|
|
Post by twhl on Apr 12, 2008 16:00:48 GMT -6
APRIL 2007Jennifer Streder, of Napervile's Brookdale neighborhood, said Friday she hopes the district finds a way to build along Eola. "People are appalled, shocked and hurt that elitism wins in this case," she said. "And that's what they are, a small group of parents who believe they got a deed to a seat in a school, sitting next to whoever they want, when they bought their ritzy homes. "Well they've woken and disgusted a silent majority here and we're tired of their unacceptance of certain aspects of our community and Waubonsie Valley High School." Sometime in 2006“Referring to the process as political gerrymandering, many Brookdale residents said they feel sold out by the entire board. “We feel dismissed, disenfranchised.”, parent Laura Steffak said.” "There's a chance that for an entire day she might not know anyone," said parent Jennifer Streder of her daughter, who would be first class affected. "When you're asking me to say yes to the referendum, you're asking me to throw her into that situation." Quite a change in opinion, I'd say! I guess now that we know it's God's will to punish the heathens it's okay to feel differently. ETA: Oh boy, now I'm in trouble with the Big Man! Forgive me father because I have sinned. Lets take Dr D's advice and fence off Brookdale - "Just fence that baby off ". I wouldnt be surprised if the folks in the south fire off a slander suit at either Jennifer or some of the Boards comments. I might suggest they tone things down a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Apr 12, 2008 16:04:26 GMT -6
In all honesty, I believe what the church member said was that putting the option of the land on the table representents fairness and equity and THAT is God's Will.
I don't feel he was saying building the HS on the site was God's Will.
Having said that I did not see MWGEN's decision as closing the door to a third HS. I don't think the church's decision was needed to bring any fairness or equity to the situation. But obviously the speaker disagrees.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 12, 2008 16:19:49 GMT -6
APRIL 2007Jennifer Streder, of Napervile's Brookdale neighborhood, said Friday she hopes the district finds a way to build along Eola. "People are appalled, shocked and hurt that elitism wins in this case," she said. "And that's what they are, a small group of parents who believe they got a deed to a seat in a school, sitting next to whoever they want, when they bought their ritzy homes. "Well they've woken and disgusted a silent majority here and we're tired of their unacceptance of certain aspects of our community and Waubonsie Valley High School." Sometime in 2006“Referring to the process as political gerrymandering, many Brookdale residents said they feel sold out by the entire board. “We feel dismissed, disenfranchised.”, parent Laura Steffak said.” "There's a chance that for an entire day she might not know anyone," said parent Jennifer Streder of her daughter, who would be first class affected. "When you're asking me to say yes to the referendum, you're asking me to throw her into that situation." Quite a change in opinion, I'd say! I guess now that we know it's God's will to punish the heathens it's okay to feel differently. ETA: Oh boy, now I'm in trouble with the Big Man! Forgive me father because I have sinned. Lets take Dr D's advice and fence off Brookdale - "Just fence that baby off ". I wouldnt be surprised if the folks in the south fire off a slander suit at either Jennifer or some of the Boards comments. I might suggest they tone things down a bit. I suggest the same thing to Mrs. Streder. I found her comment very offensive. It was borderline slanderous in my opinion. I'm sure there are people looking into whether or not it can actually be construed as slander in the legal tense. ETA: Why are the district leaders ignoring this class warfare coming from all sides of the district? What will it take to get our leaders to comment against this type of disgusting rhetoric? Will it take the will of GOD? ETA: or are the leaders of 204 feeding the monster? Are they promoting this behavior? I'm starting to believe based on their silence in the matter this is the case. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 12, 2008 16:30:45 GMT -6
In all honesty, I believe what the church member said was that putting the option of the land on the table representents fairness and equity and THAT is God's Will. I don't feel he was saying building the HS on the site was God's Will. Having said that I did not see MWGEN's decision as closing the door to a third HS. I don't think the church's decision was needed to bring any fairness or equity to the situation. But obviously the speaker disagrees. rew, here's the quote: "But the church is very saddened for the children of District 204 and disappointed for them. We've put all of the options on the table so equality and justice can prevail over selfishness and discontent. That is God's will." The issue I have is this part: "so equality and justice can prevail over selfishness and discontent. That is God's will." Huh? Equality? Selfishness? Sorry, I can't seem to get over this one. It's thrown me over the edge. God's will is slamming down in the name of equality and justice over those upset exhibiting our selfishness. This comment should have never been printed. |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Apr 12, 2008 16:38:46 GMT -6
