|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 7, 2010 6:20:09 GMT -6
Woops, someone let the cat out of the bag: ""I don't think it is our responsibility to pay for the state's mismanagement of funds," said parent Jennifer Streder, who is the president of the Indian Prairie Parents Council."I'd rather see a referendum pass here than see the state income tax increase, because in the long term I don't think that money will stay in the district.""www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/2138328,2_1_AU03_PROTEST_S1-100403.article Oh HELL no. I hereby pledge that, if this is proposed, this time I will get off of my fat @ss and fight it, and not just with yard signs and petulant posts on this board. It's hard to believe that the people in this district would fall for this, but then again, my chin is still bruised from it hitting the floor after hearing the results of the last one. That's what we need to hear-- posts here will not stop anything by themselves, but info here WILL help arm you and others to go out and stop ANY referendum that is proposed... |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Apr 7, 2010 6:54:58 GMT -6
Mac, using language like the following is bit inflammatory don't you think?
"Bottom line, this scenario may have worked for you and some others in the District that wanted to have their own high school, but I would find it hard to believe most fully informed residents would think this was in the best interest of the community."
First of all 3000 plus kids are at NVHS, so an exclusive for my family is not in the cards. Second most of my family is well into college so our family will not directly benefit from a smaller high school setting.
I am not sure where you are coming from with the above statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Apr 7, 2010 7:08:31 GMT -6
Doc, I will be patient and wait for the final #'s regarding MVHS. I would expect as a matter of budgets that a plus or minus 10% would not "keep me up at night". In this environment I would be more pleased if the project had come in under budget, but based on the speed of construction that was probably a long shot.
As for fixing the capacity issues at NVHS, I felt it was way too small in the first place, but an ideal size for 3000 students. Freshman centers and extra campuses just drove home that situation. For our family the extra dough will amount to +/- $700 /per year in a few years. I have come to the conclusion that this also is not an issue to lose any sleep over.
My kids for the most part are in college and using the great education they received at district 204 on a daily basis. Because of this strong platform one of my kids received a grant for over 25% of his total 4 year college tuition & room / board. Much of this can be directly attributed to the great foundation that 204 provided.
My taxes may be high but when encompassing the whole package it has been a great investment.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Apr 7, 2010 7:15:16 GMT -6
Mac, I did vote yes on the second ref., as NVHS was extremely busy as of 2006. My thoughts were straightforward in that the freshman centers were a stop gap for the capacity issue. The real icing on the "overcrowding problem" came when the district opened up the office building on 95th st. At that point I had had enough of the helter skelter growth including the Tall Grass subdivision which should never have been built in the first place.
Developers had their way and the district voiced their concerns to no avail. Poor management on the part of uncontrolled development on the south side contributed to this issue. I am glad the third high school was finally built (location withstanding), the sooner we can fold the freshman center back to the main campus (NVHS) the better. This is the attitude that contributed to the "perfect storm" Doc outlined. Some viewed certain areas as not having a seat at the table, so to speak, because they "never should have been here" to begin with. I believe we heard similar sentiments by MM. So we had some neighborhoods fighting like heck to stay at "their" Neuqua and others who wanted a northern Neuqua - at any cost. Never mind what was logical, reasonable, and in the best interests of the entire community. This was evident at every meeting I attended - the selfishness of some in the community was stunning. Whatever - at this point, my kid is better off, to be frank, so I should probably thank these types. But I don't want to give anymore of my hard earned money to this district or this state to p*ss away. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Apr 7, 2010 7:28:37 GMT -6
Doc, I will be patient and wait for the final #'s regarding MVHS. I would expect as a matter of budgets that a plus or minus 10% would not "keep me up at night". In this environment I would be more pleased if the project had come in under budget, but based on the speed of construction that was probably a long shot. As for fixing the capacity issues at NVHS, I felt it was way too small in the first place, but an ideal size for 3000 students. Freshman centers and extra campuses just drove home that situation. For our family the extra dough will amount to +/- $700 /per year in a few years. I have come to the conclusion that this also is not an issue to lose any sleep over. My kids for the most part are in college and using the great education they received at district 204 on a daily basis. Because of this strong platform one of my kids received a grant for over 25% of his total 4 year college tuition & room / board. Much of this can be directly attributed to the great foundation that 204 provided. My taxes may be high but when encompassing the whole package it has been a great investment. I imagine that at least partly, the boundaries and where your neighborhood would attend dictated your position because it was about protecting your investment. Never mind if other areas were more logically suited to attend the school they were already at. As to the educational value, the private schools are doing a superior job there. D204 would be better off to get rid of some of the "bells and whistles" and focus on core academics. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 7, 2010 7:43:54 GMT -6
