D204 spat best settled in voting booth, not court

[d204mom]

www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/opinions/830143,6_4_NA07_EDITORIAL_S1.article

D204 spat best settled in voting booth, not court

March 7, 2008

In a Camelot version of the world, money would grow on trees and when it was harvested, Indian Prairie School District 204 would use its share to have three perfectly identical high school buildings.

And in that same world, every elementary school student would be within easy walking district to the school and no middle nor high school student would have to ride a bus any farther than any other middle or high school student.

Reality is a good deal removed from Camelot, and while District 204 affords an excellent education for its students no matter what school building they are in, it has suffered many of the same growing pains as other districts.

One of those is frequent referendums, as residents are asked to vote themselves higher taxes to pay for new buildings and more teachers to work in those buildings.
Another is the almost constant changing of school boundary lines, to accommodate new subdivisions and new buildings. In Camelot kids from the same subdivision and family would always go to the same schools without change. But in real life making that work out is a daunting mathematical task that is nigh well impossible in all cases.

We don't blame some parents for being upset. If we were parents who could walk out our front door and look across or down the street at a school and be told our child couldn't go to that school but instead would be bussed to another one 20 minutes away, we'd be upset, too.

We're not going to offer a ringing defense of the school board or administration. While we concede that the district has been in a difficult position with the purchase of the third high school site, the way it's waffled over the years - build a high school, don't build it, open two freshmen centers instead, build a high school and close a freshman center - doesn't give one confidence.

And while we don't agree with the claim that the residents are "getting screwed," we do agree that some are justified in feeling aggrieved.

However, that's a long way from a rationale for filing a lawsuit in an attempt to derail the use of a high school site the district has finally, painstakingly, decided upon.

The last thing District 204 and its residents need is more unfavorable publicity and the expenditure of more money on legal fees.

Anyone who is unhappy with what has transpired has a perfect avenue for protest - the next election.

[JB]

d204mom said:

www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/opinions/830143,6_4_NA07_EDITORIAL_S1.article

D204 spat best settled in voting booth, not court

March 7, 2008

In a Camelot version of the world, money would grow on trees and when it was harvested, Indian Prairie School District 204 would use its share to have three perfectly identical high school buildings.

And in that same world, every elementary school student would be within easy walking district to the school and no middle nor high school student would have to ride a bus any farther than any other middle or high school student.

Reality is a good deal removed from Camelot, and while District 204 affords an excellent education for its students no matter what school building they are in, it has suffered many of the same growing pains as other districts.

One of those is frequent referendums, as residents are asked to vote themselves higher taxes to pay for new buildings and more teachers to work in those buildings.
Another is the almost constant changing of school boundary lines, to accommodate new subdivisions and new buildings. In Camelot kids from the same subdivision and family would always go to the same schools without change. But in real life making that work out is a daunting mathematical task that is nigh well impossible in all cases.

We don't blame some parents for being upset. If we were parents who could walk out our front door and look across or down the street at a school and be told our child couldn't go to that school but instead would be bussed to another one 20 minutes away, we'd be upset, too.

We're not going to offer a ringing defense of the school board or administration. While we concede that the district has been in a difficult position with the purchase of the third high school site, the way it's waffled over the years - build a high school, don't build it, open two freshmen centers instead, build a high school and close a freshman center - doesn't give one confidence.

And while we don't agree with the claim that the residents are "getting screwed," we do agree that some are justified in feeling aggrieved.

However, that's a long way from a rationale for filing a lawsuit in an attempt to derail the use of a high school site the district has finally, painstakingly, decided upon.

The last thing District 204 and its residents need is more unfavorable publicity and the expenditure of more money on legal fees.

Anyone who is unhappy with what has transpired has a perfect avenue for protest - the next election.

To paraphrase a past president, "It's the Environment, Stupid"

I also don't appreciate the condenscending tone, especially when they are unaware of the real issue.

[d204mom]

Wonder who wrote this?

Nobody but nobody would write:

"We believe it is a sound financial decision and in the best interest of the kids to purchase property and begin construction before the site is remediated."

