Scenarios

[warriorpride]

eagledad said:

warriorpride said:

The land's drying up. MSs and HSs are at/over capacity. MV needs to get built ASAP.

Some didn't agree with BB. Some won't agree with Macom, north, south, east, or west. People have been questioning decisions, and will continue, regardless of the outcome.

Yes, but in a few scenarios the "some" (those that are upset) are much larger than in others. And also in a few the some that are upset very closely match those that largely supported the referendum (not good for moving forward, IMO).

In the words of a logically thinking Vulcan:

"The needs of the many outweigh those of the few"

..or the one.

The needs of the many is to get the HS built soon.

[EagleDad]

indeed that is one of the needs, as is getting it built right - for the long run.

The tricky part is striking a balance. A northern site does not achieve balance as we have seen in trying to fill up the hypothetical new school.

[wvhsparent]

confused said:

warriorpride said:

The land's drying up. MSs and HSs are at/over capacity. MV needs to get built ASAP.

Some didn't agree with BB. Some won't agree with Macom, north, south, east, or west. People have been questioning decisions, and will continue, regardless of the outcome.

This is such a copout - to say that someone will be upset no matter what - of course, they will, but that doesn't make it excusable to make a decision that will be an ongoing negative for the district, for years and years and years to come.

To you...it's a negative. It's not a negative to me or WP.
And yes it is a preceived negative to others too, but also a positve to several.

[warriorpride]

eagledad said:

indeed that is one of the needs, as is getting it built right - for the long run.

The tricky part is striking a balance. A northern site does not achieve balance as we have seen in trying to fill up the hypothetical new school.

What's your definition of balance?

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

eagledad said:

Yes, but in a few scenarios the "some" (those that are upset) are much larger than in others. And also in a few the some that are upset very closely match those that largely supported the referendum (not good for moving forward, IMO).

In the words of a logically thinking Vulcan:

"The needs of the many outweigh those of the few"

..or the one.

The needs of the many is to get the HS built soon.

The needs of the many is to do what's right for all the voters of the district - and that includes short term fix ( alleviating overcrowding) - as well as long term fix ( making sure it serves the needs of the majority of the district for the next 40-50 years)- as well. Not as simplistic as just get it built - if that was the case than construction would already have started on BB.
Just because ( maybe - we don't even know) one site may be able to be ready 90 days sooner than another doesn't qualify it as the best choice if other factors are bad for the majority.

[doctorwho]

wvhsparent said:

confused said:

This is such a copout - to say that someone will be upset no matter what - of course, they will, but that doesn't make it excusable to make a decision that will be an ongoing negative for the district, for years and years and years to come.

To you...it's a negative. It's not a negative to me or WP.
And yes it is a preceived negative to others too, but also a positve to several.

it is viewed as a negative to at least half the people who will be assigned there. That is a problem I have yet to see a resolution for. That is not the case at other sites, the numbers are not that large. WIll there be people upset anywhere - absolutely - but when the number is that large, something is wrong.
Again I am not saying I don't understand why you and WP would like it north - I would like it next to Naperville Central - but it makes little sense there also - would be great for us and Cowlishaw and Owen...but lousy for everyone else. So just like above- several would view it as positive. Would you support a site there ? It would be wrong long term as well.

WP has already admitted they want something out of this -qualified as not much, but something. Many of us would view something as just not getting a much worse scenario than now - if we could get what we have today ( which again for many of us is not even the closest school) - we would be happy -

[wvhsparent]

204 school on the NCHS site? Hmmmmm that might work. MM estate land is donated? ergo free. I could go for that.

Maybe 204 should approach 203 and offer to go halfsies on the old Meijer property on Chicago e/o Naper and let the new Central go there. then 204 take over MM site.........I like it.

We would probably stay at WVHS then which would be great for me.

Interesting. Wonder what the boundaries would be?

[warriorpride]

doctorwho said:

warriorpride said:

The needs of the many is to get the HS built soon.

The needs of the many is to do what's right for all the voters of the district - and that includes short term fix ( alleviating overcrowding) - as well as long term fix ( making sure it serves the needs of the majority of the district for the next 40-50 years)- as well. Not as simplistic as just get it built - if that was the case than construction would already have started on BB.
Just because ( maybe - we don't even know) one site may be able to be ready 90 days sooner than another doesn't qualify it as the best choice if other factors are bad for the majority.

You're right, ASAP and cost are the 2 main factors. I haven't lobbied against, and even done additional work, to fight against any site nearly as much as some others have. Yes, my preference is not Macom, unless a much lower price is possible. But I wouldn't fight against it, like some seem willing to do for a northern site. A school, no matter where it's built, will serve the district just fine. People will survive.

[warriorpride]

warriorpride said:

eagledad said:

indeed that is one of the needs, as is getting it built right - for the long run.

The tricky part is striking a balance. A northern site does not achieve balance as we have seen in trying to fill up the hypothetical new school.

What's your definition of balance?

ED, I didn't see your response to my question

[EagleDad]

warriorpride said:

eagledad said:

indeed that is one of the needs, as is getting it built right - for the long run.

The tricky part is striking a balance. A northern site does not achieve balance as we have seen in trying to fill up the hypothetical new school.

What's your definition of balance?

Put the schools where the people are.

[wvhsparent]

eagledad said:

warriorpride said:

What's your definition of balance?

Put the schools where the people are.

And there are NO people up north...right?

[EagleDad]

There's a few, but not a balance.

The center of population of the district was Rt 59 and Montgomery Rd, and that was years ago. It is moving south with every new home that goes up in the newly building areas of the south. The only new construction I've seen up noth is Townhomes (and that'll only have 8 kids, right?).

[wvhsparent]

As I have said many times before. Center of population only applies IF you have 1 facility to service that population. We will soon have 3. Why is that so hard to understand?

[EagleDad]

wvhsparent said:

As I have said many times before. Center of population only applies IF you have 1 facility to service that population. We will soon have 3. Why is that so hard to understand?

It still applies when you have multiple sites - you can't have half the district trucking across tarnation because you didn't pay attention to where the people are.

Putting another high school on Diehl road when there are already 2 HS's north of the center of population would just be nonsensical.

Build new schools where the people and growth are - "Why is that so hard to understand?"

[d204mom]

warriorpride said:

But I wouldn't fight against it, like some seem willing to do for a northern site.

I will admit it right now that I am against a north site.

I think it's bad for the district.

I would rather see MV at: Wagner, BB, Macom, 111th/Plainfield, 111th/Oswego, or Bolingbrook.

As a side note, I haven't heard that Daeschner is performing due diligence on Wagner, Bolingbrook, or either of the 111th sites and I am looking forward to his diligence report on those properties if the north site is chosen. Especially if they are going to spin a north site solution as superior due to Howie's lack of due diligence.