|
Post by eb204 on Jun 16, 2008 21:23:01 GMT -5
I have a proposal: I'll stop my hoopla if you and others stop the hoopla around 1) trivializing how easy it would be to make comprehensive (i.e. ES, MS, and HS) boundary changes that are clearly "better" than those chosen for 09 (i.e. other people would not be unhappy with changes); 2) how re-doing the boundaries will solve all problems and heal all issues within 204 (i.e. other people would not be unhappy with changes). I'm just pointing about the reality of the situation - for those who were so unhappy before in the district that got their situations fixed - did we tell them it couldn't be done either ? Did we tell them it didn't matter ? Yes we did and they responded - then we fixed it... so the reality is the lines are still drawn - they are not going away just because the school is being built. I am sorry, one cannot walk thru my area and tell people it's all peaches and cream now, let's all ge together and sing kumbaya - because it simply is not that easy. No one said it was easy, any change is hard - but for some to close the book and turn the page on others isn't right either. Wouldn't solve all the issues - but the harm in looking at it to see if things can be better is what ? I know my area is not important to everyone, but it is where I live - and to be ignored in the initial process and then continue to be so is wrong also. Already been told some will not vote for someone from my area because they might want to look at this issue - that is trivializtion in my book. You and others are each entitled to their opinion - just as myself and others are entitled to ours - the reality is that is why not much is going to change in the near future. There seems to be no room for compromise. No onehere is asking for the closest schools- just not the farthest- and the answer is you got what you got so shut up. Just not seeing where there will be any coming together in that scenario. I'm with gatormom and will fight tooth and nail to oppose any candidate who pushes boundary changes. Especially one based on mileage spreadsheets. Cheers. One more reason why the word 'unity' and this district cannot be used in the same sentence. Enitre chunks of the district called out as likely not being able to support a candidate from there. A lot of I definitely won't listen to this, I won't do that - and amazingly ( or maybe not) from a lot of people who got what they wanted already. When Brookdale was shafted last time around ( and they basically were) - everyone was happy that their situation was fixed - this time those with the short end -- basically told too bad. So much for listening and healing - just empty words IMHO. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I'll respect ( if not understand) each, but lets stop all the hoopla about how everyone is coming together. It seems the SB election upcoming will unfortunately highlight how far away from that we really are. Dr.Who - Twice you've posted that some people will not vote for others because of their area and in one post specifically the Watts area. Let me be clear. This is not what I said. I said I would not vote for a candidate who was basing their candidacy on changing boundaries. I don't care if it's my next door neighbor! If he/she wants to change boundaries, he/she won't get my vote. In my case, and I'm speaking only for myself here, it's not about the area they are from. It is the platform on which they are running. However, I'm sure there are others here that have said as much. You are the one who brought area into this in these last few posts. No area, including Watts, was mentioned. No one has said they won't vote for a Watts candidate. I'm going to be looking at the issues they are running on. PERIOD!
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 22:00:54 GMT -5
As for boundaries, what is being overlooked is the removal of the 'wow, that really sucks' situations where not everyone's a winner, but there are no 'losers' when it comes to the school commutes. Removing the worst-case so that no one has it is a step in the right direction, IMO. Obviously you disagree and that's fine that you have that opinion. Some see many clinging onto the closest school as more selfish than those wanting to just go to the second closest school (not even the closest). And some don't see that adding 1.5 miles to an area's HS commute as something that 'really sucks'. Make sure you tell that to the areas closest to MV but not assigned there yet.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 16, 2008 22:05:42 GMT -5
Can someone please explain this sudden change of heart?
In 2006, people were so adamant about the SB not changing the boundaries from the ref passing until MV @ BB opened? Some voted for candidates because they were promised that the boundaries for MV @ BB would not change. Well, I'm sure that they wouldn't have changed had MV @ BB become a reality. It unfortunately did not.
