Boundaries as proposed

[dan75]

archwinsome said:

dan75 said:

Steck and McCarty don't have satellite areas under the proposed boundaries.

Watts and Cowlishaw do now and will still have from what I've seen. Am I missing something?

Busers of Steck/McCarty north, Sat locations of Watts/Cowl North (MV) because they are closer, Watts school area to WV

Okay, I get it now, it makes more sense. I wasn't seeing it. Still doesn't explain the Cowlishaw school area, but I guess the assumption would that they'd go to WV too.

I'm not entirely sure the numbers would pan out under that scenario either. Unfortunately, this is kind of a mess and there's going to be some folks angry any way it gets split up.

[dan75]

doctorwho said:

quote]

you're missing nothing - the school's like us being sent to the furthst schools have multiple satellites- in fact Watts actually added one in this scenario and now has 3 satellites- including 2 very far from the school itself- 1/longwood 2/lehigh station

amazing isn't it?

Yes.

[Arch]

doctorwho said:

dan75 said:

Steck and McCarty don't have satellite areas under the proposed boundaries.

Watts and Cowlishaw do now and will still have from what I've seen. Am I missing something?

you're missing nothing - the school's like us being sent to the furthst schools have multiple satellites- in fact Watts actually added one in this scenario and now has 3 satellites- including 2 very far from the school itself- 1/longwood 2/lehigh station

amazing isn't it?

Oh, I get it.. If I was overweight, I can either diet or stand next to an anorexic person and we both are now 'healthier' on average.

[concerned]

Wow, I didn't realize that just because your student population makes up half the school that, that doesn't make it a split MS. So funny how people can twist what they like, to make it into what they want. A split MS is not going to the same school as the others attending your school!!!

I also didn't realize that just because we have a ES and MS in our neighborhood is cause to screw us. If they moved Welch it would eliminate a lot of the splitting at the MS and ES and I am talking about Peterson.



Oh, but here is what will happen. Peterson will get their chance to complain and then they will all get to go to NV, since they need to fill Peterson and then send Fry all by ourselves and all will be happy to see Fry go.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

researching said:

If you are quoting anything that Karla Zozulia researched it is absolutely IRRELEVANT!

I will be making it my personal mission to educate all of my Fry friends about the blatant bias being shown. At the Fry PTA meeting Dr. D. said that someone had to move and it was between Fry and Welch. Then they have someone assess the bridge who lives in the Welch area! Someone who is completely UNQUALIFIED at that! Unbelievable!

No offense Bob but you are from the Welch area so I am not at all surprised by your opinion.

Sorry to bring up the bridge again as it was a few pages back. I do not live in the Welch or Fry areas so I hope my input is not considered biased when evaluating the bridge. First of all, I kind of think that because the district went out of its way to publish its findings on this subject, they do consider it closed. It didn't seem to be an issue 2 years ago and I can't see where they would have changed their minds since then. But I did a little research as well on this subject, and I suggest you do the same so you feel comfortable with their decision.

About a week ago, I emailed Jana Bryant from the Park District who is associated with the bridge project. I asked her 1) is there a contiguous pathway from the bridge to Neuqua and her answer was yes. I then asked her 2) will that walkway be maintained in a fashion to support the walkers? She answered that as of now, the Park District maintains the current walkways and would service the new walkways but did not verify that maintaining the walkways for walkers would be a for sure thing. She seemed to suggest that they weren't even aware it would even be used for walkers from Fry.

I guess the best way to look at this is to see how long the Park District takes to clear the Springbrook Forest Preserve jogging trails. Does anyone know? The fact that the city is responsible for the bridge clearing makes it even more ridiculous. My cul-de-sac doesn't get cleared for about 3 days so I can't imagine the city sending someone out there to shovel the bridge so 3 walkers from Fry can go over it. Remember, as residents we are responsible for clearing our sidewalks so walkers can get to school. If we don't, we are violating a city code. To make this a priority for the Park District and City of Naperville just doesn't seem logical given how much snow removal they need to do all over the city that really is a priority.

