Totally predictable law suit against Sequoia Union High chool District

"The group's members are anonymous except for one who lives next to the high school."

C'mon, Mr. Lawsuit, admit that you're in on this as well.

Just Wandering just wandered back in from the playground - maybe he was out looking for the lights.

Sorry, the lights haven't been put up yet and hopefully won't be put up.

The High School needs those lights. My daughter is a soccer player at M-A and they have to call games due to darkness all the time. It is DANGEROUS to play in the dark, the girls and boys cannot see what is going on, and there have been several needless injuries due to the darkness. Their season is form November through February when the days are SHORT.

As to living next to a high school and not expecting to affected. Give it up, if you live next to a school you should have an expectation that the school will create noise.......

Roy

So, Peter, once again:
Are you a formal plantiff in this litigation or are you just kicking in money for it behind the scenes?

C'mon, you don't want to be like that weasily grocery union guy who hid out behind that other anonymous lawsuit, do you?

Roy all the SUHSD needs to do is to engage with its neighbors rather than trying to act like an arrogant bully. I am confident that there is a win-win solution BUT the District has to be prepared to work with its neighbors.

Its too bad that many people who read and post on this forum have such short term memories--or maybe its selective retention. This is yet another example in a growing list of instances where the SUHSD repeatedly and consistently displays it arrogance and lack of regard for the opinions of citizens who live around their campuses or in the district/ Just to remind those with memory challenges of a fcouple of recent gems--the MA Performing Arts Center, built without benefit of any environmental or architectural review or even a traffic study-why, because "we didn't have to do one". The behind closed door selection of a new Superintendent, without any thought of public input or doing a search, -- why, because "we didn't have to". This isn't about whether or not the kids need lighted fields, or whether or not the MAPAC was worth the millions it cost, or whether or not the new superintendent is well qualified; its about an elected body of officials (the district school board) should adequately seek public input and exhibit at least some level of transparency in executing their elected roles. Its obvious to me that a couple of new faces on the Board and a new face in the superintendents office have done nothing to change Gemmaville.

WhoRUPeople states:"This is yet another example in a growing list of instances where the SUHSD repeatedly and consistently displays it arrogance and lack of regard for the opinions of citizens who live around their campuses or in the district"

How true. In this case the School Board assures the neighbors that the lights will just be used for football games and yet Roy states "My daughter is a soccer player at M-A and they have to call games due to darkness all the time. It is DANGEROUS to play in the dark, the girls and boys cannot see what is going on, and there have been several needless injuries due to the darkness." Clearly the District is not putting all of its cards on the table.

This will not turn out well unless the District makes a good faith and public outreach to the community. Secret meetings with carefully chosen neighbors do not constitute acceptable outreach. I am sure that both the Lindenwood Neighborhood Association and the Atherton Civic Interest League would be pleased to assist.

I just read the article in the Daily Post reporting on this issue, and came away even more convinced the Board just doesn't "get it". the Board President, Olivia Martinez, was " puzzeled: by the law suit, stating that some neighbors had suggested they put up temporary lights before installing permanent ones and that was a "good idea" and is what we're dong so whats the problem. The problem, Olivia, is just because you hear someone suggest something that supports what you want to do, doesn't mean you have consensus. But more concerning was a statement by another Board member, Alan Sarver, who claims that the district "continues an environmental study of permanent lights". If this is true, I would ask Mr. Sarver, please provide the name of the professional consulting firm that is conducting this study, and if you would be so kind, direct me to where on the District's web site I can find the sscope of work/specification being utilized in that study.