Naperville Sun On-Line Poll for Metea Site

[doctorwho]

macy said:

doctorwho said:

This is the part I don't get - you are against higher than anticipated land costs - but an extra $12 million ( plus all costs for line movements etc uncalculated yet) for MACOM would be just fine ? Why is that ? It can't be the $

Let me clarify... From my perspective I can deal with higher land costs. But, if you put the equation as higher land costs+higher building/construction costs+ delayed opening... it equals something I am not in favor of if there is an alternate site available to us. The time to consider an alternate is now if not 6 months ago.

I don't think the Macom site is the only alternate available but, it's the only thing I've heard discussed and my ultimate concern is the lack of a plan B. Many may be confident in the outcome of BB but I cannot be at this point.

But again are the costs going to be higher ? With the slowdown in construction there surely is more labor readily available.. and labor costs are a huge part of that cost. I also remember that fact that during the housing boom, one year's delay ( that the defeat of the first referendum cost us) was approx $10M in construction costs -- MACOM is $12M + more than the BB land right now.

While the delays at BB concern everyone, they are not moving that much off of what some members of the SB said up front - Spring 07. Yes, wishful thinking had other things going perfectly...and that hasn't been the case, but it is far from worse case scenario also. With the general housing downturn ( that whacked the market again today) - do you think land costs are rising ? nope, which is why developers are looking to sell (MACOM) - And the 2 comparables for BB make the $257K/acre look accurate and $600K look like a foolish amount - which is how I believe a jury will see it ( if it even gets to a jury).

I just don't see MACOM as a slam dunk backup plan as the land and it's issues ( and cost) sit today.

[doctorwho]

macy said:

warriorpride said:

I'm done talkin' about Macom (per the closed thread), but I AM interested in the north vs. south thing.

Macy:
What are some recent examples of this playing out? What do you mean by "camps"? What would you expect to see as far "unity"? What should be done?

Warriorpride

This is really a more important issue to me than where the school ends up. A perfect example of where this plays out would be the dialog on this board. I don't have the answer on how to solve what's occurred. But it does concern me deeply. I wish I had the answer to what could be done. But I don't.

We all do which is why the sooner the school gets completed the better off we all are. Again, being considered not South by some, and not North by others, I wish I had an answer too. Every time TG gets ripped on, or opposite the 'conspiracy theories' about JC come out - it further divides everyone. For some it appears it will never go away, some of these grudges go back to before NV opened and are still here, I don't know how to convince anyone who hasn't gotten past it in 10+ years to do so now.

[macy]

gatormom said:

doctorwho said:

This is the part I don't get - you are against higher than anticipated land costs - but an extra $12 million ( plus all costs for line movements etc uncalculated yet) for MACOM would be just fine ? Why is that ? It can't be the $

I don't know Dr. Who. Seems to me, moving forward with Macom would be a step backward for the district. I guess some people would be happy to see the district move backward and away from a new high school, only my opinion of course.

I guess if I understand what you are saying here, it's a perfect example of how the bitter feuding has clouded the topic over what's most beneficial for all residents of the district.

If the district were able to negotiate a better price on land with Macom/ANYONE at this point than we might ultimately end up with in the BB suit, I feel there are some out there who would not be infavor of a new site. Wouldn't it be in everyones best interesnt to pursue a plan B. Somehow, based on the feedback here and in the LTE, I feel that some take that as a slam on WV. I really don't understand that.

Somehow, this whole argument on a lack of backup land is clouded (unfortunately in my opinion) with the WV vs. NV discussion. How is that a relevant point of disagreement in this case? I don't get it.

[warriorpride]

macy said:

warriorpride said:

I'm done talkin' about Macom (per the closed thread), but I AM interested in the north vs. south thing.

Macy:
What are some recent examples of this playing out? What do you mean by "camps"? What would you expect to see as far "unity"? What should be done?

