Tomorrow's Bond Vote - yes, one more reminder!
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Wendy Naidich
Mar 25, 2014, 10:20:02 PM3/25/14
to reynol...@googlegroups.com
Hi everyone,
You may be tired of receiving reminders and explanations of the bond vote, but I thought I’d put out just one more plug for everyone to get out and vote, and to make sure your vote means what you want it to mean.
If you are in favor of doing the building repairs, the work at Reynold’s Field, and at least the basic work at Burke (3 fields next to each other on the same level), vote YES on Proposition 1.
Then, if you would like to see a tiered layout at the Burke Estate instead of the flat layout, ALSO vote YES on Proposition 2. Proposition 2 only relates to whether the fields at Burke should be tiered.
A NO vote to Proposition 1 indicates that you do not want the district to do any of the work listed above.
See you at the polls,
Wendy
You may be tired of receiving reminders and explanations of the bond vote, but I thought I’d put out just one more plug for everyone to get out and vote, and to make sure your vote means what you want it to mean.
If you are in favor of doing the building repairs, the work at Reynold’s Field, and at least the basic work at Burke (3 fields next to each other on the same level), vote YES on Proposition 1.
Then, if you would like to see a tiered layout at the Burke Estate instead of the flat layout, ALSO vote YES on Proposition 2. Proposition 2 only relates to whether the fields at Burke should be tiered.
A NO vote to Proposition 1 indicates that you do not want the district to do any of the work listed above.
See you at the polls,
Wendy
David Skolnik
Mar 26, 2014, 3:25:30 AM3/26/14
to reynol...@googlegroups.com
And yet, even now, this 'explanation' overlooks the
'option' that has, over the last few days, left so many folks
scrambling for clarification. Why is it that it seems to be
considered superfluous or time consuming to outline the 4th
(3rd on the (as of this morning) revised document)
http://www.hohschools.org/cms/lib07/NY01913703/Centricity/Domain/4/Vote%20to%20Get%20What%20You%20Want%20v3.pdf
which would entail voting NO for Prop #1 plus YES for Prop #2, which reflects the position of being opposed to the Bond Referendum, (for any number of reasons) but supportive of the tiered (and more expensive) treatment of Burke, should the Bond, in fact, pass.
If it had been represented clearly enough, initially, it shouldn't have been necessary to modify that graphic, especially at the 11th hour.
I wonder what level of confusion might be reflected in an exit poll, were one to be conducted, this time around.
Dr. Montesano stated, at an earlier information meeting, in response to question, that there was no current plan, should the Bond fail, at least none that he was willing to share, at that time. While the mechanisms that kicks in if a budget is twice rejected are clear, we are only left with a generalized anxiety at the range of consequences for a 2nd rejection of this bond. It's not great, but, most of us at least, don't know exactly the extent of how not great. I am not happy at the prospect of deferring badly needed repair, nor with the prospect of severely depleting a Capital Reserve Fund that cannot, in the current economic structures, be easily replenished, nor with the prospect of deferring the return of a viable track, but I cannot vote for a plan that does what this one seems to do to Reynolds, based on what I am able to glean from the graphics provided. If I had been an investor, with significant resources, potentially at the disposal of this project, these graphics would (hopefully and presumably) have been much more aggressive in conveying a convincing, final vision. What, in fact, was provided was 'conceptual', leaving me to have to a) fill in the vision, and b) have confidence in the process.
I have, in good faith, tried, but am unable to do either. I am voting NO and Yes to #2 (in the event that the bond passes) because I have been convinced that Burke #1 is a solution that no one really wants, nor would it ultimately work. I'm not sure that I think #2 can succeed either, but
that's my level of compromise.
David Skolnik
which would entail voting NO for Prop #1 plus YES for Prop #2, which reflects the position of being opposed to the Bond Referendum, (for any number of reasons) but supportive of the tiered (and more expensive) treatment of Burke, should the Bond, in fact, pass.
If it had been represented clearly enough, initially, it shouldn't have been necessary to modify that graphic, especially at the 11th hour.
I wonder what level of confusion might be reflected in an exit poll, were one to be conducted, this time around.
Dr. Montesano stated, at an earlier information meeting, in response to question, that there was no current plan, should the Bond fail, at least none that he was willing to share, at that time. While the mechanisms that kicks in if a budget is twice rejected are clear, we are only left with a generalized anxiety at the range of consequences for a 2nd rejection of this bond. It's not great, but, most of us at least, don't know exactly the extent of how not great. I am not happy at the prospect of deferring badly needed repair, nor with the prospect of severely depleting a Capital Reserve Fund that cannot, in the current economic structures, be easily replenished, nor with the prospect of deferring the return of a viable track, but I cannot vote for a plan that does what this one seems to do to Reynolds, based on what I am able to glean from the graphics provided. If I had been an investor, with significant resources, potentially at the disposal of this project, these graphics would (hopefully and presumably) have been much more aggressive in conveying a convincing, final vision. What, in fact, was provided was 'conceptual', leaving me to have to a) fill in the vision, and b) have confidence in the process.
I have, in good faith, tried, but am unable to do either. I am voting NO and Yes to #2 (in the event that the bond passes) because I have been convinced that Burke #1 is a solution that no one really wants, nor would it ultimately work. I'm not sure that I think #2 can succeed either, but
that's my level of compromise.
David Skolnik
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ReynoldsField" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ReynoldsFiel...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4354 / Virus Database: 3722/7248 - Release Date: 03/25/14
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages