|
|
Post by bob on Apr 18, 2007 7:44:27 GMT -6
So what are you implying here?
|
|
|
|
Post by giveourkidsagym on Apr 18, 2007 8:13:36 GMT -6
Hi Bob,
I'm inferring that our kids, for at least two years, will likely not have a place to watch a game with their friends on a Friday night- particularly if we end up overpaying for the BB land. You remember high school games, right?
Arch, I was pretty sure that you grew up on the southside and it is a compliment, not a negative believe me. You learn to see through things fairly quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 18, 2007 8:23:20 GMT -6
Yeah, but how do you come to a conclusion that there won't be football games if we overpay for the land.
a)The equipment comes out of the other budget.
b)It doesn't take to much to build a field.
c)Even if the field isn't ready, I am sure the MV sophomore team will play at NV or WV depending on the schedule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 18, 2007 8:30:33 GMT -6
Hi Bob, I'm inferring that our kids, for at least two years, will likely not have a place to watch a game with their friends on a Friday night- particularly if we end up overpaying for the BB land. You remember high school games, right? Arch, I was pretty sure that you grew up on the southside and it is a compliment, not a negative believe me. You learn to see through things fairly quickly. Nope, I went to school in S. Florida, where our best facility was so far below anything in D204 it wasn't even funny. The 2 high schools in the city shared the same football stadium in the middle of town off campus from both and in turn also had to share it with the city leagues as well as the private traveling leagues. We survived. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 18, 2007 8:38:57 GMT -6
Hi Bob, I'm inferring that our kids, for at least two years, will likely not have a place to watch a game with their friends on a Friday night- particularly if we end up overpaying for the BB land. You remember high school games, right? Arch, I was pretty sure that you grew up on the southside and it is a compliment, not a negative believe me. You learn to see through things fairly quickly. gym -- I believe you mistook Arch for me-- I am the South Sider -- but I'll let him go into it. 1. If you are concerned about sports at MV-- then do as others like myself have done. Build a business case and send it to Kathy Birkett and Howie Crouse until Dr Daeschler gets on board. Talk to the board members and build a coalition of support. >> remember Neuqua opened with no varsity teams it's first year - and while not letter of the law to do that, you are going to have to convince some people her to behave differently this time around. >> I have already started the ball rolling on this - and will work to see if we can't move the ball forward over the next 2 years. -- I will have a sophomore who will transfer over to MV the opening year - and is a 6 year club player already in her sport. her older sister was a 4 year h.s. varsity starter and scholarhip athlete - so I understand the desire for sports teams and facilities in which to play. >> certain sports - especially soccer and volleyball are dominated by club athletes and the school would certainly be more than competitive in the Upstate 8 (11) - opening year. Swimmers etc that are part of individual competition type sports already will be afforded the ability to compete. >> But, I think it's a bad assumption that we will have none of these. First let's see where quick take brings us in the next week - 10 days. The time line is important also, as the school itself is the most important. I am still fairly confident this will be ready to go on time -- therefore I have started on getting attention to the issue of varsity competition. I also found as a south sider that no one gives you anything in this world for complaining - one has to go out and aggressively go after that which they want. If you feel strongly about these issues - put them in writing to the people who can actually do something about it. I welcome your support in this endeavor, should you choose to take it on. Turn the concern to action. I'd be interested to know where on the south side you are from ( you can PM me if you don't want to put that here) - also FYI - Mike Raczak - principal of Hill MS is also a south sider, as is at least one other poster on this board that I am aware of. |
|
|
|
Post by giveourkidsagym on Apr 18, 2007 9:24:28 GMT -6
Dr. Who
Not complaining and i have a lot of experience both attending the school board meetings and participating fully in the boundary discussions. We've watched these folks in action and honestly I have no problem sending all 3 of my kids to the new school as long as they get a good, well-rounded experience. They're all PA so I'm looking forward to some excellent teachers for them as well as sports-realizing that both are important. It will be great if it works as planned, but since we all have a vested interest in it being great for EVERYONE it's not about fighting, it's about being good stewards of everyone's hard-earned cash and their kids' school experience.
I'm a Mother McAuley grad, proud of it so no need to PM. We get nothing for complaining on the southside but also know what to expect in general terms-- don't assume that everyone's interests are aligned. During the boundary discussions the incumbent school board members were obvious about their motivations and anyone who attended all of the sessions knows that. It's great that they serve but to think they weren't overly protective of their own neighborhoods is simply naive.
Let's all agree that going forward our focus is on making sure we don't overspend on the new school bt that it gets everything we need for our kids, who all have one high school experience. As a really good best-case scenario these kids all get a great experience and our already-ridiculous property taxes don't need to go up because we made a bad bet on teh value of the BB land.
Really, we all want the same thing.
