LTE 1/3/08 - Naperville Sun

[d204mom]

casey said:

d204mom said:

I'm actually thinking BB could tie us up at this point on moving forward with another property unless the judge dismisses their entire motion today.

How ironic! BB attorneys holding up the SB on their decision to move forward on another piece of property. I never really stopped and thought about that but it could happen. Maybe the BB attorneys will sit and cry "foul" and tell the SB "hey you have an obligation to buy the property at $33M" wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?

Is anyone familiar with a legislative piece that said if QT went through (at any dollar amount) the SB could have forced the amount off to taxpayers in the form of a special tax and we would have been stuck paying regardless of the amount? We would have had no voice into whether or not the SB should buy the BB land at that astronomical case. Wonder if this is the reason the SB pushed for QT even at the 11th hour. Hmmmm.......

If you read the motion that is what Helm is arguing with the "estoppel" stuff. I'm not an attorney so I don't know if it has merit. Guess we'll see today!

QT price was capped at 33MIL.

[Arch]

{insert previous post regarding late September 2007 purchase}

[gatormom]

Just a reminder, this thread is about Mr. Bridge and his issues.

There is a thread for the BB motion to dismiss. If you can't find a thread that suits your needs, start a new one.

Lets try and stay on topic. Thank you. ;D

[d204mom]

Back on topic -

In that shiny school bus brocure I posted earlier, it says that a DOT Hazard form from the district needs to be on file. I am a$$uming that this is what the district uses to receive funding for bussing the TG kids to NV and RT. 59 qualifies for high school students (there are different "hazard" criteria for ES/MS/HS students).

Also in there I read that "if conditions change" a new form needs to be submitted.

I think the bridge is a changed condition, so the district should be filing a new form before school starts in the fall. I guess we'll see.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

gatormom said:

Are you describing the 59 bridge or the Eola bridge. The bridge over Eola does not connect to a library or school. As has been discussed, it is a recreational path connecting two parks. I am sorry if I misunderstood your post.

The bridge on Eola is just north of the library/rec center and WVHS. It is 1/2 mile from the north entrance to WVHS and even closer to the rec center/library/athletic fields.

You say tomato - I say tamato.

Is the usage limited to the park? So for instance, if someone wanted to ride their bike over it to the library or to watch a softball game or football game they would be prohibited?

I don't get all the interest in the one on 59 by people who are not affected by it and won't use it. Trying to figure that one out...

There's nothing to figure out - the portrayal of the bridge as something that suddenly makes a lot of people walkers - and visions of students and bicycles lined up in the morning to use it for such have now been around for at least 18 months. Most people just don't see that - hey maybe we're wrong - but I don't see the students giving up their cars to walk - just my previous experience. It's perception - maybe if I lived within the radius that lowers the walk to .9 or less I'd see it differently.

and I shop that area all the time so I have no issue with a bridge going up - they should put another south of 95th street also

[d204mom]

doctorwho said:

lacy said:

The bridge on Eola is just north of the library/rec center and WVHS. It is 1/2 mile from the north entrance to WVHS and even closer to the rec center/library/athletic fields.

You say tomato - I say tamato.

Is the usage limited to the park? So for instance, if someone wanted to ride their bike over it to the library or to watch a softball game or football game they would be prohibited?

I don't get all the interest in the one on 59 by people who are not affected by it and won't use it. Trying to figure that one out...

There's nothing to figure out - the portrayal of the bridge as some magical bridge that suddenly makes a lot of people walkers - and visions of students and bicycles lined up in the morning to use it for such have now been around for at least 18 months. Most people just don't see that - hey maybe we're wrong - but I don't see the students giving up their cars to walk - just my previous experience.

and I shop that area all the time so I have no issue with a bridge going up - they should put another south of 95th street also

I never thought it was about using the bridge, it's about the legally binding definition of a "walker." And whether the "keeping walkers as walkers" boundary criteria is applied uniformly and fairly during the boundary process.

If anything we have all learned in this district that we cannot count on people to do the right thing unless it's "legally binding."

Just my opinion.

[gatormom]

d204mom said:

Back on topic -

In that shiny school bus brocure I posted earlier, it says that a DOT Hazard form from the district needs to be on file. I am a$$uming that this is what the district uses to receive funding for bussing the TG kids to NV and RT. 59 qualifies for high school students (there are different "hazard" criteria for ES/MS/HS students).

Also in there I read that "if conditions change" a new form needs to be submitted.

I think the bridge is a changed condition, so the district should be filing a new form before school starts in the fall. I guess we'll see.

I imagine you could be proactive and contact the district yourself. I understand that there is actually someone in the district who handles this very thing.

