| Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example). Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Asset Utilization Committee; Update? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 1 2008, 04:41 PM (663 Views) | |
| Elvis | Feb 2 2008, 03:55 PM Post #21 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Once again Melanie your statement is false. You are saying that the issues discussed within the editorial were never discussed during any AUC meeting. Read the article again. Furthermore, these issues were discussed directly with Dr.Liepa, Mr. Hosman and/or Ms. Levesque at numerous times by numerous AUC members. So, at this point, how many times would you like me to bang my head against the wall before I decide to join my other AUC members (5 who disagreed with our group) and write our editorial? You were there during the discussions, but those discussions were so trivial to you, they were dismissed and you do not even remember. Maybe as a “common courtesy” you could consider everyone’s point of view? As for approaching you separately - Shall I be under the assumption that you would have listened to me more than you have during the AUC meetings. Obviously not since you can’t remember the discussions in the first place. Shall I assume that after your negative comments to me personally after attending numerous LPS community discussion meetings concerning anti-bullying issues you now would be civil? Shall I assume that after you attend a CFLF meeting reading to claw our eyes out because you didn’t like what you heard, you would be civil? If I need a class in “Common Courtesy”, you can come too! We’ll ride together! Furthermore, No one went behind any ones back. I have my questions to Mr. Hosman in writing as does Bill and Tim I believe. As for Steve resigning, there was minimal discussion of him leaving the AUC. No wedge was created by him leaving. His choice! He saw through the issues and said Bye-Bye. The AUC is still an active committee. I am in hopes of having a meeting soon to discuss the numerous vacant and vandalized buildings. Maybe Mr. Freeman could possibly share the senior housing inquiry with us. Might be a great option for a sale of land to occupy a vacant building. By the way, I have a copy of that letter and have had it since February of 2007. See, I can keep a secret! Just wanted to see how long the game would go on. . . . As for the group continuing, we are still active. The administration put a stop to our meetings, not our editorial. That may have been a convenient excuse for some. There are numerous tough issues that must be openly discussed before the district regains trust from the residents. One of those issues is our school land and how the sell/swap it. You research the history, I have. As far as flinging accusations and name calling. Again, no disrespect was meant to you or any other employee/etc. personally. Maybe you do not see the big picture of how the administration utilizes its assets (employees) to create committees to do want they want and then blame the committee for its choices. Did you proof a copy of the AUC report before it went to the BOE? Let’s just quit while we are ahead. We just disagree. I’m okay with that. |
![]() |
|
| Elvis | Feb 2 2008, 04:06 PM Post #22 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe a little "common courtesy" would have been in order before making accusations? I guess, once again, there was no research done on her part. Must have heard that "fact" from the administration. |
![]() |
|
| Melanie Ricketts | Feb 2 2008, 04:45 PM Post #23 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think I said that you have an agenda, I have however been accused of having an agenda and was clarifying the fact that I did not. I was responding to al dente, and no where do I see that I accused anyone of having an agenda. |
![]() |
|
| Bill Williamson | Feb 3 2008, 03:53 AM Post #24 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi Melanie, I agree with your thoughts of courtesy. That is why prior to the June 25th presentation of the AUC report to the board, my concerns were sent to all of the committee members. - The May 10th AUC web site notes state: "It was also suggested we put the process chart on our web page. After everyone has a chance to review the chart it will be added to the website." Although the AUC report contained a decision flow chart provided by LPS staff, it was not reviewed or approved by our committee. This flow chart is still posted on the LPS web site and does not contain provisions for community input. - In early July the committee received my concerns that agenda and meeting notes, after March, were not posted on line. In late July I spoke to the Board regarding concerns about how some of our Asset Utilization Committee issues continued to be incomplete. At that time I was informed that the AUC's charge was complete and that no meetings were to be scheduled for the near future. Neighborhood meetings were to start after the start of school. - AUC meeting Agendas and notes are placed on line for public record. LPS made no attempts to schedule an AUC meeting to review, as a group, ongoing issues. LPS did not provide us the opportunity to meet and resolve our issues. Thus the August OE publication included my concerns along with the thoughts of others. Albeit an unconventional way to get issues out as public record, the Op Ed did just that. Feelings were hurt and for that I am sorry. - In September, LPS informed only families within a 1000 foot radius of the properties being looked at, opportunities to provide direction for their use. The whole LPS community needs an opportunity to provide input as to the use of these assets. It is a shame that efforts to get community involvement resulted in this valuable committee being shelved. - The AUC charge states: "The school district is looking to gather information on its properties and to determine options for their potential use and or disposition. The committee will be charged with developing this information. It may also be asked to do additional research and/or analysis." 8 months has past since we last met. Research and analysis of LPS assets need to continue. Provisions for community input needs to be included in the decision flow chart. - I last met with Dr Liepa on December 14th. At that time his thoughts were that no further AUC meetings are needed until the Perrinville relocation is complete and the need for Food services is reevaluated by LPS administration. Individual efforts have been made to convene the AUC. It appears, I'm sad to say, that it's still months away. - Each month that passes keeps us a month behind making new progress. |
