 Messages |
Topics |
Attachments
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - DrewCrash
1
« on: October 05, 2012, 08:06:04 PM »
any outcome? I saw the car. It slammed the tree. Only could imagine a deer came out and this was the result of an accident like that and not another parent driving drunk with children.
2
« on: November 08, 2011, 05:45:23 AM »
Will tickets be available at the door? If not, how late do we have access to the BFA front office?
3
« on: March 31, 2011, 05:26:23 PM »
I am back...and I would like to thank Chris for putting a link to this discussion on FranklinOne.com. And for my following rant, you all have to thank Chris because it's his fault. If he didn't provide the link, I wouldn't have been typing. Do enjoy...
1. The first statement in the presentation is, "A positive direction for the town of Fairfax municipal operations." Where in this presentation does it explain why a positive direction is needed? This is like me saying to my boss, "Hiring 20 people will create positive feedback from the community of Fairfax." Who cares? Why is a positive direction needed? People threatening to quit? Or could there be a true explanation that the town wants to build a new garage. Let's say because the current facility prevents the town from completing its own tire changes and therefor has to spend an extra $200,000 a year on private industry to do tire changes. (Please note this is a complete hypothetical situation I just proposed.) My point is this, will someone explain why the town needs a positive direction by buying this land. What is this Vision 2020. I FEEL LIKE THE LAND HAS TO COME BEFORE WE KNOW OF WHAT THIS VISION IS. Is the vision simply to own land? That's a swell vision.
2. A long range planning tool for the community. A planning tool for what? Someone explain the what first. Identify what the problem is and what is going to be solved by this Vision 2020. Instead we are going to focus on buying land. And since when is a planning tool require land? Why can't we make a long range planning tool for the community first and then whatever those plans are, we execute them. Instead, we are buying land to facilitate community planning. I understand that creator was likely implying that VISION 2020 is the planning tool. But I disagree. I think that the entire planning tool is the land. That is what the entire focus is on, getting land. I feel my argument is well supported by the 3 phase implementation plan.
3. A 3 phase approach to implementation. P1 = LAND ACQUISITION. !!! We have an implementation problem. We are acquiring land. We still have no clue why we are acquiring land. Sure, maybe you want to tell me that the presentation is poor, but that is just it. In any political arena, the issue to getting what you want is by identifying a problem (legitimate or illegitimate) and then convincing the public you can solve it. This is why I keep getting hung up. Those behind this issue continue to tell us we need the land. That is priority 1. When you identify the solution as being the first step, then you have not identified the problem and solved it. Fundamental business problem solving. Is any of this going on? It just doesn't seem like it or maybe I just need to attend town meetings, which I likely won't ever do. (Here is a problem: Fairfax doesn't have public access television. An argument could be made. The statement is true. It would be the town's decision to then determine if they wanted to solve the problem. I would like to note that I wouldn't support tax payer dollars be spent on a public access station. I would support an online streaming of meetings, if it could be done on the affordable. I'd even pay a small web fee for it.)
We are setting a solution, the land, as the first thing that needs to be done. We don't know how the land is going to be used? What is needed for it? etc...
The second phase is P2 = PLAN / DESIGN. Brilliant. Does anyone think that the plan and design should come first? You identify what you think the problems are. I repeat, we are buying land for something we don't even have a plan or design for. If I give you ten acres to 'play' with, I have feeling someone will do everything they can to best utilize the land which will cost $$$$$$. If you give someone only five acres to 'play' with, they are going to design it to best utilize the land which will cost $$$. The plan and design needs to come FIRST. By planning and designing something, maybe it turns out that we only need 4 acres. Or maybe it turns out that we need 20 acres. WHO KNOWS ?!?!?!?! But this is why you do the planning and design first !!! When you know what you have designed and planned, then you can determine what resources you need. By buying this land without a plan or design, the town's tax dollars are being foolishly spent. I consider all tax dollars to be a resource and I don't like to see waste. What if we spend the $250,000 and then the plan says that the design is going to cost $5,000,000. What if the town doesn't want to spend that? Then what?
PHASE 3 - BUILD
Sorry. I had to get back in my chair. Haven't fallen out of a chair in a long time. Build. I think we should buy the land first, then hire the contractor now for the building phase. See, if we hire the contractor now we can save money.
