HawthorneVillager.com

Hawthorne Village (Milton) Discussion Board
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:34 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 412 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 28  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:09 am 
So please clarify for me.....are you (daycaremom in particular) okay with them going ahead to build #5 if #4 continues to get held up? It'd be silly in my opinion not to go ahead with #5 if that is the case (don't get me wrong though, I'm all for #4 getting built first and ASAP but if that ain't gonna happen because of arrogant people, I say go with #5 ASAP then).


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:59 am
Posts: 1319
Location: H.V. Phase One
We need a school built a.s.a.p. If #4 is held up and not going to get built, we can't hold up the construction of another. The problem with that is the kids for #4 are going to have to change schools again (and again when #4 is built).
What I will advocate for is that if #4 is cleared and able to be built, it should be built before any others. There are enough kids in that community right now to fill that school. There are currently not enough in the area of #5 and #6 to fill one.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:30 am 
I agree with that too but if worse comes to worse, build #5 first and if kids have to be relocated a time or two, so be it. Good luck with the fight.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:48 pm
Posts: 1219
Location: Ph 14a
csb101 wrote:
I agree with that too but if worse comes to worse, build #5 first and if kids have to be relocated a time or two, so be it. Good luck with the fight.


for sure we need to build a school for Sept '09, and if it can't be #4 (from what i was told the board needs ~18mths from the site release to school opening) then they need to build #5. i'm perplexed, though, why the board would propose to build #6 for sept '09 too.... i really think that would be a just a knee-jerk reaction to notion of “being 2 schools behind” and isn’t really a well thought out plan.

daycaremom wrote:
The problem with that is the kids for #4 are going to have to change schools again (and again when #4 is built).


Just so it's clear for those parents that live in Coates neighbourhood, and currently have kids attending Sam Sherratt, what the Board is proposing will mean your children will be moved from Sam Sherratt to either Chris Hadfield or Bruce Trail (depending on which side of the pipeline you live on) for the 08/09 school year, and then move to School #5 when it opens for the 09/10 school year (because they need to fill it up and CH & BT are already at capacity) and then move again when the #4 school is built.... possible Sept '11 or '12.

That is 3 different schools in 3-4 years - not counting the move some made when they moved to Milton in the first place.
This accommodation plan is not finalized... but as you can see, it is very important that parents attend this public meeting on Tuesday.

my suggestion is that the Board tries to eliminate one of these moves by splitting the Coates area into 3 parts, instead of 2.l eave one area at Sheratt until the #5 school is built, then bring them back when #4 is built. the other 2 areas move to Bruce Trail & Chris Hadfeild for Sept '08, but leave them there until the #4 school is built. This makes the group of kids each school is accommodating smaller, thus the effect of keeping them for a few years less. The division lines that make sense to me are the pipeline and Hepburn or Yates, since they cut through completely.

and for the record, the article in the Champion is a bit misleading regarding my address to Council - i was in no way blaming Mattamy for the overcrowding in the schools... only urging the Town Council to hold off any further home construction (the model homes don't really count since there will be no kids living in them) in the area enclosed by Thomspon, Derry, Louis St Laurent & Reg Rd 15 until the #4 school can be built. Mattamy lawyers have been working very hard to reach a settlement with Shellrock, the Town & Region. If the #4 school opens before Sept '11, it will be because of their effort.


Last edited by themasons on Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:59 am
Posts: 1319
Location: H.V. Phase One
themasons wrote:
If the #4 school opens before Sept '11, it will be because of their effort.

Exactly!

We are two schools behind, so we need two schools in town wherever they can build them. If they can't build #4, there is no reason to hold back on another. The number of kids in portables is just going to increase if we don't build schools.
For the record, kids in portables isn't exactly my beef. The number of portables is my concern. When a school has 16 portables (as Hawthorne Village does), you cannot deliver effective programs to those students. The board recognizes this and that's why they have come up with the temporary plan to accommodate students in lower capacity schools until the new schools are built.

BTW - Chris Hadfield is not at capacity now and will not have to add portables to accommodate the temporary students from #4.

