|
Post by spicytuna on Apr 22, 2008 16:19:11 GMT -5
I just do not understand why it would be NSFOC's "fault" if construction of the third high school is stopped??
If the case has no validity, then nothing will stop and the school will open in 2009 as planned (the District has made it abundantly clear that neither the NSFOC or the BB lawsuit is going to slow them down).
If the case has validity and the Court confirms that the referendum is void because the District violated the law, how is this NSFOC's "fault" (because they did not accept the argument of the ends justifying the means and having the law broken to get a third school built on the AMES site). This is one area that sincerely confuses me but am open to having this explained to me.
I will also say that I do not understand the Macom argument either...other than it demonstrates that in a rush to go forward, the SB and Admin are not be excercising due diligence. It is concerning (at least to me) that some Board members were not even aware of the offer by Macom but the referendum did not provide for the school to be built on the Macom site either.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Apr 22, 2008 16:23:43 GMT -5
The referendum is void because the district violated the law? What law?
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Apr 22, 2008 16:34:39 GMT -5
The referendum is void because the district violated the law? What law? I would like this explained to me also. Spicytuna - in all sincerity, I really want to understand what legal basis you've used to come to the conclusion that a law has been broken. That is why I asked you about what legal precedent would be used to declare the referendum "null and void". I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I just want to understand where you are coming from and what you're basing your opinion on. ETA: I'm sorry if you feel "attacked". It's truly not intended as I am really trying to understand the legal basis for the lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by spicytuna on Apr 22, 2008 16:36:11 GMT -5
The infamous Gatormom...
I doubt I can help you, but I think the amended complaint is posted on the NSFOC website and sets forth the legal arguments....
Boy...this green board is pretty ugly! Think I will go back to the blue board before a I see my home posted on here with yahoo directions.
Later Gator!
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Apr 22, 2008 16:39:16 GMT -5
The infamous Gatormom... I doubt I can help you, but I think the amended complaint is posted on the NSFOC website and sets forth the legal arguments.... Boy...this green board is pretty ugly! Think I will go back to the blue board before a I see my home posted on here with yahoo directions. Later Gator! Adios! For the record, GM asked a legitimate question. It is wise to get out of the kitchen when you can't stand the heat.
|
|
|
Post by JWH on Apr 22, 2008 16:49:16 GMT -5
I didn't have any questions as to what your point was the first time around. In 2005, BB was assumed to be the site selected then, as well and the statement that if the referendum in 2005 failed, then BB might be off the table. Which it now is even after fighting so hard to get it when the 2006 referendum passed. Clear to me. Got it now. Sorry I was confused (haven't been feeling well and not thinking clearly). I did vote yes in 2005 but honestly paid no attention to any site info. I always vote yes when the issue of giving something to the kids is on the ballot, so sites and boundaries don't concern me. I have always known when they placed WE into NVHS that a day would come that both high schools would be overcrowded. Logically, it made sense that WE would be moved out of NVHS if any new location was north of NVHS. WE is the furthest development north of NVHS. It is just logic. Can't argue with logic. Oh wait, yes some people can! I still can't get over how people on the other board are still talking about Macom. The district is being sued because they are not building according to the perceived (by some) "promise" to build on BB. Where is the logic in constantly bringing up Macom? There's nothing else for the anti group to complain about, so it's time to discuss the last minute firesale price by Macom, and turn it into yet another conspiracy theory. There were more issues with that site than Eola with MWGEN, much less the farmland parcel we ended up purchasing. No chance of opening in 2009 on Macom, either.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Apr 22, 2008 17:14:44 GMT -5
I just do not understand why it would be NSFOC's "fault" if construction of the third high school is stopped?? If the case has no validity, then nothing will stop and the school will open in 2009 as planned (the District has made it abundantly clear that neither the NSFOC or the BB lawsuit is going to slow them down). I'm sorry to see you've already deleted your account and are not finding this a friendly place to discuss issues. I am curious whether you really don't understand why this would be NSFOC's fault. Even without validity a court case can cause a delay that would prevent the schools from opening on time. This is what I fear. Also, sometimes cases that aren't valid win in court and I think this is what NSFOC is pinning their hopes on.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Apr 22, 2008 17:17:16 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong (it has been known to happen from time to time), but I believe the wording on the 2005 referendum ballot itself stated that BB was the site we were voting on. That language was obviously removed on the 2006 ballot, so yes we were all well aware of the location of the 3rd high school throughout both referendums. that's the funny part - the 05 Ref passed when BB was explicitly named on the ballot, then the 06 ref passed when the ballot said "to build a third High School" In addition, despite their confidence, SB members did say that they would have to look at other site options if the BB verdict came in too high. And, if it was truly BB or bust, how can anyone explain the push that we've seen over the months for pursuing Macom? This would include a push for Macom on the blue board each time the site was raised into the public eye. I don't read the blue board, but I hope someone can save off all the threads (might have to look into the archives, too) where people have been promoting Macom. This could be used as evidence that, clearly, there was public opinion that Macom was a suitable and acceptable site for some people - doesn't sound like those people were calling out a bait & switch.
