|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 16, 2007 7:12:12 GMT -6
From the DH...LTE? JUST passing along what is out there for all to see
Questions needing answers in Dist. 204
Published: 10/14/2007 5:59 AM
The District 204 school board is engaging in a bit of revisionist history. Board president Mark Metzger stated in the Oct. 3 Daily Herald: "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."
Yeah, right. We all remember the slick fliers and endless e-mails used to browbeat voters with the projection of 10,400 students that would be flooding 204 high schools. This fanciful number of 10,400 was necessary because it would have been too risky to go to referendum for a $124.7 million high school using the realistic number of students in the bubble, which is approximately 9,100.
As Mr. Metzger admits, the district's enrollment projections are not panning out. Incoming enrollment has been declining for the past two years. The fiscally responsible course of action would be for the school board to re-examine the needs of the district based on the recent enrollment data.
If a third high school is built, District 204 parents and taxpayers need to ask the board what will happen after the bubble passes through the system and a third high school is obviously not needed. Will a high school close? Which one? What will happen with the proceeds from the sale? Will it be refunded to taxpayers for funding an unneeded building?
It's not farfetched to imagine District 204 selling off land. In fact, the Oct. 5 Daily Herald reports, with regard to the Brach-Brodie property: "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."
This is curious for two reasons: First, didn't the district allege in their condemnation lawsuit need on the part of the community for the 55 acres? Second, I was a member of the citizens referendum committee organized by the district prior to the 2005 referendum. The committee was repeatedly told by district officials and board members that a third high school could not be built on less than 80 acres. What has changed?
These are just a few of the questions that should be asked and answered before $141 million is spent on a third high school.
Lisa Ohlhausen
Naperville
|
|
|
|
Post by dpc on Oct 16, 2007 7:21:36 GMT -6
Questions needing answers in Dist. 204Published: 10/14/2007 5:59 AM The District 204 school board is engaging in a bit of revisionist history. Board president Mark Metzger stated in the Oct. 3 Daily Herald: "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." Yeah, right. We all remember the slick fliers and endless e-mails used to browbeat voters with the projection of 10,400 students that would be flooding 204 high schools. This fanciful number of 10,400 was necessary because it would have been too risky to go to referendum for a $124.7 million high school using the realistic number of students in the bubble, which is approximately 9,100. As Mr. Metzger admits, the district's enrollment projections are not panning out. Incoming enrollment has been declining for the past two years. The fiscally responsible course of action would be for the school board to re-examine the needs of the district based on the recent enrollment data. If a third high school is built, District 204 parents and taxpayers need to ask the board what will happen after the bubble passes through the system and a third high school is obviously not needed. Will a high school close? Which one? What will happen with the proceeds from the sale? Will it be refunded to taxpayers for funding an unneeded building? It's not farfetched to imagine District 204 selling off land. In fact, the Oct. 5 Daily Herald reports, with regard to the Brach-Brodie property: "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." This is curious for two reasons: First, didn't the district allege in their condemnation lawsuit need on the part of the community for the 55 acres? Second, I was a member of the citizens referendum committee organized by the district prior to the 2005 referendum. The committee was repeatedly told by district officials and board members that a third high school could not be built on less than 80 acres. What has changed? These are just a few of the questions that should be asked and answered before $141 million is spent on a third high school. Lisa Ohlhausen Naperville She raises excellent points IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 16, 2007 7:39:43 GMT -6
Questions needing answers in Dist. 204Published: 10/14/2007 5:59 AM The District 204 school board is engaging in a bit of revisionist history. Board president Mark Metzger stated in the Oct. 3 Daily Herald: "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." Yeah, right. We all remember the slick fliers and endless e-mails used to browbeat voters with the projection of 10,400 students that would be flooding 204 high schools. This fanciful number of 10,400 was necessary because it would have been too risky to go to referendum for a $124.7 million high school using the realistic number of students in the bubble, which is approximately 9,100. As Mr. Metzger admits, the district's enrollment projections are not panning out. Incoming enrollment has been declining for the past two years. The fiscally responsible course of action would be for the school board to re-examine the needs of the district based on the recent enrollment data. If a third high school is built, District 204 parents and taxpayers need to ask the board what will happen after the bubble passes through the system and a third high school is obviously not needed. Will a high school close? Which one? What will happen with the proceeds from the sale? Will it be refunded to taxpayers for funding an unneeded building? It's not farfetched to imagine District 204 selling off land. In fact, the Oct. 5 Daily Herald reports, with regard to the Brach-Brodie property: "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." This is curious for two reasons: First, didn't the district allege in their condemnation lawsuit need on the part of the community for the 55 acres? Second, I was a member of the citizens referendum committee organized by the district prior to the 2005 referendum. The committee was repeatedly told by district officials and board members that a third high school could not be built on less than 80 acres. What has changed? These are just a few of the questions that should be asked and answered before $141 million is spent on a third high school. Lisa Ohlhausen Naperville She raises excellent points IMHO. Her energy could probably be spent in a better way. The referendum passed, and they are considering 4 options for BUILDING A THIRD HIGH SCHOOL. Sorry, but there's no option #5. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Oct 16, 2007 7:52:17 GMT -6
Let's keep in mind that Lisa Olhausen was a major CFO player and supporter. She signed Steve Calcaterra's campaign petition, and has been a long-time CFO supporter. If I'm not mistaken, she was the CFO webmaster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 16, 2007 8:55:19 GMT -6
The title is misleading. They are questions that she would like answers to, they are not questions NEEDING answers.