Let's spend energy fighting for what they get at the new school day one and beyond.
kumbaya
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 18, 2007 9:35:18 GMT -6
Dr. Who Not complaining and i have a lot of experience both attending the school board meetings and participating fully in the boundary discussions. We've watched these folks in action and honestly I have no problem sending all 3 of my kids to the new school as long as they get a good, well-rounded experience. They're all PA so I'm looking forward to some excellent teachers for them as well as sports-realizing that both are important. It will be great if it works as planned, but since we all have a vested interest in it being great for EVERYONE it's not about fighting, it's about being good stewards of everyone's hard-earned cash and their kids' school experience. I'm a Mother McAuley grad, proud of it so no need to PM. We get nothing for complaining on the southside but also know what to expect in general terms-- don't assume that everyone's interests are aligned. During the boundary discussions the incumbent school board members were obvious about their motivations and anyone who attended all of the sessions knows that. It's great that they serve but to think they weren't overly protective of their own neighborhoods is simply naive. Let's all agree that going forward our focus is on making sure we don't overspend on the new school bt that it gets everything we need for our kids, who all have one high school experience. As a really good best-case scenario these kids all get a great experience and our already-ridiculous property taxes don't need to go up because we made a bad bet on teh value of the BB land. Really, we all want the same thing. Let's spend energy fighting for what they get at the new school day one and beyond. kumbaya For the sake of not continuing on a fight in the district that serves no purpose at this point, we'll agree to disagree on the intent of the SB members, as I too was heavily involved in referendum work for the last 2 years, and also attended virtually all SB meetings ( less a few while traveling) - and have worked closely with a number of them. And I am not naive, so to say that someone a whole lot of us missed 'obvious' prejudices by neighborhood is also wrong. My first child thru here was PA, my current is accel. - and I do not think you will be disappointed in the HS programs - they were excellent and has allowed my oldest to excel in college, often times mentioning how she had had classes at WVHS that most of her fellow students had not - While I think you and I may basically be on the same page for what we want fo our kids, I will also return back to you it would be naive to think that all the candidates had that same agenda. Being fiscally responsible is different from other movements. So I agree, let's move forward and get the school open and outfitted with all our kids need to be successful, all the while watching the bottom line as they have already with the cost per student in this district. I am very confortable the recently elected SB members will do exactly that. So what I am saying is let's spend the energy getting our opinions to those who can do something about them. I have already done that and encourage you to do the same. It is going to take a lot of work and involvement to get MV off the ground that first year from all the areas going there......while WV & NV will have infrastructures already in place. teamwork from each ES school area will be critical. From what you have already posted I think we can count on you being active in the school, and that is a good thing. btw...while I was a public school kid my wife is a Queen of Peace grad... I am very familiar with McAuley because of Nancy Pederson ( before she recently retired) and their outstanding volleyball program over the past 25+ years ) |
|
|
|
Post by giveourkidsagym on Apr 18, 2007 9:42:03 GMT -6
Agree, Dr. Who. Agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 18, 2007 9:49:45 GMT -6
Great -- a word not heard often enough, but I am hopeful will become the cornerstone of many relationships in this district as we move forward. Everyone doesn't have to agree on every piece of the puzzle as that could actually be bad, but belief in the bottom line end result is key. I believe we can and will accomplish great things across 204 in the next few years. Looking forward to being part of the same team with you. |
|
|
|
Post by jenrik2714 on Apr 18, 2007 10:57:02 GMT -6
Dr. Who btw...while I was a public school kid my wife is a Queen of Peace grad... I am very familiar with McAuley because of Nancy Pederson ( before she recently retired) and their outstanding volleyball program over the past 25+ years ) On a side note: I am 3/4 catholic high school (Lourdes High school Chicago, IL) and 1/4 public high school (John F. Kennedy hs Chicago, IL)I played 4 year of v-ball no club ball (my parents couldn't afford it at the time) My sis however, played for Chicago Magic VB Club for a while though she quit b/c my parents got tired of driving all over the place. My husband is a St. Rita graduate (1984) My husband is 11 years older than me. My cousin graduated from McCauley a few years back. I myself wanted to go to Maria, but my mom said the area (Marquette Park) was getting bad. I know in order to play v-ball at McCauley you had to be on second city's club. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 18, 2007 11:14:09 GMT -6
Dr. Who btw...while I was a public school kid my wife is a Queen of Peace grad... I am very familiar with McAuley because of Nancy Pederson ( before she recently retired) and their outstanding volleyball program over the past 25+ years ) On a side note: I am 3/4 catholic high school (Lourdes High school Chicago, IL) and 1/4 public high school (John F. Kennedy hs Chicago, IL)I played 4 year of v-ball no club ball (my parents couldn't afford it at the time) My sis however, played for Chicago Magic VB Club for a while though she quit b/c my parents got tired of driving all over the place. My husband is a St. Rita graduate (1984) My husband is 11 years older than me. My cousin graduated from McCauley a few years back. I myself wanted to go to Maria, but my mom said the area (Marquette Park) was getting bad. I know in order to play v-ball at McCauley you had to be on second city's club. I know we're off topic but I steered it there ( my fault) so Ill keep it short. Yes, you did indeed have to play for 2nd city ( or be really really good and from Celtic Force) - and most varsity squads today are club players - my daughter plays for Sports Performance. The new coach at WVHS is a SPVB alum and the 7AA VB coach at Hill played for Magic ( and Northwestern U.) -  |
