BY DAVE PARRO
After two failed referendums, the East Aurora School District might try a new approach in February. Instead of asking voters to approve an increase in the operating rate, the district would seek to issue $32 million in bonds.
Schools usually only borrow money for construction projects, but East Aurora would use the cash to plug the budget. The resulting property-tax increase would be less than half of what the district was seeking in April.
The most important question, however, is whether voters have overwhelmingly rejected referendums on the East Side because of the amount, or because they simply don't want to give the district ANY more of their money.
The School Board still has a long way to go in earning the public's trust. The latest questionable move was rejecting a Bigelow Homes land donation worth potentially more than $1 million. Taxpayers don't respond kindly to a district turning down that kind of cash. (All indications are, however, that the School Board will reconsider the donation and likely accept it next month.)
Issuing bonds will cost the School District several millions of dollars in interest -- a cost that would not exist had the operating-rate referendum passed. That doesn't seem like the best solution for a cash-strapped school system, but the School Board likely feels like it's running out of options.
The larger issue here is one of accountability. Any future referendum has to come with a public-relations campaign that isn't half-hearted and comes with a detailed plan for getting the district out of its financial mess. The guess here is that even a scaled-down referendum will have a tough time passing without a significant shift in public opinion.
To me there is no questionable move on the school boards part on voting against the land donation. There are many questions to be answered that have not been. Where is the Mayor and City Council in all of this? They are the ones who accepted this deal, but have not followed through on the specifics. The school board paid for the appraisal, the City and Bigelow should have done this. I also feel that the school district should be repaid for this. How far from a dentention/retention pond does it have to be before anyone can build? How far from the road does it have to be before one can build? Montgomery Rd. will have to be widened for a left hand turn lane, will this fall into the donation? These 2 factors now lead into how much usable land will there really be? The question of exiting back into traffic. These are issues the Mayor and City Council should be addressing. Is anyone interested in this property and willing to wait for it? Is it in writing that Bigelow will do what he says BEFORE this is accepted? Why has not this newspaper looked into this and more on this issue? If this property is not sold in the time the appraisers stated it could be, will this City and School Board have it in writing that Bigelow has to give the higher of last or current appraisal? The Mayor has started this, but yet walked away from it. The City Council approved this, but is doing nothing to help in the situation. The ones who really need to made accountable in this are not this paper, the school board or taxpayers. I am not against the land donation, but there are many, many unanswered questions and what the 3 no voters did was right. They did not say they were against the donation, but had questions that needs to be answered. Hopefully this newspaper will look into these angles that have been stated here. I am working on an e-mail to send to all aldermen and the Mayor with many of my concerns and hope many others do this also. I will be sending it to the aldermens office for all alderman, Mayor, also to Chappa LaVia and anyone else who comes to mind. It is not right to come down on the school board, when the Mayor and Bigelow made this agreement with the City Councils approval. We have aldermen who are realestate agents, business owners, and lawyers who should be able to answer these questions. I feel they should have done this on their own without the public coming to them to ask this of them, also that the Mayor should have should have addressed these issues to the aldermen to look into. They started this so they should finish it and not walk away from it and leave the school board in the lurch. The Beacon is right that the larger issue is accountability, and in the case of the land donation it falls back on the Mayor, City Council and Bigleow. It is time for them to step up to the plate. I was at the school board meeting and what I read in Tuesday's paper was not stated at that meeting. Justina Wang showed up after the budget was presented to the public. This means there must have been a meeting before the regular one about was stated in the paper. I do not like finding out about things this way. Something should have been stated at the meeting about this. I know this district needs money and I would not mind voting for a referendum if it is explained to me and I find it acceptable. People are already saying they will not vote for a referendum. This issue should have been handled differently. The school board will never get the trust of the community doing things like what was in the paper about the fact of a referendum. So much for transparency and accountability on the school boards part.
CETERA RESPONDS:
Pat Lorance suggests there was some information passed to reporter Justina Wang outside of a public meeting regarding a possible referendum. THIS IS INCORRECT.
There was a board workshop at 5 p.m. Monday (open to the public) prior to the full board meeting at 7 p.m. The presentation on the possible bond referendum was given during this workshop, which Justina attended. Further, Justina attended the full board meeting that followed after the board workshop.
I did not mean to suggest there was information passed to Justina Wang outside of a public meeting. I was looking for a reporter before the school board meeting started at 7PM and saw none. Ms. Wang sat down in front of me after the budget had been presented around 7:15, this is why I thought she was not there and wondering where she obtained her information I had not heard. Tony Lowe was speaking when I saw her sit down and had still been looking for a reporter as budget news is important and should be reported in the paper. If she was out in the foyer, I would not know. I was not aware of the public workshop and therefore was not at it. Now, I am aware of where she obtained her information. I did not mean to convey that information was passed to Ms. Wang outside of a public meeting. I apologize for the misconception on my part. Though, in the past, there has been information in the paper that even some of the school board members did not find out until they read it in the paper, but that would fall back on the school board members or administration that gave out the information to the paper and not their fellow team members.
