Plan F: New Boundaries under Ashwood Scenario

[warriorpride]

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.

I agree that the boundaries should be different. I DO NOT agree that "the public overwhelmingly preferred geography over balance". Balance was also a priority. And the final boundaries do reflect that. I don't think that anyone could expect 3 perfectly balanced schools, but the current boundaries do have a pretty good balance.

[bob]

Lacy, if we build at Macom, how are going to account for an influx of students from the High density of housing at the BB site? What grades school up there can handle size and then what middle and HS?
This moves an increase of student population to the north, away from the new HS.

You can't just say boundaries remain the same when you just changed the area from where new students will be coming from.

[lacy]

warriorpride said:

lacy said:

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?

You can't prove that BB isn't going to be WAY more expensive (possibly exceeding the referendum amount).

And why would you be willing to wait, and wait and wait if there's another option?

And I really don't care about the NVHS boundaries. My point is that they don't have to be drastically changed - and I think you know that.

[lacy]

bob said:

Lacy, if we build at Macom, how are going to account for an influx of students from the High density of housing at the BB site? What grades school up there can handle size and then what middle and HS?
This moves an increase of student population to the north, away from the new HS.

You can't just say boundaries remain the same when you just changed the area from where new students will be coming from.

That's prime commerical property Bob. Who says any students would live there?

[bob]

Lacy, it is not zoned commercial, but planned High Density housing . The only area zoned commercial is the corner lot which the SD is NOT asking for.

[wvhsparent]

Personally, IMHO They need to redo ALL the boundaries anyway.

They really need to do it right, start at the ES level, then onto MS then do the HS. As the district is getting close to buildout they should have a pretty good idea the student population from all the areas, something I am not privvy to. As building was going on in the 90's/early 00's it was more prudent to put new subdivisions where there was room. That time has now passed. Make new boundaries for all schools.

OK I am now done with my rant....carry on......

[EagleDad]

bob said:

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.

Yeah, and besides haven't you heard about the great pedestrian bridge White Eagle is building with the state down in that area

[EagleDad]

wvhsparent said:

Personally, IMHO They need to redo ALL the boundaries anyway.

They really need to do it right, start at the ES level, then onto MS then do the HS. As the district is getting close to buildout they should have a pretty good idea the student population from all the areas, something I am not privvy to. As building was going on in the 90's/early 00's it was more prudent to put new subdivisions where there was room. That time has now passed. Make new boundaries for all schools.

OK I am now done with my rant....carry on......

Personally, I think it's crazy to propose redoing boundaries at this point. Even if a new site has to be chosen in the end, we should stick as closely as possible to what has been decided.

[lacy]

avengingeagle said:

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."

ED, Why is this tolerated? Do you have different rules for different people?

[Avenging Eagle]

lacy said:

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.

Lacy, you are stuck in a 1.5 year time warp and it is about time you wake up.

White Eagle has already been reassigned to a different school, and has been subject to 9 moves in 10 years.

If you don't stop your triple posting and thread hijacking, I will ban you permanently.

Also, if you want to post after quoting someone, please learn how to properly quote someone.

If you don't want to discuss this plan, and simply want to rant and rave, please start a different thread.

[Avenging Eagle]

eagledad said:

Personally, I think it's crazy to propose redoing boundaries at this point. Even if a new site has to be chosen in the end, we should stick as closely as possible to what has been decided.

Plan F stays as close as possible to what has been decided, but makes the necessary adjustments to account for the southern location.

It cannot be put any more simply than that.

The SB even said in the article that if the Macom site was chosen, then boundary changes would be necessary.

[macy]

eagledad said:

wvhsparent said:

Personally, IMHO They need to redo ALL the boundaries anyway.

They really need to do it right, start at the ES level, then onto MS then do the HS. As the district is getting close to buildout they should have a pretty good idea the student population from all the areas, something I am not privvy to. As building was going on in the 90's/early 00's it was more prudent to put new subdivisions where there was room. That time has now passed. Make new boundaries for all schools.

OK I am now done with my rant....carry on......

Personally, I think it's crazy to propose redoing boundaries at this point. Even if a new site has to be chosen in the end, we should stick as closely as possible to what has been decided.

I agree with WVHSparent on the need to relook at boundaries when we know the real numbers vs. the predictions.

[cantretirehere]

eagledad said:

Yeah, and besides haven't you heard about the great pedestrian bridge White Eagle is building with the state down in that area

Man, I'm really out of the loop, I didn't know that WE was building that bridge!!

'Children, get your backhoes out, we're building a bridge! If IDOT wants to help, play nice and let them have a turn'

[lacy]

avengingeagle said:

lacy said:

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.

Lacy, you are stuck in a 1.5 year time warp and it is about time you wake up.

White Eagle has already been reassigned to a different school, and has been subject to 9 moves in 10 years.

If you don't stop your triple posting and thread hijacking, I will ban you permanently.

Also, if you want to post after quoting someone, please learn how to properly quote someone.

If you don't want to discuss this plan, and simply want to rant and rave, please start a different thread.

You have personally insulted me numerous times. Anyone reading this can see that.

Why do you attack me because my opinions differ from your's? And why is that allowed?

[EagleDad]

avengingeagle said:

eagledad said:

Personally, I think it's crazy to propose redoing boundaries at this point. Even if a new site has to be chosen in the end, we should stick as closely as possible to what has been decided.

Plan F stays as close as possible to what has been decided, but makes the necessary adjustments to account for the southern location.

It cannot be put any more simply than that.

The SB even said in the article that if the Macom site was chosen, then boundary changes would be necessary.

I agree that if the site were switched to Macom (which I give a low probability at this point), some small changes to accomodate the immediate surrounding areas in the SW corner might be needed.

I may have over-interepreted WVHSParent's opinion as stating that with the BB site we should re-open or re-do boundaries. That, I am dead set against.