U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Unread 01-15-2014, 09:47 PM
 
1,226 posts, read 814,334 times
Reputation: 1793
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpl77 View Post
UCPS must provide the information to backup what they just served. Who was the person who drew the lines on the map? Surely there was a piece by piece approach and there were board members deciding where to draw lines on a map. My question is, what was the criteria? I bet I could rework that map and come up with a less dramatic solution. I have no confidence in a group that offered up that redistricting proposal last night. This is a black eye to the WHOLE COUNTY, not just the affected areas. Will a prospective buyer move to UCPS right now? I sure wouldn't. I would wait another year or so to look again when the smoke clears. If I did not have the luxury of time, I would just stay away from Union County. It's too volatile with it's school redistricting issues. We all lose with this lame solution that is proposed and it will be hard to rebuild confidence in the current board. Change for the sake of improvement is good.... change for the sake of change is not...
I'll try to explain the process a bit, since so many people seem so confused by the process, please forgive me if its over simplified.

Board of Education is 9 elected officials. They meet the first Tuesday of the month at 7pm, per board policy (unless holiday, etc).

Facilities Committee is 4 OF THOSE elected officials. You don't elect them separately, each member is placed in several committees, each committee consists of a minority of the board, since more than 4 would constitute a quorum and be considered an official board meeting. The committee just serves to get a more in depth understanding of each issue and decide whether to bring it up to board level. No decisions are made at this level except to vote to bring it to the board level. They always meet at 8:30 am, this has never changed. They do not draw the lines.... these are elected officials, so their level of educations and skill set ranges widely, and some actually have real jobs, so no, they are not the ones holding the pen.

The Board directs the superintendent to come up with a proposal and maps. They don't have a vote in the process, they are merely bringing the proposal to the committee and the board. The board makes all final decisions, and can tell them to go back to the drawing board if they so choose. She and the director of facilities and deputy superintendent and their subordinates were the ones that went over the numbers and based on board policy (which is clearly posted on their site), they come up with the lines, first trying to utilize their existing facilities (putting students in empty desks), then on distance (which is why each cluster had a list of distances), etc, etc . Here is the criteria, cut and pasted from board policy, notice the most important factor is utilization:

Spoiler





[SIZE=3]CRITERIA FOR PUPIL ASSIGNMENTS [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]


[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]In the elementary, middle and senior high schools [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]the criteria for pupil assignment will be based on utilization of facilities, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]travel time from home, efficient operation of buses, continuity of attendance [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]lines, continuity of neighborhoods and otherwise as required by law. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]1. Utilization: Capacity shall be based on [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]the number of standard teaching spaces. Schools may operate above capacity [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]through the use of mobile classroom units and/or special purpose classrooms. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]2. Stability: Stability of attendance areas [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]is understood to mean that attendance areas should be altered only in accordance [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]with standards adopted by the Board and made known to the community. These [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]standards are: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]a. Redistricting (or reassignment en mass) more [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]often than every three years should be avoided if possible. The Board may find [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]redistricting or reassignment to be made necessary more frequently in order to [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]fully utilize staff and facilities and to avoid overcrowding or under use of [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]available educational facilities and curriculum. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]b. Prior to school opening in the fall, with the [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]approval of the Board and proper public notice, the Superintendent may adjust [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]school attendance lines. When adjustments are necessary, an attempt will be made [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]to preserve small neighborhood groups and no geographic areas will be moved more [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]than once between redistricting.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT 4-13 (Page 2 of 8) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]c. Where residential developments cross over [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]established attendance lines, developers, property owners, or residents may [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]petition for changes in school assignment. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]3. Travel Time: Within the constraints of [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]previously defined criteria, the school attendance areas should be drawn to [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]minimize total travel time and distance. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]4. Busing: Within the constraints of [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]previously defined criteria, an effort will be made to assign students to the [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]closest school. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]5. Continuity: Where possible, attendance [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]lines should be contiguous [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]


Once you've been around long enough in such a rapidly growing county, you get used to all the redistricting. They have to rely on the projections, and remember, they are projections, not predictions. And of course the numbers are wrong based on today's numbers.... the report is made so you can take action based on those numbers. And you can't predict exact moments of recessions, and the fact that one builder will be more successful than another, and that sewer issues will impede one are but not another, that one builder will decide to build four homes on land previously approved for one, etc, etc. I'm sure if McKibben could predict all that perfectly, he wouldn't be working for Union County, but would be serving on the Presidential cabinet or playing cards in Las Vegas.