I agree with Ms. Lorance except that I would add the accountability also falls upon the Beacon-News, which endorsed the original foolish idea of expanding Hometown, the strip mall scheme and conversion of commercial land to high-density residential.
The Beacon-News also helped push those fake tax revenue numbers by city officials like Bob Vaughan. The Beacon endorsed killing the theater against the community's wishes and facts. When there were alternate investors willing to help save the theater, it was the Beacon-News that helped destroy that plan when it was "leaked" to them by Weisner-Vaughan. The Beacon knew full well that was going to trash the best chance and was irresponsible.
The Beacon was part of the publicity stunt where the "promise" was made but didn't ask for any substantitation FIRST. And, if I remember correctly, the Beacon published blatant lies by city officials about how that press conference was told to other city council members in advance. That was untrue from what we read later in OpenlineBlog.com.
Meanwhile, OpenlineBlog.com didn't fall for any of it and we learned from them the land scam was never going to produce 8.3 acres, a $1.3 million windfall or even a middle school. How come they didn't fall for the scam while the Beacon-News with all their paid reporters and editors couldn't figure it out?
We now know the rest of the community was right and the Beacon-News was dead wrong from the start, so I would like to know where is the accountability at the Beacon-News? Who at the Beacon-News paid a price for their mistakes? Is the Beacon going to come up with the $1.3 million like they pimped themselves for the United Way? Do you see them asking Weisner for accountability of the promise? No, of course not.
The drive-in story has been one of the huge black marks on the Beacon-News and why most people do not and should not trust it when it comes to serious reporting.
CETERA RESPONDS:
John,
Once again, here's what we wrote more than a year ago.
And here's what we wrote in an earlier blog post.
My question in this is the Beacon going to look into some of Ms. Lorance's suggestions and comments or any other ones that have been stated elsewhere? Are the mayor and Bigelow going to be interviewed on this? What was written was a year ago, but now it appears that this paper is being very onesided and opinonated. Why has not the Beacon looked into the concerns of the certain board members who voted no. I will not accept the fact that they knew this for a year. It is so easy to print the bad and or negative comments, one that comes to mind is the Manny person one about business 101, but not to do the other side. I think that Joe Public deserves to know the whole story, from both sides, no matter what it is.
John, Why should the Beacon be accountable? Because they endorsed something. How ridiculous, have you never endorsed someone or an idea? Have you never given an opinion?
"The Beacon-News also helped push those fake tax revenue numbers by city officials like Bob Vaughan."
Please provide the actual facts for your statement above. If you are accusing Bob Vaughan of wrong doing then why haven't you gone to the State's Attorney with your proof.
"The Beacon endorsed killing the theater against the community's wishes and facts."
What community are you referring to John? I wanted that eyesore of a theatre torn down. And what 'facts' are you referring to? It would be best to actually post your 'facts' as opposed to just referring to nothing.
"When there were alternate investors willing to help save the theater"
Could you please provide us with whom these 'investors' were and also present their plan to save the theatre. I for one would really like to see that.
"it was the Beacon-News that helped destroy that plan when it was "leaked" to them by Weisner-Vaughan."
Once again it would be nice to see that elusive plan. Please tell us what was 'leaked' and your facts that Weisner-Vaughan leaked anything. And I guess you had also explain what the term 'leaked' means to you. This way we will all know if we are on the same page or not.
"And, if I remember correctly, the Beacon published blatant lies by city officials about how that press conference was told to other city council members in advance."
Please provide the blatant lies, use facts not innuendo.
"That was untrue from what we read later in OpenlineBlog.com."
What exactly did you read in the OpenlineBlog.com and how do you know that is was factual. Once again please provide your facts. You seem to have a lot of faith in the Openline Blog. I guess I don't share your faith in a blog with an obvious anti Weisner agenda. Even better yet the people who run it are apparently ashamed to be associated with it as I have never seen anyone take responsibility for running it.
"Meanwhile, OpenlineBlog.com didn't fall for any of it and we learned from them the land scam was never going to produce 8.3 acres, a $1.3 million windfall or even a middle school."
You can't fool that Openline Blog. They posted that article from the Beacon News verbatim just as soon as the Beacon published it. In fact I would estimate that 95% of what the Openline Blog publishes comes directly from the Beacon. Imagine that, those guys at Openline Blog sure are some good investigators.
Maybe Mike Cetera can help here. I really can't afford to pay for the Beacon's archived files. Wasn't the land donation from Bigelow changed from 8.3 to 8.1 but the 8.1 included the pond? And didn't the District 131 school board decline the pond?
