SB Options for BB now

[doctorwho]

macy said:

doctorwho said:

So most want a mirror image of NV which some even there complain was austentacious ? I agree with amenities being equal between the 3 schools -- no one I have read anywhere is talking about cutting anything from that.

Do you have a gut feel for is they feel the same if plan B is the church property on Eola vs. MACOM ? If there really was a plan to close WV ( and just can't see how that is possible - the last time I saw that comment was on a flier ) - then the Eola property makes more sense, or else they have no school between 75th street and Rt 88.

DrW,

Where did you read that "So most want a mirror image of NV which some even there complain was austentacious ?"

I didn't see that posted by anyone. I read most wanted a mirror image of size and amenities.

Can you clarify where you read that?

okay, just re read and I stand corrected -- the comment on NV was emblazened in my brain from one of the speakers on A/C at that board meeting along with we're the richest city on the planet. Sorry

could you give me your viewpoint on the second part of that post.

[wvhsparent]

macy said:

doctorwho said:

So most want a mirror image of NV which some even there complain was austentacious ? I agree with amenities being equal between the 3 schools -- no one I have read anywhere is talking about cutting anything from that.

Do you have a gut feel for is they feel the same if plan B is the church property on Eola vs. MACOM ? If there really was a plan to close WV ( and just can't see how that is possible - the last time I saw that comment was on a flier ) - then the Eola property makes more sense, or else they have no school between 75th street and Rt 88.

DrW,

Where did you read that "So most want a mirror image of NV which some even there complain was austentacious ?"

I didn't see that posted by anyone. I read most wanted a mirror image of size and amenities.

Can you clarify where you read that?

Macy,
back when NVHS was built. That was brought up due to the perceived opulant materials used.
That is where the Taj Mahal reference came from....way back when NVHS 1st opended.

[warriorpride]

lacy said:

warriorpride said:

What about sacrificing the timeliness of getting MV built to alleviate MS and HS crowding that is increasing each year?

What about sacrificing building MV in a less ideal location that gives the SD less long-term flexibility?

What about the sacrifice of going thru boundary wars again?

We can talk about sacrifices that may have to be made to cut costs to build MV, but let's keep the above sacrifices in mind, too. I'd rather not make any of those.

If by "less long-term flexibility" you mean tearing WVHS down at some future date, I have a problem with that mentality. It seems extremely wasteful to me, as the useful life of that building ought to be much, much longer. I am concerned that is what this SB is trying to do - build a replacement for WVHS.

Long-term flexibility also includes the ability to adjust to the locations that the students are coming from. In other words, having the schools be located somewhat spread out across the district. St Johns, i think, would be the best. BB is OK. Macom is not good. Anything further south is bad.

[macy]

bob said:

I am getting to the point where I would rather pay the BB lawyer bill and leave than ever give them a penny of my tax money.

Let BB get $510k/acre in the open market.

I completely agree with that...

There are other options.

[macy]

doctorwho said:

macy said:

DrW,

Where did you read that "So most want a mirror image of NV which some even there complain was austentacious ?"

I didn't see that posted by anyone. I read most wanted a mirror image of size and amenities.

Can you clarify where you read that?

okay, just re read and I stand corrected -- the comment on NV was emblazened in my brain from one of the speakers on A/C at that board meeting along with we're the richest city on the planet. Sorry

could you give me your viewpoint on the second part of that post.

Thanks for clarifying. Most of us are trying to move on from what was said and done in the past with the whole WV vs. NV. I don't think it does anyone any good to drudge that up again.

My gut feeling on the attitude amongst those I spoke with is that we needed other options to be looked at regardless of where the land is at. They were outraged at the lengh of time we've wasted acquiring BB and being in the position today of having to pay 517K an acre plus attorney fees plus damages.

[bob]

macy said:

bob said:

I am getting to the point where I would rather pay the BB lawyer bill and leave than ever give them a penny of my tax money.

Let BB get $510k/acre in the open market.

I completely agree with that...

There are other options.

;D ;D ;D

You hear that Elizabeth I'm coming to join you honey.

