|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 12, 2007 7:08:02 GMT -6
I would like to know how much the district paid in lobbyist fees to lobby for quick-take.
What did that cost the taxpayers?
And I would absolutely vote for Linda Holmes when she is up for re-election. Quicktake would have obligated us to the higher purchase price. Thank goodness the bill was never called out of committee.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 12, 2007 7:08:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by harry on Oct 12, 2007 7:11:36 GMT -6
I would like to know how much the district paid in lobbyist fees to lobby for quick-take. What did that cost the taxpayers? And I would absolutely vote for Linda Holmes when she is up for re-election. Quicktake would have obligated us to the higher purchase price. Thank goodness the bill was never called out of committee. Exactly, right on target as usual.. Could this be the reason that the SB never divulged knowing about Mark Spangler??? |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 12, 2007 7:12:59 GMT -6
So because you all don't agree with Mr. Spangler, you're going to make him out to be the bad guy? He's entitled to his opinion and he can spend his money any way he wants - he didn't need to get approval from you guys.
I happen to think that there is alot about the push for BB that stinks to high heaven. Other land is available for millions less. I know that there are many people in district 204 who are questioning the pursuit of this land at all costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 12, 2007 7:13:06 GMT -6
I would like to know how much the district paid in lobbyist fees to lobby for quick-take. What did that cost the taxpayers? And I would absolutely vote for Linda Holmes when she is up for re-election. Quicktake would have obligated us to the higher purchase price. Thank goodness the bill was never called out of committee. Exactly, right on target as usual.. Could this be the reason that the SB never divulged knowing about Mark Spangler??? How would the SD know about Mark Spangler? Spangler wasn't the lobbyist, he paid the bill. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 12, 2007 7:14:15 GMT -6
It was my understanding that there were lobbyists lobbying on behalf of the district for quick-take. Are you saying there were not? How much did that cost the taxpayers? |
|
|
|
Post by harry on Oct 12, 2007 7:15:15 GMT -6
Exactly, right on target as usual.. Could this be the reason that the SB never divulged knowing about Mark Spangler??? How would the SD know about Mark Spangler? Spangler wasn't the lobbyist, he paid the bill. Agreed. The SB knew there was a lobbyist. Period. Is the reason they didn't expose said lobbyist is due to the fact that they TOO used one?? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 12, 2007 7:15:45 GMT -6
So because you all don't agree with Mr. Spangler, you're going to make him out to be the bad guy? He's entitled to his opinion and he can spend his money any way he wants - he didn't need to get approval from you guys. I happen to think that there is alot about the push for BB that stinks to high heaven. Other land is available for millions less. I know that there are many people in district 204 who are questioning the pursuit of this land at all costs. I have no problem what he did. If he can afford $18k to fight QT, that is his Constitutional right and I support his right to do so. That is the American way. The downside is one person can afford $18k to get access with a politician while most of us can't even get a phone call returned from the same politician. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 12, 2007 7:18:02 GMT -6
I happen to think that there is alot about the push for BB that stinks to high heaven. Other land is available for millions less. I know that there are many people in district 204 who are questioning the pursuit of this land at all costs. The same can be said for many wanting the Macom land. They want no BB but instead Macom at all costs (or delays and further penalties to the trust). The door swings both ways on that one. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 12, 2007 7:18:45 GMT -6
So because you all don't agree with Mr. Spangler, you're going to make him out to be the bad guy? He's entitled to his opinion and he can spend his money any way he wants - he didn't need to get approval from you guys. I happen to think that there is alot about the push for BB that stinks to high heaven. Other land is available for millions less. I know that there are many people in district 204 who are questioning the pursuit of this land at all costs. I have no problem what he did. If he can afford $18k to fight QT, that is his Constitutional right and I support his right to do so. Agreed... That does not mean we have to stop trying to figure out WHY he did what he did. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by movingforward on Oct 12, 2007 7:19:11 GMT -6
I would like to know how much the district paid in lobbyist fees to lobby for quick-take. What did that cost the taxpayers? And I would absolutely vote for Linda Holmes when she is up for re-election. Quicktake would have obligated us to the higher purchase price. Thank goodness the bill was never called out of committee. Personally, whether or not she was for or against Quick Take is irrelevant regarding my opinion of Senator Holmes. I did not like how she handled the issue and allowed money to sway her opinion. She commented on her dissatisfaction with high school boundaries for Ashwood....which ,IMO, is none of her business as a legislator. It would have been a very dangerous precident to set if a legislator modified what a school board had decided. During my conversations with her, she spoke of hoping to do just that. Whether or not you like or dislike the boundaries, I do not feel a legislator should have gotten involved or had a vocal opinion on that issue either way. That's just me. Can you imagine how many other legislators would be bombarded by constituents asking for boundary changes to their schools if Holmes had been influential in changing boundaries here. Before you jump all over me....I have stated, I would gladly send my kids to ANY high school and did not vote based on boundaries. I am simply stating that I thought Holmes overstepped her boundaries (play on words) and was influenced by money in Ashwood. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 12, 2007 7:19:32 GMT -6
