the landfill. Both disqualify each site, IMO. there was a reason BB was the site chosen the first time - I agree. Instead of 'settling' for Hamman or MACOM, I would have wanted them to both be passed on also - but because they were 'potentials' boundary - transportation scenarios for each certainly were discussed - and plotted out.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 7, 2008 14:01:26 GMT -5
Macom has the sodium hydroxide facility upwind and Hamman has the landfill. Both disqualify each site, IMO. there was a reason BB was the site chosen the first time - I agree. Instead of 'settling' for Hamman or MACOM, I would have wanted them to both be passed on also - but because they were 'potentials' boundary - transportation scenarios for each certainly were discussed - and plotted out. Which one created the sterling educational institution? Macom or Hamman? Oh, interesting a-l-b-a-t-r-o-s-s gets re-written like above. The 'filters' on here are annoying at best.
|
|