Mac, I did vote yes on the second ref., as NVHS was extremely busy as of 2006. My thoughts were straightforward in that the freshman centers were a stop gap for the capacity issue. The real icing on the "overcrowding problem" came when the district opened up the office building on 95th st. At that point I had had enough of the helter skelter growth including the Tall Grass subdivision which should never have been built in the first place. Developers had their way and the district voiced their concerns to no avail. Poor management on the part of uncontrolled development on the south side contributed to this issue. I am glad the third high school was finally built (location withstanding), the sooner we can fold the freshman center back to the main campus (NVHS) the better. Back to this issue of NVHS being "extremely busy" since 2006. My oldest has been there for the last 4 years. 2007 -graduating this year. In talking to her the issue was that main hallway. How everything dumps into that area. Of course that is a problem...a design problem. Regarding class rooms or other issues, I have heard nothing of substance that would merit building a new high school with 3000 seats at a cost of $150 million. So lets get all of the perceived problems out there and discuss them. Imo, most of this is anecdotal and not what you base long term planning on. Crowding? How, where, what is the evidence? Capacity? I will have a section on that but what was the problem there? Size of HSs? They aren't 5000, they are (were) 3000 and 1200. Even if, who cares. If that were so important why do we have classes in college of 150 students? The whole concept is illogical to me as HS should prepare you for college and the future, not shelter you from it? If you think you have an argument against adding onto existing buildings, and thereby saving money, lets see them? What is your best case for spending an extra $100 million + $3 million + in additional operating costs? |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 7, 2010 7:55:54 GMT -6
Mac, using language like the following is bit inflammatory don't you think? "Bottom line, this scenario may have worked for you and some others in the District that wanted to have their own high school, but I would find it hard to believe most fully informed residents would think this was in the best interest of the community." First of all 3000 plus kids are at NVHS, so an exclusive for my family is not in the cards. Second most of my family is well into college so our family will not directly benefit from a smaller high school setting. I am not sure where you are coming from with the above statement. Don't take it personally SSSM, it is only meant that you were fine with a third HS, for whatever reason. Others wanted that HS period. That was what was important to them and they were prepared to do whatever it took to get it. Whether it was in the best interest of the community or not. I do not lump you into that crowd. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 7, 2010 8:06:48 GMT -6
Doc, I will be patient and wait for the final #'s regarding MVHS. I would expect as a matter of budgets that a plus or minus 10% would not "keep me up at night". In this environment I would be more pleased if the project had come in under budget, but based on the speed of construction that was probably a long shot. As for fixing the capacity issues at NVHS, I felt it was way too small in the first place, but an ideal size for 3000 students. Freshman centers and extra campuses just drove home that situation. For our family the extra dough will amount to +/- $700 /per year in a few years. I have come to the conclusion that this also is not an issue to lose any sleep over. My kids for the most part are in college and using the great education they received at district 204 on a daily basis. Because of this strong platform one of my kids received a grant for over 25% of his total 4 year college tuition & room / board. Much of this can be directly attributed to the great foundation that 204 provided. My taxes may be high but when encompassing the whole package it has been a great investment. This is exactly why the SB here thinks they can spend whatever the hell they want - you are being totally inconsistent SSSM with your portayal of yourself as a frugal penny pincher - yet let the SB piss away an extra $26M and that is fine ? btw - closer to 20% overrun in a short construction cycle.