|
|
Post by soxfan on Mar 2, 2006 14:25:05 GMT -6
TG shouldn't be consider a lost cause and I don't think the SB thinks that. Total agreement here. But why no meeting with the HOA? Some here are still awaiting the answer as to why no 5B. I've heard us called babies or whiners when people still bring this up. but, in my opinion, people still want to know. Many invested a huge amount of time, energy and emotion into the boundary process. Never did they address 5B when it came down to the vote. Stephens goes right to 5A, JC spends two hours talking about 6 and 6a, Howie talks of Brookdale - Gombert parent participation and 4 and a half hours later 5A is decided on with NO consideration of 5B. Many here can't move on to the next step and have begun to question motivation and trust of the school board as a result of that. In my opinion, it's impossible for some to move towards a yes vote without SOME consideration given to the frustration within TG towards the school board. |
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Mar 2, 2006 14:26:11 GMT -6
TG shouldn't be consider a lost cause and I don't think the SB thinks that. Maybe they do not. But TG's feelings were made pretty clear at the boundary meetings. I feel that the the BD and TG votes are lost. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 2, 2006 14:26:18 GMT -6
I think maybe the SB was smart in its decision, given the past reaction of TG to the present boundary decision. The SB may already be considering TG a lost cause. It is not an altogether unreasonable assumption. Gumby, Respectfully, I disagree. I think it's a huge mistake. Look at the amount of registered voters here. 2400 if I'm correct. That's a pretty big voting block to completely write off. Perception here is pretty bad. Feelings toward the school board are bitter. Wouldn't it be worth it to try and mend them a bit instead of completely neglecting our vote? I wish they'd reconsider. I don't think the SB feels that way at all -- part of this is just IMO -- and part is from working with some of those people I just have never heard anything like that--I'll leave it at that - I don't think the SB thinks any area is not worth the investment and support. I know they have not done everything to meet 100% of anyones goals -- but they are some very bright people also -- they are not neglecting the vote -- they are coming to a PTA meeting, that is not neglect -- and while if they met with other HOA's I agree they should meet with any others -- again unless you are the one who asked them, you do not have the answer they gave nor the question they were asked. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 2, 2006 14:29:41 GMT -6
TG shouldn't be consider a lost cause and I don't think the SB thinks that. Maybe they do not. But TG's feelings were made pretty clear at the boundary meetings. I feel that the the BD and TG votes are lost. Gumby, way too quick to write off these areas, I know a lot of people in both and I don't think either are 'lost' I work with a lot of BD people and have a different opinion and while there are some in TG who will vote no and are very angry, there are others who either will vote yes or have not made up their minds yet. Please do not be too quick to paint any area with a broad brush - that is exactly what is happening from another opinion, and I feel it is just wrong and unfair to those residents |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 2, 2006 14:29:46 GMT -6
Do people really want to revist the 3HS proposed boundaries? You think the SB is going to re-open this for discussion? Hasn't there been enough venting? I guess I was hoping that the healing had begun.
|
|
|
|
Post by momthreekids on Mar 2, 2006 14:30:41 GMT -6
I also understand boundary changes, but the thought of them moving us out of Scullen makes no sense. We are walkers and it is in our neighborhood. Why would we want all that traffic that Scullen generates in our subdivision if we don't get to benefit from it?  At first the Welch community was happy about leaving Gregory, but Scullen has worked out well except for the crowding issue. |
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Mar 2, 2006 14:31:33 GMT -6
It very well may be true what everyone is saying. I was just left with a very negative impression after the boundary meetings and did not get the feel that TG would come around. Also, maybe it was the whole Ross thing from the VoteNO board that is shaping my impression. He was incredibly negative it seems as to TG's position.
