|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 22, 2008 6:52:44 GMT -6
The SB/SD wanted AME and they were going to buy it no matter what...but why didn't they, at least, use the other offers of land to negotiate a better price from the church??? they could have gotten the other land for free and they would have bought AME_- this is what's painfully obvious. Fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers -with OUR money - not a chance . I guess no one reads the oath they sign (well 6 / 7 didn't ) |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 22, 2008 7:05:00 GMT -6
The SB/SD wanted AME and they were going to buy it no matter what...but why didn't they, at least, use the other offers of land to negotiate a better price from the church??? It is my understanding that Macom offered $12.5M which is why they rushed to sign AME for $18.9M. Land would need testing but then again our SB does not place much concern on that or appraisals. Also add to the long list of LIES - the statement that we got the cheapest land |
|
|
|
Post by fence on Apr 22, 2008 7:05:52 GMT -6
I honestly think that we need to consider changing the format of one of our schools. I think that we have a large enough district to offer something different. A charter school is not one of the recommendations for NCLB for no reason. It is a good idea.
I just don't see how our school administration with the resources we have available to us can be proud of this kind of solution. Not meeting standards for 5 years is a failure - we need to admit that instead of move kids all over the place and pretend that's "restructuring."
And I will be the first to say that if this is NOT what's happening, I would really welcome someone with good information to come forward, explain our situation at WV, and explain the full plan that we've created to improve. And how the 2009 opening is or is not related, and why it is good for the kids who need help.
Oh, and how overcrowding WV for 2 years after MV opens is going to help. I would like an answer to that especially.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 22, 2008 7:08:32 GMT -6
I'll take it one step further ( and why my area gets shafted commute wise) - the NCLB issues would rule out any southern site - ( Macom / Hamman) - because of boundaries - they would even have had to be more bizarre than now to accomplish what they did Could that be why they didn't look at another offer received last Wednesday that was significantly lower in price before buying AME ? Ugh. I haven't really been buying into some of the (what I would call) conspiracy theories that seem to be floating around here of late; but honestly, after reading this from Doc I've had one of those light bulb over the head moments (or perhaps more appropriately, the slap to the forehead moment). Could be I'm just slow. There are sufficient layers of indirection in this entire mess to make this a more than plausible explanation. thank you Joe -- it's not that you and I or anyone else is slow -- it's that we've been conned so long, at so many levels, I mean really we knew we were being told half truths and falsehoods, but we were chasing much more obvious issues - when it appears the real issue was available to us all along. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 22, 2008 7:10:54 GMT -6
If there's any itch of truth to all of this: If this were a movie, the scene would be a SB/Admin member grabbing a child to act as a shield when the bullets start flying. You want to put my kids on a site with old operating pipelines that each individually has the potential to destroy the building and occupants to save your own collective butts? You've got to be F*ing kidding me. NSFOC is growing longer legs everyday. I hope they are taking copious notes. as I hope is the ISBe, the states attorney etc... |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 22, 2008 7:11:27 GMT -6
Ugh. I haven't really been buying into some of the (what I would call) conspiracy theories that seem to be floating around here of late; but honestly, after reading this from Doc I've had one of those light bulb over the head moments (or perhaps more appropriately, the slap to the forehead moment). Could be I'm just slow. There are sufficient layers of indirection in this entire mess to make this a more than plausible explanation. thank you Joe -- it's not that you and I or anyone else is slow -- it's that we've been conned so long, at so many levels, I mean really we knew we were being told half truths and falsehoods, but we were chasing much more obvious issues - when it appears the real issue was available to us all along. There's the 'forehead slapper' we talked about...  |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Apr 22, 2008 7:26:01 GMT -6
The SB/SD wanted AME and they were going to buy it no matter what...but why didn't they, at least, use the other offers of land to negotiate a better price from the church??? It is my understanding that Macom offered $12.5M which is why they rushed to sign AME for $18.9M. Land would need testing but then again our SB does not place much concern on that or appraisals. This is my understanding as well. So, the cost savings of AME is yet another un-truth. Hmmm.. un-truth seems so much more PC.  |
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Apr 22, 2008 8:04:44 GMT -6