Warriorpride

This is really a more important issue to me than where the school ends up. A perfect example of where this plays out would be the dialog on this board. I don't have the answer on how to solve what's occurred. But it does concern me deeply. I wish I had the answer to what could be done. But I don't.

Other than a few radicals, which you can never fully get rid of, I don't that I've seen north vs. south dialog on this board. You you? If so, please provide examples.

Note: pointing out where a person lives (subdivision or general location) and then disagreeing with their opinion and/or questioning their motives is not an example of being divisive, IMHO.

[macy]

doctorwho said:

macy said:

Warriorpride

This is really a more important issue to me than where the school ends up. A perfect example of where this plays out would be the dialog on this board. I don't have the answer on how to solve what's occurred. But it does concern me deeply. I wish I had the answer to what could be done. But I don't.

We all do which is why the sooner the school gets completed the better off we all are. Again, being considered not South by some, and not North by others, I wish I had an answer too. Every time TG gets ripped on, or opposite the 'conspiracy theories' about JC come out - it further divides everyone. For some it appears it will never go away, some of these grudges go back to before NV opened and are still here, I don't know how to convince anyone who hasn't gotten past it in 10+ years to do so now.

I agree completely.

I think the boundary discussions set us back years and will perpetuate in every school discussion for a long time and that can be both good and bad but mostly bad. Such a shame. If the referendum had been passed in 05 we would not have such a divide. I'm not saying it wouldn't exist, but it was so magnified and divisive (thanks to many on both sides including the board) that it's going to live on for years to come and has become a part of this discussion.

[doctorwho]

macy said:

gatormom said:

I don't know Dr. Who. Seems to me, moving forward with Macom would be a step backward for the district. I guess some people would be happy to see the district move backward and away from a new high school, only my opinion of course.

I guess if I understand what you are saying here, it's a perfect example of how the bitter feuding has clouded the topic over what's most beneficial for all residents of the district.

If the district were able to negotiate a better price on land with Macom/ANYONE at this point than we might ultimately end up with in the BB suit, I feel there are some out there who would not be infavor of a new site. Wouldn't it be in everyones best interesnt to pursue a plan B. Somehow, based on the feedback here and in the LTE, I feel that some take that as a slam on WV. I really don't understand that.

Somehow, this whole argument on a lack of backup land is clouded (unfortunately in my opinion) with the WV vs. NV discussion. How is that a relevant point of disagreement in this case? I don't get it.

Because that is exactly how the boundary issues were used by some in the last 18 months, and some of the very vocal comments that were made unfortunately cannot be taken back, or have a 'do over', they will take some time to go away. While not everyone who would want to change BB is a part of the "let's change boundaries group because maybe this time we'll get what we want", it is either naivety or a blind eye to think this is not the case for some. Although the boundaries were not a formal part of the referendum vote, they certainly were part of the decision made by the voters of 204.

Again, would everyone who wants to change from BB to MACOM do so if the ground rules were , we go with the boundaries just as they are today, no changes - the answer is no. Would some - sure.

So it is impossbile to separate the two issues at this point. They were made part of the process by some, and remain so today. Unfortunately some of the people who made sure those issues were infused into the process do not even live here, they agenda had nothing to do with education. Time will fix it for most, but for those still carrying chips on their shoulder from when NV opened, they obviously will not change.

[bob]

So Macy what large mass of people are mad about boundaries?

Fry and White Eagle voted for the referendum by a large margin.

[warriorpride]

macy said:

doctorwho said:

We all do which is why the sooner the school gets completed the better off we all are. Again, being considered not South by some, and not North by others, I wish I had an answer too. Every time TG gets ripped on, or opposite the 'conspiracy theories' about JC come out - it further divides everyone. For some it appears it will never go away, some of these grudges go back to before NV opened and are still here, I don't know how to convince anyone who hasn't gotten past it in 10+ years to do so now.

I agree completely.

I think the boundary discussions set us back years and will perpetuate in every school discussion for a long time and that can be both good and bad but mostly bad. Such a shame. If the referendum had been passed in 05 we would not have such a divide. I'm not saying it wouldn't exist, but it was so magnified and divisive (thanks to many on both sides including the board) that it's going to live on for years to come and has become a part of this discussion.

