'D204 lawsuit not about Neuqua,' says NSFOC member

As a 2 year resident of this community I am so sorry to have opted to educate my children in this district. My oldest is slated to attend MV in 2011. Although I am not sold on the site being hazardous, I do feel that our school board and Super are acting NOT in the best interest of our community. The haphazard (and I say this because everything is being pushed so quickly) decisions are alarming. As for Andrews, I support the efforts of ANY people/group that take a stand on their beliefs. How can we condemn others when we ALL have passion for what we want.....the question is what do we want as it relates to MV? Speaking for myself, I want to feel that the leadership of our district are being fiscally responsible and they are not. We are sitting on land at BB that we CANNOT even use. Stupid move. We are building a school on the side of the district that has the least amount of students and shifting everyone's attendance area (for the most part) North. Am I glad to have a high school in my "backyard"? Yes. But do I think this is right - NO! Kudos to Andrews and NSFOC for taking the actions that my family is not willing to do openly for professional reasons. I applaud your efforts!

Mr Andrews,

A day late and a dollar short. Your timing is off.

Its not about MV, NV, or the SB. Just a bunch of BS.

I am totally ashamed for you and your children. Do you honestly think by posting false information in the paper that it is going to make a difference? The NSOFC doesnt realize that no matter what, WE AND TG WILL ATTEND WVHS IN 2009. Even if you manage to slow down the process, the district will have no choice but to send you anyway to help the overcrowding at Neuqua Valley. They WILL NOT have a school with over 5000 students, and WILL NOT put mobile classrooms in front of the Taj Mahal. Your two subdivisions are first on the trading block. WELCOME TO WARRIOR LAND

Mr. Andrews is right it is not about his kids and those of the NSFOC (90% of which are TG and WE residents) attending NVHS. It is about those kids NOT attending WVHS. They have made that perfectly clear!!! Look at their own lawsuit. It's the BB property or nothing as far as they are concerned. Nice try Mr. Andrews but you can't fool the majority of the district, they can see right through your smoke screen. Everyone look at the lawsuit, it's BB or nothing or return the money to the taxpayers. Well, that's not an option Mr. Andrews, we voted on the referendum for a 3rd high school not the location of a third high school. You and the group you claim you are just a member of are holding the rest of the district hostage and for that no one will ever forgive you. It's really a shame since the IPSD has done nothing but try and aquire the land for BB and up until the last judgement won every decision prior to that. The IPSD now can't afford the BB property and it's time to move on to another location. I'm disappointed that the Sun would even consider interviewing such a minority voice. Then again Mr. Andrews and the NSFOC is more concerned about their own desires and wants then the district. Thanks NSFOC for suing US!!!

Of course it is not about Neuqua--it's all about Waubonsie Valley and NSFOC supporters' desire to do anything humanly possible to prevent their children from going there.

What do I make of Andrews position? Trying to defend the obvious (that NSFOC is truly about boundaries).

Also, I thought previously they said had "thousands" in their ranks.
Appears to be the same ~200 from weeks ago.

Yeah, right. Nice try, but we're not buying it.

All decision making is "questionable" - if there wasn't a question no decision would be needed. Have the board's decisions been hasty or illogical? No, they haven't.

The people behind this suit are trying to dress it up in respectable terms - but it's not difficult to see what's behind it. They are unhappy because they thought their kids were going to a brand-spanking new palace of a high school (either Neuqua, or a new one at BB), and now it looks like they won't.

I'd suggest three additional polls be placed out on the sun page...

Are you confident in the current leadership of IPSD 204 (SD and SB)?

Does the change in location, cost and demographics of the new Metea Valley School warrant a new vote/referrendum?

Do you believe at least one of the school board seats should be held by a professional teacher?

Did Todd Andrews read the lawsuit? The lawsuit is demanding that the Brach Brodie site be built and that no other site be built. Hey Todd! How stupid do you think we are? He wants to hold the board accountable but they are asking the entire district to absorb the legal costs of their narrow minded group in addition to the district having to pay to defend it. These are our tax dollars being spent to fend off a small group of self centered homeowners who beleive they are entitled because of the subdivisions they chose to live. Just say NO to Entitlement in D204!

"We assure you... that we are solidly bonded and united by three things: the desire fir safety for our children, fiscal responsibility by the ipsd204 and accountability for the school board's action. This is the last paragraph in today's Sun pg 7. As I look at this groups website and read the ad in the Sun the other day, a concern comes to mind. I) The ad regarding the costs of the two school properties had enough **** next to figures it reminded me of a bad car advertisement. To think that someone from this group actually would spend the money to put this kind of rubbish out is very "telling" indeed. 2) The website has very little factual info., just a lot of propaganda. Get some real scientific evidence PLEASE!
Now at least a bit of good news. It appears this group will be represented at tonights board meeting, which is a giant step in the right direction. It is high time communication is with the leaders that can make a difference, and not thru some Jack A_s attorney(who seems to represent other Jack A_s cases in the area). While your at this board meeting tonight you may consider listening before speaking. But more important than this board meeting may be the ones in the future, leave the attorneys at home.

Read through the blogs and then think, is this what we want for our children? Are we being good examples for them? What are the real issues and how can we work TOGETHER to resolve them? People are struggling financially and we are suing who (ourselves?) Be careful that you don't deface what you value so much. These blogs do not make Naperville District 204 look very good. Think about that. Each and every one of us has a responsibility here, think about how you can help.

