A forum for comments about Naperville news and issues.

Naperville referendum in select company

| 38 Comments | No TrackBacks


I saw this graphic on the front page of our sister publication, The Herald News, on Wednesday, and thought it illustrated well how voters rejected all but one of the tax-increase referendums in Will County on Tuesday.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1685


just saying,

I am referring to items way beyond JUST this referendum!

You should read Jim's post a little closer ---as you refer to me as having "sour grapes", I would point out that you are bullying and attempting to squash the free exchange of ideas. Which is worse?

The 203 Board (regardless of who is on it) has a recent history of NOT being transparent with the voters. Remember.... it was the local papers and citizens groups that had to point out the mis-application of the 2002 referendum and get the Board to NOT use the 5th year (and saving us about $21 million).

You're right --- people understand what "average" means. However, I guarantee you that few understood the wording was set-up to include all domiciles and not just single-family homes.

One more tidbit for you: though the turnout was much greater than expected, the Board made a conscious decision to run the referendum in February as they wanted to "play" the expectation of lower and more specific voter turnout.

You use the term "sour grapes" a lot for someone who never met me. I do not have to have "sour grapes" to know when a group has not proven it deserves my blind trust.


Hope you all enjoy those amazingly fast rising ACT scores after the new school is built. What do you think the average will rise to, 30 or 31? I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict they will rise to 34 !!! Wooo hoooo!!!! It's all about the kids baby.

Oh, by the way, check out the article from yesterday's WSJ. Unfortunately all your wonderfully educated kids will be bailing out of Illinois. Hey Mr. Higgins I thought our great education system was going to work wonders for us. You are so clueless about basic economics it's scary.

Hope you enjoy the sinking ship Thom Higgins and Mr. Tim West of the Sun Times. When are you clowns going to wake up and smell the coffee? The public unions are KILLING Illinois. The facts are staring you straight in the face and yet you play on the same old line of "investing in our future" while the "future" bails from the state with their feet!!!

Those in support of School referendums are of basically one mind; they support the SB and have the money to pay just about anything demanded. Those opposed are a little bit more complicated to characterize. These residents are very much bifurcated in their rationale.

We have those that desire a very fiscally responsible approach based on pragmatic observation. That would be those that wonder why have repairs been ineffective or not even employed, what impact does all this re-building really have on education, just who needs artificial athletic turf to teach mathematics, etcetera. Where is the accountability?

There are also the "haves" verses the "have-nots", those of us that do not reside in the $500 thousand dollar homes and do not have a $100 thousand dollar income. Yes, those of us who see any tax increase as a reduction in our well-being. We who cannot pay for any unnecessary tax increases by merely skipping a few lattes a week at the local Starbucks. Those who are told, "if you can't afford to live here then move", many of whom are now retired and have literally grown up in Naperville.

Both understand that as members of the community they bear a responsibility to contribute to its’ well-being but they demand a more closer scrutinization of how their money is spent. I am routinely exposed to the many that would just push these people aside and employ the typical “you don’t understand”, “you’re a whiner”, or “it’s necessary to maintain our property value” comments.

I would suggest that some in Naperville should be more understanding of their neighbors. Just being right does not mean that you are right, if you understand my meaning. Is it wrong to demand that your tax monies are wisely spent and correctly planned? Did the Naperville resident really want to spend $5 million on a Carillon? Is it wrong to demand accountability? Why are we continually told by virtually every taxing body that if we don’t receive these additional monies we are going to crash and people will die (ring any bells) and that besides, it will only cost you 13 cents a day?

Let us see: the state is broke, the county is broke, the schools are broke and the city is broke – and yet my taxes always manage to keep increasing. Huh?

C'mon "anonymous"! You're nitpicking now.

I think the other "anonymous" was just giving an example of one of the things that needed to be addressed at Central. He/She could have listed a litany of areas that need to be addressed there to bring that school up to 21st century learning needs.

Personally, I would have voted for investing in the building of a new facility that would have utilized a timeless architectural design and not allow anyone to cut corners on building materials. This could give us a school that might last for 80-100 years into the future.

Expensive? Maybe in today's dollars. $160 million give or take?

But if you average it out (including maintenance) over the life of the building, I bet it would be a bargain.

Just Sayin' is right. The decisions been made, it is time to move on.


People in Naperville are intelligent enough to understand what the word average means, and make the mental calculation for their home.

