|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jan 22, 2008 6:37:15 GMT -6
Hi All,
I was talking to some people yesterday & we cam up with this scenario: what if SD 203, in looking to build a new Naperville Central, was pursuing land within the 204 boundaries in Naperville that was currently zoned a light industrial, commercial, and residential?
How would Naperville and 204 residents feel about the potential tax-generating land being taken away to fulfil another SD's needs?
just food for thought, when talking the Haman property (now put yourself in Oswego SD and Aurora's shoes)...
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Jan 22, 2008 7:12:01 GMT -6
Hi All, I was talking to some people yesterday & we cam up with this scenario: what if SD 203, in looking to build a new Naperville Central, was pursuing land within the 204 boundaries in Naperville that was currently zoned a light industrial, commercial, and residential? How would Naperville and 204 residents feel about the potential tax-generating land being taken away to fulfil another SD's needs? just food for thought, when talking the Haman property (now put yourself in Oswego SD and Aurora's shoes)... Yes, but what if the SB of Oswego voted to release the land saying that they didn't want it. Supposedly, that is the rumor that came out of the Oswego Dec. SB meeting. In all honesty, I can't substantiate that rumor as their minutes in Executive Session aren't available. IMO, that was always the "missing piece of the puzzle". Think about it, after that late date in December was when the SB started promoting the fact that they now had all their information to make a decision. We couldn't pursue the land until they decided they didn't want it. You can trust that if the SB couldn't even possibly get the land that would have been included on their very accurate (  ) site analysis. They've simply listed "annexing into District 204 subject to uncertain and time-consuming process". How would they know that? And why doesn't that same annexing snafu apply to the AME site? It's listed there as must go through annexing process. Their whole site report is just so jaded and biased! |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Jan 22, 2008 7:13:59 GMT -6
I heard that rumor as well Casey.
Also, even if Oswego voted to approve giving up their rights to that parcel, the issue would still have to be presented to a Regional group of school board trustees.
It wouldn't be us ripping them off of their land.
ETA: Maybe the district (204) could shed some light as to whether or not Oswego 308 was willing to give up their claim on the land.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jan 22, 2008 7:30:03 GMT -6
The Hamman land is already annexed into Aurora. There is a 2003 annexation agreement. I understand it is pretty restrictive of what can go there, based on the lack of a water tower and safety issues with that, fire protection.
The annexation that might be more complex will be taking land from another school district. There is a great deal of commercial property over there and for us to take away anticipated tax dollars is not likely to go over well and that is only my opinion.
I like WPs thoughts. How would our district likely feel about giving up potential revenue so D203 could build a school?
And casey, actions such as voting to annex land rights to another school district must be done in an open meeting. There might be discussion in executive session but certainly no vote. If that were to happen in our district, I can hear the yelling now. They gave up money to another district and nobody told us?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 22, 2008 7:41:48 GMT -6
Personally, I would have to wonder why they wouldn't want it at all including any future tax income.
Usually when people are trying to give something away, there's a reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by jftb on Jan 22, 2008 8:27:48 GMT -6
I'm not sure of this, but wasn't sector G (where Tall Grass and Ashwood Park/Creek are now located) part of another district at one time? Didn't Naperville have to annex that section as well? If so, someone gave up that land once upon a time without a problem.
Time is not on the side of the Hamman parcel, and I don't think Macom was ever a serious consideration in the SB's mind. Has anyone contacted the Park District to see if the SB ever even negotiated with them for their portion of the land?
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jan 22, 2008 10:02:50 GMT -6
Hi All, I was talking to some people yesterday & we cam up with this scenario: what if SD 203, in looking to build a new Naperville Central, was pursuing land within the 204 boundaries in Naperville that was currently zoned a light industrial, commercial, and residential? How would Naperville and 204 residents feel about the potential tax-generating land being taken away to fulfil another SD's needs? just food for thought, when talking the Haman property (now put yourself in Oswego SD and Aurora's shoes)... Wouldn't it be ironic if they built a beautiful school at BB and we sent our own kids to a school on top of a nuclear waste dump. |
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jan 22, 2008 10:06:42 GMT -6
Wouldn't it be ironic if they built a beautiful school at BB and we sent our own kids to a school on top of a nuclear waste dump. At least all they would be taking from us is more students. Nuclear waste dump? Really, that is a stretch. |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jan 22, 2008 10:08:09 GMT -6
Why not just keep Midwest Generation on the taxrolls and allow Oswego District to be the taxing authority on that land.
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jan 22, 2008 10:11:56 GMT -6
Wouldn't it be ironic if they built a beautiful school at BB and we sent our own kids to a school on top of a nuclear waste dump. At least all they would be taking from us is more students. Nuclear waste dump? Really, that is a stretch. BB on Route 59 was a stretch too. We are not buying the AME land backing to the houses. We are buying mostly midwest generation land backing to huge power lines and switching stations. For three years we have been talking about ficticious lands so I choose nuclear waste dump. What's wrong with that? |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jan 22, 2008 10:13:26 GMT -6
Wouldn't it be ironic if they built a beautiful school at BB and we sent our own kids to a school on top of a nuclear waste dump. At least all they would be taking from us is more students. Nuclear waste dump? Really, that is a stretch. Worst thing would be is that we would have look at it and wonder what could have been. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 22, 2008 11:07:02 GMT -6
First it was the land on Rt30 they released then it is now the Hamman land they released.
Macom dropped their price turned out to be Hamman dropping their price.
Sorry, I am not believing that Oswego releases Hamman.
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jan 22, 2008 11:31:50 GMT -6
First it was the land on Rt30 they released then it is now the Hamman land they released. Macom dropped their price turned out to be Hamman dropping their price. Sorry, I am not believing that Oswego releases Hamman. This issue was not on the site selection report. The biggest problem was that soil tests were not done. Then I hear that Midwest genersation still needs some testing. My whole point is that the school board may move forward without a public hearing after the voters have been given the facts. I think it would be bad in the long run. |
|
) site analysis. They've simply listed "annexing into District 204 subject to uncertain and time-consuming process". How would they know that? And why doesn't that same annexing snafu apply to the AME site? It's listed there as must go through annexing process.