If you look at it objectively, it is the best thing for the county. Everybody that is affected is in an uproar about building new schools. But why in the world would the rest of the 85% of the county want to vote to build a new school (after having our taxes sky rocket after the 91 million is paid) when we desperately need the money to fix the existing ones that have plenty of space that that have been ignored for decades in the east while we built shiny new schools in the west. And 5 of the 9 Board members are representing constituents from those districts that y'all are too good for, and have been begging to fix those schools for years that nobody wants their kids in. Well.... their kids have been emptying garbage cans full of water for some time now from leaky roofs, and nobody cared to notice, but now they have to hear everyone whining about their kid being devastated because there isn't a lacrosse team.

It's so disappointing to see parents attacking students from other schools and having such an elitist attitude and a sense of entitlement. I look at my daughter's instagram account and am absolutely not shocked at kids telling other kids too bad they have to go to "Poorwood", or calling Sun Valley "ghetto". The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Like I read somewhere on this thread, I now feel worse for those kids at those schools that are going to get flooded with kids that think they are better than them and are going in with their nose turned down at their schools that they are proud of because it's all they have.

Last edited by cc0789; 01-15-2014 at 10:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 01-15-2014, 10:10 PM
 
213 posts, read 91,823 times
Reputation: 101
Best post yet cc. Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-15-2014, 10:24 PM
 
Location: Charlotte Metro Area
1,299 posts, read 1,088,626 times
Reputation: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid View Post
Unless I'm reading the map wrong Wesley Oaks is in Sun Valley.
You're reading correctly. The original speculation was that everything east of Waxhaw-Indian Trail Road would go to Parkwood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-16-2014, 03:40 AM
 
Location: NY
27 posts, read 16,646 times
Reputation: 56
cc0789:

Thank you for your post. Please confirm that the person(s) in control and who determine which development gets moved around and which development can stay put is then the superintendent, director of facilities, and subordinates? I understand the procedures used, and the factors they consider.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-16-2014, 05:24 AM
 
303 posts, read 149,448 times
Reputation: 139
Awesome post CC0789!

Thanks for putting the details out here on the criteria. It definitely makes sense and if anyone read it 6 months ago, most people would agree that those criteria were sound.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-16-2014, 05:31 AM
 
303 posts, read 149,448 times
Reputation: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpl77 View Post
cc0789:

Thank you for your post. Please confirm that the person(s) in control and who determine which development gets moved around and which development can stay put is then the superintendent, director of facilities, and subordinates? I understand the procedures used, and the factors they consider.
The people you listed create a proposal based on the criteria. The ultimate decision comes down to the approval of the BOE.

Many of the new proposed boundaries are very similar to the boundaries that existed in the past so I'm assuming they used some of those as precedent. I can't find the link at the moment, but the other day you could see the reassignments from 5-8 years ago as they had to address overcrowding in Porter Ridge, Sun Valley, and then the addition of Cuthbertson. Most of the developments going back to Parkwood were originally zoned for Parkwood before they built Cuthbertson.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-16-2014, 06:11 AM
 
1,226 posts, read 814,334 times
Reputation: 1793
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpl77 View Post
cc0789:

Thank you for your post. Please confirm that the person(s) in control and who determine which development gets moved around and which development can stay put is then the superintendent, director of facilities, and subordinates? I understand the procedures used, and the factors they consider.
Well...no, they are not "in control", they really have no control. They just use their set of respective skills to make suggestions based on the criteria that has been set and approved by the board of education for decades. So, yes, while they are the ones with the pencil and eraser, it is the board that has the ultimate say, but they are also limited by HAVING to follow previously approved policy. It is in there black and white.... they have to make use of their current facilities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-16-2014, 07:05 AM
 
95 posts, read 55,174 times
Reputation: 62
Here's a post from the UCPS Redistricting page on Facebook detailing an interesting option to the proposed plan from Tuesday night:

Another great viable solution! This is not a done deal people. Don't stop fighting!!! Read the proposal below and make your voices heard to the BOE...

"From another Page--a twist on the "new construction" proposal...seems this might solve the bus dilemma--with neighborhoods being moved miles past closer schools with railroad tracks and major highways in between, this efficiency rating can't be much (if any) worse! Sorry it's so long, but it's worth the read!

