|
|
|
|
NAVIGATE BLOG
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search Blog by Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search This Blog
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
  |
|
| You are here: Our Blog
|
|
|
New District 204 Boundaries
|
|
|
Comments (42)
Add Comment
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By TG Man on
1/28/2008 |
As a resident of Tall Grass I'm pretty concerned about this. It doesn't have to do with any of the "perception" issues which seem to plague WVHS, as I believe a school will be what the assigned kids make it out to be. For me, it has to do with convenience for my family in terms of shuttling kids back and forth to school. Let's face it, we moved to TG because of its proximity to the feeder schools and to NVHS (in addition to those schools' great academic reputations and fine facilities).
If the school administration decides to draw boundaries "east/west" and reassigns my subdivision over to WVHS I -- along with a fair % of my TG bretheren -- are going to be really upset about being put through this inconvenience, especially with the pedestrian bridge being built over Route 59 to accommodate walkers from TG.
I also do think there will be a negative property value impact of being reassigned to WVHS if indeed that happens. You can speculate all you want about whether it is because of stigma or because of proximity, but the fact of the matter is that the concern is real and doesn't sit well with a neighborhood full of people who are already seeing property values fall because of the lax real estate market and who are being socked with property tax bills of $10,000-20,000 per year. If the school board is interested in breeding harmony and cooperative in the district (as they have stated one of their goals to be) then doggone it why do they keep putting us at odds with each other???
Kinda sad, actually! |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By Word to the Wise on
1/29/2008 |
My taxes are close to the $20K mark as well and guess what I feed into WVHS. I have been living here for over 15 years and the value of my home did not suffer when NV opened. It continued to grow just like every other area in our district. Not until recently have the values gone down and it's not because of the HS.
What will drive down our home values is people writing nasty blogs about our district in general. My husband my be transferred to JAX, FL. I have been researching on line and reading blogs about neighborhoods and SD. If I were to read anything like I have seen written on blogs in this SD I wouldn't buy regardless of what test scores show.
Regardless of what people in the Napv. area think, there a great schools in some of the surrounding areas as well.
With the internet you can find out a lot about an area not just its schools. So be careful of what you all write it could come back to bite you in the @## and you won't realize it. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By Bartman on
1/30/2008 |
| Wise - I don't think that people who share the same concerns as TG Man are out of line. His stance is pretty normal in my opinion. I don't know how you can say with a straight face that getting moved from a close high school with a beautiful modern state-of-the-art facility (which is going to be accessible to walkers next year via pedestrian bridge) to a much farther, much older, non walkable high school would be a non-factor in home values. Of course it affects home values! |
|
|
Naperville - Aurora - District 204 - Metea = quagmire |
By Chief Metea on
1/31/2008 |
The thing that "gets" me is that they supposedly had Laidlaw do the transportation study before they announced that the AME site had been chosen. Clearly Laidlaw would have been given guidance as to what the new boundary situation will be, so that Laidlaw would be able to conduct its study. Yet now the administration is welcoming public input on the matter, even going so far as to say that boundary plans submitted by citizens will be considered. Puh-Leeze! I think the lines in the sand were drawn weeks ago. To tell us that you really care what we think (regarding boundaries) feels patronizing to me.
Look, no matter where they draw the boundaries, somebody is going to be upset. That's not my beef. It is what it is. I just feel like the SB and Dash have been less than forthcoming with us in recent months. Like everything is being rushed so that we can meet this doggone 2009 deadline so that they can keep the blood of late delivery off of their hands. Like they know they've already been taken behind the woodshed for not being able to pull off the BB deal, now they are ramrodding the 2009 thing down our throats like District 204 will cease to function if it needs to wait until 2010. Oh and 2009 gets you a partially finished school, well over budget (let's be adult and honest here, people), with a promise (which I'll believe when I see) that no operating referendum will be necessary because they'll be able to "find" the operating funds elsewhere.
Just doesn't seem above board to me. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By Tone on
2/12/2008 |
totally agree with Chief Metea.
