Sad for Hudson... that is really sad, that is all I can say.

It's unfortunate that the Council refused to follow the will of the voters in the community.

Way to go City Council! Now we can wait in the hopes that, in another 20 years, the property can be sold to a commercial business and the City can collect tax revenues! We know how hard the City is strapped for cash, what with all of the flower baskets hanging around town the taxpayers pay for...and, Good Lord, what will happen if we stop watering the lawns at Lakefront Park when it's raining outside?
Way to use your heads, Council. Thanks for nothing!

This makes no sense at all for it to be denied. The citizens in the city of Hudson approved to buy the land for the use of a new secondary school site ... I'm very VERY interested in the councils decisions as to why this has been denied rezoning. I didn't vote for the allocation of bonds to purchase of the dog track personally; I was against it. But as a deincracy runs the PEOPLE voted for this to happen!! What could have made the council deny this process? It's beyond frustrating that 8 million dollars is being delayed for our city and possible wasted by this decision. I'm ashamed.

*democracy

Here's the solution - replace the board members. Only question is, who will champion the effort?

I look forward to the watching the video of the council claiming they know best for the city residents. Who the heck are we to pass a referendum that requires them to change the well thought out planning in the city of Hudson. I also look forward to watching as these council people try to get reelected.

Wow. Just wow. I really wanted my kids to get to graduate in the new High School. What a shame this didn't work out. Here's hoping for better solutions and positive changes in Hudson's near future.

Jerry,
I'm hoping you mean council members and not school board members.

I DEFINITELY mean the council members! The loss of a mere $23,000 a year and Denny Darnold's ridiculous projections for a fantasy tax base just don't add up. What kind of tax breaks did the city give Uline to build that goliath building going up in the industrial park? Loss of revenue, my arse...something smells rotten here!

Big Guy - it was live on TV. Excellent decision by the council - kudos to the fabulous five!

Looks like Vanslow and Morrisette will be the first up to the plate. Bernard, Teawinkle and Yacoub were just reelected this past April (prior to ignoring the people that elected them). Wanted: Pro School, Conservative for City Council in the 1st and 6th Districts.

Phil, really? Enlighten me as to why their decision was "fabulous" and worthy of kudos. Please, oh, please, enlighten me.

Our kids, that's what's important!! Not money. If decisions are being merely on lost taxe revenue it's a very big mistake. Hopefully the teachers of Hudson are working hard to help our young people become better problem solvers because at this rate, their going to be running for city council by the time everyone wakes up and works together for a solution.

Five $300K new homes for people entering the district would make up for the "lost tax revenue". I hope 20 families move into the New Richmond district. This the face of the Tea Party.

1)Ignore the voters
2)make Denny Darnold a 'god'
3) be so embarrassed to get in line and vote no...so embarrassed that they are ashamed to look up to the very voters that will vote them all out.

I would say this is a silent victory for many teachers - they could not publicly voice their opposition to this particular plan.

If the administration would include them and the public in their strategic plan, a solution for the children and the community shall follow.

GD, I consider myself a fiscal conservative but still voted for the SCM referendum and support the rezoning. Not sure I would attribute this entirely to the tea party.

To all of you crying in your beer out here - if this is such a critical need for your children, why don't you raise the money yourselves and go build a school someplace? Why do you expect everyone else to bear the burden of your fantasy? Just go raise your own dollars and get what you want done.

It should be a collective effort. Stop pointing fingers at the district and school board when the hands of the city and the council are no cleaner.

Phil, If you know something that the rest of the public doesn't, why not share it and make us all more informed? "Space solutions", "teacher's voices" not being heard? Don't just throw out tidbits, give your opposition some substance!

Great work city council. If this would have passed there would have to be another referendum to build a new school with a price of 70-90 million dollars and it would not have passed leaving the school district with another parcel of land without anything on it.

Hudson has an entire commercial section off exit 4. Half vacant. All right next to I94. This re-zoning is a distractor.

We have extensive commercial areas already developed and vacant. This city is such a joke. 1/5th of downtown is vacant. We have commercial land free for sale everywhere. Nobody is buying!

Morissette did not have the jewels to look up. He is so smug and should be ashamed.

According to the logic of Ms. Bernard, the city of hudson voters who passed the referendum question last spring by a 58% to 42% majority had no intention of having their financing approval to purchase of the dog track property by the school district actually used by the school district for a school. She thinks we only intended to approve financing for no purpose at all. We were all too stupid to realize that the money would be used to build a school or that the purchase would cause a temporary decrease in tax revenue. But now the city council can save us from causing a tax increase. Hard to argue sense with that extreme tea party logic.

Come on, people. Personal attacks are not allowed in this forum. Passionate debate is good; personal attacks are not.

