Yes vs NO

[kae]

stinks said:

kae,

First, stop attacking me. This is not the CFO board. I'm just a concerned parent that isn't as concerned about my wallet as I am about what's good for the district. I have no power to change or influence anything to do with the referendum.

I'm not attacking you Stinks. I'm sorry you felt that way. I'm just pointing out that I've heard nothing different. I've heard nothing that makes me think anything different.

You don't really understand the concept of FUD. In it's most simplest sense, it is taking good data that makes logical sense and then twisting it and interpreting it in ways that raise FUD in the minds of those that are trying to make a decision. The CFO has and is doing that. No matter what the SB says, the CFO refutes. No matter what solution the SB provides, the CFO twists it so that people become unnecessarily concerned. That's FUD.

I don't agree with you on your definition of FUD. What you are discribing is spinning and both sides can and have done that equally. The SB hasn't provided any other solutions except a 3rd HS. Split shifts and mega schools are the FUD. They aren't solutions, they're just FUD.

Common sense says that a district that has overcrowded non-tradition education methods will be less desirable for families than ones that don't. You take 203 and you take 204 with split shifts and overcrowding, and all else being equal, where would you choose to live? It's really common sense. No empirical evidence needed.

Shrill rantings hardly do your cause justice.

Maybe 203 should take some of the kids from 204 since they seem to have leveled off. Oh, but that wasn't on the table for discussion.

My whole point is that there are other options that will not even be considered.

[stinks]

The 203/204 thing is dead. 203 won't hear of it. There have been other things brought up and dismissed with good reason. The NO camp still won't believe or acknowledge those reasons as being true.

The SB has said they will go to split shift. Now if the ref fails and they don't do that, then it was FUD. But, as of right now, it's reality, since the SB controls what will happen. Maybe a different SB can come up with a different solution. But again, as of now, split shift need to be considered a reality.

[warriorpride]

My whole point is that there are other options that will not even be considered.

The SB has looked into a number of alternatives (read the PDFs):
www.ipsd.org/3rdHS_options.asp. The alternatives all all inferior to building a 3rd HS, IMHO.

If the referendum fails, NO voters shouldn't be surprised about, or complain about, the fallout.

[Arch]

"We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas"

[204parent]

Don't forget, there was a referendum committee with representatives from every school in the district that looked at all the other options and came to the conclusion that a 3rd HS was the best solution. Should the SB ignore the recommendation of the committee?

[Arch]

Here's a question for the floor:

Let's say this does not pass. What's your personal back-up plan?

Will you sit back and accept split shifts?
Or
Will you put pressure on the SB to try other options even though they (for now) show a lack of willingness?
Or
Will you look into private school?
Or
Will you move out of district?

I'm curious what everyone's answer is.

Personally, I will apply more pressure for another solution from the SB.

[admin]

Arch, that is a good idea and should be it's own thread.

[warriorpride]

The referendum is so black & white to me. I know that some (many?) people are putting emotion into their referendum vote, but if people could remove 1) their emotion; 2) their feelings about the SB; and 3) their feelings about the proposed boundaries…

Doesn’t the vote then boil down to:

YES = I am willing to pay an additional amount in property taxes over time* in order to ensure that, no matter what the enrollment numbers are in the future, 204 will be able to handle them, providing great learning environments for all kids.

NO = I am NOT willing to pay an additional amount in property taxes over time. Please provide cheaper, less effective, band-aid solutions to the overcrowding.

* = In the short-term taxes may not be any different due to the refinancing, and on average most families will likely eventually be paying a few hundred dollars (which, by the way, are tax-deductible - thus making the REAL cost to each family lower than that) more per year.

[kae]

I don't believe our taxes are going to be lower just because the SB refinances the debt.

The SB knows it's going for another referendum for the Education fund in 2009 and fully admits that it will seek that referendum. Taxes will go higher wether they refinance or not. Any savings in refinanced bonds, I would assume, could be used for the Education Fund and might possibly reduce the $$$ requested in the 2009 referendum, but the way schools do their finances I don't think anyone can make that prediction.