|
|
|
|
Post by driven on Mar 2, 2006 14:31:34 GMT -6
If anyone wants promises about the ES, MS and HS that your kids will go to from now until they graduate HS, they are not going to get it. The boundaries have changed a number of times around here over the last 10+ years. The boundaries are changed based on where the houses & the kids are located. The SB can guess at how things will look down the road, but the farther you get out into the future, the harder is is to be confident of your predictions. Clearly the SB does not take boundary changes lightly, as that might be the most emotionally-charged topic that they need to handle, nor would they plan on changing the boundaries every year or two. But, in 5 or 6 years, as the new housing builds out, if the population concentration dictates, boundary changes are always a possibility. The boundaries can't come close to being considered "final" until the housing in the district is fully developed. We've seen several people post on this board about how they went through boundary changes and their kids adapted without any problems. Does anyone really think that a boundary change will be a life-changing event for them or their kids? No one thinks their children are not adaptable. Of course they are. We were afraid of the portables at Scullen and yet here they are. My child is still having a great experience at Scullen and actually loves the few minutes of fresh air on the way to the modular. We will adapt to whatever we need to adapt to. We are just unwilling to constantly have our concerns ignored. Believe it or not, the Fry community have more concerns other than boundaries. My family has lived in 204 for 9 yrs and we have also watched the many changes. That is not the problem. The reason the boundaries are mentioned at all is because it explains why the Fry community is reviewing this referendum with a fine tooth comb. No one likes to be duped twice. |
|
|
|
Post by soxfan on Mar 2, 2006 14:31:38 GMT -6
Do people really want to revist the 3HS proposed boundaries? You think the SB is going to re-open this for discussion? Hasn't there been enough venting? I guess I was hoping that the healing had begun. That's why I think it's unfortunate the school board won't meet with the HOA. It could have been an opportunity for healing some very negative feelings. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 2, 2006 14:32:07 GMT -6
That is my point exactly soxfan. This maybe a rumor, but I heard Thompson builders opted out of Ashwood Creek and is selling his model home. The SB is going to need this area to grow to get their numbers. SB projections for this area are- 595 at Peterson, 260 at MS and 335 at the highschool level. Given the past growth of this entire area (after all that's why we're in this situation to begin with), my feeling is that homes will start to build there rapidly IFTRP. I remember being told that when White Eagle homes became occupied, the SD didn't think there would be any ES age children. They figured the homes would be so high priced that only people with older kids could afford to live there. People had to call to find out where there ES kids were supposed to attend school and the district was unprepared and surprised. No one can make assumptions about an area selling or not based on home price. This entire area has many high priced homes with lots of kids. And I feel very comfortable that the whole area around 238th will fill up with no problems. I agree - for those of us who have been here long enough to remember mainly prairies south if 75th street - west of Naper Plainfield -- we were also told the same thing-- everything is selling slow- too high priced -- Naperville will top out before it reaches 100,000 people etc etc -- the area will sell just like all the rest did..... |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 2, 2006 14:34:13 GMT -6
Our concerns to the SB have not been addressed and there is a lot of mistrust of the board after the boundary meetings. Glawe protected WE they can walk to the new school. Why did he pass over option 5b? It would be harder to move Springbrook to WV. Fry will be an easy target to move and then Peterson can get its growth. Am I correctly interpretting this consiracy theory: The SB has defined the 3HS boundaries. Then, they'll pull a switcheroo on Fry if the Peterson area doesn't build out so that the Peterson area will be more appealing top buyers, thus allowing the SB to achieve the enrollment numbers that they are predicting? |
|
|
|
Post by soxfan on Mar 2, 2006 14:35:58 GMT -6
It very well may be true what everyone is saying. I was just left with a very negative impression after the boundary meetings and did not get the feel that TG would come around. Also, maybe it was the whole Ross thing from the VoteNO board that is shaping my impression. He was incredibly negative it seems as to TG's position. Gumby, You have to admit he was pretty darn funny though. I almost died when I saw his funny boundary proposal. It was the only laugh I had during the boundary process. Where is dear Ross? Maybe he drank himself under with all that boxed wine. May he rest in peace. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 2, 2006 14:36:58 GMT -6
I just proved above that this can't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Mar 2, 2006 14:38:42 GMT -6
As a TG resident I am very upset with the SB refusing to meet with our HOA. I believe WE HOA got a meeting? Please correct me if I am wrong. The PTA meetings are very pro yes and when no questions come up it becomes very uncomfortable. Lots of negative comments from the crowd and the board. Why it the SB not listening to us? ? They became very uncomfortable when the Scullen question came up. I am more concerned about loosing Scullen then NV. They ignored our bridge and option 5b. At this point I rather vote no and go to WV with WE and Wheatland. Doesn't anyone think that its possible the SB is just not interested in accepting an invitation to a CFO meeting? Can you imagine? It would only serve to further the chaos. There is nothing to be gained. The SB has already or is scheduled to meet at every school in this district. If the TG homeowners association is interested in talking directly with the SB, why can't they arrange their own meeting with the SB directly? Just as WE did? WE did not call a meeting with CFO and then ask the SB to attend it. If I were a member of the SB, I would not desire to attend a meeting with TG homeowners during a scheduled meeting with CFO. You might as well call it a lynching. In my opinion this is not a fair expectation and doesn't mean that the SB is not interested in talking to the people of TG. It just means that the particular forum TG invited them to is destined to be an unproductive argument. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 2, 2006 14:39:26 GMT -6
Our concerns to the SB have not been addressed and there is a lot of mistrust of the board after the boundary meetings. Glawe protected WE they can walk to the new school. Why did he pass over option 5b? It would be harder to move Springbrook to WV. Fry will be an easy target to move and then Peterson can get its growth. Am I correctly interpretting this consiracy theory: The SB has defined the 3HS boundaries. Then, they'll pull a switcheroo on Fry if the Peterson area doesn't build out so that the Peterson area will be more appealing top buyers, thus allowing the SB to achieve the enrollment numbers that they are predicting? I don't think it would hard to draw boundaries to move most schools anywhere -- Fry is contiguous to WE and west of Rt 59 and to me ( not living in either) made more sense to keep together --( 5A over 5B) - also isn't SB a longer distance to the NS. People can have conspiracy theories until the cows come home....all it takes to start one is a good rumor....and that is what is happening. |
|