I love the second slide. You tell me what it's going to do to my taxes. Thank you. But you still haven't told me why we need this land. Or what the long term costs are going to be for the project.
I think I see a slide that is going to tell me why all of this is needed. I probably should have read all of the slides before I started typing. No wait, I think I did read all the slides. But let's review why we are going to buy the land. This is why I have been complaining.
a) Opportunity to buy land at a cheap price in a growth center? SO WE WANT OUR GOVERNMENT TO BUY LAND IN A, AND I QUOTE - GROWTH CENTER !!! WHAT? So we want to take away tax revenue from the town by acquiring the land ourselves? BRILLIANT. This is a good way to generate revenue. If the plan and design came first, maybe my opinion would be different. But all I am reading is that the town wants some inventory of land. Maybe we should buy us a a hook & ladder truck. If we buy one now, we will save money. And you never know, Microsoft my relocate their headquarters to a new 20 story high rise in Fairfax. (I am not serious about the hook & ladder truck.)
b) Relocate town offices. WHY? I have heard rumors as to why, and they make sense. But its not explained. Its not explained if renting office trailers for a year to be able to rebuild on the existing site would be a cheaper plan. Then using the other money to enhance the riverfront park. The argument will be made that the town doesn't own the land or something. So then buy that .10 acres. But explain this.
c) Current town office is inadequate and not ADA compliant. GREAT! I get an explanation to my complaint above. Why is it inadequate? Because someone said so? If it is less than $250,000 to make the building the ADA compliant, then shouldn't we just do that? I don't know. No one explained this to me. Maybe it has been done. I hope it has been done. I am just asking questions and hoping to get answers. If there are very valid reasons, this entire project could be supported. I don't know.
d) Save $$$$....there is on old saying that money makes money. So the theory here is that spending our tax money on this property, we are going to be spending more money and somehow we are going to save? Sounds like the COSTCO theory. I think it's great that you can buy a package of 144 toilet paper rolls. The savings comes out to like $0.10 a roll. The problem is you bought 2 years of toilet paper. You had to spend more to save? If there was more information on this, if it was explained, then maybe this could be supported. I am sure it was done. Just wish there was a way to hear about besides joining a committee or going to meetings. Just tell me how it's going to save money.
My closing arguments: IF THE GLOVE DON'T FIT YOU MUST BUY LAND THEORY:
We are also going to spend 4 years to design the building? Was this decision to purchase the land a decision that has been going on for 4 years? Because it seemed like an awful short period of time from when I learned about the proposal to the time we got to vote on it. But seriously, 4 years? The design process needs 4 years? Build me 10 offices, two conference rooms. Is it that hard? Or is it more complicated than that? I don't know. Maybe there are grand plans that our town office will turn into a building that would make NRG proud of. Maybe they want to build an ice climbing facility like the brilliant idea out of Burlington several years ago.
Ultimately, I can't comprehend why the design and plan phase isn't this first phase. We are just expected to support this in blind trust and hand over our tax money? I understand it seems to be 'short' money on the land for the tax payer, but ultimately it is still $250,000, with additional costs yet unexplained. I feel like a broken record.
Once again, thank you Chris for the link and to Henry for allowing me to make a spectacle of myself. Enjoy the April Fool's Snow Storm !!!
4
« on: January 19, 2011, 05:12:38 PM »
Although I support full day kindergarten and therefore disagree with Patricia, I am thankful for her making all of this public knowledge and starting the conversation we are all having. If it wasn't for Patricia, how would we have known? So thank you.
That's all I got.
5
« on: January 16, 2011, 10:34:27 AM »
To clear up a misquote, the research reports I cited was not 10-15 years old but from 2004 and 2006. The internet links were put in my earlier post to allow anyone interested to read the research reports cited. Everyone can choose to believe what they wish, and everyone is free to say “I choose to believe that full day kindergarten is beneficial.” The research, however, does not support the notion that full-day kindergarten provides any lasting advantage.
