|
|
Post by sd204taxpayer on Apr 20, 2007 11:30:55 GMT -6
warriorpride - what have you accomplished since you are putting yourself on a soapbox?
|
|
|
|
Post by driven on Apr 20, 2007 11:31:18 GMT -6
I stated "financial planning history" as I am sure you are well aware. I don't believe (and, among many other issues, an empty $11 million school supports) that this district has been very good at financial planning. Thank the Lord that this district has such fabulously involved parents, terrific educators, and excellent students. That is why, despite disagreeing with many on this board, I stay in this district. The paid administrators are not my concern. The SB is. "Historically", I believe I have been very clear on this topic. No spin needed. I do not just "complain". I attend SB meetings, I discuss issues with my neighbors, and I vote. I also support the principals, teachers, and staff at the schools my children attend. What I absolutely do not do is just sit around and complain. so as you've done your history - and discussed the topics -- take another look at your notes on Peterson & explain your thoughts please on the $11M school - as I don't have to repeat again what Bob has just posted and has been covered here and multiple places. So your neighbors agree that we should have had a referendum for the school today or tomorrow instead ? Fiscally responsible ? How about using the $11 million to build or add on to a middle school? Remember, my kid goes to Scullen, you know the one with the "dreaded" portables. How about voting for a third high school in the first place instead of the freshman centers? I could go on and on but I feel like (and no doubt sound like) a broken record. I've heard the arguments before boys. We will have to agree to disagree. It is what it is and time will tell. Believe me, I REALLY sincerely want to be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by sd204taxpayer on Apr 20, 2007 11:34:01 GMT -6
You keep blaming the SB for it's past, but the problem the SB isn't the same entity as it was 4 years ago. There are 4 members that have been on the board less than 2 years. yeah - but a couple of them were appointed by the current board members - doesn't seem independent to me. They obviously would apoint potential members that share their same opinions. Kind of puts the sb in the same state as the state of IL with the Dems controlling everything. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 20, 2007 11:39:15 GMT -6
You keep blaming the SB for it's past, but the problem the SB isn't the same entity as it was 4 years ago. There are 4 members that have been on the board less than 2 years. yeah - but a couple of them were appointed by the current board members - doesn't seem independent to me. They obviously would apoint potential members that share their same opinions. Kind of puts the sb in the same state as the state of IL with the Dems controlling everything. Which ones were appointed? Because I think they were all voted into their position. |
|
|
|
Post by driven on Apr 20, 2007 11:54:26 GMT -6
yeah - but a couple of them were appointed by the current board members - doesn't seem independent to me. They obviously would apoint potential members that share their same opinions. Kind of puts the sb in the same state as the state of IL with the Dems controlling everything. Which ones were appointed? Because I think they were all voted into their position. Ok, that was clever.  |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 20, 2007 12:00:21 GMT -6
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 20, 2007 12:01:55 GMT -6
Something interesting I found on the web - The Illinois Association of Realtors is opposed to HB 153. www.illinoisrealtor.org/Member/publications/quorum/2007/qc3-9-07.aspHere's a clip of the site. The note is dated 3/9, which is after the original defeat, but before the successful vote awhile later. ====================================== Quorum Call March 9, 2007 Legislation OPPOSED by the IAR was defeated in the House Executive Committee on Wednesday, March 7th. HB 153, sponsored by Representative Joe Dunn, sought to grant the extraordinary power of “quick-take” eminent domain authority to the Indian Prairie Community Unit School District No. 204 for school construction. As you may know, this power can only be granted by the General Assembly and is generally done in a limited way for construction projects that involve a number of parcels; i.e. for water mains or highway construction. Particularly troubling was the fact that this is attempt by the school district occurred despite the fact that proceedings are progressing on the eminent domain case in the courts. The measure had also been rejected last fall. The IAR OPPOSED this measure which is likely to be back before the House Executive Committee next week. IF YOUR REPRESENTATIVE SERVES ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PLEASE CONTACT THEM AND URGE A NO VOTE ON HB 153. The following are the names of the Representatives who serve on the House Executive Committee: Rep. Dan Burke (D-Chicago) Rep. Dan Brady (R-Bloomington) Rep. Joe Lyons (D-Chicago) Rep. Bob Biggins (R-Elmhurst) Rep. Ed Acevedo (D-Chicago) Rep. Brent Hassert (R-Romeoville) Rep. Toni Berrios (D-Chicago) Rep. Jim Meyer (R-Naperville) Rep. Rich Bradley (D-Chicago) Rep. Skip Saviano (R-River Grove) Rep. Robert Molaro (D-Chicago) Rep. Bob Rita (D-Crestwood) Rep. Art Turner (D-Chicago) |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 20, 2007 12:05:04 GMT -6
Another IAR note, 3/16/07. www.illinoisrealtor.org/Member/publications/quorum/2007/qc3-16-07.asp- Legislation OPPOSED by IAR and defeated both this year and in late 2006 is still pending in the House Executive Committee and is expected to be voted on again next Wednesday, March 21st. HB 153, sponsored by Representative Joe Dunn, seeks to grant the EXTRAORDINARY power of “quick-take” eminent domain authority to the Indian Prairie Community Unit School District No. 204 for school construction. As you may know, this power can only be granted by the General Assembly and is generally done in a limited way for construction projects that involve a number of parcels; i.e. for water mains or highway construction. Particularly troubling was the fact that this is attempt by the school district occurred despite the fact that proceedings are progressing on the eminent domain case in the courts and the court has set a September trial date. In fact, even the superintendent has acknowledged in correspondence that this date will still allow sufficient time for construction. This legislation is a bad precedent and should be rejected AGAIN. IF YOUR REPRESENTATIVE SERVES ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PLEASE CONTACT THEM AND URGE A NO VOTE ON HB 153. The following are the names of the Representatives who serve on the House Executive Committee: |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Apr 20, 2007 12:06:48 GMT -6
