|
|
Post by 3woodgal on Jun 29, 2008 8:29:14 GMT -6
I don't think that D204 has thought about traffic pattern impacts at all. Between the railroad tracks and now this interchange we will be faced with yet another potentiual need for boundary modifications. They just need to get it right from the beginning which would require looking ahead.....but we all know that is not the motto of D204......well atleast the current administration.
|
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on Jun 29, 2008 9:55:40 GMT -6
Some people are just bound and determined to learn things the hard way. But be assured that nobody is going to cut the SB any slack when the boundary issues and traffic dilemmas surface (they're already there). There is no perfect solution to boundaries or traffic, but to not be open and willing to discuss changes and modificaitons down the road would be foolish. I hope reason will trump egos in this situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jun 29, 2008 12:34:14 GMT -6
I am not opposed to boundary changes...but I would like to see a boundary proposal that reduces traffic on Eola when the school has access only to Eola.
And I would like to see a boundary proposal that reduces the number of students crossing tracks when the district has put 60% of the HS seats west of the tracks and 70% of the students live east.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jun 30, 2008 10:04:21 GMT -6
This is why I think it is important and has always been the case, that SDs announce the site as part of the vote.
The SB would like to pretend that they are somehow above self interest and capable of looking out for "the entire district". But, in fact, as we see, on this board, there are many opinions of "good", "best", "optimal", "satisfactory". And no one person can really determine the good "for all" especially not a district as large as ours.
The alternate site was not vetted. The options were not vetted. As much as the SD/SB would like to say they read all the emails and got all the feedback, in fact, the decision / discussion was over the minute the jury verdict was in, maybe earlier (who really knows what "fiscally responsible" means)?
Like it or not the principal behind democracy is that the "whole" really does make better decisions than the "few". I think this decision is a prime example.
I stick by the notion that the traffic, the interchanges, the railroads are NOT the problem. The SITE is the problem and always will be.
I had a conversation with someone, with young kids, looking to move to the area. They are not at all interested in moving into the MV or WV attendance area. They want to be in NCHS, or NNHS, NVHS period.
It was very sad...listening to them talk all I could think was is the district building "albatross II"?
I am as sorry as anyone to say it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 30, 2008 10:36:31 GMT -6
I think as time goes on, almost everything will circle back to site.
This is why the 3 most important things in Real Estate are:
1) Location
2) Location
3) Location
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Jun 30, 2008 12:56:57 GMT -6
I had a conversation with someone, with young kids, looking to move to the area. They are not at all interested in moving into the MV or WV attendance area. They want to be in NCHS, or NNHS, NVHS period. I had a former business associate call me the other day because they are looking to move to Naperville and wanted an opinion on where to look, sadly I told them DO NOT buy in 204. Funny thing that I got 2 sets of friends to move into 204 over the past 5 years. Now I feel bad because they are just as disappointed with the mismanagment as I am. |
|
|
|
Post by concerned2 on Jun 30, 2008 13:33:14 GMT -6
This is why I think it is important and has always been the case, that SDs announce the site as part of the vote. The SB would like to pretend that they are somehow above self interest and capable of looking out for "the entire district". But, in fact, as we see, on this board, there are many opinions of "good", "best", "optimal", "satisfactory". And no one person can really determine the good "for all" especially not a district as large as ours. The alternate site was not vetted. The options were not vetted. As much as the SD/SB would like to say they read all the emails and got all the feedback, in fact, the decision / discussion was over the minute the jury verdict was in, maybe earlier (who really knows what "fiscally responsible" means)? Like it or not the principal behind democracy is that the "whole" really does make better decisions than the "few". I think this decision is a prime example. I stick by the notion that the traffic, the interchanges, the railroads are NOT the problem. The SITE is the problem and always will be. I had a conversation with someone, with young kids, looking to move to the area. They are not at all interested in moving into the MV or WV attendance area. They want to be in NCHS, or NNHS, NVHS period. It was very sad...listening to them talk all I could think was is the district building "albatross II"? I am as sorry as anyone to say it. I feel the same way. This is the wrong site for sooo many reasons. I was out driving the other day and picked up a child from the May Watts area and from Stonebridge. Boy did I do a lot of drving. The drive for the May Watts area is a bad commute. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 30, 2008 14:50:37 GMT -6
This is why I think it is important and has always been the case, that SDs announce the site as part of the vote. The SB would like to pretend that they are somehow above self interest and capable of looking out for "the entire district". But, in fact, as we see, on this board, there are many opinions of "good", "best", "optimal", "satisfactory". And no one person can really determine the good "for all" especially not a district as large as ours. The alternate site was not vetted. The options were not vetted. As much as the SD/SB would like to say they read all the emails and got all the feedback, in fact, the decision / discussion was over the minute the jury verdict was in, maybe earlier (who really knows what "fiscally responsible" means)? Like it or not the principal behind democracy is that the "whole" really does make better decisions than the "few". I think this decision is a prime example. I stick by the notion that the traffic, the interchanges, the railroads are NOT the problem. The SITE is the problem and always will be. I had a conversation with someone, with young kids, looking to move to the area. They are not at all interested in moving into the MV or WV attendance area. They want to be in NCHS, or NNHS, NVHS period. It was very sad...listening to them talk all I could think was is the district building "albatross II"? I am as sorry as anyone to say it. I feel the same way. This is the wrong site for sooo many reasons. I was out driving the other day and picked up a child from the May Watts area and from Stonebridge. Boy did I do a lot of drving. The drive for the May Watts area is a bad commute. Oh you have got to be wrong - I was told yesterday on green that's it's an extra 6 minutes difference than me going to Waubonsie - but then what would I know , I've only lived here 19 years, and I'm from Whiny Watts -- check with the expert who's tired of hearing it there - she's the Watts expert that doesn't live here.  the night of Camp Rock on TV my daughter had a friend from Longwood comehere at Rush hour - there were flabbergasted at how long it took them - but the experton this is over there - make the comment about the trip andI amsure you will be told she's heard it all before and it's not true |
|
|
|
Post by concerned2 on Jun 30, 2008 15:17:35 GMT -6
Well, the green board is wrong. There is no good way to make it from the Watts area to MV. Not only that, but I feel it is also unsafe. This site makes no sense and I shake my head every time I go by it.
|
|