In my opinion the amount of land doesn't matter as long as the District can receive the 1.15 million. Sure beats $242,000. Oh, and by the way John no one ever offered a middle school. Bigelow stated he would like to see the District build a middle school on the donated property, he never offered to donate a school.
Your second to last paragraph is so bizarre it's not even worth discussing, in my opinion of course.
I personally like the Beacon's writing. They seem very objective to me, and they are not afraid to state their opinions. And we know who is running this Blog... Thanks Beacon for giving us this objective forum.
There was over 1700 signatures on petitions that was signed ro save the Drive-In by the people in Aurora. This was done in a very short time. FOIA minutes from the City Council meetings and you will hear from the people who were willing to donate and work on the Drive-In. Were you not around at the time? If you were, you should know many of the answers to the questions you are asking. You can FOIA for the petitions and count yourself. There was 62 letters sent to the mayor, Obama, Durbin, Chappa LaVia, and Hastert to save the Drive-In. You can FOIA the mayors letters, the rest where signed with the mayor's at The Office, they were all together. Call Rick Lawerence and Stephanie Kiforwit or other aldermen to see if they were informed about that meeting in HomeTown. I believe Lawerence is still waiting for the message from ex Temp. There was not one alderman at that meeting. Ask the Beacon to go back in the archives about the information about the investors that Vaughan "leaked", I do believe their names were in there, if they were willing to show what they printed on one subject in this area, they should be willing to let you read about what you are questioning now. Also Nova Cinemas did try to buy the Drive-In from Bigelow, but no go. All this information YOU can check yourself. Go back in openline blog archives. There is a documentary coming out and your answers should be answered. No, there was not a pond included in the original donation. If the Beacon won't put the orginal in that was showed at that sneaky meeting, call the Beacon, they might be able to help you, or go back in the openlineblog archives and check. you don't have to pay to look up in their archives. Also, it is not fair to the new people in this district to read in the Beacon what is going on now. They were not here a year ago and would not know what transpired, therefore it is only fair that the Beacon prints every side of the story. If this is not done, then it is not fair and unbaised reporting, unless, of course, someone can find fault with the new residents in this district and scold them for not being here when all this happened.
Poor Wes doesn't seem to have what we call "objectivity."
Does make one wonder if he might be one of the protesters in the rallies against the Drive-In. Just lke mayor, Bigelow, and certain council members, there when they want something, but walk away and don't finish the job. Hopefully, the Beacon will be objective and can furnish some of the answers he wants here in this blog.
I too think the Beacon is guilty of not relying on Stefanie Kifowit, Rick Lawrence, Scott Ascher, Joe Vantreese and the drive-in supporters for all their news and commentary. Weisner and Bigelow should only be referred to as unindicted co-conspiracists and drive-in murderers on the editorial page. I'm thinking the next editorial on the Bigelow donation should be called 'Blood Money.' Extra points if both Weisner and Bigelow can be called Judas and anyone working for (or somewhat associated with) either man is called a crony.
The East Aurora school board wisely rejected a $1 million donation - far and above the $242,000 legally owed - and should wait until Perry and Jamie Bigelow turn over every penny they ever made in Aurora to District 131 before they accept anything from those two-timing capitalists.
The Beacon should also call for Weisner's immediate resignation on the condition that he first fires Bill Powell, names the city's second African-American police chief in Wayne Biles and replaces Alayne Weingartz with Timmy O'Neill.
After that, Rick Nagel and Denise Crosby should resign and arrange that the heroic anonymous publishers of OpenlineBlog take their positions. (Of course, Cetera and Parro should be sacked too, but we're going to start fixing problems at the top.) If the Sun-Times News Group balks at this arrangement, the fellow who was going to buy and save the drive-in will buy the Sun Times out. They need the cash.
Then, and only then, will the Beacon start down the shining path to truth, justice and the American way and meet the journalistic standards of the community.
Has anyone other than me wondered about when D131 gets this donation if anyone will really want it to put any kind of buisness or whatever there due to the fact of all the new places going up now? Now is when things are booming and I think it will be to late then. What if the land does sell, but it is only around $300.000.00. Then there is the legal cost of the transaction and whatever else, what then will be left for D131? Just a thought. About the only thing left then is for the D131 to use it for an office or something and that would mean a referendum to build it. Back to referendums here and taxhikes. Unless, of course, Bigelow is made to sign a contract that they will pay what it is appraised at now and do you really think he is going to do that? If he was he would just give the money now, wouldn't he?
To Anonymous | August 23, 2007 07:26 AM
It would be nice if you attached a name to your posts. That way when we blog we know that we are conversing with the same person.
