Tim West Column in 10/10/07 Sun

[dpc]

Why can't the high schools share their sports facilities?
October 10, 2007

A Sun reader sent me an e-mail with a question about the third high school that Indian Prairie School District 204 intends to build.

He wondered if anyone had considered the following:

"One of the largest expenditures for the new school will be for a football stadium and several other athletic facilities. While the football stadium is typically used only for a half-dozen games a year, the cost per use is considerable. Stadium seating and turf costs millions of dollars regardless of whether natural grass (install and ongoing maintenance) or artificial grass (large initial costs) is used.

"There are currently schools within a mile or two from the proposed new site. With a little initiative, it shouldn't require complex logistics for the new school to share existing stadiums - just schedule games when one of the other two has an away game. There may be other athletic facilities that could also be shared.

"Then, if added funds become available at a later date, the issue can be revisited."

Sharing of athletic facilities among high schools is an interesting thought and one that comes up every few years.

On the face of it, it makes sense from a financial viewpoint for School District 204 to use its two existing football stadiums for games for all three high schools. In the same manner, it might be suggested in District 203 that if Naperville Central gets entirely rebuilt that a stadium not be part of the package and that it use North's stadium instead.

What gets complicated here is not so much fiscal sense, as emotions.

The districts here generally make an attempt to ensure that the schools are as equal as possible.

So, if one school has a stadium the other is going to be perceived as needing to have one as well. If it doesn't, then one school will be viewed as inferior to the other.

Many years ago, Naperville North had a swimming pool while Central did not.

Logistics involving getting Central's swimmers to North's pool to practice and hold meets were somewhat of a problem, but the matter of inequality of facilities was a larger concern.

A referendum was ultimately passed and Central got its own pool.

One of the problems that is perceived with the referendum in District 203 that will eventually come to either expand and fix up or entirely rebuild Central will be one of the parent voters who live in the North attendance boundary questioning, "What's in it for us?"

In other words, this is why school districts often put up referendum propositions that have something for everybody - because they are easier to pass that way.

In an ideal world, of course, everybody who lives in a district would want equal facilities throughout the schools whether their kids went to them or not.

Of course, in that same world all the people who don't have kids in the district would also want the schools to be well-supported and the districts themselves would be careful stewards of the tax dollars so people wouldn't be concerned that they are being overtaxed.

To get back to the main theme though, which is why don't schools share stadiums.

Because the people who didn't have the facility in their attendance area wouldn't be happy.

Sharing facilities is, indeed, logistically possible.

However, we learn to share when we are children but forget by the time we grow up.

Tim West's column appears on Sunday and Wednesday. Contact him at [e-mail] or 630-416-5290

[Arch]

Our HS had to share with another back in Plantation. We each used 'the stadium' in the middle of town.

[movingforward]

I think it would be a logistical nightmare.

The article makes it appear (to me anyway) that only football games are held at a stadium. I think they forget all of the other events that are held at a school's stadium; band practices , soccer games and practices , track meets and track practices. I am sure I am forgetting other events as well. My point is that while I think in theory the idea is good, in reality, I don't know how they would logistically make it all work.

Perhaps they assume that there will still be a large 'athletic area' (still need to maintain grass or turf) for the above to take place and only grandstands will be missing. Even then..., does that mean that any event where fans are expected would be held at a shared stadium? Still seems difficult to pull off to me.

[Arch]

Our high schools had a 'practice field' at the school with metal bleachers. That is where JV played and where teams practiced. The stadium in town was for GAMES only. Varsity football (not JV) and soccer were at the stadium.

Track was at the 'track' on the school grounds, which surrounded the 'practice field' that had the metal bleachers.

I'll admit though, we had far fewer students and far fewer sports going on than they do around here.

[wvhsparent]

Maybe they could use the 25 Acres they have at BB for a 204 Sports complex.
Which would better qualify for being in the center of the district as indicated by M2's paper.

