Questions as a "reasonable voter"

[doctorwho]

Okay, I spent earlier today reading through the 2001 referendum put together by our SB - just as I should have done as a 'reasonable voter' way back when, when I still trusted those in charge to actually tell us the truth.
I know there are people here who were far more involved than I was back then so I am looking for some answers as to how we evolved from the referendum for Freshman Centers- and what we were told then - to the referendum for a 3rd High School.

Here specifically is what I would ike to be better informed on:

1/ in 2001 their forcast for HS students in the system for the year 2010 was 8800. Per their documents that number - with the 2 freshman centers ( not even including the COD campus) was deemed managable with that we had because after that the number forecasted to decline. The most recent March 2009 forecast shows 8931 as the 2010 attendance. ( and I think with a few more leaving for private schools it might be closer to the 8800- but either way very close.

Q. - what caused us to go back and then have NIU do a survey that showed 10,400 - which was obvious bogus or plain wrong?
Q - who did the first estimate ? Was it also NIU or someone else - and if someone else why did we switch ?
Q - what lead us from what the SB here is calling fiduciary responsibility to where we are now ?

2/ Interesting the 'planned' usage for some of the newer MS's after 2020

> also this document would lead one to believe the stories of WVHS closing between 2011 and 2020 beome more realistic - as there appears to not be a need for a 3rd HS at the end of that cycle if their forecats were correct - as they appear to have been <

I know this sounds CFO'ish, and everyone here knows I have no affiliation there,but really are we spending $150M for a 10 year solution ?
And if that asnwer is yes - who else goes to Matea then -- White Eagle / Steck / McCarty / Gombert ? These people better be ready - it's not that far off- those with little ones in the system will be affected.

Here is the document to refresh everyone's memory - except me who I am embarassed to say I have never read thru before today. I just voted YES - as what I thought was a reasonable voter- until I have now had the term re-defined for me - and won't ever make those kinds of mistakes again without all the facts. And if the facts aren't clear to my liking - the 'reasonable' vote will be NO.

winsome.cnchost.com/204/2001/2001Referendum.pdf

[Arch]

7-8 years ago, these people got the numbers 'more right' than the guesses from 2-3 years ago.

I too am curious why the huge discrepancy and the deviation from being 'almost right' to being 'more wrong'. One would think that as time marches on, the opposite should have happened. Maybe that is too 'reasonable of an assumption to make.

[jftb]

I believe that the discrepancy in number comes somewhat from Sector G. When that study was conducted, no one forecast the crash in the housing market that has led to the snail's pace growth of Ashwood Park/Creek. (though now that the Creek is Neuqua, things are starting to go) Had that area developed at the rate that Tall Grass did, we could perhaps be looking at the numbers predicted by NIU.

[ru4real]

May 12, 2008 19:59:54 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Okay, I spent earlier today reading through the 2001 referendum put together by our SB - just as I should have done as a 'reasonable voter' way back when, when I still trusted those in charge to actually tell us the truth.
I know there are people here who were far more involved than I was back then so I am looking for some answers as to how we evolved from the referendum for Freshman Centers- and what we were told then - to the referendum for a 3rd High School.

Here specifically is what I would ike to be better informed on:

1/ in 2001 their forcast for HS students in the system for the year 2010 was 8800. Per their documents that number - with the 2 freshman centers ( not even including the COD campus) was deemed managable with that we had because after that the number forecasted to decline. The most recent March 2009 forecast shows 8931 as the 2010 attendance. ( and I think with a few more leaving for private schools it might be closer to the 8800- but either way very close.

Q. - what caused us to go back and then have NIU do a survey that showed 10,400 - which was obvious bogus or plain wrong?
Q - who did the first estimate ? Was it also NIU or someone else - and if someone else why did we switch ?
Q - what lead us from what the SB here is calling fiduciary responsibility to where we are now ?

