Critics aside, school-park deal logical

Thank you Lauren! I hope everyone in this area (Mt. Plymouth and Sorrento) are reading this. I thought what I was hearing in that meeting sounded fishey. It is not suprising though. When has a developer ever told the whole truth?

Never.

The only way the BCC can build the park is with help from the School Board. No school / no park and we keep harvesting the oranges at the grove for the next five years.

By the early posting time, I imagine Billard88 was expecting this article. Maybe Billard88 is one those spreading the misinformation that this article embodies. Its a SMOKESCREEN folks. Point the finger at a developer and we can get away with saying anything. The Park site is the least logical site in the area to consider for a school. Just because the school board has taken so long to get its act together does not justify the community losing a regional park and suffering forever the results of poor PLANNING by placing the school at the worst possible site in the area. There are 100's of acres of undeveloped land that are more suitable. Once again the Mt Plymouth Sorrento folks are pawns in larger game. Lauren if you come to the East Lake Citizens Council meeting January 29th at the Sorrento Christian Center maybe you can get the real facts behind the story.

Anonymous wrote:

The only way the BCC can build the park is with help from the School Board. No school / no park and we keep harvesting the oranges at the grove for the next five years.

Hey, what a great idea! Maybe we could invest the money from the orange harvest for the next five years and have money for Park equipment. Meanwhile -put the school where schools should be - near neignborhoods where children can walk to school. If you ask - I bet most would be willing to wait for the park. And if we can't afford to buy land for a school - sell the orange grove and put the school where it should be - near the children. These decisions have long term consequences that need to be part of the equation. Someone needs to listen to the citizens in this community!

billard88 wrote:

Thank you Lauren! I hope everyone in this area (Mt. Plymouth and Sorrento) are reading this. I thought what I was hearing in that meeting sounded fishey. It is not suprising though. When has a developer ever told the whole truth?

And our politician always speak the "whole truth"????

GET REAL wrote:

By the early posting time, I imagine Billard88 was expecting this article. Maybe Billard88 is one those spreading the misinformation that this article embodies. Its a SMOKESCREEN folks.

9:00 am as an early post time. Well I guess I am an early riser since I work for a living and am used to getting up early. A smoke screen? I don't know how you can live with yourself saying the things you do. You are either ignorant enough to believe the garbage the financial players are feeding you or you are the developer yourself and are using peoples' ignorance as a weapon. Hopefully it is the first of the two in which case it is not too late to look around and see what is really happening. If it is the latter, then how dare you come in to my community and spout off lies to further your development. Only a developer would have the foulness inside of them to use the issue of a school to make more money.

Why are we hearing so many sides to this? What is the truth? Someone isn't telling the truth which means someone obviously has something to gain from this. I know Lauren must have done her homework on this. I would suggest that all of you also do yours and check out the facts. The facts must be a matter of public record somewhere. I just can't imagine that the school board would intentionally put a school in a location they think is not a good spot. Schools are their priority.

Welcome back Lauren. Thank you for your insightful article and please keep them coming.

One point, if you are unhappy with Commissioner Stewart, then you need to spend a little time doing your homework so that you may have a complete and accurate history. This entire mess was created by her BCC predecessor and school board sitting on their hands for over 8 years when all of the warning flags were out there for all concerned parties to see. Ms. Stewart should be congratulated for at least trying to do something other than passing the buck.

Hey, Get Real. You need to get real. If the school goes on 10 acres of the park land, Sorrento is not losing a regional park. It is getting a fabulous park years ahead of time.

billard88 wrote:

<quoted text>
9:00 am as an early post time. Well I guess I am an early riser since I work for a living and am used to getting up early. A smoke screen? I don't know how you can live with yourself saying the things you do. You are either ignorant enough to believe the garbage the financial players are feeding you or you are the developer yourself and are using peoples' ignorance as a weapon. Hopefully it is the first of the two in which case it is not too late to look around and see what is really happening. If it is the latter, then how dare you come in to my community and spout off lies to further your development. Only a developer would have the foulness inside of them to use the issue of a school to make more money.

Must have hit a nerve here. So if someone disagrees with your position they are either ignorant or a liar??? Let's not be so self righteous. All I know is that the article does not accurately reflect what I heard at the community meeting or have heard in the community over the past several weeks. Folks clearly objected to the Park site but the article does not accurately reflect their objections or what I heard the developer say about one alternate site. Commissioner Stewart presented no facts or offer of providing information behind her current thinking. She simply disagreed with a room full of community members and told them they were wrong. To me it seems that this story was fed to the press with half truths in a skewed fashion to help move this poorly conceived plan along. I'd like to see a "town meeting" with all the players - community leaders, the school board, Commissioner Stewart,and the developer in question. Let everyone put their cards on the table and inform the community rather then tell them to accept a bad idea because that's the best we can do.

