Letter: Relationship is too tightIn a Star-Observer article published 1/11/12 the school board again tries to defend their ridiculous offer on the old track property. Quoting the contractors, who have the most to gain by the public approval of said property, of how much the district will save by using existing structure and utilities.
By: John A. Windolff, Hudson, Hudson Star-Observer
In a Star-Observer article published 1/11/12 the school board again tries to defend their ridiculous offer on the old track property. Quoting the contractors, who have the most to gain by the public approval of said property, of how much the district will save by using existing structure and utilities. If the district made a reasonable offer on the parcel would not those same perks be there?
Is it really news that all the players that stand to gain the most from something are in favor of that something? Come on Mary, publishing the results of a meeting that you knew the outcome, that’s not news, it’s called propaganda. The same concept used in Germany during the Nuremberg Rallies.
The board seems to use whatever facts in whatever way to manipulate the public. Back in 2007 when they wanted new offices one option was to build on the UU property. The board responded in a Star-Observer article published 2/22/2007, “that property (UU) was purchased as a future school site, the district would likely need all of the acreage to accommodate the school, athletic fields, parking and access roads.” So in 2007 the UU property was worthy of a school when it was helping the board get the offices they wanted.
Also Hoffman, in its critique of the UU property, lists that the parcel is not in the city limits and therefore they cannot solve the problem of well and septic. When Hoffman was awarded the contract for River Crest Elementary in 2006, that property was not in the city limits. A Star-Observer article published 6/10/06 quotes the board “The district plans to petition the city for annexation of the property, but if they are turned down, the cost of the system is estimated at $632,500 will be set aside.”
So they could solve the problem in 2006, but are unable to find the same solution in 2012. Amazing! I’m telling you there are so many examples of embellishments, non-truths and outright lies connected with the whole Eggebraaten-Hoffman connection I have to believe they could find work running someone’s presidential campaign and quit working over the good people of the Hudson School District.
Finally a quote from the Hoffman Website “Hoffman has facilitated a referendum campaign process that we have developed and refined over time, resulting in a successful outcome.”
Isn’t that refreshing!