2/ Interesting the 'planned' usage for some of the newer MS's after 2020

> also this document would lead one to believe the stories of WVHS closing between 2011 and 2020 beome more realistic - as there appears to not be a need for a 3rd HS at the end of that cycle if their forecats were correct - as they appear to have been <

I know this sounds CFO'ish, and everyone here knows I have no affiliation there,but really are we spending $150M for a 10 year solution ?
And if that asnwer is yes - who else goes to Matea then -- White Eagle / Steck / McCarty / Gombert ? These people better be ready - it's not that far off- those with little ones in the system will be affected.

Here is the document to refresh everyone's memory - except me who I am embarassed to say I have never read thru before today. I just voted YES - as what I thought was a reasonable voter- until I have now had the term re-defined for me - and won't ever make those kinds of mistakes again without all the facts. And if the facts aren't clear to my liking - the 'reasonable' vote will be NO.

winsome.cnchost.com/204/2001/2001Referendum.pdf

Wow Dr. This is honestly a very big change from your original position. I am making the assumption that you are being sincere in your line of questioning the numbers for real and not just because the 3rd hs location does not benefit you.

Having said that, I would suggest that you and your friends here seek out the two V's. Mr. Vickers for numbers and projections and Ms. Vickers as to how this district can go about re evaluating spending $150 mill for 100 extra students over a ten-year period.

It goes without saying that you might want to apologize to both and thank them for 'swimming up stream' when they did.

[Arch]

May 13, 2008 7:05:58 GMT -6 jftb said:

I believe that the discrepancy in number comes somewhat from Sector G. When that study was conducted, no one forecast the crash in the housing market that has led to the snail's pace growth of Ashwood Park/Creek. (though now that the Creek is Neuqua, things are starting to go) Had that area developed at the rate that Tall Grass did, we could perhaps be looking at the numbers predicted by NIU.

Perhaps, but the housing bubble had been talked about for years now (I recall hearing about it in 01/02), and teaser mortgage rates for 100% or more of sale price were well known as were adjustable rate mortgages. Many shook their heads at the game of musical-chairs being concocted in the marketplace.

Maybe for the 2006 one, people forgot the saying: What goes up, must come down.

[doctorwho]

May 13, 2008 7:14:56 GMT -6 Arch said:

May 13, 2008 7:05:58 GMT -6 jftb said:

I believe that the discrepancy in number comes somewhat from Sector G. When that study was conducted, no one forecast the crash in the housing market that has led to the snail's pace growth of Ashwood Park/Creek. (though now that the Creek is Neuqua, things are starting to go) Had that area developed at the rate that Tall Grass did, we could perhaps be looking at the numbers predicted by NIU.

Perhaps, but the housing bubble had been talked about for years now (I recall hearing about it in 01/02), and teaser mortgage rates for 100% or more of sale price were well known as were adjustable rate mortgages. Many shook their heads at the game of musical-chairs being concocted in the marketplace.

Maybe for the 2006 one, people forgot the saying: What goes up, must come down.

Also due to lot sizes that area was never going to be TG II -- and the March figures do factor in growth over the next 5 years - but I think they also more accurately factor in the aging of many other areas in the district.

Again, what I am looking for is who did the 2001 projection ( I know NIU did the last one) - and why did the drastic change occur - which appears to be totally false ?

Just trying to connect the dots to understand -- 8800 to 10,400 is an 18% jump for the district - that's a lot more than Sector G. even if everyone else stayed flat ( which appears not happening either).

a reasonable question for a new 'reasonable voter'

[doctorwho]

May 13, 2008 7:12:50 GMT -6 ru4real said:

May 12, 2008 19:59:54 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Okay, I spent earlier today reading through the 2001 referendum put together by our SB - just as I should have done as a 'reasonable voter' way back when, when I still trusted those in charge to actually tell us the truth.
I know there are people here who were far more involved than I was back then so I am looking for some answers as to how we evolved from the referendum for Freshman Centers- and what we were told then - to the referendum for a 3rd High School.