Lots of people think out loud and somehow mistake those questions as everyone's necessity.
|
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Oct 16, 2007 9:35:29 GMT -6
iirc they have worked against every 204 referendum since 2000. Consistency is admirable. District can't take no for an answer
Naperville Sun, The (IL)
March 12, 2006
Estimated printed pages: 2 So here we are again. The scare tactics are in full force to manipulate people into voting to spend at least $125 million to build a high school that is not needed. It seems to me that since this identical issue was posed to the voters a year ago and was voted down, the citizens should be outraged that the school district came back at the voters with the same proposal (actually, it is worse this time, because the last time some other items were thrown into the $125 million; this time it is only for the high school), and I suspect most of them are. However, supporters of the new school are using the following tactics: 1. Big schools are scary. Of course they are; that's why some of the most prestigious universities in the country have upwards of 50,000 students! Last time we were threatened with Third World-type schooling; this time, our kids will have to suffer with schools that were designed to hold the precise number of students that will be attending them and face the horrors of television studios and planetariums. The schools we have offer an amazing array of opportunities for the students. No one has demonstrated ANY evidence that the number of students has a negative impact on its quality, let alone any correlation; some of the best high schools in the state are quite large. 2. Free money. The district's financial people obviously have missed their calling if they have a way to spend $125 million (the real number is much higher when interest and operating costs are added in) and not have it cost anyone any money! They have apparently invented the economic perpetual motion machine. Maybe they should take their ideas to Wall Street, and money will be limitless for the whole world! I could use some of that free money to pay my real estate taxes, which will go up by 14 percent this year alone. 3. It's for the kids. Old reliable; people who support the third high school love kids more than people who don't support this waste of money. What a bunch of nonsense. Show me a proposal to raise the quality of education of District 204 and make it No. 1 in the state, and I'd be interested. Show me a boondoggle, and I am not, plain and simple. We already did this once, and I, for one, am outraged that we have to go through it again. Robert Ohlhausen Naperville Affordability is no way to judge tax proposal
Naperville Sun, The (IL)
February 11, 2001
Estimated printed pages: 2 I am writing to respond to the Jan. 24 editorial regarding the upcoming Indian Prairie School District 204 referendums, wherein it was stated that the referendums are "under attack, an attack sparked by the school board's decision to bus some kindergarten classes to a school other than the one they would normally attend." This isn't true. The referendums are being opposed by a group of residents of School District 204 who have formed an organization called What's Essential? Citizens for Accountable and Responsible Education (WE CARE 2). Some members of WE CARE 2 are affected by the school board's decision to bus Patterson Elementary School kindergartners out of their neighborhood to Builta Elementary School next fall. However, this decision was not the reason for the formation of WE CARE 2. The residents who formed WE CARE 2 are from various areas within the school district and were coming together before the busing decision due to concerns that not all options had been fully evaluated by the school board and its committees. I do not reside within the Patterson attendance area, but I oppose the referendums. There is one other point with which I take issue. It is completely irrelevant whether one can "personally afford" the higher taxes that would result from the passage of the referendums and it is outrageous to use that criterion as a way to determine whether the tax proposal is worthwhile. Affordability should not be a criterion in the evaluation of the merits of the tax proposal. The real questions are whether the proposed tax is necessary and worthwhile and whether the money raised will be used in an appropriate and efficient manner. It is all too easy to simply declare "it's for the children" or "protect our property values" and end the analysis of any school tax proposal at that point. Having an infinite amount of money available for schools does not guarantee good schools and effective learning. The editorial is correct in urging District 204 residents to become informed regarding the referendums. Residents should be informed about all of the facts, which is one of the goals of WE CARE 2. Contact www.wecare2.net for more information. Lisa T. Ohlhausen Naperville 204 resident says options group ignoring rules
Naperville Sun, The (IL)
March 16, 2006
Author: Britt Carson
Estimated printed pages: 3 ........................... On Wednesday, Lisa Ohlhausen, who is affiliated with CFO, released a statement on behalf of the organization. "CFO has provided the State Board of Elections with a full disclosure of all expenditures and donations and is in full compliance with the Election Laws," the statement said. ................................ |
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Oct 16, 2007 9:49:27 GMT -6
Claiming that you don't hate children is a good thing too. For the record, I don't hate kids either.
