|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 25, 2008 19:05:31 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. I think that the drive for those on the western side will have a similar, if not better drive to WV. The widening of Eola between 83rd and Keating (which was in the news recently, regarding the request of funds for high priority road improvements) would make it even better.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 25, 2008 19:12:27 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. I was witness to several People who made this statement...I am not going to name them...as they know who they are. I think I was back with you guys when Mr Bonehead stated that. And You all did let out a good groan....
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 25, 2008 19:13:26 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. I think that the drive for those on the western side will have a similar, if not better drive to WV. The widening of Eola between 83rd and Keating (which was in the news recently, regarding the request of funds for high priority road improvements) would make it even better. I tried it for giggles back in May when they had 1 lane closed on Eola from 83rd all the way mostly off and on up I believe it was NY street and quite frankly, it blew chunks. Even with its normal 2 lanes it's more packed and less moving that the state road, Rt 59 which is three all the way N/S for them. Eola starts 2 lanes, pinches to one between 87th and 83rd (lovely) and has many more stop lights w/ a lower speed limit, I believe. I'd still put my $$ on BB being easier to get to/from in the morning and afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 25, 2008 19:15:06 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. I was witness to several People who made this statement...I am not going to name them...as they know who they are. I think I was back with you guys when Mr Bonehead stated that. And You all did let out a good groan.... Was it anyone of any capacity in the district ? I think that was the question on the floor.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 25, 2008 19:17:17 GMT -5
I was witness to several People who made this statement...I am not going to name them...as they know who they are. I think I was back with you guys when Mr Bonehead stated that. And You all did let out a good groan.... Was it anyone of any capacity in the district ? I think that was the question on the floor. No it was not, but you also know one of these people too...... ETA: IIRC Mr Bonehead also mentioned legal action.....
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 25, 2008 19:17:47 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. I completely find this very difficult to believe. Are you sure of what you saw? Yes, absolutely, I am sure and I know now who it was that had it and his position within the NSFOC. I didn't then, but I do now. I have someone who can even vouch for it, as she saw it too, but doesn't post on the boards. It very clearly said "Tall Grass" and not NSFOC.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 25, 2008 19:24:55 GMT -5
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? Regarding the person who said "that school in Aurora", I don't know his name, but I'm sure you can review the video footage. It was a citizen that spoke up during public comment. He did get boo'd by about everyone in the room, including opponents of the new site. It was just a bad comment to make, but I think he spoke what he felt and perhaps what others felt, too. That's the sad part. I'm sure there are others that feel/felt this way and I really don't understand that. I do know who the other person is and so does he. Again, you can review the videos if you like, but I personally do not want to go through that again, so I'm not looking it up. Nothing wrong with saying you don't want to be taken out of a school you love, but the context in which he said it and considering his position within NSFOC and the supposed reasons for supporting the NSFOC's position of safety concerns, etc. is what I have questioned.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 25, 2008 19:26:03 GMT -5
I was witness to several People who made this statement...I am not going to name them...as they know who they are. I think I was back with you guys when Mr Bonehead stated that. And You all did let out a good groan.... Was it anyone of any capacity in the district ? I think that was the question on the floor. No.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 25, 2008 19:26:04 GMT -5
Was it anyone of any capacity in the district ? I think that was the question on the floor. No it was not, but you also know one of these people too...... ETA: IIRC Mr Bonehead also mentioned legal action..... You've got many curiosity perked because I can't figure out who you know I know that I don't even know I know.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 25, 2008 19:29:15 GMT -5
OK It's all behind us now....... I am more upset that the smarmy Brodie lawyers would try to bill the SD for The TG iquiries. The TG Inquiries in of themselves does not concern me as much.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 25, 2008 19:29:47 GMT -5
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? Regarding the person who said "that school in Aurora", I don't know his name, but I'm sure you can review the video footage. It was a citizen that spoke up during public comment. He did get boo'd by about everyone in the room, including opponents of the new site. It was just a bad comment to make, but I think he spoke what he felt and perhaps what others felt, too. That's the sad part. I'm sure there are others that feel/felt this way and I really don't understand that. I do know who the other person is and so does he. Again, you can review the videos if you like, but I personally do not want to go through that again, so I'm not looking it up. Nothing wrong with saying you don't want to be taken out of a school you love, but the context in which he said it and considering his position within NSFOC and the supposed reasons for supporting the NSFOC's position of safety concerns, etc. is what I have questioned. Nothing unfair about questioning someone's individual angle. It always appeared to me that everyone seemed to be bringing their own angle to the table on that one, but it also was obvious some filtering/sorting and possibly even muting happened too based on what the suit ended up being about in the end. Still, at the end of the day they represented themselves (via an attorney) and not a stand of unity as a neighborhood. At least that was my perception of it.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 25, 2008 19:30:37 GMT -5
OK It's all behind us now....... I am more upset that the smarmy Brodie lawyers would try to bill the SD for The TG iquiries. The TG Inquiries in of themselves does not concern me as much. We're in agreement there. It's a stupid line item that should not have been in there and should be stricken.
|
|
|
Post by rural on Jun 25, 2008 20:23:44 GMT -5
The request for fees/damages is like a Christmas list. I've touched on this same idea during the NSFOC suit. The judge will only grant what you ask for (if he/she feels it is merited) nothing more. So, if you don't ask for it, you won't get it. That is why they are asking for everything. They know they won't get all of it, but you never know unless you ask. It's the district's attorneys' job to weed out the pork and point it out to the judge.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 7, 2008 8:55:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 8, 2008 13:13:33 GMT -5
|
|