[macy]

bob said:

macy said:

I completely agree with that...

There are other options.

You hear that Elizabeth I'm coming to join you honey.


videodetective.com/photos/658/027669_27.jpg

[/img][/quote]

LOL, we were in agreement last week as well on the way to solve this whole mess.

One giant night in Vegas baby...

[bob]

macy said:

bob said:

You hear that Elizabeth I'm coming to join you honey.


videodetective.com/photos/658/027669_27.jpg

[/img][/quote]

LOL, we were in agreement last week as well on the way to solve this whole mess.

One giant night in Vegas baby...[/quote]

$100 slots?

[macy]

Blackjack... Big spender table.

Just a couple of giant bets.. Problem solved.

[lacy]

dpc said:

gatormom said:

The more people I have talked to over the weekend, the fewer I find are concerned about the actual price of the land. It seems the biggest concern I run it to is, don't ask me for more money to build it.

It's very hard to separate the two. Most people I have talked to, including ardent Yes voters, don't trust the curreng SB to make the best decision as we were misled into voting Yes based on the price of the land and the projected enrollment.

I sincerly hope that the SB will have an open mind when being presented with all of the options by Dr. D.

I am also hopeful. It seems non-sensical to continue to pursue BB at all costs.

And the people I have talked to (without exception) believe it is high time to explore other options. $500 plus per acre is too much money and they don't want the school scaled back to accomodate it. I've also heard several comments regarding the enrollment numbers and needing to re-examine the whole thing.

[justme]

doctorwho said:

justme said:

Most southsiders I encountered over the last few days are outraged at the price and think the SB should inact the illusive plan B.

BTW- the people I spoke with encompass 4 ES areas and only 1 of those ES's are slated for MV.

ALL agreed that MV should be a mirror image in size and amenities to WV & NV.

I completely disagree with the mentality that one reason for MV is to close WV eventually. What a waste!

So most want a mirror image of NV which some even there complain was austentacious ? I agree with amenities being equal between the 3 schools -- no one I have read anywhere is talking about cutting anything from that.

Do you have a gut feel for is they feel the same if plan B is the church property on Eola vs. MACOM ? If there really was a plan to close WV ( and just can't see how that is possible - the last time I saw that comment was on a flier ) - then the Eola property makes more sense, or else they have no school between 75th street and Rt 88.

I mentioned WV too. I was in no way referencing anything about NV individually. I have read about the idea of MV being a smaller school and being built less expensively. How is that going to be a mirror image to both of our current high schools?

I am basically an intelligent person so I didn't miss the flier comment. Why is it when anyone questions the SB about fiscal responsibility and about their lack of open honesty, we become radicalists?

My spouse and I have personal budget conversations all of the time. They're not fun but totally necessary. We both account to each other for expenditures in the house and discuss future expenses. Why shouldn't the SB do the same with the taxpayers? Why would I give them a free pass when I don't expect myself or my spouse to get one? We aren't even spending someone else's money.

[doctorwho]

macy said:

doctorwho said:

okay, just re read and I stand corrected -- the comment on NV was emblazened in my brain from one of the speakers on A/C at that board meeting along with we're the richest city on the planet. Sorry

could you give me your viewpoint on the second part of that post.

Thanks for clarifying. Most of us are trying to move on from what was said and done in the past with the whole WV vs. NV. I don't think it does anyone any good to drudge that up again.

My gut feeling on the attitude amongst those I spoke with is that we needed other options to be looked at regardless of where the land is at. They were outraged at the lengh of time we've wasted acquiring BB and being in the position today of having to pay 517K an acre plus attorney fees plus damages.

I agree on the WV vs NV thing-- but if you have been reading closely ( and I know you do) it has quietly been creeping into a few peoples posts. Even subtley like how NV belongs with North and Central in their conference ( no answer from poster when called on it ) - --

I just wanted to make sure there will be support for a plan B if it is indeed necessary -- and that it will not be based on where that land is and where areas will then attend HS. I have already stated I will go to any of the 3 - would love to have one closer than today, but I'll take one open on time if it can be had. ( I still think with all the walk away money, and the location etc that BB is still far and away the best - and believe it will still work - HOWEVER, if it does not, I do not want to see a repeat of all the screaming and yelling over boundaries. It was a horrible period - so much worse then even the first time we had to do this 10 years ago - that really paled in comparison) -

So you will go on record that if it is the Eola property, and it is cheaper you are in support of that also - right ?

