Scenarios

[doctorwho]

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?

I don't understand it - and here's why;

1. they put stores ( mulitples) in centers of population
2. they put bus lines ( multiples ) in centers ofpopulation
3. ditto for trains . post offices ( more than 1 ) -
McDonalds take your pick, it doesn't have to be one facility to take advantage of a center of population, it is proximity to that center.

I'm not going to get a HS near me because I am not near this epicenter - also why they didn't build the 95th street mega shopping/entertainment area next to me

[confused]

So the priority is get it done soon and for the least amount of money? I can't even believe a person would list those as #1 and #2. The school board is supposed to make responsible decisions. If that's our focus why not just slap up some cheap trailers? Or how about we use crummy materials because they're cheaper and more readily available. Shoot, why don't we hire some college architecture students to design it? That's a lot cheaper. And maybe some college students to build it for that matter.

The board needs to do due diligence and make a well thought out decision - in which all avenues have been thoroughly evaluated and the population balance is considered. Expediently would be preferred, but not at the cost of a sound decision.

And I'm not unhappy because it negatively effects me, I'm unhappy because it just doesn't make sense.

[warriorpride]

confused said:

So the priority is get it done soon and for the least amount of money? I can't even believe a person would list those as #1 and #2. The school board is supposed to make responsible decisions. If that's our focus why not just slap up some cheap trailers? Or how about we use crummy materials because they're cheaper and more readily available. Shoot, why don't we hire some college architecture students to design it? That's a lot cheaper. And maybe some college students to build it for that matter.

The board needs to do due diligence and make a well thought out decision - in which all avenues have been thoroughly evaluated and the population balance is considered. Expediently would be preferred, but not at the cost of a sound decision.

And I'm not unhappy because it negatively effects me, I'm unhappy because it just doesn't make sense.

no - VERY SOON and WITHIN BUDGET - that's different than "cheapest"

"sound decision" will be in the eye of the beholders.

[confused]

I'll be surprised if anything will truly be within budget at this point and, as with all good decisions, it should be within reason. If it has to be slightly out of budget, but the logic is there to support it, than most would be o.k. with that. I think for most, budget is not the biggest consideration, although it is very important - long term impact is probably the biggest factor.

Hopefully the board will be diligent and be able to show why they chose what they did and will be able to back it up with factual data - comparing prices, minimal movement of students from their home schools, minimal transportation costs, timeline, barriers to other sites, etc.

[slp]

confused said:

So the priority is get it done soon and for the least amount of money? I can't even believe a person would list those as #1 and #2. The school board is supposed to make responsible decisions. If that's our focus why not just slap up some cheap trailers? Or how about we use crummy materials because they're cheaper and more readily available. Shoot, why don't we hire some college architecture students to design it? That's a lot cheaper. And maybe some college students to build it for that matter.

The board needs to do due diligence and make a well thought out decision - in which all avenues have been thoroughly evaluated and the population balance is considered. Expediently would be preferred, but not at the cost of a sound decision.

And I'm not unhappy because it negatively effects me, I'm unhappy because it just doesn't make sense.

well said. I completely agree.

[gatormom]

confused said:

I'll be surprised if anything will truly be within budget at this point and, as with all good decisions, it should be within reason. If it has to be slightly out of budget, but the logic is there to support it, than most would be o.k. with that. I think for most, budget is not the biggest consideration, although it is very important - long term impact is probably the biggest factor.

Hopefully the board will be diligent and be able to show why they chose what they did and will be able to back it up with factual data - comparing prices, minimal movement of students from their home schools, minimal transportation costs, timeline, barriers to other sites, etc.

So do you think anyone is going to believe due diligence was used if the site they support was not selected? I don't.

If Macom is selected, a good chunk of the district will be angry and think the district didn't do their job and if a northern site is selected, a good chunk of the district will be angry and they will think the district didn't do their job.

The nice thing about that is that since it doesn't matter, they can actually do their job and pick the site they believe will best serve the district.

[bbc]

doctorwho said:

wvhsparent said:

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 -

Dr. Who is always asking people to document their "facts" when he is in disagreement with an opinion stated. Now he states that the northern site is a "negative to at least half the people who will be assigned there". Can you show me where you got that fact?

[Dad204]

doctorwho said:

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?

I don't understand it - and here's why;

1. they put stores ( mulitples) in centers of population
2. they put bus lines ( multiples ) in centers ofpopulation
3. ditto for trains . post offices ( more than 1 ) -
McDonalds take your pick, it doesn't have to be one facility to take advantage of a center of population, it is proximity to that center.

