D204's Daeschner, Metzger on the hot seat

At what point will the SB add up the numbers?

Total cost of BB land vs the cost of the BB lawsuit for damages (which is justified..SB tied up their land for two years with lawsuit and said publicly 'we will pay whatever the jury says the cost is' Damages will be MV of land 2005 vs MV 2008 plus dropped contract (20M)

Cost of remediation ; I hear the members of AME are delighted at the possible windfall....their members also had concerns about site for their children!

and once the real numbers of attendance are published... at 8900 max there is no need for a 3rd HS...need a little space Add a Parking Garage & Additional Classrooms. With the College Classes available thru Governors State and COD next to the NVHS campus; we can spread the students around.

All the hype on 'split shifts' was just FUD to scare voters into supporting Metea. Ha! Ha! taxpayers now they have your cash...what are you going to do to stop this waste?

Enough is enough.

Sadly voters in Illinois don't have the power to recall or impeach the SB, otherwise Metzger and the rest of the SB would be fighting a triple whammy.

Is there anything that can be done here? We seriously need some mediation or arbitration. Does anyone know if the Regional Superintendent has the power to intervene? The State Legislature? The States Attorney? Can't at least an investigation into fraud and corruption be started by the Justice Department?

Clearly Mark has lost the credibility, confidence, and support he once was able to muster. His leadership has faltered repeatedly. It is time for Metzger to resign. If he doesn't do it willingly then the SB needs to vote to remove him and elect someone who can work to rebuild trust and confidence throughout the SD.

Sorry Metzger, we are sure you tried your best. You are no longer the right person for the SB Presidency. You have become a lightning rod who is dividing our community. Now is time to step aside and let a new chapter of IPSD be written. Please do it quickly and honorably.

Sun Editors,

What a nice blog topic to try and incite more NSFOC-type paranoia. Are you unhappy the environmental reports didn't show anything bad enough to stop the school?

Enough with 204 and their problems. You know folks there's a lot more going on in this world and our community than this cat fight between lawyers. Please Sun, show us you can do more than continually add fuel to the fire that was clearly needed to be put out Monday night.

I feel like I am reading the Onion.....These are our District's "official" positions on the Eola site???

1)This just shows what a "nincompoop" Shawn Collins is

Mark Metzger

2) We will just fence that baby in...

Dr. Daeschner

3) The lawsuit (take your pick of any of the three) is ridiculous.

204's lawyers

4) It is ridiculous to expect that the condemnation judgement will be more than $300,000 per acre

Same 204 lawyers

If you just take the District and Board's numbers (assuming that there is no further liability in any of the three lawsuits against US--essentially putting all of our tax money on "red"), they have wasted at least 5 million OF OUR MONEY in legal fees and costs by abandoning the BB land. If you take what they say as true....the FMV of the BB land was DOUBLE what the District and District lawyers based their plan of action on (the same lawyers now evaluating OUR financial risks going forward)

Let's talk about what 5 million buys...

5,000 computers for our schools;

$3,000 bonuses for 1666 teachers

500 ten thousand dollar scholarships for 204 students to go to college

a years salary for about 125 new teachers into the District.

Mr.Metzger, all due respect, but I think you have lost your official license to use the word "nincompoop". I would ask that you please stop talking to the press on behalf of our District (it is really embarassing).

The study was insufficient and not fully disclosed. This is unacceptable. What is the SB thinking? They should all resign. They are either grossly incompetent or deceitful or both.

Hopefully the NSFOC suit helps to stop this lunacy. The crap presented on Monday night was incomplete. They tested only where spills were reported. One blog this week stated that the well serving the bathroom was tested when the TSC representative said that it was NOT when he answered a Vickers question.

The Brach family is suing for upwards of $20 MM, The Brodie family is suing for upwards of $40 MM. If the BB lawyers kick the SB’s butt again, the price of the Eola land becomes $76.5 MM, BEFORE the clean-up, wetlands remediation and construction. I they get only half, its $46 MM.

The BB land is starting to bargain.

The only thing I don’t understand is why the heck Midwest Gen would be a part of this mess. If I were a stockholder or a Midwest Gen lawyer, I would be screaming, “Run away from this mess as fast as you can”.

I have one thought: when the district is facing 3 legal cases over the new high school plus at least one more lawsuit over discrimination, it is not a good idea for Board President Mark Metzger to call attorneys bringing cases against the district "nincomppoops" as he did in today's article about Collin's letter. That kind of arrogance is unbecoming of a public official. It breeds more lawsuits and makes out-of-court settlements difficult to achieve. We, the taxpayers, are being forced to foot the bill for Metzger repeatedly putting his foot in his mouth.

I see we finally know the defacto head of the NSFOCfraud group...and perhaps NO surprise to anyone, she lives in Brookdale.

The same Brookdale that overwhelmingly voted NO to the new school (when they thought it was going to be built at BB). Now of course(with the school slated to be built in their backyard) they STRONGLY believe that the District needs a new school and are 100% in support of EVERYTHING that the Administration and Board are doing to make this happen.

Perhaps the folks behind NSFOC have self interests, but this clearly cuts both ways...For the rest of the 204 community, this should simply come down to whether they believe that the District and Board are using reasonable due diligence to assure that the EOLA land is safe, and using fiscal responsibility in representing the expedenture of OUR TAX DOLLARS.

So far, I would say the grade would not be to high on either account.

Here's a Thought...Mr. Collins is a greedy lawyer hired by greedy selfish parents who feel entitled to get what they want so they don't have to go to a school they think is below them. The word "entitlement" comes to mind.

Should the court agree with the NSFOC and Mr. Collins and the Brach Trust and Brodie Trust this will be the most expensive high school in history and all of our taxes will shoot through the roof. Thanks NSFOC for making all of us pay for your frivolous lawsuit so you could get your way and thank you in advance should my taxes go up because now the high school will cost close to 300 million.

What you will see should this happen is hundreds of residents if not thousands move out of IPSD 204. You will also see the already existing hatred towards TG and We increase. My guess is the majority of people thta will move from this district are those people who supported the NSFOC. To blame this on the school board is absurd you could have just let it play out between the BB trusts but instead the NSFOC had to get what they felt was "due to them".

I HOPE NO ONE EVER FORGETS WHAT SOME RESIDENTS IN TG AND WE DID TO TO THE CHILDREN, PARENTS AND TEACHERS IN IPSD 204. Considering everything the school board did in 2005-2006 to make thoes same residents happy, they turn around and SUE US ALL!!! DISGUSTING!! Nice example you showed to your chidren and the teachers that teach your children.

I have to agreen with another post from another blog. IPSD 204 was better without the TG neighborhood. But, I guess this is what happens when you welcome in a bunch of selfish residents that feel entitled and how it's all going to benefit them. (example giving them a Naperville address, that's when the entitlement began)

IT WAS NEVER ABOUT HOW THEY (the NSFOC/TG/WE) COULD BENEFIT THE IPSD FOR ALL OF US, IT WAS ABOUT HOW THE IPSD COULD BENEFIT THEM (the NSFOC/TG/WE) AND IF THEY CAN'T....SUE THEM!!!

In order to provide more context to why the seat may be hot, a group of people have compiled a list of third high school comments from newspapers and past emails. Reading through this list may help give bloggers perspective on why there is such large divide among the people of 204.

Actual Link
http://ipsd204.proboards76.com/v45index.cgi?board=sb&action=display&thread=569#42405

Easier Link
http://tinyurl.com/3nvsud

Does anyone know if D204 can lose its state funding if it violates the state's "Build Safe" standards? I'd say that's a potential loss we don't want to jeopardize.

I agree with Anonymous @ 7:37. While the editors of The Sun certainly have the right to exercise their freedom of speech, I do feel that all of these blog threads are accomplishing little other than further dividing our community and fueling hateful dialogue. Whether or not we're happy with the situation, the facts are that the environmental reports are in, the land purchase is being made, and the construction is soon to begin. It would be SO refreshing if The Sun were to help in the process of mending the rifts between the opposing fronts in 204 instead of deepening them...perhaps this could be done by initiating discussion on how we can move forward as a community instead of scrutinizing and picking apart this mess in paparazzi-like fashion. I'm disappointed...as a lifetime Naperville and Aurora resident, I've come to expect more of The Sun than this.

Moderator Jim to SC: Sorry, SC, but another classic case of "blaming the messenger." We've been diligently covering both sides of this story in a fair and balanced manner, giving plenty of coverage to both sides in the Metea story. This is our mission: to inform on topics relevant to the community and this, for sure, falls under that category. We're not in the business of bringing the community together, we're in the business of reporting the facts. The blogs serve as a community forum where topics - again relevant to the community - can be discussed. Finally, I resent your "paparazzi" analogy. That's not what we're about. So, again, I would urge you not to blame the media or think of us as mediators, arbitrators or solvers of problems. We just report in a fair and balanced manner - it's up to you to decide and then, as a member of the community, use your informed knowledge to make decisions as to schools or whatever issue it may be. Not our job - yours.

To Here's a Thought on April 9, 2008 9:06 AM

"Should the court agree with the NSFOC and Mr. Collins and the Brach Trust and Brodie Trust this will be the most expensive high school in history and all of our taxes will shoot through the roof. Thanks NSFOC for making all of us pay for your frivolous lawsuit so you could get your way and thank you in advance should my taxes go up because now the high school will cost close to 300 million."

Do courts hear frivolous cases? Better yet do they "agree" with frivolous cases? You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Since when is a voting right frivolous? Or the safety of our children? Or the accountability of our School Board?

Contrary to previous biased coverage of this topic, the Naperville Sun did a great job of reporting both sides of the 2 lawsuits in today's paper but the topic of this blog and the way it was phrased is inflamitory. Is the Sun afraid that this issue will die down now that the experts have spoken about the safety of the site? Is the Sun afraid they will lose subscribers or internet hits? I don't understand why the Sun is trying to fan the flames. The next blog topic should be to find a solution to end this dispute.

Editor of the Sun, I really appreciate for your effort and for opening up many hot discussion blogs like this. I don’t think, you are dividing the community, but you giving us a chance to understand what is really going on around us and get everyone feed back. Keep it up.

We can agree to disagree about the way The Sun chooses to wield its power of press. We can also agree to disagree on the definition of "fair and balanced" reporting. I see from your response that my expectations of this publication were too high, and for that I am truly sorry.

Moderator Jim to SC: "Expectations too high?" No, not accurate. I think your expectations are unrealistic due to your misunderstanding of the role of the press. However, I agree on your point that we can agree to disagree. Agreed?

Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to. Agreed. :)

Moderator Jim Anonymous: The topic of the blog just reflected what was reported in the paper and on our web site. We're not fanning any flames. If you read the blog entry all it did was address the two issues, i.e. the Brach-Brodie lawsuit and the NSFOC's response to the environmental reports. To say that Daeschner and Metzger are on the "hot seat" is fairly obvious. Plus, it's just a figure of speech that accurately describes the overall situation. Thanks.

To Spoiled Tall Grass Brats on April 9, 2008 9:57 AM

"The school board tried everything in their power to get BB."

Crouse - Daily Herald 11/29/2006: "We believe that we have sufficient funds available through referendum or other sources to pay fair market value of the property,"

Metzger said he isn’t worried about getting locked into whatever price the jury sets.

“I don’t believe there’s much risk of it being an out-of-control number in the first place,” he said. “Our data is better than their data. Even if it’s the worst case scenario, we can afford it so it doesn’t matter.”

Mark Metzger
Daily Herald
July 12, 2007

Who is the nincompoop? Looks like your data is also better than the three groups sueing the District in that you know that each one has no merit or any financial exposure to the District.

On a seperate note, one guess from where Here's a thought is from.....Brookdale??

Sorry that all 4,500 plus people who reside in TG are such horrible people. What is the next NSFOCfraud platform..Subdivision cleansing???

I want to see the hidden envirenmental reports and everyone should be writing to Midwest Gen ASAP demanding their release. It is NOT fair to go forward with our tax dollars to buy this property and hide behind confidentiality agreements (as taxpayers, we should not have ANYTHING hidden from us).

Please contact Mr. McCluskey at Midwest Gen as ask for Midwest Gen to share these reports asap:

fmccluskey@mwgen.com

The NSFOC suit states build on Brach-Brodie or give the money back. Judges don't legislate from the bench. They will state whether or not the SB, with all their documentation, lead the voters to believe their votes were for the BB site. If the SB doesn't want to 'give the money back' they will have to vote on another site.

The NSFOC suit is not suing for any money. It is saying for God's sake, don't buy a contaminated piece of property located where 15% of the students live. Read the complaint. The BB suits, on the other hand, are suing for upwards of $60 MM. The BB suit is requesting monetary compensation for harms done. The NSFOC suit is not. It is saying avoid these incredible BB suits by doing what you promised to do. The BB families are suing because the SB harmed them.

