|
|
Post by macy on Jan 28, 2007 0:18:39 GMT -6
I hate to break it to you all but none of your random samples would qualify for a scientific poll, especially when done in a group setting. Varied as in they all live in South Naperville? We all knew that we are going to trial.So where are these mounting legal bills coming from?I would like to see the proof that these people are getting their info are or is it all rumor mongering? Don't forget if we drop BB then we pay their legal bills. Just another cost to the Macom site. So what you are saying is that we are tied to BB because we'd have to pay their legal bills? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 28, 2007 0:21:16 GMT -6
They are not 'tied' to it because of legal bills but if we back away (and go with other land) we owe their legal fees. This was known WELL IN ADVANCE of the referendum vote last year. It's no new news. Those fees must also be added into the other 'costs' of any alternative land or plan. That's just the way it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Jan 28, 2007 0:30:01 GMT -6
There is nothing generically wrong with a backup plan. Due to the equal (or more) amounts of unknowns w/ the Macom land, that does not fall into teh category of a 'backup plan'. For those so concerned and wanting the District to have a backup plan, please work with pressuring Macom to come to the table w/ the land ownership, powerline, substation, traffic, city/county/unincorporated issues solved or at least attach a price tag to them so the full cost is known up front. THEN, it can be considered a 'plan' perhaps even enough to become 'THE PLAN' if the BB condemnation suit goes against the district. As it is now, they've been allowed access to the BB site to get the land survey done, there are no powerline issues and no traffic/road issues to really work out. To boot, BB owns all of the land that is in question. Shouldn't the board/district be putting pressure on Macom to come up with all these things? I don't know, maybe they did... We don't know, they have not provided us with that information. After all, this whole thing went on in October. It's really too late now for it to be a viable possibility. It would have been nice to know about it in October. But from what I understand, the information wasn't supposed to be shared as public knowledge. Should the district/sb have asked for all the above from a motivated seller? I say yes-duh! Doesn't seem like they did.... haven't heard... Don't know what the conversation was between Macom/204 other than they asked for a "donation." That's all they have told us. Seems like they are sold on bb because of boundaries, location, etc... all the things they are on the record saying. Nothing about plan B other than they'd "schedule meetings." Time for a backup! |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 28, 2007 7:45:48 GMT -6
I agree they should have a back-up, but IMHO it's not the Macom site.
At this point I would be happy with a mere acknowledgment that there is a back-up plan...I don't need to know all the details.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 28, 2007 8:32:56 GMT -6
I hate to break it to you all but none of your random samples would qualify for a scientific poll, especially when done in a group setting. Varied as in they all live in South Naperville? We all knew that we are going to trial.So where are these mounting legal bills coming from?I would like to see the proof that these people are getting their info are or is it all rumor mongering? Don't forget if we drop BB then we pay their legal bills. Just another cost to the Macom site. So what you are saying is that we are tied to BB because we'd have to pay their legal bills? That was brought up by M2 at an info meeting a while back. If BB goes away, they would have to sell back the 25 acres they have now AND cough up about 1 Mil in legal fees related to that parcel |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 28, 2007 8:40:20 GMT -6
No they wouldn't have to sell the 25 acres back unless they didn't put a school on the 25 acres which we own and that could be a middle school and little red school house.
That 25 acres purchase also gave us the right to buy the other 55.
|
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Jan 28, 2007 8:41:35 GMT -6
Hence another reason why I thought it was always a bad move. They would have to sell the land back to BB (at the original purchase price) and pay their legal fees. Why would we agree to that? So not only is it that, but our own legal fees as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 28, 2007 8:55:53 GMT -6
Cause it keeps the SD from flipping land.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 28, 2007 9:11:20 GMT -6
There are 'some' Matea Valley residents who believe that sure. Also some of those want to revisit that to make sure they can't somehow end up back at NV. This is also a fact. There are also some who may want to view other sites because the SB picked this one, and we all know they can't be right and some who think so because they truly believe another site might be better. How many of each - who knows. No one here is going to prove either. My Saturday unscientific poll - spent all day at a club volleyball tournament ....4 sets of parents on our team who live in White Eagle and I who live in May Watts - and all 5 are happy with the BB site. Not a large sample, but scientifically accurate unlike the Sun poll.
Everyone is concerned about mounting legal fees, construction delays, etc.
I believe this demographic is a bit more varied.