I'm not going to get a HS near me because I am not near this epicenter - also why they didn't build the 95th street mega shopping/entertainment area next to me

I agree. Not sure I've posted before, but I have been following this board since Feb. 2006.

Interestingly, if you agree that the population center of the district is near Route 59/Montgomery Road, you can take the projected populations for the three high-schools and do some math. You'll discover that the ideal location for MVHS is actually, not on the far south-end of the district, but, rather somewhere just north of 75th St., about 1/2 way between Naperville/Plainfield and Book.

I recognize this doesn't take into account the full build-out, but I would be hard-pressed to believe that additional students would move this location two or three miles to the south.

[doctorwho]

bbc said:

doctorwho said:

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 -

Dr. Who is always asking people to document their "facts" when he is in disagreement with an opinion stated. Now he states that the northern site is a "negative to at least half the people who will be assigned there". Can you show me where you got that fact?

Sure outside of Brooks / BD / LW & Young - what other ES is happy - from anyone you have seen here or talked to ) - about having to go away from the schools they are close to now ( WV) to go north.

( and I am assuming they are all happy )

This does not even begin to count those who then move WE / Fry etc to backfill WV -

Just read the boards - talk to the people.

Sorry I cannot do a person by person count - it is based on entries here, people I talk to , and history from the last boundary discussions.

Prove to me who is going to be happy - either moving walkers to the northern school - or bussing past another school to get there, or doubling their commute.

dispute these statements - if you don't believe them to be true. Show me where that statement is likely not true.


Does Steck want to leave WV for a northern site ( what about walkers )?
Does McCarty want to leave WV for a northern site ( what about walkers)?
Does Georgetown want to leave WV ( ( many walkers)-?
Does Gombert want to travel past WV to get to a northern site?
Does WE want to drive past WV to get to a northern site and the furthest school from their home ?
Does Cowlishaw want to more than double their commute to go to a northern site - and the furthest school from their home?
Does Watts want to more than double it's commute to go to a northern site - then the longest commute from in the district ?

3 - 4 of these have to happen to populate MVHS @ AME or heaven help us Ferry Rd.

If you feel none of these are problems - I do not feel most people would agree with you.

I can show you plenty of 'facts' on the length of commutes - number of hazards crossed to get there from many of the sites that will be expected to attend - those are facts -

[EagleDad]

letsgo said:

I agree. Not sure I've posted before, but I have been following this board since Feb. 2006.

Interestingly, if you agree that the population center of the district is near Route 59/Montgomery Road, you can take the projected populations for the three high-schools and do some math. You'll discover that the ideal location for MVHS is actually, not on the far south-end of the district, but, rather somewhere just north of 75th St., about 1/2 way between Naperville/Plainfield and Book.

I recognize this doesn't take into account the full build-out, but I would be hard-pressed to believe that additional students would move this location two or three miles to the south.

Welcome a-board Dad-204. I'd agree that say 75th and Naperville/Plainfield would be the ideal balancing site.

Given that intersection as the ideal - how far away is BB?
How far away is Wagner?
How far away is Macom?
How far away is AME?
how far away is Ferry?

[doctorwho]

letsgo said:

doctorwho said:

I don't understand it - and here's why;

1. they put stores ( mulitples) in centers of population
2. they put bus lines ( multiples ) in centers ofpopulation
3. ditto for trains . post offices ( more than 1 ) -
McDonalds take your pick, it doesn't have to be one facility to take advantage of a center of population, it is proximity to that center.

I'm not going to get a HS near me because I am not near this epicenter - also why they didn't build the 95th street mega shopping/entertainment area next to me

I agree. Not sure I've posted before, but I have been following this board since Feb. 2006.

Interestingly, if you agree that the population center of the district is near Route 59/Montgomery Road, you can take the projected populations for the three high-schools and do some math. You'll discover that the ideal location for MVHS is actually, not on the far south-end of the district, but, rather somewhere just north of 75th St., about 1/2 way between Naperville/Plainfield and Book.

I recognize this doesn't take into account the full build-out, but I would be hard-pressed to believe that additional students would move this location two or three miles to the south.

So as a 'central' site- would draw the areas north of NV like Springbrook / and Owen & Clow and or Welch ( some walkers an issue ) , / and Watts- Cowlishaw- and if BD wanted a new school - they could then make the same commute to HS that Watts & Cowlishaw make to Hill. Ditto for Longwood.

