|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 4, 2008 14:03:43 GMT -6
I have a feeling this will do nothing but further divide the district. I fear that's the least harm it could do. It could also cost time and money. Daeschner and Metzger have provided a convenient derogatory label for anyone that disagrees with the site selection. Talk about dividing the district! |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Mar 4, 2008 14:09:03 GMT -6
The last time around the unhappy residents had their voices heard in the voting booth. I think that this group of people is upset that they do not have that same opportunity on a proposal that is the polar opposite to what was 'marketed' by the school board to pass the referendum. Repeating what I am hearing. Not to be argumentative, but providing a comprehensive third high school and a 7th middle school in 2009 is not the polar opposite of what was marketed or voted on. Now you and I both know (regardless of what we feel personally) that if that were true the boundaries would never had been brought up by the board before the vote. The community absolutely was lead down a path with the boundaries used as the carrot. I can understand their frustration. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 4, 2008 14:10:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 4, 2008 14:10:52 GMT -6
wouldn't it be nice to know for sure though ? yes I believe it was spin the first time, who said it isn't again now ? An independent review would go a long way towards that...and remove an issue. Would like to see a body of 'experts' make that call that the issue is only perception / visual. Dr., I agree with you -- I think the phase 2 review will address some of the concerns. I'm afraid that the lack of broad scientific consensus concerning EMF dangers will prevent bringing resolution to the dispute about this aspect of the site's safety - real or percieved. I would think however if it is a close call we would err on the side of caution for a school site. The state of California has set limits for this |
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Mar 4, 2008 14:17:49 GMT -6
When the SB puts out a memo that is filled with false info. It makes me feel like what else are they hiding? These are our kids if that site is not safe this will be a BIG mistake for the district. This SB gives the public no choice, but to go down this path. They have called us people of Entitlement. They have caused an atmosphere of mistrust.
This is once again the SB missing the point. This is not to be blamed on the taxpayers, but the SB for not listening!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by drdavelasik on Mar 4, 2008 14:24:19 GMT -6
I thought it was so quick for Daeschner to label everyone unhappy with the site as having entitlement problems as that's not how I see it at all, however, now I see that it is all just part of the spin by this new administration. So sad that this board and administration are turning neighbors against neighbors. But I guess that's how they got what they wanted with the 2006 vote. I wonder if their political consultant is still giving them advice on how to manipulate us parents? www.communityopinion.com/news_new.htmlwww.communityopinion.com/news_CCTimes.htmlDoes not the following quote from the above article scream "entitlement"? " (specifically promises that the third high school would be built on the BB land)" These promises were not included in the legal language of the referendum. I also heard this group thinks they are entitled to attend the nearest high school to their homes. Guess that solves your problems Doc and Arch since, according to this group, your kids have a legal right to attend NCHS. I am going to attend tonight so I can learn more about this group instead of labeling anyone. I don't feel people are entitled to attend a particular school, but should attend were it geographically makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Mar 4, 2008 14:26:42 GMT -6
I am going to attend tonight so I can learn more about this group instead of labeling anyone. I don't feel people are entitled to attend a particular school, but should attend were it geographically makes sense. I agree that would be great - but it would require a do-over on where all the schools are located already. There is no boundary plan that makes geographic sense given the location of the people, the location of the schools, and the available land. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 4, 2008 14:30:58 GMT -6
I am going to attend tonight so I can learn more about this group instead of labeling anyone. I don't feel people are entitled to attend a particular school, but should attend were it geographically makes sense. I agree that would be great - but it would require a do-over on where all the schools are located already. There is no boundary plan that makes geographic sense given the location of the people, the location of the schools, and the available land. There were plenty floated out there that make a lot more sense that what was decided upon. |
|
|
|
Post by steckparent on Mar 4, 2008 14:57:12 GMT -6
A lawsuit against the district is a losing proposition for all but the attorneys. I would know as I am an attorney. If there are true environmental concerns regaring MV that is a completely separate issue than suing over the boundaries. The boundaries are not perfect (or even close) but that is a suit that will never been won. It will only cost everyone money and time.