I personally don't think there's much divisiveness right now. The boundary discussions did stir up some problems. That's probably one of the reasons that SB is sticking with BB (not the primary reason, but I think it should be a consideration).

If we can just get the damn school built, I think we'll be just fine. Until then, some unhappy people will write and say some things that might stir emotions. That may never fully stop, but most people know who to ignore.

[macy]

warriorpride said:

macy said:

Warriorpride

This is really a more important issue to me than where the school ends up. A perfect example of where this plays out would be the dialog on this board. I don't have the answer on how to solve what's occurred. But it does concern me deeply. I wish I had the answer to what could be done. But I don't.

Other than a few radicals, which you can never fully get rid of, I don't that I've seen north vs. south dialog on this board. You you? If so, please provide examples.

Note: pointing out where a person lives (subdivision or general location) and then disagreeing with their opinion and/or questioning their motives is not an example of being divisive, IMHO.

Go back a few pages on this thread and read the quotes about "Aurora's land" and "lilly white" high school.

That kind of stuff is all over this board. It comes from both sides.

I tend to have a very different opinion than you on pointing out where people live when you disagree with them.

[macy]

bob said:

So Macy what large mass of people are mad about boundaries?

Fry and White Eagle voted for the referendum by a large margin.

My point was not that people were mad about boundary outcomes. The boundary discussion set the stage for a bitter feud within this district that still exists today.

[wvhsparent]

eagledad said:

Is anyone else wondering like me... why do these 20 page threads always start up at night, leading into the weekend?

Is there a full moon out or something?

It's the only time many can wrest the computers out of the kid's hands

[wvhsparent]

doctorwho said:

macy said:

Good question.... Didn't the SB give us some sites during the referendum? Are they all unavailable now? I sure hope not considering how poorly I think the advancement on BB has been.

If you remember many of those sites we deemed unbuildable due to so many issues - gee like huge power lines across the area. And some of those properties like the one in Bolingbrook that the mayor of BB wanted no part in selling to the SD - already has houses being built on it.

However many of those deemings IMHO were generated under less than truthful pretenses.

[wvhsparent]

doctorwho said:

gatormom said:

Actually, I completely disagree there. I think more good came from that than will ever be known. The problems with the perception of Waubonsie were brought to light and the repair of the image of a great school was underway. Of course, it only took 1 builder, 1 interview with the Naperville Sun to try and tear that work apart.

While the boundary issue was ugly, and some continue to perpetuate the division, we were going to have to go through that whether we passed the referendum the year before or not. The difference is the high school would now already be under construction and opening in 2008, and the rest of the issues being rehashed over and over, would be past.

We can thank an organized effort by some groups who managed to stifle the first referendum, as well as the miscalculation by the SD as to having to get the word and inofrmation out like was done the second time around.

I would put more of the 1st failure on the SD/SB for their lack of timely info.
I was a no the 1st time around, mainly becoause of the lack of reliable info.

[lacy]

wvhsparent said:

doctorwho said:

If you remember many of those sites we deemed unbuildable due to so many issues - gee like huge power lines across the area. And some of those properties like the one in Bolingbrook that the mayor of BB wanted no part in selling to the SD - already has houses being built on it.

However many of those deemings IMHO were generated under less than truthful pretenses.

I agree. The land report the district produced wasn't detailed and it certainly appeared to me that it was designed to lead one to the conclusion that BB was best.

I did not then and I do not now believe that BB was the only land. It is just the only land that some want.

[wvhsparent]

lacy said:

wvhsparent said:

However many of those deemings IMHO were generated under less than truthful pretenses.

I agree. The land report the district produced wasn't detailed and it certainly appeared to me that it was designed to lead one to the conclusion that BB was best.

I did not then and I do not now believe that BB was the only land. It is just the only land that some want.

BINGO!