1/17/06 Naperville Sun LTE
Laugh or cry over proposed high school
The notion that the Indian Prairie District 204 School Board is going to try to gouge the taxpayers again and not even change the request is so absurd that you have to either laugh or cry.
No one has come forward with any real proof of the lack of capacity of the current facilities - just saying something many times does not make it true. Even if you take the board's estimate of a 800-seat shortfall seriously - the leap from there to a $125 million 3,000 seat high school is astounding.
It is not possible that there are no less expensive alternatives to a high school, especially considering that there are vacant and underused elementary schools in the district, there is room to add on to one of the existing high schools and the flood of students is only projected to last for a few years at most. That there is only one location within the district's boundaries for such a school is beyond reason.
By the way, people who would like to see some fiscal responsibility in the school board do not hate children; I am tired of the argument that something is "for the children" used to try to forestall any debate and paint the person who doesn't see life though an open checkbook as a villain.
Robert Ohlhausen Naperville
|
|
|
|
Post by clowdaddy on Oct 16, 2007 13:32:47 GMT -6
Let's keep in mind that Lisa Olhausen was a major CFO player and supporter. She signed Steve Calcaterra's campaign petition, and has been a long-time CFO supporter. If I'm not mistaken, she was the CFO webmaster. As a relative newbie around here, I lurked rather than participated in the often acrimonious debates surrounding the need for the third high school and referendum. Therefore, I don't have the data necessary to judge the quotes in the original post of this thread. However, they are intriguing. Did Mr. Metzger really make the statements that Ms. Ohlhausen cites? If so, it seems to me that he has validated some of major points of the anti-referendum side. Also, the mere fact that she was (or is) a vocal opponent doesn't, in my opinion, automatically invalidate her statements. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted against the referendum. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 16, 2007 13:46:30 GMT -6
Let's keep in mind that Lisa Olhausen was a major CFO player and supporter. She signed Steve Calcaterra's campaign petition, and has been a long-time CFO supporter. If I'm not mistaken, she was the CFO webmaster. As a relative newbie around here, I lurked rather than participated in the often acrimonious debates surrounding the need for the third high school and referendum. Therefore, I don't have the data necessary to judge the quotes in the original post of this thread. However, they are intriguing. Did Mr. Metzger really make the statements that Ms. Ohlhausen cites? If so, it seems to me that he has validated some of major points of the anti-referendum side. Also, the mere fact that she was (or is) a vocal opponent doesn't, in my opinion, automatically invalidate her statements. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted against the referendum. Using current enrollment here are the HS numbers for the nine years 9143 2016 9165 2015 9106 2014 9192 2013 9228 2012 9133 2011 8907 2010 8591 2009 8086 2008 Even if the SD goes to a 8000 student HS, we can have 3 HS at 89% capacity and get rid of the frosh center. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 16, 2007 13:58:35 GMT -6
clowdaddy, thanks for being so candid.
I am assuming, by your sceenname, you live in the southeast section of the SD.
May I ask what your reasons were for voting no? Not trying to slam you, just curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by clowdaddy on Oct 17, 2007 6:27:49 GMT -6
clowdaddy, thanks for being so candid. I am assuming, by your sceenname, you live in the southeast section of the SD. May I ask what your reasons were for voting no? Not trying to slam you, just curious. WVS, Thanks for asking; yes we have one kid currently in Clow and one Clow alumnus in Gregory. The short version about why I voted "No" is that I did as much digging around as I could, and didn't believe that the future enrollment numbers warranted the expenditure of a third high school. The long version: At the very least, I didn't (and still don't) believe that the school board allowed enough time nor consideration to other sides/alternatives. After the failure to pass the referendum the first time, I feel that the board became completely focused on getting the referendum passed, to the complete exclusion of anyone or anything that opposed them. I'm fiscally conservative by nature with my own money, and try to make absolutely sure that I perform due diligence before pulling the trigger on major family purchases. Therefore, I also expect that any government entity with its collective eye on my wallet do the same. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 17, 2007 6:35:04 GMT -6
Thanks for that response clowdady.
Completely understand your point of view.......
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 17, 2007 6:37:21 GMT -6
I'm fiscally conservative by nature with my own money, and try to make absolutely sure that I perform due diligence before pulling the trigger on major family purchases. Therefore, I also expect that any government entity with its collective eye on my wallet do the same. Just a little Wednesday morning humor, so take it with a grain of salt because we can all relate... Govt entities always do have their eyes on our wallets... and they are salivating  |
|
|
|
Post by clowdaddy on Oct 17, 2007 6:45:00 GMT -6
;D Thanks for the coffee-through-the-nose moment! It brings to mind another quote--I won't cite the source, because it is sure to alienate at least 50% of the members:
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 17, 2007 6:49:39 GMT -6
;D Thanks for the coffee-through-the-nose moment! It brings to mind another quote--I won't cite the source, because it is sure to alienate at least 50% of the members: ROTFLMAO!!!! That's the federal government's mantra... I work for DuPage...who is looking at laying off over 100 people from my office |
|
