Mark Metzger Quotes

[dpc]

I am starting to get very confused about where MM stands in regards to the needs for the third high school based on some of his recent quotes:

10/3/07 Daily Herald Article “Where will Dist.204 build Metea Valley?”
Some critics have said enrollment figures are not coming in as high as the district predicted during its referendum push to fund Metea and the school is not needed.
Metzger said the board disagrees.
"We are certainly, most likely because of a downturn in housing, not seeing the growth we initially projected we would get," he said. "But, as a whole, the board felt the referendum was not sold on the basis of future projections as it was on the basis of students already here. And we see nothing to suggest current levels are going to go down anytime soon."

10/5/07 Daily Herald Article “Metea site is getting costlier”
As Indian Prairie reviews its options, one of its considerations will be whether it needs the entire 80 acres. Metzger said some alternative sites are smaller.
"If the district decides it doesn't need all 80 acres, it would have the option of buying the property and then selling part of it".



In the first quote, Metzger says that the current enrollment is justification alone for building the third high school that the taxpayers voted on (i.e., 80 acres/3000 seats). Yet, two days later, he talks as if the district may not need all 80 acres. Do you think he changed his mind between Oct. 3 and Oct. 5?

[gatormom]

PL seems to think MV will fit perfectly on 62 acres, 3000 seats and all.

M2 says we need the school but if we don't need the entire 80 acres you interpret that to mean less students and seats, now that is fuzzy.

[dpc]

gatormom said:

PL seems to think MV will fit perfectly on 62 acres, 3000 seats and all.

M2 says we need the school but if we don't need the entire 80 acres you interpret that to mean less students and seats, now that is fuzzy.

Then why did they condemn 80 acres??

[doctorwho]

dpc said:

I am starting to get very confused about where MM stands in regards to the needs for the third high school based on some of his recent quotes:

10/3/07 Daily Herald Article “Where will Dist.204 build Metea Valley?”
Some critics have said enrollment figures are not coming in as high as the district predicted during its referendum push to fund Metea and the school is not needed.
Metzger said the board disagrees.
"We are certainly, most likely because of a downturn in housing, not seeing the growth we initially projected we would get," he said. "But, as a whole, the board felt the referendum was not sold on the basis of future projections as it was on the basis of students already here. And we see nothing to suggest current levels are going to go down anytime soon."

10/5/07 Daily Herald Article “Metea site is getting costlier”
As Indian Prairie reviews its options, one of its considerations will be whether it needs the entire 80 acres. Metzger said some alternative sites are smaller.
"If the district decides it doesn't need all 80 acres, it would have the option of buying the property and then selling part of it".



In the first quote, Metzger says that the current enrollment is justification alone for building the third high school that the taxpayers voted on (i.e., 80 acres/3000 seats). Yet, two days later, he talks as if the district may not need all 80 acres. Do you think he changed his mind between Oct. 3 and Oct. 5?

If one is confused - send him an email and ask him rather than trust the selective writings of the Herald and Sun - neither of which have been stellar regardless of what point of view one has on the issue.

No confusion on the acreage - we have no option but to buy the parcel up front - if there is a way to sell some of it ( and the city of Aurora agrees to what's needed on the site) - it is a potental way to close the $ gap - as well as effectively lower the cost of the BB site - isn't a lower cost on BB what everyone wants ? A smaller footprint - say on a 2500 student HS may automatically require a little less land - that could also be an option.

[southsidemom]

How many acres of the 80 acres at BB will be used for water retention? Weren't the 25 acres earmarked for mostly parking and retention?

Neuqua needed acreage to build on later if needed and we know how that worked out.

[Arch]

I believe water retention can be done several different ways. Each with a different cost, and each with a different land requirement. I'm not exactly sure what has been decided or what options are on the table. Perhaps this is something they can be selective on which can let them juggle the numbers for cost and land to suit their need.

I'm also not sure what that has to do with the student population and why someone would try to connect the two of them together as if one influenced the other.

[southsidemom]

archwinsome said:

I believe water retention can be done several different ways. Each with a different cost, and each with a different land requirement. I'm not exactly sure what has been decided or what options are on the table. Perhaps this is something they can be selective on which can let them juggle the numbers for cost and land to suit their need.

I'm also not sure what that has to do with the student population and why someone would try to connect the two of them together as if one influenced the other.

They were separate questions. It was not answered so I asked again. There was no link, just questions.

[Arch]

southsidemom said:

archwinsome said:

I believe water retention can be done several different ways. Each with a different cost, and each with a different land requirement. I'm not exactly sure what has been decided or what options are on the table. Perhaps this is something they can be selective on which can let them juggle the numbers for cost and land to suit their need.

I'm also not sure what that has to do with the student population and why someone would try to connect the two of them together as if one influenced the other.

They were separate questions. It was not answered so I asked again. There was no link, just questions.

You tied 80 acres to 3,000 seats. 3,000 does not HAVE to have 80 acres. Having less than 80 acres for a site does not mean a 3,000 seat school can not be constructed nor does it make any implication as to whether or not it is needed.

The word 'yet' is what you used to tie them together. If that conjunction was used in error, then fine.. but as it was written, you connected the 2 things by that very single word.

If it was not meant that way, then it's like saying: I'm non-sequitur, but I like pizza.