It is my understanding that Macom offered $12.5M which is why they rushed to sign AME for $18.9M. Land would need testing but then again our SB does not place much concern on that or appraisals. This is my understanding as well. So, the cost savings of AME is yet another un-truth. Hmmm.. un-truth seems so much more PC. When D204 sells the 25 acres to AME, then that will make up the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 22, 2008 8:05:00 GMT -6
It is my understanding that Macom offered $12.5M which is why they rushed to sign AME for $18.9M. Land would need testing but then again our SB does not place much concern on that or appraisals. This is my understanding as well. So, the cost savings of AME is yet another un-truth. Hmmm.. un-truth seems so much more PC. Here is my question regarding this: Did that 12.5 M pricetag include the park district land? Or was it just for the Macom land, and the SD would still have to swap/pay the Park district for it's portion of the land at Macom?  |
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Apr 22, 2008 8:22:11 GMT -6
This is my understanding as well. So, the cost savings of AME is yet another un-truth. Hmmm.. un-truth seems so much more PC. Here is my question regarding this: Did that 12.5 M pricetag include the park district land? Or was it just for the Macom land, and the SD would still have to swap/pay the Park district for it's portion of the land at Macom? One would think it is only for the Macom property. D204 has never negotiated except for some feeble attempts to uncover ownership of the land and claimed per Dr Dash "it would take to long to finalize a deal". Two things come to mind, the Park District at one time owned the property that the 95th Street Library sits on today. They also owned much of the land that is now commercial along Route 59 and were happy to sit down with various developers and land owners to trade ownership. The kicker is that the Park District told to M2 in person that they were even willing to consider swapping the 25 acres at BB with the Macom land which would have taken the 25 acres off their hands and secured almost all the Macom property they needed. M2 replied "Thanks for the offer". Unfortunately that didn't make their pros vs. cons checklist of the papers either. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 22, 2008 8:22:12 GMT -6
This is my understanding as well. So, the cost savings of AME is yet another un-truth. Hmmm.. un-truth seems so much more PC. Here is my question regarding this: Did that 12.5 M pricetag include the park district land? Or was it just for the Macom land, and the SD would still have to swap/pay the Park district for it's portion of the land at Macom? Let's also remember we have communication from the head of the NPD saying the swap is a non issue - they are ready -- unlike the SB tol dus and the papers. The time stamp date of receipt of the offer is going to make this even more interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 22, 2008 8:27:54 GMT -6
Doc,
I'm not suggesting in the least that there is not the opportunity for a land deal with the park district. I'm just trying to point out that if PD land is not included in that price tag, it must be added on. 12.5 M would not be the true end cost for Macom. I would just like a little more information.
ETA: For politeness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 22, 2008 8:33:40 GMT -6
It is my understanding that Macom offered $12.5M which is why they rushed to sign AME for $18.9M. Land would need testing but then again our SB does not place much concern on that or appraisals. This is my understanding as well. So, the cost savings of AME is yet another un-truth. Hmmm.. un-truth seems so much more PC. Let's call it an "Unrequested falsehood surplus" |
|
|
|
Post by yeson321 on Apr 22, 2008 9:26:24 GMT -6
I would be extremely interested as a taxpayer whether the Naperville Park District would have "shared" the land with District 204 just like they do with District 203 for Naperville Central. If that were the case, then the Aurora residents would have had an even bigger savings as it would have been all of Naperville that would be paying taxes for the upkeep of the Park District land that was being shared. Just want to know if this would have been one of the options on the table. Doc, I'm not suggesting in the least that there is not the opportunity for a land deal with the park district. I'm just trying to point out that if PD land is not included in that price tag, it must be added on. 12.5 M would not be the true end cost for Macom. I would just like a little more information. ETA: For politeness. |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 22, 2008 9:26:31 GMT -6
Here is my question regarding this: Did that 12.5 M pricetag include the park district land? Or was it just for the Macom land, and the SD would still have to swap/pay the Park district for it's portion of the land at Macom? Let's also remember we have communication from the head of the NPD saying the swap is a non issue - they are ready -- unlike the SB tol dus and the papers. The time stamp date of receipt of the offer is going to make this even more interesting. Doc, do you have a copy of the stamped offer? or access to it? I, too, would be very interested to find out when it was tendered to the SD. If it was before the SB meeting on Monday, that would not be good.  ETA: Monday, April 14th |
|
