Owen

[spousestonethrow]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

Wow, that letter says it all.

And we are surprised? C'mon. Johnny wasn't going to have Brighton Ridge go to METEA. so voila.......we now have Owen East. I am sorry that this has happened.

[friend]

I talked to several Owen parents today. Oh! I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that. I talked to several Owen West parents today. The word here is that people are very upset. Many letters have been written to SB & Daschner since this announcement. People feel blindsided by the announcement of a petition on Tuesday night. Nobody new about it here. The saddest part is that the petition came from people we thought were our friends. People are also thinking that Stephens sold us out when NO explanation for NOT keeping us together. The feeling is so much for the unity at our school. We felt the struggle to unify when we were asked to go to Owen 6 years ago. We worked very hard to put our disgust aside at a longer elementary commute to make that happen. We even made more money than any other ES in Dist. 204 at our first fundraiser! People were working very hard to pull together and make Owen the wonderful place it has become. Now people are feeling slapped in the face.

I agree Moo. It is very unfortunate that we have to go through this. Daschner will be at the PTA meeting on March 5th. It should be an interesting meeting.

[gman413]

friend said:

I talked to several Owen parents today. Oh! I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that. I talked to several Owen West parents today. The word here is that people are very upset. Many letters have been written to SB & Daschner since this announcement. People feel blindsided by the announcement of a petition on Tuesday night. Nobody new about it here. The saddest part is that the petition came from people we thought were our friends. People are also thinking that Stephens sold us out when NO explanation for NOT keeping us together. The feeling is so much for the unity at our school. We felt the struggle to unify when we were asked to go to Owen 6 years ago. We worked very hard to put our disgust aside at a longer elementary commute to make that happen. We even made more money than any other ES in Dist. 204 at our first fundraiser! People were working very hard to pull together and make Owen the wonderful place it has become. Now people are feeling slapped in the face.

I agree Moo. It is very unfortunate that we have to go through this. Daschner will be at the PTA meeting on March 5th. It should be an interesting meeting.

OK, here goes...I will use the phrases "Owen east" and "Owen west" here for reference only. I don't want to perpetuate use of these phrases or the feelings they embody. I am from Owen west. That said, I am likely in the minority for thinking that much of the anger felt by Owen west is unfounded and/or misdirected. If there is legitimate anger to be expressed it should be directed at the board (maybe) for a.) coming up with a proposal of such a ridiculous commute that it prompted Owen east to take the action they took and b.) doing this in such a hurried fashion that it forced Owen east's hand and caused the lack of awareness by Owen west. Now, I said "maybe" above because there were likely ZERO solutions that would have satisfied ALL the district. At the end of the day, the families of Owen east had to do what is best for their families. I expect that and I respect that. I do not take offense to that. I do not feel "cut off", "sold out", etc. by that. Finally, why is there so much commentary that makes it seem people are eager or at least willing to give up Owen relationships at this time ? Depending on the age of your kids, Owen east and Owen west will remain united as Owen and Still families for the next 3-8 years.

[proschool]

I have anger enough anger to share with everybody.

Good for you if you did not feel "cut off" but we are heading off in a different direction then the rest of Owen or the rest of Still to a school far from out neighborhood so when do you ever feel "cut off."


Good for you for not feeling "sold out" either. However a decision was made behind my back to affect my children in a negative way to preserve someone else's interest. So when do you ever feel "sold out." Did you know about the petition? I sure didn't. 200 signatures is a significant percentage 0of Owen "east" families. Much more than 1/2 and pretty close to all of them.

I not giving up on Owen friendships at all. However I know that in the future parent's will know that these kids will not see much of each other after the eighth grade. The don't go to the same church's,or park district or scout groups. When kids are young and need their parents support in developing friendships. I believe that the parents will try to encourage relationships that their kids can keep for a long time rather than encouraging a friendship that may be lost after the eighth grade.

[d204mom]

gman413 said:

If there is legitimate anger to be expressed it should be directed at the board (maybe) for a.) coming up with a proposal of such a ridiculous commute that it prompted Owen east to take the action they took and b.) doing this in such a hurried fashion that it forced Owen east's hand and caused the lack of awareness by Owen west.

I blame Daeschner and the board for not doing due diligence on sites that wouldn't have caused boundary problems. The site is distant from the student center of population and that is causing nearly 100% of the unhappiness with boundaries. MV will have 2400 kids with not many more in the future even though it will be built for 3000. It will never be full. It's a shame and a waste of our money. Meanwhile, NV will remain a mega school.

[momto4]

d204mom said:

gman413 said:

If there is legitimate anger to be expressed it should be directed at the board (maybe) for a.) coming up with a proposal of such a ridiculous commute that it prompted Owen east to take the action they took and b.) doing this in such a hurried fashion that it forced Owen east's hand and caused the lack of awareness by Owen west.

I blame Daeschner and the board for not doing due diligence on sites that wouldn't have caused boundary problems. The site is distant from the student center of population and that is causing nearly 100% of the unhappiness with boundaries. MV will have 2400 kids with not many more in the future even though it will be built for 3000. It will never be full. It's a shame and a waste of our money. Meanwhile, NV will remain a mega school.

I don't think you can claim nearly 100% are unhappy with their OWN boundaries. I may be unhappy with boundaries overall but you can be pretty sure that most people staying at NV and most people at the 4 northern schools and many of the people staying at WV are probably ok with the new boundaries.

I agree that it's a bad site and I really wish the first ref had passed and saved us from all of this trouble forever. Or that we'd been able to vote for a smaller HS in the north and another HS in the south.

