|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 2, 2007 7:25:24 GMT -6
Dr - Sorry you're struggling with this. But most students who attend NVHS now can get there without traveling on 59 - some may have to cross it or travel for a short distance, but don't have much exposure. But students attending MVHS will have no other option but to drive on 59. So there is a difference. And it does constitute a safety concern - maybe it doesn't affect you, so it's not your concern. But to keep disparaging that concern is insensitive to those who will have to deal with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 2, 2007 7:26:13 GMT -6
and yet distance wise NV building is closer to Rt 59 than MV will be -- I am not sure how continues to be an issue ? Please help me understand that particular point, as I must be missing something. @ work we call it the splatter test. Throw a bunch of things at the wall and see what sticks. IMHO that's what you've spent the last few days doing. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 2, 2007 7:31:42 GMT -6
@ work we call it the splatter test. Throw a bunch of things at the wall and see what sticks. IMHO that's what you've spent the last few days doing. Quite to the contrary: My first choice is to just pay BB and be done with it once and for all and start construction. I believe out of the two of us, your ideas are a wee bit less solidified, unless you want to give a definitive right here and now of what your plan is. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 2, 2007 7:33:33 GMT -6
Dr - Sorry you're struggling with this. But most students who attend NVHS now can get there without traveling on 59 - some may have to cross it or travel for a short distance, but don't have much exposure. But students attending MVHS will have no other option but to drive on 59. So there is a difference. And it does constitute a safety concern - maybe it doesn't affect you, so it's not your concern. But to keep disparaging that concern is insensitive to those who will have to deal with it. Dr. Who and I would both only need to 'cross' Rt 59... not drive on it. How is that different from people attending NVHS today that you claim is really of no concern? Think of 75th street as our version of your 95th street. ...about that splatter test comment... |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 2, 2007 7:34:17 GMT -6
@ work we call it the splatter test. Throw a bunch of things at the wall and see what sticks. IMHO that's what you've spent the last few days doing. \ Ok - then please answer thje question regarding rt 59 -- should we tear it down because it is closer to 59 than MV will be . Please show us where this is an issue instead of ignoring the question and pointing the finger at someone else |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 2, 2007 7:41:54 GMT -6
Dr - Sorry you're struggling with this. But most students who attend NVHS now can get there without traveling on 59 - some may have to cross it or travel for a short distance, but don't have much exposure. But students attending MVHS will have no other option but to drive on 59. So there is a difference. And it does constitute a safety concern - maybe it doesn't affect you, so it's not your concern. But to keep disparaging that concern is insensitive to those who will have to deal with it. so today those kids at Scullen have nothing to do with rt 59. You don't think WE kids travel 59 ? I am not disparaging the concern- I am saying that every school we have is located on a main thoroughfare. And many of the ES's Owen / Watts/ Coulishaw will have the same situation you describe now for NV - we will only cross 59 -not spend time on it - add in Gombert and W/E and the entire school sans Longwood and your area have NO impact from Rt 59. Is this not true  Of course you only get the violin out for your area - the others seem not to matter. so when it comes to disparaging the situation please review your stance - in MACOM - ALL of the schools I just mentioned NOW would HAVE to deal with Rt 59 -- And there is no reason your area should HAVE to be on 59 either... this is a false issue - but DOES become an isse at MACOM. please tell me where this is wrong -- |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Oct 2, 2007 7:46:56 GMT -6
Dr - Sorry you're struggling with this. But most students who attend NVHS now can get there without traveling on 59 - some may have to cross it or travel for a short distance, but don't have much exposure. But students attending MVHS will have no other option but to drive on 59. So there is a difference. And it does constitute a safety concern - maybe it doesn't affect you, so it's not your concern. But to keep disparaging that concern is insensitive to those who will have to deal with it. Let's see, WE and TG both cross 59 to go to NV today, but would not need to to attend MV (either at BB or Macom). So for all kids moving out of NV, this is better (and those 2 dubdivisions are a very large number of kids). Who are the kids that would attend MV on BB that would need to cross 59, but don't do so today Lacy? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 2, 2007 7:53:01 GMT -6
Dr - Sorry you're struggling with this. But most students who attend NVHS now can get there without traveling on 59 - some may have to cross it or travel for a short distance, but don't have much exposure. But students attending MVHS will have no other option but to drive on 59. So there is a difference. And it does constitute a safety concern - maybe it doesn't affect you, so it's not your concern. But to keep disparaging that concern is insensitive to those who will have to deal with it. Let's see, WE and TG both cross 59 to go to NV today, but would not need to to attend MV (either at BB or Macom). So for all kids moving out of NV, this is better (and those 2 dubdivisions are a very large number of kids). Who are the kids that would attend MV on BB that would need to cross 59, but don't do so today Lacy? I can't wait for the answer to this one as MACOM has Watts/Coulishaw/Owen all traveling south on 59 to get to that property instead of just crossing 59 as Fry does now -as well as Longwood going further on 59, and how does Gombert get there ? -- but see, we don't matter....that's the part you have to understand. It's not disparaging the situation to ignore these ES's.  |
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Oct 2, 2007 7:53:27 GMT -6