- as yes they have to count the cost of buying the bonds. Unless you can provide some financial reason this works I can see why Mac went the route of- well NV stayed there for you--although I had not seen this from you before. But you always stated your biz cases well-- you're not even trying with the cost of MVHS, just blowing off the $. Why is that ? You say your child in college got a great eduation here- yet supposedly we need a 3rd HS to make schools smaller... my daughter was @ WVHS when it was the most 'crowded' ever - and got a good eduation...so why throw $150M into the wind ? There is a disconnect with those statements. So $700/yr ( many of us are well over $1000 in those costs- and maybe more if caps are removed ( ever think of that ?) -- and you are not including the costs of the re fi'ing of debt that would have been retired. yet you want everyone to buy the most frugal cars, not spend extra money ANYWHERE else-- yet this is OK.... soemthing else other than financials is driving this view-- as it is totally inconsistent with your life approach. and this is not inflamatory - it is a very easily discerned obsrvation.the cost/building of MVHS does not fit the rest of your MO |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Apr 7, 2010 8:08:23 GMT -6
Mac, using language like the following is bit inflammatory don't you think? "Bottom line, this scenario may have worked for you and some others in the District that wanted to have their own high school, but I would find it hard to believe most fully informed residents would think this was in the best interest of the community." First of all 3000 plus kids are at NVHS, so an exclusive for my family is not in the cards. Second most of my family is well into college so our family will not directly benefit from a smaller high school setting. I am not sure where you are coming from with the above statement. Don't take it personally SSSM, it is only meant that you were fine with a third HS, for whatever reason. Others wanted that HS period. That was what was important to them and they were prepared to do whatever it took to get it. Whether it was in the best interest of the community or not. I do not lump you into that crowd. I do not appreciate SSSM's statement that certain neighborhoods should have never been built. If I had known the animosity in the D204 community, I would certainly not have moved here. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 7, 2010 8:14:26 GMT -6
Mac, I did vote yes on the second ref., as NVHS was extremely busy as of 2006. My thoughts were straightforward in that the freshman centers were a stop gap for the capacity issue. The real icing on the "overcrowding problem" came when the district opened up the office building on 95th st. At that point I had had enough of the helter skelter growth including the Tall Grass subdivision which should never have been built in the first place.
Developers had their way and the district voiced their concerns to no avail. Poor management on the part of uncontrolled development on the south side contributed to this issue. I am glad the third high school was finally built (location withstanding), the sooner we can fold the freshman center back to the main campus (NVHS) the better. This is the attitude that contributed to the "perfect storm" Doc outlined. Some viewed certain areas as not having a seat at the table, so to speak, because they "never should have been here" to begin with. I believe we heard similar sentiments by MM. So we had some neighborhoods fighting like heck to stay at "their" Neuqua and others who wanted a northern Neuqua - at any cost. Never mind what was logical, reasonable, and in the best interests of the entire community. This was evident at every meeting I attended - the selfishness of some in the community was stunning. Whatever - at this point, my kid is better off, to be frank, so I should probably thank these types. But I don't want to give anymore of my hard earned money to this district or this state to p*ss away. Exactly right lacy. While I was not an early participant in this fiasco, all of the facts and evidence I have seen point in the direction you state. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 7, 2010 8:23:49 GMT -6
Don't take it personally SSSM, it is only meant that you were fine with a third HS, for whatever reason. Others wanted that HS period. That was what was important to them and they were prepared to do whatever it took to get it. Whether it was in the best interest of the community or not. I do not lump you into that crowd. I do not appreciate SSSM's statement that certain neighborhoods should have never been built. If I had known the animosity in the D204 community, I would certainly not have moved here. I'm not sure who gets to decide that - and I am not sure how entitled on must feel to say that. btw-- I know there were some north who were not thrilled with my area when built and we were the South...so where does that start-stop ? Very few houses south of me were here when I moved in- yet I have never felt somehow they should have stopped with my area. Lacy I know many people from my area that moved to your area when built -- so they were here already anyway. Hell I had money on a lot until I decided to stay put. unfortunately almost no sentiment here surprises me any more -- it's really sad..makes me feel I definitely chose the wrong house 20 years ago, the one 4 blocks east would have come with a whole lot less nonsense and drama. one thing for you and I and a growing number of others- no decision made by the goofs running 204 and the minions affect us any more except property value/tax wise - and for that I am grateful. And I will do all I can to see they get no more tax monies to piss away. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 7, 2010 8:29:25 GMT -6
