|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 11, 2008 21:47:27 GMT -6
OK, Doc. I'll concede. Everyone in the entire distict was voting on BB except me and the people in 2005 that voted yes when they didn't know where the HS would be. I really am naive on the SB's function. Is it to act in what they feel is our best interests? Or is it to go back to us at every little problem and seek our approval before going forward? If it is the latter, then it's no wonder we don't have a third HS. We have a pretty big district and you are not going to make everyone happy. What do other districts do? Yes, they sit down and talk to people (unlike 204), but don't they still go ahead and make the decisions? If it is not to make decisions for us, why are they here? 12% of the people turned out to vote in 2005, and more No's than yes's - am I not correct ? If you're being honest you know exactly what I am talking about as far as the sales pitch. I voted yes in 2005 also- why ? Because I always voted yes ( just like some people always vote no for the schools ). Most people here were barraged with propoganda - either from the SB of CFO - pro or con - for the next year. MANY changed their votes after that. SOme yes voters became no voters because they believed what CFO told them, some No voters became yes voters because they believed what the SB-SD and 204tk told them. I know people on both sdes of this. I worked multiple neighborhoods for over a year, many hours a week talking to people, so yes I do know what I'm talking about. I guess maybe you'd be glad I 'm not on the SB as I believe they were elected by us - to not only serve us, but listen to us also, not ignore large %'s of the populatiion ( and common sense when it came to putting a school on MWGEN-AME - that is not land suitable for a school - but again why pay attenton to something like Build Smart when they know it all) . My interpretation of their role is likely different than yours, but yes I have read the job description also. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 11, 2008 21:50:47 GMT -6
Can you point me to where I can verify this? And did you interview everyone in those subdivisions? Could it be that some people just didn't get out and vote the first time? Perhaps you could check with the PTA president for Sprinbrook in 2005. There were a lot of people in my neighborhood that didn't vote because they thought the ref was a slam dunk. Part of that low turn out thing. They would have been yes voters if they had gotten off their butts and went to the polls. Can't generalize a whole neighborhood when only 17% (or whatever low number it was) of the people turned out to vote then. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 11, 2008 21:58:53 GMT -6
Life must be very good for you when $150 million dollars is every little problem - the safety of children is no little problem. Land requiring a little bit of remediation is land that a child should not be forced to step foot on. But perhaps that is just a little problem. I'm not defending their choice of Eola. I am defending their choice to "bait and switch" as everyone loves to call it. That's what the lawsuit is about. I believe 'bait and switch' was the explanation the SB president gave for what would happen if things changed after we voted. If they had not sold it as they did, it would not have been bait and switch. We can't just pretend what happened here didn't. It was bait and switch by their own definition. The choice of th Eola/Molitor site is just an example of how bad some decisions can be. If they want to sell a speciific site than re vote on that site. I would vote yes if it was in the best interest of all of the district, and safe for our children ( all our children) . I will vote no if another choice like Eola/Molitor is chosen - it's that simple. I voted Yes for BB and yet with an 8th grader I would have preferred NV or WV and hoped boundary wise it would come out that way. Contrary to some a shiny new school means little to me - opening a new school is a nightmare. But at least it was going to have all the facilities and district wise it made sense to me. ( yes I did think they needed to address the Brookdale in Hill by themselves HS wise issue and stated so ) |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 11, 2008 21:59:57 GMT -6
Perhaps you could check with the PTA president for Sprinbrook in 2005. There were a lot of people in my neighborhood that didn't vote because they thought the ref was a slam dunk. Part of that low turn out thing. They would have been yes voters if they had gotten off their butts and went to the polls. Can't generalize a whole neighborhood when only 17% (or whatever low number it was) of the people turned out to vote then. and what caused them to go out the next time ? All the hoopla and propoganda. They didn't just suddenly become un lazy. This was the same across the district -- the turnout doesnt' triple or quadruple in some areas because it was sunny out. People made that happen, and they did so by educating people what they were voting on. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 11, 2008 22:05:14 GMT -6
I guess we'll have to wait for the judge to decide if it was intentional bait and switch, won't we? Oh, to be an attorney in Naperville.....so busy, so busy.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 11, 2008 22:09:48 GMT -6
I guess we'll have to wait for the judge to decide if it was intentional bait and switch, won't we? Oh, to be an attorney in Naperville.....so busy, so busy. Yes they are lined up to get their share of the referendum......but unfortunately there are reasons they are It's my tax dollars also so I am not happy about it, but no less unhappy than if someone spent my money for something other than they told me they were going to. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 11, 2008 22:13:57 GMT -6