Nobody's supreme power has any place in this discussion. This is a public school where children of all faiths and some of no faith at all will attend. It is a secular argument.; the best thing anyone can do is leave religion out of this discussion. This is in no way a faith based argument or a faith based decision. If it is, we have a much larger problem on our hands, that being separation of church and state. We should just think of AME as a business entity that is selling it's land and the well intended Reverend should check his views at the door as well. I strongly agree with you on this SNM. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 12, 2008 16:40:22 GMT -6
Is she the Hill PTA President? If so, that's very unbecoming of that position, IMO. Uh. Yup hill.ipsd.org/pta.asp*sigh* |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Apr 12, 2008 16:56:14 GMT -6
I need some help on something... The Board keeps saying that the cost of the additional BB land is 31 million. The Daily Herald reported that it is 28.5 million (with another 2.5 million in damages that I assume exist regardless if the property is purchased or not)  ? With the 6.5 million in land already owned at BB (giving the District the benefit of the doubt that this land could be sold for the same amount), the total price comes to 35 million (correct??) If Ames agreed to sell its remaining property for the same price as the first acres, without looking at the wetland issues at AMES(which most likely will a minimum of 1 million), the cost would be around 21-22 million dollars. For the sake of arguement and taking the District's numbers (which I do not accept), there is a 13 million difference at best (and of course..how many years of additional transportation costs would it take to bridge this difference----I assume not many at all). The FMV value for the remaining 55 acreas at BB, as established by the jury, is 28.5 million. What if BB sold most of the land to D204 for 22 million, AND donated the remaining land to make up the 55 acre total remaining (a FMV of 6.5 million). I understand that the land is owned by charitable trusts and this would certainly be a worthy contribution to the 204 community (and they may even be able to coordinate for some tax benefits depending on how the trusts are set up, etc.). Perhaps in exchange, the District can show its appreciation by naming the football field Brach field and the gym Brody fieldhouse. It would end the acromony and would allow for the healing to begin...It would end the lawsuits and financial exposure to the District. It would allow the District to follow through on it's declared Option A and would satisfy the promises made to secure the passage of the 2nd referendum... Any thoughts/feedback |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 12, 2008 17:03:03 GMT -6
Old Chicago-area church is getting a new home The City Council of Aurora, Ill., voted unanimously Tuesday night to annex the land needed for the 145-year-old St. John African Methodist Episcopal Church to build a 6,500-square-foot church. Plans for an expanded church began in 2000 when the Rev. Jesse Hawkins recognized the need for a larger space for his growing congregation. The church, which began in Aurora with seven Black men and women in 1862, now has 700 members. The congregation has worshiped at Granger Middle School on Aurora’s west side for the last two years. St. John’s previous building, which seated only 550 people, was sold in 2006. In 2004, the church bought 84 acres on Aurora’s west side, east of Eola Road and south of Diehl Road. The church is selling 49 of those acres to Indian Prairie School District 204 for the district’s third high school but will keep the remaining 35 acres for its church campus. The site of the new school was controversial because the district fought for years to buy land near the site. The school board finally gave up and decided to buy land elsewhere, clearing the way for the latest council action. “This is a great opportunity for the church,” said Mike Roth, the church’s attorney. “It enables the church to meet the demands of the community.” The proposed church campus will contain three buildings, each one built in a separate phase. HUH? blogs.bet.com/news/newsyoushouldknow/?p=2412 |
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on Apr 12, 2008 17:20:27 GMT -6
Is she the Hill PTA President? If so, that's very unbecoming of that position, IMO. Uh. Yup hill.ipsd.org/pta.asp*sigh* |
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on Apr 12, 2008 17:21:52 GMT -6
I agree Arch. As a PTA President she should not be partial to any one side, and as a member of the IPPC she owes each and every one of the PTA Presidents, Representatives and members a sincere apology.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 12, 2008 17:40:51 GMT -6
She does owe many of us an apology. Jennifer, if you are reading this PM me for my email address so that we can discuss this further.
Thanks for today's slam against me and my neighbors. You decided to slam a great many of us for no good reason.