|
|
|
Post by 3woodgal on Apr 22, 2008 17:33:54 GMT -5
I am hearing of this offer by Macom. I would have concern about safety of that land as well and would expect testing to be done. If all was OK then they should have bought there. WHY? Hey, with $7M less spent on the new school, think of how much that would have benefited our minority failing community at WV. I am totally taken aback with how our monies are being spent.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Apr 22, 2008 17:44:52 GMT -5
I am hearing of this offer by Macom. I would have concern about safety of that land as well and would expect testing to be done. If all was OK then they should have bought there. WHY? Hey, with $7M less spent on the new school, think of how much that would have benefited our minority failing community at WV. I am totally taken aback with how our monies are being spent. 3woodgal: good to see you back - maybe you missed my question the other day: given that you live in Stonebridge, I'd like to hear your impressions of WV and why people wouldn't want to go there
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Apr 22, 2008 17:49:19 GMT -5
I am hearing of this offer by Macom. I would have concern about safety of that land as well and would expect testing to be done. If all was OK then they should have bought there. WHY? Hey, with $7M less spent on the new school, think of how much that would have benefited our minority failing community at WV. I am totally taken aback with how our monies are being spent. Excuse me 3woodgal, I would be very careful to assume that the minorities are the subgroups failing at WV. That is quite an assumption. While some of the groups are minorities, not all are.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Apr 22, 2008 18:01:45 GMT -5
I am hearing of this offer by Macom. I would have concern about safety of that land as well and would expect testing to be done. If all was OK then they should have bought there. WHY? Hey, with $7M less spent on the new school, think of how much that would have benefited our minority failing community at WV. I am totally taken aback with how our monies are being spent. There is still the PD land swap - the tenants in perpetuity, the road. IIRC, the part Macom owns is too small and we need the PD land - we will have to trade land which increases the price actually paid.
|
|
|
Post by 3woodgal on Apr 22, 2008 18:06:06 GMT -5
I am hearing of this offer by Macom. I would have concern about safety of that land as well and would expect testing to be done. If all was OK then they should have bought there. WHY? Hey, with $7M less spent on the new school, think of how much that would have benefited our minority failing community at WV. I am totally taken aback with how our monies are being spent. 3woodgal: good to see you back - maybe you missed my question the other day: given that you live in Stonebridge, I'd like to hear your impressions of WV and why people wouldn't want to go there Busy busy schedule. Anyway, I think I did respond and if not here it goes again. Did you see the update on NCLB? Plus I am not very impressed with the overall test scores on the whole. Now I am the first to admit things may change, but for the minority community I feel the district is failing these students and will continue to by using other subdivisions to raise the percentiles yet those currently failing will continue to do so. On a seperate note, I would not want to travel a substantially longer distance when I have a school less than a mile away for some being affected. I was at Rosin Eyecare the other day and thought how ridiculous it is to have WE/TG make the new commute. Atleast some of WE can exit onto Montgomery but still further for some of the subdivision. My biggest concern is how we let WV get to this point......that is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by 3woodgal on Apr 22, 2008 18:06:57 GMT -5
I am hearing of this offer by Macom. I would have concern about safety of that land as well and would expect testing to be done. If all was OK then they should have bought there. WHY? Hey, with $7M less spent on the new school, think of how much that would have benefited our minority failing community at WV. I am totally taken aback with how our monies are being spent. Excuse me 3woodgal, I would be very careful to assume that the minorities are the subgroups failing at WV. That is quite an assumption. While some of the groups are minorities, not all are. Excuse me....but I have looked at it!
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Apr 22, 2008 18:09:04 GMT -5
I am hearing of this offer by Macom. I would have concern about safety of that land as well and would expect testing to be done. If all was OK then they should have bought there. WHY? Hey, with $7M less spent on the new school, think of how much that would have benefited our minority failing community at WV. I am totally taken aback with how our monies are being spent. There is still the PD land swap - the tenants in perpetuity, the road. IIRC, the part Macom owns is too small and we need the PD land - we will have to trade land which increases the price actually paid. oh, these are all such minor details oh, BTW, for those still talking about Macom, it's a little late now... maybe you didn't hear, but we've actually purchased some land up north
|
|