|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 16, 2006 13:54:58 GMT -6
My understanding is that for X amount of homes, the developers have either a choice or a dictated course of action (depending on the development): Set aside land or pay a one-time "impact" fee. That "impact" fee last time I calculated was around $1k per unit (for a recent townhouse development). 32 Unit townhomes was a $28K impact fee.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 16, 2006 13:55:05 GMT -6
It is up to 634 out of a 850(?) school with FoA about half to a third done and then area across from Naperbrook yet to be built.
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Feb 16, 2006 14:41:08 GMT -6
People need to realize that there are only a limited number of parcels available to build schools, esp. a HS. The timing's not always perfect, but that's the way it goes.
The peak enrollment might not hit for a few years, but this referendum may be the last chance at building a 3rd HS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 16, 2006 14:44:38 GMT -6
I don't know of any legality that says it's the last chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Feb 16, 2006 15:22:26 GMT -6
I have been questioning the builta enrollment for quite sometime. They state 1075 students from Builta when they can only house 850 at that school.
|
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on Feb 16, 2006 15:36:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Feb 16, 2006 15:55:17 GMT -6
In looking at CRH figures, you do not see a huge influx of students as they enter as a freshman until when they are a senior.
Another issue to take into account, even though the senior class may show 1671 enrollment(for this year), many seniors opt to have late arrival and/or early dismissal. Therefore, the whole senior student body is not in school at the same time. Now you add to that that potentially 600 seniors could go over to the COD campus and you have a big decline in your senior enrollment figures.
|
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Feb 16, 2006 15:59:05 GMT -6
I have also re-read the Builta thread. If they are talking about moving children from Builta to Patterson that is a significant change due to the fact the Patterson area is not adding as many children as before. They used to be a big attendance area thats why they put on those extra additions to house 950 students. There has been a big decline in that area - hence the available capasity again at the elementary level.
|
|
|
|
Post by stinks on Feb 16, 2006 16:05:17 GMT -6
I don't know of any legality that says it's the last chance. Practicality, availability, affordability, all play a part in this. The legal part is the final part. As time goes on, there are fewer viable locations and less land available for a school. Obviously, prices increase over time as well. If people are acting like this referendum is going to send them to the poor house, I can't imagine what will happen in a few years when people finally come to their senses and realize that a 3rd HS really was necessary and that land is more expensive and not available in an appropriate anymore. I can just imagine the finger pointing and new conspiracy theories starting up then. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 16, 2006 16:13:17 GMT -6
The options of expanding existing facilities as originally planned, venturing out into other options for seniors and building a cheaper middle school on smaller land while maintaining the freshman campuses will seem more workable then too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Feb 16, 2006 16:23:01 GMT -6
If people are acting like this referendum is going to send them to the poor house, I can't imagine what will happen in a few years when people finally come to their senses and realize that a 3rd HS really was necessary and that land is more expensive and not available in an appropriate anymore. I can just imagine the finger pointing and new conspiracy theories starting up then. Its funny that people only seem to come to their senses after it might be too late. I was told a story about Glenbard East high school (in the old days )and a referendum that was voted down. I can't seem to find the exact confirmation or the specifics, but it is a good story. There was a referendum and their SB said, if you don't pass it, we will have to go to split shifts. The people voted it down, and sure enough, they were sent to split shifts. The people were so miserable in this situation they screamed out, and then the SB put up a new referendum 1 year after the split shifts were implemented and it passed with flying colors. Unfortunately, in our case, we probably wouldn't get a second chance. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 16, 2006 16:37:20 GMT -6
Unfortunately, in our case, we probably wouldn't get a second chance. If some of the guesses and speculations come to fruition then the public would have no problem voting YES. If the SB fails to act at a later time if the need becomes more apparant, then we have the wrong people on the board. If the need is there it's their job to keep at it, not to give up like a spoiled child who didn't get their way originally. |
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Feb 16, 2006 16:38:43 GMT -6
So Arch,
Do you think they will come forward with the numbers and answers before the vote?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 16, 2006 16:42:08 GMT -6
The unknown numbers will only be known when they enroll.
|
|
|
|
Post by stinks on Feb 16, 2006 16:51:17 GMT -6
The options of expanding existing facilities as originally planned, venturing out into other options for seniors and building a cheaper middle school on smaller land while maintaining the freshman campuses will seem more workable then too. It all seems kludgey to me. I'm a firm believer that there will be a relatively long period of overcrowding that we will face and I like the traditional methods of education. To me, the extra few dollars aren't worth frothing over. I don't know if it will seem more workable. To me, it will and already does seem more like a last resort. |
|