Vested, really?! I don't even know what to say. I pay taxes to this city just like every other home owner. I expect my city to have a school district that stands out from others and it is our duty as tax payers to see to it that education is an important part of our budget.

This is about our growing city. A new school is in our future, no matter how hard you fight it. I hardly think Hudson is hurting for tax dollars. New commercial is going up every year, revenue will continue to come in. But we are running out if space and technology and advancements in building structures are catching up with us. There is no interest in SCM from commercial real estate investors. So make it a school.

Michael, I hope you don't confuse criticism of a public official as a personal attack. Because there is going to be alot of criticism.

OK MIcheal.. Vested, do you truly believe that people with children in Hudson should pony up and build schools? Do you think that I should be responsible for "bearing the burden" of having to pay for the roads that YOU use, the Paramedics that may respond to YOUR call for help? It is our everyone's responsibility to pay taxes to ensure a better place for everyone, including the children of the community.

To Hudsondad, the property at exit 4 is not in the city of Hudson. They have nothing to say about that property. Let's think about property in the Hudson City limits like the city council is doing.

Ok Roy. Lets build a school and close the library. And by the way Roy. You were the co chair of the 2004 task force which reccomended a 10-12 high school on the UU sight and rejected the dog track as an option as you a Brian Bell stated it wasn't for sale. Don't deny it, I have it on tape. You spent collectively over 1000 hours and came up with one reccomendation and that was to build a 10-12 school. I believe Dick Munich joined you on that task force. Also kaisersatt ad tjornehoy approved the UU plan.

You are right Lil Guy...maybe at the next school board meeting we could have a viewing of that tape for Sjoberg to repudiate. Should be interesting!

Gramps and vested open your eyes. The issue spans the city, the county, the farmer south of the dog track. The family that lives 50 feet outside the city limits. It spans the folks who will come to high school football games at a new field that is at a new school. It spans the commercial businesses between I94 and the blighted property that sits useless tonight. It benefits, increases sales, gives this community one place for events. I'll bet that Menards, home depot, mcDonalds etc would have all benefitted. Ne'er mentioned. How short sided a view. Just like this great country. It's time for new leadership. We keep ignoring the voie of the people.

Have you been to Woodbury? We are living in the 40's. Have you seen te sports complex?

I voted in favor of the referendum for building a secondary school at SCM. It made sense to me at first blush, but I became increasingly disenchanted with the idea the more I listened to the arguments and watched the decision-making process unfold. I would not have looked forward to my children having to cross back and forth across 94 every day. They would be solely reliant on cars or buses to get them there when they now have the option of also biking and walking to school. The Council voted against this because of the taxes but, more importantly, because it would be a major deviation from their comprehensive land use plan. The existing secondary schools are north of the freeway and the plan calls for them to stay that way since that’s where the majority of the population will most likely continue to live. A lot of thought goes into the development of those plans and for the School Board to have assumed that Hudson’s could be amended to suit their needs was a huge mistake. I think the Council made the right decision, and it’s time for the School Administrator, if she has it in her, to eat a little humble pie. No one is arguing that we don’t need new schools. The process that was used to promote this single-source solution, however, left a lot to be desired.

Lil Guy and Phil,
When you finish your monkey pile on Roy and other previous officials, how about coming back to reality instead of dwelling on 2004? Do you think the dog track would have sold for 8M in 2004 (if it had been for sale)? Much has changed since 2004. Have you made any mistakes since 2004? God knows the Hudson City Council hasn't.. :-)

Move to Woodbury then. This city has a history of privately fundraising for thing. Ymca hockey arena, field of dreams. We can get a sport complex in and not at the cost of the taxpayer. See the school didn't build the sport complex I. Woodbury.

As 58% supposedly approved the SCM purchase resolution knowing there would be yet another referendum of some undisclosed amount needed to actually build the HS, I propose they all step forward and accept a surcharge on their tax bill to fund it. Let's see how much support there really is. Come forward please. We will tell you how much your portion is at a later date.

All in favor - I

Again, I'm going to ask that you all cease your personal attacks on each other.

Vested, The issue isn't that we need to be better than everyone else. It's that our schools are extremely overcrowded and we NEED a new school to handle the population. Don't sit there and say that I use the roads as well, but you shouldn't pay for my particular type of vehicle. We ALL use the school system, whether you have a child in the district or not. Someday, it'll be MY children taking care of you in the nursing home!

Ok how about I say it like this. All this talk about the will of the voters. Well the voters voted for harsdorf and walker. Then when those against didn't like what they heard they tried to recall. Hypocritical if you ask me.

