|
|
Post by proschool on Feb 17, 2008 15:10:51 GMT -6
Agreed. It's more about making a decision that will affect everyone for a very very long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Feb 17, 2008 15:16:19 GMT -6
...Attorney General Lisa Madigan urging her involvement, a flyer encouraging attendance at the Tuesday Board meeting, a full-page ad in Sunday's Naperville Sun, preparation of a presentation for Tuesday night, contacting various newspapers/investigative reporters, etc, as well as looking into legal action if necessary. ------------- hmmm....intersting tactics.  You know what would have been fair game for all this effort, mobilization, and making the district "better for the future" if you think that location was so critical? People should have made efforts back in the fall to ask the SB to try and pass another referendum to cover the BB land costs after the jury verdict. This would have been in the form of deleting the gym and pool etc at BB and building an incomplete MV there. And then hoping the voters would soon approve future spending to add these structures. That is the process that could have been followed. But it wasnt. One reason I believe was because this very idea had tepid support at best on this very board. Gee, if we couldnt build consensus here....I wonder how that idea would have gone over with the general public? I think the SB accurately reflected what the broad district-wide public wanted: dont ask us for more money for this school. I think this community "leadership" is misguided. The chance was there to use the democratic process of a referendum to address these concerns. And the democratic support for this path was not there. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 17, 2008 15:26:27 GMT -6
...Attorney General Lisa Madigan urging her involvement, a flyer encouraging attendance at the Tuesday Board meeting, a full-page ad in Sunday's Naperville Sun, preparation of a presentation for Tuesday night, contacting various newspapers/investigative reporters, etc, as well as looking into legal action if necessary. ------------- hmmm....intersting tactics. You know what would have been fair game for all this effort, mobilization, and making the district "better for the future" if you think that location was so critical? People should have made efforts back in the fall to ask the SB to try and pass another referendum to cover the BB land costs after the jury verdict. This would have been in the form of deleting the gym and pool etc at BB and building an incomplete MV there. And then hoping the voters would soon approve future spending to add these structures. That is the process that could have been followed. But it wasnt. One reason I believe was because this very idea had tepid support at best on this very board. Gee, if we couldnt build consensus here....I wonder how that idea would have gone over with the general public? I think the SB accurately reflected what the broad district-wide public wanted: dont ask us for more money for this school. I think this community "leadership" is misguided. The chance was there to use the democratic process of a referendum to address these concerns. And the democratic support for this path was not there. It was said prior that we could afford it (M2). Why they didn't just bite the d**n bullet and break ground in October is beyond me. I agree with you though, if they needed more money, they should have asked for it... just like the county was doing to keep from having to make law enforcement and social program cuts. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Feb 17, 2008 15:32:23 GMT -6
The bottom line is no one wants to leave NV. All the rest is just smokescreen for snobbery and me,me,me. It is so sad. No, you are wrong. People do feel they are close enough to walk. It sounds like you don't want to go without TG. |
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Feb 17, 2008 15:43:44 GMT -6
When they put out false info such that they did and makes you really say HMMMMMMMM.
Put it this way, yes the bridge makes you walkers, but due to the enrollment numbers we can't fit you into NV. Sounds better then how our administartion handled it, makes you wonder what they are hiding. I believe we are paying them big bucks. My kids know it not smart to lie to me. When the SB puts out a memo that is false, it enrages people. Yes, we are lucky to live in a community that is involved.
The SB should not be allowed to waste a dime of our money. We are wasting millions on this 3rd HS. Money that could be going to better educating our children.
Also I don't care who you are and how happy you are over your boundary situation, but what this SB did to Peterson is sooooooo WRONG. If you move Welch it would be less pain for many and yes if Steck and McCarty walk across unsafe areas they too should move and alliviate the pain felt at Watts, Cowl, and Owen. The insesitivity to those who are being moved around on this board is really making blood boil. It is for everybody what happens in their own backyard and everyone is soooo transparent. WVparent has always wanted a northern site, so he put our info on BB. Now he is happy so screw Watts, Cowl, Owen, Gombert, Peterson ect. That to me is extremely selfish.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Feb 17, 2008 15:44:41 GMT -6
...Attorney General Lisa Madigan urging her involvement, a flyer encouraging attendance at the Tuesday Board meeting, a full-page ad in Sunday's Naperville Sun, preparation of a presentation for Tuesday night, contacting various newspapers/investigative reporters, etc, as well as looking into legal action if necessary. ------------- hmmm....intersting tactics. You know what would have been fair game for all this effort, mobilization, and making the district "better for the future" if you think that location was so critical? People should have made efforts back in the fall to ask the SB to try and pass another referendum to cover the BB land costs after the jury verdict. This would have been in the form of deleting the gym and pool etc at BB and building an incomplete MV there. And then hoping the voters would soon approve future spending to add these structures. That is the process that could have been followed. But it wasnt. One reason I believe was because this very idea had tepid support at best on this very board. Gee, if we couldnt build consensus here....I wonder how that idea would have gone over with the general public? I think the SB accurately reflected what the broad district-wide public wanted: dont ask us for more money for this school. I think this community "leadership" is misguided. The chance was there to use the democratic process of a referendum to address these concerns. And the democratic support for this path was not there. "If you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view."-To Kill a Mockingbird |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Feb 17, 2008 15:57:41 GMT -6
Sorry, ED and Arch, not trying to use the same brush for everyone. I am disgusted with many people I thought I knew better, people I thought had a sense of community. It is coming through in my posts as a bitter hag and I apologize.