Bernadette - I didn't perceive your address to council as blaming Mattamy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:48 pm
Posts: 1219
Location: Ph 14a
thanks - but you were there in person.. i just thought the summary the Champion wrote made it sound like Donna and I were there to fight Mattamy. I found it odd that they didn't even mention the fact that the #4 school was delayed by an OMB dispute. We asked council to delay apporval of more homes "until the #4 school was built" but they printed "as long as you can" :? are they avoiding the mention of the delay or are they anti-developer... or am i just reading too much into it :wink: :lol:

as for the temporary accomodation... it's just soo messy. i wish there was an easier way to deal with this. curse those Shellrock jerks :evil:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:59 am
Posts: 1319
Location: H.V. Phase One
I curse the Town. They shouldn't have given the land to Shellrock without all the documents in place first. #4 would have been built and we wouldn't be going through all this again.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:48 pm
Posts: 1219
Location: Ph 14a
true. except they didn't really "give" the land to Shellrock, the golf course was purchased by them - but they shouldn't have approved the construction of our homes without the paperwork for the site for #4 all signed...
can't change all that now, though. we can only try and make the situation as easy on the kids as possible. they are the ones that are affected most by this mess up :roll:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:59 am
Posts: 1319
Location: H.V. Phase One
That's just an expression - I realize the land was sold to them.
The builders just have to set aside the property for the schools. There is no guarantee that a school will be built on it. The school board has to decide which ones they want and have to purchase the land from the builder. Considering that, I don't think the Town can deny homes being constructed because there is no guarantee that the board will buy that piece of land and build a school there.
There was land set aside for a school at the bottom of Trudeau. The board decided not to purchase that lot and built up in Greenpark instead (Chris Hadfield). When they came back to this area, they chose the location for Hawthorne over the one at the bottom of Trudeau. It would have been a waste of time to delay construction in that area on a school that would never be built. I don't think the builders would approve of holding on to land that they can't build on.
It's different now with Coates. There are already enough kids to fill the school so it's a reasonable request to ask the Town to not allow any more homes to be built. Hopefully, that would encourage the builders to settle the dispute faster but if it didn't at least they wouldn't be adding more kids to the problem.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:48 pm
Posts: 1219
Location: Ph 14a
so then why do you think this is the town's fault? they couldn't stop the sale of the land to Shellrock on the anticipation that they wouldn't play nice when it came to development fees.... every developer till then had agreed to them...

And I realize that all school sites are just "proposed" until the School Board purchases the land, my point is, the town and the Board new about the dispute with Shellrock around 2 years ago (the first appearnce in front of the OMB was in June '06, and that was after the Shellrock application was voted down by town council)... yet they still approved the construction of ph14B, ph15... and Sundial without a school site. And as far as i know... Donna's appearance at the council meeting last monday was the first by anyone from the School Board to address Town Council about slowing down development until the schools can catch up. Colin can correct me if that is not the case.

don't get me wrong, i think the Town, The School Board and Shellrock all share a piece of the blame here... but for the right reasons. And, again, the blame game get's us no where other than trying to prevent this from happening again. now we just need to move foreward as best we can. These are living and breathing kids that need an effecitive education for the next 4 years as much as any other kid.

i am now getting off my soap box :wink:


Last edited by themasons on Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:59 am
Posts: 1319
Location: H.V. Phase One
Colin is the one that said the Town sold Shellrock the land without all of the contracts in place. When they went back to get them signed Shellrock disputed the fee's.
Yes, that was the first time that Donna had delegated at council. She has only been in the role for a year. I don't think anyone anticipated Shellrock holding out this long. That might be the reason that Paul didn't do it earlier.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:48 pm
Posts: 1219
Location: Ph 14a
daycaremom wrote:
Colin is the one that said the Town sold Shellrock the land without all of the contracts in place. When they went back to get them signed Shellrock disputed the fee's.


so you are saying that the TOWN owned the golf course and then sold it to Shellrock... i didn't think this was the case. I will leave this to Colin to clarify, since our bickering is really not getting us anywere :oops:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:59 am
Posts: 1319
Location: H.V. Phase One
I didn't know we were bickering. I thought we were having a discussion.
Regardless of our conversations, it is what it is. I don't really care at this point how we got here, I just want this resolved.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:48 pm
Posts: 1219
Location: Ph 14a
that wasn't a slag at you... more at me for not letting the minor details go. i agree... we need to look foreward and work towards an accomdation plan that is best for all the kids.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:32 pm 
I know in the Peel board, on average it costs about $5-7 million to build a school that houses approx. 500-600 kids or so. They tend to have 'cookie cutter' designs as I assume that helps keep costs down (architect fees, etc). Now catholic school costs...I can only imagine. :D


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 412 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 28  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.012s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]