Call to action 8/6 for quick take

[gatordog]

momto4 said:

FYI on the bill number, I received this from a friend -

House Amendment 01 - talks to the gun safety and then Senate Amendments (see below ) talk about Quick Take.

Sen Holmes comes across as a pol who knows what she is doing...
ditch the bill named "Quick Take" and, instead, make it an amendment to the School Weapon Safety Bill. C'mon, who could vote AGAINST gun safety?!

And for those lawmakers or lobbyist opposed to QT for "philosophical" reasons....this isnt QT thats being employed, its just the negotiations btw the two parties to the land dispute.

I had truly given up on QT, thinking for sure "it aint gonna happen". Now, I think it has a fighting chance.

To me this is coming across as brilliant. Hopefully Sen Holmes doesnt over-reach with boundary deal-making. Alas, I do wish this deal could have been pulled off a couple of months ago.

[movingforward]

gatordog said:

momto4 said:

FYI on the bill number, I received this from a friend -

House Amendment 01 - talks to the gun safety and then Senate Amendments (see below ) talk about Quick Take.

Sen Holmes comes across as a pol who knows what she is doing...
ditch the bill named "Quick Take" and, instead, make it an amendment to the School Weapon Safety Bill. C'mon, who could vote AGAINST gun safety?!

And for those lawmakers or lobbyist opposed to QT for "philosophical" reasons....this isnt QT thats being employed, its just the negotiations btw the two parties to the land dispute.

I had truly given up on QT, thinking for sure "it aint gonna happen". Now, I think it has a fighting chance.

To me this is coming across as brilliant. Hopefully Sen Holmes doesnt over-reach with boundary deal-making. Alas, I do wish this deal could have been pulled off a couple of months ago.

I agree; She definitely has a plan here. Lets just hope it plays out to benefit this district and its' students and not that of a developer and other deep pockets who got in the back door with 'campaign contributions' to influence the Senator.

Also, for what it is worth regarding your comment asking 'who could vote against gun safety?'....... Hasn't Senator Holmes ineffect gutted the gun control aspect of this bill? HB 1926 is no longer about gun safety according to my understanding of the process.

Makes sense...checking her voting history.. ... I noticed that Senator Holmes voted NO on May 9, 2007 to a ban on large capacity firearms. The bill passed with a vote of 31-26, but she was against this ban . Just some FYI I found interesting.

[macy]

movingforward said:

gatordog said:

Sen Holmes comes across as a pol who knows what she is doing...
ditch the bill named "Quick Take" and, instead, make it an amendment to the School Weapon Safety Bill. C'mon, who could vote AGAINST gun safety?!

And for those lawmakers or lobbyist opposed to QT for "philosophical" reasons....this isnt QT thats being employed, its just the negotiations btw the two parties to the land dispute.

I had truly given up on QT, thinking for sure "it aint gonna happen". Now, I think it has a fighting chance.

To me this is coming across as brilliant. Hopefully Sen Holmes doesnt over-reach with boundary deal-making. Alas, I do wish this deal could have been pulled off a couple of months ago.

I agree; She definitely has a plan here. Lets just hope it plays out to benefit this district and its' students and not that of a developer and other deep pockets who got in the back door with 'campaign contributions' to influence the Senator.

Also, for what it is worth regarding your comment asking 'who could vote against gun safety?'....... Hasn't Senator Holmes ineffect gutted the gun control aspect of this bill? HB 1926 is no longer about gun safety according to my understanding of the process.

Makes sense...checking her voting history.. ... I noticed that Senator Holmes voted NO on May 9, 2007 to a ban on large capacity firearms. The bill passed with a vote of 31-26, but she was against this ban . Just some FYI I found interesting.

Based on the emails I've seen forwarded to me from friends that have contacted Senator Holmes.... she's got some serious explaining to do... What the heck is going on? At first, she's going to delay the quick take vote a day, then it's the boundary deal... now this?

Someone needs to look into the back door deals involved in this situation. In my opinion, it would make a great, great story.

We are missing various parts of the puzzle.


Sara Hooker??? Brit Carlson??? Hello... There's something bizarre here. Help?

[gatormom]

Dist. 204 may get land proposal

Melissa Jenco
Daily Herald
Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Under pressure from Indian Prairie Unit District 204, a state lawmaker apparently plans to move forward with a proposal to give the district immediate access to land for Metea Valley High School.

Early Monday morning, school board President Mark Metzger accused state Sen. Linda Holmes, an Aurora Democrat, of delaying “quick-take” legislation she is sponsoring unless the district changed its high school boundaries for two subdivisions.

