Nap Sun Editorial on Metea Valley Site

[momof3]

There may be no good high school site option for District 204

November 18, 2007

THE ISSUE: District 204 is in a tough position regarding a site for the new high school.
OUR VIEW: We know what we'd do, we think, though we're glad it's not our decision to make.


We've never been a fan of the use of eminent domain for public bodies to forcibly take land from private owners. Furthermore, we find it at least somewhat distasteful that Indian Prairie School District 204 is appealing a jury's decision that set the price of the Brach-Brodie land at $518,000 an acre - a move school board President Mark Metzger describes as a "Hail Mary pass."

That said, as a legal maneuver the appeal is close to the only arrow that the Indian-themed district has left in its quiver.

Besides, while the legal challenge plays out it puts off the day on which the district must decide whether to pony up the $31 million to buy the 55-acre parcel or see if it can cut a deal with owners of one of the other three parcels it is considering.

Neither option is a particularly good one.
The district either pays through the nose for the site it wants, or settles on a site it doesn't really desire but has to take because it wants to get a school built. Another negative to settling for a site different than Brach-Brodie is that boundaries will most likely need to be redrawn - and there's nothing like the potential for changing boundaries to cause parent angst.

Moreover, Brach-Brodie is the only site that is obligated to be sold to the district.

But the problem with taking Brach-Brodie at the radically higher cost assigned to it by the jury in the condemnation suit is that there probably won't be enough money left from the $124.7 million approved by taxpayers - even when combined with interest and leftover money from the land donation ordinance - to build the size and scale of high school planned.

What the district could do is leave off some items - such as the swimming pool and athletic facilities - and build these later, though this will doubtless not satisfy some folks who want, quite rightly, equality among schools.

Or it could ask taxpayers for more money in the form of a referendum to add those or other deleted facilities to the plan, but district leaders say they won't do that and with an education fund referendum coming up in 2009, that well may be running dry pretty quickly.

If push comes to shove, and the decision were ours to make, we'd probably still opt for the Brach-Brodie parcel even if it does result in a scaled-down high school - but we would certainly understand why some District 204 residents wouldn't agree.

[blankcheck]

THE ISSUE: District 204 is in a tough position regarding a site for the new high school.
OUR VIEW: We know what we'd do, we think, though we're glad it's not our decision to make.

This article is a total joke. "We know what we'd do, we think" What the heck is that statement??

[proschool]

The Sun is a joke.

That's all I have to say.

[Arch]

"We think. Therefore, we don't"

[rew]

I won't defend the Sun, but I will agree with "we know what we'd do, we think.

Becasue that is how I feel. "I know what I'd do, I think." Because the SB/SD has been so vague with the details and their quotes have been filled with ambiguity and politco doublespeak. I don't know what the other sellers are demanding, I don't know all the pluses and minuses because the sites haven't been specified and I don't know what the shortfall may or may not be, becasue I haven't heard from the contractors etc.

So fine, maybe they shouldn't print it. But I think many feel we think we know what we support, but...

[lacy]

I don't like the scaled down school approach because it leaves the first kids through there in a bad situation. These same kids have already been stuck like sardines in their middle schools. For them to wait for amentites likely means they will never have them while they are there. So that's unacceptable.

Possibly sharing amenities where there is space would be an option in a very close setting (like wagner/NVHS) but I don't believe that applies to BB because it isn't close enough to either NVHS or WVHS. So the first kids through there get hosed (after being in less than optimal situations through middle school). Simply unfair.

One other thing that strikes me too is how do we know that BB is the "best" site? We haven't heard squat about any of the other sites to really make that determination.

What's wrong with Macom, Wagner, Bolingbrook, etc. etc? Because everything is so secretive, we really don't have enough information to determine if something else would work.

And I wouldn't support the district spending $17 MILLION more than previously planned based on someone's word that BB is the "best".

[macy]

I think a scaled down school is wrong as well. First off, not at all what the voters agreed to. The intent was (no question about it in my opinion) to build a high school equitable in terms of facilities to NVHS and WHVS. I certainly don't think the voters would have approved a "scaled down" facility (my opinion).

I'm surprised this idea is even being floated around. At this point, how could you even gauge district wide support for such an idea? As well, I keep coming back to the $124.7 million PLUS the interest PLUS the land cash donation. From what I know, that figure is around $143 million. Wow... That's a lot of money. As parents and taxpayers, we should expect to get our full amount of dough on that amount of cash. A scaled down school? For $143 million? What???

Sounds crazy to me if there are alternate sites in which the total package can be delivered. From what we are hearing from the school board, there are alternate sites. We need to hear more about them.

I also agree with Lacy on the fact that if we build a "scaled down" school with the intent to build on, the kids that have been stuffed into the system will for lack of a better word get totally screwed (hosed was already used). While I understand we can't expect for those kids already at the middle school level to walk into a totally complete building, I cannot see going through with a partial building with the intent to add on later. How do you determine what to scale down? A gym? A cafeteria? Sports facilities? Auditorium? What is the acceptable part of a building to not build out?


The Sun's editorial was ridiculous. So ridiculous, I got the idea that it was a "trial balloon" being floated for support of a scaled down Metea Valley. Before anyone goes nutty on me, it's just my opinion... that is only how I interpreted what was written. That's the second (or third) time they've brought this concept up.

If it is a trial balloon. I'm sticking my pin into the air. POP!

[doctorwho]

macy said:

I think a scaled down school is wrong as well. First off, not at all what the voters agreed to. The intent was (no question about it in my opinion) to build a high school equitable in terms of facilities to NVHS and WHVS. I certainly don't think the voters would have approved a "scaled down" facility (my opinion).