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Apr 18, 2007 12:10:37 GMT -6
I will post both letters formally on the Macom Web site as soon as possible. But you should know this is not about the election. I am not a technical person, so maybe someone else can help me. I have been checking macomcorp.com every day and still don't see this letter. How long does it take to modify a website? I guess now it's going on 2 weeks since 4/4 - does it take that long? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 18, 2007 12:15:46 GMT -6
I will post both letters formally on the Macom Web site as soon as possible. But you should know this is not about the election. I am not a technical person, so maybe someone else can help me. I have been checking macomcorp.com every day and still don't see this letter. How long does it take to modify a website? I guess now it's going on 2 weeks since 4/4 - does it take that long? A few minutes, tops. |
|
|
|
Post by sd204taxpayer on Apr 18, 2007 14:20:07 GMT -6
Hi all - first time posting here but have been following for a few months. I just wanted to point out that I think the point is being missed in this whole thread. The real issue at hand in my mind is the quick take and the potential impact on our taxes or the proposed design of MVHS. Maybe this should be a new thread and if so I hope the administrator will post as such.
Has anyone gotten a true answer from the school board as to "What if the quick take goes through and the jury finds the value to be much higher than budgeted?" From what i have followed, the school boards noncommital reply has been "We are confident that we will get it for our price." How do they know? Are they in land development? They are relying a few appraisals that they hired to have done. I'm guess BB has appraisals stating much higher values because they were hired by BB.
Personally I don't believe the price of the land will come out in the taxpayers benefit and wonder what the impact of that will be. Will it be that a smaller school will have to be built because the referendum was approved for $124M and more money will be going towards land and less to bricks and mortar? Will the taxpayers be upset with the school board if this is true thus making it harder for the operational referendum to be approved in the 2009 referendum? Will they come back with a future capital referendum for the additional land price? What will the board members responses be if they are wrong on the price? Will they blame the appraisers for the lower value that will be inaccurate when presented at trial? Will they blame HC because he will be retired when this is resolved and they need a scapegoat? What will the school board's response be if they were wrong about this? They aren't making that much money on the issued bonds to cover the potential price increase (I believe half of the bonds have been issued which would be about $70M earning about 5% with costs of about 3% leaving a return of 2% on the $70M or about $1.4M).
The thought just hit me as I started typing this - maybe the current school board members up for re-election wanted this dragged out past the election. Think about it - if it was resolved earlier and the value goes significantly against the taxpayers (I don't use school board because we the taxpayers are the ones it will truely affect) I'm rather confident that the election results would have been a little different yesterday.
I just wonder why the school board is so trusted and PL isn't. Is it because he isn't an elected official? A couple of the newly re-elected board members were appointed to the board by their fellow board members. I'm sure they see things in the same light and that is why they were appointed (are they going to appoint someone that is going to raise questions contrary to their beleifs?) The school board thought the quick take was going to be resolved by January and it is still hanging out there.
Why are people on here so eager to bash candidates that took the time to actually hear PL's side? To me they were performing the research to be better informed and open minded and prepared in case they were elected.
Why is it that if someone takes an opinion contrary to the majority of the participants here they are more likely to be warned? If someone acts in the same light but shares the same opinion as the majority here are they warned? I don't see the "majority" people being warned when they act in the same manner. My point is that it is not supposed to be personal - WE ARE THE TAXPAYERS AND ALL STONES SHOULD NOT BE LEFT UNTURNED. I just get the feeling that the "majority" people are satisfied that the school board has done their homework without having to prove the school boards side to the same extent that others are expected to prove theirs.
I'm sure i'll get slammed for being pro PL and or pro Macom but i'm a big boy and I can handle it. I will be judged by many on here without being known. I thought it was kind of ironic that a week after Easter and our Gospel lessons in church revolved around doubting Thomas and how people were doubting if PL actually wrote the response or not (maybe it's just me but I saw some humor there.)
I guess the bottom line here is why isn't the controlling body (school board) scrutinized more than someone offering another idea that has no control? Let's be open minded and ask the questions that need to be asked until they are answered. When all is said and done we are on the same side - the taxpayers side.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 18, 2007 14:34:40 GMT -6
No, we are not on the same side. I am on my children's education side.
Yeah, the SB wanted BB to delay the trial again and again. Then they lobbied the judge to push the trial date to Sept. And to top that off, they pleaded with the Illinois Senate to delay the vote for QT.
|
|