Bull-crap! Watch the video from the SB's 1/28 meeting (see link below). Todd Andrew makes his passionate plea as to why the SB should consider keeping TG residents with Neuqua and not re-district them to Waubonsie.Go to 58:12 where you will see Todd talk at length about boundaries, their proximity to NV, the TG bridge and why his children should go to Neuqua as opposed to WV.

http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/Subpage.aspx/OnDemandVideo

Funny how this lawsuit only came about AFTER TG/WE were re-districted to WVHS - why wasn't the commute time an issue with these folks when they were supposed to go to MVHS on the BB site?

By $10 will do on March 20, 2008 7:12 AM
Mr Andrews,

A day late and a dollar short.
_____________________________________________

Mr. Metzger

Two years later and 25 million and counting short.

ENOUGH OF THIS!!!! This is a train wreck! I applaud Mr. Andrews and the NSFOC for seeking some accountability in this district.

Moving forward without knowing the BB damages is wrong.

What do I make of Andrews' position?

NSFOC has been so transparent in it's actions by jumping from one rallying position to another namely; safety, busing times, now SB accountability. The bogus information NSFOC uses in an attempt to scare people and support their ever changing reasoning is really outrageous. I believe their membership is simply grasping at various concerns and positions in order to justify their resentment of not getting what they deem is the absolute best alternative for individuals that joined their group. It seems they view the best alternative for themselves is not going to WVHS. I for one, don't buy into Andrews'statement that this is not about staying at NVHS.

Thanks to Todd and his lemings,
We will all be afforded the opportunity to make their attorney Shawn Collins richer,jeopardize a third high school altogether, AND tear a community apart. And yes, this lawsuit is about his desires to send his kid to the school of his choice.He admitted it when he thought noone was listening. I'm just glad we moved from the southern part of the district when we did. I feel bad for the innocent neighbors in these subdivisions that are embarrassed and dismayed by his actions.Please know that there are more than a couple thousand people in these neighborhoods combined. 200 people do NOT speak for them.

Here's how i see it. Here are the issues that the NSFOC/Mr.Andrews/TG/WE have tried to raise.

*It's not about NVHS.
*It's not about WVHS.
*It's about BB property.
*It's about the concern for our children.
*It's about our property values.
*It's about contamination and the environmental issues.
*It's about the bad school board.
*We want a re-vote
*Can't we wait
*We don't want to drive far and cross railroad tracks.

Seems to me that they are trying to throw anything and everything at the wall and nothing is sticking!! Maybe instead you should try to stick with one issue and see how that goes? Then again the school board is playing it smart and picking off your issues one by one. How many more lawsuits will the NSFOC try and file? When will you be able to move on? Unfortunately, I doubt ever. It is really sad to see adults acting in such a selfish way.

NSFOC's position....

Neighborhood Schools for Our Children....."Yes, we'd love to stay at NVHS."

Neighborhood Schools for Our Children...."Ok, we can't stay at NVHS? Then we'll file a lawsuit to make sure we MUST go to MVHS on the BB property"

Neighborhood Schools for Our Children...."No way we don't want our children going to WVHS, not "that" school!!"

Neighborhood Schools for Our Children...."Well, looks like we're not going to get our way no matter what we do, so the school board is incompetent and everyone must go. They obviously don't know what they are doing, even though the school district elected them. We need a school board that has "our" interests in mind."

SORRY THE REST OF THE DISTRICT ISN'T BUYING IT!!!

Give'em enough rope....they'll hang themselves.

I think the article is clear. The NSFOC primary concern is beating the board and secondary concern is the safety of 204 children. I also find it interesting the NSFOC choose the play the pity card with respect to their lack of organization. I'm sure the 204 board members got a good chuckle out of the "late hours" comment.

I am concerned about the safety of the Eola land. If the land is not safe we shouldn't use it. But, I'll wait for the environmental reports before I yell fire.

"Read through the blogs and then think, is this what we want for our children? Are we being good examples for them? What are the real issues and how can we work TOGETHER to resolve them?"

Amen

I am pleased to see the overwhelming number of posts that see through the NSFOC BS and are aware of their true agenda.

One thing I do want to point out though.... several posts have mentioned that TG will go to WV no matter what. That is probably accurate.

However, what about the current 8th graders. Several of the core TG people behind NSFOC have 8th graders. Their belief is that if things are delayed until a 2010 openning, then their current 8th graders would be jrs and would most likely stay at NV.

This brings further light to their self-serving agenda.

A shock that more people have not been willing to publicly talk about what our school district and Board has been doing.

This blog invites specific hate (or praise)towards a single individual, rather than focusing on NSFOC, the Board or the District officials (how about some hard questions for the Board instead of whether Mr. Andrews wants his children to attend NVHS or WVHS??).

Although Mr. Andrews put himself in this position by speaking in the first NSFOC meeting and subsequently speaking to the Sun, I do not think this is professional journalism to mobilize a hate campaign led by the Sun against one individual (who has painstakingly gone out of his way to indicate he is not the leader or founder of NSFOC). The Sun knows what has been on the blogs (previously directed towards NSFOC, Tallgrass or White Eagle). Why it feels it appropriate to now focus the hate towards a single private resident is troubling.

The Sun knows exactly what it is doing here (shame on the paper). Hope it continues to sell papers for you!

I hope however, this has the opposite effect and mobilizes those who support holding the Board and District accountable to come forward in droves...