Then rip out the fields at WVHS and NVHS and put in buildings (Trailers?).
Everything could be ready for an 08 opening........

(This is meant as a preemptive strike) and Yes it is sarcasm.

[blankcheck]

Streamwood High School shares with two outher schools South Elgin and I believe Bartlett. They make it work. South Elgin is a new school and this is their first year having all four grade levels at their school. I had posed that question before about sharing the stadium.

[proschool]

movingforward said:

I think it would be a logistical nightmare.

The article makes it appear (to me anyway) that only football games are held at a stadium. I think they forget all of the other events that are held at a school's stadium; band practices , soccer games and practices , track meets and track practices. I am sure I am forgetting other events as well. My point is that while I think in theory the idea is good, in reality, I don't know how they would logistically make it all work.

Perhaps they assume that there will still be a large 'athletic area' (still need to maintain grass or turf) for the above to take place and only grandstands will be missing. Even then..., does that mean that any event where fans are expected would be held at a shared stadium? Still seems difficult to pull off to me.

Notice how Tim West just reports that he has received a letter. He never said that he took any action to verify if what the writer said was true or not. Then he mentions how much sense it makes (to him), but i have to ask myself if it would still make sense to him if he had taken time to check out the facts.

I also think that it is unusual that he doesn't mention the the of the person writing the letter. Better yet why not just print the letter in letters to the editor so we can all see it.

I don't know if sharing sports facilities is a good idea or not but I think it's strange to bring it up now when the plans have been approved. If this is a good idea it seems to be at least a year to late to do any good.

It just kind of odd that he is taking an interest in this issue at this time. I remember when the Naperville Sun advocated the defeat of the first referendum because the site (ON ROUTE 59) was prime commercial property. In a column Tim West stated he had no interest in getting involved because he didn't "have a dog in this fight." I never understood why as an editor of a newspaper he just didn't make an effort to see that the facts were reported correctly. Just putting an accurate map in the paper would have gone a long way to allowing readers to make informed decisions. Isn't he supposed to be impartial anyway?

[bob]

Don't forget about his HUGE conflict of interest that he neglected to inform the readers regarding the NPD rec center.

[casey]

Wow! I sure hope that the SB isn't considering this option of sharing athletic facilities. From what I recall, they made promises that the 3rd HS would be equitable with regards to all amenities. Obviously, following Tim West's suggestion would defnitely be contrary to the SB's promise to us. I hope the writing's not on the wall and the SB just keeps making hard decisions that reduce the facilities (and trying to reduce costs). YIKES - now I'm really worried.

[gatordog]

wvhsparent said:

Maybe they could use the 25 Acres they have at BB for a 204 Sports complex.
Which would better qualify for being in the center of the district as indicated by M2's paper.

Then rip out the fields at WVHS and NVHS and put in buildings (Trailers?).
Everything could be ready for an 08 opening........

(This is meant as a preemptive strike) and Yes it is sarcasm.

Great thinking! ....if Enrico Fermi can create the first nuclear fission reaction underneath the Univ of Chicago's football stadium, think of the educationally enhancing opportunities our students could experience if we address the overcrowding by turning the stadiums into science labs. ;D

[movingforward]

casey said:

Wow! I sure hope that the SB isn't considering this option of sharing athletic facilities. From what I recall, they made promises that the 3rd HS would be equitable with regards to all amenities. Obviously, following Tim West's suggestion would defnitely be contrary to the SB's promise to us. I hope the writing's not on the wall and the SB just keeps making hard decisions that reduce the facilities (and trying to reduce costs). YIKES - now I'm really worried.

Casey,

This is how rumors get started; No one said anything about the SB remotely suggesting this. (read the original post for clarification) It was most likely an anti SB/3rd high school person writing in to Tim West to cause the community to become skeptical about any action/in-action that could be taken.


I'm not worried in the least by these comments by 'who knows'. I notice that many of the letters to the editors to the Herald and Sun are by the same individuals over the years. Paul White's name appeared yet again in a Sun letter to the editor last week and I cannot count how many times George Vickers name has appeared too. (these are both CFO folks) My hunch is that is why no name is listed.