[doctorwho]

justme said:

doctorwho said:

So most want a mirror image of NV which some even there complain was austentacious ? I agree with amenities being equal between the 3 schools -- no one I have read anywhere is talking about cutting anything from that.

Do you have a gut feel for is they feel the same if plan B is the church property on Eola vs. MACOM ? If there really was a plan to close WV ( and just can't see how that is possible - the last time I saw that comment was on a flier ) - then the Eola property makes more sense, or else they have no school between 75th street and Rt 88.

I mentioned WV too. I was in no way referencing anything about NV individually. I have read about the idea of MV being a smaller school and being built less expensively. How is that going to be a mirror image to both of our current high schools?

I am basically an intelligent person so I didn't miss the flier comment. Why is it when anyone questions the SB about fiscal responsibility and about their lack of open honesty, we become radicalists?

.

why, because there are still a lot of people working to scuttle the school for any reason possible. Read the comment on the blog ( Sun) from onetov alias VOTENO alias a certain CFO speaker in our area -- who usually writes lte's but has taken to the blog.....that is why the flier comment was made -- do you deny that was a talking point on the fliers ?

there still is a group that will spread hate and fear at the drop of a hat.

I have no problem with questions on financials - as voters we should be kept informed. If MV was 2500 ( and I doubt very highly that will happen) - how is it they cannot have exactly the saem amenities, sans a few classrooms ? Naperville North and Central are both that size - and a new Central if built will be that size.....

so I am having hard time understanding how a quality 2500 student school automatically becomes less of a school than one built with the exact same amenities but for 500 more kids ? See you are saying mirror image and others ( macy ) are saying same amenities. Which is it?
I believe all posters here are smart - so help us understand how a school with the same amenities but built for 2500 instead of 3000 becomes unacceptable ?

[EagleDad]

macy said:

I completely agree with that...

There are other options.

Macy, could you please list your options in your priority order? I'd be interested in knowing them.

[macy]

doctorwho said:

macy said:

Thanks for clarifying. Most of us are trying to move on from what was said and done in the past with the whole WV vs. NV. I don't think it does anyone any good to drudge that up again.

My gut feeling on the attitude amongst those I spoke with is that we needed other options to be looked at regardless of where the land is at. They were outraged at the lengh of time we've wasted acquiring BB and being in the position today of having to pay 517K an acre plus attorney fees plus damages.

I agree on the WV vs NV thing-- but if you have been reading closely ( and I know you do) it has quietly been creeping into a few peoples posts. Even subtley like how NV belongs with North and Central in their conference ( no answer from poster when called on it ) - --

I just wanted to make sure there will be support for a plan B if it is indeed necessary -- and that it will not be based on where that land is and where areas will then attend HS. I have already stated I will go to any of the 3 - would love to have one closer than today, but I'll take one open on time if it can be had. ( I still think with all the walk away money, and the location etc that BB is still far and away the best - and believe it will still work - HOWEVER, if it does not, I do not want to see a repeat of all the screaming and yelling over boundaries. It was a horrible period - so much worse then even the first time we had to do this 10 years ago - that really paled in comparison) -

So you will go on record that if it is the Eola property, and it is cheaper you are in support of that also - right ?

I didn't read the posts about NV being like Central or North.. Glad I missed them actually as it has nothing to do with the current situation with Metea.

I don't think anyone wants to see a repeat of the boundary nightmare. But, I've read a few comments that one of the reasons to pay for BB is the desire not to go through the boundary decision again. I disagree with that rationale. It was awful and people behaved like idiots, but to not do it and spend millions more than you have to just because the process was awful? Don't get that at all and don't agree with it.

I think many will support options other than BB. At this point, I'd just like to hear them.