Wow, talk about misplaced anger. I watched the council meeting tonight, and the city council did exactly what they should have done -- support the financial health of the city and protect us - the city taxpayers. Don't be mad at them for doing their jobs. If you are looking for someone to blame, try looking at the school superintendent and school board members who just wasted a year on a project they should have known could not move forward. Their time and effort could have been spent, instead, on finding an actual workable solution to the space problems. Board member Kaisersatt said it best when he admitted "We failed you." Yes, Mr. Kaisersatt, you have failed. And this dog-track-to-school debacle was just one more in a long line of failures of the school board, going back to 2003, to solve the secondary space issues.

KSTP's piece has aired. Here it is: http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2768500.shtml?cat=1

I just added a statement from the superintendent. I'll be adding stuff to this post deep into the night. It'll all be ready for the morning newsletter, which you can subscribe to by entering your email address at http://hudson-wi.patch.com/newsletters.

Now the Pioneer Press has a story up:
http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_21567457/hudson-city-council-rejects-rezoning-dog-track-new

Others put up the story in time, but Hudson Patch has "the scoop"! Nice injection of calls for moderation, too, as the community's online "pulse" is gathered. Kudos to you, Michael!

The city council made the correct decision last night about a rezoning issue, plain and simple. Life is tough for the school board when they step outside of their choreographed meetings that include nothing but gratuitous backslapping and leading questions. They will go back and find a solution that doesn't involve rezoning 1/3 of the available commercial property left in Hudson. It was a good night for common sense.

Who needs a Dane County judge when the Hudson City Council pretty much does the same thing here as the liberal judges do there. How ironic.

The common council made the right decision. You can't come in during the 11th hour and try and hatch a plan. They had an entire year and multiple meetings to compromise. the superintendent is the one to blame. There's plenty of evidence out there that UU USA suitable sight. Ask the school district fr a records release of the December 2002 SDS report regarding UU. That referendum failed 3:1 after the land referendum passed 2:1. It was a 25,000,000 dollar referendum. If that would have passed there would be a school on UU. If that land is so useless why wouldn't they have sold it during the real estate boom. Why hold on to it and take away tax dollars from the town of Hudson. I will tell you why cause it is a good piece of land. The experts that said so are SDS and Zappa brothers who did the test dig. They even had the cities cooperation to get water and sewage out there. Something the city never does. I believe that was the city compromising and the.school district turning up.their noses cause they thought they could strong arm the council.

@big Guy..hardly the same thing. Not even close

By the way you can ask for a release of records of a December 2002 school board meeting when SDS architects stated that the land was buildable and ready to go. However the school district won't cooperate. You will have to then call SDS Architect out of eau Claire. They will help.

Was at the meeting last night and have read all the above comments. The city got this right. I'll be curious to see how some of the numbers change when the other sites are now back in consideration for this project. I have a question........Does the current Government Center on Carmichael have to be where it is now or could that site be better used?

How can people be "for" this plan, when the school board hasn't even put out a plan for which school (MS, JHS, SHS) would go at that location?

Now they can look at better sites, like the southwest corner of hwy. 12 and U/A (south of the Nor-Lake plant). There is plenty of land there for a school and athletic fields, plus future use. The roads there are much better set up for the traffic that would be generated. If the Boosters organization could afford this property, the school dist. can certainly afford it.

The Star-Observer has now published their piece about this: http://www.hudsonstarobserver.com/event/article/id/48572/

I have no doubt the Hudson School District will move forward and find a solution to their secondary spaces needs, whether it means buying, building, or going to year round school, within the next 10 years. As a city resident, I have my doubts whether the city will ever see commercial development of SCM within the next 10 years. Time will tell!

Hudson: Open for business; closed for education.

What a hoot... now you all in the Hudson District can pay 15 times more for the land for a new school and 20 times more for the union labor to build it.

Cynthia...pllease explain the 15 x's more for land? Do you have numbers?

Cynthia.......a statement like that is why we need real decision makers (elected) making the decisions because if we were to make decisions based on your numbers and way of thinking nothing could or would get done and if they did act too quickly or speak/vote without thought like you just did Hudson would be looking for a bailout.

I am disappointed with this decsion. I grew up in North Hudson, graduated from HHS, work in Hudson, try very hard to spend most of my $$$ in this community instead of across the border, have paid property taxes since buying my first home in Hudson 21 years ago. This district built a new elementary school because of overcrowding. It helped for what - 3 years? I am a parent where one child was in a 5th grade class of 29 students last year and this year my other child in a 4th grade class of 27 students so that the overcrowded Middle school can use classrooms in Hudson Prairie Elementary. Common sense tells me that if you want to bring in more businesses and have this community continue to grow, then at all levels the schools better be here now for both the current and future residents of this community. The school should fit in a place where there can be future growth, not fit it in somewhere where expansion is limited and in 5 to 10 years we are back here again talking about how overcrowded the buildings are. 2 of the proposed sites are closer to our home and would definitely be more convenient for our family but I supported the SCM property. I truly think it is the best economical solution for the school district and all the taxpayers in the district with the added benefit of room to grow and expand with the community.