warriorpride - what have you accomplished since you are putting yourself on a soapbox? Not a soapbox, really, just wondering what your motivations are for the repeated negativity. You won't answer, so I don't think we can help you here. I helped pass pass out flyers & tried to help educate people about the 06 referendum and the 07 SB election - I'd like to think, in some very small way, it helped a little. "It is a community of residents willing to exchange ideas to make IPSD a better place. " - did you come to this board to help make 204 a better place? If not, then maybe you're in the wrong place, despite the fact that this is a free country, and you have your right of free speech. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 20, 2007 12:07:36 GMT -6
and finally, from 3/23/07: www.illinoisrealtor.org/Member/publications/quorum/2007/qc3-23-07.asp- House Bill 153, OPPOSED by the IAR and defeated both this year and in late 2006 was voted out of the House Executive Committee on Wednesday, March 21st and is pending in the House of Representatives. HB 153, sponsored by Representative Joe Dunn, seeks to grant the EXTRAORDINARY power of “quick-take” eminent domain authority to the Indian Prairie Community Unit School District No. 204 for school construction. As you may know, this power can only be granted by the General Assembly and is generally done in a limited way for construction projects that involve a number of parcels; i.e. for water mains or highway construction. Particularly troubling was the fact that this is attempt by the school district occurred despite the fact that proceedings are progressing on the eminent domain case in the courts and the court has set a September trial date. In fact, even the superintendent has acknowledged in correspondence that this date will still allow sufficient time for construction. This legislation is a bad precedent and should be rejected AGAIN. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 20, 2007 12:08:29 GMT -6
How about using the $11 million to build or add on to a middle school? Remember, my kid goes to Scullen, you know the one with the "dreaded" portables. How about voting for a third high school in the first place instead of the freshman centers? I could go on and on but I feel like (and no doubt sound like) a broken record. I've heard the arguments before boys. We will have to agree to disagree. It is what it is and time will tell. Believe me, I REALLY sincerely want to be wrong. Spilt milk. HS is approved. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 20, 2007 12:09:35 GMT -6
Why is the IAR so against quick take? Is it the fact that the land is zoned residential?
I was surprised that these folks really are taking a stance like this. Anybody have thoughts on this?
ETA - also found this on their site. A "follow the money" analysis says they may be upset missing out on commissions....
============================================
Eminent Domain/Takings
We strongly believe in the right of the individual to own real property without the fear of a government taking. We oppose the taking of private property without just compensation. We oppose the widespread use of the power of eminent domain, and encourage government policies and programs which encourage the acquisition of property by purchase on the open market rather than by condemnation.
We generally oppose the use of “quick-take” condemnation as a means of acquiring property, as this form of obtaining property is inherently unfair to the property owner. We do, however, recognize that extraordinary circumstances may, on rare occasion, necessitate the rapid acquisition of property by government. Legislation which authorizes rapid acquisition of property by government should be narrowly drawn to limit the timeframe and specify the purpose for the acquisition.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 20, 2007 12:25:36 GMT -6
Why is the IAR so against quick take? Is it the fact that the land is zoned residential? I was surprised that these folks really are taking a stance like this. Anybody have thoughts on this? ETA - also found this on their site. A "follow the money" analysis says they may be upset missing out on commissions.... ============================================ Eminent Domain/Takings
We strongly believe in the right of the individual to own real property without the fear of a government taking. We oppose the taking of private property without just compensation. We oppose the widespread use of the power of eminent domain, and encourage government policies and programs which encourage the acquisition of property by purchase on the open market rather than by condemnation.
We generally oppose the use of “quick-take” condemnation as a means of acquiring property, as this form of obtaining property is inherently unfair to the property owner. We do, however, recognize that extraordinary circumstances may, on rare occasion, necessitate the rapid acquisition of property by government. Legislation which authorizes rapid acquisition of property by government should be narrowly drawn to limit the timeframe and specify the purpose for the acquisition.my take would be the fact it is zoned residential today and is a potential future source of revenue for them - and would have been more suprised if realtors and builders did not agree on this. Have not seen any communication on this to their members, but have a few I can check with. the problem I have with the statement above is that how will the owner not get just compensation - even those against it here agree they will be justly compensated ? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 20, 2007 12:27:46 GMT -6
Dr. Those against BB are afraid there will be TOO MUCH compensation. Go Figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Apr 20, 2007 12:33:59 GMT -6
Why is the IAR so against quick take? Is it the fact that the land is zoned residential? I was surprised that these folks really are taking a stance like this. Anybody have thoughts on this? ETA - also found this on their site. A "follow the money" analysis says they may be upset missing out on commissions.... ============================================ Eminent Domain/Takings
We strongly believe in the right of the individual to own real property without the fear of a government taking. We oppose the taking of private property without just compensation. We oppose the widespread use of the power of eminent domain, and encourage government policies and programs which encourage the acquisition of property by purchase on the open market rather than by condemnation.
We generally oppose the use of “quick-take” condemnation as a means of acquiring property, as this form of obtaining property is inherently unfair to the property owner. We do, however, recognize that extraordinary circumstances may, on rare occasion, necessitate the rapid acquisition of property by government. Legislation which authorizes rapid acquisition of property by government should be narrowly drawn to limit the timeframe and specify the purpose for the acquisition.I don't blame the IAR - in general I think they are against all things eminent domain. |
|