EDIT: 'you' referring to the original poster: dpc

[justme]

doctorwho said:

dpc said:

I am starting to get very confused about where MM stands in regards to the needs for the third high school based on some of his recent quotes:

10/3/07 Daily Herald Article “Where will Dist.204 build Metea Valley?”
Some critics have said enrollment figures are not coming in as high as the district predicted during its referendum push to fund Metea and the school is not needed.
Metzger said the board disagrees.
"We are certainly, most likely because of a downturn in housing, not seeing the growth we initially projected we would get," he said. "But, as a whole, the board felt the referendum was not sold on the basis of future projections as it was on the basis of students already here. And we see nothing to suggest current levels are going to go down anytime soon."

10/5/07 Daily Herald Article “Metea site is getting costlier”
As Indian Prairie reviews its options, one of its considerations will be whether it needs the entire 80 acres. Metzger said some alternative sites are smaller.
"If the district decides it doesn't need all 80 acres, it would have the option of buying the property and then selling part of it".



In the first quote, Metzger says that the current enrollment is justification alone for building the third high school that the taxpayers voted on (i.e., 80 acres/3000 seats). Yet, two days later, he talks as if the district may not need all 80 acres. Do you think he changed his mind between Oct. 3 and Oct. 5?

If one is confused - send him an email and ask him rather than trust the selective writings of the Herald and Sun - neither of which have been stellar regardless of what point of view one has on the issue.

I did email him over a week ago. Haven't heard back yet.

[doctorwho]

justme said:

doctorwho said:

If one is confused - send him an email and ask him rather than trust the selective writings of the Herald and Sun - neither of which have been stellar regardless of what point of view one has on the issue.

I did email him over a week ago. Haven't heard back yet.

I expect you will if you requested a response - my guess is that all 7 board members are very busy right now trying to move the situation forward.

[lacy]

archwinsome said:

southsidemom said:

They were separate questions. It was not answered so I asked again. There was no link, just questions.

You tied 80 acres to 3,000 seats. 3,000 does not HAVE to have 80 acres. Having less than 80 acres for a site does not mean a 3,000 seat school can not be constructed nor does it make any implication as to whether or not it is needed.

The word 'yet' is what you used to tie them together. If that conjunction was used in error, then fine.. but as it was written, you connected the 2 things by that very single word.

If it was not meant that way, then it's like saying: I'm non-sequitur, but I like pizza.


EDIT: 'you' referring to the original poster: dpc

If I remember correctly, we were told differently during the referendum - when asked why we needed 80 acres we were NEVER told that we could build a 3000 seat school on less.

[title1parent]

Here's a novel idea, two of our Alderman have their email addresses on this board. I would suggest you contact them. I know Alderman Keith has the blue prints of the MV/BB area. I have seen them. Maybe they can answer the City of Aurora questions for you also.

[dpc]

doctorwho said:

dpc said:

I am starting to get very confused about where MM stands in regards to the needs for the third high school based on some of his recent quotes:

10/3/07 Daily Herald Article “Where will Dist.204 build Metea Valley?”
Some critics have said enrollment figures are not coming in as high as the district predicted during its referendum push to fund Metea and the school is not needed.
Metzger said the board disagrees.
"We are certainly, most likely because of a downturn in housing, not seeing the growth we initially projected we would get," he said. "But, as a whole, the board felt the referendum was not sold on the basis of future projections as it was on the basis of students already here. And we see nothing to suggest current levels are going to go down anytime soon."

10/5/07 Daily Herald Article “Metea site is getting costlier”
As Indian Prairie reviews its options, one of its considerations will be whether it needs the entire 80 acres. Metzger said some alternative sites are smaller.
"If the district decides it doesn't need all 80 acres, it would have the option of buying the property and then selling part of it".



In the first quote, Metzger says that the current enrollment is justification alone for building the third high school that the taxpayers voted on (i.e., 80 acres/3000 seats). Yet, two days later, he talks as if the district may not need all 80 acres. Do you think he changed his mind between Oct. 3 and Oct. 5?

If one is confused - send him an email and ask him rather than trust the selective writings of the Herald and Sun - neither of which have been stellar regardless of what point of view one has on the issue.

To be honest, at this stage, I don't trust anything he says as I've seen and heard too much doublespeak as of late.

[doctorwho]

dpc said:

doctorwho said:

If one is confused - send him an email and ask him rather than trust the selective writings of the Herald and Sun - neither of which have been stellar regardless of what point of view one has on the issue.

To be honest, at this stage, I don't trust anything he says as I've seen and heard too much doublespeak as of late.

than why bother to ask a question, just rely on the hearsay of others.

[Arch]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

You tied 80 acres to 3,000 seats. 3,000 does not HAVE to have 80 acres. Having less than 80 acres for a site does not mean a 3,000 seat school can not be constructed nor does it make any implication as to whether or not it is needed.

The word 'yet' is what you used to tie them together. If that conjunction was used in error, then fine.. but as it was written, you connected the 2 things by that very single word.

If it was not meant that way, then it's like saying: I'm non-sequitur, but I like pizza.


EDIT: 'you' referring to the original poster: dpc

If I remember correctly, we were told differently during the referendum - when asked why we needed 80 acres we were NEVER told that we could build a 3000 seat school on less.

I don't believe we were told that the tooth fairy does not exist. That does not mean that it does.

What I do recall is that 'some amount' of land was said to be for water retention. Being that there is more than one way to handle that, I would assume that 'amount' is the variable that could change the 'required' amount of land.