Metzger Letter

[title1parent]

harry said:

Bob, thank you for the post.. Where did this letter originate?? I can't seem to find it on the SB website..

I received this letter via the [e-mail] today.

[harry]

title1parent said:

harry said:

Bob, thank you for the post.. Where did this letter originate?? I can't seem to find it on the SB website..

I received this letter via the [e-mail] today.

[e-mail]?? What website is this??

[title1parent]

I think I signed up for it through the district website, or possibly on one of the school websites.

[chicoryowl]

harry said:

title1parent said:

I received this letter via the [e-mail] today.

[e-mail]?? What website is this??

It's the district 204 list serv. Try the link below. You can sign up for updates (at bottom of page). If it makes you feel any better, I'm signed up and I haven't received it yet. Sometimes I get District 204 e-mails before others do. This is not the case with this one.

ipsdweb.ipsd.org/Subpage.aspx/BoardMeetings0708

[doctorwho]

title1parent said:

harry said:

Bob, thank you for the post.. Where did this letter originate?? I can't seem to find it on the SB website..

I received this letter via the [e-mail] today.

as did I @ 12:52 PM

[harry]

title1parent said:

harry said:

Bob, thank you for the post.. Where did this letter originate?? I can't seem to find it on the SB website..

I received this letter via the [e-mail] today.

Thanks..haven't received it yet

thanks as well chicory et al who answered the question

[bob]

Harry here is the link
for the e-mail alert, just in case you haven't signed up.


www.ipsd.org/email.html

[doctorwho]

blankcheck said:

I don't buy into that. There were others. Also, the land that they already purchased really is not buildable. Why would you subject yourselves as well as the voters to this if you know that they are very hard to negotiate with. Don't buy it.

you're making an assumption that other sites would have gone smoothly - and if you remember the listing of the 11-12 sites that were considered, you will remember that some of them were not located inside 204 boundaries, some had serious issues with the location, 1 was in Bolingbrook and their lovely mayor basically told us where to put our plans for the school because he was building upscale houses there- ( but he's glad to have his residents use 204 schools, a whole other topic---- BB was rated the #1 site. There was not another site rated higher, or any site with less issues to be resolved...so if you don't like BB that is one thing, but not buying it is forgetting all the other sites and their issues. Unfortunately in a built out area, 80 acre sites don't abound.

I can't place myhands on the softcopy, but I am sure it is in the archives here also..... the nice red/green/yellow chart

[Arch]

Blankcheck,

You don't have to 'buy it'. Not everyone is going to be 100% happy with everything in the district. We're all more than well aware of that simple fact.

As Doctorwho pointed out, every other site had 'issues' and some would have also involved condemnation suits and it's not like their lawyers would greet us as liberators of the land either.

[wvhsparent]

doctorwho said:

blankcheck said:

I don't buy into that. There were others. Also, the land that they already purchased really is not buildable. Why would you subject yourselves as well as the voters to this if you know that they are very hard to negotiate with. Don't buy it.

you're making an assumption that other sites would have gone smoothly - and if you remember the listing of the 11-12 sites that were considered, you will remember that some of them were not located inside 204 boundaries, some had serious issues with the location, 1 was in Bolingbrook and their lovely mayor basically told us where to put our plans for the school because he was building upscale houses there- ( but he's glad to have his residents use 204 schools, a whole other topic---- BB was rated the #1 site. There was not another site rated higher, or any site with less issues to be resolved...so if you don't like BB that is one thing, but not buying it is forgetting all the other sites and their issues. Unfortunately in a built out area, 80 acre sites don't abound.

I can't place myhands on the softcopy, but I am sure it is in the archives here also..... the nice red/green/yellow chart

IMHO
that chart was propaganda and PR Spin at best...... I saw some of the emails between HC, and others that discussed how to "sell" certain points, and make BB look the best.
Again it's all perspective... I saw that chart differently than the pro BB folks, but I stand by my interpretations.
I am also resigned to the fact that they were able to "sell it" to the majority of the voters. I have to live with that, but don't have to like it, nor do I have to stop speaking out against it.
I also believe (assume) that just about any other negotiations would have gone smoother than dealing with BB.

[doctorwho]

wvhsparent said:

doctorwho said:

you're making an assumption that other sites would have gone smoothly - and if you remember the listing of the 11-12 sites that were considered, you will remember that some of them were not located inside 204 boundaries, some had serious issues with the location, 1 was in Bolingbrook and their lovely mayor basically told us where to put our plans for the school because he was building upscale houses there- ( but he's glad to have his residents use 204 schools, a whole other topic---- BB was rated the #1 site. There was not another site rated higher, or any site with less issues to be resolved...so if you don't like BB that is one thing, but not buying it is forgetting all the other sites and their issues. Unfortunately in a built out area, 80 acre sites don't abound.

I can't place myhands on the softcopy, but I am sure it is in the archives here also..... the nice red/green/yellow chart

IMHO
that chart was propaganda and PR Spin at best...... I saw some of the emails between HC, and others that discussed how to "sell" certain points, and make BB look the best.
Again it's all perspective... I saw that chart differently than the pro BB folks, but I stand by my interpretations.
I am also resigned to the fact that they were able to "sell it" to the majority of the voters. I have to live with that, but don't have to like it, nor do I have to stop speaking out against it.
I also believe (assume) that just about any other negotiations would have gone smoother than dealing with BB.

And you have every right to your opinion of what was the best space, and we know you would have preferred a location north in the district - if we are to assume the reviews were colored by the SB's view on BB, one also has to assume your opinions are colored at least somewhat by your view that north would have been better, unless you are claiming to be totally objective, and I've yet to meet that person anywhere,myself included.
When the review sheet was out, we went over that endlessly on this board, and items that were pointed out as issues , really were issues. Now whether you believe they were lesser issues somehow than they were portrayed is always open for interpretation, but the items on the review were not made up, they all actually existed. The color coding on the severity of the issues as I remember here never really came under fire, the overall ranking for most of those sites , the ones at the far bottom and far top also seemed to be very accurate. So I guess I would want to see what site was so much better than BB rather than color that whole exercise as bogus, which IMHO is absoultely was not. So unless you are saying that something at the far bottom of the list was unduly treated, let's focus on what site in your opinion was the better one than BB so everyone else can weigh in.
To speculate today how smoothly anything would go is just that, speculation, no different than how quickly the issues on the MACOM property would be resolved. Lehman claimed 30 days and all would be done, how's that road issue going with the city ? Of course when he decides to sue the city over the height of a pedestrian bridge I am sure that didn't get anyone else rushing to take care of his other items. But again, perspective was 30 days on ALL the items there, and one that seemed most simple not resolved today.

[wvhsparent]

And you have every right to your opinion of what was the best space, and we know you would have preferred a location north in the district - if we are to assume the reviews were colored by the SB's view on BB, one also has to assume your opinions are colored at least somewhat by your view that north would have been better, unless you are claiming to be totally objective, and I've yet to meet that person anywhere,myself included.

Guilty as charged.....