Please tell me that tax dollars which should be going to the schools and our children will not be wasted fighting a lawsuit about the boundaries. I can't even begin to imagine what viable cause of action will be alleged considering the language in the actual referendum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 4, 2008 15:02:47 GMT -6
A lawsuit against the district is a losing proposition for all but the attorneys. I would know as I am an attorney. If there are true environmental concerns regaring MV that is a completely separate issue than suing over the boundaries. The boundaries are not perfect (or even close) but that is a suit that will never been won. It will only cost everyone money and time. Please tell me that tax dollars which should be going to the schools and our children will not be wasted fighting a lawsuit about the boundaries. I can't even begin to imagine what viable cause of action will be alleged considering the language in the actual referendum. Honestly, I can't either. The site selection with respect to suitability and safety of a school at that location is what I have been saying seems like the only legit issue. At least that is part of it too. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 4, 2008 15:19:49 GMT -6
A lawsuit against the district is a losing proposition for all but the attorneys. I would know as I am an attorney. If there are true environmental concerns regaring MV that is a completely separate issue than suing over the boundaries. The boundaries are not perfect (or even close) but that is a suit that will never been won. It will only cost everyone money and time. Please tell me that tax dollars which should be going to the schools and our children will not be wasted fighting a lawsuit about the boundaries. I can't even begin to imagine what viable cause of action will be alleged considering the language in the actual referendum. Honestly, I can't either. The site selection with respect to suitability and safety of a school at that location is what I have been saying seems like the only legit issue. At least that is part of it too. Yes, it appears that by choosing an environmental specialist this group agrees that the environmental problems are the concern here. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 4, 2008 15:58:24 GMT -6
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/824695,na04_d204.article New: D204 residents consider lawsuit March 4, 2008 By BRITT CARSON bcarson@scn1.com A group of residents in Indian Prairie School District 204 is meeting tonight to discuss whether to file a lawsuit against the district over the new high school site and the boundaries. The group, called Neighborhood Schools for our Children, has launched a Web site at www.nsfoc.org. The recently formed group will host the meeting at 7 tonight at the White Eagle Owner's Club, 4625 White Eagle Drive, Naperville. The group has invited attorney Shawn Collins to attend the meeting to answer questions. However, Collins said he has not been hired by the group or decided whether there is legal basis for a lawsuit. “I have been invited by the sponsors of the meeting and have been looking at this for about a week,” Collins said. “No one has hired me yet, and I haven’t told anyone as to whether or not there is a legal case to be made.” According to the group’s web site, it is advocating slowing down the boundary process and delaying the start of construction of the Metea Valley High School on a site on Eola and Molitor roads in Aurora. They are upset about the 2006 referendum in which the school district claimed the high school would be built on the Brach-Brodie property along 75th Street and the future extension of Commons Drive in Aurora and a previous set of boundaries that would apply to that location. However, school board members have said the actual referendum language was only for the money to build the school, the site and boundaries could change.
|
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Mar 4, 2008 16:16:05 GMT -6
Looking at the last line:
Yes, this is true however, all SB members stated that the boundaries were final and only minor tweeking may occur.
Arch- The only other thing I can think of is the amount of bonds that they issued. The voters said yes to 124.6 mil yet the SB has taken out more than that. This may be an area worth looking into further.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 4, 2008 16:34:08 GMT -6
Looking at the last line: Yes, this is true however, all SB members stated that the boundaries were final and only minor tweeking may occur. Arch- The only other thing I can think of is the amount of bonds that they issued. The voters said yes to 124.6 mil yet the SB has taken out more than that. This may be an area worth looking into further. I'm not certain how the bond interest stuff plays into the referendum language. I do understand that the 124.6 was for selling bonds and using those proceeds to build a school. It did not say that is all the money they could throw at the school. The referendum was just for selling that chunk of bonds for that amount of money and earmarking those funds for the sole purpose of acquiring land and building a school. Again, they could have some other $20 million sitting around and add it to the 124.6 and have 144.6 to work with. That falls within the language of the referendum as I understood it. It's still about long term suitability and safety IMO. Cost I don't care about. |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Mar 4, 2008 16:38:11 GMT -6
I agree about the long term suitability and safety however, I DO care about the cost because we will be paying for this for a very long time. If they just happen to have an extra 20 mil sitting around, then shame on them. Any "extra" cash should be applied all around the district not just for Metea.
|
|