[scarbroughknight]

When I briefly lived in Idaho, the three Boise schools played all of their home games at Bronco Stadium. (Boise State University) It worked beautifully and there were no problems. I have seen many towns that use a central stadium for two schools. It wouldn't be a bad idea at all in a district the size of #204

[wvhsparent]

gatordog said:

wvhsparent said:

Maybe they could use the 25 Acres they have at BB for a 204 Sports complex.
Which would better qualify for being in the center of the district as indicated by M2's paper.

Then rip out the fields at WVHS and NVHS and put in buildings (Trailers?).
Everything could be ready for an 08 opening........

(This is meant as a preemptive strike) and Yes it is sarcasm.

Great thinking! ....if Enrico Fermi can create the first nuclear fission reaction underneath the Univ of Chicago's football stadium, think of the educationally enhancing opportunities our students could experience if we address the overcrowding by turning the stadiums into science labs. ;D

I like it!!!! Just build facilities UNDER the football fields. Let's tunnel under the parking lot too! we can make bigger cafeterias under the parking lot to handle the increased students........

[macy]

movingforward said:

casey said:

Wow! I sure hope that the SB isn't considering this option of sharing athletic facilities. From what I recall, they made promises that the 3rd HS would be equitable with regards to all amenities. Obviously, following Tim West's suggestion would defnitely be contrary to the SB's promise to us. I hope the writing's not on the wall and the SB just keeps making hard decisions that reduce the facilities (and trying to reduce costs). YIKES - now I'm really worried.

Casey,

This is how rumors get started; No one said anything about the SB remotely suggesting this. It was most likely an anti SB/3rd high school person writing in to Tim West to cause the community to become skeptical about any action/in-action that could be taken.

Personally, I don't think a shared stadium would 'fly' with voters either. That sort of a situation probably works best in communities without as many students/population as we have here in Indian Prairie SD.

I'm not worried in the least by these comments by 'who knows'. I notice that many of the letters to the editors to the Herald and Sun are by the same individuals over the years. Paul White's name appeared yet again in a Sun letter to the editor last week and I cannot count how many times George Vickers name has appeared too. (these are both CFO folks)

At this point, all bets are on the table as to how the SB is going to deliver Metea Valley with the funds they have in hand. Until the district/SB goes public with their options (which I hope is soon considering the deadline for BB), everything should be worthy of discussion.

I read this article as a someone demonstrating "out of the box" thinking which, in my opinion, is always a good thing, even if I disagree with the proposed concept.

After reading Casey's post, I didn't assume he/she was intending to be a rumor spreader. After all, everything is speculation at this point since we have received virtually no information from the district and SB while they evaluate options. And to add, in my opinion, I wish they'd provide a venue for public comment. This would be a great way to measure support for all of their options in the community.

I'm not in favor of sharing of athletic facilities, but considering we are currently in a crisis due to the land cost coming in at more than double what we'd hoped for, creative "out of the box" thinking should never be discouraged.

At this point in the game, everyone's opinion and creative thinking should not be discouraged. Yes (and in my opinion)- even CFO folks have the right to voice their thoughts. Trust me, I'm not a "card carrying CFO member" and have disagreed with many things they've said in the past. I've been a proponent for the third high school since the first referendum and continue to feel that way today. I would call that: disagreement number one, two and three but... I think it's important for everyone's thoughts and opinions to be heard.

And considering the way things have been on this board lately:

Slam, slam away...

[gatormom]

No slam macy. While it is creative and thinking outside the box as you say, the district promised Metea Valley, the complete package, without coming back to the voters for more money.

At some point, someone may decide they want the football stadium for MV and somebody will remind the district of that promise. I have heard many times about how Neuqua was over cost when it was built and the district came back for more money later.

The voters have a long memory and I doubt this is a viable option.