Lauren, thanks for telling the truth. Combining the school and the park is a wonderful idea and makes perfect sense, lest costly too.
Thanks again.

Lauren, this is the kind of article we have been waiting for. We need someone to help clear up propaganda we receive from developers. Please keep this kind of article coming.

Puddytat wrote:

What gripes me is ...Doesn't anybody think that if the DEVELOPER is cramming as many homes on 1/4 acre as he can... drawing more population of kids and families... doesn't it stand to reason that THE DEVELOPER should provide the land and the shcool and pay impact to water and roads ?

I think so. Remember that in November's election when Debbie Stivender (AKA Developer Debbie) comes up for re-election and vote her out.

Commissioner Stewart, the School Board, the Student Advisory Council, Lauren Ritchie and others of us see clearly that the best location for the new elementary school in Sorrento is at the park site. It is a win-win location which will help to safegauard latchkey children who, instead of going home alone until parents get off work, can stay on the school site for physical education activities such as Little League and child's play. I have seen combination school/park sites work beautifully for the children -- which is what school location should be about -- so all of you naysayers should get off your pro-developer bandwagon and think about the children. The school/park site means more after-school supervision, less obesity, happier children with a huge active park for recreation next door to their new, modern school. Listen to the School Board. THEY have done their homework, and THEY have decided to "just say no" to a false "free" offer of land which has never materialized and which offer is calculated to give the developers the necessary utilities to exploit Sorrento. If the developer cared about the children, he would not be trying to escape the impact fee and education concurrency requirements in exchange for his "free" land.

The article misrepresents the concerns that I've been hearing from the "hostile natives". Nobody even mentioned widening roads. Everyone I've talked to is concerned about changing the plan.

They tell me that the school was already planned in the free area, but it can't be built because the county already spent all their money on an overpriced, single-source radio system. To compensate, they're selling off a big chunk of park to the school board.

What makes the original plan so bad all of a sudden? Why should we allow the commissioners to hide their financial mistakes behind OUR park?

The whole deal stinks. And the article is irresponsibly inaccurate.

Judebert wrote:

The article misrepresents the concerns that I've been hearing from the "hostile natives". Nobody even mentioned widening roads. Everyone I've talked to is concerned about changing the plan.
They tell me that the school was already planned in the free area, but it can't be built because the county already spent all their money on an overpriced, single-source radio system. To compensate, they're selling off a big chunk of park to the school board.
What makes the original plan so bad all of a sudden? Why should we allow the commissioners to hide their financial mistakes behind OUR park?
The whole deal stinks. And the article is irresponsibly inaccurate.

The school was already planned in the free area only in the developer's dream. The developer can plan anything he wants but it has nothing to do with the county plan. A Lake Citizen was right in his/her post. Putting the school there would give the developer the utilities he wants. Why do you think the developer wants the school there so bad? The development can't begin until there is water/sewer there. Mount Dora and Eustis have not agreed to send their utilities to Sorrento Village. By having the school on the Sorrento Village property, the developer now has the utilities he needs. Does the developer really care about the school? No, just the utilities.

Also Judebert, the county recently bought a radio system. Are you talking about that or did the school board also buy one?

Judebert wrote:

They tell me that the school was already planned in the free area, but it can't be built because the county already spent all their money on an overpriced, single-source radio system. To compensate, they're selling off a big chunk of park to the school board.
.

You said the school can't be built because the county spent all of their money. The county doesn't provide the money for school construction, the school board does.

Has anyone at all taken the time to stop and think how all this affects the children? By using the park site the school gets built and opened much quicker thus allowing children to learn in a nicer, smaller environment than the portables that they are in now. This allows children to look forward to school more thus leaving them enjoying it more also.

To all of you who are moaning about a school being on the same land as the park...You will still have 40 acres of parkland. The property is 60 acres big and the school will only use 20 acres of that. When did 40 acres become to small for a park? Any park in this area would be much better than the alternative..NONE AT ALL!!!
Get your heads out of the clouds and really take the time to look at the bigger picture here..the KIDS. I will bet that the majority of the people on here moaning about loosing their park do not have any kids in the school system right now because any parent who does knows that the kids are crunched into Round Lake and Seminole Springs as well and some relief is needed..NOW!!

Those who don't believe the developer is lying..have you ever actually spoken to one?? They will all do and say what they have to to cut their expenses not matter who has to take up the slack.
Think about the kids and leave your stupid political agendas behind.

Judging by the salvo lobbed out of Winter Park and Orlando, Lauren's got a point. The best thing that can be said for a school on "donated" land south of SR46 is that it potentially provides nearby developers with utilities and other infrastructure and services at county expense. Locating a new school on the CR437 is the most cost-efficient option for the county and it provides children a seamless transition from the classroom to after-school activities.