The district refused and now Holmes apparently has relented.

The district turned to the legislature earlier this year to grant it immediate access to the property off Route 59 near 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora to start building Metea Valley.

The district currently owns 25 acres at the site and is locked in condemnation proceedings with the Brach-Brodie trust in an effort to acquire the remaining 55 acres it needs for the high school campus. The two sides have been unable to reach an agreement on a price and the case is scheduled to go to a jury in September.

Construction was supposed to begin this spring on the 3,000-student facility that is meant to ease overcrowding in the district, which includes portions of Naperville, Aurora, Bolingbrook and Plainfield.

Metzger said Holmes’ staff told district lobbyists she would move the quick-take proposal forward for a vote only if the district allowed students in the Ashwood Creek and Ashwood Park subdivisions on the far southwest side of Naperville to attend Neuqua Valley High School. Metzger said Holmes asked to hear constituents’ opinions on the issue.

Although the two neighborhoods currently are within Neuqua’s attendance area, the district adopted new high school boundaries during its 2006 referendum campaign that would send those students to Waubonsie Valley High School once Metea opens in 2009.

Metzger rejected the idea of changing boundaries in exchange for the legislation, saying to do so would be a case of bait-and-switch with voters.

“Tradition in the district is our community has a significant role in making those (boundary) decisions,” Metzger said. “And undoing them for the benefit of people who can afford a lobbyist is not the right thing to do.”

By late afternoon Monday, Holmes apparently had backed off her stance on changing boundaries as a prerequisite for advancing the quick-take legislation.

After several phone calls with the senator’s office, her spokesman said Holmes would not discuss the matter but that she plans to move the legislation forward.

“She has every intention of getting that passed this week before we end session,” spokesman Bryen Johnson said.

Holmes’ office also contacted the school district and asked officials to “call off the dogs,” according to Metzger, who now believes the legislature will consider the proposal.

Even if the legislature passes the quick-take plan, it has 30 days to send it to Gov. Rod Blagojevich and then he has 60 days to consider signing it. That could delay the action long after the district’s September jury trial.

But Metzger isn’t concerned.

“I have reason to believe it will move rapidly in all instances,” he said.

[wvhsparent]

WOOF WOOF!!!!

[blankcheck]

What is this 600,000/acre? If this bill is passes, is our district now required to deposit that sum of money???

[dpc]

blankcheck said:

What is this 600,000/acre? If this bill is passes, is our district now required to deposit that sum of money???

I agree bc--unbelievable! What is even more unbelievable is that so many people 1) don't read the fine print of the legislation or 2) don't care about how much the land costs. Probably a combination of the two which is really frightening.

[bob]

What are you freaking out about? It probably sits in an escrow account and collects interest. Just like it is doing now.

It is no way related to the price that the judge will set.

I am guessing that once the judge determines the price, the SD releases the money and the extra is returned.

[blankcheck]

Bob-The start of the bill in the senate had a figure of 500,000/acre on 6/6. It was then ammended on 6/28 to 600,000/acre. Why?

[movingforward]

bob said:

What are you freaking out about? It probably sits in an escrow account and collects interest. Just like it is doing now.

It is no way related to the price that the judge will set.

I am guessing that once the judge determines the price, the SD releases the money and the extra is returned.

Bob is right ...the reason for the escrow deposit was the result of the negotiations with Holmes. It is a buffer amount to appease the public (Holmes' voters ) who were concerned that the school district would go back to the voters asking for more money if the price was higher than planned.

And I think the fine print of the legislation was read very clearly by the school board during negotiations.

[bob]

blankcheck said:

Bob-The start of the bill in the senate had a figure of 500,000/acre on 6/6. It was then ammended on 6/28 to 600,000/acre. Why?

Why care what the escrow amount is? All that counts is what the judge decides.

[Arch]

Moving Ashwood to NV could always be found to be not feasible in a year or two

[blankcheck]

OK-Let's say this passes. Our district in obligated to put 600,000/acre in escrow until the judge decides the "final" amount. Where are they going to get that??? Again, the buffer to appease the public on the increased amount is an easy answer.

[blankcheck]

They have 33,000,000 just sitting around?

[bob]

blankcheck said:

OK-Let's say this passes. Our district in obligated to put 600,000/acre in escrow until the judge decides the "final" amount. Where are they going to get that??? Again, the buffer to appease the public on the increased amount is an easy answer.

Yep, from the bonds they sold . If I remember correctly, we have about $65 million sitting around collecting interest.