@ Patricia: Your report(s) are from 2004 and 2006. But if you read the report and the data, the data is from 1998-1999. Therefore, the data is as old as I said it was and thus I was not misrepresenting the data you presented. Your report(s) are done to see the long lasting effect of kindergarten. Your report(s) states that there are signs of early advantages, but that the report(s) state these advantages are no longer recognizable after a certain grade point. As I stated before, which I deleted because I thought Counselor's argument of ($0 budget impact) was better than mine, if your report(s) state that there is no advantage by the 5th grade, then there is a recognizable difference in other earlier grades. And thus the impact or the loss of advantages gained can not be attributed to kindergarten, but the then quality of education between kindergarten and the fifth grade (the grade your report measured to.) Even your report, says that it should be looked at carefully as it recognizes the variables that the data doesn't account for, etc. You are using this RAND report as if it was 'law' and the report itself says its not 'law.'
6
« on: January 14, 2011, 06:25:47 PM »
So there is no impact to the budget? Well, if I had known that at the beginning of this discussion, I wouldn't have invested in over four hours trying to study upon a topic that I knew supported but had a difficult way of communicating effectively as you have. My wife said we need to have full day kindergarten and I have a tendancy in belieivng her when she talks about education. As a fiscal conservatie, (aka - cheap), I am thinking that our school district has managed our money well. All of this discussion seems 'moot' if its going to be as affordable as you say. I think this sounds great.
7
« on: January 14, 2011, 06:05:08 PM »
if this was Facebook I would have selected the "Like" button on Counselor's post.
8
« on: January 14, 2011, 03:51:22 PM »
Thank you, Drew. As one of the biggest road blocks for full day kindergarten at this time is the cost it may be beneficial to see a break down of the additional cost as well. If we are going from 4 classrooms to 3 wouldn't that help counter the cost for full day?
I think this is a part of the argument Patricia was making earlier and that I support. There appears to be confusion year over year from both our elected officials and representatives of our school district as to what these costs will be. I too think that the economical implications are still unknown and need to be discussed. This is information I do not have. If someone comes back to me and says it only costs $50,000; there has to be a way to generate the $50,000 in the existing budget. If you tell me its going to cost $500,000 then we have a different story altogether.
9
« on: January 14, 2011, 09:39:12 AM »
One comment in hear is concerning because I can not find a source and I fear that misinformation could spread through our community that we are requesting to have full day daycare. I haven't read a single word on this thread in which anyone is advocating for full day daycare. I haven't read a thing at all that states that anyone is advocating for any type of public daycare.
10
« on: January 05, 2011, 05:17:01 PM »
I see more troopers in town then I do the sheriff. And I would certainly like to see a lot less radar traps and a lot more patrolling by the Sheriff. With that, I still think the Sheriff's is the best option, but it still needs to improve its patrols. Last week I watched the Sheriff for 40 minutes sit at the car wash. That's a lot patrol time for some of our neighborhoods. Poor Sheriff. We need to start a thread about how we never talk about speeding in Fairfax. That should make the Sheriff feel better.
11
« on: January 05, 2011, 05:10:14 PM »
10 acres for a municipal office? Fairfax must be planning for a massive expansion. That's a lot more than the current lot of what, .1 acres?
And why is the town buying land for a future office? we, the taxpayers, are building a new town municipal office? I didn't know this.
12
« on: January 01, 2011, 08:41:43 PM »
Henry - THANK YOU THANK YOU SO MUCH !!!!
13
« on: January 01, 2011, 07:35:45 PM »
I love I love my Benjamin boy!!! Henry - we are at FAHC and both mom and Benjamin are resting nicely after enjoying his 10 seconds of fame on WCAX. I was en route on I-89 when it aired, so I am hoping to catch it online.
14
« on: December 27, 2010, 08:58:32 AM »
I would like to say thank you to a couple Fairfax Citzens that called me with info about a break in on Cherrierville Rd last week. Because of your info on Vehicle and partail plate number I have tracked down the owner of the Vehicle and where he lives. I will be turning the info over to the State Police today and hopefully one less dirtbag on our streets!!!
Awesome.
15
« on: December 22, 2010, 06:12:55 PM »
This topic continues, month after month, for well over a year now. I will say now what I said then, we need increased police coverage and/OR an improved patrol plan from the sheriff's department. I don't imagine the police will ever catch anyone, but it serves as a good deterrent and that deterrent is certainly something to look at.
Instead of sitting around and complaining on a bulletin board, I will participate and support in any thing that goes on to try and stop this problem from reoccurring constantly. There are too many smart people in a community to allow this continued problem from reoccurring.
|
Show Posts