Here specifically is what I would ike to be better informed on:

1/ in 2001 their forcast for HS students in the system for the year 2010 was 8800. Per their documents that number - with the 2 freshman centers ( not even including the COD campus) was deemed managable with that we had because after that the number forecasted to decline. The most recent March 2009 forecast shows 8931 as the 2010 attendance. ( and I think with a few more leaving for private schools it might be closer to the 8800- but either way very close.

Q. - what caused us to go back and then have NIU do a survey that showed 10,400 - which was obvious bogus or plain wrong?
Q - who did the first estimate ? Was it also NIU or someone else - and if someone else why did we switch ?
Q - what lead us from what the SB here is calling fiduciary responsibility to where we are now ?

2/ Interesting the 'planned' usage for some of the newer MS's after 2020

> also this document would lead one to believe the stories of WVHS closing between 2011 and 2020 beome more realistic - as there appears to not be a need for a 3rd HS at the end of that cycle if their forecats were correct - as they appear to have been <

I know this sounds CFO'ish, and everyone here knows I have no affiliation there,but really are we spending $150M for a 10 year solution ?
And if that asnwer is yes - who else goes to Matea then -- White Eagle / Steck / McCarty / Gombert ? These people better be ready - it's not that far off- those with little ones in the system will be affected.

Here is the document to refresh everyone's memory - except me who I am embarassed to say I have never read thru before today. I just voted YES - as what I thought was a reasonable voter- until I have now had the term re-defined for me - and won't ever make those kinds of mistakes again without all the facts. And if the facts aren't clear to my liking - the 'reasonable' vote will be NO.

winsome.cnchost.com/204/2001/2001Referendum.pdf

Wow Dr. This is honestly a very big change from your original position. I am making the assumption that you are being sincere in your line of questioning the numbers for real and not just because the 3rd hs location does not benefit you.

Having said that, I would suggest that you and your friends here seek out the two V's. Mr. Vickers for numbers and projections and Ms. Vickers as to how this district can go about re evaluating spending $150 mill for 100 extra students over a ten-year period.

It goes without saying that you might want to apologize to both and thank them for 'swimming up stream' when they did.

fool me once......

when there are people quoting a 'reasonable voter' as one who can read the ballot ( like the rest of us are stupid and can't read- I find those comments condescending at best - ignorant at worst ) - my approach and many other voters now will be very different.

It is OK to lie to us and be handed a total line of crapola - and later have it be acceptable - well from now on us ' reasonable voters' will read every nook and cranny and believe ZERO from out 'elected leaders'. That's the way the game is obviously being played.

And for those telling others who believed the nonsense we were fed, and in turn many of us fed to others - stop with the ' can't these people read' insults about the ballot. You also knew what was sold. You have what you want , at least be gracious winners- not condescending like somehow you figured it out before and no one else did. You got lucky - period. And stick around, there is no guarantee that luck holds.

[ru4real]

May 13, 2008 7:57:14 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

May 13, 2008 7:12:50 GMT -6 ru4real said:

Wow Dr. This is honestly a very big change from your original position. I am making the assumption that you are being sincere in your line of questioning the numbers for real and not just because the 3rd hs location does not benefit you.

Having said that, I would suggest that you and your friends here seek out the two V's. Mr. Vickers for numbers and projections and Ms. Vickers as to how this district can go about re evaluating spending $150 mill for 100 extra students over a ten-year period.

It goes without saying that you might want to apologize to both and thank them for 'swimming up stream' when they did.

fool me once......

when there are people quoting a 'reasonable voter' as one who can read the ballot ( like the rest of us are stupid and can't read- I find those comments condescending at best - ignorant at worst ) - my approach and many other voters now will be very different.

It is OK to lie to us and be handed a total line of crapola - and later have it be acceptable - well from now on us ' reasonable voters' will read every nook and cranny and believe ZERO from out 'elected leaders'. That's the way the game is obviously being played.