I'm surprised this idea is even being floated around. At this point, how could you even gauge district wide support for such an idea? As well, I keep coming back to the $124.7 million PLUS the interest PLUS the land cash donation. From what I know, that figure is around $143 million. Wow... That's a lot of money. As parents and taxpayers, we should expect to get our full amount of dough on that amount of cash. A scaled down school? For $143 million? What???

Sounds crazy to me if there are alternate sites in which the total package can be delivered. From what we are hearing from the school board, there are alternate sites. We need to hear more about them.

I also agree with Lacy on the fact that if we build a "scaled down" school with the intent to build on, the kids that have been stuffed into the system will for lack of a better word get totally screwed (hosed was already used). While I understand we can't expect for those kids already at the middle school level to walk into a totally complete building, I cannot see going through with a partial building with the intent to add on later. How do you determine what to scale down? A gym? A cafeteria? Sports facilities? Auditorium? What is the acceptable part of a building to not build out?


The Sun's editorial was ridiculous. So ridiculous, I got the idea that it was a "trial balloon" being floated for support of a scaled down Metea Valley. Before anyone goes nutty on me, it's just my opinion... that is only how I interpreted what was written. That's the second (or third) time they've brought this concept up.

If it is a trial balloon. I'm sticking my pin into the air. POP!

I would think for $143M we should be able to get a 3rd equitable HS - looking at the $ spent on Oswego East or Plainfield East -- and what 203 is estimating for a new Central -- this should be able to get it done.

[casey]

I couldn't agree more, Macy. I get so annoyed when anyone floats the idea of a scaled-down school (especially a so-called newspaper). That is NOT what was approved. A HS without a pool, stadium, a second gymnasium? I'm sorry I just don't think the community should go along with that.

I think many like to just put the idea of a scaled-down school just to see what the pulse of the community is. That and they think that if they say it enough times it may make it true - throw it against the wall and see what sticks. Pathetic!

I also feel like it's easy for those not in MV's boundaries to agree to such an inferior HS. You know, the old "it's not my kids' school, so who cares what happens?". Easy to agree and say it's acceptable to you especially if it's not your HS. Of course at this point we still don't know where the HS is going so what do those boundaries mean anyway? I don't care if the HS is at St. John's, Macom, Wagner, etc. that school should be built with equal amenities.

I can't imagine how anyone can hang on to the BB site and think it would be acceptable to build a scaled-down HS. No way! The more cra* I read in the Sun, the more I think about canceling my subscription. I always chuckle when they put their editorial out there along with their viewpoint - it's always so ridiculous.

[fence]

I totally agree. If a 3rd, traditional HS is what is agreed upon, it must be equitable. I don't care where you live in the district - if all schools are billed as "equal" then how can anyone be OK with only two of three schools having athletic fields? That's absurd.

If they want to talk about a smaller building and fewer or shared ammenities, then we're really no longer talking about three equal schools and we need to talk more about what kind of school it would be.

But trying to say it's a third traditional HS without giving it equal and traditional ammenities means that in this scenario, the emporer has no clothes.

[sam2]

The school board has no intention of building a lesser facility. They know it won't fly. The sabre rattlings is their standard approach -- focus on the worst possible outcome so that people will support the inevitable request for another building referendum -- this one to cover the increased cost at Metea and the air conditioning and technology.

Honestly, they have no other options. The reality is that in 2009/2010, the high school population will be 500 students higher than it is today and they need to house those students somewhere.

[fence]

Well in 2009/2010 we'll need to house those students in NV and WV whether we like it or not. Even if we did find a different parcel or they got permission to spend more money, we're not going to have a structure ready by that time so the students entering HS between now and 2010/2011, of which mine are included, are SOL.

[harry]

sam2 said:

The school board has no intention of building a lesser facility. They know it won't fly. The sabre rattlings is their standard approach -- focus on the worst possible outcome so that people will support the inevitable request for another building referendum -- this one to cover the increased cost at Metea and the air conditioning and technology.

Honestly, they have no other options. The reality is that in 2009/2010, the high school population will be 500 students higher than it is today and they need to house those students somewhere.

or, as the most recent trend posted here, the enrollment continues to tick downward and could very well be DOWN by 500.

[Arch]

harry said:

sam2 said:

The school board has no intention of building a lesser facility. They know it won't fly. The sabre rattlings is their standard approach -- focus on the worst possible outcome so that people will support the inevitable request for another building referendum -- this one to cover the increased cost at Metea and the air conditioning and technology.

Honestly, they have no other options. The reality is that in 2009/2010, the high school population will be 500 students higher than it is today and they need to house those students somewhere.

or, as the most recent trend posted here, the enrollment continues to tick downward and could very well be DOWN by 500.

You're saying the HS enrollment is going down right now not up?

[bob]

harry said:

sam2 said:

The school board has no intention of building a lesser facility. They know it won't fly. The sabre rattlings is their standard approach -- focus on the worst possible outcome so that people will support the inevitable request for another building referendum -- this one to cover the increased cost at Metea and the air conditioning and technology.

Honestly, they have no other options. The reality is that in 2009/2010, the high school population will be 500 students higher than it is today and they need to house those students somewhere.

or, as the most recent trend posted here, the enrollment continues to tick downward and could very well be DOWN by 500.

Harry, I don't know about the math you took but 29234 > 28995

www.ipsd.org/Documents/0708/EnrollmentStats07.pdf