So is Wayne anti-stadium, anti-bus barn also? I know it is time to move past that issue, but that doesn't mean some of the candidates have. I think we have fantastic schools here, and I want board members who recognize that and want to keep our standards high. We live here because we want a top quality school and love what AISD offers. I am not interested in folks who just want to be a wrecking ball.[/quote]

Why don't you go to a meet and greet and ask him?

I personally don't think that anti-stadium and anti-bus barn people and keeping standards high are inconsistent.

IMO, the stadium was rushed through in very little time, in a bad economy. The voters that voted took the first deal offered to them, whether it was good or not.

I'm anti-stadium, because I would have rather them use the money more prudently, renegotiate bids, and bring the best offer to the voters. That might have been the second or third offer. Clearly, when looking at other stadiums (SMU for example), and the economy we were in when that bond election passed, we got ripped off. You could have had that stadium built for a lot less money had the board members been more prudent. You won't find many voters in Allen who didn't recognize the need for a new stadium. Just maybe not that one. Make sense?

The bus barn, same thing. They chose a very expensive piece of land, when they had much cheaper options at their disposal. No one wants that thing in their backyard, so you were going to have opposition either way. But, the land value on the West side of town is exponentially higher than on the East. So they basically wasted millions of dollars unnecessarily. Does that mean that I'm anti-bus barn? I'm anti wasting money. I recognize the need for the facility, and I want board members who spend the money wisely and get the most bang for our tax buck.

So, when you go accusing people of being anti-stadium or anti-bus barn, I hope you realize that most of those people aren't totally anti the facility. Just the amount of money spent on these was a waste when they could have gotten virtually the same thing with a much more efficient use of taxpayer funding.

Again, IMO, those anti's, as you call them, ARE wanting to keep the standards for Allen and AISD as high as possible. The way they are doing that is by being as frugal and prudent with the money as possible, so it can be spent on more items of need. Not squandered and wasted by paying too much for items while others needs get left out. Does that help?

Cheatham Parent - It's not polite to question others beliefs. People aren't textbook definitions of political leanings. I personally believe that if education is going to be handled by a government entity, it's best left to as local a governmental entity as possible. Most Libertarians know that complete freedom in all aspects will never happen. So we come up with fair compromises. It's called common sense.

You should watch the Independents on Fox Business, or check out Reason.com if you want to know what the majority of Libertarians think/believe.

JROB: Your questioning the board's decision-making ability is humorous....

It's time to move on, everyone is tired of reading your ranting.

IMO, the stadium was rushed through in very little time, in a bad economy. The voters that voted took the first deal offered to them, whether it was good or not.

I'm anti-stadium, because I would have rather them use the money more prudently, renegotiate bids, and bring the best offer to the voters. The citizens approved the bond, a committee of citizens helped determine the content and size of the stadium. The bid process was done by sealed bid, the district then choose the firm that would provide the best value for the price. That might have been the second or third offer. Clearly, when looking at other stadiums (SMU for example), and the economy we were in when that bond election passed, we got ripped off. The economic slow down actually allowed for better pricing. Contractor bid less because they needed the business. In today's current economy it is difficult to contractors. Many have gone out of business. You could have had that stadium built for a lot less money had the board members been more prudent. The AISD stadium has a dedicated wrestling practice area, wrestling locker room, indoor practice golf area and weight room. Does the SMU stadium have that?You won't find many voters in Allen who didn't recognize the need for a new stadium. Just maybe not that one. Make sense?

The bus barn, same thing. They chose a very expensive piece of land, when they had much cheaper options at their disposal. No one wants that thing in their backyard, so you were going to have opposition either way. But, the land value on the West side of town is exponentially higher than on the East. Exponential is a little dramatic, the different in the two location is not exponentially different. So they basically wasted millions of dollars unnecessarily. Does that mean that I'm anti-bus barn? I'm anti wasting money. I recognize the need for the facility, and I want board members who spend the money wisely and get the most bang for our tax buck. If the barn had been built on the original location, money would have been spent on infrastructure and not the facility. Conversations with district staff and trustees have stated the same.

So, when you go accusing people of being anti-stadium or anti-bus barn, I hope you realize that most of those people aren't totally anti the facility. Just the amount of money spent on these was a waste when they could have gotten virtually the same thing with a much more efficient use of taxpayer funding.

Again, IMO, those anti's, as you call them, ARE wanting to keep the standards for Allen and AISD as high as possible. The way they are doing that is by being as frugal and prudent with the money as possible, so it can be spent on more items of need. Not squandered and wasted by paying too much for items while others needs get left out. Does that help?

It seems the board built what would provide the best value, it just wasn't on the cheapest piece of land.

About 63 percent of voters supported a $119 million bond package in 2009. Construction on the stadium began a year later. District officials went with more expensive concrete seating over all-aluminum benches, adding perhaps $4 million more to the cost, according to officials. But they said they expected this stadium to last decades.

"Do we want our kids to win on Friday night on the football field or do we want them to win all through their lives?" Perot said in a 1988 Washington Post column. "That's what we have to start asking ourselves."

Even Allen’s then-school board president had a tough time with its cost.

“I’m in sticker shock,” Victoria Sublette told The Dallas Morning News in 2008, after hearing the original cost estimate for the stadium.

• StacyLynn624 Said:

Not sure if cracks were included, but Pogue does have other Stadiums in their portfolio, so lets take that argument off the table and can we please get back to information about the candidates.

Williams in Garland
Hanby Stadium in Mesquite addition/renovations
Ron Poe in Mckinney additions/renovations

• MikeC Said:

The current location is requiring infrastructure expense as well. Fairly significant. The land cost may have not been exponentially more, but it certainly was substantially more.

Thank you! I hope more will put some information out on a distinct website - just my own personal peeve against Facebook pages.

Mike,

... Let's talk about the contract and bid process.

Difficult to get contractors? We had 220 bids for the Bus Service Center. Guess which contractor got the bid? The same contractor who had never built a stadium before but seems to get all of the contracts for our buildings. Why even solicit bids?

And interestingly enough the developer sold the land to AISD with one condition; that we extend Bossy Boots to Watters, a cost to the AISD (not city) of over $450,000.

Much higher costs for the land and for the infrastructure.

• Allensince1993 Said:

When any firm develops a parcel of land they are responsible for the construction of the roadway next to the property. Incorrect. That is negotiated and typically you can get the city to handle. My dad is a developer in San Antonio and I see it all the time. I guess it's all about your strength with negotiation So even if the district did agree to that condition, which I don't believe they did, it was a cost they were already going to incur.

Quit trying to act as if you understand what happened, you're out of your league.

I viewed only a portion of the budget discussion before I couldn't take it anymore. The discussion was so off track they couldn't find the rails.

It's clear to see who actually read the information before the meeting and who just talks to hear themselves speak. The pandering of other board members claiming they are for teachers and staff when it's clear, based on their prior actions, they don't care about teachers.

I'll watch the remaining of the recorded meeting, but I'm praying this group can keep focused and hire a good superintendent. But I can't imagine who with a sound mind and stellar career would willingly come to work for these seven. I'm not saying all seven are bad, but there are three that clearly don't understand the role of a school board.

I think alot of this 'discussion' shows that some folks are still hung up on historical issues. I want to know what the candidates goals are for the *future*. And, if the candidate is out to right their perceived wrong of prior actions, I want to know that. I don't think the last caped crusader has been very impressive and I don't want to vote for anyone with that type of agenda.