[doctorwho]

d204mom said:

doctorwho said:

There's nothing to figure out - the portrayal of the bridge as some magical bridge that suddenly makes a lot of people walkers - and visions of students and bicycles lined up in the morning to use it for such have now been around for at least 18 months. Most people just don't see that - hey maybe we're wrong - but I don't see the students giving up their cars to walk - just my previous experience.

and I shop that area all the time so I have no issue with a bridge going up - they should put another south of 95th street also

I never thought it was about using the bridge, it's about the legally binding definition of a "walker." And whether the "keeping walkers as walkers" boundary criteria is applied uniformly and fairly during the boundary process.

If anything we have all learned in this district that we cannot count on people to do the right thing unless it's "legally binding."

Just my opinion.

that's fine as I have said all along - then everyone will have to be willing to split a school for maybe 10% or so --

I agree- if in the end all walkers that legally fall under the limit are kept at their school- then it should be applied equally - but it does not make the entire area walkers --

likely Steck and McCarty will be split - if a northern site is chosen, then the same would apply.

[d204mom]

warriorpride said:

lacy said:

Just my thoughts also....we have no idea where or when the school will be built. But you seem sure where TG will go? Why is that? Will certain areas be used to "balance" no matter where they build the school? I'm wondering if that's constitutional.

I'm pretty sure that the SB will use some amount of balance when determining the boundaries. Sorry if you have a problem with that. Go ahead and threaten with a lawsuit if you don't like the boundaries - it wouldn't be the first time that is was done RE the MV boundaries.

Is it taboo or something to just come out and say what everyone is hinting at? That Daeschner's last district got sued over boundary criteria and it went all the way to the Supreme Court and they lost? I feel like some of us aren't on the same page and it is public information anyway.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_v._Jefferson_County_Board_of_Education

[Arch]

d204mom said:

I never thought it was about using the bridge, it's about the legally binding definition of a "walker." And whether the "keeping walkers as walkers" boundary criteria is applied uniformly and fairly during the boundary process.

If anything we have all learned in this district that we cannot count on people to do the right thing unless it's "legally binding."

Just my opinion.

I never thought of "keeping walkers as walkers" as legally binding either.

It's a nice goal, but I don't ever recall seeing it in anything legally binding.

[d204mom]

archwinsome said:

d204mom said:

I never thought it was about using the bridge, it's about the legally binding definition of a "walker." And whether the "keeping walkers as walkers" boundary criteria is applied uniformly and fairly during the boundary process.

If anything we have all learned in this district that we cannot count on people to do the right thing unless it's "legally binding."

Just my opinion.

I never thought of "keeping walkers as walkers" as legally binding either.

It's a nice goal, but I don't ever recall seeing it in anything legally binding.

It's not but the definition of a "walker" is.

[Arch]

d204mom said:

warriorpride said:

I'm pretty sure that the SB will use some amount of balance when determining the boundaries. Sorry if you have a problem with that. Go ahead and threaten with a lawsuit if you don't like the boundaries - it wouldn't be the first time that is was done RE the MV boundaries.

Is it taboo or something to just come out and say what everyone is hinting at? That Daeschner's last district got sued over boundary criteria and it went all the way to the Supreme Court and they lost? I feel like some of us aren't on the same page and it is public information anyway.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_v._Jefferson_County_Board_of_Education

I don't believe anyone here has ever mentioned 'explicit racial' criteria to determine boundaries. Have they?

[d204mom]

archwinsome said:

d204mom said:

Is it taboo or something to just come out and say what everyone is hinting at? That Daeschner's last district got sued over boundary criteria and it went all the way to the Supreme Court and they lost? I feel like some of us aren't on the same page and it is public information anyway.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_v._Jefferson_County_Board_of_Education

I don't believe anyone here has ever mentioned 'explicit racial' criteria to determine boundaries. Have they?

The point is not WHICH criteria is used. The point is that someone in our district has a poor track record of CHOOSING the criteria. And we've put him in charge of the choosing. YAY!

[wvhsparent]

d204mom said:

archwinsome said:

I don't believe anyone here has ever mentioned 'explicit racial' criteria to determine boundaries. Have they?

The point is not WHICH criteria is used. The point is that someone in our district has a poor track record of CHOOSING the criteria. And we've put him in charge of the choosing. YAY!

I read thru the wikipedia submission. The situations at JCPS and here in D204 are radically different. IMHO there is no way they should even be compared. The main point in the suit was admission to a magnet school....none of those here......
If you can show me how the 2 are even remotely similar other than the dash. Maybe I'll give it more consideration.

[blankcheck]

Would not the spreading out of underachieving students to among the schools be one example?
Was that not one of the criteria used when forming boundaries?