Interesting...a 'bit' more varied and a couple more people but neither is a representative sample size -- I made my poiint only in the fact that as opposed to the Sun survey where anyone - anywhere could be voting, these were actual residents of 204. For mine you could toss in last night from a party my child attended last evening - 4 more Watts for BB, 2 Coulishaw for BB, I Granger for BB and 2 Brookdale 1 for BB and 1 open for other solutions -- so that is as varied as yours....and also somewhat telling..but neither is a scientific sample size .....again my point was to say at least I knew the votes were valid from the standpoint it was someone who was actually going to be affected in some way. |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jan 28, 2007 9:14:07 GMT -6
Hence another reason why I thought it was always a bad move. They would have to sell the land back to BB (at the original purchase price) and pay their legal fees. Why would we agree to that? So not only is it that, but our own legal fees as well. I don't know if the school board agreed to that. That might just be the law that the governement can't take your land for a public purposes then sell it for something else. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 28, 2007 9:19:41 GMT -6
No they wouldn't have to sell the 25 acres back unless they didn't put a school on the 25 acres which we own and that could be a middle school and little red school house. That 25 acres purchase also gave us the right to buy the other 55. Sorry, I forgot that clause that said if they dont build a school on it they have to sell it back. But let's be honest here...if they don't get the other 55 I really do not think they are going to build anything on it....unless you know something I don't. Was'nt there a deadline to that also? |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jan 28, 2007 9:37:44 GMT -6
No they wouldn't have to sell the 25 acres back unless they didn't put a school on the 25 acres which we own and that could be a middle school and little red school house. That 25 acres purchase also gave us the right to buy the other 55. Sorry, I forgot that clause that said if they dont build a school on it they have to sell it back. But let's be honest here...if they don't get the other 55 I really do not think they are going to build anything on it....unless you know something I don't. Was'nt there a deadline to that also? If we keep the land it ties up 6 million dollars that could have been put into the new school. If we hold the land we will always have to offer it back to BB at the price we bought it which allows BB to benifit from the apprecaition at ouir expense. If macom wants to deal they have to at least offer to buy the 25 acres at BB and pay BB's legal fees. Both macom and BB contend that the land is worth $600,000 per acre so either party should be thrilled to get it because the school district has to sell it for half of that. |
|
|
|
Post by driven on Jan 28, 2007 9:42:04 GMT -6
I said varied because, of the 10 people I informally surveyed, only 2 (Fry) are impacted at all by the boundary changes. That is what I meant by varied. They are non-bitter and a bit more objective IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jan 28, 2007 9:42:23 GMT -6
Online voters oppose alternate Metea site
January 28, 2007
By BRITT CARSON Staff Writer
In a last-minute rally, Naperville Sun readers turned the tides on a nonscientific poll about the site for a third high school in Indian Prairie School District 204.
The district is currently seeking 55 acres of the Brach-Brodie property along 75th Street and the future extension of Commons Drive in Aurora as the site for Metea Valley High School.
Last week readers had the chance to vote online on whether they thought the district should reconsider the site. Fifty-seven percent - or 2,430 - of those who voted said no.
POLL RESULTS
Should Indian Prairie School District 204 reconsider the site of its Metea Valley High School?
Yes: 1,814 42 percent
No: 2,430 57 percent
Total: 4,244
A total of 4,244 people voted online. Until Thursday, votes were in favor of the district reconsidering the site, but a late surge shifted the votes in favor of the district sticking with the Brach-Brodie site.
"I think the most important thing we can draw is that there are very passionate people on both sides of the issue," said school board member Mark Metzger.
Forty-two percent of voters were in favor of the district finding another site for the 3,000-seat high school, which is slated to open in the fall of 2009. The district currently owns 25 acres adjacent to the 55 it is seeking.
School board member Curt Bradshaw said the results of the poll didn't surprise him.
"The Brach-Brodie site did have the greatest number of positives ... of the sites we evaluated," Bradshaw said.
The district filed a condemnation lawsuit to obtain the land after negotiations with the attorneys who oversee the Brach-Brodie trust failed. On Tuesday a DuPage County judge granted the district temporary access to the property to take soil samples and to do a geological survey.
So now the poll is unscientific?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 28, 2007 9:43:02 GMT -6
Well the Sun decided to run the results anyway....at least they did say it was non-scientific in the first paragraph - but the anti BB people won't like the title bar
Online voters oppose alternate Metea site
January 28, 2007
By BRITT CARSON Staff Writer
In a last-minute rally, Naperville Sun readers turned the tides on a nonscientific poll about the site for a third high school in Indian Prairie School District 204.
The district is currently seeking 55 acres of the Brach-Brodie property along 75th Street and the future extension of Commons Drive in Aurora as the site for Metea Valley High School.
Last week readers had the chance to vote online on whether they thought the district should reconsider the site. Fifty-seven percent - or 2,430 - of those who voted said no.
POLL RESULTS
Should Indian Prairie School District 204 reconsider the site of its Metea Valley High School?
Yes: 1,814 42 percent
No: 2,430 57 percent
Total: 4,244
A total of 4,244 people voted online. Until Thursday, votes were in favor of the district reconsidering the site, but a late surge shifted the votes in favor of the district sticking with the Brach-Brodie site.
"I think the most important thing we can draw is that there are very passionate people on both sides of the issue," said school board member Mark Metzger.
Forty-two percent of voters were in favor of the district finding another site for the 3,000-seat high school, which is slated to open in the fall of 2009. The district currently owns 25 acres adjacent to the 55 it is seeking.
School board member Curt Bradshaw said the results of the poll didn't surprise him.
"The Brach-Brodie site did have the greatest number of positives ... of the sites we evaluated," Bradshaw said.
The district filed a condemnation lawsuit to obtain the land after negotiations with the attorneys who oversee the Brach-Brodie trust failed. On Tuesday a DuPage County judge granted the district temporary access to the property to take soil samples and to do a geological survey.
Contact Britt Carson at bcarson@scn1.com or 630-416-5269.
|
|