The SB is in a big rush to get it done by 2009. How can the SB hear the people of 204 when they are going Mach 2! Looks like all the real decision have already been made. (weeks ago) |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By Anonymous on
2/12/2008 |
| The middle schools are not being done fairly. Most every middle school moves as one community to the same high school. I do see that Still is split between two high schools. But Scullen is not fair at all. It has only Fry kids leaving to a high school by themselves while any friends that they made go off to a different high school. At least make an effort to split it half and half (which it was when WE and TG were going to Metea). All middle schools should be split in a similar manner. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By Anonymous on
2/13/2008 |
| The boundries are never going to be perfect. We have to just let the admin and SB do what is best for the majority. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By tg resident on
2/13/2008 |
| I live in tallgrass an after looking at the info. packet provided about new boundaries, I cant help but be extremely upset. No, it is not just because we are being sent to a high school further away , but also the other subdivisions also. Seeing the proposed bus routes I am left to wonder who thought this was a good plan? Gombert literally driving pass wh to go to metea, owen going to metea instead of a direct straight route to wv and part of peterson driving through tg on their way to nequa? The estimated times for busing I can only think would be on a good day without snow, trains and traffic. I am left to wonder about th sacrifices my husband and I have made to buy a house here just so our children would be close to the schools, now I am wondering what sacrifices my kids will give up for these long travel times, afterschool activites? family time? study time? It seems to be all these factors will be affected for these kids, not to mention the splitting of middle schools going to different high schools espicially tg because they are the only ones from scullen that will not attend nv , which my sixth grade child is already upset to know her friends she has made this year will not be attending the same hs. I know the school board will turn a deaf ear to any parents concerns and we will still be here with our children attending wv because yes it does come into effect when a buyer is looking at homes they will choose the subdivision where the nearest school is, to be looking for a home in tallgrass and find no, sorry yes nv is only a mile away but your children must attend wv 35 minutes away is going to affect sales and property value, so the thought of selling now doesnt seem feasible either. I can only quess this will affect owen , gombert and peterson also. Yes, no one will be happy about school boundary lines but if more concideration for these factors were addressed it might alleviate some of the anger that these residents are feeling right now. |
|
|
This is completely bogus |
By 204 Hostage on
2/13/2008 |
I can't believe they went out of their way to publish the memo about the Ped Bridge over Route 59. Basically they are telling Tall Grass to "Talk To The Hand", before Tall Grass even said anything! It's insulting!
IDOT, the city, and the Park District will NOT stand behind the comments made about them in that memo. Way to not attribute your sources, Karla!
I could not feel more insulted than I do right now. But hey at least my kids won't get showered with radiation all day the way the Metea kids will. Oh but wait, they may get killed in a car wreck spending an hour each day on Eola and crossing Ogden, when they COULD HAVE WALKED TO NEUQUA OVER THE *$%# PED BRIDGE.
MORONS! |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By Happy in the North on
2/13/2008 |
| I think the boundaries were done much more fairly than the last time. I know some small sections aren't being sent to the closest school. Hopefully answers will be provided as to why. Regardless, I believe these are the boundaries going forward. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By tg resident on
2/13/2008 |
| dear happy in the north, small sections? try whole subdivisions. may I ask are you going to your closest high school? are the students in your middle schools going to be sent to different high schools than their friends? will your children be traveling 35 minutes across railroads and heavy traffic? will your child drive past one high school to get to another? fairly is having no small sections having to do this! |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By Deal with it on
2/13/2008 |
| I'm so tired of all the whining about splitting up the students. I went to a JR high with a group of kids and then we were split between the 2 high schools in town. It's a fact of life, you may not go to the same school as all your friends K-12. If that's what you're looking for, than move to a rural town or go to a private school! Are they all planning on going to the same college as well to maintain their friendships? Please...how many people are still hanging out with ALL of their high school friends? I'm willing to bet that most people make their life-long friends from college. Besdies, last time I checked, we still have many options of communication with friends. Show me a high schooler that doesn't have their own cell phone, especially in this town! |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By tgresident on
2/13/2008 |
| interesting that you only addressed the whining part of our children being split up but nothing about other issues as distance and yes we are still friends with kids we grew up with and get together frequently! |
|
|
Bait and Switch |
By Little Moron Needing School Board's Wisdom and Gui on
2/14/2008 |
Whether or not the referendum LEGALLY obliged Dist 204 to build Metea at Brach-Brodie with the advertised boundaries is one thing. (it did not, and the point is moot after the BB land turned out to supposedly be unobtainable...let's see how much we end up paying BB's attorneys for getting disentangled with them...smart money is saying that it will be a LOT more than $5 million and thus beckons the question whether it would have been more economically prudent to just stick with BB in spite of the higher price)
But legal obligation aside, we all know that a social contract was made. The first referendum was defeated because 204 wanted to put the school at a site that they would later choose and with boundaries that they would later choose. The public wanted that clarity before they would support the referendum. Absent that clarity, the referendum was defeated.