I think Mr. Andrew's nose is bleeding (mission accomplished), so how about a blog about the following quote from a public official (in a public email from MM regarding the last referendum)...or is that too far off of the paper's editorial position:

"So that leaves the question of why the Board isn’t likely to revisit boundaries. As painful and agonizing as the process was for
residents, I can assure you that it’s much worse for Board
Members. None of us will be in any hurry to do that again. That
means that the only way the boundaries are likely to change is if
the Board is willing to abandon one of the core tenets of this
school district – public involvement in the boundary process – and
simply decides to make the changes by itself. Frankly, if we were
going to do that, we would have done so in January rather go
through the process we selected. And don’t forget that doing that
means that the majority which voted for the selected plan would
need to decide to undo that decision. Someone on the losing side
of a motion can’t move to reconsider.
Beyond the practical reality lies the idea of simple fairness. We
did the boundaries two years earlier than normal because the voters
told us that they needed to know the boundaries in order to
evaluate their votes. To change the boundaries after the vote
smacks of a bait and switch and is just simply unfair.......Do you want to believe those who stand up and are willing to be
accountable for their words and actions or those who sling mud
and spread lies from a perch of anonymity? I hope for the sake of
this community, our children and our property values we make the
right choice. My vote will be YES, and I encourage you to do so
as well.
Mark Metzger
mark_metzger@ipsd.org

To: It's painful to watch the downward spiral.........
Yes, you are right, Mr. Andrews and the NFSOC do not speak for everyone. Yet, I can't tell you how many negative, spiteful blogs I have read talking in GENERAL,STEROTYPICAL terms about the "people of TG and WE" as somehow being the cause of all that is wrong with the district these days. That is an absurd and indefendable accusation. So, it cuts both ways. The hateful and childish comments need to stop. As Mr. Andrews and the NFSOC cannot assume spokesmanship for thousands of people, pro-Eola bloggers cannot claim that everyone in a certain area are all of the same mold. Some people in Mr. Andrew's neighborhood support him/the NFSCOC. Some may be, as you say, embarassed or dismayed. However, most are probably someplace in the middle. Same goes for neighborhoods that are slated for MV at Eola. Some think its safe, others are concerned. So, it's no one's place to be assuming ANY neighborhood is "all or nothing" on this issue. And don't forget the many who may be less in the fray, that surely have an opinion about things - they are just not being vocal because they do not see themselves as having as much to gain or lose by the board's actions. Some don't see the bigger picture, but others may just be choosing to ignore it. Too bad, because this really does affect everyone.

I applaud Mr. Andrews efforts. This SB needs to be accountable to the taxpayers of D204. In the end they will cost everyone millions of dollars(YOUR TAX DOLLARS). I know you face some negativity but, sometimes when you do the right thing that happens.

To: Shame on you.... on March 20, 2008 10:48 AM

God, where do you people (NSFOC) dredge this stuff up? I thought NSFOC wasn't about the boundaries and which schools they were going to??? Hmmmmmm, what's the argument du jour?

You're the ones that keep bringing up the boundaries - yet claim it's not about the boundaries it's really about the "safety of our kids". Whose kids? Yours or mine?

Your double speak and continued circling back to the boundaries rings loud and clear to me (and likely others). And...it ain't about the Eola site's safety. Let there be no doubt about that.

Shame on you (who?),

This was written when the question was posed whether they would change the BB boundaries after the initial process in regards to the BB site. MM was speaking that this would be unfair to do so. If you would like, they could keep the BB boundaries recommended and apply them to the Eola site. I would be fine either way, although it doesn't make much sense.

The point is, the board did everything they could to obtain the BB site. They did not do the whole process "just for fun" or for some conspiratorial motive. We didn't own enough property on any site to build at the time of this letter. We ALL knew that when we voted for a third high school. The board listened to those residents that insisted on drawing boundaries to a property they knew we didn't own and unfortunately after all of this, the property fell through.
I focused on the other information in these meetings such as the enrollment numbers in this district compared to other districts with less kids but more schools, as well as projections.This letter speaks to the fact that BB was still the property being seeked and they were working toward that goal....nothing else was "in the works" as some attempt to promote.

It is unfortunate that the BB property fell through but anyone that has been living in this district for more than five years knows that growth continues to bring change. It's a fact.

We will not send our children to an unsafe site and this is not as a reflection of the NSFOC lawsuit as they would like us to believe.
This is because our SB fully intended to not only perform all necessary testing to ensure safety but to go above and beyond by performing testing not mandated.Anyone that attended any of the board meetings prior to the lawsuit should have known that.

The bottom line is we voted for a third high school, we need a third high school and we don't have time or patience for anyone that attempts to direct our energy away from this important goal.
Mr. Andrew's lawsuit has done just that.This is unfortunate because I do not believe he or the others in his NSFOC group had all of the district's children's futures in mind as the lawsuit relief states "Build on Brach Brodie or don't build the third high school at all".

It is also unfortunate that Mr. Andrews is hurt by the response he has received from people unhappy to be paying for his frivolous and misdirected lawsuit. Perhaps he should have thought things through a bit more ....the same thing he keeps berating our volunteer school board members about.He could also choose to stop posting on the blogs. Thank you.

You would think Shawn Collins would have told his client (NSFOC) to shutup by now.

Everytime Mr. Andrews speaks, he has hurt the credibility of the NSFOC.

Yesterday, Mr. Andrews sun blog admits that this started as a boundary issue which has now transformed into something bigger due to his hatred for the SB.

Today, in the Sun artilce, they acknowledge they only have 200 memebers. Wasn't the YES vote for the referendum something like 14,000. TG alone has 1,000 homes.

NSFOC is a small radical group really ticked at the SB. Thanks NSFOC founder, Mr. Andrews, for continuing to speak and expose your true agenda.

Kudos to NSFOC for asking tough questions of our school board and superintendent. They are not operating above board.

It is very difficult to stand up to the name calling and nasty comments (by our own superintendent, even).