Why now is it OK for the SB to change the boundaries for MV @ AME once they were voted on? I just don't get the double standard.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 22:07:07 GMT -5
eb204, I believe the neighborhood things are taken from the SB elections thread where affiliation of 'suspicion' of affiliation, anyone from TG or any area that might 'benefit from' or possibly 'be looking for' a boundary change were all tossed out as possible disqualifiers in multiple people's minds.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 22:07:49 GMT -5
And some don't see that adding 1.5 miles to an area's HS commute as something that 'really sucks'. Make sure you tell that to the areas closest to MV but not assigned there yet. not sure what your point is
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 22:10:18 GMT -5
Can someone please explain this sudden change of heart? In 2006, people were so adamant about the SB not changing the boundaries from the ref passing until MV @ BB opened? Some voted for candidates because they were promised that the boundaries for MV @ BB would not change. Well, I'm sure that they wouldn't have changed had MV @ BB become a reality. It unfortunately did not. Why now is it OK for the SB to change the boundaries for MV @ AME once they were voted on? I just don't get the double standard. I voted for candidates to hold true to BB regardless of the boundaries because the site location was 'worth it' and we would 'get it'.. it was just a matter of 'how much' and 'when'. At that location, I said just put my kids on any bus and send them to any of the three schools. I would have not made that statement if there was any hint that we 'might not buy' BB and instead put it at AME. Obviously, the error was mine on that assumption of platforms the SB members ran on.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 22:11:02 GMT -5
Make sure you tell that to the areas closest to MV but not assigned there yet. not sure what your point is The difference in distance from WV to MV. I believe for some closer, it's even less
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 16, 2008 22:15:38 GMT -5
eb204, I believe the neighborhood things are taken from the SB elections thread where affiliation of 'suspicion' of affiliation, anyone from TG or any area that might 'benefit from' or possibly 'be looking for' a boundary change were all tossed out as possible disqualifiers in multiple people's minds. I believe I said that. I stand by it. Again, I will do what it takes to see no boundary changes, any change sets our district up for more changes and before you know it, our kids will get a high school assignment with the bus route a week before school. That kind of unrest our district does not need and it certainly is not fair to those children. I was careful about who I voted for in the last SB election, as were many, discounting pretty much anyone who might change boundaries or location of the school. This is no different. I will look very carefully at any candidate and expect to be far more careful with candidates from areas with an interest in seeing boundaries changed.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 16, 2008 22:17:23 GMT -5
Can someone please explain this sudden change of heart? In 2006, people were so adamant about the SB not changing the boundaries from the ref passing until MV @ BB opened? Some voted for candidates because they were promised that the boundaries for MV @ BB would not change. Well, I'm sure that they wouldn't have changed had MV @ BB become a reality. It unfortunately did not. Why now is it OK for the SB to change the boundaries for MV @ AME once they were voted on? I just don't get the double standard. I voted for candidates to hold true to BB regardless of the boundaries because the site location was 'worth it' and we would 'get it'.. it was just a matter of 'how much' and 'when'. At that location, I said just put my kids on any bus and send them to any of the three schools. I would have not made that statement if there was any hint that we 'might not buy' BB and instead put it at AME. Obviously, the error was mine on that assumption of platforms the SB members ran on. So the SB members should rework the boundaries just for you because you don't feel the site is "worth it?" Again, I understand the situation stinks for you. What I can't understand is everyone with their "me" attitude when there are others (ie: Gombert, Owen West) who don't think the site is "worth it" either in terms of commute,splits etc. but aren't demanding a boundary redo.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 22:18:15 GMT -5
not sure what your point is The difference in distance from WV to MV. I believe for some closer, it's even less and, therefore?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 22:27:21 GMT -5
The difference in distance from WV to MV. I believe for some closer, it's even less and, therefore? Route miles might just work out to be less than you think when using actual routes instead of the ES starting points. The district has the current routes online, which are providing the starting basis. They show where the actual students are (based on stops) in the district today. One can take those and recalculate their last stop to any destination to start figuring out the rest for a more accurate picture. My understanding is the 2009/2010 routes are not even finalized. I would guess they are more based on that year's actual registration data which will not be until spring 2009 anyway. So, 'technically' nothing is etched in stone yet.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 22:30:13 GMT -5
