Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

[concerned2]

What about Howie's letter??

You may have read in the local newspapers that a Naperville area developer
> proposed a concept to sell Indian Prairie a parcel of land in the
> southwest portion of the district for the construction of Metea Valley
> High School.
>
> The Board of Education reviewed but did not accept the developer's concept
> last October for several reasons. The proposal involved portions of
> property the developer did not own and involved multiple other parties and
> additional hurdles. No financial incentive for the district was offered.
>
> The referendum presented to the community was based on the Brach-Brodie
> land and boundaries were determined. Those boundaries would no longer be
> in effect if the location of the school changed. In our opinion, the
> location of the land and boundaries are contributing factors to why people
> voted as they did. A promise was made to the community and the community
> supported the district by passing the referendum.
>
> Further, when the two parcels of land are compared, we believe
> Brach-Brodie is still the best property for the high school. It is easy
> for someone to speculate on land value in the newspaper, but ultimately
> the value has to be proven in court.
>
> Although the land acquisition is taking longer than the we would like, we
> are confident that the district will purchase the Brach-Brodie land for a
> fair price as the legal process continues to move forward.
>
> Howard Crouse
> Superintendent
>

[Arch]

Self admission.

Think of it like a written confession. By itself it carries a lot of weight and it can not be argued that it was forced under duress.

[steckmom]

May 16, 2008 6:22:01 GMT -6 Arch said:

Self admission.

Think of it like a written confession. By itself it carries a lot of weight and it can not be argued that it was forced under duress.

Keep in mind though, that unlike the referendum language itself, a letter's context is relevant. This was in response to why the district was not choosing another site at the time. They were trying to follow through with the boundaries. It could be argued that it shows that the SB did not have intent to change the site.

[sashimi]

I guess I was only focusing on one of Shawn's arguements..

I agree in regards to the count based on equitable relief that there may be a burden to demonstrate that the the representations had a material impact on the referendum result in order to prevail. I think that the District and several Board members statements that they believed that there was a need to identify the specific site location and boundaries should in itself be enough to meet this burden.

However, I still do not believe that whether or not the land location was why the vote passed or not is an issue at all in regards to the central argument that the myriad of representations made by the District that the referendum being presented was to build a high school on the "property located at 75th street and Commons Drive" requires that these statements be read into the referendum.

[Arch]

Hey Curt:

6) Are you satisfied with the district’s selection of the Brach-Brodie property for Metea Valley High School? What would you recommend to help the district stay within its budget and on track with its goal of a fall 2009 opening date for Metea?

Recognizing there is no perfect property for Metea Valley H.S., I am satisfied with the selection of the Brach-Brodie property on 75th St. and Commons. The board painstakingly reviewed every conceivable aspect of the available land sites and chose the Brach-Brodie parcel because it has the greatest number of positives and the fewest negatives of any property available.

Brach-Brodie’s biggest negative has been the timeline associated with attaining ownership. However, it is important to note that progress has been made and that the other top alternatives had similarly long time lines. To start over now with a different site would create untold complications with no guarantee of success.

The board will continue to work with district counsel to expedite the legal proceedings and will partner effectively with the architect and construction manager to ensure a fall 2009 opening date for Metea.

www.curtbradshaw.com/curt_answers_q_and_a.html

[Arch]

On the district website from 12/22/05

winsome.cnchost.com/204/20051222-SiteSelection.pdf

Click here to return to the previous page.
Site Selected for Potential Third High School
Tell a Friend About This Press Release Give Feedback on This Press Release View All News Or Events Suggest News or Events
Location: District Site Only
Date/Time: 12/22/2005 (10:30:00 AM)

The Indian Prairie Board of Education has selected the site for the proposed third high school. The property is located at the southeast corner of Commons Drive and 75th Street in Aurora. This is the western half of the Brach Brodie property, which is shown as potential residential development in the Aurora Master Plan.

The Board analyzed at least seven parcels that were at least 80 acres, the amount of land needed for the building, parking, stormwater management, and athletic fields. Other sites were rejected if they did not meet this minimum acreage. Parcels were evaluated using 15 different criteria, including location, proximity to students, municipal support, proposed zoning, road access, topography, and price. Some of the sites were located outside the district; others had limited access or other flaws that could not be overcome. In the end, the Board determined that this site was best suited for a high school.

The district has attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate the purchase of the land. At the special meeting on December 19, the Board voted to begin eminent domain proceedings to acquire the property.

[macy]

Mark Metzger

Incumbent Mark Metzger said most of the legal issues have been worked out, and he is confident the school district will have the land in time to open it by 2009.
"I have always said the Brach-Brodie site is by no means the best site, but is the least wrong available and that remains to be true," Metzger said. "I don't think most people realize, all the legal issues were ruled in our favor, all we have left is the price and when."