Again, thanks for your efforts.

To: fight the good fight...

"This SB needs to be accountable to the taxpayers of D204. In the end they will cost everyone millions of dollars(YOUR TAX DOLLARS). I know you face some negativity but, sometimes when you do the right thing that happens."

You are right they are accountable, they are building a 3rd high school that will cost millions of dollars. I for one (and the majority of the district) applaud the school board for the positive things they are doing and also dealing with a negative unhappy selfish minority.

To; My kids are assigned to MVHS on March 20, 2008 12:19 PM

There you go - thank you for proving my point.

The MINUTE someone disagrees with NSFOC they can't take it and freak out.

Face the facts....pretty much nobody believes your platform of lies, half-truths, misquotes, and data manipulation. Less support the NSFOC group. And even less have contributed to the losing cause.

You're in the crapper and are about to be flushed out.

To: My kids are assigned to MVHS

My kids are as well. However, I'm a little confused by your comment of how the school board "are not operating above the board"? Are you really serious? The SB has been nothing but up front and honest about everything that has gone on from the hard fight and failed attempt of the BB property to the countless studies and work they have been doing at the Eola site. Only recently have they not shared as much with the district/public until their attorneys give them the go-ahead. Could it be because there are 2 lawsuits out there? If anything, those residents that are part of the NSFOC forced the board to only release information as they get it and are sure they can relase it and not to be so open about everything like they were in the past and sharing everything that the board is doing and planning. They (NSFOC) brought this upon themselves.

I also don't recall any name calling by the school board or Dr. D. Is this the next bullet point on the NSFOC website..."the school board and the superintendent called us names?"

There has been far more name calling slug at the school board but a minority group of unhappy, selfish, "don't send my kid to WV" parents. Yes I did call them names, I call it like I see it.

I just read Shawn Collins' comment from today's Sun article quoting him as saying in feference to NSFOC,

"This organization and the people in it are very offended and upset at what District 204 has done in approximately the last eight weeks, and I'm speaking specifically about the decisions it has made regarding the third high school," Collins said."

HELLO NSFOC - I am "very offended and upset at what NSFOC has done in approximately the last eight weeks, and I'm speaking specifically about the decisions it has made regarding the third high school".

If the membership of 200 people (according to the article) think they speak for any majority of people they are sadly mistaken.

They're nothing more than loud-mouthed bullies threatening to sue, sue, sue if they don't get what they want.

That's quite a Brain Trust you've got going for yourselves NSFOC. Hardly...

Which brings up another question...what do they want? Depends on the day I guess.

I know what I want...for them to fade away.

Today, in the Sun artilce, they acknowledge they only have 200 memebers.

===================================================================

That is not very good membership. The Napergate Man signed up 3500 members in his one liquor store. Then he signed up another 3500 members a few years later to fight that Spring Green cause.

If all NSFOC can do is get 200 members while 14,000 voted for the referendum, I think they need to stop passing the hat around.

Maybe it is time for them to surrender!

Sorry Todd,

As much as you will hate to believe it, this Board has actually been trying to work in the best interests of the district. They actually tried to get BB (really, they did). There is so much innuendo and spin on some of the blogs it is ridiculous. Some people (NSFOC members?) actually believe the School Board took actions to punish certain subdivisions. Give me a break.

D204 parents are smart enough to see through your group (NSFOC) for what it truly is all about.

Turth be told TG's name is mud (and to a lesser extent WE). Seems like this was not well thought through, but reactionary at best.

I have to shake my head at Andrews for allowing himself to be the NSFOC "stooge". He takes the all the shots and is berated in the press and blogs while the real Tall Grass leaders hide in secret behing him.If NSFOC was really legit they would identify themselves instead of hiding like rats while their dummy takes the abuse.

The school board and Dr. D are quite pathetic.

This ENTIRE debacle could have been avoided if the SB & Admin would have engaged in open, honest communication, and actually listened to input instead of rubber-stamping a decision they made behind closed doors, i.e. it was widely know well before the SB meeting that Owen East would be "fixed".

The real cost of all this is a legacy of distrust which will exist for years and years to come. The damage many of you are inflicting by your continual derogatory remarks about TG and WE is equally pathetic, and will fester for years.

I have to shake my head at all the Brookdale pawns who are doing the dirty work of others. A majority of the recent LTEs have been from Brookdale, the "Vote No" whiners from the last referendum who now get a shot at a new high school, and like a dog on a pork chop are refusing to give it up, and growling at anything that threatens them.

Let's drag Brookdale through the mud too! The noble, silent majority who, wow!, is no longer silent! Give me a break. Brookdale malcontents are part of the problem. "Bill and Chad's Excellent Adventure" in web-design and LTE writing will paint Brookdale in an equally ill light. Welcome to the club.

This is to: You're joking right?

Quote in Daily Herald article:

Daeschner scoffed at Andrews' allegation and questioned the group's motives. "It's a little suspicious, isn't it? I mean, good night. None of their children would even go to Metea Valley," he said.

I don't think it's right to scoff at parent's concerns and attack their character. Our superintendent should conduct himself in a more professional manner. Presumptuous too, as my kids are assigned to Metea Valley.

Majoranthrax, I agree. Why are the memebrs of NFSOC keeping thier identities a secret? They must be embarassed. They must know that the fight is a losing one. They must know that even their Tall Grass and White Eagle neighbors would be embarassed by their actions.

Just say NO to Entitlement!

