Metea critics seek to block HS construction

Waubonsie Valley High School is an exceptional place. Instead of putting so much energy into stopping the building of Metea, why don't the NSFOC supporters re-focus their energies on learning about this terrific high school. I guarantee, once you step foot in the building you will be impressed by the students, teachers and administrators. We are lucky to have two exceptional high schools and soon three.

We ALL need a third high school to alleviate overcrowding, no doubt. Let's allow this forward motion to begin. Go Warriors, Go Mustangs, Go Wildcats!!!

Interesting, the SB lawyer states in the article "the school board has the right to select the site boundaries" ---

Then why was there a referendum? OHHH, that's right. Because they needed THE MONEY from THE TAXPAYERS.

So, the taxpayers said NO in 2005.
So, the School Board said "we will build at 75th St. and Rt. 59"
So, the voters said YES in 2006.

Did the law also provide the School Board to say one thing to voters - then DO ANOTHER.

What a shame these School Board members are doing to our community. Teaching our children to use red tape, trickery, and selfish personal opinion over democracy.

Thank goodness these people do not teach our children.

Right now it's a rush to build a school they KNOW 80% of the community didn't want, would have never been given the funds for. And who benefits? the school board members who live in the communities.

Oh yes, overcrowding - no one complaining about that. Just a couple school board members.

It should be a crime that the Attorney General or some fraud department can get involved in.

The SB has literally ruined this community. The only thing that can correct it is the law now.

The law is the law. If a judge rules against the district in the NSFOC trial, it won't matter how far along Metea at Eola is.

I haven't seen any comment about the Metea Valley school site's close proximity to the EJ&E tracks, soon to belong to the Canadian National traffic jammers. How will this play against school bus routes, emergency services, etc.? It seems like many who attend the new school will need to cross those tracks to get there.

"I would think if the district was behaving responsibly it should want the expedited date, too," Shawn Collins, attorney for NSFOC, said Friday........as taken from today's column.....

I would think if nsfoc was behaving responsibly they would drop this ridiculous lawsuit and hoop jumping expeditiously!!!!
Come on guys. You've been exposed. It is painful to watch as you continue to make yourselves (and our district)look bad. There is no good that comes out of this lawsuit against all of us. Let's put this behind us and work toward the common good of all of our kids....which is building a third high school so all will benefit from less crowding.

Why not have your lawyer(Collins) file a motion for expediting the BB lawsuit? That would have merit, and would be working toward a common goal instead of working against our district and kids.

The School Board should not start anything expensive prior to that court date. They can push some dirt around and maybe do some surveying. Have their construction company & subs spend their time procuring things that could be used at either site. Otherwise they may be wasting our money.

If I have a "Vote Yes" flyer in 2006 that was sent to my children through their schools, isn't that written evidence for the lawsuit that the referendum was sold to me as being a new third school at BB? I do remember that the SB said that boundaries may have to be tweaked and changed due to changing or unpredicted population swings. They really never discussed before the referendum the possibility of not getting BB. They had already purchased some of the land there already. I thought it was a done deal.

If BB is still obtainable (and it is!)then they should have to buy it. Especially since it seems that the Eola site is going to cost more than BB anyway. The SB should be holding an open meeting just on that that topic "THE TRUE COST ESTIMATE!!"- let the parents hear about true cost of Eola vs BB using real estimators that include all the things and not just the "land" price. And not let it be rolled out to the public in the blogs, and by the ads and quotes in the newspaper.

Since the SB is changing to Eola from BB due solely on cost, and BB is a better location, then they owe us the real and intelligent cost estimate numbers NOW!.

It is my understanding that when you file a quick take that it is the seller that has to sell - the buyer does not have to buy. The NSFOC is only trying to strengthen the BB case to get what THEY want. It's over - we own the Eola land and we're building on it. Whatever Todd Andrews does will ONLY cost all of us money and do NOTHING to stop or slow down the 3rd high school. Would someone please put an injunction on him to stop this madness. Is there any case history when a crazy person continues to file junk that they will be held responsible? I wonder what his boss thinks of him spending so much time away from work to file this crap. Maybe this will cost him his job as well as everything else. My god - when is he going to learn.

When are you people going to get a clue? Mark M--"80% of the community doesn't want". Where in the world do you come up with that number? NSFOC has a "commanding" number of what..10 families? There are over 18,000 families in this school district!