[southsidemom]

White Eagle West and White Eagle East, Fry West and Fry East, Welch West and Welch East? How convenient and clever for DrD to help Stephens think of that for Owen but no other schools. Ridiculous and self serving. But they are ENTITLED.

[WeBe204]

southsidemom said:

White Eagle West and White Eagle East, Fry West and Fry East, Welch West and Welch East? How convenient and clever for DrD to help Stephens think of that for Owen but no other schools. Ridiculous and self serving. But they are ENTITLED.

You forgot Ashwood North and Ashwood South.

[southsidemom]

brad204 said:

southsidemom said:

White Eagle West and White Eagle East, Fry West and Fry East, Welch West and Welch East? How convenient and clever for DrD to help Stephens think of that for Owen but no other schools. Ridiculous and self serving. But they are ENTITLED.

You forgot Ashwood North and Ashwood South.

Sorry to leave out. I was referring to schools not subdivisions. Peterson is split up and didn't want to open up that bone of contention.

[friend]

This question is for all the Owen "west" folks. With our area slated to go to the new HS, how do you feel about the environmental issues that are being discussed? Are you concerned?

[gman413]

friend said:

This question is for all the Owen "west" folks. With our area slated to go to the new HS, how do you feel about the environmental issues that are being discussed? Are you concerned?

I am concerned if the consultants for any of the 3 areas under study (soil, EMF, pipelines) tell us and the SB that there's a bona fide risk. I don't believe the experts would have an agenda for hiding risks from us. I understand and appreciate everyone's concerns and I certainly want the kids to have a safe school. However, let's sprinkle a dose of reality and practicality on our plates...there are hazards everywhere - driving, flying, eating, talking on your cell phone, sitting in front of a PC all day, the list can go on ad nauseum. I don't know if the SB would be able to get the district residents to pony up the req'd $$$ to actually get BB. Assuming not (since we haven't even secured $$$ to staff the new HS yet), the lousy commute to AME site notwithstanding, I'm OK with having the new school there. From what I have read so far, there are no deal-breakers for me

[jwh]

gman413,

That post sums up my feelings entirely. You could use that for the response to many current threads.

[JB]

gman413 said:

friend said:

This question is for all the Owen "west" folks. With our area slated to go to the new HS, how do you feel about the environmental issues that are being discussed? Are you concerned?

I am concerned if the consultants for any of the 3 areas under study (soil, EMF, pipelines) tell us and the SB that there's a bona fide risk. I don't believe the experts would have an agenda for hiding risks from us. I understand and appreciate everyone's concerns and I certainly want the kids to have a safe school. However, let's sprinkle a dose of reality and practicality on our plates...there are hazards everywhere - driving, flying, eating, talking on your cell phone, sitting in front of a PC all day, the list can go on ad nauseum. I don't know if the SB would be able to get the district residents to pony up the req'd $$$ to actually get BB. Assuming not (since we haven't even secured $$$ to staff the new HS yet), the lousy commute to AME site notwithstanding, I'm OK with having the new school there. From what I have read so far, there are no deal-breakers for me

It's not about risk, but added risk. We all accept baseline risk. Now compare the added risk - pipes, rail, commute miles, emf, soil contamination - add you'll see MWGEN is a much higher risk than the baseline BB. And the SB is willing to accept that risk for a given sum of money that is the price difference between the two.

[gman413]

jb said:

gman413 said:

I am concerned if the consultants for any of the 3 areas under study (soil, EMF, pipelines) tell us and the SB that there's a bona fide risk. I don't believe the experts would have an agenda for hiding risks from us. I understand and appreciate everyone's concerns and I certainly want the kids to have a safe school. However, let's sprinkle a dose of reality and practicality on our plates...there are hazards everywhere - driving, flying, eating, talking on your cell phone, sitting in front of a PC all day, the list can go on ad nauseum. I don't know if the SB would be able to get the district residents to pony up the req'd $$$ to actually get BB. Assuming not (since we haven't even secured $$$ to staff the new HS yet), the lousy commute to AME site notwithstanding, I'm OK with having the new school there. From what I have read so far, there are no deal-breakers for me

It's not about risk, but added risk. We all accept baseline risk. Now compare the added risk - pipes, rail, commute miles, emf, soil contamination - add you'll see MWGEN is a much higher risk than the baseline BB. And the SB is willing to accept that risk for a given sum of money that is the price difference between the two.

JB,
The way you frame it is probably the best way to put this in perspective - i.e. the cost of the add'l risk is the price diff between AME and BB. If enough people think this way and enough of them are concerned enough about the 3 safety topics, the SB should be able to raise the additional funds. Personally, if this happens, I will vote "yes" again as I did in 2006 (and in 2005 when I didn't know boundaries). My concerns then would be time-oriented: What do we do re: overcrowding in the interim and can we still get BB for today's cost ?

[JB]

r

gman413 said:

jb said:

It's not about risk, but added risk. We all accept baseline risk. Now compare the added risk - pipes, rail, commute miles, emf, soil contamination - add you'll see MWGEN is a much higher risk than the baseline BB. And the SB is willing to accept that risk for a given sum of money that is the price difference between the two.

JB,
The way you frame it is probably the best way to put this in perspective - i.e. the cost of the add'l risk is the price diff between AME and BB. If enough people think this way and enough of them are concerned enough about the 3 safety topics, the SB should be able to raise the additional funds. Personally, if this happens, I will vote "yes" again as I did in 2006 (and in 2005 when I didn't know boundaries). My concerns then would be time-oriented: What do we do re: overcrowding in the interim and can we still get BB for today's cost ?

I'll always come down on the side of a better long-term decision - and my kids would be directly impacted over-crowding. I think we should at least explore BB again. Their lawyers have indicated they are still open, the roadblock seems to be our SB.