Vote No- where is the report that their is no new elementary growth in four years?

Precisely, Vote No Hudson. Taking the math a step further you can average out those 6 grades of K-5 to get 417 students per grade. Then look forward following them (of those now in K-5) into high school and a 10-12 would have 1,251 students or a 9-12 would have 1,668 students. Your suggestion of modest expansions may work and would be a wise investment that could be accomplished quickly.

Uh oh, here comes the "bubble" argument again. There were those who floated out the bubble argument in 2003 when they wanted the 8/9 school building refrendum to fail. At that time, class sizes were about 250 (K-5 of 1500). Now they are over 400, and K-5 is at 2,500. That was no bubble. Those class sizes are here to stay. Now the bubbleheads bring out their sorry bubble argument ten years later, but it's a ruse. Growth will continue in Hudson for decades to come. Classes will continue to grow over time, even if there are level periods now and then. Don't get swayed by the bubbleheads.

The City handled this issue exactly right: not one Plan Commission or City Council member attempted to hide in closed session. Each person openly explained the reasoning behind his or her decision. By contrast, the school district has conducted their discussions in closed session, never explaining why they now deviate from their comprehensive plan to limit a new building to 2,300 students. Suddenly, and without a board vote, they will now only consider a building for 2,500 students or more. At least with our City, we know where each person stands and they are having discussions in open session, adhere to a comprehensive plan, and give thoughtful explanations for their reasoning. They serve us well.

Thanks, Vote No, for correcting me on those numbers. I do not mind admitting a mistake on my part. I do wish the school district would be willing to do the same.

Vote No, we were told by "Vote No" in 2003 that growth in Hudson had stopped then. But, 10 years later, we see that, of course, it didn't. Nothing will stop Hudson from continuing to grow for the foreseeable future of 10, 20, 30 years and beyond. Anyone who says otherwise is either not being honest or believes that he can wish a small town, on the edge of a metropolitan area, to stay small forever.

The City Council did what it had to do last night by voting to protect the viability of the City's tax base and the City taxpayers. It took a lot of courage and insight for Lori Bernard, Randy Morissette, Mary Yacoub, and Rich Vanselow to stand up and voice their opinions/votes to a room full of people wishing for a different outcome. Don't worry about the posts calling for people to run against you in future elections. The residents in your districts will be thankful that you had their backs if you choose to run for re-election.

Gangnam Style....

Paine, CC1, Big Guy, Lil Guy, Vote No, P McGraw, Vested, etc...it's time that we have a community beer. The School District was dividing this community with it's pursuit of the SCM property and further pursuit would practically guarantee non-passage of a referendum. If the School District won't go down the path of remodeling the existing buildings, then let's all jump on the bandwagon of building a secondary school on the UU property per Roy Sjoberg's Task Force. I find Roy's post disturbing because I watched the video of his presentation touting the UU property as viable and the best site for a 10-12 high school. The same rhetoric of SCM being the best site for a school now was the same rhetoric used for UU being the best site then. I have the tape to prove it. Roy states that the school district didn't do it's due diligence back then. Seriously Roy? Two architectural firms, Zappa Bros, Community Task Force (co-chaired by you) and no due diligence? If no due diligence occured as to the viability of the UU property is true, then either we were lied to by the school board and the experts then, or we are being misled now. Let's put petty differences and forgotten recommendations aside and build the school that the community wanted on the property we own. The only difference between 2004 and now is that sewer/water can be brought to the UU property. Let's make it happen. A referendum can be done as early as next spring if the School District refocuses. Let's do it.

So, Paul R., are you suggesting that the Carmichael/Vine location and modifications to existing facilities are also off the table and that we should focus solely on the UU site?

Is anyone out here interested in working towards a workable solution to all of this or do we just need to build a giant mosh pit instead of a school and duke this thing out? Winner take nothing.

Why is this so hard for everyone to understand. The City Council did not attempt to purchase this property! The City Council did not go to referendum on this property!! The SCHOOL DISTRICT did. They are another body of elected officials that take 46 cents of every dollar you pay in taxes within the City of Hudson. The City only gets 24 cents of every dollar. They have a 50 million dollar budget with a 10+ million dollar slush fund. Yes a slush fund. The City has a 7 million dollar budget. The City did not waste anyone's money they are trying to protect it. The significance of the build out of the dog track has been marginalized but think of it like this...if a commercial property gets the opportunity to build there the school district could receive 500,000 dollars a year in tax revenue. That's a lot of teachers that can be hired. The School District should have gone to the City first and made the request and the seller should have taken the risk of rezoning. However it was the seller that asked the city not to rezone in case the referendum failed.

