Dist. 204 plans to discuss Metea land

[Arch]

eagledad said:

archwinsome said:

I'm waiting for the curve-ball of it being the old site Meijer considered out by Benedictine.

Or maybe the land in the Oswege school district on 111th, west of Rt 30?

Oswego, New York? Hell, that might be closer too ;D

[d204mom]

eagledad said:

wvhsparent said:

One good thing I garnered from this is that if the SD walks away from BB we are not on the hook for the damages (that was BB's Motion)

Are you referring to the notes of the Dash meeting? where'd you take that away from? I did not have the same impression.

The Sun article states that the motion for additional damages was denied because the property was not abandoned yet. They can re-file when we abandon.

We won't even know the full walk away costs until after we walk away.

[d204mom]

archwinsome said:

eagledad said:

Or maybe the land in the Oswege school district on 111th, west of Rt 30?

Hell, that might be closer too ;D

Aren't we already there?

[doctorwho]

archwinsome said:

eagledad said:

Or maybe the land in the Oswege school district on 111th, west of Rt 30?

Oswego, New York? Hell, that might be closer too ;D

www.portoswego.com/

ahoy there matey !

[bob]

proschool said:

Hmmm...

No mention of walkers staying walkers.

That is probably under the transportation costs.

[Arch]

d204mom said:

archwinsome said:

Hell, that might be closer too ;D

Aren't we already there?

Some of us do choose to decorate our places as such, yes.

[proschool]

bob said:

proschool said:

Hmmm...

No mention of walkers staying walkers.

That is probably under the transportation costs.

But most of the walkers in some areas can get on busses that are already in thier neighborhoods plus we may get extra funding for each bus rider.Their may not be any money saved by keeping all walkers as walkers. It may even have a net cost to the district.

[wvhsparent]

eagledad said:

wvhsparent said:

One good thing I garnered from this is that if the SD walks away from BB we are not on the hook for the damages (that was BB's Motion)

Are you referring to the notes of the Dash meeting? where'd you take that away from? I did not have the same impression.

This clip from the above post-

Related to MVHS- today the judge in the condemnation case ruled against a new trial. According to online versions of the papers (Sun and Daily Herald) the district has 30 days to pay for or release the BB land. A motion by BB was also dismissed.

[EagleDad]

Yep we're off this hook for damages - this week (and for the next 3).

I can't say I would blame BB for wanting a little blood after being dragged through this for 3 years and they being told "oops, we're not interested, we changed our mind".

[bob]

eagledad said:

Yep we're off this hook for damages - this week (and for the next 3).

I can't say I would blame BB for wanting a little blood after being dragged through this for 3 years and they being told "oops, we're not interested, we changed our mind".

But it was their choice to go to trial. The risk of the trial to BB was that the jury would come at a price too high for the SD. That's what happened.

The trusts get nothing and their lawyers get $5 mill.

[d204mom]

wvhsparent said:

eagledad said:

Are you referring to the notes of the Dash meeting? where'd you take that away from? I did not have the same impression.

This clip from the above post-

Related to MVHS- today the judge in the condemnation case ruled against a new trial. According to online versions of the papers (Sun and Daily Herald) the district has 30 days to pay for or release the BB land. A motion by BB was also dismissed.

The other side to this story is that the only reason the counter-motion was denied is due to the fact that the property has not been abandoned yet. From the Sun:

But because the district hasn't officially abandoned the property, Kilander also denied that motion, citing no legal authority.


Judge made no ruling on the VALIDITY of the damage claim. I'm not an expert but the case law cited in the counter motion looked pretty good. So all they have to do is re-file when we abandon. They've already done all of the work & research on it so it wouldn't be that tough for them to pick up the 2.5M damage to remainder plus an unknown amount of damages for unjustly delaying their access to the property ("Hail Mary pass" quote).

[d204mom]

slp said:

2) Operating Ed Fund Referendum. It was confirmed at this meeting that the district will likely not come to the public in 2009 for an op ed referendum. 2010 or later is possible dependent on conditions.

This is something else that has been sticking in my craw.

Frankly, I pay too much in property taxes for Daeschner to sweep in and increase class sizes and do other "penny-pinching" moves in order to push off the operating referendum for a year or two. I pay $8K in property tax and others pay much much more. I didn't move here so my kids could get "penny pinched" in class sizes of 30 with lower-paid inexperienced teachers.

I know I'll get lots of guff for this post but the truth is we live in an expensive area and taxes go up to maintain our schools, etc. We are facing a DuPage County tax hike next month to keep services. And I will vote YES for that because I think it is in the best interest of the county. Just like I think smaller class sizes are in the best interest of my kids. But we don't get that choice because Daeschner and Co. know a site change would doom the operating ref so he's going to punish our kids by cutting corners in order to not have to pass it.

Just my opinion.

[bob]

Wait, no 09 Referendum?

That is great news.

[Arch]

d204mom said:

slp said:

2) Operating Ed Fund Referendum. It was confirmed at this meeting that the district will likely not come to the public in 2009 for an op ed referendum. 2010 or later is possible dependent on conditions.

Frankly, I pay too much in property taxes for Daeschner to sweep in and increase class sizes and do other "penny-pinching" moves in order to push off the operating referendum for a year or two. I pay $8K in property tax and others pay much much more. I didn't move here so my kids could get "penny pinched" in class sizes of 30 with lower-paid inexperienced teachers.

I know I'll get lots of guff for this post but the truth is we live in an expensive area and taxes go up to maintain our schools, etc. We are facing a DuPage County tax hike next month to keep services. And I will vote YES for that because I think it is in the best interest of the county. Just like I think smaller class sizes are in the best interest of my kids. But we don't get that choice because Daeschner and Co. know a site change would doom the operating ref so he's going to punish our kids by cutting corners in order to not have to pass it.

Just my opinion.

I hear you on this... I don't want larger classes and skimpy sh!t for the money we pay for this district. If I wanted that I would move to D131 or Elgin

[slp]

d204mom said:

slp said:

2) Operating Ed Fund Referendum. It was confirmed at this meeting that the district will likely not come to the public in 2009 for an op ed referendum. 2010 or later is possible dependent on conditions.

This is something else that has been sticking in my craw.

Frankly, I pay too much in property taxes for Daeschner to sweep in and increase class sizes and do other "penny-pinching" moves in order to push off the operating referendum for a year or two. I pay $8K in property tax and others pay much much more. I didn't move here so my kids could get "penny pinched" in class sizes of 30 with lower-paid inexperienced teachers.

I know I'll get lots of guff for this post but the truth is we live in an expensive area and taxes go up to maintain our schools, etc. We are facing a DuPage County tax hike next month to keep services. And I will vote YES for that because I think it is in the best interest of the county. Just like I think smaller class sizes are in the best interest of my kids. But we don't get that choice because Daeschner and Co. know a site change would doom the operating ref so he's going to punish our kids by cutting corners in order to not have to pass it.

Just my opinion.

I agree with your comments about class size. It is against common sense that 30 kids in a classroom is as equitable as 23 or 25 in the ES's. I don't care what studies are conducted, it just doesn't make sense. You are right, I pay too much in taxes to agree to larger class sizes .