You have totally missed my point, not surprising. Let me try in simpler terms. BACKUP WHAT YOU POST! Why should I go and prove someone else's statements. If you make the statement back it up with your facts. If it is your opinion then state that. John spewed that diatribe, he should be proving it not me. I am the one who is questioning his accusations and in my opinion ridiculous statements. And until the people who run the Openline blog state in public who they are and what their credentials are I certainly wouldn't believe anything they post.
Wes,
I don't know what Anonymous has and exactly what you want, but this is some of what I have.
From: "Ryan" ryan nova cinemas
To: "PATRICIA LORANCE"
I am sorry I didn't actually answer your questions:
Bigelow bought the drive-in in or around October 2005, we slated the Flashback Horror Fest as the "Last Picture Show?" due to the pending sale.
Our original offer with the city was assuming that the City of Aurora was the Owner of the property, and that we would lease it from them for similar terms that we already leased it from Frieders. They wanted to get taxes, and we agreed, we offered to pay the $300,000 to the park district, if we could get a 10 year commitment, and we offered to raise ticket prices by .25 cents a piece, and donate the additional revenue to the school district, all of these things were denied. Keep in mind though, that they were only going to allow us to operate 1/2 of the drive-in,
Bigelow was only donating enough to keep parking for 400 cars when the original layout could accomodate 850+ cars.
All of these things piled up, finally they asked us to show up to a council meeting with proof of a 2 million dollar line of credit, to show
we were a viable business, and at that point I decided not to play
anymore games. A viable business? We own 17 theatres throughout the Midwest from
Florida, to Wisconsin, if we are not viable, I don't know what is. The drive-in did turn a profit every year we operated it, but they wanted to make it financially impossible. How about the figure to bring it up to code? I started getting ready to open the drive-in this year in April, because Bigelow was not responding to my calls, so I was preparing to open the 14th of April, just like every other year, and we would have, if they
didn't pull all this stuff. 800,000 to reopen, and get "up to code" that is very inflated.
This deal was signed and sealed well before we even knew about it, and the whole school saving commercial development probably won't even happen, I think we will see houses on every inch of land they can fit one on, and the drive in property is slated to become a big retention pond.
I really couldn't imaging being Bigelow or Weisner and having no
consideration for all the emotion that this has brought up, they only care about dollars.
Being a business owner I keep my site very conservative, and only printthe facts that I can actually prove, but personally I know what is really going on.
Thanks Again for your participation!
Ryan
Copies of the petitions and letters to the Mayor:
Petitions total signatures is 1,875, 62 letters to the Mayor.
The same number of letters also went to Rep.Linda Chappa LaVia, Rep.Hastert, and Sen.Dick Durbin. I do not have copies of these, but they were signed at the same time and I was told they went out. Alderman Kifowit told me she would hand deliver Rep.Chappa LaVia.
I have a copy of the minutes from the Planning & Development Committee on 8/25/05 where Bigelow states that he wanted the Drive-In to remain.
The Drive-In could have reopened for a last time since it was up to County code and had not been annexed into the City yet. The date for annexation is as of 8/06. I called and got this information from the City.
I am one of the people who offered to donate for the Drive-In, Tim, from Joliet offered, the 12 year old girl with her money order(money she collectd) and she had it at a meeting. These are the two I remember from the meeting.
I was at the meeting in HomeTown and there was not one alderman there. That is just alittle strange since all the press was. I did ask Andre Salles that day if there was any, in case I just happened to see one, and he said no.
Have the Revised Donation Agreement and that is very interesting reading. Andre Salles did not have it, so I faxed it to him and am still waiting for him to send to me what he said he would.
Hmmmm.... 1875 signatures on a petition in a community with a population over 170,000. I don't think that is very impressive. But I at least appreciate that you provided some info on the situation as far as Nova cinemas is concerned.
Overall, I personally don't believe anyone on this blog has "objectivity." As someone who is a neutral party tot he issue and was just reading the blog because I came across it randomly, I found quite a lot of accusations, innuendo and name calling. Obviously you are all very emotionally invested in the issue. Step back and make sure you are stating facts only before you accuse others of bias. Wes was merely asking for proof of the claims and accusations many of you made on this blog.
As far as using previous blogs to back up claims, that is poor journalism. Blogs are generally a place for people to spout opinions and ideas. Someone's post on a blog does not denote fact.
1st of all the drive in closing was a travesty...it was one of the few affordable family oriented entertainments left...
2nd the referendums didnt pass because the school district is sucking enough money out of us and our children are receiving a sub par education...fix that problem and maybe we will vote for a referendum rather than against it...the east aurora schools especially the high school and middle schools have consistently failed the no child left behind standards....throwing money at the problem isnt going to fix it.
the referendum didnt pass because we dont want to give the school districe ANY more of our hard earned money