- but where is 60 - 80 acres there ? Only land of that magnitude there is south of 75th and is forest preserve - not a chance in this lifetime of getting that land changed to be able to use for a school.

If there was land there maybe Gatordog could do a scenario, but I am unaware of any tract that size.

[warriorpride]

doctorwho said:

letsgo said:

I agree. Not sure I've posted before, but I have been following this board since Feb. 2006.

Interestingly, if you agree that the population center of the district is near Route 59/Montgomery Road, you can take the projected populations for the three high-schools and do some math. You'll discover that the ideal location for MVHS is actually, not on the far south-end of the district, but, rather somewhere just north of 75th St., about 1/2 way between Naperville/Plainfield and Book.

I recognize this doesn't take into account the full build-out, but I would be hard-pressed to believe that additional students would move this location two or three miles to the south.

So as a 'central' site- would draw the areas north of NV like Springbrook / and Owen & Clow and or Welch ( some walkers an issue ) , / and Watts- Cowlishaw- and if BD wanted a new school - they could then make the same commute to HS that Watts & Cowlishaw make to Hill. Ditto for Longwood.

- but where is 60 - 80 acres there ? Only land of that magnitude there is south of 75th and is forest preserve - not a chance in this lifetime of getting that land changed to be able to use for a school.

If there was land there maybe Gatordog could do a scenario, but I am unaware of any tract that size.

I recall, either in the orignal sites analysis or somewhere else, that the SD approached the (DuPage?) Forest Preserve about putting MV on the preserve south of 75th - the response was: no.

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

doctorwho said:

So as a 'central' site- would draw the areas north of NV like Springbrook / and Owen & Clow and or Welch ( some walkers an issue ) , / and Watts- Cowlishaw- and if BD wanted a new school - they could then make the same commute to HS that Watts & Cowlishaw make to Hill. Ditto for Longwood.

- but where is 60 - 80 acres there ? Only land of that magnitude there is south of 75th and is forest preserve - not a chance in this lifetime of getting that land changed to be able to use for a school.

If there was land there maybe Gatordog could do a scenario, but I am unaware of any tract that size.

I recall, either in the orignal sites analysis or somewhere else, that the SD approached the (DuPage?) Forest Preserve about putting MV on the preserve south of 75th - the response was: no.

IIRC they could come back to the forest preserve when the set dates for being FP would expire ( if they were not extended) - and the earliest was like 30 years from now or something like that - for any part of the land...

[bob]

Well how is the DFP doing money financially?

[gatordog]

doctorwho said:

....

Does Steck want to leave WV for a northern site ( what about walkers )?
Does McCarty want to leave WV for a northern site ( what about walkers)?
Does Georgetown want to leave WV ( ( many walkers)-?
Does Gombert want to travel past WV to get to a northern site?
Does WE want to drive past WV to get to a northern site and the furthest school from their home ?
Does Cowlishaw want to more than double their commute to go to a northern site - and the furthest school from their home?
Does Watts want to more than double it's commute to go to a northern site - then the longest commute from in the district ?

3 - 4 of these have to happen to populate MVHS @ AME or heaven help us Ferry Rd.

...

good summary drwho.

My opinion is:
Steck and Mcc (minus walkers: handful at best for steck, very natural divisions are there for the chosing with Mcc) going north may just do the trick.

If I lived in St/Mcc area and were in thier shoes (shoes that over past year I have tried on for myself already) I would feel that yes, I am getting my second choice in HS assignment, however my area is going together and is certainly not an island. The just across Eola road community is right there with me. I see this as a good deal. To me, in fact, its a "better deal" than Gombert Main gets out of its BB assignment. The distance increase is similar, yet they arent paying the same "island" penalty. For Gombert Main with BB,our just-across-the-road neighbors are at a different HS, arent they? And my area is very largely supportive of this. If we can come to this point, I will project that Steck and Mcc areas would come to feel same way after they think about it.

One word about certain northern boundaries not being "mathematically" possible: it very much depends on assumptions. If you say WV for example cannot ever hold any students in excess of 3000 OR if we are sticking with the circa 2005 growth model (ex: Ashwood adding 500 ES students quickly), then yes that is probably literally true. However, if you modify/revise some of those assumptions, then certain boundaries do work. For example: draw boundary at Ogden Ave (minus walkers) for the north MV attendance area.