Elizabeth, can we see the research (low self-esteem, low sense of community, higher suicide rates, higher violence rates are more strongly correlated w/schools of 2,500 or more) you speak of?

Can you please post it here? I very much would like to see it.

Also it possible to get copies of the tapes everyone mentions they either have or have access to uploaded to the site so we can all view them and draw our own conclusions from them?

I understood the school district to want to build to accommodate between 2000 to 2500 students or be expandable to 2500. So Elizabeth is being a little picky about a potential 200 more kids. While I won't have a beer with Paul, It is good to know Elizabeth is in support of a HS for 2300 kids.

I don't want to be close minded and I am not saying it would or would not change my mind but I would certainly take the information in and consider it all as I formulate an opinion. I think the more information the better, for everyone. If it's too much work to upload then so be it, but it makes it difficult to give credibility to statements referring to it when very few have seen it.

I enjoy reading how we are going to build a big new school for 2300 or 2500 students. Who in their right mind thinks that we are going to add that many students to our school district? What on earth would we do with the schools that we currently have? Not even Mary Bowen-Eggebraaten could hire enough administrators to fill all of that empty space. Of course she would give it her best shot! After selling the current adminstrative offices at a substantial loss......

@ Paine Reliever, would you care to do the math for us and tell us how much capacity we would be building for if we actually did construct a 2500 student high school? How many students would that be per grade? Wanna bet that we will never get there? Maybe you can pool your money with the Big Guy so that the financial impact on each of you is diminished somewhat.....

And watch closely as the school board will call a special meeting and go into closed session immediately to discuss their options. Where is the open session and citizen input? Where is the ability to see what each board member is thinking and how they are arriving at their conclusions? What you witnessed last night at the city council meeting is something that the school board would NEVER do and that is to actually have a debate over a serious subject in the open

I cannot speak for others, but Hudson was selected by our family because of the small town feel and assets for raising children when compared to the suburbs of the eastern metro. Hudson offered safety and security, business opportunities, close communities/neighborhoods, a variety of housing types, good schools, and affordability. We were fortunate to find Hudson. For those who suggest we become like Woodbury or Blaine, it is insulting.

Before everyone jumps on the bandwagon to build a new 2,000 to 2,500 student building of any sort, consider doing some research first. Check and see what the median size is of a high school in Wisconsin and then ask yourself if you really want a HS with 2,000 or more students in it. I haven't put the numbers together yet, but the median HS is quite a bit smaller than what ours is now - and this administration wants to go BIGGER?? Think outside this narrow vision you have. I see a bunch of other options to try OR ones that may happen that is outside the control of this school board. As I said before - look at annexing the Town of Troy residents. Another possibility is to build a second smaller high school somewhere between here and Houlton. Also consider the possibility of this school district being split in two. There are lots of things that could happen. One thing is for sure though - this district is getting way too big.

Paul B., expanding the current buildings would be my first choice. If that really can't work and the only solution is to build a new school, then the Carmichael/Vine location (County Govt property) would actually be my personal preference. It is already zoned PUB, has sewer/water on location, and is centrally located as Vested and others have pointed out. However, I keep touting the UU property because we (the taxpayers) have already invested over $2 million into it and just a few short years ago, a majority of the community seemed to be behind the Task Force recommendation to build a smaller 10-12 HS there (1,400-1,800 students). The Task Force was concerned about the same points Elizabeth McCormick is making. Despite what we are told, a piece of property doesn't go from being approved to build on by the school district, 2 architectural firms and other experts one year, to not sufficient for a secondary school the next year. If time truly is of the essence, then the district can go to referendum the fastest (next spring) with the UU property.

It’s clear that a lot of you have been doing your homework and have a keen interest in solving this problem. Would it be worth considering that a small group of you get together in order to collect your thoughts and draft some recommendations that suggest a way ahead? This would simply be an alternate viewpoint of a few pages max. You could present it to the School Board, convene a public meeting to discuss it, publish it in the HSO, etc. It would obviously require some of you to come clean as to who you really are and you would have to check your bitterness at the door. I don’t know how receptive the Board would be but at least you would get your thoughts out there and get people thinking about how to start to patch (no pun intended) this mess up. It may fizzle due to lack of consensus, but then again maybe not. Merely a suggestion from someone who's late to the party.

