Yes vs NO

[warriorpride]

kae said:

warriorpride said:

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.

Yes- I said "and taxes may go up after that.". But taxes are likely to go up then, regardless of this referendum's outcome. The district will need more $ to fund whatever overcrowding solution(s) end up being implemented. So, a passed OR a failed referendum does not mean "no more referendums", and hence does not mean "no more increases to property taxes".

The SB probably has an idea of the amount that might be requested in 2009, but that's a separate event, a few years in the future that cannot be merged or confused with the current referendum.

[Arch]

kae said:

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.

Social pressure.
They have phones, they have email addresses, they have snail mail addresses, they have meetings and take public comments. There are newspapers, TV Stations and local publications. I doubt a lot of local businesses will also just sit back and let split shifts happen too.

[admin]

2009, I am betting they are going for max cap with or without the referendum.

[warriorpride]

admin said:

2009, I am betting they are going for max cap with or without the referendum.

Topher, I think I know what "max cap" means, but could you explain?

[fence]

archwinsome said:

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.

In your scenario, I would move out and here's why:
1. 204 would have two of the largest schools in the state of IL, with split shifts.
2. To the local area, the perception of this format will be negative regardless of any individual kid's reality.
3. In terms of my own kid's experience, I don't prefer to remain in a nearly 5000 student split shift format when there are many high quality districts to choose from that we can afford to live in, including next door. And, I like Naperville, but not that much.
4. It is not just the SB that shows an unwillingness to consider alternate options. In trying to discuss alternates, the only one's that stick within the community are the easy ones - add on, art on a cart, use portables, accept the discomfort because it will eventually go away. People would rather argue about boundaries and who has more money and who lives under power lines than how to really implement a positive solution. There is very little support of progressive alternatives such as school within a school, to the point that they are summarily dismissed by the majority. An option like this can do several things - improve the crowding through better use of space, improve student experience, and put 204 in the leading edge category in terms of community perception. Those are all factors that are important to me. Additions, portables and split shifts only solve part of the problem.
5. We've already looked at homes in the well-established surrounding areas - yep, high taxes, but they've got great reputations and no problem getting top dollar.

I believe that in the end, people seriously just don't want to pay to play, and they are willing to accept compromises to quality that will denegrate our district's image, and will affect student experience. We are a new school district, and the bottom line is that a community needs to have a common goal and get behind it to help propel a district to stable greatness, and that is not happening IMO. Ultimately it would come down to the fact that I'm highly uncomfortable with a community that generally will allow this level of compromise, or pay only attention to the quantitative portion of this issue.

I am sure that the crowding portion could be easily solved with a quick and dirty add-on to a building here and there. Of course, that's a no-brainer. But to me, a solution in this context has to go beyond that - beyond the financials, what is the real cost? There is nothing wrong with financial analysis, but lets not forget what we're analyzing.

There are plenty of other area districts who's mission in life is to move the education process forward and that is more in line with my own personal values.

[Avenging Eagle]

I just opened a fortune cookie to try to figure out the solution to all of our problems. (I actually opened the cookie 2 minutes ago....I swear)

Here it is:

"One must know that there is a path at the end of the road"

It happens to agree with my point last night that ignited this powderkeg today.

Can anyone convince me that there is actually a path at the end of the "No Vote" road, that will lead to anywhere except for the dead end of split shifts and mega schools?

Give it your best try.

[admin]

Topher, I think I know what "max cap" means, but could you explain?

IIRC, the SD can ask for so much for a certain time frame for this part of the tax bill . I believe we have been maxed since 2002.

[wvhsparent]

I have come over to the YES side.
I think now that they have finally released the information I feel better about it all. (still don't like BB, but probably never will).

I am ok with the extending to 20 yrs. I'll be gone before then.

To seal it J.C. and Howie should annouce their retirement upon passage of the ref. (Landslide!)

[forthekids]

fence said:

archwinsome said:

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.