I have a good memory. Your words will stay with me for a long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 12, 2008 17:47:50 GMT -6
I need some help on something... The Board keeps saying that the cost of the additional BB land is 31 million. The Daily Herald reported that it is 28.5 million (with another 2.5 million in damages that I assume exist regardless if the property is purchased or not) ? With the 6.5 million in land already owned at BB (giving the District the benefit of the doubt that this land could be sold for the same amount), the total price comes to 35 million (correct??) If Ames agreed to sell its remaining property for the same price as the first acres, without looking at the wetland issues at AMES(which most likely will a minimum of 1 million), the cost would be around 21-22 million dollars. For the sake of arguement and taking the District's numbers (which I do not accept), there is a 13 million difference at best (and of course..how many years of additional transportation costs would it take to bridge this difference----I assume not many at all). The FMV value for the remaining 55 acreas at BB, as established by the jury, is 28.5 million. What if BB sold most of the land to D204 for 22 million, AND donated the remaining land to make up the 55 acre total remaining (a FMV of 6.5 million). I understand that the land is owned by charitable trusts and this would certainly be a worthy contribution to the 204 community (and they may even be able to coordinate for some tax benefits depending on how the trusts are set up, etc.). Perhaps in exchange, the District can show its appreciation by naming the football field Brach field and the gym Brody fieldhouse. It would end the acromony and would allow for the healing to begin...It would end the lawsuits and financial exposure to the District. It would allow the District to follow through on it's declared Option A and would satisfy the promises made to secure the passage of the 2nd referendum... Any thoughts/feedback Sashimi, Thanks for the insightful post. I agree with it completely. I also think that Helm and Simon are open to negotiating and will sell for less than the jury award. This is something that should be pursued before we rush to close on the AME site. If the district rushes the AME site through, they will never pass another referendum for more funding in a very long time. |
|
|
|
Post by al on Apr 12, 2008 17:54:41 GMT -6
What if BB sold most of the land to D204 for 22 million, AND donated the remaining land to make up the 55 acre total remaining (a FMV of 6.5 million). again - broken record here on BB, but if there was ever the SLIGHTEST indication that they were willing to help this deal go through it would have already been done. Every action - every single sentence they have spoken or word they have written - points to the inexorable fact that they have no desire to make this happen. None. Period. Wish that it were different, but chasing after this "perfect" land in an exercise in futility. and if IF they did a sudden turnabout and wanted to make some sort of a deal - given past performance - would you trust them? absolutely not an attack on you at all sashimi - any brainstorming on this is better then sitting back and watching this drama continue to unfold.  |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 12, 2008 17:58:00 GMT -6
What if BB sold most of the land to D204 for 22 million, AND donated the remaining land to make up the 55 acre total remaining (a FMV of 6.5 million). again - broken record here on BB, but if there was ever the SLIGHTEST indication that they were willing to help this deal go through it would have already been done. Every action - every single sentence they have spoken or word they have written - points to the inexorable fact that they have no desire to make this happen. None. Period. Wish that it were different, but chasing after this "perfect" land in an exercise in futility. and if IF they did a sudden turnabout and wanted to make some sort of a deal - given past performance - would you trust them? absolutely not an attack on you at all sashimi - any brainstorming on this is better then sitting back and watching this drama continue to unfold. Al, You are one of my favorite posters. Welcome back. Don't you think that things might have changed with BB since the Preit deal fell through? I somehow sense a shift in the wind as far as Helm and Simon are concerned. Also, what is your take on the validity of the damages suits filed by BB? |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Apr 12, 2008 18:01:16 GMT -6
I need some help on something... The Board keeps saying that the cost of the additional BB land is 31 million. The Daily Herald reported that it is 28.5 million (with another 2.5 million in damages that I assume exist regardless if the property is purchased or not) ? With the 6.5 million in land already owned at BB (giving the District the benefit of the doubt that this land could be sold for the same amount), the total price comes to 35 million (correct??) If Ames agreed to sell its remaining property for the same price as the first acres, without looking at the wetland issues at AMES(which most likely will a minimum of 1 million), the cost would be around 21-22 million dollars. For the sake of arguement and taking the District's numbers (which I do not accept), there is a 13 million difference at best (and of course..how many years of additional transportation costs would it take to bridge this difference----I assume not many at all). The FMV value for the remaining 55 acreas at BB, as established by the jury, is 28.5 million. What if BB sold most of the land to D204 for 22 million, AND donated the remaining land to make up the 55 acre total remaining (a FMV of 6.5 million). I understand that the land is owned by charitable trusts and this would certainly be a worthy contribution to the 204 community (and they may even be able to coordinate for some tax benefits depending on how the trusts are set up, etc.). Perhaps in exchange, the District can show its appreciation by naming the football field Brach field and the gym Brody fieldhouse. It would end the acromony and would allow for the healing to begin...It would end the lawsuits and financial exposure to the District. It would allow the District to follow through on it's declared Option A and would satisfy the promises made to secure the passage of the 2nd referendum... Any thoughts/feedback BB is not a charitable trust. Then you have to ask why did they not do this earlier? - twice BTW - and make everyone go through the condemnation proceedings. BB is there to make money...they don't give a rip about the SD. |
|
? 