And for those telling others who believed the nonsense we were fed, and in turn many of us fed to others - stop with the ' can't these people read' insults about the ballot. You also knew what was sold. You have what you want , at least be gracious winners- not condescending like somehow you figured it out before and no one else did. You got lucky - period. And stick around, there is no guarantee that luck holds.

You were fooled more than once.

Who wins in this mess anyway?? Who is your above post speaking to and about what??

Luck??

The ref said 3rd hs (No specifics), was based on lies (inflated numbers) and sold on fear (that split shifts and trailers would be the norm).

I don't know how anyone decided to vote yes and throw money at this debacle in the first place instead of working through it all.

Life lessons are just that.

[jftb]

May 13, 2008 7:51:30 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

May 13, 2008 7:14:56 GMT -6 Arch said:

Perhaps, but the housing bubble had been talked about for years now (I recall hearing about it in 01/02), and teaser mortgage rates for 100% or more of sale price were well known as were adjustable rate mortgages. Many shook their heads at the game of musical-chairs being concocted in the marketplace.

Maybe for the 2006 one, people forgot the saying: What goes up, must come down.

Also due to lot sizes that area was never going to be TG II -- and the March figures do factor in growth over the next 5 years - but I think they also more accurately factor in the aging of many other areas in the district.

Again, what I am looking for is who did the 2001 projection ( I know NIU did the last one) - and why did the drastic change occur - which appears to be totally false ?

Just trying to connect the dots to understand -- 8800 to 10,400 is an 18% jump for the district - that's a lot more than Sector G. even if everyone else stayed flat ( which appears not happening either).

a reasonable question for a new 'reasonable voter'

Agree with both you and Arch to a degree....my husband (math geek) said at the time of the NIU projection that the numbers seemed "off." It seemed to us, though, at the time, that we were glad the district seemed to be looking ahead....and not running behind the 8 ball as Plainfield and others experiencing growth seemed to be doing.

There's still a bit of corn down here where I live....subdivisions such as The Paddocks, Mandalay Bay, etc. were all planned back in the day. When Tall Grass phases 6/7 came in, no one expected due to the price point (significantly higher than the first phases) to have so many elementary students. Surprise! An 8 room addition had to be put on Fry....which is still busting at the seams. I can see where the District was nervous and why they would buy those numbers, skewed or not.

So again, I see where they were coming from....but what I don't buy is that by the time BB fell apart, etc., we weren't just projecting a housing bubble, we were full on in the "pop." Could we have at that time considered re-evaluating the need for a full amenity high school? Sure. A magnet program, etc. etc. at a cheaper cost might fulfill our needs at this time. It does seem, though, that eventually the market will correct, and children will pour into those new areas. By then, though, our other areas will have aged....so will it balance? Perhaps. 14 of our elementary schools (I did not count Wheatland) saw an enrollment decline last year. Hmmmmm......

[doctorwho]

May 13, 2008 8:10:19 GMT -6 ru4real said:

May 13, 2008 7:57:14 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

fool me once......

when there are people quoting a 'reasonable voter' as one who can read the ballot ( like the rest of us are stupid and can't read- I find those comments condescending at best - ignorant at worst ) - my approach and many other voters now will be very different.

It is OK to lie to us and be handed a total line of crapola - and later have it be acceptable - well from now on us ' reasonable voters' will read every nook and cranny and believe ZERO from out 'elected leaders'. That's the way the game is obviously being played.

And for those telling others who believed the nonsense we were fed, and in turn many of us fed to others - stop with the ' can't these people read' insults about the ballot. You also knew what was sold. You have what you want , at least be gracious winners- not condescending like somehow you figured it out before and no one else did. You got lucky - period. And stick around, there is no guarantee that luck holds.

You were fooled more than once.

Who wins in this mess anyway?? Who is your above post speaking to and about what??

