I find it ironic that a person who I'm sure has labelled many other fellow citizens as 'whiners and complainers' is repeatedly the one who whines and complains about progress in his own community. It seems the idea of progress has been lost for many and in fact they would prefer to see the clock of progress turned back decades at all costs, including slinging mud with no real substance.

Curt Weese just loves to hear himself talk, so much that he is willing to trade facts for lies as long as it gives him a topic to rant about. It does not matter if he is making false claims because he does not care to hear the answers to his questions. Maybe Curt will provide us with evidence that Greystone owns all this commercial property or better yet, maybe he will admit on camera at the next board meeting to Mrs. Robson that he was wrong. I am not holding my breath. Curt likes to claim he is attacked for asking the "hard questions" but his behavior has no honor in it.

I watched the meeting and from what I saw Mr. Weese didn't sling any mud at all - he just pointed out something that should be investigated. Myself, I don't buy the blanket opinion given by the district's lawyer. And if there was any disrespect displayed at the meeting, it was by board member Robson in her public comment about Mr. Weese's statement. Her stating that Mr. Weese needed to research his facts a little bit more may have her eating some serious crow. When Mr. Weese brings something to light, say what you want, he's rarely far from the facts. Anyone having any knowledge in the dealings of real estate here in Hudson already knows Ms. Robson was a long way from being completely truthful in her statement. She may wish she had left her microphone off on this issue.

Greystone does not own property. Is that not a fact? Is that not what Curt Weese alleged? In that statement, he is incorrect. Should that not be pointed out? And yes, Mr. Weese was abnormally well behaved for a change. Very different from his usual histrionics and barking from the audience. Forgive me if I seem overly critical but we have all been down this road before with Curt Weeese. Did Mrs. Robson Lie? I think not. Yes, Jeanette, you can make an argument that the other commercial property may increase in value if a third of the available space is rezoned. But lets be honest, Jeanette, can you say with a straight face that the dog track is desirable for commercial development?? I believe the building you own is on the southern edge of the what is developed commercially and the anything farther south is severely limited by low traffic volume. So the one third of commercial space argument is flawed and misleading. Is it good for the community to let a large parcel sit vacant waiting for a buyer that may never come, and who pays to tear down a huge building that is sitting on it? Jeanette, your property should see a rise in value if the dog track has a school or any development on it. You can still have an opinion or put up a sighn if you want. If Lyn Robson should recuse herself shouldn't Sandy Gerhke recuse herself? She is pushing for potentially building on a site that would benefit her. Doesn't she own property in that area?

Ok, if Mr. Weese had said Ban Tara instead of Greystone, would that dramatically change the issue he was bringing to the board? And to your point regarding Ms. Gerhke recusing herself, it might be worth noting that she has neither been involved in the discussions or voted as a member of the board on this issue, whereas Ms. Robson has. Is there a conflict of interest issue here? I think the average person would say there is. If Ms. Robson doesn't see that way, then maybe the courts should decide at her expense.

@vested interest, There is a fine line between "rarely far from the facts" and baseless mudslinging in an effort to misslead. Here is another example. Mr. Weese charged that the time between classes was shortened at the H.S. from 7 to 5 minutes because they wanted to make it appear more stressed and crowded in the hallways. While it is true that they did shorten the time from 7 to 5 minutes, Weese forgot to acknowledge that Principle Laura Love had already given a statement that one of the reasons the change was made was because kids were congregating in the common areas, making more congestion. You can't have it both ways.

Nice try Curt, if you really are Curt, but by challenging me to reveal myself you are asking me give up my freedom of speech without worry about being attacked personally by people like you. I will even invoke the memory of Thomas Paine as a defense against your bullying. To reveal myself would be a slap in the face to all your closest buddies. In fact, I have not slandered you at all, and I stand by all my statements. I just disagree with your motives. Anyone who has paid attention, knows that your only interest regarding our schools is to stop or destroy any planning for current space needs or future growth. I enjoy a reasonable discussion with reasonable people, and I respect the opinion of others. You are incapable of playing by those rules. And by the way, don't hide under the "private citizen" claim. You have run for public office and the school board. You have enjoyed throwing personal attacks at many good people in our community for years. You Curt are the expert on slander. I don't anticipate you ever changing.