Does anyone know if the BB suits have received the same judge who ruled against the SB last time? Might be bad karma.

I heard people talking about Midwest Gen walking away from the SB deal. Has anyone else hard that? What will the SB do if they don't have all the land they need?

Sounds like the SB is having a bad week. :)
F

Since the BB trust wants the district to buy the land at the jury verdict, I hope the county is taxing the land at that value. Afterall, they just entered into the court records that they feel that is the proper value of the land. Hard to argue with the tax assesor over that.

It is amazing to me that everyone is still pitting neighborhood against neighborhood. In case you haven't noticed district 204 is in deep trouble people! There are now three lawsuits representing three unique groups that each feel they have legal grounds against our school board. And unfortunately, they all have merit to their suits. The school board has not been nor is it today being forth coming about all the pertinent information to the public. There are alot of enviromental issues to the Eola site, sorry all you NOFSC bashers but look at the reports and 7 still haven't been released to the public for fear if the contract goes south the value of the land would be in jeopardy. HUH? Doesn't that say right there things aren't good? I'm not one to stand behind litigation but in this case I'm beginning to have respect for those people that stood up and took this action. Who is going to pay for all the mediation to the land? The school board says the seller will. But then fails to quailfy that with only what pollution is known at the time of closing, which is what the seller has agreed to. So already this district owes the group that several bloggers keep referring to as the spoiled TG people a great deal of thanks for delaying the March closing. Otherwise, this district would be footing the bill for some of the clean up determined in the phase 2! Stop the mud slinging and please back off your own my way or the highway attitudes. It's time to realize that there are three sides to every story - yours, mine and the TRUTH! No side of this mess can say they have handled things correctly 100% of the time - we're all human. Time to stop fighting, step back and make sure our kids are safe and our board members are honest - then build the high school.

Now the NSFOC wants to make an issue of where the defacto head of the anti-NSFOC resides. I do not live in Brookdale but I feel the NSFOC is a fraud. When 9 individuals choose to sue me as a taxpayer for their own selfish reasons, I don't think it matters where I live. Nine people are suing to tell me how I voted. Sorry but I don't care in which subdivision you reside, no one wants to see their tax dollars spent to defend against nine entitled people.

To hers a thought: First off, let me start by saying I purchased my lot long before there was even streets, pipes, utility lines etc. in this subdivision, I did not look at it as way to be better than anyone else or some how to be entitled by trying to make a home for my family. We come from the south suburbs where in our community it was just that a community, no subdivision names, just the town name. I am not a nfoc member, I do not feel entitled to anything in my life, I drive a ten year old car, shop at old navy and still have my best friends since high school. I did not want a third high school but hey it was voted on and decided so be it. I did not like the bb site but it was what the sb decided again , so be it. When the bouandaries were decided you bet I did not like it not because I had anything against any school but it was the distance , I couldnt understand how the sb thinks this somehow saves in transportation cost but then by reading these blogs and the hatred and endless blame on certain subdivisions started, and I took the attidude of what will be will be. I have read peoples postings of glee at speculation of foreclosures , people posting how selfish those people are , I have even seen postings by people about our children that live here and now once again a post like YOURS! No one choose the bb site but your sb, no one decide to sue bb for a quick take but your school sb, no one but your sb walked away from this site,noone but your sb choose the new eola site and noone is responsible for the bb lawsuit but your sb!yes, we all our being sued by nsfo and that is on those people involved it it, not entire subdivisions as you have put it. This is the same mentality my ten year old uses when she is mad at her sister for one thing it is suddenly her sisters fault for everything. Please realize it is no one that lives in these subdividions fault that the bb is now suing ipsd but your sb, and like YOU I am not happy in paying higher taxes but the cost of this bb suit and the cost to clean up new site on eola is purely the sbs responsibility! with this said I have to questions for you to look inside yourself and answer them truthfully. If these subdivisions had smaller homes and blue collar workers paying for them and still opposed the sb would you stil find them just selfish people who think they are just entitled or would you slap them with other labels because they dont agree with you and my second question is if there was another site in the north section and it was between this site (which had the criteria of bb) and the eola site which site would you honestly choose eola for a new school? with me its still so be it my children will be warriors and they will enjoy their high school and they will make new friends not because of subdivisions , homes they live in or the cloths they wear but because they concider them good people , because that is what I have taught them , which makes me wonder what your parents taught you!

THANK YOU NSFOC for opening our eyes to this reckless SB.

To: Naperville Sun editors on April 9, 2008 9:36 AM

You say you cover both sides equally? Maybe more attention should be looked at in the words you use. The Naperville Sun states..."old peaker plant that stands in the shadow of the soon-to-be constructed high school"

I've never seen shadows that extend over 23 acres from the closest point of the high school to the effected area on the former peaker plant? Words say a lot Naperville Sun, chose carefully how you use them.

For what is worth, I agree with the editor's stance on the role of the media. I do not think they can comment on a person's level of expectation since one's expectations are their own. I do disagee with the word choice of "Hot Seat", these are words that provide a clearly negative connotation.

While I do not agree that we need for third high school, the distrct did vote to approve. We did not vote on location nor boundries. If the members of NSFOC feel that they were mislead, why did they vote for a referendum that did not spell out the specific criteria for approval (in their opinion). Also, before we start pointing figures at specific sub-divsions, do we know the demographics of the membership in NSFOC? Are their childern scheduled to attend MVHS?

To Spoiled Tall Grass Brats

It sounds like you would get a kick out of students being treated poorly. A few residents of TG are part of NSFOC not the majority. What happens to the family that is okay with going to WV. Should their innocent child be treated badly? There are 1000 homes in Tall Grass how many families do you know personally, I'm guessing that would be 0. You have issues way beyond a new high school. Get some help soon!!!!

I agree with the other comments posted here about the Sun trying to fan the flames of this topic and in the process further divide our community. No matter what else happens, I have a whole different opinion of the Naperville Sun. I'm sure Harold White is turning over in his grave by what has become of this paper. Can you say tabloid.

If the jury verdict was fair market value, why does the BB trust feel the need to sue the district to buy the land? Why don't they sell it to someone else? Oh that's right. Its not worth anywhere near that amount.

To "spoiled Tall Grass Brats"--Thank you for saying it so succinctly and so much better than I could! As my parents always said, pigs is pigs.

To "Moderator Jim"--They are not in the hot seat other than in the imaginations of the NSFOC. That comment is infammatory and biased and if you can't be honest about that, you may be an editor, but not a journalist. Editors may choose to share their opinions if it is labeled as such, journalists shouldn't, especially if they are not labelled!

The protestor greeting all before the board meeting looked like a KKK wizard in my opinion and really should have been man enough to take off the hood if he feels that strongly about the issue.

As for Ms. Vickers, I found her to be unprepared, stumbling through notes, only to question and comment on topics already covered in the report explainations. She did nothing more than waste our time. I also feel the amount of time she apparently spends sunning herself naturally or artificially, probably poses more risk of cancer or damage related to EMF than any child will ever be exposed to at the Eola site.

I may not have heard correctly, but I'm pretty sure the first speaker was named on the amendment to the NSFOC lawsuit. Whoever she was, for three minutes she did nothing but speak in circles and continually repeat... the question I really want to ask is... She never asked a single question. If this is the best NSFOC can do, we have nothing to worry about.

I find it disappointing that the Sun repeatedly prints one-sided articles written to fan the flames of this contaversy rather than take an unbiased approach. They must be aiming for a spot next to the tabloids at the check out. Of course comments made by an engineer applauding the thorough work done by the environmental group was ignored even though his professional interpretation of the findings hold as much value as that of the chemist who spoke and was quoted in the Sun article.

It was explained that phase I testing primarily consists of historical research of the land in question. After this is done, phase II testing is conducted where concern arises. It is done so that time and money is not wasted on testing when it is clearly not needed. This is the case with the majority of the Eola site as well as BB. They were handled in the same manor, although by different firms. I don't think anyone questioned the validity of the BB phase I findings, but maybe our guardian angels of the south will persue this if the tide turns their way.

If you look at the map indicating where the borings were taken, it is evident any contamination whether reported or not, would likely have been discovered. The investigation was thorough. Nothing has migrated to the location of where the proposed high will stand.

Being that Brach is in the candy business, they obviously know how to steel it from a baby- and play dirty in court. Our district did all it could to secure that site. Unfortunately, things don't always go as planned, thus the alternate site.

I voted twice for a third high school because I feel the kids are overcrowded; both times knowing my kids would in all likelihood be attending WV regardless. Now it looks like I will have kids at different high schools at the same time. I love WV and am disappointed that my youngest won't get to be teammates with some close friends, but understand sometimes we sacrifice for the greater good. They will remain friends and play club together. The NSFOC needs to accept that the new boundaries are best for all. The reality is, if the boundaries allowed them to attend NV the lawsuit would never have been filed. Quit hiding behind your KKK masks and your false concerns for children other than your own.

Wow,
So much anger towards the Tall Grass community. I feel sorry for the people above who are so focused on Tall Grass, White Eagle and the law suit. Kids learn from their parents. If parents are constantly spitting out hateful comments towards the Tall Grass community, I feel sorry for those kids. I think some of the bloggers above may need some psychological help.

By Spoiled Tall Grass Brats on April 9, 2008 9:57 AM
The school board tried everything in their power to get BB. They couldn't get it. It didn't work out for your neighborhood so quit being spoiled brats and turning everyone against each other. Everybody knows what NSFOC (Tall Grass Snobs) is really about. I am 100% sure that if TG was allowed to go to NV 100% of the issues would be dropped along with the lawsuit. Your kids are going to be hated by other students when they go to Waubonsie because of your actions. There is going to be a huge price to pay by your kids as the Waubomsie students know how much you detest the thought of your kids going to school with the "lower class" people from Waubonsie. Your actions are low class.

______________________________________

My child is only 11 years old and a future student of Waubonsie Valley. Despite the fact he has nothing to do with this situation and is entirely too young to understand what is going on, you state that "Your kids are going to be hated by other students when they go to Waubonsie because of your actions."

What kind of parent are you that you can post such a hateful statement? What are you teaching your children? What is the "huge price" my 11 year old will have to pay when he gets to Waubonsie?

Threatening children is disgusting. Leave the kids out of it.

Despite the fact that you and I may have a disagreement, I would NEVER stoop to such a level to even think about taking it out on a child.

I don't think of anyone in this district as "low class" either. Well, except for maybe you.

My kids are staying at Waubonsie so I have no dog in this race but when will everyone wake up and realize how WRONG the Eola site is? It's wrong for a multitude of reasons - far from population density, transit/traffic issues, questionable land including pipelines, EMF, contaminated land, etc., outstanding legal issues with regards to BB, loss of state funding due to BuildSmart program, future litigation costs, future mitigation costs, future clean-up costs....the list goes on.

Sorry for those of you that really want that new school at Eola but it just doesn't make sense for the whole of the District. Hopefully our "intelligent" SB members will realize that sooner than later. We can't afford to move ahead on the Eola land.

I've talked to a lot of future MV parents and guess what? There are a LOT of parents/kids that don't want to be there if it's at Eola. They're smart enought to recognize the potential dangers of the site. It's not safe!

Just wanted to clear up a few misconceptions said by some of your bloggers.
1. NSFOC is not costing tax payers money. If anything, trying to stop wasteful spending by the incompetent SB.
2. I am NSFOC member, and I don't live in TG or WE. When I go to the NSFOC meeting (which are open to anyone), I see people from Penncross Knoll, Stonebridge, West Wind, and Ashbury (just to name a few) who are also members.
3. Shawn Collins, the greedy lawyer, is being paid by the NSFOC member dontations. And, is getting about an 1/8 (or less) of what he typically gets paid. He's taken on this case because he beleives that what's going on is wrong.

Whether or not, some of the motives (of a few) were over school site or boundies, the facts don't change. Sometimes, it takes an ulterior motive to start looking. And, what's been found is disturbing.

Thank you, to the head NSFOC members, for all your hard work and time. And thank you for fighting, the good fight, for our children. And, putting up with the ignorant (slanderous) comments made by a few. You fully have my support. Keep up the good work!

Moderator Jim to Anonymous. I disagree. I think Harold White would be delighted that The Sun is so vigorously covering both sides of an issue vital to Naperville. As for others who have castigated the use of the headline ''HOT SEAT'' I would simply ask the following: Given what's going on with this multi-faceted situation and all the ire and angst expressed on these 204 threads, can anyone not truthfully say that Messrs. Daeschner and Metzger are NOT on the "HOT SEAT"?

Moderator Jim to "In the business of..." Agreed, it was a poor choice of words on my part and I stand corrected. My apologies.