I'm with gatormom and will fight tooth and nail to oppose any candidate who pushes boundary changes. Especially one based on mileage spreadsheets. Cheers. One more reason why the word 'unity' and this district cannot be used in the same sentence. Enitre chunks of the district called out as likely not being able to support a candidate from there. A lot of I definitely won't listen to this, I won't do that - and amazingly ( or maybe not) from a lot of people who got what they wanted already. When Brookdale was shafted last time around ( and they basically were) - everyone was happy that their situation was fixed - this time those with the short end -- basically told too bad. So much for listening and healing - just empty words IMHO. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I'll respect ( if not understand) each, but lets stop all the hoopla about how everyone is coming together. It seems the SB election upcoming will unfortunately highlight how far away from that we really are. Wow! You got all that from my itty-bitty little post? This time, Doc, you have truly outdone yourself in quoting people out of context! Didn't we just have a long chat about twisting words just recently? Naughty, Naughty! I am sooo disappointed But, at least you reveal your logic clearly. This is what its all about, isn't it, Doc? Boundaries! The BB vs AME savings debate, the whole discussion of school bus routes, saving money for the district, fiscal responsibility, environmentals - all those noble causes - none of that really means a crap, does it? All of it is one thinly-veiled facade for getting boundaries changed. You must think everyone on this board is an idiot to not notice this. In fact, the only unity you are interested in, Dr. Who, is one where everyone agrees with what you want, isn't it? What happens to the rest of the District is of no consequence, as long as you get your way. Your Emperor is wearing no clothes, Dr. Who. You don't fool me one bit. I would oppose anyone running on that platform, regardless of the area they come from. But, really, its people who think like you that I oppose - who couch a self-serving political agenda under a seemingly altruistic veil of district welfare. And I will do my level best to stop such people from getting into political office. I want to elect people who care about the putting the welfare of the District first, not themselves. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 22:30:50 GMT -5
I voted for candidates to hold true to BB regardless of the boundaries because the site location was 'worth it' and we would 'get it'.. it was just a matter of 'how much' and 'when'. At that location, I said just put my kids on any bus and send them to any of the three schools. I would have not made that statement if there was any hint that we 'might not buy' BB and instead put it at AME. Obviously, the error was mine on that assumption of platforms the SB members ran on. So the SB members should rework the boundaries just for you because you don't feel the site is "worth it?" Again, I understand the situation stinks for you. What I can't understand is everyone with their "me" attitude when there are others (ie: Gombert, Owen West) who don't think the site is "worth it" either in terms of commute,splits etc. but aren't demanding a boundary redo. The site (ame) was chosen because it was 'cheaper' and we could 'afford it' versus the BB site... the whole fiduciary angle. I'm merely taking that mantra and applying it also to transportation costs. Many on here said people shouldn't just look at one area for saving money, they should look at all. I happen to agree with that statement and am doing just that.. yet many now don't want to 'go there' for whatever reason.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 22:39:37 GMT -5
Your Emperor is wearing no clothes, Dr. Who. You don't fool me one bit. I would oppose anyone running on that platform, regardless of the area they come from. But, really, its people who think like you that I oppose - who couch a self-serving political agenda under a seemingly altruistic veil of district welfare. And I will do my level best to stop such people from getting into political office. I want to elect people who care about the putting the welfare of the District first, not themselves. Cheers. I think if Doc wanted MW to go to NV (the closest school) I would have to agree with you. Alas, he has not spouted that mantra. So how do you determine the difference between the two above...? "Well, he *might* have some benefit from it...." Is that the litmus test? If so, that would eliminate JC, CB, M2, CV, AT (closest assignments) and JS (switched from 3rd to 2nd closest) and even BG who is now (as the crow flies) closer to his HS tucked up in that NW corner of WE. Yikes. (typo fix)
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 22:44:43 GMT -5
The site (ame) was chosen because it was 'cheaper' and we could 'afford it' versus the BB site... the whole fiduciary angle. I'm merely taking that mantra and applying it also to transportation costs. Many on here said people shouldn't just look at one area for saving money, they should look at all. I happen to agree with that statement and am doing just that.. yet many now don't want to 'go there' for whatever reason. I am not that opposed to 'going there' as you put it, just not with you leading. I don't trust your motives - I think your motive is not to save money but to use any analysis you may do build a case to change boundaries. Your analyses are onesided and only highlight the points that support your case, and you exploit the lack of technical expertise in your audience to make them believe that it is a balanced view of the facts. Sorry to be blunt. If this came from someone else who's motives were beyond reproach, I might consider it a worthwhile exercise. Cheers.
|
|