@Vested Interest, If kids have have time to stop in the halls and chit chat, it causes congestion just like if two cares stopped on the highway to chit chat. This is not rocket science.

I've had to remove a few abusive comments from this post. Remember folks, this is a civil, neighborly forum. Think of it as a community center, not a cage match.

Well, Sandy Gehrke here, Now I have to jump into Paine Reliever's misleading statements. Paine Reliever says I am "pushing for potentially building on a site that would benefit" me. I will straighten him out, since his statements are false. First, I am not "pushing" for building on any site. I am pushing to consider EVERY option other that SCM because the City of Hudson would be fools to give up 130 acres of their commercial base, and I am deeply concerned about the end cost of the SCM project, probably 60-90 million dollars or more. I also think it was patently unfair for the Hudson School Board and administration to put the city of Hudson in the impossible situation the city is in. I am also concerned about the mold in the building and how it will be adequately remedied. Second, I was NOT on the school board when the discussions were held about purchasing SCM, (during Facilities Committee meetings where no minutes were kept, so I can't even find out the administration/board rationale for recommending the purchase). I did not vote to purchase SCM, so where is my conflict of interest? I wasn't involved in the purchase in any way, Mr. Reliever, who won't identify yourself.

And now I must put the rest of what I have to say in the next "submit" area, since I am over allotted words. Read on.

This keeps getting better and better!!
http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_20648199/hudson-schools-purchase-dog-track-site-may-be

And for my two cents, if Ms Robson can't see the obvious conflict of interest, how does she pretend to be knowledgeable enough to help lead a school district?

Sandy Gehrke here again. Yes, the article about the rezoning being postponed until late summer/early fall is dead on accurate. How did I, a School Board member, find this out? Well, not from the administration or any Hudson School Board official action, resolution, vote or decision. I found this out from an outside source when they asked me, gee, you're on the School Board, what's this about the School District not requesting rezoning again until "late summer/early fall." Imagine my dismay when I had to say "I have heard nothing about it." So I immediately asked the Superintendant when this decision was made, how was it made and who made it. I have yet to get a satisfactory answer. I am beginning to wonder what the School Board is for, since it doesn't seem to make important decisions like postponing the request for rezoning for, oh, let's see, 4-5 months. And I wonder when the administration or School Board intended to let the public in on this secret, a public who voted for the project and expected it to be resolved in 30 days? Yes, I am on the Board, and No, I couldn't let you all know because I was not told either. Anyone know what the word "transparency" means?

Let me guess what the administration will say using the words one citizen who spoke at the last meeting was given - "We'll get back to you next week with an answer on that......"

Shame on all of you! You are so busy slinging mud and placing blame that you have totally lost sight of what this whole thing is about - IT'S WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CHILDREN OF OUR DISTRICT! It's not about who stands to make the most money from that piece of property. It is time for the City Council to rezone that property so the District can move forward with a building program to solve the space needs.

Want to know what I found last week? A house in River Falls listed at 205,000 with property taxes of 5200. And a house listed at 180,000 with property taxes of 4500. The same scenario is currently on display in New Richmond after their 92.6 million dollar referendum in 2007 to build a new high shcool. If you don't care how much property taxes in the Hudson School District increase then you are probably on the SCM band wagon. But I care. I care about the people who are already struggling to make house payments, the people who have already lost their homes, the people who don't have jobs, retired people on fixed incomes. And contrary to the opinion of some people who say property values will increase for everyone once a grand high school is built at SCM, you know, because everyone will want to move to Hudson, thus driving house prices up, I say the people who believe this are misinformed.