Get a Clue,

If Midwest Gen walks away from the voluntary negotiations and the SB still wants this site.... yep, you guessed it! We go thru another eminent domain lawsuit. That means more lawyers, more cost, and more time.

To those who still think construction is going to start soon on the Eola site... it is time for a reality check. First the SD will need to apply for a building permit before any work can begin. From what is going on I'm willing to hazard a real big guess here and speculate that as soon as a building permit is issued one of the many groups opposing the Eola site will file for an injunction. And then we will be back to square one with more lawyers, more cost, and more time.

There is no realistic way a new HS will open in time for the 2009-2010 school year.

People are divided and dug in on the issues and the sites. No one wants to talk compromise or resolution. Expect this to drag on past 2010, maybe even 2011.

How long do we fight this in court? How much money do we waste on lawyers? How much money do we pay to "damaged" land owners before we start to realize that we really do have the ability to add some minor additions on to both NV and WV to handle the number of students and classrooms?

It is time for Mark Metzger to resign. He has single handedly and steadfastly led us into this mess. He will have you try to believe there is light at the end of tunnel. Yes there is, problem is the light is coming from a train and he is deaf to what is about to happen.

To: Moderator Jim
Would you please consider banning from the blog people who make threats against children as per the post below? I'm not exactly sure what is meant by a "huge price to pay" but it sounds like some kind of threat to me. I believe in free speech, and respect your decision, but if someone can get kicked off for calling one of your reporters names, frankly I find this to be much more serious - not to mention demented. Some kids probably do read this, but hopefully not many. In any event, they should not be made to feel afraid. Thank you.

By Spoiled Tall Grass Brats on April 9, 2008 9:57 AM

The school board tried everything in their power to get BB. They couldn't get it. It didn't work out for your neighborhood so quit being spoiled brats and turning everyone against each other. Everybody knows what NSFOC (Tall Grass Snobs) is really about. I am 100% sure that if TG was allowed to go to NV 100% of the issues would be dropped along with the lawsuit. Your kids are going to be hated by other students when they go to Waubonsie because of your actions. There is going to be a huge price to pay by your kids as the Waubomsie students know how much you detest the thought of your kids going to school with the "lower class" people from Waubonsie. Your actions are low class.

to 204 Snob. Are you serious?

1.)The SB agreed to bring in additional outside counsel to defend the lawsuit. The lawyers will be paid from dollars collect from teh taxpayers. That money should go to educating all the children of the distrcit not fighting against the parents of 9 households.

2.) If you are a member of the NSFOC, can you define who/what a member is? Are you a named plantiff? Do you have a vote in a settlement agreement? The NSFOC is a coporation owned by a limited number of owners (9?).

3.) Collins is doing this because he believes in the cause? That's just plain laughable. Have you seen his website? He is an environmental attorney..no, he is a personal injury attorney...no, he represents anyone who pays him. This is all about money to him. If he is getting 1/8 of he normally makes, then he is still overpaid. Does he live at Tall Grass?

What is that I just heard???? You are going to really want to read the papers tomorrow for this one!!

Thank you very much NSFOC. This would have never happened without you sticking up for what is right!

What is the next step for the SB and admin. They probably could have negotiated the BB land for below the $520,000 per acre...but obviously not anymore. What's another few million dollars of our taxpayer dollars??

It is a shame that we will not have a third high school available in 2009 as promised because of the careless behavior of the Board and Dr. D.

Next steps..The IMMEDIATE resignation of Daeschner and Metzger. I would also suggest a community meeting to heal the horrible divisions that these people have created in the community.

Thank you again NSFOC and all of those who have taken the time to contribute.

However, please do not stop the fight here, however because these folks will continue to act like cornered animals. I suspect that there will be a few emergency options that they will look at (condeming other land,etc.) that will continue to spurn the three lawsuits against our District and continue to expose our community.

moderator jim, calling the 7 reports "secret" is definitly inflamatory.

Get over it! The result are in, the school will probably be build at Eola and WE /TG you will be a WVHS. Fist SOME WE/TG were upset with the District because they would be at Metea on BB. They were irate that they could not go to NVHS. They wanted that deal to change and it did. They never figured this would be the hand they were dealt. Be careful what you wish for.. If I bought a home specifically for a school, I would be irate too, but when does it end?

So now Mr. Collins sounds like he is spreading fear. This is embarrassing to the community.

SC I agree that this is biased reporting, and before I get my hand spanked, I know, I know...fair and balanced. Let us too agree to disagree.

To: tallgrass resident on April 9, 2008 10:33 AM

"If these subdivisions had smaller homes and blue collar workers paying for them and still opposed the sb would you stil find them just selfish people who think they are just entitled or would you slap them with other labels because they dont agree with you and my second question is if there was another site in the north section and it was between this site (which had the criteria of bb) and the eola site which site would you honestly choose eola for a new school?"

While I appreciate everything you said in your response you also asked me to respond to your questions.

1. There are plenty of smaller homes in TG then there are where I live. In fact there are many homes in the "north" that are larger then the homes in TG. Home values and income has nothing to do with my issues against the NSFOC and TG. If you do live in TG then stop your own neighbors from suing you.

This has nothing to do with my arguement of TG feeing like they are an entitled neighborhood. I actually don't even have a problem with WE as much because after the first referendum and they were slated to go to MVHS on the BB property they said "so be it" (using your words) and agreed to it. TG still had an issue going to MVHS on the BB property at that point they just didn't sue and form the NSFOC. Fast forward 2 years after the SB tried to get the BB property the SB tries to aquire a different site. Because a few TG residents didn't get their way for a second time they decide to form the NSFOC and sue all of us. Why couldn't they just say to themselves "so be it"? It had everything to do with boundaries and nothing to do with safety at that time. Please don't try to convince anyone otherwise.

Regarding your second question. I voted for a 3rd HS as did every neighborhood in the north except for Brookdale. See the difference is between you and me is I built my house here knowing that my kids would attend WVHS and I was happy about that. Well, until certain people started bashing WVHS and spreading false rumors. Guess who that would be? I honestly don't care where a 3rd HS would be and neither did any of the other neighborhoods in the "north".

The problem the majority of the people in the north has with the NSFOC is them saying BB or nothing or give all the money back to the taxpayers. Sorry but the referendum was for a 3rd HS, that's it!!!

The second thing I believe (I apologize I know I shouldn't speak for everyone) is that the IPSD shouldn't be forced to purchase a particular piece of land because the NSFOC says so. I'm sorry but I voted for what is best for the IPSD. Obvioulsy those that are part of the NSFOC and I believe TG in general didn't vote for what is best for the IPSD, they voted for their own self interests.

So please stop trying to make it into class issue or a SB mess up. The school board from the begining has always just tried to build a 3rd HS. Wheather you believe it is needed or not they too were only trying to do what they felt was best for the IPSD.

When posting it may be time to take a hard look at what we want as a community. The situation we find ourself in as a district family is tough indeed. The 3 lawsuits are a definite wake up call that there are many issues brewing. The time has come to act not argue! Enough with attacks on individuals, newspapers, moderators, subdivisions, board members, etc. At this point in our 204 district history it is high time the meetings are overflowing and venues changed to high school gyms. If folks are that concerned, this type of interest will send a clear message to board members and staff. What I expect to happen is a turnout of about 20 people at next weeks meeting, I hope I am wrong.

Lets especially stop the attack on the paper, HOW QUICKLY SOME FORGET THE INFORMATIVE MAP the sun put out such a short time ago. My thanks to our editor Jim

the sb does not need a building permit to begin construction.

call the city of aurora and check it out.

To: Suzie on April 9, 2008 11:16 AM

You're right Suzie. Kids to learn from their parents. Unfortunately the lesson some are teaching their kids in this school district is that "if you don't get your way, sue".

I'm sorry but this smacks us all in the face from kids to parents to our teachers in the IPSD. I think with this type of mentality by the NSFOC everyone should be on watch because you never know when this group might feel the need to file another lawsuit against someone that they feel has "wronged them". And you think this group is looking out for our best interests? Try their own best interests.

To Jim the Moderator: My opinion -- while there is an inherit negativity to the tone of these blogs, it is faned by using the words "hot seat". It sounds like someone who sees a smoldering fire and throws gas on it to make it bigger with the purpose of brining attention to themselves and not the issue.

It seems to me you are spending most of your moderator time defending your position. I did not think that the job of a blog moderator.

Gee I wonder where the name calling starts? Our SB president calling another lawyer a nincompoop.

I believe the the Fraud group head lives in GingerWoods. They are pushing harder then the vote no Brookdale folks.

Moderator Jim - You have done nothing of the sort whatsoever in regards to reporting both sides of the story. If that were the case, then your cover story Tuesday morning would have been that overwhelmingly, the meeting was favorable towards the Eola site being a safe place in which to build Metea. Your report would have had quotes from the well spoken attorney and commercial real estate developer who is very familiar with environmental testing on commercial property. His three minutes were full of actual facts in support of the SB dedicating 2 years in trying to secure the BB site and the fact that the Environmental testing that was done on the Eola site far exceeded what is "normal" for this type of land with 96 boring taken - much more than normal for a site like this. He put any claims by the man who has a chemistry degree to rest and applauded the reputation of the TSC (the environmental company that conducted the testing) and how well respected they are in their arena of expertise. The entire group of scientists all nodded in agreement that they would send their kids to Metea at Eola. If you were reporting without bias, your article would of covered this. If your article was not biased, it would not have glamorized the man dressed in what truly looked like a KKK outfit (ironically enough) at the entrance and the irrational man ranting after the meeting was adjourned. I am truly afraid of what some of these people are capable of and I believe, as do many that you are fanning the flames of some people that might not be stable. I'm sure this either won't get posted or you'll fire back in a personal attack bc it seems - you are the only one with freedom of the press here.

To Moderator Jim

Harold White cared a great deal about this community and I do not believe he would have allowed his paper to be used as medium for the inflamitory comments being posted here.

To: 204 snob on April 9, 2008 11:30 AM

1. NSFOC is not costing tax payers money. If anything, trying to stop wasteful spending by the incompetent SB.

Please tell me how this is not costing us money? If the IPSD has to defend this lawsuit it is costing them/us money. If in their lawsuit they are asking and awarded:

d) Award plaintiffs their attorney's fees and costs (Collins and Fish);
e) Award Plaintiffs any such other RELIEF as this Court deems just and proper

IT IS COSTING THE IPSD AND US MONEY!!!

2. I am NSFOC member, and I don't live in TG or WE. When I go to the NSFOC meeting (which are open to anyone), I see people from Penncross Knoll, Stonebridge, West Wind, and Ashbury (just to name a few) who are also members.

Well I also have proof of people in every elementary school district that disagree with that the NSFOC. Difference is my proof is real and yours is just talk.

3. Shawn Collins, the greedy lawyer, is being paid by the NSFOC member dontations. And, is getting about an 1/8 (or less) of what he typically gets paid. He's taken on this case because he beleives that what's going on is wrong.

THIS IS THE BEST ONE YET!!!! I HAD TO TAKE 5 MINUTES SO I COULD STOP LAUGHING. You seriously think he is doing this because he believes what is going on is wrong? Try again!!! He knew this would get a ton of publicity and that is why he took this case! I know he has a track record of winning previous cases but in this case with the NSFOC he clearly stated "it's a long shot at best". I shold also point out that at the 3/25 meeting he said he would throw out as many "what-if's" to the court wheather they were based in fact or not. As long as there has been a study on it he'll throw it out there. I'm sorry but I live my life in facts not "what-if's".

Sorry 204 Snob but he is as greedy of a lawyer as theycome, who is trying to win this case in the media because it will pay him far more then he could ever hope to be paid by the NSFOC. It wouldn't surprise me either if this is exactaly how the NSFOC proposed it to him as well so he would take the case.

You are right 204 Snob, what has been found is disturbing. However, I would say the way the parents of the NSFOC are acting and what they are willing to do to all of us in the IPSD is far more disturbing!!!

To: Anonymous on April 9, 2008 11:41 AM

The NSFOC does not have enough money to file an injunction so said Mr. Collins on 3/25. However, nothing would surprise me from the selfish entitled members of the NSFOC who just want to get their way and everyone else better stand back. Even if it is at the cost of all of our children and property vaules.

Have to wonder if those in the north will take the high road as they always have in the past and just let this all play out in court. Or, will they be tired of sitting by and watching this mess and go after the heads of the NSFOC who are suing us all in the IPSD? Stay tuned?

Moderator Jim to Anonymous: "Still-secret" is the exact wording in the letter obtain ed on behalf of the NSFOC. Their words....not ours. Remember, we just report.

Moderator Jim to Big Picture Issues: Thanks and you're absolutely right about that offensive comment that carried negative overtones re/Waubonsie. It slipped through and now has been deleted

Moderator Jim to Tired....: I'm not going to get into semantics. If you want to take a literal interpretation of "hot seat" so be it.

