Vista Watchdog wrote on Apr 4, 2008 5:43 AM:90% complete: Seems to be the theme of VUSD. Let's see, we had Madison opened without being complete and ultimately use Hardship Funds (called Welfare by David Hubbard) from Prop 1A to complete this project. We opened each of the new grade schools built under Prop O needing more work to complete them. We opened Rancho Minerva Middle School without it being complete. We put the Magnet High Schools out to bid without the project plan being complete. AND NOW, without even having a final figure (including actual design - permanent construction vs. modular for admin, cafeteria, and other parts of the project) on this new school they are still talking about opening the school in Fall 2009 when it is expected to be "90% complete." What is more, VUSD has only delivered on about 70% of the projects originally promised to the voters under Prop O. I'd say VUSD and this Board have been less than 70% honest with the public concerning the public's money. Can we call for an audit of this District and this Bond? I heard last night that we now have a problem with the plumbing at Madison Middle School that was known back during construction. How many more problems will pop up over the next few years???? Please (Senator Wyland), for the sake of our children we need an outside audit NOW!

Common Sense wrote on Apr 4, 2008 5:48 AM:It is about time VUSD realized they didn't have the money. Too bad the Bond Oversight Committee didn't realize that when they kept approving all these cost overruns. I am sure Hubbard, Herrera and Lilly will blame Guffanti and Gibson, but the reality it only takes three board members to build the school and they were the three to place this project dead last. Gibson had it placed first in the bond language itself, three votes switched it to Vista Focus Academy.

IDOTS! wrote on Apr 4, 2008 6:50 AM:These are the continuing follies of the incompent elected officials in VUSD. It is time for a change in leadership at the schoolboard. When is this cummunity going to wake up?

foolednomore wrote on Apr 4, 2008 7:12 AM:“Trustee Stephen Guffanti said this week that he wants to see the project put back out to bid” I am sure Guffanti wants it out to bid again. He is always in favor of anything to delay the building of any new high school. New bids mean years more of delay and increased costs and a better chance that no new high school will ever be built. It would be nice if Guffanti would be upfront with his true agenda and not pretend his main concern his money. Had he cared about money he would have voted for a high school being built at the Strawberry Hill site. Had he voted for the Strawberry Hill site, the vote for the site would have been 3 to 2 in FAVOR. We would have had a new high school YEARS AGO! Today we would have a brand new functioning high school. The Strawberry Hill high school site would not have cost all the extra tens of millions of dollars of the current dual magnet site. When will Guffanti be man enough to admit his opposition (and Gibson’s) to the Strawberry Hill site is the true reason for the Prop O money running out before a new high school is built? Admit that his (their) opposition is the cause of the loss of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars? Money unnecessarily thrown away trying to make an inferior site at Highway 76 workable.

Oh how sweet it is... wrote on Apr 4, 2008 7:53 AM:

I agree the state Attorney General’s Office of the Vista Unified School District should conduct an outside audit. Waaaay too many mistakes and waaay too much money missing.
Hummm, I think Hubbard and Guffanti know a whole lot; maybe they too should be investigated for failing to perform their fiduciary duty to the taxpayers. After all they have been sitting on the board all this time while the questionable activities were taking place.

Instead they went along with former superintendent Dave Cowles and even handed him a big fat salary with a HUGE retirement incentive.

Vista Vic wrote on Apr 4, 2008 8:01 AM:Honestly, Larry, Moe and Curly Joe could have done a better job of completing this project than the current Board. By the way the board decisions are only as good as the information received from the district staff. Who, in the district, has been responsible for heading up this project? He/she should be held accountable.

to Common Sense wrote on Apr 4, 2008 9:12 AM:You need to understand that the Bond Oversight Committee has absolutely NO authority to do anything but review expenditures to make sure they are for construction, not stuff like teachers' salaries, expenses...they do not have any approval authority whatsoever for cost overruns or anything else. In their orientation it mentions that if they don't like it, they can file a Citizens' Suit. And you probably know what criticism the poor guy who tried that had to put up with. Put the blame where it belongs, as you are doing, on the "board majority".

to foolednomore wrote on Apr 4, 2008 9:57 AM:Again, you're putting out untruths and venom. Just a couple of examples: eminent domain takes a supermajority of 4-1, not 3-2 as you claim. There were many reasons for rejecting Strawberry Hill, owned by long-time residents, the Kawano family. Here are some from NC Times archives; if anyone wants more, search the archives for Kawano Vista in 2002-2003. "Residents concerned about future high school site", October 10, 2002. ...The property owner, Jay Kawano, said he would not welcome the sale of his family farm, which the district could force through its power of eminent domain.
"Land for farming is difficult to come by," Kawano said. "Therefore, you would inadvertently be putting me out of business."
Eight other residents spoke of their concerns, which include student safety, increased traffic, soil contamination from pesticides and the potential for increased development resulting from the school.
From another article, Vista still searching for home of magnet high schools, August 9, 2003:Board members Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti said they refuse to support condemning the Kawano property because of existing high traffic volumes and lack of sewer service.