Enough is enough! Let's just get it done, the district seems to favor the new site for Metea and the second sight people (mostly from Will county who pushed for the referendum) should accept it. I will say that I can understand you hard feelings after the district suggested boundaries contingent on the purchase of B.B. for a reasonable amount. They didn't sell you out, but they sure wanted that third school so they did their homework and decided that you folks in Will would be the easiest to convince to back the proposal. Of course they did this by offering those ridiculous boundaries and playing on your desire for a third high school in your backyrads. By the way, Brookdale kids were among the 204 students with the most hours on the bus. They were still selected to attend Waubonsie even though the BB site is closer. I can't remember you Will people complaining about that! Perhaps some did and to those I apoligize. I also feel that sections of Tall Grass should continue at Nequea, but WE and North-Western TG should attend Waubonsie and yes, WE should have stayed at Waubonsie and never moved to Nequea. Its all about fairness to everyone.

I just came across this rather interesting quote from Curt Bradshaw.

Incumbent Curt Bradshaw said many problems exist with the Macom site and until those are resolved, the school board needs to stick with the Brach-Brodie site.
"We explored the plan in great detail," Bradshaw said. "The school would sit next to a ComEd substation and that is just one among the long list of negatives. I do not think putting kids next to a substation is in the best interest of our kids."

My how times/opinions change.

Legitimate points brought up about NSFOC.....

Lot's of people on this blog willing to sound off either way.

However, is everyone reading this blog and posting in support of the slowing down the Board willing to come forward and donate to support continuing to fight against what is happening in our District (there is a link to donate at www.NSFOC.org and takes less than 30 seconds).

If there are only 200 people who donated as has been reported, then it is going to be questionable about how much longer this group can fight against "the millions" that the Board keeps saying it has budgeted for lawsuits.

Will be interesting to see if over the next few days, this movement is joined (at least financially) by those who support slowing down to make sure reasonable due diligence is being made, the thousands who voted NO against the last referendum, the folks who voted yes but feel "duped", the folks who believe Dr. D is autocratic and is ignoring resident impact, the people who believe that the Board is now over their head and making decisions that are not based on good judgment, or those who feel that the EOLA location does not make sense (for safety, location, etc.).

Perhaps someone willing to post on the ProBoards, etc. to see if this is in fact a grassroot movement or a sham?

It may not even be about the dollars (even a $10 donation by Payapl would count in that it is a measure of support).

This is the time to think this through and pick a side....Maybe NSFOC is just a small group of approximately 200 people. Maybe there are more people out there willing to give some support.

Legitimate points brought up about NSFOC.....

Lot's of people on this blog willing to sound off either way.

However, is everyone reading this blog and posting in support of the slowing down the Board willing to come forward and donate to support continuing to fight against what is happening in our District (there is a link to donate at www.NSFOC.org and takes less than 30 seconds).

If there are only 200 people who donated as has been reported, then it is going to be questionable about how much longer this group can fight against "the millions" that the Board keeps saying it has budgeted for lawsuits.

Will be interesting to see if over the next few days, this movement is joined (at least financially) by those who support slowing down to make sure reasonable due diligence is being made, the thousands who voted NO against the last referendum, the folks who voted yes but feel "duped", the folks who believe Dr. D is autocratic and is ignoring resident impact, the people who believe that the Board is now over their head and making decisions that are not based on good judgment, or those who feel that the EOLA location does not make sense (for safety, location, etc.).

Perhaps someone willing to post on the ProBoards, etc. to see if this is in fact a grassroot movement or a sham?

It may not even be about the dollars (even a $10 donation by Payapl would count in that it is a measure of support).

This is the time to think this through and pick a side....Maybe NSFOC is just a small group of approximately 200 people. Maybe there are more people out there willing to give some support.

Most of the negative comments I read in these blogs regarding NSFOC appear to be coming from North (Oakhurst, Brookdale, Stonebridge) people who just want the HS built for their own selfish reasons at any "cost". I draw this conclusion because those never dipsute with facts or discuss the real issues at hand and only write derogatory and irrelevant stuff like "get over it", "welcome to WVHS" and "it's all about NVHS & TG &WE" I conclude that these comments are coming from people from the North and they just want a new school close to them so they are mad if there is someone in their way. They don't seem to debate what these unhappy people (really don't want
1) a north location
2) a north location that may cost more money
3) a north location that has the perception of being unsafe, if not a reality
4) a north location that increases transportation costs and transportation risks overall for the district,

I would love to hear if these comments are coming from the South, SW or SE. Please identify your neighborhood before you sling mud. My non-blogging contacts in other South neighborhoods (not TG, WE, Ashwood) are saying stuff just "glad we're safe at the closest school of our choice" (translated as Apathy) or "are concerned with how much money is the SB going to spend" "or do we really need this school afterall"(translated as "let's vote again with the real facts straight")

A applaud Mr. Andrews for the lawsuit being brought forth against the school board. As a resident of Tall Grass I do not want to see my children (3 - ages 8, 11 and 13)have to attend WVHS. Say what you will about WVHS..it's a good school, great teachers, blah, blah, blah...The fact of the matter is that it has a large gang culture that has infiltrated the school over the past decade. In addition the class of people are not what I want my children subjected to. I know, I sound like a snob, but I upgraded my house and moved to Tall Grass so my children could attend NVH, not WVH.

To Tall Grass Resident on March 20, 2008 4:13 PM

You say.."the class of people are not what I want my children subjected to".

You want them to associate with low-class, ignorant, self-centered types like you? God save us ALL!!!

What a bitch you are.

Kudos Tall Grass Resident March 20, 2008 4:13 PM. Finally a bit of honesty. I do not agree with the overall sense of entitlement of your subdivision but it is refreshing to see some honesty in the motives.