To: first battle won, what did you hear?

Have to Wonder..

Why don't you start by asking the District to have the NSFOC lawsuit thrown out if it is so friviolous???? Seems like 6 plus weeks have passed and nothing in response??

What are your damages from the NSFOC? That they have asked for the truth? That they have filed a lawsuit (a civil means of addressing a dispute). That they have taken out advertisements sourcing and footnoting everything that has been contained in the advertisements?? If you believe some of the info is inaccurate, what is the legal remedy of this (what is the harm or breach of legal duty??)

I am not one of the owners of NSFOC, but for the life of me, if this case is so frivilous, what are the damages?? You want to file a counterclaim for legal costs (which appear to be almost nothing so far since the District has not responded at all as of yet)?? This is not Europe or Canada where loser pays for legal costs and there is no such permissable action. Are you admiting that the questions and concerns addressed have slowed down the process?? If so, what is actionable about this??

Just do not get the point...Perhaps we should consider taking legal action against the Board members and Dr. D personnally...

Moderator Jim - you say you "just report". The words of the NSFOC "Still-secret" - do you have any journalistic responsibility to check your sources and make sure you are reporting facts. Most journalists are held to that legally - I thought - otherwise you could say whatever you want and you know their are simpletons out there that actually believe what they read bc it was in the paper - it must be true. Try a little discretion in the way your playing this out. We have had other reporters on the side of the NSFOCfraud - but you would not know it by reading their columns bc they are being responsible reporters. You really should try a little discretion when reporting for the Sun - you are setting an example for Tim Waldorf as well.

Is this a reference of threats or worse (going after the heads of the NSFOC)against the heads of the NSFOC???? Is this the high road that you are referencing.

to heres a thought I am sorry but you did state that ipsd would be better off without the tall grass subdivision because it is just filled with selfish people did you not? and that is my point it is not TALLGRASS suing it is nsfo. It is not TALLGRASS who is going to cause your taxes to raise if bb wins their lawsuit it is the school board.how exactly is tallgrass involved in the bb suit because as you stated it is apparently our fault? your sb is purely responsible for this suit filed by the bb. YOU hope no one forgets what tallgrass has done? what exactly have these people except for those involved done with the nsfo done? voiced opions? so to make these biased statements does that mean you know each family in this neighborhood personally that you can label us all selfish? I can not say anything nor try to convince any one about the nsfo because I dont speak for them . If they choose to sue that is THEIR choice but by you saying it will be tallgrasses fault if bb wins their suit and we have to build a 300 million plus school shows exactly why I feel its people like you giving naperville a bad reputation. stop throwing labels at subdivisions and start looking at your sb , they are the only ones who can answer for the situation .

Ok, if Metzger thinks Collins is a "nincompoop" then I believe it's fair to say that Metzker ASSUMES way to much for D204 tax payers and D204 attendees with his CART BEFORE THE HORSE type of thinking!!!

Consider all the costly plans and risks he is willing to take just to meet an unrealistic quoted opening date of Aug 2009:

1. After the SB starts construction to make the Aug 2009 date, they will worry about enrolling into the voluntary IEPA remediation program to make sure all that needs to be remediated will be remediated. Yes, but at what cost to D204 tax payers and risk to Metea attendees?

2. After the SB starts construction to make the Aug 2009 date, they will worry about paying any required legal expenses associated with walking away from the initial Brach-Brodie deal - could be nothing or maybe $40M.

3. After the SB starts construction to make the Aug 2009 date, they will worry about getting a good deal for the land they already purchased at Brach-Brodie.

etc, etc, etc. Is this fiduciary, due diligent, shrewd or is it hasty, assuming and reckless?

Which is better - nincompoop or knucklehead?

Moderator Jim to Anonymous: You're off base there. The "secret reports" was verbatim verbiage used in the NSFOC letter, and we were doing a story on the contents of that letter. Very simple.

To: Anonymous on April 9, 2008 12:21 PM
Your report would have had quotes from the well spoken attorney and commercial real estate developer who is very familiar with environmental testing on commercial property. His three minutes were full of actual facts in support of the SB dedicating 2 years in trying to secure the BB site and the fact that the Environmental testing that was done on the Eola site far exceeded what is "normal" for this type of land with 96 boring taken - much more than normal for a site like this. He put any claims by the man who has a chemistry degree to rest and applauded the reputation of the TSC (the environmental company that conducted the testing) and how well respected they are in their arena of expertise.
******************
Anonymous - I'll leave the fight about the balanced coverage between you and Moderator Jim. However, I think you need to play back the tape of the attorney/real estate developer. I personally thought he bumbled through his whole presentation - not what I would expect from a well-spoken attorney. Also, it was, in fact, the man with the chemistry degree who spoke succinctly and in great detail about his concerns. The man you are defending did not discredit him at all or put anything to rest, in my opinion. He just simply disagreed. I only heard a lot of generalizations from the real estate man, with the exception of him quoting the number of samples taken on the land, the length of the legal battle with BB, and a stated figure of how much the SB has spent thus far in attorney fees fighting BB, which I believe was understated and therefore incorrect. I also don't understand why, in the middle of his speech, he decided to bring up the fact that males at Waubonsee actually have higher test scores than males at Neuqua (which he mispronounced). What was the point of that? Sorry, lost a lot of credibility there. How many former industrial sites has he had experience developing for non-industrial use - specifically for schools? How many times has he personally worked with TSC? Some statistics on that might have helped his credibility. Otherwise, he just sounded like another parent supporting the school board (his perogative), but certainly not someone who said anything that could be substantiated as "expert" opinion which merited being quoted in the paper. Sorry - please listen again.

"Let's talk about what 5 million buys...

5,000 computers for our schools;

$3,000 bonuses for 1666 teachers

500 ten thousand dollar scholarships for 204 students to go to college

a years salary for about 125 new teachers into the District." as posted earlier...

Better yet,

Let's talk about what $60 million plus could buy for our children and teachers. I cannot honestly fathom how Mr. Collins (nsfoc), Mr. Helm (Brodie) and Mr. Simon (Brach)can justify suing our district for money slated to be for the children's education and still sleep at night. These lawsuits are unethical and absurd!

They are not "getting back" at our school board....they are attempting to profit and STEAL money from ALL of the kids in this district! This is educational money that could and should provide equipment, programs,and technology for the children. Instead these lawyers are hoping to pad their pockets and enjoy some extra vacations or summer homes at the kid's expense! How do they make this "right" in their minds? Please don't say they are "owed" this because they were "wronged". That's BS. People have lost their LIVES and families have received FAR less money in JUSTIFIED lawsuits...sometimes receiving no money at all!!!

They have the ability to monopolize on our vulnerabilities since our school district information is public and the moment our SB attempts to protect us,some people(nsfoc) start "crying wolf" for information disclosure...playing right into the greedy lawyer's little hands just waiting in the wings.The "super lawyer" egos involved in this far surpass any on our volunteer school board.

I have to affirm that any fair-minded and moral judge would be able to see right through these lawyers and their attempts to manipulate and abuse the legal system for their personal profit, at the expense of this district's children's education.How can we protect our kid's educational money from these self-serving opportunists that call them themselves lawyers?

By the way,there are many highly ethical and moral lawyers out there that truly care about defending our legal system ...they just don't happen to be suing school districts for kid's educational money.

By sickofnamecalling on April 9, 2008 12:19 PM
Gee I wonder where the name calling starts? Our SB president calling another lawyer a nincompoop.

I believe the the Fraud group head lives in GingerWoods. They are pushing harder then the vote no Brookdale folks.

______________________________

I've heard the same information on the head of the NSFOCfraud leader. Is this the same guy that posted an aerial view of someone's home on the proboards?

Also, isn't this same person in law enforcement? A certain WVHSParent?

Kinda scary, isn't it?

Why are they resorting to threatening tactics?

By Jim Jandick on April 9, 2008 12:09 PM
When posting it may be time to take a hard look at what we want as a community. The situation we find ourself in as a district family is tough indeed. The 3 lawsuits are a definite wake up call that there are many issues brewing. The time has come to act not argue! Enough with attacks on individuals, newspapers, moderators, subdivisions, board members, etc. At this point in our 204 district history it is high time the meetings are overflowing and venues changed to high school gyms. If folks are that concerned, this type of interest will send a clear message to board members and staff. What I expect to happen is a turnout of about 20 people at next weeks meeting, I hope I am wrong.

Lets especially stop the attack on the paper, HOW QUICKLY SOME FORGET THE INFORMATIVE MAP the sun put out such a short time ago. My thanks to our editor Jim

______________________________

To Jim J.,

First off, thank you for your thoughtful, informative posts. I know you live in a subdivision not impacted by a boundary change. I really appreciate the fact you are so on top of things irregardless of any personal impact to where your children will go to high school. I wish more "non-directly" impacted parents were paying as close attention as you are as this is a district wide issue.

I think there are many that are concerned with what is going on but are afraid to go to meetings and comment because of the hostility that's incurred within the district.

Read this very blog. The threats, some against future CHILDREN that will go to WVHS are downright frightening.

Personally, I blame the School Board for inciting this divide. Aren't they supposed to represent each and every one of us in the district?

Sorry Moderator,

It's "very simple" to take the propaganda from NSFOC and use it VERBATIM in your paper, to give them free press on fake issues? If they type "SB must resign" will you print that as a Sun headline????
Please try and swing back the middle ground, at least a little!

When did our society become so lawsuit crazy? This is totally out of hand.

To Denny 2:37,

Not to worry, there is no possible way the Aug 2009 date can or will be met.

The opponents are fed up and have had enough. Every time the SB makes a move there will either be an injunction filed or a new lawsuit filed.

This will be kept tied up in the courts until the SB finally realize
s they need to bring the community back together.

Everyone needs to get serious about the source of our problems and realize Metzger needs to ge. It is time for everyone to unite and call for his resignation.

Hiding 7 reports. Doesn't that violate the open meeting act? I think there is a $1,500 fine and/or time in jail for doing that.

tp Tallgrass at 2:30. Althought here is a lawsuit filed by the BB Trust, it is the lawsuit by select entitled Tall Grass residents that is being tried out in the press. The NSFOC is using the Naperville Sun as his private propaganda machine to try to sell his half truths to the people who don't follow the actual facts of the issue. He sat down with the editors and a writer of the Naperville Sun 2 weeks back and yesterday he sent that open letter to the Naperville Sun to further try to influence the uninformed readers. Even though it is a different case, he also tried the same recently in his case against the city of Naperville. The more the NSFOC seeks publicity, the more people come down on Tall Grass.

I believe this is also the same issue a lot of the bloggers have with the Naperville Sun in the posting of this blog. Shawn Collins has an agenda. The Naperville Sun is supposed to report the news. Some of the bloggers here want to see the Sun filter the propaganda coming from Collins by challenging his claims. I thought it was done fairly well in this morning's article but had been lacking in the past. We don't want to see Shawn Collins given a free ride in the paper. We want to see the reporters at the Sun ask other experts about COllins many and frequent statements. Let's get the Sun off of Collin's speed dial.

To: By ???? on April 9, 2008 2:24 PM

Isn't it bad you and your small selfish group have hurt our district, neighborhoods and communities enough? When does it all end? When is enough good enough for you? You'll never be happy and will continue to file lawsuits to satisfy your own needs as you see just. Remember you and the NSFOC are a very small minority in the IPSD. Your actions will surely have negative consequences for all of us.

As for your other question I guess you'll have to wait and see.

To: Naperville Sun editors on April 9, 2008 2:40 PM

"The "secret reports" was verbatim verbiage used in the NSFOC letter, and we were doing a story on the contents of that letter."

Since when has the NSFOC become a beacon of truth? Their web site is filled with assumptions, half truths and propaganda. Guess I better start getting my news information from the national enquirer instead of the Naperville Sun.

While I am not a fan of the NSFOC maybe there is a way for all of us to band together as a community and school district again?

How about all of us try and assist and help our own school board fight the Brach Trust and Brodie Trust? Afterall, this will surely effect us equally no matter where or when or if the 3rd HS is built. While our SB could have/should have handled some things possibly differently during those 2 years they tried to aquire the land on all of our behalf. It doesn't mean we can't all support them now, does it?

I would personally like to see a few from the NSFOC organization and those that created the NSFOCfraud group to get together and help the school board and cast their differences aside for a moment.

Any takers? I'm willing.

To:By big picture issues on... Your post is as petty as your law suit....He was much more informed than you. As far as credibility - your chemistry degree hardly puts you at an expert level as well, so please try and refrain from implying you are.

To: By I think I'll name my new yacht "Metea"... on April 9, 2008 2:59
Great post! These law suits are shameful. They should all be ashamed of their attempt to take money away from our children. No judge will allow this - my god people you are suing your neighbors and their children.

