Parent's Lobbyist Fought District

[doctorwho]

harry said:

warriorpride said:

I thought the same thing. Being the conspiracy theorist, I think it's a calculated move to keep the BB/MV issue in the paper & to rally people against BB or even building MV. Earlier in the week, we had CV with her "not convinved of the need of a 3rd HS" for the umteenth time, and now this. There seems to be something in the paper every few days.

Anyone notice the headline on the continuation of the article on page 6? "Macom property emerges as alternative site". Huh? is this what the story is about? Perhaps it's this guy's agenda, but Macom is old news. Why was this the headline?

I also found references to the Calvary site interesting. I wonder what the anti-BB and anti-3rd HS people are going to do to foil that option.

Start with Rte 59 being the only access onto the property ;D

Add,, no mention of the church property up north either as under consideration..BB or Bust

so harry - you've already seen the siteplans and know there is no access from 83rd street ? good to know, since I have yet to see anyone even say where the land is exactly at

[warriorpride]

doctorwho said:

harry said:

Start with Rte 59 being the only access onto the property ;D

Add,, no mention of the church property up north either as under consideration..BB or Bust

so harry - you've already seen the siteplans and know there is no access from 83rd street ? good to know, since I have yet to see anyone even say where the land is exactly at

kinda funny how within about 5 minutes harry managed to both shoot down the Calvary site AND complain about not hearing about it before - how many sides can one mouth have?

[casey]

sd204taxpayer said:

I just want them pursuing other sites for significantly less money and being openminded about this process. IMO they are stuck on BB and if you reaad between the lines they keep moving in the BB direction.

Oh, we can read between the lines - it's defnitely BB. Now it's just a matter of how they can spin it and sell it to the community as the only logical choice for the HS. There's definitely many on this board that believe that. I do not. I've stated many times, the doubled-land costs, the legal costs, lobbyists costs, etc. all equal a cost we can't afford. Back away from BB and give the other sites (St. John's and Macom) a full examination. Be open and clear with the public and let us see the options laid out. Why is it BB? I'm curious how much time the SB has spent with Paul Lehman or the St. John's church leaders really exploring those options. I'd venture to say - not much.

Please oh, dear wonderous SB leaders, let us in on the decision-making process of why BB is the answer. I can't see it.

[proschool]

State Sen. Linda Holmes, an Aurora Democrat, was sponsoring the quick-take proposal in the legislature and said she made the decision not to call it for a vote out of the same concern, though no one lobbyist swayed her decision.

She also was concerned about the way some of the district's boundaries were drawn.

Wow! Talk about playing to both sides of the aisle. Exactly how many hours passed between the time she decided to sponsor it and the time she decided not to bring it up for a vote?

No one lobbyist swayed her decision? So it took multilpe lobbyists and that should make us feel better. Guess she needs to keep the cash coming in.

I wish my kids had $18,000 to spend on things like this. Then they would have a fighting chance in Springfield.

[movingforward]

casey said:

sd204taxpayer said:

I just want them pursuing other sites for significantly less money and being openminded about this process. IMO they are stuck on BB and if you reaad between the lines they keep moving in the BB direction.

Oh, we can read between the lines - it's defnitely BB. Now it's just a matter of how they can spin it and sell it to the community as the only logical choice for the HS. There's definitely many on this board that believe that. I do not. I've stated many times, the doubled-land costs, the legal costs, lobbyists costs, etc. all equal a cost we can't afford. Back away from BB and give the other sites (St. John's and Macom) a full examination. Be open and clear with the public and let us see the options laid out. Why is it BB? I'm curious how much time the SB has spent with Paul Lehman or the St. John's church leaders really exploring those options. I'd venture to say - not much.

Please oh, dear wonderous SB leaders, let us in on the decision-making process of why BB is the answer. I can't see it.

May I ask, Were you ever in favor of BB?

[bob]

link

It looks like someone planned for access to 83rd.

[wvhsparent]

movingforward said:

casey said:

Oh, we can read between the lines - it's defnitely BB. Now it's just a matter of how they can spin it and sell it to the community as the only logical choice for the HS. There's definitely many on this board that believe that. I do not. I've stated many times, the doubled-land costs, the legal costs, lobbyists costs, etc. all equal a cost we can't afford. Back away from BB and give the other sites (St. John's and Macom) a full examination. Be open and clear with the public and let us see the options laid out. Why is it BB? I'm curious how much time the SB has spent with Paul Lehman or the St. John's church leaders really exploring those options. I'd venture to say - not much.

Please oh, dear wonderous SB leaders, let us in on the decision-making process of why BB is the answer. I can't see it.

May I ask, Were you ever in favor of BB?

No I never have been

[movingforward]

wvhsparent said:

movingforward said:

May I ask, Were you ever in favor of BB?

No I never have been

I know YOU weren't!!! ;D
I was asking Casey silly!

[warriorpride]

bob said:

link

It looks like someone planned for access to 83rd.

Anyone know where the 25 acres that we own is specifically located?

[casey]

movingforward said:

wvhsparent said:

No I never have been

I know YOU weren't!!! ;D
I was asking Casey silly!

Absolutely NEVER. I made that clear from the get-go.

[wvhsparent]

bob said:

link

It looks like someone planned for access to 83rd.

If it is the parcel just to the west of the church. It is an unplatted parcel about 40 Acres.
This is according to DuPage GIS
Parcel # 07-33-200-005 - 40 acres owner's address 9S200 Rt 59 (Calvary Church) Naperville Twp Assessor's Office

[bob]

wvhsparent said:

bob said:

link

It looks like someone planned for access to 83rd.

If it is the parcel just to the west of the church. It is an unplatted parcel about 40 Acres.
This is according to DuPage GIS

That would give us 65 acres. Interesting.

[proschool]

wvhsparent said:

bob said:

link

It looks like someone planned for access to 83rd.

If it is the parcel just to the west of the church. It is an unplatted parcel about 40 Acres.
This is according to DuPage GIS

I thought that was the next phase of Stone Haven? If they can get that they can make it work. 40+25=65. They can make up the extra 15 acres by sharing parking facilities or buying the church water retention areas and having the church move its water retention to the south half of its property.

[wvhsparent]

warriorpride said:

bob said:

link

It looks like someone planned for access to 83rd.

Anyone know where the 25 acres that we own is specifically located?

If you look at that map. It is in the lower left hand corner of the farm field, just above the grassy area.

[momof3]

bob said:

link

It looks like someone planned for access to 83rd.

Does the future extention of Commons that is already on the books call for Commons to run from 75th to 83rd? Wouldn't that give access from Rt. 59, 75th street and 83rd?