Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I don't follow. How is part of Lawson being "moved more than once between redistricting?" Also, does anyone even live in that geographic area? Are people already living in those phases?
There is no requirement that someone lives there... in fact the whole point of redistricting was to make room for people that might move here one day in the future.
For the record, I have no problem with the approach of splitting Lawson or with another round of reassignment if it's based in reality. I'm merely pointing out that the BOE will once again violate their own policies, and why? Because they got it wrong, just like we all knew at the time.
There is no requirement that someone lives there... in fact the whole point of redistricting was to make room for people that might move here one day in the future.
For the record, I have no problem with the approach of splitting Lawson or with another round of reassignment if it's based in reality. I'm merely pointing out that the BOE will once again violate their own policies, and why? Because they got it wrong, just like we all knew at the time.
.
I'm just not following what policy is being violated.
Just like I didn't say that Yercheck's ousting was a direct result of redistricting, I didn't say splitting a neighborhood was illegal. I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. I was simply reminded of things THEY SAID last year related to address based caps. This has nothing to do with policy regarding an effort to limit split neighborhoods, and again, I didn't infer or state that it did.
The real point here is that any redrawing of lines (i.e., splitting Lawson) is at the feet of the sitting board. It also, yet again, violates BOE policy that clearly states: No geographic areas will be moved more than once between redistricting.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaxhawMike
There is no requirement that someone lives there... in fact the whole point of redistricting was to make room for people that might move here one day in the future.
For the record, I have no problem with the approach of splitting Lawson or with another round of reassignment if it's based in reality. I'm merely pointing out that the BOE will once again violate their own policies, and why? Because they got it wrong, just like we all knew at the time.
.
I was replying to where you questioned if it was legal and mentioned lawyers... Go back and read your post.
I've already stated in other threads that creating islands (like cutting out future phases in Lawson) are not consistent with contiguous lines and goes against the spirit of how they discussed redistricting. They're not "redrawing lines" as you are insinuating... they are cutting out future residents to leave room for those already attending the school - which I believe is the general idea you wanted in the first place! Be careful with this circular logic because it sounds like they're damned if they do... or don't - with you.
A policy (aka guideline) does not equate to a law. Just like in the past, you seem to use these terms interchangeably when they fit your narrative. It is no secret that they would blow the forecasting - we knew they would. If you disagree with how the BOE intends to address the caps at New Town, I'd love to hear real ideas instead of the continuous hints of "seeing through them" and "not being fooled". The election is over and it seems you got much of what you wished for with changes. So how about we move past the conspiracies and figure out how to go forward? Would you redraw some lines? Revert the whole thing? What?
This will turn out to be one of the biggest yawns in history. Let me break it down:
District One: Old majority supporter replaced by Liberal Democrat Educrat supporter. Advantage: Ellis
District Two: Kevin Stewart. Advantage: Ellis
District Three: Chairman replaced by School Foundation Chair: Advantage: Nobody
District Four: Old majority supporter replaced by TLK fanatic: Advantage: Unknown as yet
District Five: John Collins. Advantage: Ellis
District Six: Marce Savage...never saw a budget she didn't love. Advantage: Depends on the issue.
At-Large: Guzman. Voted against lawsuit. Supported redistricting. Advantage: Leans Ellis on most issues
At-Large: Helms. See Guzman
At-Large: Boyd. Replaces the one vote against redistricting. Boyd wanted it. Boyd Liberal Dem. Advantage: Ellis.
So basically...nothing to see here. Only changes were (1) Merrell takes Pigg seat. Merrell is a TLK fanatic and would be against Ellis on redistricting which is dead issue. She will be all for spending as much of my money as possible so...Ellis wins. (2) Boyd replaces the only one who voted against redistricting and she loved the plan. She will vote lockstep with whatever Ellis wants. Ellis wins. (3) Sides replaced Yercheck. Sides is cozy with Ellis but didn't want anyone to know it during campaign. He would vote against redistricting but guess what...its a dead issue. Sides will spend as much of my money as possible. Ellis wins. (4) Harrell bless her heart...she just wants to spend as much of my money as possible. Ellis wins.
A policy (aka guideline) does not equate to a law. Just like in the past, you seem to use these terms interchangeably when they fit your narrative. It is no secret that they would blow the forecasting - we knew they would. If you disagree with how the BOE intends to address the caps at New Town, I'd love to hear real ideas instead of the continuous hints of "seeing through them" and "not being fooled". The election is over and it seems you got much of what you wished for with changes. So how about we move past the conspiracies and figure out how to go forward? Would you redraw some lines? Revert the whole thing? What?
Grrr... I'll try one more time.... I've never used the terms policy and law interchangeably. I don't know how to be more clear... The BOE attorney's said (not Mike) that addressed based caps were illegal. I'm not sure what that discussion has to do with BOE Policy. Based on the way the lines are drawn today there is no way to reassign the new sections of Lawson to Waxhaw without using address based caps. Sure, you can draw the lines as squiggly and convoluted as you want to but in effect it's an address based cap.
The answer to "overcrowding" is not easy especially when the administration and BOE play numbers games. However, if you were looking for a quick win last year a little shuffling of the elementary boundaries and sending Millbridge, all of Millbridge, to Parkwood would have been the best solution... but again, that's if you can navigate through the smoke screen enough and come to an informed decision that any redistricting was necessary.
Busy night tomorrow at the BOE, but you all continue.
History likes to repeat itself.
Chairman Savage? I spit my coffee out when I read that one. That was said in jest, yes? She can't stay on a Committee, how do you think she'll want to take on the accountability and responsibility of Chairman. Besides, that position would interfere with her real focus: NC State BOE.
Grrr... I'll try one more time.... I've never used the terms policy and law interchangeably. I don't know how to be more clear... The BOE attorney's said (not Mike) that addressed based caps were illegal. I'm not sure what that discussion has to do with BOE Policy. Based on the way the lines are drawn today there is no way to reassign the new sections of Lawson to Waxhaw without using address based caps. Sure, you can draw the lines as squiggly and convoluted as you want to but in effect it's an address based cap.
The answer to "overcrowding" is not easy especially when the administration and BOE play numbers games. However, if you were looking for a quick win last year a little shuffling of the elementary boundaries and sending Millbridge, all of Millbridge, to Parkwood would have been the best solution... but again, that's if you can navigate through the smoke screen enough and come to an informed decision that any redistricting was necessary.
.
They're all address based caps. Anyone living at an address within the boundary for NTES is capped. I think you're referring to the notion that was thrown around last year where seats were guaranteed to an address until that person moved, even if lines are redrawn - the concept of giving a seat in the school by address. That was deemed illegal. They can reassign, redraw, cut, and grandfather all they want as long as the BOE approves.
GRRRR... You can't help yourself with the "numbers games" and "smoke screen"? Why is someone always trying to pull one over on you? Last year is done... it's over... 4 new BOE members are coming in... what do they do moving forward?
Tonight's going away present could be New Town capped, Lawson Phase 2 and 3 redistricted to a split-feed Elem, and Marce censured. Those are 3 fairly significant items that will be dropped into the lap of the new incoming members. They lose the opportunity to vote on how to address the New Town cap if these votes go forward tonight.
If Marce had the pair to be a chairperson (and I agree she cares more about the state BOE than local), she would be prepared for this and put off these votes until the new members come in. Then again the benchmark for her is packing up and leaving during big votes so I won't hold my breathe.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
