Timing is critical as IUSD moves forward with plans for fifth comprehensive high

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
T

test

Well-known member
Without a new school in place by 2016, Irvine High would be required to house 2,556 students by 2016, Northwood High would expand to 2,932 students, University would have to accommodate 2,867 students and Woodbridge High?s student population would grow to 2,674. Overcrowding at these sites has the potential to cause significant adverse implications for instruction, facilities and safety, including a spike in neighborhood traffic.
http://newsflash.iusd.org/2013/09/t...on-plans-for-fifth-comprehensive-high-school/


 
Tyler Durden said:
test said:
Without a new school in place by 2016, Irvine High would be required to house 2,556 students by 2016, Northwood High would expand to 2,932 students, University would have to accommodate 2,867 students and Woodbridge High?s student population would grow to 2,674. Overcrowding at these sites has the potential to cause significant adverse implications for instruction, facilities and safety, including a spike in neighborhood traffic.
http://newsflash.iusd.org/2013/09/t...on-plans-for-fifth-comprehensive-high-school/
Click to expand...

in that link above, the real kicker is this:

Responding to a claim that a number of new homes in the new development will actually be in the Saddleback Valley Unified School District, Walker noted that the location of IUSD?s fifth high school will not change that fact. IUSD students will attend schools in IUSD, and Saddleback Valley USD students will report to campuses in the Saddleback Valley district.
Click to expand...

I know I thought the same thing when I read that.  It sounds like ALL the new homes in Great Park are in the Saddleback Valley Unified School District.  Pavilion Park clearly states that the schools are IUSD.  So, does that mean that the homes are currently zones for Saddleback, but they will be attending IUSD (for the mean time).  I know the lines are always reassessed, but I thought they would only change schools within the SAME district.  Does this mean that Pavilion Park homes could be, at some point, realigned with Saddleback?  I could deal with other schools within IUSD, but not sure I want Saddleback.  I know some areas in Irvine are in Tustin Unified, such as Northpark Square (Beckman), but buyers were aware of that from the beginning.  This is a deal breaker if they can switch districts
 
test said:
Without a new school in place by 2016, Irvine High would be required to house 2,556 students by 2016, Northwood High would expand to 2,932 students, University would have to accommodate 2,867 students and Woodbridge High?s student population would grow to 2,674. Overcrowding at these sites has the potential to cause significant adverse implications for instruction, facilities and safety, including a spike in neighborhood traffic.
http://newsflash.iusd.org/2013/09/t...on-plans-for-fifth-comprehensive-high-school/
Click to expand...

The quoted article is actually very biased. The IUSD Board of Education wants to build the 5th High school just between the "capped" landfill and jail, which is getting upgraded from miminum to medium security one, expanding up to 7K beds. I was present at the board meeting. They did everything they could to push it their way and make the kids to stay all day by the landfill, and enjoy the jail views. There was a public hearing at the Board meeting. About eight Irvine resident spoke. All but one criticized the "site A" location. None of those opinions were even mentioned on the article. I can't wait till the next Board election. People who don't care about Irvine kids health and safety don't deserve to be on the Board.
 
Marty said:
Tyler Durden said:
test said:
Without a new school in place by 2016, Irvine High would be required to house 2,556 students by 2016, Northwood High would expand to 2,932 students, University would have to accommodate 2,867 students and Woodbridge High?s student population would grow to 2,674. Overcrowding at these sites has the potential to cause significant adverse implications for instruction, facilities and safety, including a spike in neighborhood traffic.
http://newsflash.iusd.org/2013/09/t...on-plans-for-fifth-comprehensive-high-school/
Click to expand...

in that link above, the real kicker is this:

Responding to a claim that a number of new homes in the new development will actually be in the Saddleback Valley Unified School District, Walker noted that the location of IUSD?s fifth high school will not change that fact. IUSD students will attend schools in IUSD, and Saddleback Valley USD students will report to campuses in the Saddleback Valley district.
Click to expand...