Great point, Vested...I was just reading a 2012 School Construction Report with nationwide data by region: http://www.peterli.com/spm/pdfs/SchoolConstructionReport2012.pdf

A couple of highlights:
- Smaller high schools (multiple if needed) are now considered more cost effective than large ones
- The top quartile of high schools constructed or remodeled had a median of 1600 students (page 10); what the school district is recommending would put us at the high end of the top quartile
- The recent trend brings a balance towards renovation and additions funding to existing facilities / new construction funding

Paul B that is a great idea. However, the school district would never let that happen. To discuss any of this in open session would be out of their comfort zone.

In the city where our children went through school, we had two high schools (yes, even crosstown rivals :) with 10, 11, and 12 grades--about 450-475 per class. We had two "middle schools" with 7, 8, 9 grade about the same size. Elementary schools were spaced well so most students lived less than a mile on either side and could easily walk or bike. The education was superb. It can be done. This Board and this Administration seem to lack good long term planning.

Paul, the school board met in closed session for approximately one year discussing the dog track and hatched their plan without any public input. Then they wasted another year running a disingenuous referendum without providing all the necessary information and trying to ram a rezoning down the city council's throats. The problem is not with those citizens that disagree with the school board. The problem is with a school board that does not want to listen to different viewpoints. Until the school board stops meeting in closed session and starts discussing options in open session, then they will continue to have a commited opposition. I believe your idea of a Vermont style town hall meeting outside the venue of the school board setting would be a wonderful idea.

The golf course is in the center of the city and north of I94. The site is over 140 acres with excellent building sites, and beautiful grounds for walking/bike paths. It would have excellent access from multiple locations and the city could address the nightmare on Carmichael. The clubhouse would make an excellent district HQ, with room for community functions. The property is on the market.

Wow--its sad that this is what this thing has come to.
Just because this SCM thing did not work out does not mean there are no other options. I know that education is important to all of us. We do care about it, and the kids. BUT this option was not not right. Lets just stop attacking, and get back to the drawing board. The district has 2 other pieces of property. They can make it work.
And how could any of us feel good about the way this has gone? The hostility-the attacking-. We are all members of the same community, we are friends and neighbors all living together doing what we think is right. How could something so controversial, that has torn our community apart be right for any of us on either side of the opinion?? Lets all call a time out, and head to the bench to get it together, get some new ideas and try this again. I know in "compromise" someone is going to have to "give". I get that. This got so out of control in our community "compromise" was not going to work. We will work this out, and what becomes of it will be better than any of us thought. If it was meant to be, It would have been a whole lot easier. Lets all agree to disagree, lick our wounds, take a rest, and come out with cooler tempers and level heads. Please. Do it for your child, your friend, your neighbor.

Let's break this down. Just because someone is on the board of education means nothing to me. In this case only one member of the board lives in the City limits. This decision was based on many things and yes one being the City of Hudson's tax base and budget. Although argumentative bu some on here that is the City Council's job, to look out for the tax payer while providing proper service.
The City Council does care about our schools. There are 3 council members with kids in the school. That's Morrisette, Yacoub, and Tewinkle. The Mayor's dad was a superintendent of public schools and his mom was a teacher. Vanselow's wifes a teacher, Bernard's a Phd. and was a University Professor. Hoggatt doesn't have kids int he schools but he is the brother in law of Dave Robson.

Video of the meeting is now available at http://patch.com/A-xS1y.

The golf course makes too much sense. Things in Hudson have to be complicated, and that would have to be approved by the MOP.

So, is anyone up for a beer or two at the Willow River Inn tonight to kick some constructive ideas around? Or should we just stick to the ye ole Blogosphere?

I voted no regarding the dog track, not because I don't believe we need a new high school (I believe we need one), but because I don't think the school board did due diligence in providing the public the big picture of what this will really cost tax payers once this is built. Also, if you look at the class sizes per grade posted in the HSO in the spring our average class size k-12 has been steady for somewhere between 5-10 years. Any blips in the radar (plus or minus) concerning class size over the last 5 years should be attributed to the economy and not considered a trend at this point. We are getting by right now and I do not believe this is the right time to make this decision. Also, being able to reuse that building is unrealistic, considering how long it has been sitting unused. Mark my words it will need to be demolished. On a final note, lets sell the two unusable properties and then decide what to do next. I would never buy a new property without selling my current one first (unless I had cash in hand of course).

Dolly Qualls

What time, Paul? Sounds like a super plan.

Hi Dolly. How does 7:30 sound?

Two comments that hit home:

1) Sam at 7:19 this morning re: smaller schools. Sam, I fully concur with that; the town that I grew up in had two high Schools of approx. 1300 students each; there were many middle and grade schools throughout the district that most could walk or ride bikes to. With all data available, smaller schools certainly seem to be a better way to educate our children; people have said this issue is about the children, and I certainly agree. A large school in Hudson would not be the best option for our children; 'Supersize Me' is not forward thinking for a school.