You may not agree with them, but at the time it looked as though this site would be just as bad as the Melrose site is now proving to be.

Unified Vision Needed wrote on Apr 4, 2008 11:34 AM:There is so much history both real and distorted around this project. The project goes back over 20 years. I doubt the blame game will produce anything but more negativity. The school board needs to step up in their leadership role and give specific direction. Reasses the facts and based their decision on those current facts. Unfortunatly the have not been unified in their previous direction. Two members have a different vision of the project than three others. That "blurred" vision has been and will continue to be "the problem". They need to hold a special session to iron out these diffent views and come out of the room united in their vision. Only then will the school be built.

to Unified Vision Needed wrote on Apr 4, 2008 12:44 PM:Couldn't have said it better.

Hilarious! wrote on Apr 4, 2008 1:58 PM:Gibson can't figure out a budget and Jack Feller can't either. We could get rid of them both with a vote! We need people who understand finances..not jokers like them.

To Hilarious wrote on Apr 4, 2008 5:47 PM:Considering that Gibson is in the minority, and thus has NO CONTROL ove the budget, how do you attach him to the current financial troubles at VUSD?

Strawberry Hill wrote on Apr 4, 2008 6:03 PM:Again we have "foolednomore" playing the fool, and attempting to use propaganda to convince people of that we could have had a school built by now. Problem is there was never a vote held on Strawberry Hill, and so we really don't know how it would have played out. Furthermore, the District was never commissioned by the Board to do a "Full Investigation" of the possible use of Strawberry hill for a School, since the Board never asked for the study to be performed. Only a preliminary study was done, which basically said it was large enough and would only require minimal grading. But, no EIR was ever done, so the high levels of pesticide residue (the use of which was well documented by Kawano), was never evaluated, nor the costs to make the property safe (per State and Federal Laws concerning environmental hazards such as the documented pesticides). Also, the costs for installing the sewer, which would have needed to run along Osborne all the way to N. Santa Fe, was never evaluated. Furthermore, Vista Way narrows at Taylor Street, only a few 100 yards north of the District Offices, and is routinely backed up with heavy traffic every day. A traffic study done for the impact of building a K-8 School on Riviera (very near the narrowing of Vista Way) indicated that Vista Way was already at a level D, and the building of the k-8 school would push the intersection of Vista Way and Taylor street to Level F, thus requiring the District to install a traffic signal at Taylor and Vista Way. Considering the Dual Magnet High Schools would have impacted Vista Way with nearly 3 times the Average Daily Vehicle Trips as the k-8 school, significant improvements would have been required. But, since this site would have been outside the City limits of Vista, VUSD could have ignored the City’s complaints (as stated in a court case between the City’s of Vista and Carlsbad), and would have needed to rely upon the County to require the improvements to Vista Way. There are many other reasons why Strawberry Hill was never viable, but certain people don’t want to look at these, even though David Hubbard, and environmental Attorney, was well aware of all of them (and since there was never a vote on this property we really don’t know how he would have voted, now do we?)

To Unified Vision wrote on Apr 4, 2008 6:07 PM:Amend that comment as follows: only then will the school be built or the project cancelled due to the lack of need resulting from the agreement to implement other options for reducing overcrowding at the current High Schools.

Closing Vista High School wrote on Apr 4, 2008 8:16 PM:The reality is, the only reason Mission Vista has been such a problem is because the Majority has always secretly desired to close Vista High School. The Campus is located on property too small to support a full sixe comprehensive High School (about 33 acres vs the normal 40 acre minimum). So, it was always the goal to build a new Comprehensive High School, and then close down the aging Vista High built in 1973. It was, by the way, built using materials that were only rated as 30 year construction, and have thus out lived their life cycle. VHS will require significant upgrades and repairs to keep it functioning over the next 15 years (the typical life cycle of any school - 50 years). If teh VUSD leadership had been upfront with the voters from the beginning we might have had the problems solved years ago!

To fooled no more wrote on Apr 5, 2008 4:48 AM:The Kawano, Stacco and Melrose/76 sites all had 2 things in common they were all on the edge of the district with twice the amount of land needed for a magnet. Want to know why the cost overran the funds? 18 million was spent for the 66 acres at Melrose/76 rather than the 1 - 2 million budgeted for the 22 acres needed. Only a comprehensive high school needs that much land and a location on the edge of the district. Could it be you wanted to fool the public who asked for a magnet school by building a comprehensive high school?

To Unified Vision wrote on Apr 5, 2008 9:00 AM:Yes, a 3rd comprehensive high school has been in the works for 20 years, could have been built 10 years ago without a bond, and is still mired in muck; over budget and behind schedule. Why? Because this is typical Union controlled goverment at work: Less to do, more time to do it, and getting paid for not having it done. Lean out the Education System, provide greater local control, and allow greater flexibility in the spending of funds provided by the state and federal government and we could achieve many of the great things our parents and grandparent achieved 30 to 60 years ago in their education. But, continue with the earmarked catagorical funds and mandated spending and we will continue to see the failures we have seen over the last 20+ years.