I guess we'll have to wait for the judge to decide if it was intentional bait and switch, won't we? Oh, to be an attorney in Naperville.....so busy, so busy. Yes they are lined up to get their share of the referendum......but unfortunately there are reasons they are It's my tax dollars also so I am not happy about it, but no less unhappy than if someone spent my money for something other than they told me they were going to. Doc, I'm curious. Would you be happy with Macom? You'd probably be going to NV. At BB, you'd still have the shell of a school. Which would you rather have? |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 12, 2008 0:22:44 GMT -6
So how does one explain the shift in voting? Springbrook and White Eagle, for example, voted no in 2005 but once location and boundaries were clarified, they voted yes in 2006. Tall Grass, on the other hand, voted yes in both elections. Even when unhappy about the boundaries, they wanted to support a 3rd high school. Some neighborhoods wanted to support desired outcomes. The hypocrisy is mind boggling. Here are the numbers I had for the elections. Assigning precints to ES areas is not exact. I put these 4 out since they've been mentioned in this thread. Turnout /% Yes (06) Turnout/% Yes(05) TG 54% / 57% 25% / 61% WE 66% / 77% 25% / 50% SB 53% / 61% 29% / 44% BD 29% / 28% 18% / 43% eta - sorry, can't figure out how to format |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Apr 12, 2008 0:35:07 GMT -6
So how does one explain the shift in voting? Springbrook and White Eagle, for example, voted no in 2005 but once location and boundaries were clarified, they voted yes in 2006. Tall Grass, on the other hand, voted yes in both elections. Even when unhappy about the boundaries, they wanted to support a 3rd high school. Some neighborhoods wanted to support desired outcomes. The hypocrisy is mind boggling. Here are the numbers I had for the elections. Assigning precints to ES areas is not exact. I put these 4 out since they've been mentioned in this thread. | | Turnout % | Yes (06) | Turnout % | Yes(05) | | TG | 54% | 57% | 25% | 61% | | WE | 66% | 77% | 25% | 50% | | SB | 53% | 61% | 29% | 44% | | BD | 29% | 28% | 18% | 43% |
eta - sorry, can't figure out how to format poof modified... |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Apr 12, 2008 14:19:01 GMT -6
I was obviously disappointed to see that the AMES Church leadership has decided to invoke God's Will into its justification for now considering selling the entire 84 acres to the District. It is also troubling that the Church leadership has come to the conclusion that building a school on any land other than the EOLA site would be an injustice to the children of 204. It seems that Dr. Daeschner and the Brookdale community have been active in helping shape the AMES church's leadership's beliefs about the motives of those who do not believe that the EOLA site is the right solution for the District. I would hope that the leadership will be as open to listening to the perspective of those who believe they have been mistreated in this process.
It certainly is the Church's right to protect and expand the growth of the Church (which obviously has been impacted as much as any other group in the continuing District 204 debacle). The AMES leadership undoubtedly has the interests of serving is members with the grace of God as its first priority. I truly hope that God continues to bless this historical and wonderful church.
However, I too believe in God (I attend Calvary Church and we can yell hallejuia as loudly as any congregation out there!). Yet, I do not believe that God has chosen sides in regards to the site location for Metea high school.
I do however believe that he has provided us with guidance in regards to treating your neighbor as you would like your neighbor to treat you, which I think we can all agree has been lost over the past months by folks on both sides of the aisle (residents, Board members and administration officials alike).
As we continue to try to come to the proper resolution for the District, I would implore the leadership of AMES to remember that it is okay to endorse God in everything you do, but that is very dangerous to assume that God endorses you (especially at the expense of other good and righteous people).
Finally, it is also worth noting that God's work usually does not work as well behind closed doors as it does when it is demonstrated openly before his people. Thus, I hope that the Administration, Board and Church proceed very openly and deliberately in land discussions/negotiations so that both God's will and the will of the 204 electorate are properly protected.
Best regards
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 12, 2008 14:33:29 GMT -6
So how does one explain the shift in voting? Springbrook and White Eagle, for example, voted no in 2005 but once location and boundaries were clarified, they voted yes in 2006. Tall Grass, on the other hand, voted yes in both elections. Even when unhappy about the boundaries, they wanted to support a 3rd high school. Some neighborhoods wanted to support desired outcomes. The hypocrisy is mind boggling. Here are the numbers I had for the elections. Assigning precints to ES areas is not exact. I put these 4 out since they've been mentioned in this thread. Turnout /% Yes (06) Turnout/% Yes(05) TG 54% / 57% 25% / 61% WE 66% / 77% 25% / 50% SB 53% / 61% 29% / 44% BD 29% / 28% 18% / 43% eta - sorry, can't figure out how to format Huh, I didn't know that Brookdale voted NO in 2005 but obviously the school board did, especially the teary-eyed ones. Hallelujah! It's a miracle! They have seen the light! |
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Apr 12, 2008 19:19:43 GMT -6
Here are the numbers I had for the elections. Assigning precints to ES areas is not exact. I put these 4 out since they've been mentioned in this thread. Turnout /% Yes (06) Turnout/% Yes(05) TG 54% / 57% 25% / 61% WE 66% / 77% 25% / 50% SB 53% / 61% 29% / 44% BD 29% / 28% 18% / 43% eta - sorry, can't figure out how to format Huh, I didn't know that Brookdale voted NO in 2005 but obviously the school board did, especially the teary-eyed ones. Hallelujah! It's a miracle! They have seen the light! I'm not sure but I don't think "SB" here stands for School Board. I think it's an a subdivsion...Stonebridge maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by concerned2 on Apr 12, 2008 21:07:55 GMT -6
Springbrook
|
|
