Plan F: New Boundaries under Ashwood Scenario

[proschool]

The boundaries were set of for the BB site and they don't make sense for the Ashwood site.

I always said that a south location will encounter significant friction because it will need to be filled with kids from the present NV attendance area and have NV backfilled with kids from the present WV attendance area. Students coming from the Hill attendance area are very far from the Ashwood site. Sending them there would be tremendously unfair whn they are so close to NV.

[bob]

The problems is that they might have to change some boundaries. Macom send their place to the new HS because of distance and now you have 80 acres of high density at BB. That would cause grade, middle and HS boundary changes.

[proschool]

Besides wasn't the boundaries based on the fact the the public overwhelmingly preferred geography over balance.

If the geography is different then the boundaries should be different.

[lacy]

proschool said:

The boundaries were set of for the BB site and they don't make sense for the Ashwood site.

I always said that a south location will encounter significant friction because it will need to be filled with kids from the present NV attendance area and have NV backfilled with kids from the present WV attendance area. Students coming from the Hill attendance area are very far from the Ashwood site. Sending them there would be tremendously unfair whn they are so close to NV.

Hill isn't "so close" to NVHS. Please.

This all just reeks of an effort to scare people from being interested in a possible better solution than waiting "as long as it takes" for BB and paying "whatever it takes".

[bob]

The thing about the Macom site is we have at least 4 entities to deal with: Macom, the home owner, Comed and Naperville Park District. It is not as cut and dry and Macom wants us to believe.

[lacy]

Then I'm all for learning more about it - not just the little sound bites from the paper - but really understanding what the details are before we just throw it aside.

[lacy]

proschool said:

Besides wasn't the boundaries based on the fact the the public overwhelmingly preferred geography over balance.

If the geography is different then the boundaries should be different.

The boundaries weren't just based on geography - some neighborhoods are being moved to a farther school. And this site is not that far from BB - (maybe 2 miles?) not to mention it's in between WVHS and NVHS. Also most of the growth is in the southern part of the district.

[proschool]

lacy said:

Then I'm all for learning more about it - not just the little sound bites from the paper - but really understanding what the details are before we just throw it aside.

Why don't you call the seller and ask him. You didn't throw it aside the schoolboard did because the seller did not own all of the land he was selling, it required more work, it costs more money andit wasn't available for development because it had tenants. Furthermore the BB site was superior.

Macom should get all the land, move the tenant and the power lines and then come to a table with an offer that is significantly less than BB.

[Avenging Eagle]

lacy said:

I've talked to many of my neighbors over the last several days (some who supported the 3rd high school and some who did not), and everyone I've talked to is very interested in learning more about the possibility of the Macom site. We are interested in hearing more from the developer (not just BG) about the road, power lines and Park district portion.

They'd say anything to get you to move on to the next house. Just kidding.

But seriously, if you are interested in the Macom site, then why don't you think we should rationally discuss the boundary adjustments needed?

[lacy]

Because the logic doesn't appear to be rational. It looks like that wacky plan that JC came up with. Kids being moved out of schools that don't need to be, etc. And since you are clearly not remotely interested in the Macom site, I smell a rat.

One other question - the road in question that would "have to be moved" - they have already widened 95th street to 4 lanes all the way past 248. The road is then completed to the right (to 91st). I didn't pay attention what the status was to the left (to Wolf's Crossing), but there is lots of construction equipment down there. I think the road issue could be addressed quickly if it's not already being addressed.

The problem I have is that I would like to take BG's comments at face value, but I can't. I saw him in action at that last NVHS meeting.

[lacy]

proschool said:

lacy said:

Then I'm all for learning more about it - not just the little sound bites from the paper - but really understanding what the details are before we just throw it aside.

Why don't you call the seller and ask him. You didn't throw it aside the schoolboard did because the seller did not own all of the land he was selling, it required more work, it costs more money andit wasn't available for development because it had tenants. Furthermore the BB site was superior.

Macom should get all the land, move the tenant and the power lines and then come to a table with an offer that is significantly less than BB.

I think the land will probably be much less - we don't know the price of BB.

And as for the "tenants", there is one small house on the corner. My understanding of this land prior to the offer to the school board, was that it would be completely developed - so the homeowner must be moving on unless they want to live next to a carwash (which is what I thought was going where their house is). Again, I would like some independent verification of the status of the homeowner. It might not even be an issue - just another convenient excuse by the SB to not look at a viable option.

I know you think BB is superior, but many others do not. That's my whole point of why this thread (with the boundaries, etc.) can't be taken seriously. You seem to be working awfully hard to keep anyone from being interested in this site.

Why?

[lacy]

Oh, I get it.....silly me.

I know that logically, the boundaries could just pretty much stay the same. Although Ashwood would go to MVHS, so who would go to WVHS to replace them?

Logically, that would be White Eagle.

So that explains the dislike of this site by the White Eagle people on this board.

[bob]

so the homeowner must be moving on unless they want to live next to a carwash (which is what I thought was going where their house is).

The paper stated that she gets to live there until she wants to leave.

Macom is at 357/acre not including 30 acres owned by the NPD, the homeowner and ComEd.

Logically, that would be White Eagle.

So that explains the dislike of this site by the White Eagle people on this board.

More like Gombert because the south end of WE grade school boundary would be within the 1.5 mile walking distance of the Macom site.

[warriorpride]

lacy said:

proschool said:

Why don't you call the seller and ask him. You didn't throw it aside the schoolboard did because the seller did not own all of the land he was selling, it required more work, it costs more money andit wasn't available for development because it had tenants. Furthermore the BB site was superior.

Macom should get all the land, move the tenant and the power lines and then come to a table with an offer that is significantly less than BB.

I think the land will probably be much less - we don't know the price of BB.

And as for the "tenants", there is one small house on the corner. My understanding of this land prior to the offer to the school board, was that it would be completely developed - so the homeowner must be moving on unless they want to live next to a carwash (which is what I thought was going where their house is). Again, I would like some independent verification of the status of the homeowner. It might not even be an issue - just another convenient excuse by the SB to not look at a viable option.

I know you think BB is superior, but many others do not. That's my whole point of why this thread (with the boundaries, etc.) can't be taken seriously. You seem to be working awfully hard to keep anyone from being interested in this site.

Why?

You seem willing to pursue an option that you believe could be less expensive (yet to be proved) as long as the NV boundaries aren't drastically changed. Why? Could it be that you and your neighgors thought that you were "safe" in your NV boundaries and you just want the cheapest option to get this 3rd HS thing over with?

[bob]

I think the land will probably be much less - we don't know the price of BB.

Can you explain your logic why you think it will be less considering the factors of power lines and 4 different buyers and the moving of Wolf Crossing?