|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 18, 2006 13:33:16 GMT -6
Any one else planning on attending ?
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 18, 2006 19:38:18 GMT -6
Any one else planning on attending ? I am going to try to go...depends on what time I get done with a night shoot. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 19, 2006 9:57:34 GMT -6
Hope to see you there...............
|
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on Oct 19, 2006 21:46:25 GMT -6
I am going to try to go...depends on what time I get done with a night shoot. Night shoot??? Does that involve cameras or guns? |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 20, 2006 9:47:38 GMT -6
I am going to try to go...depends on what time I get done with a night shoot. Night shoot??? Does that involve cameras or guns? Guns........ Have to qualify for my Park Dist Police job......... |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Oct 20, 2006 14:23:38 GMT -6
FYI - I emailed the chair of the NTDO last night regarding the blogs on the website. Here is his reply: Anyone is allowed to post to a blog to the website. Mr. White's comments are his alone and in no way reflective upon the Naperville Township Democratic Organization (which - you may remind people - officially endorsed the 204 referendum. The local Republican organization officially did NOT.) I have never met Mr. White. He is not an officer - nor does he hold any type of leadership position. As an organization, we are proud to have endorsed the 204 referendum and we will continue to fight to make sure this school is built. If anyone has any questions regarding this, I would be happy to speak with them! Tom tom@napervilledemocrats.org I doubt that the republicans officailly did not support the referendum. There are a few boneheads in both parties who came out against the referendum and that included the Republican nomineee for Mayor of Aurora. I am a Republican who voted for the Democratic nominee for Mayor (who I don't recall expressing any opinion). If the party officailly decided not to support he referendum I think that I would have remembered that. If Tom can support this alleagtion with a link I would be interested in seeing it. If he meant to say something different then a correction would be fair. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Oct 20, 2006 16:20:26 GMT -6
Do we have a local republican organization in Naperville?
I thought Naperville WAS the local republican organization. LOL ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Oct 20, 2006 16:23:12 GMT -6
If Tom can support this alleagtion with a link I would be interested in seeing it. If he meant to say something different then a correction would be fair. Proschool, don't take this the wrong way, but I think the burden of proof would be on showing a link that the republicans DID endorse the referendum. There probably weren't a lot of web pages created (i.e. links) saying they didn't (if true). |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Oct 20, 2006 18:50:43 GMT -6
Ed,
That would be the case if he said that the republicans did not officailly supportly support the referendum. (ie did not make a stand) .Tom said that the Republican officailly did not support the referendum (ie took a stand against the referendum).
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Oct 20, 2006 21:07:19 GMT -6
Somewhat Clinton-esque slicing and dicing of the meaning of words.
But your point rings true. Tom should provide evidence of explicit republican official policy against the referendum as stated, or revise the statement.
But I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, that the stamemnent may have gained additional meaning, via the recommunication of momof3 .
|
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Oct 22, 2006 16:17:45 GMT -6
I read this to mean that the NTDO officially endorsed the referendum, and the NTRO officially did not endorse the referendum, which is true, they did not take a stand. I received information from both in the spring election probably because I'm a registered repub but I have pulled dem primary ballots in the past. The dem literature endorsed the ref and encouraged a yes vote and the repub literature did not mention the ref.
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Oct 27, 2006 6:01:20 GMT -6
JUst curious if anyone made it to this last night. I tried, but didn't get home from work 'till 8. Then again, I don't need a lot of convincing on the quick take (off with the BB lawyers heads!!!  ) |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 27, 2006 7:44:00 GMT -6
JUst curious if anyone made it to this last night. I tried, but didn't get home from work 'till 8. Then again, I don't need a lot of convincing on the quick take (off with the BB lawyers heads!!! ) I went.......as a skeptic......cuz I still don't like the BB site....... Synopsis: M2 explained the whole Eminent Domain process, and then went into a little on the Quick Take. My impression, jaded as it may be, was that the SB is trying to use the QT to take away the BB Leverage of time (delaying tactics). He seems to think that the other comps in the area namely the land behind Meijer on Liberty and the "triangle" between 75th and Ogden are below the SD offer. He also mentioned that the budget does have some wiggle room on the land price. He also seemed to think that whatever the ending cost of the BB land is would affect all open parcels in the event they wish to look elsewhere ( I disagree with that premise). I think they (The SB) is hoping that if they get the QT the BB folks will stop their delays and settle. I asked him about the rumor that the BB Trust had an offer for the parel at 420k/acre..........he did not answer it, but stated that that figure is out of their range for the prop. IMHO not much new info was gained. |
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Oct 27, 2006 11:22:03 GMT -6
Something else I picked up -
This is not a sure thing. The GA in Springfield has to get this on the schedule during the November veto session to even be considered, which is not a guarantee.
Mark said the area reps are on board, but if you are in favor, you should write your state representatives, and if you've already written, he said it wouldn't hurt to write again.
|
|
)