That's just crazy talk and it's why Daescher and Metzger are desperately trying to change the subject and continually trashing WVHS/citizens of Naperville/certain neighborhoods in order to do so.

[snerdley]

In a perfect world, a non-incumbent would have a fighting chance.

But in District 204, they just don't.

I watched the last election, and I felt the new candidates faced an uphill battle against the District 204 "machine".

Remember the newspaper article encouraging people to read this message board?! And then this site was filled with rhetoric against the new candidates and let's be truthful - some of it was either blatantly wrong or blown completely out of proportion.

In addition, I have watched past SB members resign and then a replacement is chosen by the existing SB. Then when their term is up, they run as an incumbent. Much better shot of being re-elected than if they had run on their own to begin with IMO.

I think this message (wait to the next election) is being pushed by people who just want to move on now and they know that every incumbent will probably be re-elected.

So I don't think that anyone who wants to stop what's going on right now should wait.

[doctorwho]

snerdley said:

In a perfect world, a non-incumbent would have a fighting chance.

But in District 204, they just don't.

I watched the last election, and I felt the new candidates faced an uphill battle against the District 204 "machine".

Remember the newspaper article encouraging people to read this message board?! And then this site was filled with rhetoric against the new candidates and let's be truthful - some of it was either blatantly wrong or blown completely out of proportion.

In addition, I have watched past SB members resign and then a replacement is chosen by the existing SB. Then when their term is up, they run as an incumbent. Much better shot of being re-elected than if they had run on their own to begin with IMO.

I think this message (wait to the next election) is being pushed by people who just want to move on now and they know that every incumbent will probably be re-elected.

So I don't think that anyone who wants to stop what's going on right now should wait.

agreed-- but also a fair portion of the 'ground troops' for the machine are now split -- could blink without seeing a number of them last Tuesday. And many others have just left the process period- frustrated. They will have to be re-recruited.

[steckmom]

snerdley said:

In a perfect world, a non-incumbent would have a fighting chance.

I think this message (wait to the next election) is being pushed by people who just want to move on now and they know that every incumbent will probably be re-elected.

It's also being pushed by reasonable people who know how disastrous a lawsuit could be.

And there are many people who don't want a lawsuit yet are also unhappy with the current SB.

[snerdley]

steckmom said:

snerdley said:

In a perfect world, a non-incumbent would have a fighting chance.

I think this message (wait to the next election) is being pushed by people who just want to move on now and they know that every incumbent will probably be re-elected.

It's also being pushed by reasonable people who know how disastrous a lawsuit could be.

And there are many people who don't want a lawsuit yet are also unhappy with the current SB.

Disastrous for who? The people who are getting what they wanted? I guess so.

Truly would be disastrous to build on an un-safe site.

I think if there had been more due-diligence on all the back-up sites and if the boundary criteria had been fairly applied, this wouldn't be happening. I

[WeBe204]

snerdley said:

In a perfect world, a non-incumbent would have a fighting chance.

But in District 204, they just don't.

I watched the last election, and I felt the new candidates faced an uphill battle against the District 204 "machine".

Remember the newspaper article encouraging people to read this message board?! And then this site was filled with rhetoric against the new candidates and let's be truthful - some of it was either blatantly wrong or blown completely out of proportion.
In addition, I have watched past SB members resign and then a replacement is chosen by the existing SB. Then when their term is up, they run as an incumbent. Much better shot of being re-elected than if they had run on their own to begin with IMO.

I think this message (wait to the next election) is being pushed by people who just want to move on now and they know that every incumbent will probably be re-elected.

So I don't think that anyone who wants to stop what's going on right now should wait.

I am fairly certain that is not going to happen this time

Edit: I will say I am for using elections not lawsuits. We do however need to find good candidates.

[steckmom]

snerdley said:

steckmom said:

It's also being pushed by reasonable people who know how disastrous a lawsuit could be.

And there are many people who don't want a lawsuit yet are also unhappy with the current SB.

Disastrous for who? The people who are getting what they wanted? I guess so.

Truly would be disastrous to build on an un-safe site.