The second referendum was put to a vote after much discussion of the location and the boundaries. Once the voting public got that clarity and decided that the plan made sense, the referendum passed. To repeat: Absent that clarity, it WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED.
Well guess what, things changed. There may not have been a legal contract but there was a SOCIAL CONTRACT which was then abandoned and broken. If the district and the SB were truly seeking a collaborative relationship with the community (as their mission statements say they are), then they would have done the right thing and offered to work with the public to see if sufficient support still remained to build Metea at the AME site, and with the new funky boundaries. If they had our interests at heart, rather than their own egotistical motivations ,then that is how this process would have played out.
Instead a backroom deal was made, cursory reasons for dismissing other viable sites were provided, funky boundaries were recommended even though MANY citizens took the district up on their offer to submit boundary proposals of their own -- MANY of which did not involve split middle/elementary schools, and ridiculous travel times, while still abiding by the district's (bogus) achievement gap guidelines and (appropriate) maximum headcount guidelines. Those proposals clearly were not considered. After all, Laidlaw had already done the transporation study even when the public proposal period was still ongoing. The public proposal period was a sham. God they think we're stupid. Oh, and the AME site was CLEARLY called an inappropriate place for a high school back when Metzger and his cronies were going balls out for Brach-Brodie. Do they think we don't remember this? Now, they Jedi Mind Trick us into thinking it's a great site. Baloney. They're just trying to save face by shoving a crap school site down our gullible stupid little throats.
If you went to Sullivans for dinner and ordered a New York Strip well done, but they brought you out Steak Tartare, would you be a jerk for sending it back? No. You would be reasonable. After all, it's not what you agreed to. Management would be expected to give you a do-over. That's the way the real world works. It just doesn't work that way in this moronic school district.
p.s. I agree with the earlier post about the Route 59 ped bridge memo released by the administration to be an insulting snow job. (no pun intended, although it actually works pretty good in this instance) That ped bridge was put there for one primary purpose. So TG kids can walk to Neuqua. Duh! To state otherwise is smallish and disingenuous. Do you think that IDOT/City of Naperville/Park District all cooperated to use taxpayer dollars to build that bridge so that people can hoof it over to Francesca's Passagia on a comfy summer evening? PLEASE! And don't give me that "it's part of a broader bike path system baloney". It's not. Continue West and enjoy a scenic relaxing bike ride underneath some of Illinois's finest high tension power lines. It'll remind you of our beloved Metea site, actually.
|
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By JH on
2/14/2008 |
| Your use of the word "social" is so appropriate for the assinine behavior of some socialites in the area. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By "Then They Came for Me" on
2/14/2008 |
It is unconscionable that the board may approve the new boundaries in which students who live within 1.5 miles of Nequa Valley are going to be bussed 30 minutes away to Waubonsie. These students will spend over an hour a day - five days a week - on the bus. (Can you fathom the hours that will be wasted due to snow, rain, and traffic?) That time could be much better spent studying, participating in extra curricular activities, or countless other productive endeavors.
Naperville residents see through the poorly veiled rationalizations as to why the lines were drawn as they were. Homeowers like those in Ashbury and Tamarack should not breathe a sigh of relief and support these boundaries - nor should other homeowners who benefit from this proposal. The machinations involved in this process should be fair warning that this could happen again in this district, and the next time it will be your child, your family, and your community who will suffer.
The boundaries should be drawn in a way that is commensurate with the boundaries that existed when these neighborhoods were built. What ever happened to the concept of neighborhood schools?
Students who currently attend Scullen Middle school should not be used as a tool to improve the "adequate yearly progress" at Waubonsie Valley. It is not the students' responsibility to facilitate that task; it is the Administration's.
When the district finds itself in court for egregiously manipulating the boundaries to the detriment of students who live between 87th and 103rd street, it will be just.