2) Vested Interest at 8:47 am re: trust. I agree as it applies to the following: after I spoke at the Aug. 12 board meeting, I was confounded to see a friend and neighbor at the meeting, a police officer, who would have had instructions from the board to eject me if the board did not like what I was saying. This speech constraint, under the guise of keeping the meeting on topic, and the quote earlier in the HSO of "we allow the public to speak as a courtesy", is part of the more serious concern that you bring up: trust. Greater transparency is needed, both as a matter of good practice, and for the restoration of trust. If there is conflict of interest, that needs to be addressed and judged by parties with no vested interest in the outcome.

I know that these two instances are grains of sand on the bigger beach of this issue, but important nonetheless.

90% of golf course zoned residential - 10% commercial

Enough talk about SCM and who said or did what. That is over and done with. The conversation should now be POSITIVE and about reasonable suggestions of what to do next. And oh, by the way, Phil McGraw you are wrong - John Hoggatt is NOT Dave Robson's brother-in-law. Please check your facts before posting false and misleading information.

@ Voice of Reason, Is SCM over and done with? That's not the vibes I'm getting from the school district. And if they call a special meeting and go into closed session you can rest assured that nothing good will come out of that for the taxpayers. Also, how do you know about the Robson/Hoggatt connection? Why should we trust your information anymore than Lil Guys?

As a member of the 2004 Facilities Task Force we ended up with a generous double digit list of possible alternatives to our space needs that were whittled down to a couple most pressing needs. Yes, there are options of which the SCM was not one at the time. It was going to be workable as the school district had the UU property studied with plans for a 8/9 facility with expansion for a 10-12 facility. There was extensive research on the property which was found to be suitable for those buildings. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If a road could be made through the lime rock "mountain" on Hanley surely adjusting the slopes and hills on the UU property would be a piece of cake. The current government center is built on sloping property which is working very nicely. Good architects know how to work with the given land. A big concern that has not been addressed yet is what is going to be done with an empty building if a new high school is built. If the middle school moves into the current high school think seriously of the amenities which are already in place. Do middle kids need a very well designed tech ed/voc ed area or a state of the art auditorium? What happens to the Olympic sized swimming pool at middle? Will those amenities sit empty or will there be more busing issues to transport kids to use these? Others have addressed the sports complex for which needs are being adequately addressed now. There is much open space behind the Rock School.

The football field/track had extensive upgrades several years ago and is still a fine facility. Current commercial real estate people negotiated with local homeowners without eminent domain to establish the area which now houses Buffalo Wild Wings, Cold Stone Creamery, etc. One of the 2004 alternatives was to expand into space to the west of the old junior high.
If you are not familiar with the changing techniques to the concept of learning established by the Khan Academy study it soon. With current technology available, learning is already very different world wide and will continue which can eliminate much brick and mortar. Many educational institutions use online services for learning. Locally we have basically none available. These same technologies can be used to educate students in several locations at the same time from their iPads, Smart phones or laptops. Someone had suggested an auditorium to provide seating for all proposed 2500 students at once, but why when other media services are already available. In my educator experience many students chose to not attend all school programs in the gym, especially if they occurred during their time to finish a lesson, cram for an exam or some personal issue which all needed to be respected.
At the HSD annual meeting overwhelming accolades were given to the outstanding achievements of local students. It is obvious it isn't bricks and mortar doing it.

So, is anyone game for meeting tonight at the Willow River Inn at 7:30?

Sure.

@Vote No Hudson, Lil Guy, Phil McGraw and others. You have chosen to blog about me on this website along with other websites, but you are blogging things that are not factual. Below are the many of the items that have been incorrectly blogged about me. To set the record straight:
• I am not related to John Hoggatt
• I am not making a commission on St Croix Meadows
• I am not negotiating to buy or interested in buying St Croix Meadows
• I am not negotiating to buy or interested in buying the UU property
I feel that debating the issues are a great right that we all have and should fight to protect. I also feel that the parties that have been making these false statements on various sites should remove their inaccurate posts if they wish to be considered honorable. There are many other claims about me that are false. It’s a measure of your lack for truefullness, that you are not willing to sign your name to your postings and instead try to hide behind posting anonymously.

David - thank you for setting us straight on those particular issues. Now since you have joined the conversation, would you like to truthfully discuss the other points that earlier in this blog were in question?

1) School board member Robson would not recuse herself even though they own almost all of the commercial property in Ban Tara (remember she sheepishly asserted that "Greystone" did not own the property, rather than admitting it is under various LLCs of the Robson's;
2) SB member Robson threatened to sue the newest board member to keep her mouth closed about potential real estate transactions;
3) Stantec consulting would not reveal the local commercial realtors they interviewed for information on the dog track.