I know I thought the same thing when I read that.  It sounds like ALL the new homes in Great Park are in the Saddleback Valley Unified School District.  Pavilion Park clearly states that the schools are IUSD.  So, does that mean that the homes are currently zones for Saddleback, but they will be attending IUSD (for the mean time).  I know the lines are always reassessed, but I thought they would only change schools within the SAME district.  Does this mean that Pavilion Park homes could be, at some point, realigned with Saddleback?  I could deal with other schools within IUSD, but not sure I want Saddleback.  I know some areas in Irvine are in Tustin Unified, such as Northpark Square (Beckman), but buyers were aware of that from the beginning.  This is a deal breaker if they can switch districts
Click to expand...

The legal ramifications of baiting-and-switching school districts while shopping for a multi-million dollar home is astronomical.  The parents that buy at Pavilion Park will have plenty of money for lawyers to fight back. 

Of course Saddleback isn't a bad district, I went 12 years in the Saddleback system, and sat on the school bus for 12 years too.  It's a good school district, not as rigorous as Irvine though.

The people running this show better get their duckies in a row for the schools.  I like the 2 high schools idea suggested by Tyler Durden.  They might as well build one at Site A and Site B.  With all the new apartments and homes springing up in Irvine even with a 5th high school it will be over-impacted.
 
I am sure it will be disclosed on the contract and they will sign it. With the wet signature on each page, the buyers have no grounds for a legal suit.

The idea of having two schools is great BUT... the project for the 5th HS is going to cost ~$260M. The Irvine Company funds it. I am not sure they add $260M more on the top for another new school.
 
adventurous said:
I am sure it will be disclosed on the contract and they will sign it. With the wet signature on each page, the buyers have no grounds for a legal suit.

The idea of having two schools is great BUT... the project for the 5th HS is going to cost ~$260M. The Irvine Company funds it. I am not sure they add $260M more on the top for another new school.
Click to expand...

But isn't the wet signatures saying their kids are going to IUSD?  That's what it says on the flyer when I visited Pavilion Park.

Yeah obviously the crazy Mello Roos we all pay isn't enough to fund a 6th HS.  Maybe they should bill it to Larry Agran since $200 million went missing in building a giant orange balloon for the Great Park.  Then we'll just bond the other $60 million and we'll have a 6th high school.  Just saying ....  8)
 
What do you think will have a bigger legal value - a flyer or a legal binding contract? I guess it's no brainer.

Speaking of the 5th (6th, etc) High School. Something tells me that most buyers will be happier if their kids go to the overcrowded El Toro High, than to the brand new Irvine jail school. What do you think? Where do you think you would prefer to send your kids.

BTW, Woodbury and Stonegate most possibly will be re-assigned to the new school too. I am very curious, why everybody there is so quiet.

Agran has noting to do with the dare wish of the IUSD Board of Education to build the school by jail.  It doesn't matter if it costs $60M or $260M. It will still be the "jail school".

So, the buyers of the Great Park Community have a two marvelous options to choose from - ElToro High or Jail High. Honestly, I even wouldn't consider looking at such a neighborhood.
 
adventurous said:
The quoted article is actually very biased. The IUSD Board of Education wants to build the 5th High school just between the "capped" landfill and jail, which is getting upgraded from miminum to medium security one, expanding up to 7K beds. I was present at the board meeting. They did everything they could to push it their way and make the kids to stay all day by the landfill, and enjoy the jail views. There was a public hearing at the Board meeting. About eight Irvine resident spoke. All but one criticized the "site A" location. None of those opinions were even mentioned on the article. I can't wait till the next Board election. People who don't care about Irvine kids health and safety don't deserve to be on the Board.
Click to expand...

IUSD doesn't want to build at Site B because they already completed a lot of work for Site A.

23ibcd5.jpg


Site B may or may not be a better location. But the fact that they are bringing it up now this late in the game, and being so adamant about it, shows that their goal is not to build in the better location, but to disrupt construction of the new school altogether and rile up the people for political purposes.
http://www.talkirvine.com/index.php/topic,1845.msg210090.html#msg210090


 
test said:
adventurous said:
The quoted article is actually very biased. The IUSD Board of Education wants to build the 5th High school just between the "capped" landfill and jail, which is getting upgraded from miminum to medium security one, expanding up to 7K beds. I was present at the board meeting. They did everything they could to push it their way and make the kids to stay all day by the landfill, and enjoy the jail views. There was a public hearing at the Board meeting. About eight Irvine resident spoke. All but one criticized the "site A" location. None of those opinions were even mentioned on the article. I can't wait till the next Board election. People who don't care about Irvine kids health and safety don't deserve to be on the Board.
Click to expand...