[Arch]

warriorpride said:

YES = I am willing to pay an additional amount in property taxes over time* in order to ensure that, no matter what the enrollment numbers are in the future, 204 will be able to handle them, providing great learning environments for all kids.

See, here's where we split thinking paths. The stacking of debt upon debt IMO is going to be bad financially long term for the district. We may wind up with a pretty new building, but if the new tax base doesn't come online as they originally predicted (new taxable homes that are being built and occupied) we're headed for a heap of trouble that will (IMO) severely impact the quality of education.

[warriorpride]

kae said:

I don't believe our taxes are going to be lower just because the SB refinances the debt.

The SB knows it's going for another referendum for the Education fund in 2009 and fully admits that it will seek that referendum. Taxes will go higher wether they refinance or not. Any savings in refinanced bonds, I would assume, could be used for the Education Fund and might possibly reduce the $$$ requested in the 2009 referendum, but the way schools do their finances I don't think anyone can make that prediction.

www.ipsd.org/3rdHS_taxes.asp - The chart shows lower taxes in 2007 and 2008 with a 3rd HS + refinancing. Yes, there will likely be a referedum in 2009, and taxes may go up after that.

[warriorpride]

archwinsome said:

warriorpride said:

YES = I am willing to pay an additional amount in property taxes over time* in order to ensure that, no matter what the enrollment numbers are in the future, 204 will be able to handle them, providing great learning environments for all kids.

See, here's where we split thinking paths. The stacking of debt upon debt IMO is going to be bad financially long term for the district. We may wind up with a pretty new building, but if the new tax base doesn't come online as they originally predicted (new taxable homes that are being built and occupied) we're headed for a heap of trouble that will (IMO) severely impact the quality of education.

I understand your point, but the district frequently evaluates its financial position & budget. I personally think that they have managed the budget well in the past (what is 204, the 3rd or 4th largest in Illinois? that's a lot of resources to manage, and a lot of people to serve) & I believe that they will be able handle scenarios where the build-out is slower.

[Arch]

We all put our faith in different things.

[kae]

archwinsome said:

Personally, I will apply more pressure for another solution from the SB.

I would have thought that the SB would have gotten that from the failure of the referendum the first time around, but they didn't get it.

I agree with you that I would put more pressure on the SB for another solution too.

However, how do you put pressure on the school board besides vote them out. You have to pay your taxes. What voice to I have with the school board. Voting is my only voice.

Building a 3rd high school appears to be the only solution that the SB is willing to put to the voters.

Look at the last failed referendum. Did the SB bring the community forum back together and look at new options? No.

What happened? The SB hired a PR firm to figure out how to get the referendum passed. The SB focused on boundaries (I believe that someone posted that boundaries was a small, like 2%, part of the concern for the referendum).

It seems pretty clear that the SB will not consider any other solutions. That's why I think the SB will just keep putting it on the ballot every year.

Arch, that is a good idea and should be it's own thread.

If someone starts another thread on this, can you post a link here or tell us that it moved and point the way.

[kae]

warriorpride said:

kae said:

I don't believe our taxes are going to be lower just because the SB refinances the debt.

The SB knows it's going for another referendum for the Education fund in 2009 and fully admits that it will seek that referendum. Taxes will go higher wether they refinance or not. Any savings in refinanced bonds, I would assume, could be used for the Education Fund and might possibly reduce the $$$ requested in the 2009 referendum, but the way schools do their finances I don't think anyone can make that prediction.

www.ipsd.org/3rdHS_taxes.asp - The chart shows lower taxes in 2007 and 2008 with a 3rd HS + refinancing. Yes, there will likely be a referedum in 2009, and taxes may go up after that.

But my point is that the 2009 referendum isn't shown in the charts on that page and so that information isn't really accurate.