What is the point of this communication (sounds like damage control):

My last ten months as superintendent of Indian Prairie School District 204 have been exciting, especially the activities surrounding the construction of our new high school, Metea Valley High School.

Most recently, and as many of you are aware, a small, passionate group of district residents decided to pursue legal action against Indian Prairie to try to force the district to build Metea Valley on the Brach-Brodie land. I call this group small because by their own account they number 200 - 300 members and our district has approximately 18,300 families and 55,000 homes. Because the papers have been filed by lawyers and out of a general reluctance to fan the flames of a media debate, I have been reluctant to share my commentary on the matter. Until now.

Part of this small group's campaign against the district is a very vocal attempt to spread misinformation. As such, I'll be bringing you accurate information based on facts.

Let's start with this fact: Indian Prairie is an outstanding school district. There is much to celebrate in our schools. Students throughout Indian Prairie excel in every area. Our athletes bring home state championship trophies, our music students earn Grammy awards, and across the district, 92 percent of our students met or exceeded standards on state tests. This year alone we had 23 finalists in the National Merit Scholarship program, hundreds of students qualifying for state competitions, with dozens of those talented students advancing to nationals. And the year isn't over.

This success is due to hard working students and a very engaged parent community that cares greatly about children. It is also due to a dedicated staff that is deeply committed to your child's success.

I'd like to take this opportunity to re-focus on what the 2006 referendum was all about -- maintaining the high quality education that you have come to expect from District 204. Our third high school, Metea Valley, will provide students with the academic and extra-curricular opportunities they deserve.

Please know that we understand how important our third high school and seventh middle school are to the 29,000 students of District 204. We will keep working on behalf of you and your children to continue the success of District 204.

I would like to thank the many parents who over the past few weeks have expressed their strong support for the district. Your continued support is appreciated.

Stephen Daeschner
Superintendent

Sounds like a note to the public..........Why do we always have to make something of nothing on these blogs.

By Anonymous on April 9, 2008 4:26 PM
To:By big picture issues on... Your post is as petty as your law suit....He was much more informed than you. As far as credibility - your chemistry degree hardly puts you at an expert level as well, so please try and refrain from implying you are.

******************
Fine for you to disagree with my opinion about the lawyer/real estate agent's presentation, but I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about as far as the rest goes - I never said I had a chemistry degree, nor am I posing as a chemistry expert. I simply said, in my opinion, one presenter's (the man with a PhD in chemistry) information was more credentialed and precise than the real estate agent's. Please take another look at what I wrote - this time don't let your anger get in the way of the words.
This has become petty, so let's agree to disagree and move on.

to anonymous at 3:39, I guess I am just fed up with all of this, in the earlier post someone seemed to place the blame of brach, brodie suit on tall grass and it will be the tall grass sub. if they should win. Its these blanketed statements that really upset me , I know plenty of good adults and children here, just as I know plenty of good people in other neighborhoods. The suit that nsfoc filed which has been stated is by people made up from many areas (and please no blasting here as I really dont know) is at the very bottom of my worries. some how I beleive the bb suit and the eola site are bigger things to worry about.seeing as the sb choose the bb site , filed the bb lawsuit , walked away from bb , choose a new site that seems to have more problems ,these seem to be more upsetting to me. so yes a new school was voted on but Im sorry at what cost? there are plenty of people who support the school board but is it just because it coincides with what they want or are they truly happy with this sb? It shouldnt be that blame is placed on any subdiviions, threats are made to children and people are not given labels just because of their address but what is truly the best for the ipsd and some how I do beleive the sb has acted with more arrogance than not. Doesnt make me a elitist or selfish its my opinion. I personally hope the bb suit can be settled fairly, a new high school gets built without any troubles and as for the nsfoc suit I dont have any answers there. I just hope my taxes for all these problems do not force me out of my home in a town I still enjoy living in.

Dr. D is waiving the surrender flag...

Anyone read his insightful contribution to the District today. Looks like a big announcement coming!

Maybe Dr. D's next email will be a resignation.

I think I'll name my new yacht "Metea"... on April 9, 2008 2:59 PM

Wow, so those who oppose the NSFOC feel the need to make up things.

First of all, I can not believe that ALL OF YOU who believe D204 Mark Metzger and his crew are telling you the truth.

Your like a bunch of cows being sent to the slaughter house. You just follow right along believing the SB and not even stopping to think that this may not be in the best interest of the kids.

The school board is costing us millions of dollars.

Mark Metzger and Dr. Daeschner

To Big Picture issues 4/9 2:56pm

I agree with your Post. I did not think the real estate developer refuted or nullified any of the information presented by the tall Phd guy (cant remember either of their names, sorry)

To Jim Jandick

Here Here! I was fully expecting to be shown to my normal "meeting room D located in the sub-basement" normal seat. What I found was a room of maybe 100 people (that may be generous, maybe even 80 including TSC, tech guys and SB members). There were tons of open seats.

This is truly disappointing for a meeting of this magniitude. We may disagree on many things; but on this topic; we are in total lockstep.

Thanks to the Naperville Sun for providing a platform (especially as it is a burning platform) for residents to voice their thoughts. I wouldn't go to a SB meeting as I don't want to enter into a shouting match, name calling or a circle dance. It doesn't seem as though those meetings are truly brainstorming sessions.

I have attended in the past and the agenda items that were seeking answers seemed to have foregone conclusions.

I do think mediation is in order. I wish there were a state official willing to step in and help out.

We must get creative and decide a better way out of this mess.

The 3rd high school appears to be many years out and will the need be past?? Is there a real need or a perceived need even currently?

There is a building right next to Neuqua for sale. I bet the asking price is considerably less than legal fees are looking to be.

Could we work out a deal with the new Plainfield High School? It almost sits in our district.

There are a multitude of other options.....

My question is to the school board and anyone that is willing to purchase the new "questionable" land. Would you buy that land to build your own home on? It is not prudent to enter into such a large scale project with the educated guess that somewhere down the road more litagation will follow as students get sick (whether from the land or not.)

Walk away. Let's get back to educating children. Most times life is not perfect and kids can learn in cramped quarters or in alternative settings. Show our children how to be critical thinkers, problem solvers and good neighbors.

I want to start about by saying that I am in support of the NSFOC and Shawn Collins. If it wasn't for the time and effort put in by these people we would not have any hard questions asked.

This land is not safe and should never be a place for kids to go to school. The school board needs to abandon the site and look for a better location. There is land available lets look at it.

Mark Metzger and Dr Daeschner have told us enough lies and misused our money. Hey school board show everyone that you can do the right thing and walkaway from Eola.

The part of the new site that requires remediation is just 7 acres out of 87. Since the school board said we only need 80 acres (this was prior to any site selection) I think this works perfectly. Of course the NSFOC (or the entitled 9) will put thier own spin on it. Since there is a country as small as 108.7 acres (Vatican City is its own country), the NSFOC will probably take out another full page ad in the Sun to say that the area that needs remediation is as large as 6.4% of an entire country.

In ancient Greece, the word "idiot" meant a private citizen or layman. We are all idiots posting on this site.

How can you read that as Dr D raising the surrender flag? What I read is that the district is going to come out swinging and put an end to the NSFOC unbridled misleading propangda. Good for Dr D.

You're absolutely wrong when you say we only support the School Board bc it coincides with what we want. Most of us voted for the 3rd high school and supported to BB site - as we supported Neuqua Valley and those boundaries even though it did not coincide with what we would want for ourselves - but we supported to school board and their decisions and would NEVER DREAM of suing our very own school district and taking away from the children of district 204 as a whole. No, we supported all of that, and not that the tide has turned, and the school board was FORCED to find another avenue - we support that as well and won't stand by to let your absolutely selfish behavior take away from the district as a whole - shame on all of the NSFOC supporters - you are truly amazing.

To: By concerned on April 9, 2008 5:41 PM The only shouting and grand standing done at the meeting was the NSFOC. Starting with their ghost or KKK rep standing at the entrance to intimidate all of the Eola supporters and ending with the rants of the man screaming at the school board after the meeting was adjourned. All of the Metea supporters were very uncomfortable with this format the NSFOC brought to this meeting - of course we all should of suspected such behavior given all their behavior since the boundaries were announced.

Remember, assuming makes an ass out of you and me.

Nice e-mail from Dr. D today. I don't think that anyone is disputing that the children, teachers and the schools in District 204 are anything but outstanding. What I would have much rather received is a solid argument justifying why the Eola/Molitor site is the best site available to build a 3rd High School - and how this site best meets their own specified criteria for the site selection. Does it not seem odd that the SB has not provided this? Even if you disregard all of the concerns that have been brought forth from those who think the Eola site is inappropriate, I find it highly disturbing that Dr. D and the SB have not and/or cannot provide concrete support for their site selection.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but I still wouldn't want to kiss it.

The site is suited for industrial. The site is not suited for a school.

Dr. Daeschner:

In that our District is engaged in litigation with its citizenry, it seems that for many of us, the only available means of communicating with our public servants is now via public exchange (in that direct communication by those who disagree with our elected and appointed District leaders is clearly not welcome).

Thus, I will use this as a forum to attempt to start an open line of communication (and perhaps start to draw out some of those facts that you have promised).

First, thank you for your note this afternoon. We appreciate you extending your thanks for our collective support of the District. As you may have learned in your first 10 months, the parents of 204 are passionate about their children and not only expect, but demand, to be involved in the education of their children. I would guess that the level of involvement in PTA and other parent activities in this community is beyond compare to your prior engagements.

Even those who disagree with the path taken by yourself and the Board have passionate support for the District and our children. I think we can all agree that the children of this district are extraordinary, as are its teachers. I hope that you do not construe those who have pursued litigation against the Administration and Board as not caring very deeply about their children and the District (which existed long before your arrival 10 months ago and will exist long after your departure).

I found the following comment from your communication of particular interest:

"I'd like to take this opportunity to re-focus on what the 2006 referendum was all about -- maintaining the high quality education that you have come to expect from District 204. Our third high school, Metea Valley, will provide students with the academic and extra-curricular opportunities they deserve."

Dr. Daeschner, it seems to me that you and the Board have had, and continue to have,complete control over the speed of which the third high school can be built. There is a perception shared by many (I believe signifantly more than the 400 plus people who have financially supported the NSFOC legal action) that personal agendas, arrogance, power and even an ounce or two of desperation have permeated the decision making by the Board and District over the last 6 to 7 months.

However, it is apparent that the BB land is available, and based on the Board's thorough site evaluation that took place several years ago, it should be beyond debate that the Administration, Board and majority of the community agree that the BB site is the best locale (for safety, transportation and logical boundary reasons that did not include splitting schools) for the third school.

I recognize that you were not present in 2005 and 2006 when the referenda were presented to the residents of District 204, but I can assure you that the Board and Administration took great pains in communicating that the 2006 referendum was for the specific purpose to build the third high school on the BB school land. With the amount of due diligence and communication that took place between the two referenda, I do not know how this perception can be summarily discounted by the Administration. We can debate and litigate this issue for quite some time to come, but for the Administration to completely discount that this, at the very least, is a legitimate perception by many parts of the 204 community is mind boggling to many of us.

Quite frankly, but for your comment in regards to entitlement at the February 19th Board meeting, I am not sure whether the NSFOC group would have succesfully formed, yet alone litigation would have been filed against the District. However, comments like "fence it in baby"..."nimkompoop"...."entitlement" and "I mean..good night" do not result in a spirit of inclusion, or inspire confidence in the leadership of our District.

I understand that there is a position that states the District can not afford the BB land. I also understand from recent reports that you do not in fact believe this to be true, but rather feel the EOLA land provides a "cheaper" alternative than BB. We can likewise debate and litigate whether BB in fact costs more than the EOLA site when you factor in the damage risks associated with abandonment as well as collateral costs such as extra transportation costs, remediation, wetlands, etc.

However, many believe that the conclusion advanced by the District that it can not afford the BB land is simply not correct. Likewise, the claim that the EOLA site will cost the District less than the BB site also seems to be inaccurate.

Quite frankly Dr. Daeschner, the damage that has been done to this community in regards to the hate that now exists between different subdivisions and communities already outweighs any financial savings that you claim you are fighting for. This divide did not exist before you arrived to our District but unfortunately, this may not be repaired prior to your departure.

In summary, we look forward to the facts that you are prepared to share in regards to this important issue (the community would like to see a detailed comparison upon which the District administration is basing its decisions). Hopefully, as you continue to share your thoughts, I hope that you will do so with a focus on all of the residents that you serve (and not just those who have deomonstrated 100% support for your opinions).