[macy]

I wonder if Judge Popejoy will agree with Mark that selecting boundaries was a principal factor in securing passage of the referendum?



Q. Are you satisfied with the board’s approach to high school boundary decisions?

Mark Metzger: The result ultimately speaks for itself: after enduring a sometimes painful community conversation, the selected boundaries were a principal factor in securing passage, at a near 60 percent rate, of the referendum to build the high school.

[casey]

Just wanted to say "welcome" to perspective. It's nice to have a new poster bringing a "new perspective." Perspective's posts are very respectful and do not come across as negative/argumentative just because some may be contradictory. It's too bad others can't join in and play fair (not nasty) like you have . Perspective, you have done a great job bringing a new voice to this board. Thanks.

[Arch]

Even better, 2nd question in the Q&A:

winsome.cnchost.com/204/site/Third-High-School-Rosetta.pdf

Q: What is the proposed solution?

A: The March 21 referendum will solve the middle and high school problem by asking voters to approve building a new high school at the southeast corner of 75th Street and Commons Drive and convert the Waubonsie Valley freshman building to a middle school. This proposal is the best solution because it offers the following advantages: avoids having mega-sized high schools with 5,000 students, solves our middle school overcrowding, and continues to provide quality academic and extra-curricular opportunities for our kids. [updated January, 2006]

[Arch]

May 16, 2008 8:38:18 GMT -6 casey said:

Just wanted to say "welcome" to perspective. It's nice to have a new poster bringing a "new perspective." Perspective's posts are very respectful and do not come across as negative/argumentative just because some may be contradictory. It's too bad others can't join in and play fair (not nasty) like you have . Perspective, you have done a great job bringing a new voice to this board. Thanks.

I completely agree. Welcome and thank you for joining, Perspective.

We don't have to agree on everything about every topic, but we can agree to play fair and be respectful of each other's perspectives and opinions.

[doctorwho]

May 16, 2008 8:40:56 GMT -6 Arch said:

May 16, 2008 8:38:18 GMT -6 casey said:

Just wanted to say "welcome" to perspective. It's nice to have a new poster bringing a "new perspective." Perspective's posts are very respectful and do not come across as negative/argumentative just because some may be contradictory. It's too bad others can't join in and play fair (not nasty) like you have . Perspective, you have done a great job bringing a new voice to this board. Thanks.

I completely agree. Welcome and thank you for joining, Perspective.

We don't have to agree on everything about every topic, but we can agree to play fair and be respectful of each other's perspectives and opinions.

That's what it's supposed to be about - I agree. Belated Welcome also.

[perspective]

Arch,

Two points. To your first, I agree with smom. This would go to MM's belief at the time, but he would not be considered an "Expert Witness". I have spent a considerable amount of time in my career being an expert witness at trials, and the first criteria is that you do not have a stake in the outcome of the trial. Since MM has a vested stake in the outcomes of the trial his testimony could not be considered "expert"

2nd point -- the number IMO, would need to be the number of voters that voted yes for the ref. based on site/boundaries that would have voted no if they knew it was not part of the ref. That number, again IMO, would need to be sufficient to put the outcome of the vote in question.

[Arch]

May 16, 2008 8:57:39 GMT -6 perspective said:

Arch,

Two points. To your first, I agree with smom. This would go to MM's belief at the time, but he would not be considered an "Expert Witness". I have spent a considerable amount of time in my career being an expert witness at trials, and the first criteria is that you do not have a stake in the outcome of the trial. Since MM has a vested stake in the outcomes of the trial his testimony could not be considered "expert"

2nd point -- the number IMO, would need to be the number of voters that voted yes for the ref. based on site/boundaries that would have voted no if they knew it was not part of the ref. That number, again IMO, would need to be sufficient to put the outcome of the vote in question.

Fair enough on #1. What about the Q&A Fact sheet the district published prior to the Referendum that states explicitly to the potential voters: "..by asking voters to approve building a new high school at the southeast corner of 75th Street and Commons Drive and convert the Waubonsie Valley freshman building to a middle school..."

This is language that needs to be included as part of the whole Referendum vote since it's been stated that the District published only factual information.

To obtain #2, a re-vote would be necessary. Can one be ordered by the court?

[perspective]

Thanks to all for the welcome -- I am happy to be here. I know we all do not agree on what is going on . . . but I believe in public debate and benefits it has on our society. It is nice to be able to get a conversation going that is not interrupted by 3 hour delays. . .my short term memory is not that good.