|
|
Post by momto4 on Mar 30, 2007 7:24:44 GMT -6
This land is off the table. The church is ready to build. This property seems to be just what they needed. Note that this new church location is for an Aurora east-side Lutheran church merging with one in Naperville. The land probably is at the midpoint for both congregations. No wonder the pastor was not interested. The land mentioned in this article is the land owned by Faith Lutheran Church at Eola and Liberty. The land owned by St. John's AME is a couple miles north at Eola and Molitor. These are two different parcels owned by different congregations. St. John's is supposedly planning to build a church and school at the Eola & Molitor site but has done nothing with the land so far and their website no longer exists. The article in the Beacon about the plans for the church and school was probably at least 3 years ago. I don't think we can search archives from then without paying for it, but we may be able to get it by asking one of the reporters. |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Mar 30, 2007 7:35:17 GMT -6
The land mentioned in this article is the land owned by Faith Lutheran Church at Eola and Liberty. The land owned by St. John's AME is a couple miles north at Eola and Molitor. These are two different parcels owned by different congregations.... Thanks so much for the explaination and clarification, momto4! When people were talking about the "northern church site" I thought it was at Eola and Liberty, with the wooden sign up forever it seems. Weird coincidence....St James, St Johns...couple miles a part on same road. Sorry for any confusion. Well I will say this , good for the two merged churches and their moving ahead with moving dirt on property they like. Must be a nice feeling. Maybe it will start a trend around these parts!  |
|
|
|
Post by dpc on Mar 30, 2007 7:56:59 GMT -6
This land is off the table. The church is ready to build. This property seems to be just what they needed. Note that this new church location is for an Aurora east-side Lutheran church merging with one in Naperville. The land probably is at the midpoint for both congregations. No wonder the pastor was not interested. The land mentioned in this article is the land owned by Faith Lutheran Church at Eola and Liberty. The land owned by St. John's AME is a couple miles north at Eola and Molitor. These are two different parcels owned by different congregations. St. John's is supposedly planning to build a church and school at the Eola & Molitor site but has done nothing with the land so far and their website no longer exists. The article in the Beacon about the plans for the church and school was probably at least 3 years ago. I don't think we can search archives from then without paying for it, but we may be able to get it by asking one of the reporters. Thanks parent. Did you happen to ask M2 about the timing of HC contacting the church? I am trying to dig through some emails but if I recall, the discussion that HC had with the pastor was AFTER the district had settled on BB. So it was basically a CYA exercise on the district's part only after many northerners made a stink about the lack of a north side location. |
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Mar 30, 2007 9:21:30 GMT -6
The land mentioned in this article is the land owned by Faith Lutheran Church at Eola and Liberty. The land owned by St. John's AME is a couple miles north at Eola and Molitor. These are two different parcels owned by different congregations. St. John's is supposedly planning to build a church and school at the Eola & Molitor site but has done nothing with the land so far and their website no longer exists. The article in the Beacon about the plans for the church and school was probably at least 3 years ago. I don't think we can search archives from then without paying for it, but we may be able to get it by asking one of the reporters. Thanks parent. Did you happen to ask M2 about the timing of HC contacting the church? I am trying to dig through some emails but if I recall, the discussion that HC had with the pastor was AFTER the district had settled on BB. So it was basically a CYA exercise on the district's part only after many northerners made a stink about the lack of a north side location. I have never asked M2 or any other board member about the timing of contacting St. John's AME. I consider this a moot point for now since I am hopeful we will have BB soon. While the St. John's site would be absolutely AWESOME for my neighborhood, I really think BB is what's best for the district. What I recall during the referendum time is that there were several sites that were evaluated and that BB was chosen as clearly the best for several reasons. I would have thought that discussions with the pastor would have happened in that timeframe to determine whether the Molitor/Eola land was a viable option. |
|
|
|
Post by dpc on Mar 30, 2007 11:28:07 GMT -6
Thanks parent. Did you happen to ask M2 about the timing of HC contacting the church? I am trying to dig through some emails but if I recall, the discussion that HC had with the pastor was AFTER the district had settled on BB. So it was basically a CYA exercise on the district's part only after many northerners made a stink about the lack of a north side location. I have never asked M2 or any other board member about the timing of contacting St. John's AME. I consider this a moot point for now since I am hopeful we will have BB soon. I can't speak for WVHS, but the timing of HC contacting SJ AME is not a moot point for me. Yes, we are certainly locked in to BB and I am not asking to change the land site. What matters to me is whether due diligence was performed by the SD and the SB. If HC contacted SJ AME after BB was chosen as the site then due diligence was not performed. To me, this is a trust issue which impacts MY choice for SB members in the election. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 30, 2007 11:44:52 GMT -6
I am not sure of the timing...but I know several of the "Factors/criterea" war touted way after BB was selected IMO to validate it (CYA).