They are also intelligent enough to see your complaints about the Board and Administration not being truthful or upfront regarding this issue, as sour grapes. There was ample information provided regarding all the different financial issues. You just seem to want to keep complaining. The voters spoke, the decision has been made, let's move on.

Just Watching,

A little factoid for you:

The $82 applies to ALL domiciles in District 203, which is where they got the average price of about $335,000 --- THAT is how they got the average down to $82/per.

In fact, the average single family home in 203 is north of $500,000 (about $530,000). The result is an average tax increase of closer to $130 per home.

Although some don't see $130 as a lot of money, I do. Moreover, it reads to me as yet ANOTHER example of getting a partial truth from the District leadership and their acolyte citizen's groups When you refer to McMansions, you refer to single family homes (which is how all of this was insinuated).

The big question I have is this: Why can't this Board and Administration just make it their policy to be upfront and truthful at ALL times with us? Why can;t they partake in the same transparency we demand of our corporations?


If it truly was about the science labs at Central, we would ONLY be spending about $5-6 million, versus $89 million or so.

Also, if it was about the children & education there would be more money going INTO curriculum (why do we need to wait 5 years for a language program at 4 times the cost that was advertised back in March of '07?)

Jim's 2/11 post waqs acutely on the mark.

Yikes, what a bunch of whiners! Let me guess. How many of those who opposed the recent tax hike live in big honking Naperville McMansions and think all their equity comes from their smart investment strategy and none came from the fact that they invested in NAPERville property, where so much of your value comes from the school district?
I can imagine your pain, as your piece of the tax increase will be more than the average $82 a year. That amount would barely buy a couple dinner at TGIFridays, but your share will actually eat into your Sullivan's bill. How sad!
Can you imagine a home owner refusing to make repairs to his property and still expecting its value to remain the same or rise? Yet those same people expect the district to continue to add to our property values without any investment by us.
I was all set to vote against the tax bill -- not because it was too high, but because it was too low. I truly feel we are throwing good money after bad by not rebuilding a new Central, but absolutely no one thought we could ever get a larger referendum amount past the whiners. So I voted yes, reluctantly.
And that's what's really sad.

Regarding your Feb. 11 11:07 am post.

I was surprised to read your recollection of the key points about this referendum, because mine differ significantly. In my opinion, this was about woefully inadequate science labs at Central that hinder the learning process, it was about bulging-at-the-seams classrooms at Mill St school that force classes to be taught in the halls, it was about providing an nurturing environment for our special needs students to learn and develop. In short, this was indeed about the kids.

It was also about the people who supported investing their hard-earned tax dollars to update the districts facilities. I hope you agree that these improvements do impact their property values. One person who was opposed to this tax increase tried to argue that schools did not impact home values but in his words "...it's the economy, stupid...". I'll give him points for originality, but not accuracy. Oops, I'll also take back the points for originality - James Carville uttered that derogatory piece of blather many years ago.

Home values (as is the same with any item that is purchased) are based on supply and demand. One of the most often cited reasons for people moving to Naperville is the schools - they are excellent and people want their children to attend excellent schools - that's called "demand". If you don't keep your curriculum on the leading edge, if you don't provide updated infrastructure (technology as well as bricks-and-mortar), and you don't develop the entire person (through extracurricular activities like band, theatre, athletics, clubs, etc...), people find your schools less desirable. Demand for your community drops. So do your housing values as people choose to move elsewhere.

People in this community are well-educated and have worked hard to get where they are in life. It is demeaning to these people to question whether this was for the kids, or a case of narcissism about building Edifice Complex's.

It truly does my heart good to read reasoned and impassioned posts like that of AJCin203. It is imperative that the voter learns to separate the standard rhetoric from fact. Even common sense would tell you that given the "condition" of Central that there was something wrong "right here in River City".

For anyone to merely assume that this was only about the children is just ludicrous. It is also about monument building by a governing body and the ego of the Naperville resident. Oh yeah, it's also about property values.

People are being lulled to sleep by allowing a "business as usual" mentality to continue vice taking the time to perform an honest re-appraisal of the each situation. Determinations must be now made based on current conditions and not on how it used to be done or merely on a “how we would like it to be” scenario.

