As you may have already heard, Anderson County School District Five has obtained an option to buy 30+ acres on Cathey Road for the purpose of building a new elementary school. While we are supporters of public education, and want what is best for our children, we do not wish to see one of Anderson’s treasured country settings transformed into a showcase for concrete structures and lines of cars and schoolbuses.  Is Cathey Road the best and safest location for a school? We hope this site will help concerned citizens and parents on and around Cathey and Concord Roads and elsewhere in the community to know how to voice their concern over this proposal.  We hope that you will make your voice heard and help keep Cathey Road the quiet country setting that so many enjoy.  Click Here to sign our petition opposing Cathey Rd. for this new school location.

Update:

At the May 19th School Board Meeting, the school board continued to claim they have not decided on the Cathey Rd. location.  However, state DOT has said that it came out last year to review this property.  Betty Bagley and David Brooks, as well as other board members have stated that they are not considering any other properties other than the Cathey Rd. location.  Betty Bagley also stated to the residents of Cathey Rd. on April 29th, that they would begin with the school construction right away after the 120-day phase is over.  We continue to see one contradiction after another from the District 5 School Board.

The safety issues involving this location choice were clearly voiced at this meeting.  Traffic safety, road/school compatibility and most importantly — the Duke Energy substation and 10-story tall powerlines that will skirt the edge of the school property.  If we do not continue to demand a safer and healthier location for children, the school board will disregard these concerns and continue with its own agenda.

 

 “We don’t want to put a school here if people don’t want us here.”

— Betty Bagley, Dist. 5 Superintendent, as stated to residents of Cathey Rd. on April 29th, 2009

 Please click here to see a list of important contacts and Help Save Cathey Road!

During the debate on one of Governor Sanford’s veto, Sen. Lee Bright made a unanimous consent request to take up H. 3254, the 24 hour waiting period requirement for an abortion. Unanimous consent requests are routinely used to get around the Senate rules and one member objecting defeats the request. At the time, there was a lot of commotion, so no-one objected. After a contentious challenge to the Lt. Governor Andre’ Bauer, a motion was made to carry over the bill. We were told that for the “decorum” of the Senate, Sen. Bright slipped a trick, therefore, we should carry over the bill.

Now I understand Senate decorum but disagree with the notion that Sen. Bright had any intention to deceive the body. Senate members pull procedural tricks out of their hat all the time to get to items on their agenda. However, even if Sen. Bright did violate decorum, how can I place a higher priority over decorum than the sanctity of life? Unfortunately, many members that claim to be pro-life, chose to stand firm on a false accusation and voted to carry over the 24 hour bill. Being the last day of session, H. 3254 would only have received 2^nd reading, so the bill would not have passed this year anyway, but it is still a disappointment.

Also, disappointing is the press coverage of giving Sen. Bright credit for the “death blow” of the 24-hour bill. Sen. Bright is to be commended for getting a vote on perhaps the most important issue of our time. Lee and I spoke with the State Newspaper, and they are considering changing the wording of the first paragraph. We appreciate their consideration.

From the State Newspaper: 24-hour abortion wait dies in Senate

The abortion issue is dead in the 2009 General Assembly, its death blow coming at the hands of the state senator who days ago told the Senate that issue is the only reason he is an elected official.

Sen. Lee Bright, R-Spartanburg, again threw the Senate in a lurch  Thursday, when he asked for the Senate’s consent to leave the day’s main business – dispatching of Gov. Mark Sanford’s vetoes – to resume consideration of a House-passed bill that requires a woman to wait 24 hours after an ultrasound is performed before proceeding with an abortion…

one of my big brothers on guitar:

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, MARK SANFORD, GOVERNOR FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Governor Sanford Issues Statement on Veto Overrides, Files Lawsuit

Columbia, S.C. – May 20, 2009 – Gov. Sanford today issued the following statement on veto overrides in the House and Senate:

“We’ve long said that spending the stimulus money in this fashion is incredibly irresponsible for the way it ignores the impact on future generations, and for the way it puts our state on shaky financial footing with a nearly $1 billion budget hole two years from now,” Gov. Sanford said. “To that end, we’re incredibly disappointed that the House and Senate would choose to run roughshod over today’s and tomorrow’s taxpayers by overriding our budget vetoes tied to the stimulus. While we’re pleased that a handful of other vetoes have been sustained, what they represent pales in comparison to this larger issue of the stimulus.”

“We know that a suit will be filed against us on this issue, and as such we’ve filed a suit tonight in response. We believe the legislature’s end-around move on the stimulus won’t pass constitutional muster, and if it were allowed to stand it would have far reaching implications for future governors of this state and for governors of other states as well.”

Gov. Sanford will hold a media availability tomorrow morning to address this federal lawsuit. The media availability will be held in the Governor’s Office of the S.C. Statehouse (1st Floor, West Wing) at 11:00 a.m. Copies of the suit will be made available after the event.-###-