Doc, I will be patient and wait for the final #'s regarding MVHS. I would expect as a matter of budgets that a plus or minus 10% would not "keep me up at night". In this environment I would be more pleased if the project had come in under budget, but based on the speed of construction that was probably a long shot. As for fixing the capacity issues at NVHS, I felt it was way too small in the first place, but an ideal size for 3000 students. Freshman centers and extra campuses just drove home that situation. For our family the extra dough will amount to +/- $700 /per year in a few years. I have come to the conclusion that this also is not an issue to lose any sleep over. My kids for the most part are in college and using the great education they received at district 204 on a daily basis. Because of this strong platform one of my kids received a grant for over 25% of his total 4 year college tuition & room / board. Much of this can be directly attributed to the great foundation that 204 provided. My taxes may be high but when encompassing the whole package it has been a great investment. That school was over budget before it even started SSSM. By more than 13%. Haven't you read about that $17M. That was in place and fixed before construction in the issuance of the bonds in 06 and 07. So waiting for the final numbers is irrelevant. You are already paying that extra 13% and have been since 2006. I fail to understand why you don't get that. If you are ok with "this": "As for fixing the capacity issues at NVHS, I felt it was way too small in the first place, but an ideal size for 3000 students. Freshman centers and extra campuses just drove home that situation. For our family the extra dough will amount to +/- $700 /per year in a few years. I have come to the conclusion that this also is not an issue to lose any sleep over." Then you should be ok with what is happening in Springfield. Bottom line SSSM, it isn't about your family, it is about an entire community. It is about trust, truth and full disclosure. It is about spending money in the most responsible way, based on the decision of a fully informed community. While the impact of the decisions affecting MVHS may not be felt right at this moment, it will be in the future. There will be fewer resources in this community to devote to the education of future children who move here as well as the ones who are here. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Apr 7, 2010 8:45:44 GMT -6
I do not appreciate SSSM's statement that certain neighborhoods should have never been built. If I had known the animosity in the D204 community, I would certainly not have moved here. I'm not sure who gets to decide that - and I am not sure how entitled on must feel to say that. btw-- I know there were some north who were not thrilled with my area when built and we were the South...so where does that start-stop ? Very few houses south of me were here when I moved in- yet I have never felt somehow they should have stopped with my area. Lacy I know many people from my area that moved to your area when built -- so they were here already anyway. Hell I had money on a lot until I decided to stay put. unfortunately almost no sentiment here surprises me any more -- it's really sad..makes me feel I definitely chose the wrong house 20 years ago, the one 4 blocks east would have come with a whole lot less nonsense and drama. one thing for you and I and a growing number of others- no decision made by the goofs running 204 and the minions affect us any more except property value/tax wise - and for that I am grateful. And I will do all I can to see they get no more tax monies to piss away. Doc - you didn't choose the wrong house and neither did I. The perfect storm led us both to the best highschool in the Chicagoland area in my humble opinion. And I am simply honored that my kid attends. But I am saddened by the attitudes in our D204 community and I want the district to remain strong. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Apr 7, 2010 8:51:44 GMT -6
Lacy it is quite simple sector G had a long range plan that was never followed through. Greed took over and larger homes were built that attract families. City/ planning officials knew the downside risk to this helter skelter type development. Build 4-5 bedroom 3000 + sq. ft homes and you can not possible think grand ma and grand pa will be moving in.
I have no objection to setting up large subdivision with lots of kids, just a bit concerned with the lack of planning for servicing this population.
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Apr 7, 2010 9:03:26 GMT -6
Mac, my point and I will make it again is straight forward. When I look down 95th st and see a freshman center and then a high school (grades 10-12), and then another office type building for yet more of an over flow I have to think "WHAT PLANNING".
What makes more sense to me is to have (3) high schools grade 9-12, get rid of the extra buildings (frontier campus, and NV freshman center), when necessary.
I felt the freshman center and frontier campus were stop gap measures that did not address the main symptom: 9000+/- high school students. We have 3 high schools now and I will have to pay for that via higher real estate taxes, I am prepared and have budgeted for that situation.
I do not take what you write personally but will call you on it when it comes to lumping folks in certain groups. The lumping of folks in groups can at times be counter productive.
I do appreciate much of the technical knowledge you bring to "old Blue".
|
|