![]() |
|
| Elvis | Feb 5 2008, 09:50 PM Post #25 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think the time has come for the AUC to meet and discuss the vacant vandalized buildings around Livonia. The Administration should be thinking of ways to occupy these buildings before they lose their functional utility. I would think the consideration of a senior housing facility might be a viable choice for a sale of land. We shall see. |
![]() |
|
| Melanie Ricketts | Feb 5 2008, 09:52 PM Post #26 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Make a call to Randy and tell him you would like to meet again, let me know and I will work it in to my schedule. |
![]() |
|
| Renee Chesney | Feb 5 2008, 09:52 PM Post #27 |
|
Veteran
|
Elvis - please put my vote down for total bulldozing of the sites and making them into park lands. |
![]() |
|
| Elvis | Feb 5 2008, 09:53 PM Post #28 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ya think. Maybe the facts just speak for themselves. |
![]() |
|
| Renee Chesney | Feb 5 2008, 10:02 PM Post #29 |
|
Veteran
|
The facts or your editiorial opinon of the who, what, when and why surrounding the facts? |
![]() |
|
| al dente | Feb 6 2008, 12:34 AM Post #30 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They might as well. Thinking they are going to lease all these buildings out in this economy is a pipe dream. |
![]() |
|
| mmmmkay? | Feb 6 2008, 01:52 PM Post #31 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Mothballing & renovations, if not being used for leases, are still cheaper than new construction. Additional open spaces would be nice, but the cost to build again on those lands is increasing exponentially. mmmmkay? |
![]() |
|
| 2112 | Feb 8 2008, 05:19 PM Post #32 |
|
Newbie
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Melaine, The AUC was making progress with the future of LPS and the city in mind. The troulbe starts here, You are blaming Elvis and others for the real problem. Lets look back at the issues at hand. I thought that LPS learned their lession after the LI and the AUC was formed with some great people to work together with a common goal. I thought Randy and the BOE wanted to reach out to the community and to the right thing. We is in Elvis, myself and a couple of other people found a letter written to Mr Freeman about a senior housing complex interested in land. We received a copy of this letter and asked Mr. Freeman several times and Mr. Freeman denied any letter any time we asked. With a little digging we found out that Lil Tots were told that they were moving, We were told Lil Tots wanted to move. I was at the Taylor/Clay meeting and the owner was happy with the move only because she was forsed to, I could see that in her eyes talking to her after the meeting. The problem is that a elected offical on the AUC was holding valuable information from the group. Is this because the AUC was just a smoke screen to cover up ideas already in place? Look at the big picture to find out that Elvis and the Memphis Mafia were not the AUC`s problem`s. We were trying to get to the bottom of the issues and got no awnsers from anybody. I think you might haved missed the meeting when this was shared with the rest of the AUC. There are 3 sides to very storie, We caught some people in a lie and had now idea how to get out of it. We should have had many discussions about these items as a group, But got shot down every time we brought them up. That was the only wedge I saw and maybe you are getting misconceptions mixed up with the truth. So if you want to get mad at somebody go to the source and give Mr. Freeman a call. |
![]() |
|
| Melanie Ricketts | Feb 8 2008, 08:34 PM Post #33 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Once again everything I said had a different spin on it. I give up! I did think we were making some good progress. I distinctly remember Mr. Freeman saying at one of the meetings that there was a letter from a senior housing group that was interested in one of our vacant buildings. However, when I said that on this blog before I was told by a number of people that I was absolutely wrong, now Elvis tells me that I'm not wrong, and that she has had a copy of it for a long time. Exactly who lied on that one. The people that were telling me I was wrong were getting their information from someone, and I doubt it was Freeman. I am not trying to lay blame. The AUC report was basically written as a group the last night that we met. Kim and Bill were either not there or left early. Yes, Lisa did formally write up the report based on things we told her to say the last night. It was then circulated via e-mail to everyone and Bill circulated his suggestions for changes to it, which I have a copy of both, and they are remarkably similar. I also felt that we were making progress and that the gap was being bridged, and then to be blindsided with an op/ed piece was truly disheartening to me. That's what I was most upset about, and saw no point in meeting if members felt this way. But to the best of my recollection there were only 3 names signed to the op/ed piece not 5. I felt that it was a good group of people who could put aside differences, not necessarily see eye to eye, but talk about differences of opinion in a mature way. Now apparently Kim tells me I was rude to her, I don't recall that, but I also can't change her mind. Just an FYI for anyone who wants to attack me here, have at it, be my guest but don't expect a response. If anyone that was on the AUC would like to communicate with me, you may PM me I would be happy to share my private e-mail address with you to correspond privately, and since it was my LPS e-mail address used for the AUC you can't contact me at that address. I really don't have the time for reading the blog everyday. Hopefully, you can understand where I am coming from. As for the letter that was talked about, I obtained a copy of it and forwarded it to Jimid and he posted it on the old blog. I went back and looked for it and here is the link to the PDF assisted living |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)