what's happening is some of the real reasons behind some of the opposition to BB are coming out now ....( and before anyone goes nuts - I said some not a majority or anything like that ) !. I know there are some here who said they have held this 'fear' about - whose turn is it, payback to older residents etc. and I admitted that sure- there is some of that out there to, but not a large amount -- well here is the fear some others have, that consistently is denied exists also starting to popup. All one has to do is read the comments on the Sun blog - from doughboy and a few supporters -- and they are very honest in their number one issue is they do't want to go anywhere but NV. The reasons ? Well they cite 1/ they bought NV when they moved in period 2/ they are protecting their investment ( home) - in their minds 3/ both WV and MV will be inferior schools. For them it has nothing to do with looking out for the best site ( unless that site leaves them where they are ) - or actual need for the school. The other reason cited is that BB is a plot by the north side of Naperville ( which they explain starts at 75th street btw ) - to raise property values while lowering theirs. So I am fairly sure no one here holds those views - but when some try to explain this view exists out there - and this is what some of us trying to watch out for the whole district's good - really are upset by. I will not dignify any of the comments from posters in the Sun by placing the direct comment or link on this site....if anyone wants to read them - they can go there, but be forewarned it is extremely ugly. Also another example of how comparatively civil this board is compared to most out there - a credit to ALL here. I was involved once in a financial board once- that was so brutal I had to leave - the Sun blog turning into the same thing - sans the extreme cuss words. Mr. Spangler's name may be on this, but I suspect there are a few others involved - as he has no stake in this race - his kids go to NV no matter what. And if he was really against the school period, that would be the end goal - not moving the land to MACOM ! How does that make even a little sense. Dr. I am lost,,,is your point that there are those who say NV and out??? Yes harry, there are still several people out there who are of the NVHS or nothing at all mindset. They think it is their "right" to go to NVHS. I did not believe M2 when he stated they were going to use QT as a negotiating tool, the 1st time I heard it or now. So in that respect...thank you Mr. Spangler......... |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 12, 2007 7:20:48 GMT -6
what's happening is some of the real reasons behind some of the opposition to BB are coming out now ....( and before anyone goes nuts - I said some not a majority or anything like that ) !. I know there are some here who said they have held this 'fear' about - whose turn is it, payback to older residents etc. and I admitted that sure- there is some of that out there to, but not a large amount -- well here is the fear some others have, that consistently is denied exists also starting to popup. All one has to do is read the comments on the Sun blog - from doughboy and a few supporters -- and they are very honest in their number one issue is they do't want to go anywhere but NV. The reasons ? Well they cite 1/ they bought NV when they moved in period 2/ they are protecting their investment ( home) - in their minds 3/ both WV and MV will be inferior schools. For them it has nothing to do with looking out for the best site ( unless that site leaves them where they are ) - or actual need for the school. The other reason cited is that BB is a plot by the north side of Naperville ( which they explain starts at 75th street btw ) - to raise property values while lowering theirs. So I am fairly sure no one here holds those views - but when some try to explain this view exists out there - and this is what some of us trying to watch out for the whole district's good - really are upset by. I will not dignify any of the comments from posters in the Sun by placing the direct comment or link on this site....if anyone wants to read them - they can go there, but be forewarned it is extremely ugly. Also another example of how comparatively civil this board is compared to most out there - a credit to ALL here. I was involved once in a financial board once- that was so brutal I had to leave - the Sun blog turning into the same thing - sans the extreme cuss words. Mr. Spangler's name may be on this, but I suspect there are a few others involved - as he has no stake in this race - his kids go to NV no matter what. And if he was really against the school period, that would be the end goal - not moving the land to MACOM ! How does that make even a little sense. Dr. I am lost,,,is your point that there are those who say NV and out??? the point is there is a block, however small but vocal, that the only interest is to stay at NV at all costs. And the goals from what I am reading in posts - are usually not even student related - they are 100% financially driven. I keep hearing about the 'older residents' and the feeling by some they are owed something from the newer residents...and that is why they are BB or nothing. Some of us have repeatedly said, there is also a block that is absolutely opposite and the only goal is to stay in NV boundary regardless of anything else. If you have low enough blood pressure to read the Sun blog - please do. It shows exactly what was being said. It claims the 81st street site is in the northern end of the district - and that is why some people are fighting for BB only. All I am saying is that for those who have claimed some are doing this because their child somehow ''gains' by the new boundaries - not to throw stones because there is a group, now starting to be outspoken about why it is NV or nothing. Kept hearing that no one knows anyone like that. Well they are out there also, so just as when some posters say they are skeptical because they know there is this underlying feeling for the last 10 years, this is why others of us are sometimes skeptical about motives also. Again, to everyone's credit here, I have not seen a poster here take this tact - on either side.........but let's acknowedge the unfortunate fact it is out there....and work together to make sure people with an extreme view on either end do not get protrayed as representing more than a few people. hopefully that makes more sense... |
|
|
|
Post by harry on Oct 12, 2007 7:21:00 GMT -6
I would like to know how much the district paid in lobbyist fees to lobby for quick-take. What did that cost the taxpayers? And I would absolutely vote for Linda Holmes when she is up for re-election. Quicktake would have obligated us to the higher purchase price. Thank goodness the bill was never called out of committee. Personally, whether or not she was for or against Quick Take is irrelevant regarding my opinion of Senator Holmes. I did not like how she handled the issue and allowed money to sway her opinion. She commented on her dissatisfaction with high school boundaries for Ashwood....which ,IMO, is none of her business as a legislator. It would have been a very dangerous precident to set if a legislator modified what a school board had decided. During my conversations with her, she spoke of hoping to do just that. Whether or not you like or dislike the boundaries, I do not feel a legislator should have gotten involved or had a vocal opinion on that issue either way. That's just me. Can you imagine how many other legislators would be bombarded by constituents asking for boundary changes to their schools if Holmes had been influential in changing boundaries here. Before you jump all over me....I have stated, I would gladly send my kids to ANY high school and did not vote based on boundaries. I am simply stating that I thought Holmes overstepped her boundaries (play on words) and was influenced by money in Ashwood. Money sways nearly all decisions,,,funny pun too. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 12, 2007 7:21:28 GMT -6
I was assuming they were going to use as soon as they got it too. |
|