Kind regards,

A concerned parent of 204

Dr. Daeschner,
I would like to say thank you for your hard work in assuring a safe location for our 3rd high school at Eola. District 204 wholeheartedly supports the School Board and their tireless effforts in ensuring the rollout of the 3rd high school for district 204 on the Eola property!!
I am a resident of disctrict 204 and a parent of two children slated to go to Metea Valley High School at the proposed Eola site location. I am first and foremost an overprotective mother. I make sure my kids always wear there seat belts, always cover them in 50 sunblock, make sure they take their vitamins/eat their vegetables every day and drink at least 6 glasses of purified water every day. I would not send my children anywhere to put them in harms way - their health and safety is my #1 job. That being said, my husband and I are also realists and do not get sucked into the rants of the few that are attempting to instill scare tactics in order to get their way. We attended the School Board meeting last night. We are convinced the TSC took extensive tests to ensure the safety of the site. They took 90 soil samples and installed 6 groundwater monitoring wells and concluded 15.5 acres have contamination that can easily be remidiated. This contamination is only a concern if it is ingested. Without a doubt, my husband and I feel secure that this is the right site for the high school. This site has been tested more than any other property in the district. I'm sure that many vacant properties are subject to dumping and would not pass as well as this site has. We all trust the experts that this will be a safe place for our children to go to school. This was a site for a peaker plant for heavens sake - not a nuclear site and we all know that - including this very small group of 8 residents that don't want to send their kids to Waubonsie.

Warm Regards,
A thankful parent of District 204

um hello as I stated in my first posts I am not a nsfoc supporter or member, only they can speak for themselves. my problem is with the people who continually keep placing the blame for their lawsuit on tallgrass the subdivision, have veiled threats to tallgrass children who will be attending wv written in their posts and the one who placed the blame of the bbs lawsuit also on tallgrass. No, I do not choose to sue my school board either hence that is why I am not part of the lawsuit. personally I love the post by concerned parent. that person is the vioce of reason to me.

to Joe on April 9, 2008 7:15 PM

Because we know the only place for this school is south of 75th!!!

Concerned Parent 204 ...This divide did not exist before you arrived to our District but unfortunately, this may not be repaired prior to your departure.

______________________

You obviously have been living under a rock or you just moved here this past January. Since the doors of NV opened anyone going to WV all the sudden was second class. We've been living here long before NV opened and never felt the discrimination as we did once NV opened. But you wouldn't know that since your kids do not/have not gone to WV.

The bumbling Real Estate attorney who spoke on record at the SB mtg was meeting was Judd Lofchie who lives in......drum roll.... Stonebridge! He's also the driving force behind the "petition" being sent around at the request of a SB member who shall remain anonymous. Ask Denise, she'll fill you in.

Once you start connecting the dots, you see NSFOC-Fraud is just that, a fraud. It's simply a group of Brookdale and Stonebridge residents (google the LTE names, it's easy) who are desparately trying to cling to their shot at a new HS - or the quick buck that can be made off increased real estate interest in that area.

You want the REAL silent majority? Find the people who want a SAFE high school, but are afraid to ask questions due to the N-Fraud witch hunters.

My prediction? MWGEN walks Thursday and Friday, we end up building on BB, and "Judd & F.U.D" incorporated revert back to their 80% No Vote whinning selves.

Concerned parent of 204. I voted for the referendum. I voted for a third high school. I didn't care where it was to be built. But I am now to the point of giving 110% approval of the Eola site for 3 reasons. 1.) That it is site taht is the closest to becoming a reality. 2.) I don't want to see a nickle of my tax dollars go to the greedy trustees of the BB land. Once the referendum was passed, they significantly raised the price of the land. Not just a few points more than the average increase of the value of Aurora/Naperville land but much much more since they thought they had a sucker in the district willing to pay it. That is the reason it went to emminent domain. The jury's verdict was outrageous for land not on route 59 itself. 3.)Of all the towns I've lived in, I've never seen or heard of just 9 homeowners trying to hold an entire school district hostage to their selfish motives.

Maybe my reasons are more emotional than rational but I believe the lawsuit filed by 9 residents in the southern subdivisions was filed because of emotional and not rational thinking.

Yet another childish post from the NSFOC - how shocking. As one very wise man once told me, the name calling only gets worse as they realize they've lost their childish battle.

To Greg
Thanks for the compliment, we may be on different sides of the fence on a few items but if we tallied up the items we have in common, we are very similiar. I want to let folks know that I have learned much from these different blog topics. Mostly I have tried not to attack anyone personally and have found that all bloggers communicating with me have returned this common courtesy. When I have asked for info due to ignorance or laziness most have provided websites or other info in a helpful manner (and I appreciate all the help).

For the individual that complimented me on the info that I put forth (anonymous 4.09.08 3:09 pm) Thank you. It is appropriate to say my family lives in ashbury so it could be said we will not be directly impacted by the boundary change. My concern though is with the overcrowding at the middle and high school levels. This overcrowding will not impact my family nearly as much as other 204 families for my children are getting older and the schools they finish at will be very busy for the next 3-4 years.

Some of the concern voiced on these blogs really comes down to the perceived lack of vision on the part of the school board. This concern voiced by some in our district is what motivated me to write on these blogs but more importantly attend board meeting. With the knowledge from the meetings, along with info generated from the thoughtful people on these blogs, and a meeting with our editor of the paper, I feel much more comfortable with our board and superintendent. Just wish I had an opinion about our legal staff (still researching that).

When communicating me mother taught me a rule of thumb;Talk 30% of the time, listen 70% of the time. When writing I sure hope I can get 3-4 responses. Thanks Jim J.

The only name calling and immature posts I have read are coming from people who are not happy with the lawsuit. Point out a post that NSFOC is name calling. So far I have read, slams towards Tall Grass and White Eagle and even going as far as threatening the kids from Tall Grass. Some of you all really need to get a grip or get some help.

Concerned Parent of 204 on April 9, 2008 7:17 PM

Thank you very much for your post. It echoes many things I have said to the SB myself. Unfortunately of the emails I sent, I only received one response. The response did not contain any information, insights, reasons, or answers - only questions posed back to me. And, when I answered those questions, I received no further acknowledgement.

In one particular email I pleaded for someone from the SB to step up and acknowledge the growing divide in the community and, as a leader, ask for an end to be put to the name calling, neighborhood bashing, and outright lies. And, you see where we are today - deeper in disgrace than ever. Seems we are continuing on that same path, as the stage has now clearly been set by Dr. Daeschner to blame a small group of people for all of the problems that plague the district today, and whatever is coming next. This is very inaccurate, unfair, and disheartening - not a sign of the strong, positive leadership needed going forward.

I, too, appreciate Dr. Daeschner's acknowledgement that this is a great school district. However, based on the message he sent out today, there are apparently only enough "thank you's" to go around to those who have given their complete support to him and the school board which is, in his mind, synonymous with support for the district:
_______________
I would like to thank the many parents who over the past few weeks have expressed their strong support for the district. Your continued support is appreciated.

Stephen Daeschner
Superintendent
_______________
I'm sorry, Dr. Daeschner, but I do support the district - its teachers, students, support staff and the parents in every neighborhood that make success happen, in small ways, every day. Support for the district and support for its leadership unfortunately are not always one in the same, but it would be nice to get back to that place.

To Annonymous at 10:00...did you miss all of the blog posts critizing Brookdale? Try the fifth one above yours. And I do not live in Brookdale.

Where can I sign the above mentioned petition? Let's support our school board. They did everything to get the BB short of mortgaging the district through our grandkids years. Now they are trying to do what the referendum authorized them to do ---build a third high school for the greater good of the district.

As a mother of a child with an injured Immune system.... I applaud the efforts of NSFOC. Ask any medical professional what the effects of exposure to the chemicals found on site (check EPA reports and research on exposure to PCB's) and anyone with a heart and a shred of common sense will tell you to LOOK ELSEWHERE for a site. By the way....do we really need a 3rd high school? Attendance estimates are 1400 students fewer than what was projected in 2005 and does'nt look like a 'real estate boom' or even MONEY Magazine can help People to flock to Naperville now!

Then there is the Money...when you total up damages from BB land, cost of remediation... as well as cost to insure on this land (what insurance Company would touch it.... ask a underwriter) ... we can't afford Eola site.

Regarding the bashing here, go ahead bash TG, WE whatever.... Naperville is not Camelot and the longer this stupid behavior goes on the greater the number of people that will have no desire to be Napervillians. They are watching and laughing/scorning this stupid act by 'educated' people...no one envys you and where SB put 204. Impeachment? LT Govnr Quinn....Start Here!

The lawsuit was not filed by 9 people. It was originally filed under NSFOC. The amended complaint lists names because a lawsuit must have plaintiffs who have been wronged, or suffered damages in some way. NSFOC by itself did not, there had to be named members. Taxpaying voters were wronged by this district. The names were attached to the NFSOC as 9 representatives willing to stick their neck out there as plaintiffs. There are certainly more than 9 people behind the NSFOC. Those who have talked to the press, and those who have presented at meetings are not listed on the complaint. They are obviously supporters. In my opinion the school district has made many errors in judgment. The many unanswered questions should have be enough to make the school board slow down, but they have not. The district receives a large chunk of tax dollars from each of us and they are not "entitled" to waste it. NSFOC is asking questions I hope the school board will answer.

to the person who wrote at 10:20,

I still do not see bashing or threats being made toward Brookdale. What I read was who was involved with the NSFOC fraud group. At least I did not see a map to their houses or threats being made concerning their children. I am not saying that Brookdale is the neighborhood writing these obnoxious blogs either. It is some disturbed people who have too much time on their hands. These same people many want to think about volunteering somewhere or getting a job.

Anyone that thinks NSFOC is only 9 entitled parents is so wrong. Come to a NSFOC meeting and see what the support is. Dr.D and the SB are underestimating the numbers of NSFOC. It is a large group (becoming larger everyday) of parents that are basically saying "we have had enough sitting by and watching our SB make reckless decisions!" NSFOC is asking for the SB to give the community what we voted on - a 3rd high school at Brach Brodie. Sad to think that it's taken a lawsuit to get to this point but here we are.

Here are some emails written by MM that went around the district during the pre-2006 referendum.

The district owns 25 acres at Brach-Brodie. Those acres were acquired with a combination of funds from the 2001 referendum earmarked for that purpose and savings from the district's prior
construction efforts. As I sit here typing, I don't recall
the precise price of purchase, but it was in the four
million dollar range.

The purchase was partially the result of the previously-filed condemnation (filed in 2003) and partially the result of the settlement agreement concerning the negotiations on the other 55 acres. We had basically three choices when the referendum failed: 1) buy the property anyway, 2) walk away entirely, or 3) buy just the 25 acres that were originally condemned.

We did not have the funds to buy the land, so 1) was out.
Walking away would, under the law, entitle the landowners
to recover their attorneys' fees, which were estimated at
$1 million, which made 2) very unattractive. Choice 3)
then became a lot more palatable, particularly since the
voters had previously authorized a 25 acre land purchase.

And yes, the settlement agreement does require that if we
wish to sell the parcel, we must first offer it back to the
Brach-Brodie Estates at the price we paid. The provision
was intended to ensure that we would not merely acquire the
parcel as an investment (which would probably be an
improper use of condemnation anyway).

I don't believe that the failure of the referendum modified
or altered the settlement in any way. Our making the
election to buy the 25 acres did, however, end our right to
acquire the other 55 acres at the price listed in the
agreement, since under the terms of the agreement we had a
deadline to make one of the three choices listed above.

Please let me know if I left any question or issue unclear
for you.

m2

Don't assume that the purpose of the meeting is buy the
land. When we got to the item concerning the 25 acres, it
was near midnight and no one was left.

many of us are viewing the meeting as an opportunity to
explain what we did and help people understand why that was
the lesser of the various evils.

The other purpose of the meeting is allow people to express
themselves on the issue of the remaining acreage. Many,
many people have urged us to go ahead and buy the land.
They deserve to be heard and they deserve to understand
why we made the decision we made.

Frankly, I think that there are lots of good reasons not to
buy the rest of the land, not the least of which is that
doing so worsens the budget picture for next year by
$700,000 or so (and every year thereafter until some
referendum passes to bail out that decision) and risks
tainting any further effort to determine how the community
wants to solve the upcoming space problem (because any
decision to build something will automatically be assumed
to be a pre-ordained decision designed to bail out the
district for the land purchase).

I do think the site was the best available option, and I
sympathize with those that want to see it held on for some
future try, but I think it would be irresponsible to do so.
m2

You are correct that the referendum is solely for building,
not operating costs.

In 2001, we announced that we would not seek another
operating funds increase until 2009; we believe we can do
what it takes to open the high school without an increase
before a 2009 referendum.

We've asked the administration to prepare a report of the
actual operating costs unique to a third high high school
and that will be available prior to the referendum.
Remember, though, that the number won't really be that
high in the scheme of things. That's because the largest
cost in a school building is for the teachers, and we will
need to add teachers as the number of students grow,
regardless of whether there is a separate building or not.
m2

Thanks for including us in your message.