IMO, the school district would be irresponsible for just assigning Fry as walkers without doing some sort of study. I still visualize teenagers who are too lazy to walk to the bridge in the future will be walking down 95th Street and crossing Rt. 59 at street level to get to school. And I don't see the city or Park Dist. wanting that to be priority one either unless they do a study 1-2 years from now and assess who uses that bridge and when. If there are 10 walkers from Fry using the bridge during the winter, then it really doesn't make sense to shift that walkway to Priority One.

[researching]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

researching said:

If you are quoting anything that Karla Zozulia researched it is absolutely IRRELEVANT!

I will be making it my personal mission to educate all of my Fry friends about the blatant bias being shown. At the Fry PTA meeting Dr. D. said that someone had to move and it was between Fry and Welch. Then they have someone assess the bridge who lives in the Welch area! Someone who is completely UNQUALIFIED at that! Unbelievable!

No offense Bob but you are from the Welch area so I am not at all surprised by your opinion.

IMO, the school district would be irresponsible for just assigning Fry as walkers without doing some sort of study. I still visualize teenagers who are too lazy to walk to the bridge in the future will be walking down 95th Street and crossing Rt. 59 at street level to get to school. And I don't see the city or Park Dist. wanting that to be priority one either unless they do a study 1-2 years from now and assess who uses that bridge and when. If there are 10 walkers from Fry using the bridge during the winter, then it really doesn't make sense to shift that walkway to Priority One.

With all due respect, I think the "study" you refer to is totally irrelevant due to the researcher. I actually know this person on a professional basis and do not feel that any true "study" was actually done. What credentials does this person have to support their recommendation?

As I asked before:

I have a few questions about this:

1) Who was the individual that she spoke to (i.e. a City engineer, the City Manager) – It would help to know as we would want to make sure the person who stated this had the proper qualifications to make this judgement.

2) Did the City of Naperville ONLY state “the bridge will not be maintained by the city”?

3) Was the subsequent statement about the bridge “not being a safe walk route to school” a statement that was from the City of Naperville, or was that statement inferred from the City stating it would not maintain the bridge?

I find the lack of integrity and substance in the "study" to the irresponsible thing.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

researching said:

With all due respect, I think the "study" you refer to is totally irrelevant due to the researcher. I actually know this person on a professional basis and do not feel that any true "study" was actually done. What credentials does this person have to support their recommendation?

As I asked before:

I have a few questions about this:

1) Who was the individual that she spoke to (i.e. a City engineer, the City Manager) – It would help to know as we would want to make sure the person who stated this had the proper qualifications to make this judgement.

2) Did the City of Naperville ONLY state “the bridge will not be maintained by the city”?

3) Was the subsequent statement about the bridge “not being a safe walk route to school” a statement that was from the City of Naperville, or was that statement inferred from the City stating it would not maintain the bridge?

I find the lack of integrity and substance in the "study" to the irresponsible thing.

If you have a concern about who did the study, then by all means, start your own research. All I am saying is I did my own very limited research and still conclude it is unsafe. There are too many unknowns at this point in time, and too many people need to be OK with this and I don't see that happening either. But you SHOULD call the city and see what they say. I am only guessing what they might say-I really don't know. But maybe you would get the answers you need to know. And once you get your research, you need to present it to the District. And they still have a right to declare it unsafe if they feel it is indeed unsafe. If I was the school district, I would not want the potential legal issues if a Fry teen was killed crossing Rt. 59 because no bus service was provided to this area and he was unable to take the bridge because the Park District and City were too busy shoveling more important areas than to be bothered with a bike path. IMO the school is erring on the cautious side.

[bob]

Another simple possible reason why the city of Naperville or the Park District won't claim it a safe way is liability.