Moreover, each school board member should furnish his or her address and the ages of their children to the taxpayers; I am confident that there are not any board members who live in Heatherstone, Tall Grass, or White Eagle, whose children will be negatively affected by the proposed boundaries. Wouldn't it be nice if that were true for the rest of us? |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By kk on
2/14/2008 |
| Just to let you know there is a school board member in White Eagle, Brue Glawe, however, his children will not be affected (they are too old). I wonder how it would have been if his children were around 10? Same outcome....I think not. I would be very interested to see the other school board members addresses and ages of children and let's not forget about the great new super, Stephen Daeschner. I hear Stephen lives in or near Stonebridge. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By proudwvparent on
2/15/2008 |
I think the real reason all of you TG people are complaining is not because of the distance (which isn't 30 minutes btw. its more like 15) is because you don't won't your children going to WVHS. It is about race and reputation, not home values and splitting up feeder schools.
I think that the TG residents and the rest of the complainers should take a visit to the WV. It is a fantastic school, with extremely smart students of all colors and religions, and it certainly does not need the White Eagle and Tall Grass students to improve the "adequate yearly progress". Maybe you didn't read the statistics correctly, but WV scores are .02 below NV, and that has to do with the fact that there are a greater number of students at that school.
Get off your high horse, and realize that you aren't bette than the rest of us!
I like in Brookdale, and my child commutes 20 minutes to get to WVHS, and yes, it means getting up a little earlier, but it truly has not had any negative side effects on his education. |
|
|
Is isn't about race. |
By TG Man on
2/15/2008 |
I live in Tall Grass. Of the 8 houses closest to mine, 3 are Indian, 2 Afro-American, and one is Asian. And I couldn't care less.
I just want my kids to go to the nice state-of-the art 1 mile from my house. Not the much older one 5 miles away. That's why we chose Tall Grass. That's all there is to it, folks. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By Asian Man on
2/15/2008 |
| What kind of Indian (American, Pakistan, India). What kind of Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Thai, Malaysian?). I am glad you can tell which is which. No one ever said race is an issue but you had to prove your neighbors are a different race. I am asian but should I brag that I have an afro american friend. People are people Tall Grass man. |
|
|
Dr. Daeschner |
By Question Answered on
2/16/2008 |
| Dr. Daeschner lives in Stonebridge. He has two high school age daughters - one attends NV Gold Campus and the other NV. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By i would rather walk mom and dad! on
2/16/2008 |
| "It isn't about the race" was the best one yet :) |
|
|
Got Heatherstone? |
By "Then They Came for Me" on
2/16/2008 |
| P.S. There is another subdivision sandwiched inbetween White Eagle and Tall Grass - called Heatherstone. It preceded T.G. Funny how it never gets mentioned. . . |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By sp on
2/17/2008 |
| I am confused here. I thought Stonebridge goes to WV currently so how does Dr.D's daughters get to go to NV? |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By anonymous on
2/17/2008 |
| I guess that would mean we can send our children to any school in the district if we are willing to drive them if we follow the example of our Superintendent, Dr. Daeshcner |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By Split Kids on
2/18/2008 |
Can someone confirm that Dash sends his daughters to NV, but lives within the WVHS boundaries? That's unbelievable! Should be front page news.
They (SB) won't let me send my two children (who are a year apart) to the same school (NV) after the new school opened. So I will have one at NV and one at WV and the older won't switch to WV and leave her friends/environment in her junior year. I don't blame her and even the district doesn't move juniors. With both parents working, this is a nightmare. We chose our neighborhood specifically for the convenience of the schools. I would like them to go to the smaller school (WVHS), but need them to go to the closer school (NVHS). Don't say I get one of each, 'cause it just doesn't work.
Also for others information - there are four "distinct" and affected neighborhoods within the Fry/TG block. Two of them are townhome communities with many single parent/kids living in them. Proximity to school and it's activities is important.
Love the "Bait & Switch" blog above |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By Split kids on
2/18/2008 |
Proposal for No Middle school splits and keeping commutes to a minimum.