READ ON.

Here's the reality. People come to realtors and say "I can afford a payment of X amount per month." "How much house can I purchase for X amount per month." It's a simple caluculation, Folks. If the per month figure is 1500, and the taxes are 250 per month and the insurance is 50 per month, that leaves 1200 per month to pay on principal and interest for their loan. So they can purchase a home with a mortgage that 1200 per month will support. But, if the taxes on that same property are now 300 per month, that would leave 1150 per month to apply to the loan payment, that buyer cannot purchase the same house unless the price of the house is reduced to the point where they can qualify for a loan.
Now what is so hard to understand about this? I have worked in residential real estate for 18 years. The truth of the matter is that when taxes go UP, house values go DOWN because purchasing power goes down. When taxes go UP, buyers become more reluctant to move to a community. So don't believe the hype that once Hudson gets a brand spanking new majestic high school the influx of people transplanting to Hudson will mushroom. With the increase in property taxes that will be required to pay for this project, I expect the opposite to happen.
READ ON

You should also be wary of the argument that "when the Stillwater Bridge gets built" we are going to see unrestricted growth in Hudson. I propose to you that Somerset will see the biggest growth. The bridge/road is in their backyard. New Richmond would reap the benefit of the growth also if they hadn't shot themselves in the foot with such an expensive new high school that has forced taxes so high people can't afford to purchase homes there. And then you have Houlton, which will affect Hudson Schools, but not to the extent SCMers are predicting. After all, Hudson already has its own bridge. It's called the Hudson I-94 bridge. People living in "Hudson" will continue to use the Hudson bridge, not the new Stillwater bridge. Can you see residents driving through downtown Hudson/North Hudson just to use the new bridge? Any growth that comes to Hudson because of the new Stillwater bridge can be handled in a far less expensive fashion than building a shiny new four year high school. Just my opinion, Folks.

Sandy - let's throw another curve ball in here. What do you suppose would happen if the voters of the Town of Hudson and Houlton decided to split off and create their own school district. It wouldn't be very hard. All a group would have to do is read Wis Stat. Chapter 117, sign a petition and then vote at the referendum. If they are going to have to pay for a new high school, why not have their own? Who wants their kids going to a 2,000 plus high school anyway? I would rather have my kids in a much smaller environment than some mega-highschool.

It is disappointing to read comments from those like Mrs. Peel (which I'm sure will be removed shortly) who believe open discussion between the citizens and those elected to represent them shouldn't take place on a public forum such as this. It's no wonder there is such an attitude of distrust of the Hudson School Board and it's supporters.

Sandy, interesting how outraged you are by my claims of possible connections between you and your positions regarding school issues. Is it different from the claims Weese made against Mrs. Robson? My point is that possible connections can be formed with any decision in this matter and you are no different. There does not have to be a conspiracy behind the reasons the dog track was chosen. It might just be the best option, whether you think so or not. There is more to being on the school board than just this issue. Do you assume your election gives you a mandate to defeat the scm deal? Your explaining away the referendum by claiming voters didnt have real facts makes me wonder if you meant your idea of real facts. Also, seems like when people disagree with you, you claim they are attacking you. you seem to be "taken out of context" more than anyone in history.

Jeanette, careful who you put on a pedestal. If you are talking ethics. Mrs. Gehrke has ethics violations of her own which are public record. She explains them away as "you can't beat the state of Wisconsin" and will also say that I am attacking her. You claiming the school board are "zombies" and "kool aid drinkers" that are so quick to "tax and spend" is an insult to them, many of them that are quite conservative and all of them balancing needs of the schools and respect for the taxpayer. I suggest you meet them before insulting them. As far as new Richmond, they built for the future and time will tell. I choose not to criticize those who address needs instead of ignore them. Forgive me for having doubts about Sandy's new plan she got from two people who have been in education. This attitude dismisses 10 years of discussion. About using my real name? To criticize me for that is a joke on this site. I didn't make the rules and why don't you criticize the majority of poster's including those you agree with like vested interest for not using their real names? I believe a band aid solution now means more $ later. Just my opinion and it does not make me a tax and sped zombie.