One thing I've always wondered about, and never received a
good answer to, is why would the Board and the
Administration promote a third high school if we didn't
believe we needed one? It's not like any of us are in the
construction business and will get giant contracts out of
this. And if we were, the conflicts rules would prevent it
anyway. The fact of the matter is that even the Board
members pay taxes. Why would we want to raise our own
taxes if we didn't think we needed to do so?

I've only heard two answers to that question. One person
said that we need to promote a high school because it
covers up for past mistakes. To that, I say: Cover up
what? Anyone can see that what looked like a bubble in
2000 clearly wasn't. The lower projection in 2000 was
clearly wrong. What's to cover up?

And let's not forget that if a new high school was built in
2000, we would still be having this conversation right now.
A high school built in 2000 would have been for 3,000
students and we'd be needing to build something, somewhere
to house the 1,200 more we now know that we'll have for the
long haul.

In a strange sort of way, we're better off as taxpayers
that it happened this way -- building a third high school
in 2000 would have brought ENORMOUS tax bill increases. As
it is, the district's tax base is 25% larger now, which
means we will all pay less (individually) than we would
have previously. Couple that with the Citizen's Financial
Advisory Committee's debt refinancing recommendation, and
the delay will actually save individual taxpayers money.

The second answer I've heard to the question boils down to
something like: "But you were so wrong in 2000, how do we
know you're right this time." My answer to that is simple:
No projection of future kids or move-ins is necessary to
justify the need for a third high school -- just look at
today's existing 2d-5th graders -- there's not enough room
for them when they get to high school by a long shot.
Without even talking about adding one extra child to the
district, we need the space. When you factor in the
additional 800-1,000 homes that will be added to the
district, it is more than fair to assume that adding those
houses will add kids to the school district. I've seen
some voodoo math from which people try to argue that even
though we're going to add those houses, a whole bunch of
people will leave, so it will all balance out. Frankly, I
don't buy it.

While we've not been able find another school district that
has grown in the fashion we have, I think there is some
reason to look at 203 as a model -- they are in their
eleventh year post-build out. This year they went down 46
kids. It's too early to say that's a trend, but I think
it's safe to say that our district's enrollment will at
least hold at the build out level for 10 years, and we're
at least 5 years away from build out. If we see a 50 kid
fall off each year after year 15, we'll still need the high
school for at least 25 years.

Finally (on the "what if they're wrong" issue) let me share
an interesting viewpoint with you that was called in to me
last week. As a preface, let me state that I do believe
that we need the third high school for the long haul.
Despite that, a woman spoke with me last week, saying that
in 15 years, Waubonsie would be 50 years old. Her thought
was that if all the doomsayers were correct and we don't
need the new building past 15 years, we can close
Waubonsie, and move everyone to the new school. Doing so,
she argued, would save on maintenance costs since the newer
building would be expected to have fewer such issues and
the location of Waubonsie at a busy intersection would make
far more sense for other uses than the middle of Commons
drive. If the doomsayers are right, she makes a very good
point.

One more topic and I'll stop. I was recently called by a
man who asked why we were engaging in "this charade." When
I asked him what he meant, he told me that everyone knows
that when this is defeated, the district will just resort
to portable classrooms and additions. I'll tell all of you
the same thing I told him: there's no money to do either
of those things. Portable classrooms (including delivery
and installation) cost more than $115,000 per, assuming you
don't put restrooms in them. Restrooms add $50,000 per.
They're passable, but not anywhere near as durable as a
real building. For that reason, the state doesn't want
them used for the long haul, so they will only let you use
them for five years.

At 25 kids per classroom, 1,000 kids requires at least 40
units, but we have the middle school space need also, so
that's another 800 or so kids to accommodate. Add another
30 units. 70 portable classrooms, unplumbed, would cost at
least $8 million -- EVERY FIVE YEARS. And then there's the
question of where do we put them -- 70 requires several
acres of space. And then there is the question water
retention -- covering land means accommodating more run
off. And finally, there is the "core" issue: The core
areas of the buildings are built for 3,000 kids, not 5,000.
We need space for gyms, libraries and lunchrooms, and
there's no money for that either. Additions are even more
expensive.

And while I'm not an expert in real estate, I have to
assume that a bunch of trailers sitting around for twenty
years isn't going to do anything to help anyone's property
values.

That's why split shifts are the only alternative. Although
they will cost more in operations (you can't expect that
the teachers will work extra hours for free), that's less
expensive than any addition or portable scenario. And
let's not kid ourselves, the home buying market doesn't
like split shifts either.

The Board was elected to spend time evaluating and
understanding these issues so that we can make informed
recommendations to the community. We're recommending a
third high school. We don't do so lightly and we do so
because we believe we need it as the best solution for the
students.

At the end of the day, there are those who look at the
numbers and see a bubble. (I don't). There are those who
(for whatever reason) simply want to sink the referendum
and will manipulate the data to help them achieve their
purpose. In the end, I'm still left with the question of
why the Board and Administration would want to build a
school that we don't need. That simply doesn't make any
sense, and that's the best answer to your question that I
can muster.

m2

Thanks for writing.

You're right -- a lot of time has gone in to this so far,
and that's the principal reason that we haven't yet fully
fleshed out the "failure" scenario. Our present plan is to
finish the work on the "success" scenario and then flesh
out the details of Plan B. That will likely include
identifying the boundary changes we will then make as well
as the other changes that would be necessary, such as split
shifts and reducing students' class loads by one each
semester.

While there may some additional portable usage, they can't
be a long term space solution both because of legal and
durability issues, not to mention their cost.

m2

Perhaps the language in the paper was confusing.

The reporter wondered how we could open the school on time
in 2008 if condemnation took up to two years (and we can't
build until the condemnation is complete). One of the
options available to us is to build the building on the 25
acres we already have, and then get the athletic field and
parking lot space via condemnation. Even if that took 2
years, it wouldn't affect the pace of building because we
don't need the athletic fields until the building opens.

It's not about doing things half-baked, it's about getting
it all done on time.

Does that make more sense or should I try again?

m2

I volunteered to draft the board's report on that item {site selection report} for inclusion on the web site. As you might imagine, I've been a little consumed with emails coming at the rate of 500/day or more at times. I suspect that after the boundary
process is done, I will complete and we'll post that
information.

m2

It seems to me that a high school structure is actually the most
flexible, since it can be used as is for high school and middle school students and would require only minor retrofits for use for elementary children. The physical plant of an elementary building would require substantial overhaul to be useable by either middle school or high school students.

While a retrofit might be a viable option, we have no long range excess of elementary school capacity that we could repurpose.

Thanks for writing and offering some good suggestions.

m2

The boundaries are listed as "expected" to take effect in 2009, because there is a slim, outside possibility (should all the stars perfectly align) that we'd be able to open the new high school in 2008. We're not promising that because it's only a slim possibility, but we also don't want the stars to align and then have people complain that the boundaries weren't supposed to take effect until 2009. So the "expectation" is meant to convey the idea that the boundary change will happen when we open the building.

With regard to other changes, the Board has not discussed any such
plans and I, for one, know of no such plans. Part of the
misinformation campaign on that topic stems from the fact that there
are three years, potentially, before the school would open, and that
time span creates any number of possibilities (as opposed to
probabilities). Suppose Wal-Mart went bankrupt and closed all of its
stores and the City of Naperville decided we needed 800 more houses
where Sam's and Wal-Mart are. That kind of significant change would
require wholesale replanning. Clearly, that kind of seismic shift is
remote at best, but it does represent one scenario in which the
boundaries would probably need to be redone before 2009: significant
changes that require modification.

The other possibility of boundary change is, I believe, equally remote. It would require dramatic overhaul of the membership of the school board, with the new members wanting to make dramatic boundary changes. I call that remote for a couple of reasons. First, unless people change their minds on the way the votes went, it would take two election cycles to accomplish enough personnel turnover to affect the decision. Second, as painful as the process was, I don't see any of the current board members wanting to relive that without the kind of significant change that requires it (see first item above). The third reason I score this as remote is that historically, boards in this district have tended to view decided issues as decided, and don't tend to go back. Yes, we have a sort of stare decisis in play. When you put all of those together, it tells me that unless we elect a majority of new board members willing to dispense with one of the hallmarks of this district -- community involvement in major decisions, that kind of
change is unlikely.

Besides, we went through the boundary pain because many people said
they had to know in order to vote. To change after successful passage,absent a compelling need (see item 1 above, again), feel an awful lot like a bait and switch.

I know of no way to guarantee it, just as there's never been a
guarantee for any of us. Even if no third high school was ever in the equation, there's been a theoretical possibility that some edition of the Board of Education could have decided to reassign Tall Grass to Waubonsie. In my mind, the risk of subsequent change, absent some substantial need that I don't yet either see or foresee, is so minimal that I wouldn't lose any sleep over the possibility.

Is that sufficiently direct and clear?

m2

To: Judd is FUD on April 9, 2008 9:07 PM

"Once you start connecting the dots, you see NSFOC-Fraud is just that, a fraud. It's simply a group of Brookdale and Stonebridge residents"
___________________

You couldn't be more wrong!!! I'm not going to even refer to them as the NSFOCfraud people. Let's call them people in the IPSD against what the NSFOC group is doing. I know for a fact, and can generate proof that there are parents from every part of this school district that are against what the NSFOC is doing, yes even at Fry Elementary School. The NSFOC is a small minority group. I wouldn't even say they have 400 supporters. At the 3/25 meeting they said themselves they had 300 donations. Sure you can count more it you'd like but they are still a small minority in this district.

To: Absolutely right on April 10, 2008 7:39 AM

"Come to a NSFOC meeting and see what the support is. Dr.D and the SB are underestimating the numbers of NSFOC."

____________________

Well if that's the case at the 3/25 meeting I counted 91 people and of those 91 people I knew 15 that were not supporters of the NSFOC. So that's maybe 76 true supporters that were at that meeting, maybe? By my calculations the NSFOC membership is going down by the day.

NSFOC Supporter...you have actually come the closest to actually spelling out the fact that the NSFOC has supporters. The NSFOC has donors. But the NSFOC does not have members. A not for profit corporation in Illinois has to designate the style of membership. You fail to mention in your post that since the amended lawsuit singles out 9 plaintiffs, the judge can now rule in relief for just those nine - because the suit now calls out just nine who have been wronged or suffered damages. Thank you for supporting what I have been saying. The NSFOC is technically nine people.

Collins has said publicly that the lawsuit is a long shot. Anybody want to bet on whether this is all to push a settlement and only the nine listed will benefit?

Let's review. If you send money to the NSFOC, does that make you a member? No. It does make you a donor and possibly a supporter but not a member. Now rush back to Tall Grass and outline a brand new corporate structure so you can say you have members. Make sure that they are voting members per the IL articles of incorporation - Otherwise they are members by name only (have no legal voice) but really are just donors/supporters.

NSFOC = Nine Selfish Families Off Course

WOW, those emails from m2 are frightening.

He needs to go!

The solution is in finding a way to make it all work with 2 schools.

Forget 3 high schools. We didn't need it before. We don't need it now. We won't need it later.

School District 204 never should have been split off from 203.

Let's merge the Districts back together. Everything can work between the four existing high shools... NC, NN, NV, WV

The total capacity is more than adequate to serve all of our kids TODAY.

Say what you want about the NSFOC, love us or hate us. It doesn't matter. The truth is thanks to NSFOC we are not presently building at Eola. Thankfully the group has had some success stopping the run-away train of our SB. In my opinion, the SB and Dr. D. have finally met their match. We refuse to sit by quietly and watch our SB make reckless decisions. Go NSFOC!!! Oh and don't forget to donate to the cause:)

Oh, come on. Nine plaintiffs.

You can't find a judge outside of Tall grass, who would give them a settlement. How about an ultimatum, move!

from the Metzger email above...

"Besides, we went through the boundary pain because many people said
they had to know in order to vote. To change after successful passage,absent a compelling need (see item 1 above, again), feel an awful lot like a bait and switch.

I know of no way to guarantee it, just as there's never been a
guarantee for any of us. Even if no third high school was ever in the equation, there's been a theoretical possibility that some edition of the Board of Education could have decided to reassign Tall Grass to Waubonsie. In my mind, the risk of subsequent change, absent some substantial need that I don't yet either see or foresee, is so minimal that I wouldn't lose any sleep over the possibility.

Is that sufficiently direct and clear?"

Thank you for posting that. I have seen the bait and switch claim in the court filing and numerous newspaper articles and blogs. Thank you for showing me the email stating very clearly "absent a compelling need". I think the need to change the location to an affordable site to be a compelling need. His bait and switch comment will not bite the district taxpayers in the a**.