Luck??

The ref said 3rd hs (No specifics), was based on lies (inflated numbers) and sold on fear (that split shifts and trailers would be the norm).

I don't know how anyone decided to vote yes and throw money at this debacle in the first place instead of working through it all.

Life lessons are just that.

Speaking to a few who post here occasionally and many who still read and post other places who have defined 'reasonable voters' as those who can read. They all claim they understood exactly what the ballot meant - and the rest of us are somehow illiterate.

I agree - I raise my hand up high - I was fooled into believing the stuff we were sold and I myself sold. Mea Cupla. It happens and I am not proud of it - but as you say, one has to learn and move on.


to borrow from animal house - I screwed up, I trusted people I obviously should not have...



By luck- I mean for those who somehoe ended up with exactly the situatons they wanted - not that they understood what was going on any better than most of us - just fell into their laps ...

[ru4real]

Enrollment is down and will continue to decline, and because this thing is so messed up, they are gunning to get started building so when the embarrassing 2008-09 enrollment declines again, they can say "well, now there is no turning back" so pay up.

[fryfox]

As you alluded to, Doc, the use of "reasonable" is extremely insulting. I would say we were all "informed" voters at that time. Informed of the plans of the district. Any time you vote, you should hope to be as well informed as we all were. That vote was the most informed I have ever been on any vote.

"And if the facts aren't clear to my liking - the 'reasonable' vote will be NO" - based on getting juked like we did here, it's hard to see how a "reasonable" vote could EVER be yes.

[jftb]

May 13, 2008 8:23:11 GMT -6 ru4real said:

Enrollment is down and will continue to decline, and because this thing is so messed up, they are gunning to get started building so when the embarrassing 2008-09 enrollment declines again, they can say "well, now there is no turning back" so pay up.

Enrollment for the district is actually up 188 students from '06-'07, but that's certainly not "crazy growth," especially when you factor that out across 13 grades.

I do believe that we need another middle school. Scullen is ridiculously overcrowded, and the other five could use relief as well. Do we need a third full amenity high school? Hmmmm....

[ru4real]

May 13, 2008 8:29:16 GMT -6 jftb said:

May 13, 2008 8:23:11 GMT -6 ru4real said:

Enrollment is down and will continue to decline, and because this thing is so messed up, they are gunning to get started building so when the embarrassing 2008-09 enrollment declines again, they can say "well, now there is no turning back" so pay up.

Enrollment for the district is actually up 188 students from '06-'07, but that's certainly not "crazy growth," especially when you factor that out across 13 grades.

I do believe that we need another middle school. Scullen is ridiculously overcrowded, and the other five could use relief as well. Do we need a third full amenity high school? Hmmmm....

Send the Scullen 6th graders to Peterson

[momind204]

May 13, 2008 7:51:30 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Also due to lot sizes that area was never going to be TG II -- and the March figures do factor in growth over the next 5 years - but I think they also more accurately factor in the aging of many other areas in the district.

Again, what I am looking for is who did the 2001 projection ( I know NIU did the last one) - and why did the drastic change occur - which appears to be totally false ?

Just trying to connect the dots to understand -- 8800 to 10,400 is an 18% jump for the district - that's a lot more than Sector G. even if everyone else stayed flat ( which appears not happening either).

a reasonable question for a new 'reasonable voter'

Doc, I live on the northern side of the district and am wondering about the "aging" you refer to here. In the north there are some subdivisions from the 1980's or earlier (Butterfield, Brookdale) and there seem to be no shortage of families with young children living there now. My own subdivision is 10 or so years old now, and we've had plenty of turnover of homes. It seems that the people buying have pre-K age kids or are just now getting pregnant. I agree that the number are probably not what they were when large sub-divisions like Stonebridge or Oakhurst were just being built, but it doesn't seem like the aging of homes is changing the student numbers that much. Do you see this in your neighborhood?