It's very amazing to me to read these discussions by people who seem not to have kids in the high school, or have no other connection to the schools beside property taxes.

What I am messing here are the voices of the experts who have to deal every day with the problems of the schools (the teachers). As far as I know, the teachers are Hall Monitors during brakes, and I was told by those Hall Monitors that the congestion got really bad after the breaks were reduced to 5 minutes. But this is poorly academic, because the kids needed to walk outside when the breaks were 7 minutes long!

The only administrative possibility to reduce congestion would be "year round school" (like it is normal in all European countries who ALL have better PISA outcomes than the US), But would the parents like this? The current classroom situation will not allow for a good learning atmosphere because the teachers can not work well with individual kids who need a little extra attention to achieve the class goals. I was shocked to hear that foreign language classes have more than 30 kids! How can a teacher have every student to speak in a class with 30 or more?

I don't care where the district would build a new school, but I am very sure that a new school is needed. Forget about your bickering about property taxes (I might have to pay more than many of you), and work on getting a new school build! It is for our future, our kids who will have to function in a very competitive global world!

As I said before, I worked for one of the largest companies in the world, and I have yet to remember a situation in which new jobs were created because of low wages and benefits. If customer demand for a product is greater than the ability to manufacture it, new workers will be hired. No matter how low the wages are, if a product is not in demand, no new jobs will be created!
A global competitive market has nothing to do with low wage jobs, but everything with a well educated work force which can design and build desirable products!
A well educated workforce starts with the good education of our school kids and continues through training and higher education processes.
Supply side economics have never worked and will never work because no advertising or marketing will create a continuous demand for undesirable products, or products the consumer cannot afford because of their low income.
To be continued

The best example against low wages is China. For many decades people there had only very few "luxury" goods, because their income was to low to be able to afford them. Only recently, after wages went up considerably, people can effort high price items such as automobiles, TV's etc.

But back to the Hudson school problem. The most important goal of the school board and the school administration should be to get the best as possible learning environment for our kids (remember, they are our future). This is more important than keeping the real estate taxes down by a few dollars!
mainstreet, no build is not the only answer, but it will be, if year round school is not accepted. The space issue is not a probability but a fact (and I don't care about the crowding in the halls, that is just a simple inconvenience, I care about overcrowded classrooms) and can be solved only by building more classrooms!

I am not a civil engineer or architect, and cannot make any judgement on the possibilities if it is possible to enlarge our current schools. If this would be possible, the question is when it should be done? It seems to me as if the summer vacations are not long enough to finish any of those projects, but I am sure that it would be very disruptive if construction would go on when the school is in session!

All those of you who feel that alternatives are possible to reduce the crowding should share their ideas to enlighten us.

To be continued

Sandy Gehrke wrote that two education experts (what makes them to be experts?) informed her about ideas who to overcome the crowding. it would be nice if Sandy would share those ideas with us, other wise she plays into the same "hiding game" she claims the school board is playing with her!

I would appreciate any possible discussion with these experts, because I am the founder of a very successful charter school in Minnesota and I am very well connected with top level education experts in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Sandy, please share with us what those experts had to say to you!

I am not TH3, but I still have to take issue with this statement of you, Jeanette Kunz:
"Since I have not taken any handouts, paid for both of my degrees, and been an employer, I do take a more conservative approach to public funding issues."

Because you did not need any handout for your degrees, others should ot do so either? Neither my wife nor I did take any handouts or any kind of loans for our degrees, but we still see the need for some people to have to do so! Only because you were lucky and did not need financial help for your education, you want to be more "conservative" (or is it stingy??) with public funding issues? Both, my wife's and my parents had their own company and employed several dozens of people, but they still were fully open concerning public funding. Is it currently this way that employers (I assume you own a small business and employ a few workers) need to be "conservative" (stingy) when it comes to school funding?