Thank you for posting the emails. It is good to see that everything was out there and there was no deception by the school board. Sorry entitled nine.

MIDWEST GEN PULLED OUT OF EOLA TODAY!!

To: Emails to the public by M2 on April 10, 2008 9:21 AM

Thanks for posting those emails. I actually have more trust in the SB then I did before because I was listening to the NSFOC too much. MM basically lays everything out and he did see this coming in case the land at BB was too expensive. Just like the SB told us back in 2006 if we couldn't get the land. I see no surprises or lies by the school board and with my legal background I see no reason why the courts would side with the NSFOC.

Someone proclaimed MID West Gen pulled out of Eola today. So what?
Dr. D was just going to fence that sucker off anyway. How does this change anything? Answer: It doesn't. Now start the bulldozers and lets get this sucker built in time for fall 09 enrollment. (We'll fence off the construction defects too) Don't forget about the referendum to staff and equip it too. There is a lot of work to do in the next 16 months or so.

Metea Site .......he gone!

To: Stephen Daeschner, Superintendent

Want to do something amazing and have your name added to a school or statue after you retire?

Truly start the process over.

Get some creative minds together

Talk to other area superintendents.

Talk to the state about splitting our district?? We were once part of #203 and they were no where near as large when it was split.

Maybe join forces with Plainfield. I understand that they are presently over building. Maybe we can use the space until they need it and our bubble is past.

Maybe find a way to use tax dollars to united with some private schools and allow through lottery, choice, ?? some students to be educated elsewhere at a much lower cost....

Look at smaller buildings like the empty, for sale, almost new building next to Neuqua....I am sure you could hold English or some other classes there that don't require special facilities.

Think of building without all of the bells and whistles.

Do library chairs really need to be purchased with the little "rocker: fetaure in them? These are high schools not Sharper Image stores.

The universities most students go onto are no where near as nice as these schools.

We as tax payers and parents need to have a reality check. The economy is not in great shape and though some residents make fun of those concerned about paying taxes and their bills, those are real concerns of the majority of home buyers in the United States.

Naperville has lived through the economic booms of recent years and thrived. Yet we need to ensure that our kids are able to operate in reality.

https://www.nsfoc.org/pdf/dist_204_enviro.pdf

Someone said it in another posting. Lets just build a smaller school without all the bells and whistles. We don't need a huge monstrosity like Nequa or Waubonsee. Maybe MV could just focus on academics and no sports (which adds huge space requirements and costs for a high school) no tennis courts, no stadium, no excess amounts of open land. We could build it entirely using green technology and could be the talk of the nation. Lets turn today's lemmons into lemonade for crying out loud. I mean really, this Midwest Gen thing doesn't mean the end of our new school. Does it?? Lets think, lets use our heads now instead of our mouths on this blog site. Now is the time for leadership and ideas. Lets make our dreams come true. We don't want to fail our children.

Thank you concerned parent of 204. Well put.

To Big $ Education on April 10, 2008 7:36 PM--

It would be doing a disservice to all the children of Metea to build a school that did not contain the same amenities as NV and WV. Maybe you don't care about sports, but trust me, the kids do, and so do a lot of parents who are hoping their kids attract athletic scholarships to college. I love the green idea, tho. There is a school board meeting this coming Monday night, 4/14. Perhaps you could come and share your ideas with the board. Just be sure to arrive before 6 PM to sign up to speak.

To: Dollars and sense on April 11, 2008 12:21 AM

"It would be doing a disservice to all the children of Metea to build a school that did not contain the same amenities as NV and WV. Maybe you don't care about sports, but trust me, the kids do, and so do a lot of parents who are hoping their kids attract athletic scholarships to college."

_________________________-

I agree with you but as it is NV and WV are no where near the same HS. Sure they have a theatre and football fields and a swimming pool, great students and teachers, but that is where the similarities end. NV is like a country club. No wonder why some parents were fighting to stay there. Having said that my kids will attend WV and I love that HS.

I now don't think a 3rd HS will ever be built and that saddens me because I truly feel we need it. I believe it was the selfishness that led to certain people wanting a 3rd HS and filing a lawsuit to get it. Which, in the end we will never see.

If it comes down to it I'd rather have a 3rd HS without the bells and whistles then portable trailers and/or split shifts. I know that is a long shot but what if the numbers and projections are real? How does having 2 mega HS benefit any of us?

A high school is not just classes. If that was the case, we don't need any buildings. Our children could take classes over the Internet. The whole High School Experience is important. Social interaction, extracurricular activities. Colleges place a lot of importance on activities of applicants - not just grade point averages. To build a school without sports would be so short sighted. In the same way, references to Frontier as a high school just aren't correct. It's great for supplementary classes but it's not a high school.

To let's get real on April 11, 2008 1:47 AM--

I'm not talking about size and country club appeal. When I say amenities, I mean the extracurricular basics that both other schools currently have--a football stadium, tennis courts, swimming pool, music programs, etc. Metea students should have the same sport and excurricular opportunities as students in the other 204 high schools; the schools must be kept equal in this regard. I think it would be better not to have a 3rd high school than have one that offers it's students so much less than they can get elsewhere. This would be a disservice to them and to the 204 district as a whole.

Plus, haven't we had enough lately of lawyers and lawsuits? To build and redistrict kids to a school where they will have less opportunities than they previously had is just asking for trouble. People who pay the same taxes within the same school district want the same value for their money, and they're entitled to it.

Waubonsie rocks! on April 9, 2008 11:24 AM
My kids are staying at Waubonsie so I have no dog in this race but when will everyone wake up and realize how WRONG the Eola site is? It's wrong for a multitude of reasons - far from population density, transit/traffic issues, questionable land including pipelines, EMF, contaminated land, etc., outstanding legal issues with regards to BB, loss of state funding due to BuildSmart program, future litigation costs, future mitigation costs, future clean-up costs....the list goes on.

Sorry for those of you that really want that new school at Eola but it just doesn't make sense for the whole of the District. Hopefully our "intelligent" SB members will realize that sooner than later. We can't afford to move ahead on the Eola land.

I've talked to a lot of future MV parents and guess what? There are a LOT of parents/kids that don't want to be there if it's at Eola. They're smart enought to recognize the potential dangers of the site. It's not safe!

---------------------

It is nice to see there are level headed people who go to WV. I was beginning to think everyone who attends Waubonsie acts like these pro-board bloggers. What they have been saying is disgusting and down right immature. I knew there were level headed people who attended WV and could see that this was a bad site and we shouldn't be anywhere near it.

D&S: I Couldnt agree with you more

No matter where they build (if they build it) the 3rd HS, it better have similiar facilities as WV and NV. While it would be feasible for MV to share football/baseball/soccer fields with either WV or NV (ie when WV is playing away games, then those same days are MV home games on wabonsie's fields etc. etc.). This is not in the best interest of the overall district in my opinion. Everybody assigned to MV would be screaming "they" got the short end of the stick and are going to the HS lite location. Then we would end up right back where we are now....with a mess on our hands.

To Greg Forrest on April 11, 2008 11:04 AM--

High school lite, that's great! But true, I would throw a fit if the SD built a school short on the extras the other 204 HS's had and then told me I had to send my child there. I'm paying the same taxes as everyone else, why should I get less? This is so obvious to me that I'm surprised bloggers are even suggesting it. If we went this route, then we truly would be a district of have's and have not's.

My suggestion to build a smaller school focused on academics is modeled after the Illinois Math & Science Academy in Aurora. This kind of an idea would surely attract a sufficient number of kids who are NOT interested in sports. They would rather believe the secret to success is found in a high level of developed and cultivated intelligence. Something missing from the current smattering of AP classes currently offered in this district. Of course this means when they are 30 or 40 years of age, (randomly selected ages)the fact that they WERE the starting Nequa H.S. quarterback will mean little or nothing but one would rather think their PHD from MIT say for example would be of greater benefit. A PHD that began at an academic high school such as MV rather than the mega, general social high school that we remain stuck with demanding for some reason. This the result of one's focus on education as opposed to "sports". Sports college scholarships justifies spending huge sums of money for public school infastructure over education? No my friends, surely not. May I suggest we think differently? A school modeled along these lines is not meant to compete with the other schools. It is rather a high school that will syphon off a significant number of students (a thousand?) who are not interested in sports but concentrated science and mathematical studies and perhaps music and art. It would require a calibre of educator superior to the tenured/NEA/IEA crowd with specific rewards based upon specific measures of performance and results. It would free up seats at the existing, two schools. It is by its mere creation, mission; DIFFERENT than the other two schools! You are getting something different, not less than or sub standard. The students at this school could theoretically tutor the students at the other schools. You think a smaller school with no sports is less than the others. FOOLS! IT COULD BE SUPERIOR!!! But alas, public schools are good enough for your children but not MINE!!!!!! So keep fighting about social experiences, band, sports and all the other nonsense I've seen over the past years produced by 204. And here is the kicker...I LIVE IN 203. Yes, I'm a freaking REDSKIN!!!! (1971) I knew better than to buy a home in 204 because I saw all of you people moving here from all over the country, buying your silly homes in cornfields, watching what was pristine, country farmland bastardized by developers and builders. Chasing wildlife away and ruining the natural enviornment. (of course you are very concerned with the enviornment and you should be very proud of yourselves) But you were ok with it as long as YOU were getting a 10% annual real estate appreciation. Now you are not. Now you are stuck here, realizing negative equity while your house sits on the for sale market 9-12-16+ months. But your school district is sitting on a $90 million surplus-your money, your positive equity. It could only end badly and while reading these blogs, the sad truth is illustrated with these posts. Don't accept my aforementioned suggestion; building a different kind of school. But now you are in a hurt locker and few of you are capable of taking this opportunity to do something new and different with our duty to educate our children. Your just want what the other schools in the district have to offer. You know, it has to be the same, equal someone said.

To Dollars and Sense4/11/08 3:02pm

My post was especially for you. You are paying the same taxes, you are not getting less, you are getting something that could be better for many students. Yours can go to the other schools vacated by students who would rather go to a school with a different focus on what is important. Lets offer more choice in education and not just more of the same.

TOTALLY!!

As soon as somebody mentioned it on the blog, I just about fell off my chair. If we have a "train wreck" now; then that "HS lite scenario" would be like the Sun that keeps us all warm and happy (in the summer at least) going supernova in our fair little D204 community.

Last night the real estate transaction history was looked up for Eola site, and we found out that the AME church bought their 83 acres from Midwest Gen (yes, the same guys) in 2004. They also paid only $2.9 million for those 83 acres ($35,000 per acre). The district was offering AME about $12 million for 49 acres (that's $245,000 per acre). That's 7 times the price AME paid in 2004 in just 4 years - 700%! - for the same industrial type property that may be polluted as well. This brings into question the seven secret reports of environmental results. Were those reports perhaps from some of the AME property???

How reckless can our district be with our money!

Somebody tell me this ain't so!!!!

Moderator Jim to Gift to Arch: Okay, got it and very interesting. However, as you probably know, we have to verify all this by documentation etc. etc. The strength of a blog posting is not enough. Thanks.

To Big $ Education on April 11, 2008 9:31 PM--

???????????? What in the world was that rant about? Your diatribe wasn't even about what the previous posts were discussing. When I wrote "I'm paying the same taxes as everyone else, why should I get less?" this was meant in a first person hypothetical sense. Read back to "Let's get real" on April 11, 2008 1:47 AM and get up to speed.

We're talking about equality in education throughout an entire school district here. The school board has set the standard for the entire district, all schools within the district should equally reflect this standard so all children across the district have the same opportunities. This statement was made in reference to some bloggers suggesting we should build the 3rd HS minus pool, football stadium, etc., in order to accommodate land and $$ limitations.

You're talking about having a school that eliminates sports-related extracurriculars and focuses solely on academics, like the Illinois Math and Science Academy. This would deviate from the standard the 204 district has set for its other schools. The district could do this, but they can't force parents to send their kids there. To do so would create a district with two distinctly different educational experiences based on geography. If left to parental choice, I'm sure this kind of school would attract a number of kids who are not interested in sports. But you can't guarantee it would attract enough students to offset the overcrowding in the other two high schools, especially with the IMSA close by in Aurora. So while it's a noble idea, it has obvious flaws in a practical application.

And what was all that stuff about us building homes on pristine farmland and chasing away the wildlife? Like 203 did not convert pristine farmland into subdivisions when it was building and chased wildlife into the surrounding areas? And I won't even touch the stuff about real estate depreciation.

You need to get a grip. Since you live in 203, you must be aware that the standards for 203 and 204 schools are pretty much the same. So try selling your idea to the 203 district and see what response you get. Suggest converting Naperville North or Naperville Central to an IMSA type of school. I'm sure they'll explain the practical problems of this to you better than I could.