Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Please keep in mind that the Murch community has been working very hard to get this renovation underway for at least five years. It is not as if these are new ideas. If getting NPS or historic preservation to allow more flexibility were viable options that would not have delayed the renovation for several more years, they would have been pursued more. The current building simply could not sustain the wait.
But, this all new to the Lafayette community. The only info we have is that it's a possibility and that we were asked to weigh in on it. Kinda hard to do without any pertinent facts.
The swing space options now on the table are even newer to the Murch community than to Lafayette. Murch has yet to be briefed on them, but the Lafayette community has been briefed at two separate meetings this week. So we don't know how to weigh in on it either. At least you have had a chance to weigh in. And at least you know where your kids will go to school next year. We don't.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Please keep in mind that the Murch community has been working very hard to get this renovation underway for at least five years. It is not as if these are new ideas. If getting NPS or historic preservation to allow more flexibility were viable options that would not have delayed the renovation for several more years, they would have been pursued more. The current building simply could not sustain the wait.
But, this all new to the Lafayette community. The only info we have is that it's a possibility and that we were asked to weigh in on it. Kinda hard to do without any pertinent facts.
Anonymous wrote:Wilson, Janney and Hearst were also under historic designation. The fact that Murch is considered historic doesn't prolong the construction timeframe.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:One of the CCDC listserve posters (a Murch parent) recently suggested this:
"I agree with the suggestion that Murch put trailers on the large, unused grassy space lying between Nebraska and Reno, right next to Murch. This solution is so obvious, staring all of us in the face. I understand that it's probably National Park Service land, Well, make a deal with NPS to make up for the temporary use of the land. It's just sitting there doing nothing in the meantime. I never even see people picnicking or throwing a frisbee there when the weather is fine. It's literally a no-man's land between Murch and Deal. Let's use it for Murch during the renovation! "
What is the possibility of getting NPS to engage at all? Anyone know?
This assumes that it's easy and not extremely costly to do sewer, water and utility hook ups at such a site[/quote
Guys. The is land held in federal trust that is to be protected for the benefit of the public. The entire public. Think.
The "nobody is using it in a manner that impresses me, so it should be MINE" argument is not compelling.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As a taxpayer, I don't think they should spend dime on renovating Murch until they move the boundary to shift some kids to Hearst. It could drastically impact the design and cost, which would make finding swing space much easier. If Murch parents don't offer to put this on the table, then they need to just accept the wait.
Money is already approved. Reno is happening. This discussion is just about swing space. But thanks for sharing your well-informed opinion!
Anonymous wrote:When is the renovation supposed to begin? This sounds like it may need to be delayed to figure out all of these details.
Anonymous wrote:When is the renovation supposed to begin? This sounds like it may need to be delayed to figure out all of these details.
Anonymous wrote:As a taxpayer, I don't think they should spend dime on renovating Murch until they move the boundary to shift some kids to Hearst. It could drastically impact the design and cost, which would make finding swing space much easier. If Murch parents don't offer to put this on the table, then they need to just accept the wait.