MVHS: Hill (Brookdale, Longwood, Watts, Cowlishaw)
Granger (Brooks, Young, McCarty)
WVHS: Still (Springbrook, Owen, White Eagle)
WVHS Gold (Steck, Georgetown, Gombert)
NVHS: Scullen (Fry, Patterson, Partial Peterson,)
Crone (Graham, Kendall, Peterson, Builta South)
Gregory (Builta North, Welch, Clow)
This proposal is better than the SB's, makes more geographic sense and does not split middle schools
|
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By Vermont on
2/18/2008 |
| That might have been a misprint, NV instead of WV. I don't believe Dash would do something so stupid particulary with this explosive issue going on. Then again if it is true a stick of dynamite has just been added to the fire. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By SSP on
2/18/2008 |
| What everyone seems to have forgotten is that heres a district who's a good neighbor- they are over populated so that they can accomodate their Bolingbrook & Plainfiled neighbors! How sweet! |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By Brookdaleguys on
2/19/2008 |
| Where were you TG people when Brookdale was being asked to drive past other schools to get to WV in the last boundary decision, and was also being split. Sorry Nequa might have some Title 1 kids now. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By nosuchthingasneutral on
2/19/2008 |
| Brookdaleguys: At that time, TG was siding with Brookdale on proposal that prevented Brookdale from having to do that. In the end, Brookdale got the split middle school (which no one seems to care about in this round) as well as TG having to go to Metea when they wanted to stay at NVHS. Brookdale was never sacrificed for what TG wanted, because TG didn't get what they wanted in the end of that round. And Brookdale got to stay at their current school which is the one they knew they would be going to when they bought their houses. Can't say that for TG. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By MH on
2/20/2008 |
It's over! Yay!!!!!
Now lets move on. Those still mad, go cry in your beer. Or Dom Perignon or whatever you drink down there. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By LuvPBR on
2/23/2008 |
| When you lose a hundred grand in property value come talk to me! Pass me a cold one! |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By northerner on
2/25/2008 |
Dr. Daeschner does not live in Stonebridge. He lives in Palomino Springs, near Stonebridge. One of his daughters attends the Frontier Campus and one attends WV. Neither goes to NV!
Also for SSP writing that our district is a good neighbor for educating kids from Bolingbrook and Plainfield - is that what you're saying? The district educates children who live within the boundaries of the district and our boundaries include some parts of Plainfield and Bolingbrook. This is not being a good neighbor. This is just where the boundaries happen to be. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By MWGEN Geiger Counter on
2/27/2008 |
| There are environmental issues with the AME/MWGEN site. The district has already signed a contract to acquire a portion of the land, even though the environmental testing studies are still taking place. Does this seem prudent? But by golly, we'll open in '09! |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By teach on
2/29/2008 |
the superintendent sends his kids to WV, but they also attend Frontier as do many other WV students---he does NOT send his kids to NV.
|
|
|
Lawsuit |
By Big Mike on
3/6/2008 |
| It was only a matter of time before the lawsuits started flying. I have a real bad taste in my mouth about the school board and this situation. It'll be interesting to see if the lawsuit is able to bring to light any less than upstanding actions by the board. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By Art from 203 on
3/6/2008 |
Did I miss something? How many people threatened a lawsuite when several neighborhoods including Tallgrass were being moved from Neuqua to Metea when it was to be located at Brach Brodie? It seemed as though the loss of "walking" priviledges were not quite lawsuit material (although they were certainly raised during the first bounday discussion) back then.
One last thing...if you are one of the 10-20% of TG residents who let your kids walk to SCULLEN (much closer) then MAYBE your kids would walk to Neuqua..for the rest of you who clog up the roads and parking lot at Scullen...who are you kidding? Do you think anyone believes your kids would walk much farther to high school? |
|
|
Who said life would always be perfect or fair? |
By Fed Up on
3/6/2008 |
In a perfect world, each suburb would be preplanned with schools and homes designated before ground is broken. Development would not waiver from the plan.
Anyone who has lived in the Naperville/Aurora area for any length of time knows that homes sprang up here, there, and everywhere, with developers giving little or no thought to school sites unless forced to do so. The district TRIED to get by with just two high schools, but enrollment makes that just too tight. It is not in the best interest of the kids to be crammed into two high schools. The land that was left is not ideal, but it is what it is. The court revised the cost of BB (not the school board) after the referendum was passed. It is too expensive, so what is the next best solution? The Eola site. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it needed? Yes.
