Your mistake is to trust the writer of the Dunwoody Talk blog blindly. DCSS released no official statement and the author of the DT Blog is a known pot stirrer. Read his piece and see how many hot button issues he hit and then ask yourself why he felt compelled to include them
One other comment, while he says his source is a DCSS official, I think it was actually someone else, probably a school council member where they have been talking about what it scenarios...
You are correct in that we should wait for an "official" response from DCSS - perhaps the SPLOST committee? I have no reason to believe that the information provided on Dunwoody Talk is incorrect - after many, many years dealing with DCSS, one tends to believe these types of actions from this school system.
You are presuming that there was even a plan. DT has a record of stirring the pot -- South of Womack anyone, bars on stores on N. Shallowford? Fields here, fields there, etc.So to say that DCSS has done anything wrong in this one area, is probably a bit of a stretch.DCSS has made plenty of mistakes, etc, but this may not be one of them...
Anon 12:59 PM,DunwoodySchoolDaze posted a link to the Austin site plan a couple weeks ago, but here it is:https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=4054&AID=447102&MID=30935DT puts out opinion and fact. The post on the current Austin site being tossed out (unless they buy some adjoining land) is a fact. DCSS said the site was okay and spent $$$ making these plans then decided it was too much hassle to meet the state's stipulations on the waivers. We'll see if Fran can straighten things out with the waivers and stipulations.I doubt DT would make a claim this bold based on 2nd hand chatter from a school council member. DT does stir the pot a bit, but his info on school stuff is accurate.
Rick deleted his blog post about the Austin school site....why do you think that is?
DT would definitely expect Fran to "straighten things out with the waivers and stipulations."
The new Austin ES will be built on its current site. This article from The Crier explains situation: http://www.thecrier.net/news/article_299c6f46-e2b8-11e2-a684-001a4bcf887a.html
The SPLOST contract says nothing about where the school is built."Item 9: Replacement of Austin ES, Fernbank ES, Gresham Park ES, Pleasantdale ES, Peachcrest ES, Rockbridge ES, Smoke Rise ESDesign, construction, renovation, modification, additions to and equipping of replacement elementary buildings and facilities for (1) Austin Elementary School, (2) Fernbank Elementary School, (3) Gresham Park Elementary School, (4) Pleasantdale Elementary School, (5) Peachcrest Elementary School, (6) Rockbridge Elementary School, and (7) Smoke Rise Elementary School, including the acquisition of land, therefore and the demolition of all or portions of existing structures, if necessary."The Board cannot change the SPLOST, Thurmond is right. But where does it state, except in Fran's talking points, that the new school be built at the current site? Wilkins is in charge of selecting a suitable sight and overseeing construction. It is not the Board's roll to interfere with staff, is it? Was that not a reason the old Board got in trouble? Thurmond can't make this promise.
However, if a land swap or land purchased was involved with any Governmental project, the governing body has to be involved. Staff can't just sell or buy property at will, elected officials have to make the decision/offer/etc.
The preliminary prototype design and site proposals are up on DeKalb's website:http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/splost-iv/elementary-school-prototype-design/Notice how Austin's design intrudes into the required DOE easement for power lines. It doesn't even show the impact of the gas pipeline.
I'm sorry, but politicians really need to stay out of issues like this. Next thing we know, that same politician will determine who attends this 900 capacity school. It still will be 900 capacity; right?
The meddling of politicians (especially Fran Millar) is a sure sign that there could be potential problems with the siting and attendance lines for Austin once the new school is built.
So, who is telling the truth and what is the real story? The GADOE said they approved the site plan for Austin.This comment is from the June 18th SPLOST Committee meeting minutes. Bob Sussenbach of CGLS Architects, Inc. presented the Conceptual Site Plan for each of the seven proposed sites. One site, Austin, has been determined to be unbuildable due to the presence of high power lines and an underground petroleum gas line and the GADOE rules regarding these.June 18 SPLOST Committee Meeting Minutes
The way I was reading it (not sure if this is correct) is that GADOE approved it based on DCSS doing X, Y and Z. DCSS determined that doing X, Y and Z was not feasible/economical and so are moving on to another site. I kind of had to read between the lines to get that, so this could be wrong. It seems like this is the only interpretation where both sides could be telling the truth though. To me, the whole thing is really confusing.