Other posters from TG have stated, in this very thread, that the kids will be fine wherever they go. I asked, if the kids will be OK, then what are we talking about? I just don't understand. This boundary issue will once again tear the community apart if we can't unite on the idea that we need a new school now and sacrifices will have to be made by many (but not all) of the people in this district. If there is a valid reason to adjust the boundaries it should be considered.
|
|
|
|
Post by confused on Feb 17, 2008 16:00:13 GMT -6
That sounds great - why don't we apply that "vow" to all walking areas that are given priority because their kids walk and are under 1.5 miles. Welch, Steck, McCarty, Gombert, I guess you're saying Ashbury is walkers too, Dad204? No parking passes, no cars, you must walk every day. The board considers them walkers and as of Fall 2007, Fry will be walkers too. They are not being considered to have to leave NV or WV because of their walker status. The same should apply for Fry. The difference is this. All the other areas you mentioned are not saying, that if only the school board would allow us to walk to NV, then we would. TG is being very vocal saying that with the bridge, they would walk. I say bologna. I've not really heard that from them. I've heard that it would make them walkers. It gives working parents an option if their kids have extracurricular activities and I see that they would use it more for coming home than going to school. They could also use it to attend football games and basketball games. The difference is that when an area is deemed "walkers" the school district does not have to pay for transportation. In fact, I heard that once this bridge goes up, IDOT will NOT reimburse D204 at all for the walkers from Fry - starting this Fall. Maybe you don't care enough about your tax dollars that you are willing for the district to pay extra to provide bussing to Waubonsie for a school that could be considered walkers to NV, but I think you should. If they were to send an area of non-walkers instead, they could save that money. Additionally, they could avoid splitting so many middle schools. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Feb 17, 2008 16:07:16 GMT -6
Sorry, ED and Arch, not trying to use the same brush for everyone. I am disgusted with many people I thought I knew better, people I thought had a sense of community. It is coming through in my posts as a bitter hag and I apologize. Other posters from TG have stated, in this very thread, that the kids will be fine wherever they go. I asked, if the kids will be OK, then what are we talking about? I just don't understand. This boundary issue will once again tear the community apart if we can't unite on the idea that we need a new school now and sacrifices will have to be made by many (but not all) of the people in this district. If there is a valid reason to adjust the boundaries it should be considered. The boundary process should be fair. The standards should be applied equally to all. The outcome should make sense. So if some people have concerns, then they have every right to express that. I am disappointed that people like you just want others to shut up and take it - and you're trying like mad to label us as something we're not. |
|
|
|
Post by 204family on Feb 17, 2008 16:07:53 GMT -6
Sorry, ED and Arch, not trying to use the same brush for everyone. I am disgusted with many people I thought I knew better, people I thought had a sense of community. It is coming through in my posts as a bitter hag and I apologize. Other posters from TG have stated, in this very thread, that the kids will be fine wherever they go. I asked, if the kids will be OK, then what are we talking about? I just don't understand. This boundary issue will once again tear the community apart if we can't unite on the idea that we need a new school now and sacrifices will have to be made by many (but not all) of the people in this district. If there is a valid reason to adjust the boundaries it should be considered. We're talking about handing over 140million dollars to a SB that is skewing the information. I'm not asking for NV. I'm asking for a little honesty here. Don't even talk sense of community...it's simplifying the issues. I LOVE this town and this district. They've done more for my Special Needs son that I can say, but I WILL NOT turn my head and look the other way so we open a school by a certain date. NO ONE is talking about moving Fry to NV. We're talking about slowing down. We're talking figuring out the environmental implications of the land. We're talking about looking at some of the really ignorant splits like Ashwood/Peterson. We're talking about looking at the commutes for Watts and Owen. Quit simplifying the issue---its 140million dollars!!! |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Feb 17, 2008 16:19:56 GMT -6