IUSD doesn't want to build at Site B because they already completed a lot of work for Site A.
Click to expand...

They only have an "architectural project" there. No construction has been yet started. Not even approved. I'll tell you more... They did put millions of dollars into site A, however they yet haven't finished the required (by law) tests on the adjacent "capped" landfill. Yes, you get it right. They didn't complete the required tests, that can potentially disqualify the site A completely... Yes, they already put money into the project...

It was openly acknowledged during the Board meeting. Guess what is going to happen if the state required tests fail. I personally will be asking the Board of Education, where the money went to.


Now, I am going to ask you THE question. What is more important - Irvine kids' health and safety or the stubbornness  of the IUSD Board? If any convict escapes (didn't it just happen a few weeks ago) from the Musick jail, wouldn't you, as a parent, rushing to the school, running the red light, breaking all the speed limits, just to make sure your kid is SAFE?
Tell, me what's more important for you?


There is nothing political to me here. Well, except the Board of Education doesn't give a ..... about the citizens' opinions.


Now, I want to see who really wants to send their kids to a place between the landfill and jail. Would you send your kids there?
Or may be you represent the Board of Education here? Just asking.
 
adventurous said:
Now, I am going to ask you THE question. What is more important - Irvine kids' health and safety or the stubbornness  of the IUSD Board? If any convict escapes (didn't it just happen a few weeks ago) from the Musick jail, wouldn't you, as a parent, rushing to the school, running the red light, breaking all the speed limits, just to make sure your kid is SAFE?
Tell, me what's more important for you?
Click to expand...

If it was up to me I wouldn't build it anywhere on a superfund site.
 
It's not up to me where to build it. But it's up to the citizens to vote in the next Board election. Now, I want the Board to understand one simple thing. They are elected by the citizens and they represent the citizens, not the builders.
 
adventurous said:
What do you think will have a bigger legal value - a flyer or a legal binding contract? I guess it's no brainer.
Click to expand...

A new home sales contract is hundreds of pages long.  You're suggesting that on a sales flyer they are going to list IUSD then somewhere in tiny fine print they will write another school district?

A sales flyer can be considered a legal binding contract especially IF that is being used to bait customers to buy.  That is exactly what a bait-and-switch is.

If they are going to change school districts they'd better make it NICE AND BIG on the sales contract and point it out during the signing.  Otherwise it can be easily argued in court, and YES with a sales flyer.
 
If your neighborhood is not specifically mentioned on the flier (or there is a fine print somewhere on the back),  I really doubt you have a chance in the court. UISD  confirmed that Saddleback Unified has presence in Irvine and there are no plans to change it. Either way, Great Park buyers will have to either send kids to El Toro High or to the new "jail" school. Neither option works for me, especially for the inflated price of new "Great Park" houses.
 
ZeroLot said:
adventurous said:
What do you think will have a bigger legal value - a flyer or a legal binding contract? I guess it's no brainer.
Click to expand...

A new home sales contract is hundreds of pages long.  You're suggesting that on a sales flyer they are going to list IUSD then somewhere in tiny fine print they will write another school district?

A sales flyer can be considered a legal binding contract especially IF that is being used to bait customers to buy.  That is exactly what a bait-and-switch is.

If they are going to change school districts they'd better make it NICE AND BIG on the sales contract and point it out during the signing.  Otherwise it can be easily argued in court, and YES with a sales flyer.
Click to expand...

All the fliers I've seen say the school boundaries are subject to change.
 
As far as I know, there is no discussion on changing the school districts' zoning. A good portion of very expensive houses in Great Park will go to El Toro. The other part will go to the new "jail" school. I am not sure what's better.
 
They don't have to tell you if the schools are going to be rezoned in the contract. As long as they are accurate and say that currently the home is in the IUSD or something like that they would be ok.
 
I don't think you can put the home builder on the hook for something the city decides, regardless of what they say in the marketing material.

I don't even think the sales contract has an verbiage regarding school districts... does it?
 
When you sign the contract, it comes with a bunch of disclosures. For the Great Park it will be the landfill, Musick jail, cell towers, Great Park itself, school district (along with the statement, that it can change), etc. It will be verbally read to the new home owner and (s)he will have to initial every page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top