Re: George Fox
George, I cant tell you how disappointed I am that you are not using your real name. Can you tell me are you from out east (maybe New York State). But seriously the Macom site had other issues also like a "life trust issue" maybe the board had dealt with enough crap and wanted a site that was going to be available this century. Just an idea, I have no facts to back it up.

Mega Dittos to "Welch and Walking" - wish I were in your shoes :) Yes, a large majority of the people painting ugly accusations upon TG, WE, nsfoc, and anyone who dares have the audacity to question site safey are from Brookdale - simply use the web to look up their addresses and you'll see a majority of them are in Brookwail, I mean Brookale. This subdivision, and it's nsfocfraud website, are the biggest group of witch hunters since Salem. Need proof? Take a look at their front page, where they call out a newspaper reporter. I forgot when they outlawed free speech, I'm sure nsfocfraud can let me know. Hey nsfocfraud, instead of your smear and slander campaign, how about some facts? Since when is it a crime against humanity to fight against an autocratic SB who continually ignores it's people? Since when is it a crime to demand fiscal responsibility? And while you are at it, stop dragging sub divisions through the mud!

BY 204
You need to stop name calling. What kind of low-class, ignorant, self-centered are you?

To Tall Grass Resident 3/20 4:13 pm

Looks like you need to upgrade again. Good Luck selling! Your subdivision is now known as All A_S.

Re: Tall Grass Resident 3/20 4:13
I really have to believe that a non resident of Tall Grass wrote this, come on people lets write something that is on topic. Is Andrews just a scapegoat, Is the attorney for nsfoc a nut, Is the next meeting for nsfoc going to be at a more neutral location. If so can it be at a bar so I can have a couple of captain and cokes, the country-club venue is a little above my social stature. Anyone have a guess what the school board will be discussing tonight. At least the meeting started at 6 pm (not under the cover of darkness). Has there been any pipeline explosions today? if so get a u-tube feed asap. I hate picking on anyone personally.

to: Tall Grass Resident on March 20, 2008 4:13 PM :

I would bet that you are most certainly not a tall grass resident, but someone trying to portray themselves as one.

To everyone else, keep in mind that this is an anonymous blog and people can write whatever they wish. They can also say they are from wherever they wish. One way to make a group look bad is to pretend to be one of them and write vile comments like this person has done. In this case their hope is that everyone will now jump on yet another Tallgrass Resident as being evil. Very transparent and something I learned in high school discussion and debate class 25 years ago.

I personally think the sb did a good job with the boundaries, and do not agree with the NSFOC groups efforts, but I will fight for their right to pursue a remedy they think is right.

If you don't like their lawsuit then I suggest you run for President and change the constitution. Otherwise just let it play out in the courts, I believe the Eola site will be built and the boundaries will stay as they are, but again I'm leaving it up to the courts to decide.

George:

just came across this rather interesting quote from Curt Bradshaw.

Incumbent Curt Bradshaw said many problems exist with the Macom site and until those are resolved, the school board needs to stick with the Brach-Brodie site.
"We explored the plan in great detail," Bradshaw said. "The school would sit next to a ComEd substation and that is just one among the long list of negatives. I do not think putting kids next to a substation is in the best interest of our kids."

My how times/opinions change.

CAN YOU PROVIDE SOURCING FOR THIS....(a reference where it can be confirmed)...

To Tall Grass Resident 3/20 4:13 pm

If we're all being honest here, I want the high school in the north. I've had to drive too many years across the district. It's my turn to have a high school in my area.

To: Anonymous on March 20, 2008 6:06 PM

I'm not the one who is stating that I'm better than others and don't want to co-mingle with someone from a different "class".

Who are you the Queen of England? Funny how I could tell you are a woman, huh? You just don't like being called what you are. And it's true. Nobody would disagree, not even your husband.

I'm completely happy that I dont' live in Tall Grass if that means living near simple minded people like you.

ANOTHER LIE?

The Illinois EPA is NOT overseeing the District's envirenmental studies. Do not believe me...just give them a call.

To Tall Grass Resident. I am glad you are so honest in your statement. We actually moved out of TG because we thought alot of the residents (OF COURSE NOT ALL OF THEM) were very low class and self serving. I guess everything is relative in what you are use to. We saw paper all over the subdivision(Low Class),GANG graffiti written all over the common areas(again low class), out of control teenagers with no respect or regard to any ones property. We also saw unkept lawns and unsightly weeds, (again very low class) Beer bottles on folks yards for days at a time(again low class). Also lets not forget the teenagers using the bathroom in the pool.(I don't know what kind of class that is) I was always afraid of the snow melting in that subdivision because I knew I would have to look at litter for days. I think that WV parents should be worried about what kind of company and values YOUR kids might bring. p. S. I am an X Tall Grass Resident for real. Have a Great Day.

To "Tall Grass Resident" on March 20, 2008 4:13 PM:

I oppose the NSFOC and their lawsuit (mainly because it just means Shawn Collins gets richer and we pay to defend another lawsuit and I can't stand all the toxic waste they are spewing on their website) but even if NSFOC is a 100% Tall Grass-roots effort, I don't believe the majority of TG feels the way you do (if you are indeed a TG resident) and if people do feel this away about Waubonsie, too bad for them.

My eldest son will go to Neuqua. Based on where we live, unless they put the new HS in the far, far South, he'll never be moved unless they try to annex us out of 204. (I can only imagine the lawsuit that would be filed if they tried to redistrict people to Aurora East or Plainfield or Bolingbrook -- it would make NSFOCs look like small claims court).