So then move on to the boundaries. There is NEVER a perfect solution. You simply have to take the lesser of all the "evils." In order to relieve crowding at WV and NV, people have to be shifted. The arguments for TG and WE to move outweighed those for other subdivisions. No one likes to change, but it is part of life. Accept it and get over it. The distance isn't that far. Before NV was built, EVERYONE drove to WV, even those in Bolingbrook and the Springbrook area. From that perspective, TG's commute is a piece of cake!
1/3 of the staff of NV and 1/3 of the WV staff will be pulled to open MV. All schools will have experienced staff as well as new. Curriculum is the same. Both WV and NV have been graduating extremely well prepared, fine young people for years. That will continue, but there will be less crowding, and more opportunities for kids to be involved in sports and activities.
The sun will rise, the world will continue to spin, and your kids will emerge from District 204 with a good education, regardless of the color of their letter jackets. Put your energies and money into something that is truly a problem. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By BigMike on
3/28/2008 |
| I've said it before and I'll say it again. I really don't think the current flap with the NSFOC lawsuit will figure into the eventual outcome of this situation. Maybe a little bit, given the fact that their advocacy seems to have brought public some issues that could cause MWGEN to reconsider their involvement in the Eola land deal. But I think the real determinant will be the outcome of the damages claims on the BB parcel. Economically speaking I do think BB has a legitimate beef with the district. After all the district tied up their land in court proceedings for several years when they could have otherwise sold the land to a 3rd party for fair market value (whether or not that "fair market value" would actually have been more than $500k/acre is something we'll never know). Thus because of 204's condemnation of the land, BB couldn't sell and thus seems to have lost millions. While it is true that there is not a lot of precedent to look at in considering whether their claim will hold up in court, it sure does make sense on the surface. Whether or not it gets traction in the courts, in my opinion, is what will decide where Metea gets built. |
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By Disgusted on
4/11/2008 |
How come there isn’t ONE post about what's best for the kids in D204? All of the 'issues' I see posted here; all of the ‘reasons’ for lawsuits; all of the complaints - they're all about what is better for a handful of privileged parents. Guess what, I'm a privileged parent too. I pay just as much in property taxes as anyone who's posted here but I care much more about my sons’ education than how old the school is!
Let me ask all of you some questions:
Is it REALLY better for your kids to walk to the nearest school to get sandwiched into a classroom with 40 students?
Is an overcrowded 'shiny' classroom with an overworked teacher REALLY better than an 'older' classroom with a more manageable class size?
Is it REALLY better to walk to the 'more convenient' school only to suffer shortened class periods and extended transfer periods due to over-crowding?
Finally, is this ridiculous chain of lawsuits REALLY about what's best for your kids or you?
All of this 'division' and the string of lawsuits that have been filed have done NOTHING except ensure that our 3rd high school will NOT be built in a timely fashion. Truly, those organizing this opposition know their way around the law. Good for you all but I’m no less frustrated or disappointed with all of you. I find it amazing that a small handful of angry parents would repeatedly ignore the best interests of their own children as well as everyone else’s, just to get their way!
To all of you: Please stop sabotaging the school district's plans to properly support the thousands of current and future students in our district!
|
|
|
Re: New District 204 Boundaries |
By Bruno on
4/28/2008 |
Given the contingencies still pending with Brach/Brodie/NSFOC, and given Metzger's comment that "all options are being reviewed" I CANNOT BELIEVE they rapidly closed on the AME land after nothing more than one weekend and a hasty closed door executive session. Especially given the exorbitant profit we've given AME and the SBs assertion that no appraisal was conducted because there was "no time" for it. Are you guys nuts?
In a normal school district the Board does not run around making rapid back-room land deals, especially when leading their constituencies to believe that they are prepared to slow down and put some real deep thought back into the matter.
Dash and Metzger probably think that they have cut their opponents' legs out from under them. Or maybe they just don't care. Either way they are nuts. This will only get more brutal and more likely to be settled in the courts. If, and in my opinion WHEN, we get our hats handed to us in the courtroom, if all the referendum money has been spent building MVHS at this hastily arranged AME location, then Dumb and Dumber will be playing the victim, saying they're under duress from evil doers who "don't care about the kids"....as they ask us to get out our wallets and pony up higher taxes to cover their litigation costs WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, &%*$@ IT!.
M O R O N S ! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|