"Tracy and Melissa, you have both mentioned a plan similar to one I outlined and sent to the BOE. It's long, but I'll share it here. Maybe we can all get behind this alternative.
"I propose that you move forward with “capping” the clusters that are over 120% of capacity (which I understand to be “core capacity”), BUT that UCPS BOE grandfather in ALL existing homes and subdivisions that have closed escrow on at least 75% of their existing housing permits[1]. For example, if there are 800 existing homes in Millbridge, and they have permits/plans to build 200 more, then Millbridge would be grandfathered into their current school- the subdivision would be 80% complete. If instead, the developers add 500 more homes (meaning it is only currently 61% complete), then the entire subdivision would be “capped out” of the Cuthbertson cluster and reassigned.

This cap would also apply to small subdivisions and new construction built on property where there is no existing home. Developers would have to disclose to potential buyers that, until enrollment in the neighborhood school drops below 110%, children in that subdivision would be bussed to a school that is not over capacity.

The many benefits to this plan would include:

1.This plan communicates and demonstrates that the UCPS BOE values and respects the citizens of Union County. It allows parents the opportunity to choose the school environment that best fits their child when they make a housing decision. Citizens are not at the mercy of elected officials who seem to prove, time and time again, that they cannot be trusted.
2. This plan keeps entire neighborhoods and clusters together; simplifying bussing, saving money, fostering long term relationships and stability for children and families. It cannot be cost effective to bus the very small number of children currently affected by the current caps.
3. This plan should also allow “reassigned” students the option to choose another UCPS for their child, providing the school is under 110% capacity and the parent provides transportation.
4. This plan allows UCPS BOE to take a more conservative “wait and see” approach. The prior McKibben report grossly overestimated the current number of students; and the current one predicts only minor, temporary increases in numbers of students. The schools may balance themselves out in the next few years as our economy adjusts to the effects of the Affordable Care Act and increasing interest rates.
5. Although the state has misguidedly made it illegal to have developers pay impact fees, and county municipalities are issuing building permits without allocating for the increased costs; this plan will encourage the developers and towns to creatively collaborate on other options to encourage planned, supported growth in the future.
6. Rather than further damaging and depressing existing home values, this plan will make the existing, established neighborhoods more desirable because buyers will have confidence in the schools their children would be attending. This demand is what helps older neighborhoods thrive rather than decline.
7. This plan will provide economic benefit to the county as a whole. As housing values rise, so will tax revenues that can then be used to supplement the lack of revenue in the more rural areas of the county.
8. This plan will promote family pride, support of, and involvement in their schools. Parents will be willing to invest their time, energy and dollars into PTSO, booster clubs etc. if they know they won’t be shuttled off to a different school each year.
9. This plan keeps families within a reasonable geographic distance from their school so that they can volunteer and provide the involvement that separates good schools from bad ones. It reduces traffic on the already overburdened rural roads, and reduces the distance young teen drivers are travelling to and from school and activities.
10. This plan honors the parents, students and teachers that have worked so hard to raise money, volunteer their time and talents, and fill-in the gaps so that even with budget cuts, pay freezes, and lack of resources, have partnered in creating High Achieving Honor Schools of Excellence."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-16-2014, 07:34 AM
 
3,035 posts, read 2,596,828 times
Reputation: 1232
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunshineCJ View Post
Never said it was race. Was never going there and didn't think it was ever implied.

In fact it's not race at all because the makeup of the high schools across the district are fairly similar. Cuthbertson to Parkwood, Weddington to Sun Valley, etc. Fairly similar, not exactly. Even MR isn't that far off from other nearby clusters. There are exceptions of in the district of course.

MR is much, much less diverse in more ways than any other cluster in the district. It's almost like a private school system and that really ticks a lot of people off as reflected in this thread and all the redistricting Facebook groups. Even more so now than ever.

The unmentionable in this case(for which I will be quickly blasted by hundreds in this thread) is socioeconomic status, SES, as it directly impacts test scores and graduation rates. “Kind” is a combination of education, income, and occupation. Cuthbertson and Weddington are of a similar “kind”. Parkwood and Sun Valley are viewed as not of that “kind”. The eligibility for a free lunch is often used as a measure of a student’s socioeconomic status. It’s not perfect but it’s reflected here. Cuthbertson is 14% while Parkwood is 39.2%. Weddington is 9.5% while Sun Valley is 36.2%. Privilege, power and control. It’s not fair and it’s not right but it’s the reality in this case.