But he swims with the Waubonsie swim team. These are some of the best young men and women I've dealt with, as are their parents.
None of these kids are part of a 'gang culture' or attempt to propagate on.

Meanwhile, however, a Neuqua feeder middle school advertised its Spring musical with the tag line "let's get gangsta". Hmmm.

@ Welch and walking on March 20, 2008 3:43 PM:

Ok, I'm from the Deep South of Naperville. I am making negative commens about the NSFOC.

1) I'm fine with a North location. We have two schools south of 75th street already.

2) "May" cost more money. "May not". The BB property "may" cost more money too now since the District's right to buy it expired with the lawsuit and lack of appeal. Sure they want to talk to 204 now. But what's their new price?

3) I always thought BB was an unsafe location for a school. It's at a heavily traveled intersection in the middle of commercial developments. That's my 'perception' of that location.

4) There is no proof BB 'increases' transportation costs. Having buses sitting at the corner of 75th and Rt. 59 trying to make a left turn through 3 cycles of a light would also increase transportation costs. There is no proof of increased transportation risks either. School buses stop at railroad crossings. Been doing it to get to WVHS for years with no incidents. UNLIKE the school bus accidents that occur on major roadways.

We're not "glad we're safe at the closest school of our choice". We are concerned with how much money is the SB going to spend DEFENDING ITSELF AGAINST THE NSFOC LAWSUIT" and we don't want another vote.

To Interested.. on March 20, 2008 3:41 PM

"This is the time to think this through and pick a side....Maybe NSFOC is just a small group of approximately 200 people. Maybe there are more people out there willing to give some support."

I have. I do not support Naperville Schools for our Children.

I get the distinct impression that many people in Brookdale feel like this is 'pay back' for NVHS 10 years plus ago....how sad!

The think the term "entitlement" is better applied to some attitudes in Brookdale. What a shame.

Is it journalism to sponsor, and even go so far as to create the topic for, a blog which based on previous blogging was obviously (no accident here) going to end up as a vehicle to personally attack a member of a group that the paper has taken an editorial stand against?

Where is the blog on what do you think about the amount of legal fees spent by the Board on BB so far. How about the incompetency of missing the boat by almost 100% on the per acre value.... Maybe the email by Ms. Tyle (a Board member) this weekend advocating voting on the poll for the specific purpose of influencing the lawsuit against the District (seems ripe to get some good personal attacks about Ms. Tyle and her family). How about, where are the names of those supporting NSFOCfraud.com??

What do you think of Andrews' position? Is that news or is it designed to incite an ugly reaction against a resident that the paper has a beef with? Perhaps it is designed to incite people to act on previous postings on other blogs that have given the directions to Mr. Andrews' home (I understand he has children so wouldn't that make a great story for the Sun)?

I think we just figured out the difference between a tabloid and a newspaper.

Nice quote from Bradshaw, George Fox! I'd nearly forgotten about that one. It was in the paper before the election.

Dist. 204 candidates discuss Brach-Brodie, Macom sites
Naperville Sun, The (IL) - April 6, 2007
Author: By Britt Carson

If all goes according to plan , Metea Valley High School will open in fall 2009.

Construction of the 3,000-seat high school has been the focus of many questions posed to the candidates running for school board in Indian Prairie School District 204. Everything from the location to the cost per square foot has been under the microscope recently with the upcoming April 17 election.

The school is slated to open with freshmen and sophomores in 2009 on 80 acres along 75th Street and the future extension of Commons Drive in Aurora. The district's condemnation lawsuit for 55 of those acres is scheduled to go to trial Sept. 17 in DuPage County. The district already owns the adjacent 25 acres.

However, if the Illinois Senate approves "quick take" legislation, the district can take possession of the property and let a jury later set the price per acre. That also means it would be locked into purchasing the property at whatever price a jury determines.

Earlier this year, a local developer came forward with a new plan to locate the high school at 95th Street and Wolf's Crossing Road at the northern end of Macom's Ashwood development. Paul Lehman, president of Macom, proposed theplan , but the school board decided the site had too many challenges to overcome and it would stay the course with Brach-Brodie.

If the construction schedule gets compressed, school officials have said they could open the building in phases.

Seven candidates are vying for three unpaid school board seats, each of which has a four-year term. Here is what they told The Sun about the third high school, Brach-Brodie and the Macom site during endorsement interviews.

Bradshaw

Incumbent Curt Bradshaw said many problems exist with the Macom site and until those are resolved, the school board needs to stick with the Brach-Brodie site.

"We explored the plan in great detail," Bradshaw said. " The school would sit next to a ComEd substation and that is just one among the long list of negatives. I do not think putting kids next to a substation is in the best interest of our kids."

Calcaterra

Candidate Steve Calcaterra said the school board needs to be cognizant of the timetable and expensive delays that could pile up if plans don't move forward soon.

"On paper Brach-Brodie looks like the better choice right now, and I think we could get it at a better price," Calcaterra said. "There are some issues with traffic patterns, and along with that comes the safety of the kids coming and going. But as the clock keeps ticking, I think Brach-Brodie starts to look less and less desirable."

Lyons

Candidate Leanne Lyons said the school board needs to let the public know about all the options for land that are available.

"I do have reservations on how the school will be delivered," Lyons said. "If there was another plot of land out there, we could have gotten started on it, then fine, but we should have known about other viable options out there."

Tyle

Incumbent Alka Tyle said the Macom site would require extensive engineering work and other issues that would cost the district both time and money.

"Relocating roads and working out stormwater issues takes time as well as the other issues associated with the (Macom) property," Tyle said. " The Macom plan is not the best-case scenario for the district."