In your scenario, I would move out and here's why:
1. 204 would have two of the largest schools in the state of IL, with split shifts.
2. To the local area, the perception of this format will be negative regardless of any individual kid's reality.
3. In terms of my own kid's experience, I don't prefer to remain in a nearly 5000 student split shift format when there are many high quality districts to choose from that we can afford to live in, including next door. And, I like Naperville, but not that much.
4. It is not just the SB that shows an unwillingness to consider alternate options. In trying to discuss alternates, the only one's that stick within the community are the easy ones - add on, art on a cart, use portables, accept the discomfort because it will eventually go away. People would rather argue about boundaries and who has more money and who lives under power lines than how to really implement a positive solution. There is very little support of progressive alternatives such as school within a school, to the point that they are summarily dismissed by the majority. An option like this can do several things - improve the crowding through better use of space, improve student experience, and put 204 in the leading edge category in terms of community perception. Those are all factors that are important to me. Additions, portables and split shifts only solve part of the problem.
5. We've already looked at homes in the well-established surrounding areas - yep, high taxes, but they've got great reputations and no problem getting top dollar.

I believe that in the end, people seriously just don't want to pay to play, and they are willing to accept compromises to quality that will denegrate our district's image, and will affect student experience. We are a new school district, and the bottom line is that a community needs to have a common goal and get behind it to help propel a district to stable greatness, and that is not happening IMO. Ultimately it would come down to the fact that I'm highly uncomfortable with a community that generally will allow this level of compromise, or pay only attention to the quantitative portion of this issue.

I am sure that the crowding portion could be easily solved with a quick and dirty add-on to a building here and there. Of course, that's a no-brainer. But to me, a solution in this context has to go beyond that - beyond the financials, what is the real cost? There is nothing wrong with financial analysis, but lets not forget what we're analyzing.

There are plenty of other area districts who's mission in life is to move the education process forward and that is more in line with my own personal values.

I don't know what well-established areas you are looking at but I know that Plainfield is adding more high schools, St. Charles has recently added a high school and so has Oswego. I have lived in this district for 17 years and it has been a growing district since the day I moved here. This district has added so many elementary and middle schools that I can't keep track of them all (not to mention Neuqua). I just don't understand what all the uproar is about. A new high school is needed, that's the bottom line. There certainly wasn't all this uproar when new elementary and middle schools were added. Well, guess what, when you need more elementary and middle schools to handle enrollment the next logical progression is a new high school. The school board thought it could get by with the Freshman Centers -- that didn't solve the problem. Maybe in hindsight (always 20/20 as they say) they should have just gone straight for the third high school but they were trying to be fiscally responsible. Now they get blasted for spending our money foolishly. Those buildings are still going to be used so what was foolish about it? And down the line, if a school building isn't needed they just sell it. My high school is now a fully-functioning junior college. No harm, no foul. Since when did owning property and buildings become a liability? Vote Yes for the kids sake! Don't punish our children and those to come because the school board doesn't have mind readers on staff to accurately determine the number of children that will move here in the future.

[fence]

forthekids said:

fence said:

In your scenario, I would move out and here's why:
1. 204 would have two of the largest schools in the state of IL, with split shifts.
2. To the local area, the perception of this format will be negative regardless of any individual kid's reality.
3. In terms of my own kid's experience, I don't prefer to remain in a nearly 5000 student split shift format when there are many high quality districts to choose from that we can afford to live in, including next door. And, I like Naperville, but not that much.
4. It is not just the SB that shows an unwillingness to consider alternate options. In trying to discuss alternates, the only one's that stick within the community are the easy ones - add on, art on a cart, use portables, accept the discomfort because it will eventually go away. People would rather argue about boundaries and who has more money and who lives under power lines than how to really implement a positive solution. There is very little support of progressive alternatives such as school within a school, to the point that they are summarily dismissed by the majority. An option like this can do several things - improve the crowding through better use of space, improve student experience, and put 204 in the leading edge category in terms of community perception. Those are all factors that are important to me. Additions, portables and split shifts only solve part of the problem.
5. We've already looked at homes in the well-established surrounding areas - yep, high taxes, but they've got great reputations and no problem getting top dollar.

