Jimmy the only drawback is the lack of parking. But it wasn't hindering anyone, we all just "made" our own parking spaces.

I don't see why, once the power came back, the machines couldn't have been moved to their normal polling locations. If security and integrity of the machines during the move was an issue, through a county cop or sheriff's deputy on it.

Donna it was directly across from the Parent Drop Off entrance. The "Vote Yes for the FOD" banner was blazoned across the side WINDOWS of it. And there were two or three men (one in a bright gold colored hoodie) standing at the edge of the parking lot by the sidewalk leading to the entrance doors to make sure we knew about the ballot option for the Field of Dreams. They stopped just shy of telling us to Vote Yes.

I had notified the polling station supervisor and when I left he was "speaking" to them.

It's still there. There is a car in front of the library with sighns too.

Since these are political issues being voted on, they have no business on school grounds .It would be as though I was handing out Obama/Rodmey fliers on their property. It's all a matter of whom u are.

SOD handed out fliers just OFF of school property. No permission was needed from the schools since it was not on school property. Anyone can hand out on public streets. As far as what is going on today, as long as they are 100 feet from the front door, not the property line, they are within their rights.

Donna, SOD also made a presentation at a recent Gibbs PTO meeting. I was told Principal Davies himself introduced the speakers from SOD, stating it was OK because it was "not political." Can't say I agree with his assessment. SOD may technically not be a political organization, but if they're attempting to influence voters and elected officials (whether about the Owens field or the UW property), it's political activity. Therefore, it was inappropriate for them to be allowed to speak at that meeting at Gibbs.

SOD did request an opportunity to address the Gibbs PTO (and Berkley, too). The presentations were completely NON-POLITICAL. The presentations consisted of educating the PTO members as to what is proposed on the United Water property, when the zoning board meetings were scheduled, and SOD's concerns regarding overdevelopment: school crowding, increased flooding, pollution, and increased emergency response time. It was stressed that the field of dreams proposal and the UW property are completely separate and different entities. There never was any attempt to influence voters or elected officials. This was a purely educational presentation. SOD will also be making the same presentation to the DEO PTO, FOLLOWING the election, which shows that this is NOT a political endeavor.

Rory G., - The group received permission to speak by the Board of Education Office. I made no such introduction or statement and appreciate the opportunity to correct you. My only comment at the meeting was to clarify that the group received permission to speak at the PTO's monthly forum by the Board of Education office since it was something apart from our PTO's regular agenda.

Principal Davies, I stand corrected regarding your remarks, as I was not in attendance and did indicate in my post that the incorrect statement is what I was told.

As for Lori and Ulises, if SOD's concerns were presented at Gibbs without equal emphasis on the potential benefits that the builder and the project's supporters claim will be realized (not that I agree with them), then there was an attempt to advocate and influence, not to purely educate. What you don't seem to understand I'm referring to "political" in terms of the big picture, as the UW application and its resolution involve and affect multiple layers of government, not the limited view of its potential impact on just today's election. The timing of the presentations with respect to today's election is irrelevant to the point I was making.

Wendy, you are correct that individual SOD members backed candidates. But individual SOD members backed both Republican and Democratic candidates. Patch posts from the last few months show SOD members supporting Berner/Rebsch and others show support for Putrino/Ashley. SOD as an entity did NOT endorse any candidates and made that very clear in ALL correspondence. If you were on the SOD email list you would have seen that very clearly. All emails stressed that SOD did not endorse anyone and only urged people to vote. SOD also tried to keep our members informed of the changes in the balloting locations. When political signs started going up around town, the SOD executive board voted to NOT display any signs until after hearing ALL of the candidates at Candidates Night. I sincerely doubt that what was said at 2 PTO meetings, to a total of about 50 people, in very brief presentations, swayed this election, especially since there was never any mention of the upcoming election or the candidates. Taking the time from our very busy lives to address residents of this community to alert them to the plans for the UW property is something that SOD felt was important. You would be amazed to find out how many in those small groups still had no idea what was planned on that property. Educating the public was, and is, our goal.

Wendy I can assure you that the candidates were chosen for various reasons. All you had to do was drive around NM and you would know that there were signs for SOD that also had signs for Berner and Rebsch. I believe a lot of people voted against them solely because they saw them as being aligned with the Mayor. As for the signs as you walked into to vote I sure do hope that the people of NM were informed before election day and a sign did not influence them. FOD failed because of the reasons that many have stated in the past. The Mayor and anyone affiliated with her and her decision to ignore the voice of the people. SOD has done a wonderful job of educating the public without politics. I know because my stance is totally opposite of what it was when I first started to educate myself about the UW development.