Mark Metzger

Incumbent Mark Metzger said most of the legal issues have been worked out, and he is confident the school district will have the land in time to open it by 2009.

"I have always said the Brach-Brodie site is by no means the best site, but is the least wrong available and that remains to be true," Metzger said. "I don't think most people realize, all the legal issues were ruled in our favor, all we have left is the price and when."

Michelle Davis

Candidate Michelle Davis said the district should have been more open about the issues relating to Brach-Brodie before the voters went to the polls.

"I tend to go back to the decision making and think we were all led to believe Brach-Brodie was a done deal once we went to the polls," Davis said. " The public should have known about the Macom situation, and the district was not forthcoming."

Kevin Knight

Candidate Kevin Knight said the district should be more open about any contingency plans that are inthe works to ensure the school will open on time.

"I have been asking the board since 2006 about contingency plans , and I don't see any of that," Knight said. "It is April, and we still don't have a building. Brach-Brodie is a good location, but what concerns me about the Macom proposal is that the school board and Paul Lehman appear to be playing a big game of chicken. When we have issues like these with millions of dollars at stake, maybe we need to come back to the table because it is worth discussing again."

Contact Britt Carson at bcarson@scn1.com or 630-416-5269.
Section: LOCAL NEWS
Page: 18

TALL GRASS RESIDENT- I am from White Eagle and have always disliked TG because of the attitude of people like you. The fact that the media seems to think WE and TG are joined at the hip is just not so. TG has never been a classy place. As for the gang culture you mention at WV, how do you know? Where do you get your information? I am over at WV enough to know there are kids in gangs but they are not a threat in the school. WV is as safe as any. And you think NV is perfect? There are alot of problem kids there. Just go to 95th and Book and see the kids hang around. There has been police activity there in the past. And there were the NV kids who tried to rob a bank a few years ago. And a boy who was beaten so badly he is paralyzed below the neck. His attacker was allowed to stay in school. These examples are documented in the papers and not rumors. My kid is going to Scullen next year. I shudder to think he will be in your neighborhood.

To from Deep in the South. Good post. I especially agree with your point on how you've always thought BB was an unsafe location for a school. It's at a heavily traveled intersection in the middle of commercial developments. Not only does this lead to the safety, but to the inflated price of the BB site - it's more suited for retail than an Educational facility. Good point.

I think it's time for the Sun to stop these blogs. Do you find enjoyment to sit back and watch a community come apart like this? Is this the only way you can get ad space/subscriptions? Reading your paper is getting as bad as the goofy tabloids at the checkout counter.

Let's not forget people that we are in the middle of holy week. If Jesus Christ can forgive for what was done to him I'm sure we can all find forgiveness for those you feel have done you wrong.

May God Bless you all, you need it.

By Anonymous on March 20, 2008 6:20 PM
George:

just came across this rather interesting quote from Curt Bradshaw.

Incumbent Curt Bradshaw said many problems exist with the Macom site and until those are resolved, the school board needs to stick with the Brach-Brodie site.
"We explored the plan in great detail," Bradshaw said. "The school would sit next to a ComEd substation and that is just one among the long list of negatives. I do not think putting kids next to a substation is in the best interest of our kids."

My how times/opinions change.

CAN YOU PROVIDE SOURCING FOR THIS....(a reference where it can be confirmed)...
___________________________________

Mr. Bradshaw's quote was in the local paper. I think it was in the Sun. Might have been the Herald.

I'll go through my documentation tonight and provide you with the exact date of publication.

Abe Froman, the sausage king?

Thanks for that blast from the past, I love that flick! Nice grab on the CB quote, too. I'm officially going to go kick myself for not listening better to Knight and Calcaterra..... M2 doesn't disappoint though - same arrogant, ultimately wrong windbag he's always been. Don't see how any of the current board will ever get re-elected after this train wreck.

The cost of BB is no longer a valid concern... you will pay it in the costs of damages (2005 value vs 2008 value plus the 3M for legal) or you can re-engage BB to purchase the land.

Have you considered the cost of remediating MDW Gen property and the cost of the long term damage the chemicals (details listed in the complaint & MDW EPA permit application). Run the list of chemicals and their effects by any nuerologist and they will talk about nuerotoxins, increased risk of Addictive behaviors and Aggression in short term and Leukemia, Brain and nuerological cancers long term. Is this what you want for your children. Step back and take an objective look at this.

MDW Gen did not approach 204 about this sale.. they know it is not suitable and certainly are not willing to take on the liability for land... once again taxpayers will pick up that bill! Stop this stupidity.. no one wants to poison our kids.. do you really trust the SB based on their past history???

First time in my life, I actually feel that there are some good attorneys. NSFOC and its attorney actually asked many questions that I shared but do not know where to find listeners! My biggest concern is what the final cost will be when the 3rd high school is completed, on BB site or EOLA site. Second, is the EOLA site really safe for our kids? Can the SD provide more detail, straightforward information about the safety issues on the EOLA site? Third, since the SD used 2005 projection number of high school students, the economic condition, job market, especially the housing market has become much worse since, is the projection still right today? in orther ward, do we really need another high school? Lots of questions... no answers yet.... Thank you, NSFOC for bring these issues to the 204 parents' attention!!

To Just trying to stay neutral on 3/20 at 6:17: No one knows what the school board was discussing tonight except the school board, because between 6-7:30 PM tonight they were at the H.C. Center on Shoreline in a "secret" executive session. They came out for 3 minutes to hear 2 people make comments, then adjourned. The 25 or so parents in the room weren't acknowledged or spoken to. No information was shared with them. There were several more people there who had wanted to s