If you haven't noticed, the degree to which ethics and morality are practiced today has changed quite a bit and it hasn't necessarily been to the benefit of the citizen. If we do not insist on exemplary stewardship from our elected officials we will all be doomed to loose many of those things we so much cherish. A decision made about a tax increase is not an isolated decision, it impacts many people. We had better be sure that our choice is BOTH correct and needed because there will be some citizens condemned to suffer for it.

As a 30 year resident of Naper-"bubble" D203, I can truly say that people these days in this community live in a bubble with not much of an idea, or concern, of anything that goes on around them or outside of Naperville. Why else would the "yes" residents vote to raise their own taxes when the district is sitting on a reported $70 million plus surplus, with more money to come in future years. Isn't this the same school board that was crying prior to the 2002 referendum that the district would be running future deficits up to $60 million (Funny how Supt. Don Weber decided to retire and collect his 20/20 after it passed.)? Can anyone seriously inform me of any other district in this state that has this kind of money in the bank?

Prior to this referendum, I read a letter to the editor in the Sun that stated barrels being located throughout Naperville Central when it rained because of the leaks in the roof. I find this inexcuseable with the money we already pay in taxes to live here. I graduated from Central now over twenty years ago. I am well aware that the population was not 3000 students then, but it also did not have all of the additions it now has either. It was an older school then, but clean and kept up (Incidentally, only the three story portion of the school at the west end of the football field is over 60 years old! Not the entire school as some would have us believe.). I have seen some of it on the inside in recent months and it does look worn.

The board should have been putting money aside for improvements MANY years ago and doing hard negotiating with the teachers union at contract time so as to not go way beyond what the private sector was paying in increases. The whole issue about money needed to retain teachers was a bunch of garbage. They have it pretty well here and would not have gone anywhere else. And why do they have it well? Because the PARENTS care and are involved with their kids, so we get credit too. I have always found it angering, even as recent as few years ago, when the union was on the news rallying and threatening a strike during negotiations. What a slap in the face at the residents and all we can do is just take it. Think about that for those residents who have Dianne McGuire running in your district for state representative. She used to be the union president years ago and lead the teachers out on strike one time I remember. She was on the news and, of course, turned the argument on the public by stating that the children were the victims (something along those lines). In any case, I found the comment to be insulting.

But this is what you get when people do not vote. The board knew this so they slipped the referendum in during the primary, knowing they may have had a more difficult time passing it in November. The board tried to pass a referendum back in the early 1990s to get more money and it failed by a 2 to 1 margin. What did they do? For the time being, they put their financial house in order and the education of the students did not suffer.

When you do not vote, you virtually get no change. Look at the 203 Board, 204 Board, City Council and Park District. There are numerous people on these boards that have been there too long. Not many of them are sharp business people either, just look at D204 with their debacle of the Brach property that they had to back away from and the legal fees it will cost them.

Wake Up D203! You are being taken advantage of!

Mr Hodapp,

Can you please identify the people or groups who will have their pockets lined by the "referendum gravy train"? Or is this just cynical, conspiracy-theory nonsense?

"Silly tax increases"? I would hardly catagorize a tax increase to fund needed updates to educational facilities silly. This was about providing an adequate learning environment for students.

Do you honestly believe that if we had compulsory voting, that people would be more informed?

You've gone from being cynical in one paragraph, to being naive in the next.


Outstanding observation and post.


I can't wait to see those ACT scores skyrocket after the new pool and football fields are installed at North.

Mr. Czajkowski I really appreciated your post with one exception: I’m not convinced it really was all about the children. As I recall most of those demanding the referendum passage were concerned about lockers falling out of the wall, holes in the roof, non-functioning water fountains, new athletic turf, and the all important “property values”.

I never did read that the ability to educate the pupils or that test scores were negatively impacted. I never even read that the school could no longer, OMG, successfully compete athletically.

Was it really for the children or was it primarily Naperville ego? No repair would suffice, we must at a minimum “renovate”. Golly, what is to now happen to all those “it’s my dump” t-shirts?

Stanley Czajkowski, it's no for the children, it's for lining the pockets of everyone on the referendum gravy train.

It's times like this where I wish the USA had compulsory voting. Silly tax increases wouldn't ever slip through the cracks when less than a third of the residents vote for them. I've actually talked to people online who are Australian residents about their compulsory voting system, and it doesn't sound that bad. People there aren't completely ignorant of their government and taxes since it is everyone's civil duty to participate in elections.

Low voter turnout in this country has never ceased to amaze me. Furthermore, it always seems to be the people who couldn't be bothered to vote that complain the most about government.