I believe you are right that PL will probably not sell the land to the district without that stipulation. I also feel that it is completely wrong for the District to agree to that stiputlation. You cannot segregate one subdivision and have "special" rules for that one group. It's completely unethical. Is that even legal? I live in Naperville and I take no offense to your comments at all. It is absolutely true that many of my friends/acquaintances from neighboring subdivisions feel this way. It's embarrassing, narrow-minded and ridiculous how some don't want to attend the HS simply because it has an Aurora address (or because they feel entitled to attend the "Taj Mahal"). I live in Naperville and there are plenty of people who don't feel that way - they may want to stay at NVHS because they are closer, or they have other children who have attended or will be attending at the same time. So don't paint everyone to fit your agenda. Some of us don't like the BB property because it's too expensive and we don't like how close it is to 59. So there are many reasons. Furthermore, if they built the school in the Ashwood area, the Ashwood residents would logically attend it. I wouldn't think it would need a stipulation - seems like some would like to stir the pot here. "Many" does not mean all. It's laughable that you think everyone here has an "agenda". My agenda is to get the high school built as the voters clearly mandated in the last election. I don't care where my kids go to school as long as my children don't have 1300+ in their Freshman class. BTW - I was one of the first ones to say after the verdict that we should explore the viability of BB. We should explore all reasonable options. |
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Oct 2, 2007 7:56:27 GMT -6
Let's see, WE and TG both cross 59 to go to NV today, but would not need to to attend MV (either at BB or Macom). So for all kids moving out of NV, this is better (and those 2 dubdivisions are a very large number of kids). Who are the kids that would attend MV on BB that would need to cross 59, but don't do so today Lacy? I can't wait for the answer to this one as MACOM has Watts/Coulishaw/Owen all traveling south on 59 to get to that property instead of just crossing 59 as Fry does now -as well as Longwood going further on 59, and how does Gombert get there ? -- but see, we don't matter....that's the part you have to understand. Not sure how Gombert will get there. We can take the back roads and avoid 59, I think but still have to cross those pesky RR tracks, you know the ones that many of our students cross every day, twice a day to get to ES and MS. Very dangerous but, not your problem right lacy? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 2, 2007 7:58:07 GMT -6
I live in Naperville and there are plenty of people who don't feel that way - they may want to stay at NVHS because they are closer, or they have other children who have attended or will be attending at the same time. So don't paint everyone to fit your agenda. Some of us don't like the BB property because it's too expensive and we don't like how close it is to 59. So there are many reasons. Furthermore, if they built the school in the Ashwood area, the Ashwood residents would logically attend it. I wouldn't think it would need a stipulation - seems like some would like to stir the pot here. "Many" does not mean all. It's laughable that you think everyone here has an "agenda". My agenda is to get the high school built as the voters clearly mandated in the last election. I don't care where my kids go to school as long as my children don't have 1300+ in their Freshman class. BTW - I was one of the first ones to say after the verdict that we should explore the viability of BB. We should explore all reasonable options. Amen to that. |
|
|
|
Post by al on Oct 2, 2007 7:59:20 GMT -6
I understand it would make sense to send Ashwood there, but I would think it would be ethically wrong to agree to any quid pro quo kind of deal. The SB cannot be put in a position of catering to individual interests. I would be opposed to any wording as such in a land purchase agreement. I see your point Rew - if the purchase was made at the "going rate." If, however, he is willing to donate the land I am all over stipulating that all AW kids go there in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by sd204taxpayer on Oct 2, 2007 7:59:42 GMT -6
The SD needs to talk to Lehman. The fact that this hasn't already happened is shocking. I would think Daeschner, as he has no history or past involment with Macom should step up to the plate and run negotiations. It is the administrations duty to do the ground-work, research them, and provide proposals to the board. We don't pay Daeschner 225K and our administrators 6 figures to wait for the board to take action. I'll be watching closely to see how this is handled. We're down to 25 days to act on BB. IMHO the Superintendant doesn't have much say in the matter - it comes down to what the board elects to do. The Super's role here is to prepare and review data needed by the Board to make their decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 2, 2007 8:00:50 GMT -6
I understand it would make sense to send Ashwood there, but I would think it would be ethically wrong to agree to any quid pro quo kind of deal. The SB cannot be put in a position of catering to individual interests. I would be opposed to any wording as such in a land purchase agreement. I see your point Rew - if the purchase was made at the "going rate." If, however, he is willing to donate the land I am all over stipulating that all AW kids go there in the future. Actually, I agree there. Donate it like Martin Mitchel.. then you can put a stipulation on it. Selling it? Sorry, but the favoritism just started and stopped with the financial transaction. |
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Oct 2, 2007 8:11:20 GMT -6
I see your point Rew - if the purchase was made at the "going rate." If, however, he is willing to donate the land I am all over stipulating that all AW kids go there in the future. Actually, I agree there. Donate it like Martin Mitchel.. then you can put a stipulation on it. Selling it? Sorry, but the favoritism just started and stopped with the financial transaction. I agree too - now that is an interesting twist. If Macom donates the land they can put whatever-the-heck stipulations on it they want. ETA - Didn't they just give some land away for a fire station or something in Oswego? |
|
Of course you only get the violin out for your area - the others seem not to matter. 
