Parent's Lobbyist Fought District

[wvhsparent]

proschool said:

wvhsparent said:

If it is the parcel just to the west of the church. It is an unplatted parcel about 40 Acres.
This is according to DuPage GIS

Isn't that the next phase of Stone Haven? If they can get that they can make it work. 40+25=65. They can make up the extra 15 acres by sharing parking facilities or buying the church water retention areas and having the church move its water retention to the south half of its property.

So now they have been misleading us by telling us they required 80 Acres, but OK now 65 will do? If that's the case there are several other sites that fall in that 65-75 acre range that should be considered too. Up North too...How 'bout that! ;D

[warriorpride]

wvhsparent said:

warriorpride said:

Anyone know where the 25 acres that we own is specifically located?

If you look at that map. It is in the lower left hand corner of the farm field, just above the grassy area.

So it is adjacent to the empty parcel that some identify as Calvary & some identify as the next portion of the subdivision?

[doctorwho]

momof3 said:

bob said:

link

It looks like someone planned for access to 83rd.

Does the future extention of Commons that is already on the books call for Commons to run from 75th to 83rd? Wouldn't that give access from Rt. 59, 75th street and 83rd?

that was my understanding also - there was never going to be an entrance from 59 - so it would make sense that even if we moved salightly further north - many of the same plans would hold true.

[doctorwho]

proschool said:

wvhsparent said:

If it is the parcel just to the west of the church. It is an unplatted parcel about 40 Acres.
This is according to DuPage GIS

I thought that was the next phase of Stone Haven? If they can get that they can make it work. 40+25=65. They can make up the extra 15 acres by sharing parking facilities or buying the church water retention areas and having the church move its water retention to the south half of its property.

obviously exploring ALL options means something different to different people.

[wvhsparent]

warriorpride said:

wvhsparent said:

If you look at that map. It is in the lower left hand corner of the farm field, just above the grassy area.

So it is adjacent to the empty parcel that some identify as Calvary & some identify as the next portion of the subdivision?

yes and it appears per the township that Calvary is the owner.

[proschool]

doctorwho said:

proschool said:

I thought that was the next phase of Stone Haven? If they can get that they can make it work. 40+25=65. They can make up the extra 15 acres by sharing parking facilities or buying the church water retention areas and having the church move its water retention to the south half of its property.

obviously exploring ALL options means something different to different people.

I have always been in favor of making the high school site contiguous with the Calvary site. I wrote about it here recently and at the VoteNo204 website prior to this boards existence.

I have also always been in favor of exploring all the options including the Macom site and I give the school board credit for exploring the options.

When the jury verdict came in I agreed in exploring all the options again but only among willing sellers and a workable solution prior to our rites expiring on BB.

I thought that the 40 acres that Parent alluded to was the next phase of Stonehaven. I knew that the church owned it at one time but I did not know they still owned it. Perhaps both statements are true. I appreciate Parent's work on this.

As I understand it the 80 acres was important for access, water retention parking etc. It does not mean that it would always be impossible to shave off an acre or two once the site was selected and plans were starting to be drawn. Calvary has extra land on the South. It has storm water retention on the north that it may (for all I know) be able to sell to the school district and move its own retention to the south. Plus they may be able to move its parking or share some parking with the SD.

[wvhsparent]

But is Calvary a "willing seller"?

[concerned]

First, I am so glad that Sprangler paid his 18K to stop quick take. What ever his motivations were it was the right thing to do. I would of hated to see us stuck with the BB land. I am so against this site and this is why I could not support the referendum.

I do not understand the huge support this board gives to this SB. MM2 talks out of both sides of his mouth. We all know that if the SB was able to get quick take they would of started construction the next day and us tax payers would be stuck with the huge bill.

I am with wvhsparent that it makes sense to obtain the land up north. I don't understand why they are not looking into it. After all this info has come out after the ref. I completely do not trust this SB. The enrollment numbers are off, they said we would get this land at a fair price and they didn't. The whole boundry mess. I understand people's support of the 3rd HS, but not the support of the SB. They have created a huge mess. At this point I don't know where my child will be going to HS and they attend an overcrowded MS and nothing is being done for them. We all should be appalled!!!

[proschool]

wvhsparent said:

But is Calvary a "willing seller"?

I don't know

[proschool]

proschool said:

wvhsparent said:

But is Calvary a "willing seller"?

I don't know

At 550,000 dolars per acre who isn't a willing seller?

[Arch]

concerned said:

First, I am so glad that Sprangler paid his 18K to stop quick take. What ever his motivations were it was the right thing to do. I would of hated to see us stuck with the BB land. I am so against this site and this is why I could not support the referendum.

I do not understand the huge support this board gives to this SB. MM2 talks out of both sides of his mouth. We all know that if the SB was able to get quick take they would of started construction the next day and us tax payers would be stuck with the huge bill.
!

If they used it. we would have less attorney fees, less construction cost increases and less interest penalties since the verdict. We would have the land and construction could start. That's the positive side and 20/20 hindsight.

The downside is the price could have been decided to be $700K+ for all we knew. OUCH.

[harry]

warriorpride said:

doctorwho said:

so harry - you've already seen the siteplans and know there is no access from 83rd street ? good to know, since I have yet to see anyone even say where the land is exactly at

kinda funny how within about 5 minutes harry managed to both shoot down the Calvary site AND complain about not hearing about it before - how many sides can one mouth have?

Warrior

please re-read this thread slowly and thoughtfully before you take swings @ people....up north (St Johns)and Calvary are 2 different things

[harry]

concerned said:

First, I am so glad that Sprangler paid his 18K to stop quick take. What ever his motivations were it was the right thing to do. I would of hated to see us stuck with the BB land. I am so against this site and this is why I could not support the referendum.

I do not understand the huge support this board gives to this SB. MM2 talks out of both sides of his mouth. We all know that if the SB was able to get quick take they would of started construction the next day and us tax payers would be stuck with the huge bill.

I am with wvhsparent that it makes sense to obtain the land up north. I don't understand why they are not looking into it. After all this info has come out after the ref. I completely do not trust this SB. The enrollment numbers are off, they said we would get this land at a fair price and they didn't. The whole boundry mess. I understand people's support of the 3rd HS, but not the support of the SB. They have created a huge mess. At this point I don't know where my child will be going to HS and they attend an overcrowded MS and nothing is being done for them. We all should be appalled!!!

Very well said concerned.

The one unknown is who posts on this board.

[momof3]

bob said:

link

It looks like someone planned for access to 83rd.

Looking at that pic again I count 5 retention ponds adjacent or touching the property we own and the Calvary property. Surely that changes / modifies the acreage needed for retention if the sd can buy the Calvary property.

[momof3]

concerned said:

I do not understand the huge support this board gives to this SB.

This board seems reflective of the voting public in the district- the majority of voters approved the new hs and the encumbants were voted into office. They were not landslides, so many, but not most, people disagreed.