Yes it may be a moot point as far as site selection goes, but to me it give me the way the Board operates...including some of the more senior members. It's a trust factor....or lack of.
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 30, 2007 11:45:37 GMT -6
I have never asked M2 or any other board member about the timing of contacting St. John's AME. I consider this a moot point for now since I am hopeful we will have BB soon. I can't speak for WVHS, but the timing of HC contacting SJ AME is not a moot point for me. Yes, we are certainly locked in to BB and I am not asking to change the land site. What matters to me is whether due diligence was performed by the SD and the SB. If HC contacted SJ AME after BB was chosen as the site then due diligence was not performed. To me, this is a trust issue which impacts MY choice for SB members in the election. Why? HC is not running for SB. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 30, 2007 11:48:47 GMT -6
I can't speak for WVHS, but the timing of HC contacting SJ AME is not a moot point for me. Yes, we are certainly locked in to BB and I am not asking to change the land site. What matters to me is whether due diligence was performed by the SD and the SB. If HC contacted SJ AME after BB was chosen as the site then due diligence was not performed. To me, this is a trust issue which impacts MY choice for SB members in the election. Why? HC is not running for SB. no but the author of the white paper is....... |
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Mar 30, 2007 11:53:07 GMT -6
I have never asked M2 or any other board member about the timing of contacting St. John's AME. I consider this a moot point for now since I am hopeful we will have BB soon. I can't speak for WVHS, but the timing of HC contacting SJ AME is not a moot point for me. Yes, we are certainly locked in to BB and I am not asking to change the land site. What matters to me is whether due diligence was performed by the SD and the SB. If HC contacted SJ AME after BB was chosen as the site then due diligence was not performed. To me, this is a trust issue which impacts MY choice for SB members in the election. DPC - I just searched my referendum e-mail from last year. In an e-mail conversation with Bruce Rodman in mid-February 2006 he talked about what had happened when HC and the SD attorney met with the pastor and church deacons. The church did not want to sell, and even if they did want to sell, the SB did not see this land as their top choice. However, even at that time the documents from the prior referendum committee were no longer available. I got copies of some from a person who'd been on the committee. This included information about having researched every possible parcel of available land and apparently there was one person on the committee who was very committed to finding an available site in the north but none was available and suitable. I think the fact that they did contact the owners of the land to see if this parcel was a possibility for our new school shows due diligence on their part especially considering they thought this parcel was less than optimal. I hope that you find three candidates who you think are best suited to guide our district in the right direction for the next four years as we open our new HS and continue on the current path of excellence. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Mar 30, 2007 12:17:32 GMT -6
Why? HC is not running for SB. no but the author of the white paper is....... I thought the white paper was written by the whole board. Specifically, I thought I sensed more of a Bruce Glawe tint to it. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 30, 2007 12:23:30 GMT -6
mom..all well and good...they started condemnation proceedings in Dec 05.......which is before Feb06....at least on my calendar......
no matter...it's gonna be BB whatever the cost.......HC saw to that.
That's all I have to say.....
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 30, 2007 12:24:36 GMT -6
no but the author of the white paper is....... I thought the white paper was written by the whole board. Specifically, I thought I sensed more of a Bruce Glawe tint to it. Nope Primary author was M2..for the board |
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Mar 30, 2007 13:16:56 GMT -6
mom..all well and good...they started condemnation proceedings in Dec 05.......which is before Feb06....at least on my calendar...... no matter...it's gonna be BB whatever the cost.......HC saw to that. That's all I have to say..... Understood. I had no reason to be in contact with SB members about the property prior to Feb 06, so all I can say is what I found out then. Also, as I mentioned, the referendum committee that led to the 2005 referendum had found out that for sure this land was not available to us, which was probably at least a year prior to Dec 05. |
|