There was no outrage before the caps and redistricting proposal about the conditions at Parkwood, Sun Valley or any of the other schools in the eastern part of the county. No facebook groups, no petitions, no marching on board meetings. Nothing. Out of sight, out of mind. Just keep MY schools good and MY taxes low. Only now when that privilege, power and control are challenged is there outrage. And even this current outrage is misguided. Nothing to address the inequities and problems. Only to continue to avoid them by not sending MY kids there.

My school has a lacrosse team, that school does not. My child can’t get to an after school program because that school is too far. Etc., etc., etc….

Union County Public Schools is a countywide school system not a cluster system. Everyone who moved here should have known that and should have taken that into account. If you want a cluster system move back to New Jersey, Long Island, Ohio, or wherever else just not to CMS.
I don't think socioeconomic status is the unmentionable and I'm pretty sure it was already discussed (well I guess household income more specifically) as in my opinion that is the factor that contributes most to schools being rated highly. I know earlier people were saying it was the richest people in the NW portion of the county that were at the least risk of redistricting, but as was basically said that's mainly because they don't really have anywhere else to go. And I think part of the reason they're the "richest" is simply because the houses will cost more there since it's an easier commute to Charlotte from Marvin and Weddington than it is from Waxhaw...

I know the lacrosse comments have been made in jest but I think it's actually a fair point. Will the kids be able to play on the team with a school that does have it? What if they were in classes that are not offered at the other schools (although I don't know if that's true other than IB at MR)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GONYMETS View Post
I choose where I want my kids to go.
I'm not quite sure you understand the definition of "public school."

Quote:
Originally Posted by cc0789 View Post
It's so disappointing to see parents attacking students from other schools and having such an elitist attitude and a sense of entitlement. I look at my daughter's instagram account and am absolutely not shocked at kids telling other kids too bad they have to go to "Poorwood", or calling Sun Valley "ghetto". The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Like I read somewhere on this thread, I now feel worse for those kids at those schools that are going to get flooded with kids that think they are better than them and are going in with their nose turned down at their schools that they are proud of because it's all they have.
I was curious how the kids felt as it seems like most of the comments I'm seeing are from parents (although I don't care enough to read any of the facebook pages). I went through redistricting when I was in HS and really the main thing I cared about was that most of the kids I hung out with were staying at the same school and I was moving, since it was only a few neighborhoods being moved. I was a top student and I'm pretty sure I had no idea what my schools rating on greatschools.org was (looking back I went from a slightly below average school to another slightly below average school). I haven't looked that closely at the details but if there are large numbers of people moving hopefully the kids will have some of their friends moving with them which might lessen the blow a bit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-16-2014, 07:35 AM
 
1,226 posts, read 814,334 times
Reputation: 1793
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINYTransplant View Post
Here's a post from the UCPS Redistricting page on Facebook detailing an interesting option to the proposed plan from Tuesday night:

Another great viable solution! This is not a done deal people. Don't stop fighting!!! Read the proposal below and make your voices heard to the BOE...

"From another Page--a twist on the "new construction" proposal...seems this might solve the bus dilemma--with neighborhoods being moved miles past closer schools with railroad tracks and major highways in between, this efficiency rating can't be much (if any) worse! Sorry it's so long, but it's worth the read!

"Tracy and Melissa, you have both mentioned a plan similar to one I outlined and sent to the BOE. It's long, but I'll share it here. Maybe we can all get behind this alternative.
"I propose that you move forward with “capping” the clusters that are over 120% of capacity (which I understand to be “core capacity”), BUT that UCPS BOE grandfather in ALL existing homes and subdivisions that have closed escrow on at least 75% of their existing housing permits[1]. For example, if there are 800 existing homes in Millbridge, and they have permits/plans to build 200 more, then Millbridge would be grandfathered into their current school- the subdivision would be 80% complete. If instead, the developers add 500 more homes (meaning it is only currently 61% complete), then the entire subdivision would be “capped out” of the Cuthbertson cluster and reassigned.

This cap would also apply to small subdivisions and new construction built on property where there is no existing home. Developers would have to disclose to potential buyers that, until enrollment in the neighborhood school drops below 110%, children in that subdivision would be bussed to a school that is not over capacity.