I believe that in the end, people seriously just don't want to pay to play, and they are willing to accept compromises to quality that will denegrate our district's image, and will affect student experience. We are a new school district, and the bottom line is that a community needs to have a common goal and get behind it to help propel a district to stable greatness, and that is not happening IMO. Ultimately it would come down to the fact that I'm highly uncomfortable with a community that generally will allow this level of compromise, or pay only attention to the quantitative portion of this issue.

I am sure that the crowding portion could be easily solved with a quick and dirty add-on to a building here and there. Of course, that's a no-brainer. But to me, a solution in this context has to go beyond that - beyond the financials, what is the real cost? There is nothing wrong with financial analysis, but lets not forget what we're analyzing.

There are plenty of other area districts who's mission in life is to move the education process forward and that is more in line with my own personal values.

I don't know what well-established areas you are looking at but I know that Plainfield is adding more high schools, St. Charles has recently added a high school and so has Oswego. I have lived in this district for 17 years and it has been a growing district since the day I moved here. This district has added so many elementary and middle schools that I can't keep track of them all (not to mention Neuqua). I just don't understand what all the uproar is about. A new high school is needed, that's the bottom line. There certainly wasn't all this uproar when new elementary and middle schools were added. Well, guess what, when you need more elementary and middle schools to handle enrollment the next logical progression is a new high school. The school board thought it could get by with the Freshman Centers -- that didn't solve the problem. Maybe in hindsight (always 20/20 as they say) they should have just gone straight for the third high school but they were trying to be fiscally responsible. Now they get blasted for spending our money foolishly. Those buildings are still going to be used so what was foolish about it? And down the line, if a school building isn't needed they just sell it. My high school is now a fully-functioning junior college. No harm, no foul. Since when did owning property and buildings become a liability? Vote Yes for the kids sake! Don't punish our children and those to come because the school board doesn't have mind readers on staff to accurately determine the number of children that will move here in the future.

I don't disagree with anything you said. I was just responding to a hypothetical question which was what would I do if the referendum didn't pass and we went to split shifts. I think I'd move if that was the situation.

Oh and the areas we looked at were St. Charles, Batavia, & Geneva. We looked in Plainfield/Oswego but they're too far and the taxes are higher than 204. I know St. Charles build North not too long ago.... I think it was when they had their fake mold issue.

[ogden]

The referendum will be somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophesy.
If we build it, the students will come. (apologizes to Field of Dreams).
If we don't build it, the district will shrink, eventually, because of the overcrowding.

[warriorpride]

ogden said:

The referendum will be somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophesy.
If we build it, the students will come. (apologizes to Field of Dreams).
If we don't build it, the district will shrink, eventually, because of the overcrowding.

Our property values, among other things, will also shrink.

[kae]

wvhsparent said:

...
To seal it J.C. and Howie should annouce their retirement upon passage of the ref. (Landslide!)

Will you be happy if they announce that Howie will retire with $100,000 bonus and a lifetime salary of $250,000 per year paid for by your taxes?

[wvhsparent]

kae said:

wvhsparent said:

...
To seal it J.C. and Howie should announce their retirement upon passage of the ref. (Landslide!)

Will you be happy if they announce that Howie will retire with $100,000 bonus and a lifetime salary of $250,000 per year paid for by your taxes?

yep - cuz I know that is incorrect....He is IMRF as am I and the IMRF is not funded by taxes in perpetuity, nor would it be 250K/yr

[204parent]

kae said:

wvhsparent said:

...
To seal it J.C. and Howie should annouce their retirement upon passage of the ref. (Landslide!)

Will you be happy if they announce that Howie will retire with $100,000 bonus and a lifetime salary of $250,000 per year paid for by your taxes?

Those are the kinds of questions that should be asked before the 2009 referendum. The money from this referendum can only be used to build the 3rd HS.