I think if there had been more due-diligence on all the back-up sites and if the boundary criteria had been fairly applied, this wouldn't be happening. I

Perhaps--but many people do feel that way and that doesn't mean they are happy with the way things are.

Personally, I question whether tying up taxpayer money in a lawsuit for 3 years minimum is any better. Still, I actually don't know what the lawsuit would be or what is being sued for. Do you?

[Arch]

steckmom said:

snerdley said:

Disastrous for who? The people who are getting what they wanted? I guess so.

Truly would be disastrous to build on an un-safe site.

I think if there had been more due-diligence on all the back-up sites and if the boundary criteria had been fairly applied, this wouldn't be happening. I

Perhaps--but many people do feel that way and that doesn't mean they are happy with the way things are.

Personally, I question whether tying up taxpayer money in a lawsuit for 3 years minimum is any better. Still, I actually don't know what the lawsuit would be or what is being sued for. Do you?

I believe multiple things are being looked at. The question becomes does it get fired at the SB like ADK or are they going to be given a head's up and a chance to consider what it's about (assuming it actually happens) before it's filed?

[steckmom]

archwinsome said:

steckmom said:

Perhaps--but many people do feel that way and that doesn't mean they are happy with the way things are.

Personally, I question whether tying up taxpayer money in a lawsuit for 3 years minimum is any better. Still, I actually don't know what the lawsuit would be or what is being sued for. Do you?

I believe multiple things are being looked at. The question becomes does it get fired at the SB like ADK or are they going to be given a head's up and a chance to consider what it's about (assuming it actually happens) before it's filed?

I certainly understand that legal strategy, but I would be hesitant to back a lawsuit so vehemently without knowing if I whether it was a going to be a short term or long term war.

Just like I refuse to stand up and insist the site is safe.

[Arch]

steckmom said:

archwinsome said:

I believe multiple things are being looked at. The question becomes does it get fired at the SB like ADK or are they going to be given a head's up and a chance to consider what it's about (assuming it actually happens) before it's filed?

I certainly understand that legal strategy, but I would be hesitant to back a lawsuit so vehemently without knowing if I whether it was a going to be a short term or long term war.
Just like I refuse to stand up and insist the site is safe.

Too many unknowns, definitely. That's why I have not signed up for the group nor given any money.

[Arch]

If you go digging through the archives on the District website and your old emails, you can find correspondence from the SB that can come back around and bite them in the butt with regards to 'promises' and such. Civil cases are always a crap shoot and it only has to be 51/49... Does the SB have a plan C?

[d204mom]

archwinsome said:

If you go digging through the archives on the District website and your old emails, you can find correspondence from the SB that can come back around and bite them in the butt with regards to 'promises' and such.

Yes, even after the referendum passed.


Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:11 PM

You may have read in the local newspapers that a Naperville area
developer proposed a concept to sell Indian Prairie a parcel of land in the southwest portion of the district for the construction of Metea Valley High School.

The Board of Education reviewed but did not accept the developer's concept last October for several reasons. The proposal involved portions of property the developer did not own and involved multiple other parties and additional
hurdles. No financial incentive for the district was offered.

The referendum presented to the community was based on the Brach-Brodie land and boundaries were determined. Those boundaries would no longer be in effect if the location of the school changed. In our opinion, the location of the land and boundaries are contributing factors to why people voted
as they did. A promise was made to the community and the community supported the district by passing the referendum.

Further, when the two parcels of land are compared, we believe
Brach-Brodie is still the best property for the high school. It is easy for someone to speculate on land value in the newspaper, but ultimately the value has to be proven in court.

Although the land acquisition is taking longer than the we would like, we are confident that the district will purchase the Brach-Brodie land for a fair price as the legal process continues to move forward.

Howard Crouse
Superintendent

Hey, this one's still on the website!
ipsdweb.ipsd.org/News.aspx?id=13464

[d204mom]

I remember that email that Metzger sent before the referendum saying that changing the boundaries and site would constitute a "bait and switch" and then in that DH article he says "I don't think changing the site and boundaries constitutes a bait and switch."

That bait and switch email was posted on here somewhere, I just couldn't find it.

Funny in a sad, we-are-suckers kind of way.