Sorry, ED and Arch, not trying to use the same brush for everyone. I am disgusted with many people I thought I knew better, people I thought had a sense of community. It is coming through in my posts as a bitter hag and I apologize. Other posters from TG have stated, in this very thread, that the kids will be fine wherever they go. I asked, if the kids will be OK, then what are we talking about? I just don't understand. This boundary issue will once again tear the community apart if we can't unite on the idea that we need a new school now and sacrifices will have to be made by many (but not all) of the people in this district. If there is a valid reason to adjust the boundaries it should be considered. We're talking about handing over 140million dollars to a SB that is skewing the information. I'm not asking for NV. I'm asking for a little honesty here. Don't even talk sense of community...it's simplifying the issues. I LOVE this town and this district. They've done more for my Special Needs son that I can say, but I WILL NOT turn my head and look the other way so we open a school by a certain date. NO ONE is talking about moving Fry to NV. We're talking about slowing down. We're talking figuring out the environmental implications of the land. We're talking about looking at some of the really ignorant splits like Ashwood/Peterson. We're talking about looking at the commutes for Watts and Owen. Quit simplifying the issue---its 140million dollars!!! I agree with you. But I would like to add that the Fry commute to WVHS would be the second longest in the district. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 17, 2008 16:22:09 GMT -6
When they put out false info such that they did and makes you really say HMMMMMMMM. Put it this way, yes the bridge makes you walkers, but due to the enrollment numbers we can't fit you into NV. Sounds better then how our administartion handled it, makes you wonder what they are hiding. I believe we are paying them big bucks. My kids know it not smart to lie to me. When the SB puts out a memo that is false, it enrages people. Yes, we are lucky to live in a community that is involved. The SB should not be allowed to waste a dime of our money. We are wasting millions on this 3rd HS. Money that could be going to better educating our children. Also I don't care who you are and how happy you are over your boundary situation, but what this SB did to Peterson is sooooooo WRONG. If you move Welch it would be less pain for many and yes if Steck and McCarty walk across unsafe areas they too should move and alliviate the pain felt at Watts, Cowl, and Owen. The insesitivity to those who are being moved around on this board is really making blood boil. It is for everybody what happens in their own backyard and everyone is soooo transparent. WVparent has always wanted a northern site, so he put our info on BB. Now he is happy so screw Watts, Cowl, Owen, Gombert, Peterson ect. That to me is extremely selfish. Be very careful...I have NEVER said to screw any areas. Yes I have always wanted a Northern site...never denied that at all, but I also stated I would have jumped fully behind any support for BB once they started building. Now I also think the boundaries they came up with are messed up. I will support what I can to help Watts/COWL/OWEN/Peterson and Gombert. So quit your complaining and crying and come up with a reasonable solution and a reasoned presentation to the SB. If all you are going to do is whine, you then deserve what you get. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 17, 2008 16:43:32 GMT -6
What was the reason for disliking BB? Was it something on/next to the site itself or the location being so far from the north?
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 17, 2008 16:48:20 GMT -6
What was the reason for disliking BB? Was it something on/next to the site itself or the location being so far from the north? Go thru the archives....the answer you seek is there. |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Feb 17, 2008 16:59:48 GMT -6
Sorry, ED and Arch, not trying to use the same brush for everyone. I am disgusted with many people I thought I knew better, people I thought had a sense of community. It is coming through in my posts as a bitter hag and I apologize. Other posters from TG have stated, in this very thread, that the kids will be fine wherever they go. I asked, if the kids will be OK, then what are we talking about? I just don't understand. This boundary issue will once again tear the community apart if we can't unite on the idea that we need a new school now and sacrifices will have to be made by many (but not all) of the people in this district. If there is a valid reason to adjust the boundaries it should be considered. We're talking about handing over 140million dollars to a SB that is skewing the information. I'm not asking for NV. I'm asking for a little honesty here. Don't even talk sense of community...it's simplifying the issues. I LOVE this town and this district. They've done more for my Special Needs son that I can say, but I WILL NOT turn my head and look the other way so we open a school by a certain date. NO ONE is talking about moving Fry to NV. We're talking about slowing down. We're talking figuring out the environmental implications of the land. We're talking about looking at some of the really ignorant splits like Ashwood/Peterson. We're talking about looking at the commutes for Watts and Owen. Quit simplifying the issue---its 140million dollars!!! I am sorry, but moving Fry to NV is EXACTLY what is being talked about, ad nauseaum, by the "walkers" on this board. |
|