In the way the world works now, a simple slip means a 5 figure settlement.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

concerned said:

Wow, I didn't realize that just because your student population makes up half the school that, that doesn't make it a split MS. So funny how people can twist what they like, to make it into what they want. A split MS is not going to the same school as the others attending your school!!!

I also didn't realize that just because we have a ES and MS in our neighborhood is cause to screw us. If they moved Welch it would eliminate a lot of the splitting at the MS and ES and I am talking about Peterson.



Oh, but here is what will happen. Peterson will get their chance to complain and then they will all get to go to NV, since they need to fill Peterson and then send Fry all by ourselves and all will be happy to see Fry go.

Concerned..... I feel for your area. I have friends there as well. But I have a question for you. I really don't see how your situation has changed all that much from the old BB boundaries. Back then, Fry was pulled out of NV and was to go to BB. Now, instead they are going to a different school. Did you really think that the SB would put you back into NV?--that would cause a huge outcry from areas around you. It's only logical that they place you slightly NW instead of NE and send you to WV instead of the old MV at BB. I don't see your commute increasing significantly compared to other people's commute.

As for the split middle school, I feel for you too although when you look at a student population perspective, a near 50-50 split is the best the district can do. Everyone knew there would be split MS's. My question is this....don't you think you would have had a split middle school in the old boundary scenario as well? I look at the MS's down south in proposal 5A and Gregory is the only one that feeds 100% NV. Crone is in WV area and Scullen was in MV area back then. I still think Welch would have had to feed to Scullen then too.

So yes, I understand you are upset, but things aren't that much different from the scenario people in your area voted on in 2006. In fact, you now get to go with another contiguous area (Petersen) to HS. Yes you are split at MS. But I think it would have been that way with the old "new" boundaries.

I'm not trying to minimize your pain. I am trying to get you to look at things a little more realistically. Maybe you can then understand why the district put you where you are now. Before you blast the board's decision, examine how bad you have it as compared to the last set of boundaries. Owen, Cowl and Watts are the biggest losers in this. They were thinking that they had a short commute to BB land. That is what they were "promised" when we all voted in 2006. They are the ones that are not getting what they were promised.

[dan75]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

I'm not trying to minimize your pain. I am trying to get you to look at things a little more realistically. Before you blast the board's decision, examine how bad you have it as compared to the last set of boundaries. Owen, Cowl and Watts are the biggest losers in this. They were thinking that they had a short commute to BB land. That is what they were "promised" when we all voted in 2006. They are the ones that are not getting what they were promised.

Excellent perspective.

[fence]

No one was promised anything. That will teach us to get it in writing next time.... It is very unfortunate overall.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

fence said:

No one was promised anything. That will teach us to get it in writing next time.... It is very unfortunate overall.

Yes, you are right. We see now that BB was a pipedream and obviously we voted on a promise that didn't turn out. And that's why everyone is hurting now. They see this new HS as a chance to start over and hopefully get a better outcome than the last proposal. And lots of people are disappointed again. True, there was nothing in writing. But we all put our hopes on the school board that BB would happen, and those hopes have been squashed. So now everyone is hoping we can start from scratch and they will get a better deal than last time. Some got a better deal, some got the same deal, and some got downright shafted and that is not fair. All this anguish, and we still don't even know if these boundaries will get to be used if the site turns out to be a problem.

I am truly sad for our district if we all have to go through this again. The wounds keep going deeper and deeper....

[researching]

bob said:

Another simple possible reason why the city of Naperville or the Park District won't claim it a safe way is liability.

In the way the world works now, a simple slip means a 5 figure settlement.

Bob,

Please tell me again where the Park District says that the bridge is unsafe.

Also, I don't know who the source was for the information that Ms. Zozulia provided from the City, but as Sleepless suggested, I did some research and here is a quote I found from the city manager.

“It is imperative that this bridge gets built as soon as possible in the interest of public safety,” said City Manager Peter Burchard. “The Pedestrian Bridge will provide a vital link between residential properties and commercial and community amenities.”