The many benefits to this plan would include:

1.This plan communicates and demonstrates that the UCPS BOE values and respects the citizens of Union County. It allows parents the opportunity to choose the school environment that best fits their child when they make a housing decision. Citizens are not at the mercy of elected officials who seem to prove, time and time again, that they cannot be trusted.
2. This plan keeps entire neighborhoods and clusters together; simplifying bussing, saving money, fostering long term relationships and stability for children and families. It cannot be cost effective to bus the very small number of children currently affected by the current caps.
3. This plan should also allow “reassigned” students the option to choose another UCPS for their child, providing the school is under 110% capacity and the parent provides transportation.
4. This plan allows UCPS BOE to take a more conservative “wait and see” approach. The prior McKibben report grossly overestimated the current number of students; and the current one predicts only minor, temporary increases in numbers of students. The schools may balance themselves out in the next few years as our economy adjusts to the effects of the Affordable Care Act and increasing interest rates.
5. Although the state has misguidedly made it illegal to have developers pay impact fees, and county municipalities are issuing building permits without allocating for the increased costs; this plan will encourage the developers and towns to creatively collaborate on other options to encourage planned, supported growth in the future.
6. Rather than further damaging and depressing existing home values, this plan will make the existing, established neighborhoods more desirable because buyers will have confidence in the schools their children would be attending. This demand is what helps older neighborhoods thrive rather than decline.
7. This plan will provide economic benefit to the county as a whole. As housing values rise, so will tax revenues that can then be used to supplement the lack of revenue in the more rural areas of the county.
8. This plan will promote family pride, support of, and involvement in their schools. Parents will be willing to invest their time, energy and dollars into PTSO, booster clubs etc. if they know they won’t be shuttled off to a different school each year.
9. This plan keeps families within a reasonable geographic distance from their school so that they can volunteer and provide the involvement that separates good schools from bad ones. It reduces traffic on the already overburdened rural roads, and reduces the distance young teen drivers are travelling to and from school and activities.
10. This plan honors the parents, students and teachers that have worked so hard to raise money, volunteer their time and talents, and fill-in the gaps so that even with budget cuts, pay freezes, and lack of resources, have partnered in creating High Achieving Honor Schools of Excellence."
I only read the first line.... but.... "move forward with capping"???.... that was done 2 months ago. And how do you cap at 120% (at which they are at currently), PLUS grandfather in all those new exceptions?? That would bring it above 120, which just isn't same or conducive to learning. Kensington already is at the cap..... do you put those new Millbridge kids in those hypothetical 200 new homes on someone's lap and give them a helmet in case there is a tornado? And then there is Lawson with their new homes.... and Cureton. Just doesn't make much sense to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoPhils View Post

I know the lacrosse comments have been made in jest but I think it's actually a fair point. Will the kids be able to play on the team with a school that does have it? What if they were in classes that are not offered at the other schools (although I don't know if that's true other than IB at MR)?


.
I wasn't really saying it in jest... I have really seen people say it. But Lacrosse is probably not offered at some schools because of interest, as its an expensive sport. In addition, the booster clubs are not as strong, because you have less parent involvement. Both those things can change with the influx of new students. But no, athletics are governed by state guidelines, and they can't bring in kids from other schools.

But there is a transfer process if one school offers something your existing one doesn't, like the IB program. But of course the kids at the assigned school get first pick, and then if there is room, they will consider transfers. Here is the board policy:

Spoiler



EDUCATIONAL NEED TRANSFERS

To qualify for an educational need transfer based upon the availability of a particular

class, the student must have requested that class during the registration process the

previous spring. Should that particular class not make and subsequently not be offered in

the school year for which the registration was conducted and, cannot be provided by some

other means including, but not limited to internet, computer-based instruction or

independent study, the student may qualify for a transfer to a school that does offer the

exact class.

Only in-house registrations may be used to determine whether or not a particular class is

offered. Potential transfer students can not be considered or included in making such

determinations.

Students may not request a schedule change after the registration process ends for the

purpose of requesting a transfer.

Once the high school master schedules are set, students may not “shop” for a course for the

purpose of requesting a transfer.

Students who are granted an initial educational need transfer are not athletically eligible

for two semesters (see BOE Policy 4.13, Transfers for Athletic Participation).

Approval of educational need transfers will be dependent upon the availability of space in

the class at the requested school and the availability of space in the core subject classes.


Last edited by cc0789; 01-16-2014 at 07:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:16 PM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top