Now that the vote is in and the gifts have been distributed. Will the School Board actually document the real costs and hold the costs to the estimates originally proposed? How about calling for fixed price bids with no extras, no increases without another referendum. Also, how about each Board member signing a pledge that if the costs exceed the total that each of them will resign immediately. Or any increase could be covered by the Teachers union with a reduction in their members increases until the projects are finished. REMEMBER IT IS FOR THE CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN. Keep the dream alive.


I voted. The "rest of us" is what some refer to as rhetorical (ie "for effect"). So why am I a hypocrite?

You should get your info straight -- you tried to parlay onto my post with a slight restatement of it ("one COULD theorize that they can/need/do a better job of prioritizing their expenditures among competing needs and wants" versus your post " I agree with your analysis that it is possible that the other towns didn't prioritize their needs and wants as well as District 203 did" ----I was saying they DID actually select from competing needs whike Naper just passed all needs & wants)

You cannot be serious about telling me what MY description of a landslide is --- it is subjective! Yet another zealot who cannot accept open debate and discussion without trying to bully those who disagree!

Shame on you!

Anonymous, 51% and more of registered voters don't even vote in most elections. By your definition, it is impossible to get a mandate in this country. So let's forget about a "mandate" and just agree that a substantial and convincing majority of voters were in favor of District 203's referendum.

Looks like we have the Sun to blame for the referendum passing, this according to Hold203accountable.org,

There is no disguising the fact that the Naperville Sun is a liberal paper. During school board candidate interviews in 2007 by Tim West, it was revealed endorsements were predicated upon the candidate's position on social issues, not qualifications. In other words, the Sun's endorsements are nothing more than a reflection of Mr. West's politics. So much for newspaper objectiveness, integrity and credibility. The paper's direction changed noticeably after Jim Lynch became editor.

Back in 2005, the Sun published articles highlighting the massive over collection from the 2002 referendum. One editorial opined that 203 was treating taxpayers like ATM's. Three years later, the Sun is putting the term "over collection" in quotes (as though it is now a debatable issue), and they endorsed the 2008 referendum. Readers can be assured in 2009 the Sun (Mr. West) will be endorsing the same four school board candidates who have been treating the taxpayer like an ATM. For it won't be the candidate's fiscal ineptitude the Sun will base its decision on, but rather their positions on social issues.

The e-mails to the site feel the same way.

The Naperville Sun, while ostensibly taking an editorial stand on the February 5th 203 referendum, relegated the referendum to a subtext as the editors elected to instead attack the citizens that have been actively working against the referendum! Their references to those who opposed the referendum as "extracting revenge" and "carrying residual resentment" was, at best, juvenile and, at worst, just plain lazy journalism.

Although the support for the referendum by the Sun's editors was indeed fully expected, what was NOT expected was their sophomoric attempt to ascribe motivation to others whom, for the most part, they have never even met! Such an exercise should only be taken with extreme caution, as it usually shows that those who attempt to do it are only trying to push their own dogma.

The first sign of a small mind and small ideas is to attack those who think otherwise, and the Sun did NOT disappoint on this one. The Sun has been a weak publication when it comes to 203 ever since the Superintendent threatened to sue the Sun many months ago at a board meeting (while Alan Albus was still there). The Sun's complete lack of fair-minded integrity has been flamboyant, and they have effectively left any true investigative reporting to the citizens who write Letters to the Editor as opposed to their own reporters. Sunday's support for the referendum was a hack piece that lacked any data of it's own, put down actual data from others, and didn't even offer even a tone of fairness by including an op-ed (of course, with an op-ed they would have actually have had to do some work).

There's no names listed anywhere, anybody know who this Joe Taxpayer is?

Anonymous, I agree with your analysis that it is possible that the other towns didn't prioritize their needs and wants as well as District 203 did. 203 just identified the most pressing needs and addressed them. The overwhelming majority of voters agreed.

Posted by: Living Within my Means | February 8, 2008 12:36 PM

Anonymous, you'll have to go back and re-read my post above. I said that 203 identified their most pressing needs and addressed them.

Please get your information straight before posting.

1) Only 32% of the registered voters made the decision to pass the referendum (shame on the rest of us for not voting!)

I sit in utter disbelief after reading this comment. You didn't even have the time or inclination to go vote yet you've got the gall to start spouting off your "poor-loser" analysis of how the referendum passed???