Here is the link to the full article: www.naperville.il.us/dynamic_content.aspx?id=3540

Perhaps the Macom attorneys will now subpoena Ms. Zozulia since she has spoken to all of these sources and quoted them as stating the bridge will provide an unsafe route.

[doctorwho]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

concerned said:

Wow, I didn't realize that just because your student population makes up half the school that, that doesn't make it a split MS. So funny how people can twist what they like, to make it into what they want. A split MS is not going to the same school as the others attending your school!!!

I also didn't realize that just because we have a ES and MS in our neighborhood is cause to screw us. If they moved Welch it would eliminate a lot of the splitting at the MS and ES and I am talking about Peterson.



Oh, but here is what will happen. Peterson will get their chance to complain and then they will all get to go to NV, since they need to fill Peterson and then send Fry all by ourselves and all will be happy to see Fry go.

Concerned. I feel for your area. I have friends there as well. But I have a question for you. I really don't see how your situation has changed all that much from the old BB boundaries. Back then, Fry was pulled out of NV and was to go to BB. Now, instead they are going to a different school. Did you really think that the SB would put you back into NV-that would cause a huge outcry from areas around you. It's only logical that they place you slightly NW instead of NE and send you to WV instead of the old MV at BB. I don't see your commute increasing significantly compared to other people's commute.

As for the split middle school, I feel for you too although when you look at a student population perspective, a near 50-50 split is the best the district can do. Everyone knew there would be split MS's. My question is this....don't you think you would have had a split middle school in the old boundary scenario as well? I look at the MS's down south in proposal 5A and Gregory is the only one that feeds 100% NV. Crone is in WV area and Scullen was in MV area back then. I still think Welch would have had to feed to Scullen then too.

So yes, I understand you are upset, but things aren't that much different from the scenario people in your area voted on in 2006. In fact, you now get to go with another contiguous area (Petersen) to HS. Yes you are split at MS. But I think it would have been that way with the old "new" boundaries.

I'm not trying to minimize your pain. I am trying to get you to look at things a little more realistically. Before you blast the board's decision, examine how bad you have it as compared to the last set of boundaries. Owen, Cowl and Watts are the biggest losers in this. They were thinking that they had a short commute to BB land. That is what they were "promised" when we all voted in 2006. They are the ones that are not getting what they were promised.

Sleepless -- Watts was never ga ga over BB because we understood some of the issues with starting a new school- but since it was closest - fine. But we would gladly have taken Waubonsie or Neuqua - under different boundary scenarios we were at any of the 3 schools. Now we also would have taken either of our two closest schools - anything but the shaft we received - we get all the issues of the new school- and get to drive to the ends of the district to enjoy them -

[rural]

researching said:

bob said:

Another simple possible reason why the city of Naperville or the Park District won't claim it a safe way is liability.

In the way the world works now, a simple slip means a 5 figure settlement.

Bob,

Please tell me again where the Park District says that the bridge is unsafe.

Also, I don't know who the source was for the information that Ms. Zozulia provided from the City, but as Sleepless suggested, I did some research and here is a quote I found from the city manager.

“It is imperative that this bridge gets built as soon as possible in the interest of public safety,” said City Manager Peter Burchard. “The Pedestrian Bridge will provide a vital link between residential properties and commercial and community amenities.”

Here is the link to the full article: www.naperville.il.us/dynamic_content.aspx?id=3540

Perhaps the Macom attorneys will now subpoena Ms. Zozulia since she has spoken to all of these sources and quoted them as stating the bridge will provide an unsafe route.

I have to agree with Bob about the liability thing. I don't believe the City is saying it's unsafe. I believe the SD is proclaiming it not a "safe walk route" as a result of the City's unwillingness to maintain the bridge and the Park District/snow issues. If you can find a way around the snow issue, you may have an argument.