This is your opportunity to share.

@Vested Interest, Phil McGraw - If you wish to have dialogue on these issues, you will need to be logged in under your real name.

@ David - a couple of more clarifications please:
4) Had the dog track been re-zoned public use, thereby removing 1/3 of the available commercial, isn't it safe to say all of your commercial property would likely increase in value (less supply increases demand), not to mention the increased traffic to the Ban Tara development?
5) How would you assume that the DOT land you recently purchased would eventually go commercial, when you would still need to approach council for re-zoning that?
6) Why would you represent the seller (Croixland Properties) when preparing the commercial land report for the planning commission? That certainly appears to be a conflict as well.

Thanks, Dave, but we would prefer not to receive cease and desist letters. If you have nothing to hide, you would answer the questions.

@ Vested Interest – I again refuse to engage in dialogue with anyone one who is not using their real name as history has proved that anonymous bloggers feel safe in making claims that are not fact based.

You mean Phil McGraw is not a real name? Then who.was it I had coffee with the other day? Oh boy! !

It’s probably too much to ask for you people to knock off any and all language directed towards who’s in collusion with whom on this thing. At best it’s speculative, and the truth tends to eventually out itself in matters like this anyway. This banter is a distraction that’s only going to drive those people who really want to solve this school problem away. Who says this isn’t a small town?

@David.....ok I will ask then. David do you have answers to the above questions?

Moving forward, the community is anxiously awaiting the superintendent to make a statement on where we go from here. A suggestion would be for her to clarify that the SCM purchase agreement has been (or is being) cancelled due to the re-zoning contingency that was not met, and welcoming public input at the upcoming October school board meeting. This would be a good faith step in bringing the community back together and engaging the public into other options to address the space issues. This would truly put the focus back on the children.

Thanks for asking, Phil (I like your moving forward suggestion by the way). I was disappointed by the turn-out, but I was kind of expecting that. We kicked around some ideas and decided to try and hold another meeting in the hopes of bringing in more people. We're looking at this coming Monday or Tuesday evening at Paddy Ryan's this time. Any takers or other suggestions for getting together?

@ Jackie – I do have answers to the questions, but from my position the anonymous on this blog try to bully people by hiding behind their anonymous names in interest of discrediting people to get their way. If they spoke the truth, they would sign their real name. What is your true identity?

Elizabeth - Could you please gimme a call when you have a minute? 715 222-9023
Thanks

John Hoggatt was on MPR this morning talking about the issue, and we have the audio at http://patch.com/A-xWbZ.

I just updated this post with a letter from Hudson Mayor Alan Burchill.

Water under the bridge?

I have had a lingering and persistent thought regarding a series of comments that centered around the commercial marketability of SCM. At one or more of the recent meetings, it was implied that it was not commercially viable, as it had been vacant and for sale for many years. At the time, I thought that I had read something contrary to that, but I could not place where, when, etc.

I searched the archives of the Pioneer Press and HSO, but could find nothing in reference to this issue. I assumed I had read it there, as those are the two papers I subscribe to. So, I filed it under 'memory lapse' and let it go....

…until this morning. By random chance and Google, I found the article I was looking for in the HSO, but could not find in their archives:

http://www.hudsonstarobserver.com/event/article/id/42068/

I suppose one can interpret the article with whatever slant they wish, but mine, at the time and now, is that it was saying the property is now being marketed, as of the article date March 09, 2011.

If my interpretation is correct, this property has not had the chance to be commercially marketed, and that would make many of the referendum/rezoning arguments questionable. It also validates the decisions of the Planning Board and the Common Council.

Jim, you are absolutely correct; their arguments do not hold water. Numerous questions have lingered in my mind regarding the superintendent and the school board. Examples: Why did Tom Holland unilaterally order the investigation into Sandy Gehrke without a vote from the board? Was there a connection to that investigation and Lynn Robson’s threatening cease and desist letter to Sandy Gehrke? Why did Lynn Robson not recuse herself when under the cloud of conflict? Why would they publicly chastise April Simmons when it is against policy to share employee information? Why was the material regarding the marketability of SCM false or misleading? Why did they tell the public that UU was not suitable for a school? Why has the purchase agreement for SCM not been retracted yet? Do they find themselves above the law, or do they use the loopholes of the law in their favor? Why do they spend so much taxpayer money with Waldspurger getting themselves out of their questionable actions? Why do they go into closed session superfluously?

These are pragmatic questions for our school board and the superintendent. Deceptive tactics will undermine the public’s sovereignty by giving citizens false information to use in making judgments. What crosses the line of obscene for me in these circumstances is the soliciting of “the children” for their own personal cause.

Good to see an update with a response from Mayor Burchill.