Go look up "hypocrite" in the dictionary and see if your picture is next to it.

This was a "landslide" bordering on a "mandate" and you know it!

Knowing it is subjective, I see a mandate as 51% of registered voters.

A 49% turnout is not only excellent for a primary, it's not much less than the usual turnout for general elections. Ronald Reagan's defeat of Walter Mondale in the 1984 Presidential election was one of the most lopsided in history; Reagan won 59% of the popular vote, and voter turnout was 53%. So if this WASN'T a mandate to you, then just what does a mandate look like?


Not a mandate to do what they want with only 32% of the eligible vote?

I'll tell George and the rest of the council you will be over next week to tell them that since he and the entire rest of the council only received 13% to 17% of the eligible vote, they have no mandate either.

The parallel is obvious, but you don't want to see it cause it blows your story line.

Poll Watcher,

Don't be so thin-skinned and looking for fights that don't exist! My post was a response to others who appeared to be declaring the vote a mandate.

I was only pointing out that when it is looked at from a different angle, only 32% of eligible voters made the decision and 12,356 voted against it. The implication is that enough voted "No" for there to be consideration for the future that it was not a mandate to do what they want.

Your comment on sour grapes is a reflection of your limited thought. How you brought Bush, Pradel, and Wherli into it, I don't know. Perhaps you are related to Oliver Stone? Do you want to bring Castro into the discussion? I suspect so since you appear to be so intent on stopping the flow of free speech and the opinions of others.

Perhaps you are just exhibiting the gracelessness of a bad winner?


I was laughing too hard when I posted before!

Meant to say, "Please let us all know when you tell our incredibly popular and beloved mayor and Grant they don't hold office legitimately. I WANNA WATCH!"

They have Public Comment before every council meeting, you get 3 minutes. That be long enough to tell them they don't deserve to hold office?


Really long post, but what's your point?

Are you actually attempting to de-legitimize the referendum vote because the yes vote total was under 50% of all registered voters?

George Bush who in 2004 received 54% of the vote in DuPage, actually only had 41% of total registered voters (76% turnout). Does that mean his win was any less legitimate?

We had a 49% turnout Tuesday, which is excellent for a presidential primary election. If you look at Naperville city council races, in 2007 the total turnout was 25.1% and the mayor and top council vote getter received only 17% of the registered voter total. So are they 50% less legitimate in their offices than the school referendum? Can I watch when you tell the Mayor and Grant Wherli this?

You comments strike me as an attempt to de-legitimize the legitimacy of the vote, and apparently the need for the level of renovations at Central. You lost on both counts, and this is just sour grapes on your part. Pretty obvious actually.

Please let us all know when you tell our incredibly popular and beloved mayor and Grant they doesn't hold his office legitimately. I WANNA WATCH!


Of course the foreclosures are based on those that overstretched --- as a loose rule, that is a definition of the general cause of widespread foreclosures!

The comment on Counties was just that, and I'm pretty sure you supported it! If I recall correctly, Wheaton IS in DuPage, like Naperlalaland, and the others are in Will --- Correct? As such, I fail to follow your comment to "rethink". Did I miss something in the nuance?

I'm certainly glad that you agree that we in Naperlalaland included wants in their list of items for the referendum.

That has always been my main complaint: they tried so sell wants to me as needs! Now, I don't "want" you to overplay this as some comment about Central "needed" nothing, because that would be grossly incorrect. I DO believe, based on my 2 official tours and one unofficial walkthrough of Central, along with my personl interviews of the users of the school, that Central could have been greatly improved with well under $50 million in costs.

I would interject here that YOU might want to rethink what I am picking up as a general attitude in your comment about the overwhelming majority.

Why do I say this?

Well, the math breaks down SOMEWHERE in the area as follows:

Voted 2/5/08:

Yes: 17612 59%
No: 12356 41%

Est. Registered Voters on 2/5/08 (est 55,000):

Yes: 17612 32%
No: 12356 22%

If my est. of reg. voters is materially wrong, please let me know. If not, the above tells me a few things:

1)Only 32% of the registered voters made the decision to pass the referendum (shame on the rest of us for not voting!)

2)Over 12,000 (or 22% of registered voters) did not buy into the complete story from the District. THAT is a lot of people who disagree with the outcome (so it is NOT a small group of disenfranchised people!)

