Measure GG discussion

Post thoughts and ideas relating to cardiff school construction

Comments: 16
  • #16

    Kristin (Thursday, 12 September 2019 09:35)

    As a parent of 2 kiddos in the district that moved here specially for the schools I am grateful this rebuild is happening. I know trees and some park space is lessened, however the safety and health our children out weighs this.

    Having lived in the aftermath of Columbine to my eldest having TWO barricade in place lockdowns for suspected active shooters NOTHING is more important to me than the safety of our children.

    You can’t say it won’t happen in a place like Cardiff. It shouldn’t have happened in a lot of places.

  • #15

    Tiana Hejduk (Friday, 27 April 2018 11:31)

    Please come to the next Cardiff School Board Meeting on May 10th at 5pm in the multipurpose room at Cardiff school to voice your oppinion about saving George Berkich Park. It is critical that we all get involved and sign this petition!

  • #14

    Gary Gidlow (Sunday, 25 March 2018 21:17)

    Still wondering why we aren't going to see "story poles" for heighths of the buildings and why no traffic study?

  • #13

    Richard Michael (Sunday, 11 February 2018 22:04)

    Proposition 39 requires "a list of the specific school facilities to be funded" in the measure to "ensure that before they vote, voters will be given a list of specific projects their bond money will be used for." Section 3 (c). Smaller Classes, Safer School and Financial Accountability Act (Prop 39, 2000)

    Measure GG was written to be a blank check that can be used for anything.

  • #12

    Chris Donnelly (Saturday, 18 November 2017 08:43)

    Thanks for everyone that attended. I unfortunately was unable to attend. A few questions....

    1. If I counted correctly from the maps kindly provided, there are still 14 structures in both the original redesign and the new one recently provided. This plan simply seems to just condense what is still a significant overhaul. The question still remains do we need this? I believe one of the most special parts of the school is it’s simplicity and charm. Kids storing their backpacks outside, no hallways, peak ocean views, benches outside the classroom as we wait for our kids all come to mind.
    2. Looking at the map it seems like we could lose some very valuable and important trees. please fight for these trees. Some of the are very rare and an important part of the community’s history.

  • #11

    Russell Davis (Monday, 30 October 2017)

    When GG came on the ballot, I read it thoroughly. Re-roofing existing buildings, and upgrading them seemed like a great idea, and this is what was put forth on the ballot. However, building a new school was not what was proposed, nor voted upon. Moreover, it seems unneeded given that the population curve is remaining stable, and the current footprint is not seen as insufficient for the purposes of a school. AND, WHAT IF THE BOARD SPENT LESS MONEY THAN WAS PERMITTED UNDER THE BOND MEASURE? Is that an alien concept in 2017?

  • #10

    Daniel Littrell (Friday, 13 October 2017 15:47)

    The documents on school safety that I referred to last night can be found here:

    Very depressing reading, but certainly should be taken into consideration when designing a school.

  • #9

    Chris Donnelly (Friday, 13 October 2017 15:37)

    Where is our Mayor in all of this??????

  • #8

    Richard Risner (Friday, 13 October 2017 15:32)

    The "Board" needs to step back from the Schematic Design phase and go back to the Conceptual Design phase. The designers need to conduct a better site analysis, understand the community concerns, and reprogramme their design analysis. The "Board" should have had a Landscape Architect as the lead designer for the planning of the school. Architects are good at making pretty boxes whereas a Landscape Architect can appropriately plan the entire campus environment. All outdoor learning/classroom and recreation space should be considered as valuable as indoor classroom space.

  • #7

    Mike Staples (Friday, 13 October 2017 14:40)

    Channel 5 seemed impressed

  • #6

    Mike Staples (Friday, 13 October 2017 14:33)

    Truly disappointing, but not unexpected. Lots of egos being pumped up but hidden behind buzzwords and noble intentions. I was impressed by the great comments made by all.

  • #5

    Dennis Cole (Friday, 13 October 2017 14:28)

    Couldn't agree more, they had an amazing attitude. Let's recall the entire board and then the new board can fire the superintendent.

  • #4

    Chris Donnelly (Friday, 13 October 2017 13:39)

    Give the board money and they will spend, spend, spend......regardless if a renovation of the existing facility is more desirable and or attractive. It is a use it or lose it mentality where we the tax payers deal with the consequences. I can't say I am surprised as despite having two children at the school, I was in the minority who voted against the measure, not because I thought the school did not need some attention or updating but because of the inevitable boondoggle that this would ultimately become. Between this, Measure T and the rail trail, residents are 0/3. We are well on our way to becoming indistinguishable from OC.

  • #3

    John Eldon (Friday, 13 October 2017 13:38)

    Very disappointing that an elected PUBLIC school board would be so deaf to the public. Truly representative government is one of the tenets of our democratic republic.

  • #2

    Craig Nelson (Friday, 13 October 2017 13:27)

    Recall the self serving bureaucrats.
    THis was a total fraud perpetuated on the community. Bulldozing the park was not what the ballot initiative proposed when it was voted on by the public.
    I smell a lawsuit coming.

  • #1

    Gary Schneiderman (Friday, 13 October 2017 13:01)

    I was very disappointed in the boards response at the meeting Thursday night. Over 90 people attended the meeting with the overwhelming majority against the proposed plan. Despite the Board's statement that the plan was misrepresented on this site, it is clear that this is not the case. The board talked about child safety as their primary concern. Yet, it was brought up in the discussion that their plan is actually contrary to published federal information regarding school safety. This comment was essentially ignored. Many community members stood up to explain how devastating the plan will be to the community for a myriad of reasons. Despite these impassioned statements, the board discussion was limited, They did not respond to the statements in any substantial way and then "voted" to proceed. I guess politics is politics, whether national or local its all the same. Once voted in the politicians ignore their constituents and thats what happened here.