|
|
Post by southsidemom on Oct 1, 2007 8:40:39 GMT -6
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. We need to stop siting St. Johns as an option unless we plan to condemn the land. I don't think anyone wants to condemn church property. Bad move. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 1, 2007 8:42:11 GMT -6
In reality, the SD is probably down to 3 sites outside of BB.
1) Macom
2) St. John's
3) Bolingbrook
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Oct 1, 2007 8:44:16 GMT -6
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. 1. Same size school with same amenities- different location that is less expensive. 2. 2500 seat high school is a new concept that I'd have to hear more about (on BB if that is our only land option). That's where I'm at right now. Most importantly, I'd like to hear more about the possibility of building on the Macom land. If it's possible without a huge time delay and it's substantially less expensive, it's a no brainer for me. Also, it would be possible to almost replicate the same boundary map for that land. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Oct 1, 2007 8:44:51 GMT -6
In reality, the SD is probably down to 3 sites outside of BB. 1) Macom 2) St. John's 3) Bolingbrook Is Bolingbrook property still available? |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Oct 1, 2007 8:45:59 GMT -6
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. We need to stop siting St. Johns as an option unless we plan to condemn the land. I don't think anyone wants to condemn church property. Bad move. I wouldn't be in favor of condemnation. That could be not only bad Karma but also another long legal battle. I would be in favor if the property owner could come to agreement with the district. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Oct 1, 2007 8:46:56 GMT -6
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. I, along with so many others, agree with your statement Justme. One would think that the SB would proactively want to share the financials around MV as opposed to remaining a bit hush hush. I recall at one of the forums MM stating there is a Plan B, C and D. Spoke with one of the SB members that was unaware of these alternate plans, so I am anxiously awaiting the detail around those. One may be more viable now that Plan A is way out of alignment financially of what the taxpayers thought we would be getting for our money. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 1, 2007 8:47:17 GMT -6
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. We need to stop siting St. Johns as an option unless we plan to condemn the land. I don't think anyone wants to condemn church property. Bad move. well they dont want to sell ( but doesn't mean we can't continue to make them offers that include land swaps - if I remember correctly - and I know at least one poster who will have all the facts - we just had nothing they liked at the time, it was not a NEVER statetment, so I think it does have to be an option. Bolingbrooks mayor already on record against the site beingin his town - he wants high end houses not our ugly school remember ? starts to narrow down ALL those options we have. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 1, 2007 8:48:46 GMT -6
In reality, the SD is probably down to 3 sites outside of BB. 1) Macom 2) St. John's 3) Bolingbrook Is Bolingbrook property still available? I don't know. I just threw it out there because it the only other big piece from the packet that was farmland. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 1, 2007 8:48:55 GMT -6
We need to stop siting St. Johns as an option unless we plan to condemn the land. I don't think anyone wants to condemn church property. Bad move. I wouldn't be in favor of condemnation. That could be not only bad Karma but also another long legal battle. I would be in favor if the property owner could come to agreement with the district. fair enough and I would agree with that also on both points. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Oct 1, 2007 8:49:10 GMT -6
We need to stop siting St. Johns as an option unless we plan to condemn the land. I don't think anyone wants to condemn church property. Bad move. I wouldn't be in favor of condemnation. That could be not only bad Karma but also another long legal battle. I would be in favor if the property owner could come to agreement with the district. I have spoken with several parishioners of St. Johns and selling land is definately not an option. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 1, 2007 8:50:55 GMT -6
Is Bolingbrook property still available? I don't know. I just threw it out there because it the only other big piece from the packet that was farmland. I think a lot of that Bolingbrook land already gone -- Mayor Claar started improvements to much land very quickly when this was being discussed. He would like his students to go to scool here, but not vice versa. A whole other issue. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 1, 2007 8:52:37 GMT -6
I wouldn't be in favor of condemnation. That could be not only bad Karma but also another long legal battle. I would be in favor if the property owner could come to agreement with the district. I have spoken with several parishioners of St. Johns and selling land is definately not an option. Deja Vu all over again. |
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Oct 1, 2007 8:54:29 GMT -6
We need to stop siting St. Johns as an option unless we plan to condemn the land. I don't think anyone wants to condemn church property. Bad move. I wouldn't be in favor of condemnation. That could be not only bad Karma but also another long legal battle. I would be in favor if the property owner could come to agreement with the district. You would not be in favor of condemning the church because it is bad karma but it would be okay to evict the elderly couple from the Macom land? |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Oct 1, 2007 8:55:35 GMT -6
We need to stop siting St. Johns as an option unless we plan to condemn the land. I don't think anyone wants to condemn church property. Bad move. well they dont want to sell ( but doesn't mean we can't continue to make them offers that include land swaps - if I remember correctly - and I know at least one poster who will have all the facts - we just had nothing they liked at the time, it was not a NEVER statetment, so I think it does have to be an option. Bolingbrooks mayor already on record against the site beingin his town - he wants high end houses not our ugly school remember ? starts to narrow down ALL those options we have. I respect the point you are making, but if St. Johns is in no way interested in selling and we want a 2009 opening (alteast seems alot on this site are pushing for that) then we should look elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Oct 1, 2007 8:55:51 GMT -6
For the St John's AME property:
For his congregation, the pastor wants land to the south and east....he doesnt want to move further west. This info was in the site analysis report.
Its not just a matter of us saying SD can maybe get this land for less. The church has land right now that meets their needs. Unless the church knows that they can get other land that also meets there needs...I cant see them making a deal. This isnt a for-profit outfit that will be happy with a big profit on their land purchase if they are unable to buy land south and east.
Would a land swap with Wheatland ES be a possibility? I am doubtful... the size of a church built at Wheatland would be way smaller than what St John's can do at Eola/Molitor. Given the valuable route 59 frontage, would a swap even be financially advantageous to the SD? Maybe not.
Unless somebody can point to replace land to the south and east for the church...I am doubtful that this church property is seriously "on the table".
How big is this parcel? Is there enough room for a church and MVHS? A M-F institution and a primarily Sunday building could be good neighbors. They could share parking...like WVHS does with the church just to north. I am not sure if this is feasible from a land-layout perspective. But maybe this would be an enticement to make it a good deal for the church too.
|
|