Now, I only went through this exercise to point out that rushing the referendum into February, versus the November election, was a conscious move by the District as they knew that it is MUCH tougher to get approval on referendums during the major election cycle. The reason? Voter Turnout---Period!

All of this was just to highlight that a lot of people voted against it, the political move to rush it into February was a brilliant tactic that worked, and if one followed all of these moves (and others) one would be hardpressed to find our Board to be lilly white and absent of imperfections (as is so often sold to us by their apologists & acolytes).

Note to Ted: My response date Feb. 8 at 7:33 p.m. was directed at Jim's post, not at your original comments. Jim suggested that the voters in other districts who voted down their referendums were smarter than those in 203.

Anonymous, I agree with your analysis that it is possible that the other towns didn't prioritize their needs and wants as well as District 203 did. 203 just identified the most pressing needs and addressed them. The overwhelming majority of voters agreed.

You might also want to re-think your "county" comment since Wheaton also approved the Hubble School referendum by an almost identical margin of voters.

Also, I wonder how many of the foreclosures in Naperville are a result of people building their McMansions with sub-prime loans and then getting caught when the rates re-adjust?

Two comments:

1)The other towns in question have a lower household income than wonderful Naperville. Given that, one COULD theorize that they can/need/do a better job of prioritizing their expenditures among competing needs and wants. However, here in NaperLaLaLand, we can just say yes to All wants & needs as we have $$$ coming out the wazoo! (or so we want the world to think ---A quick glance at current foreclosures might, Just Might, put this belief to rest.)

2)It COULD be a county thing (pretty much the same ideas as above, but applicable to a county level.

C'mon Jerry,

Why is it that anyone who posts in support of the referendum is usually asked if they work for District 203, has relatives who do, or is labeled an "apologist"?

Can't you just accept that they support the referendum and leave it at that?

In the interest of full disclosure, I have two children who went through D203 schools but are now in college. Both went to Central. I proudly voted "Yes" for this referendum along with 17,000 other voters.

Jerry, absolutely nothing and don't have relatives who even live in this town. Just want to make sure that we keep our schools in shape as well as our parks, libraries, etc. that keep this town what it currently is.

Hey Anonymous 9:32 p.m. tell me do you work for the district or have relatives who do? Just wondering.

For all those who aren't happy about 203 ref. passing you can always move and have your child go to school in any of the other districts. But we wouldn't do that because their test scores, etc. don't compare to 203. Well golly gee I wonder why that is. We are willing to invest in our schools so that makes us wrong.

I have been in Central and it's an embarassment to the community. We wouldn't want any other public building in the city to look as bad as Central, so why are we wrong for voting yes. If the police department can have a beautiful facility to house thugs why can't the children of this district have a clean and modern learning facility. I bet the you the bathrooms in the jail house are better than the ones at Central.

And by the way I don't even have children and support a clean and safe learning environment for the kids.

So because voters in nine other districts voted down their referendums, we're dumb for having voted in ours? Unless you can show that the issues were exactly the same in all of these elections, you're not making much of a point. Heck, even if the issues were exactly the same, it's not much of a point.

Note from Ted, host:

I never said dumb, never said issues or circumstances were anything similar. I said select company, interpret it anyway you like. Pro-referendum voters could say to themselves, look how fortunate we are here in Naperville that a majority of the electorate are smart enough to approve the question. My point was, the vast majority of tax-increase requests in Will County were rejected by voters this week. Naperville stands out. That was my point.

Who in their right mind would voluntarily vote for a tax increase? When they give you the choice to say yes or no to higher taxes you should always say NO!

Yup, the Naperville referendum is in select company alright. Just look at all those stupid people: they must be Bush supporting Republicans to have voted no for fire safety, a community resource like a library, and OMG, schools! We all know that this must be Bushes" fault don't we. Don't those ignorant people know the negative impact they are having on their property values? What will people point to with no new buildings for the school housin’ of their chillin’? They obviously do not care a lick about educatin’.

It's either that or they're just very smart and really sick and tired of the gimme, gimme, gimme! Just what could the voters of NINE defeated referendums possibly be thinking?

Leave a comment

Naperville Potluck

The Sun invites you to share opinions about news and issues. Have a question? E-mail us.  


About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Naperville Sun editors published on February 7, 2008 2:51 PM.

Dems overtake DuPage was the previous entry in this blog.

Time to learn D204 high school boundaries is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.