vape detectors

TANNER SMITH assistant editor T he district recently purchased two vape detectors as a trial run to evaluate the effectiveness of the devices. In addition to the existing measures that the district has in place to combat vaping on school property, the district funded just under $2,000 for the installation of the vape detec- tors to be placed into one bathroom at each high school.

While these devices are a step to combating the use of vapes at school, according to assistant superintendent Alvie Cater, there are “no plans to purchase any additional detectors at this time.”

According to Cater, the discussion of purchasing vape detectors was first brought up as a way to counter the in- crease in student vaping.

“The idea of trying two vape de- tectors was simply a deterrent to see if it might cause a student to think twice about [vaping],” Cater said. “We know that this is not the solution to prevent and stop vaping, so that’s why we took this approach; we want it to test it and see how it goes.”

Despite administration’s intentions for the vape detectors, an anonymous junior male—who wishes to remain anonymous because he admits to vap- ing on school property—believes that the vape detectors will not prevent stu- dents from continuing to vape, even if it reduces students’ access at school.

“I feel like you would help them not have vapes at school as much, but I don’t think you’ll help like the kids stop vaping,” the male said.

These sensors, known as FlySense sensors, work by detecting the chemicals produced by vaping and alerting the administration when said chemicals are detected. According to Cater, these sensors, which are placed in the bathrooms, do not use microphones or “THE IDEA OF TRYING ... VAPE DETECTORS WAS SIMPLY A DETERRENT TO SEE IF IT MIGHT CAUSE A STUDENT TO THINK TWICE ABOUT VAPING.” assistant superintendent alvie cater HANNAH CHERN editor-in-chief

cameras to protect students’ privacy. “Vape detectors are relatively unob- trusive, and they can be moved. They don’t record video or audio, and they just register a chemical signature,” Cater said. “So when that is triggered, the system can send an email and or a text alert to school officials.”

Due vaping’s negative effects, sci- ence teacher Landra Fair feels less stu- dents are picking up the activity.

“I feel that vaping at the school has reached a peak,” Fair said. “Since the deaths, I think there’s a lot of kids that aren’t doing it. I don’t think it’s quite as cool or as common as it used to be.” Even if a student is caught vaping through the sensors, the consequences have not changed, according to Cater. “The consequences are going to be the same. It doesn’t matter if a class- mate reports it, if a teacher walks into the restroom and sees somebody doing it or if a student does it in the class- room versus a vape detector,” Cater said.

While there are consequences that result from vaping on school campus- es, Cater believes that they won’t re- solve the issue.

“I think it’s important to clarify that consequences alone are not going to make a difference,” Cater said. “So what we’re working on is increasing our efforts to help educate students about the potential dangers of e-ciga- rette use and vape devices.”

fast facts

How many detectors did the district purchase? The district has installed one in each high school. How much does each sensor cost? $2,000 each How does it work? When a sensor detects sound level irregularities or chemicals from vaping, it sends a notification to school officials Does the sensor have cameras or microphones? No, it does not in order to protect student privacy source: Soter Technologies

News | 06 Design by Sophie Lecuru March 5, 2020 LAWSUIT OVER THE LAND

Austin Properties files lawsuit after city council denies development proposal

STEVEN CURTO assistant editor BEN WIELAND mill valley news editor-in-chief J ohnson County development company Austin Properties, owned by Greg Prieb, has filed a lawsuit against the city of Shawnee for denying a $50 million project to build multi-family and single-family homes in Woodsonia, claiming that the city’s denial of the project was unreasonable.

At the Dec. 23 city council meet- ing, Austin Properties presented their preliminary development plan, which was originally proposed and tabled at the Dec. 9 city council meeting. Their plan proposed 384 apartment units to be built on 29.2 acres of land along Woodsonia West, near Johnson Drive and Kansas Highway 7. This proposal by Austin Properties raised concerns among council mem- bers and Woodsonia homeowners who believed the project’s housing was too dense. They saw the proposal as a departure from the city’s vision for Woodsonia.

After opening up the Dec. 23 city council meeting to community and council discussion, the mayor preced- ed with a council vote on the propos- al, which came to a 4-4 tie. Council members Eric Jenkins, Dr. Mike Kem- mling, Stephanie Meyer and Lisa Lar- son-Bunnell voted no on the proposal, and it fell short of the seven required votes.

Woodsonia homeowners started a petition against the project that Austin Properties proposed in late June. The petition was widely backed by 41 of the 67 surrounding property owners, per the Shawnee Mission Post.

Resident Alicia Backlund, who has lived near the proposed location of the PINPOINTING THE PROJECT A map depicting the proposed location of the buildings

Location of proposed complex

source: Google Maps development for the past 18 years and signed the petition, stated that when she originally moved to Woodsonia the property was zoned to be small family homes, not multi-family units. “Originally, it was supposed to be small homes, which would have been fine,” Backlund said. “I just think that the population density would be too much, and some of the developments around here that have been multi-fam- ily aren’t always built with aesthetics in mind.”

Shawnee City council member Lisa Larson-Bunnell declined to comment on the development due to pending litigation, but voted against the devel- opment plan on Dec. 23.

At the Dec. 9 city council meeting, Larson-Bunnell stated that she had major concerns over traffic issues re- garding the developer’s plans, which had not specifically outlined the ad- ditional number of cars that would travel through the neighborhood on a daily basis.

“I am going to make the argument that [traffic] will have an impact on the residents in that neighborhood,” Larson-Bunnell said at the meeting. “On the whole, these traffic concerns are valid and there is a direct correla- tion between the number of units in the proposed development and the im- pact to traffic.”

Larson-Bunnell’s traffic concerns echoed the sentiments of many res- idents and other council members in the chamber, and the council tabled voting until the Dec. 23 meeting. One such resident was freshman Sophie Sena.

Sena spoke at the Dec. 23 city coun- cil meeting, voicing her own concerns about traffic that would potentially block a nearby fire station. Today, she sees the benefits and drawbacks of the potential apartments.

“On one hand, they are a good idea