Concerning your model example outside the US, I am sure that you have a link to a reliable website to confirm this statement? As I wrote above, I am very interested in the world of education, and I would appreciate it very much if you could help me to widen my horizon!

@Jeanette K, congratulations for your masters degree! The study you referred to is the PISA study, but you show the reading proficiency only! PISA has several other elements (including teachers pay). As you can see, almost all northern European countries rank higher than the US, and if one looks into the other segments of PISA, one would realize that they rank way higher than the US. I feel that one can agree that there is no great difference between the population of Wisconsin, Minnesota and other US states if one takes a genetic view at the population. Thus one can assume that an almost identical distribution of intellect is presence between the students of those two continents. Why is there a difference? Digging deeper down into PISA one can find some major differences:
1) smaller class sizes (about 15 to 20 students per class
2) way better salaries for highly educated teachers (master and higher). In fact, I know from 4 different countries there that a teacher with a master's degree earns as much or more as a person with a master's degree in industry. This kind of salary scale attracts the brightest people in the field, while the US salary structure drives those people away (many of the scientists at my employers started out as high school math or science teachers and left the schools to earn more money)
(continued,,,,)

3) year round school. The kids will not forget half of the subjects during those extremely long summer vacations, and the teachers will not need the first few weeks of the new school year to repeat the subjects from the previous year.

As long as we as a society are not willing to change these items, our students will not reach the achievements that students of other PISA study countries achieve!

And now back to budgeting, if it is more important for the average tax payer to save a few dollars instead of investing them into the school system, all the talk about pro education is nothing but lip service.

You can believe me that budgeting is a big issue at my employer, but budgeting will not get in the way with innovation and inventions, as much as budgeting should not be a problem for education. I am like you, I do not want to put the burden of improving education onto the back of our children, but I am willing to pay a few more tax dollars to fund this now!. Nobody can tell me that people will loose their home because they have to pay some 100 dollars more in taxes over a year. if this would be a problem, i believe the problem lies somewhere else, but sure not in school funding!
(continued......)

And I dislike any school board member who feels that it is his responsibility to keep the taxes down on the back of our children (I have neither children nor grandchildren in the school system). The purpose of the school board should be to make sure that enough funds are available to ensure an optimal education for our children. As I said earlier, when I read this bickering about a few tax dollars to be saved on the backs of our children, I feel the urge to haul rocks at those people!

I also don't know what dairy farms have to do with work ethics. I know dairy farms that are so poorly kept and run that I wonder how the poor cows can survive, and I know dairy farms that are so clean that one could eat from the barn floor!
Would you not think that the same kind of ethics would apply to a factory worker who has to punch in a 6 AM and who gets send home for this day without pay if he or she comes late only a few minutes? I don't really see the difference in work ethics each worker has to do his/her responsibilities to the best of their ability.

By the way, I forgot to mention that neither my wife nor I did take out any public supported money (like student loans, etc.) for our education, we financed everything out of our own pockets!

MrsPeel: “I never used your and you're wrong.” And, another post of yours: “So, did you attend public elememtary school? Which is funded by taxpayers.
Did you attend public high school? Which is funded by taxpayers.
Did you attend a Community College, or a Vo-Tech, or a State College, or part of a State University system? Thes are all funded by taxpayers.
Have you ever taken a commerical airplane flight?”

Wow, just the first time reading this I found that you spelled elementary, these, and commercial wrong. Additionally, your sentence structure is incorrect. The correct way would be “Did you attend public high school, which is funded by taxpayers?” The words community college, vo-tech, and state college should not be capitalized. The words university system do not by themselves make a complete sentence. A simple spell check could have found many of these errors for you.

In another post, you say “If comments offent people, they will leave.” The word is spelled offend.