This whole bait and switch thing is a joke too. When the ref. failed in 05 this SB did what it needed to do in order to get the 06 ref passed. They hired the consulting firm that advised them to focus the communitites attention on the emotional issue of boundaries. We went through the whole dog-n-pony show with the meetings, open houses, and the coffee meet and greets. When the majority of the district bought it hook, line and sinker the ref. passed. I truly believe that the SB had every intention of buying BB. When they couldn't agree on a price they went through the time and expense of having a trial (even trying to initiate quick take powers which would have forced the district to pay whatever). Hardly the actions of a SB that was intending to bait and switch. The would have switched property way before a trial. When the price came back double it would have been fiscially irresponsible of this SB to pay that price. They made the right decision in switching properties.

People that voted "yes" for the ref. now feel like they have been had. They took a leap of faith and lost. The NSFOC families took it very hard. They must feel betrayed and humilated. So they file a lawsuit.

I am not a big supporter of this SB, I think they have made a lot of mistakes (including going after BB as hard as they did). I voted NO on both ref. as I think a 3rd HS isn't even necessary to build to get over a surge of students that will move through in a few years time. I also vote every year to try to change the SB members, but voter turnout is so small the same people stay on the board year after year.

The fact remains that the ref. did pass and the voters gave this SB permission and the money to build a 3rd HS. We all have to accept it and move on.

By jh on April 20, 2008 7:39 AM
"Waubonsie Valley High School is an exceptional place. Instead of putting so much energy into stopping the building of Metea, why don't the NSFOC supporters re-focus their energies on learning about this terrific high school. I guarantee, once you step foot in the building you will be impressed by the students, teachers and administrators. We are lucky to have two exceptional high schools and soon three."

JH I wholeheartedly agree! The education in our district is something we can all be proud of and I fear it has taken a backseat to all of the new high school controversy! Both 204 high schools are sending kids to Northwestern, Notre Dame, U of Illinois,and U of Michigan next fall just to name a few! The valedictorian at Waubonsie will be attending Harvard.
Let's celebrate our great district and move this third high school forward! All kids will benefit from less crowding!!!!Let's continue to provide the awesome educational experiences for the kids that will be attending our high schools in the years to come. Enough with the rhetoric, hurt feelings, personal agendas.... Let's get this done and move forward as a community by placing the priorities where they should be...on the children of district 204. Thank You !

Northerner,

While I do believe we need a third high school I agree with your summation of the 2006 referendum.

Northerner,
I, too agree with your summation of the 2006 referendum. The board did everything to acquire the BB site in my opinion to try and please this very group that is suing us. We now own the Eola site, so there's nothing that can be done to change this. No judge is going to agree with the nsfoc and their ever changing arguments - it's over guys - let it go.

By Anonymous on April 20, 2008 10:39 AM
It is my understanding that when you file a quick take that it is the seller that has to sell - the buyer does not have to buy. The NSFOC is only trying to strengthen the BB case to get what THEY want. It's over - we own the Eola land and we're building on it. Whatever Todd Andrews does will ONLY cost all of us money and do NOTHING to stop or slow down the 3rd high school. Would someone please put an injunction on him to stop this madness. Is there any case history when a crazy person continues to file junk that they will be held responsible? I wonder what his boss thinks of him spending so much time away from work to file this crap. Maybe this will cost him his job as well as everything else. My god - when is he going to learn.
_________________________________________

This is the dumbest blog I've ever read (and I've read very many).

If you think there is only one person driving the NSFOC you are wildy incorrect.

You sound like a pretty hatefilled person. Maybe you should log off, go outside and enjoy the nice weather.

Just wanted to put forth a scenario that might make the northerners understand where a lot of the southerners are coming from. Let's say there was a referedum to purchase and build a 3rd high school at Eola. As loyal WVHS attendees, many really hate the idea of having to leave their beloved high school, but agree to support the referendum. Then, for whatever reason, the Eola site is no longer available and the SB makes a deal with Aurora East High School to send all of these children there. Now everyone knows the vast majority of the kids at Aurora East are good kids and there are many good teachers, but the perception might be that this new attendence line might not be the best thing for your child. You know they will have to travel further to get to this school and even though it might be wrong, new home buyers would probably be more interested in your home if it were in the WVHS district. You bought your home planning to go to WVHS and were very happy with your decision and now that is all moot. And then the SB decides to build the new school in the south and you are still changing to a school that you did not choose for your kids and be it right or be it wrong, your property value has also just been impacted. I don't mean this to be inflamatory at all, just want others to maybe take a brief gander at what southsiders may be thinking. Hope the SB is not making a huge finacial mistake.

By the way - this is not the "southerners" fight. It is a fight comprised mostly of TG and WE - please do not group Ashbury into this mess or any other southern subdivision that is slated for NVHS. It is overcrowded and we need the third high school. The district as a whole (while some might feel bad for those in TG and WE that are getting pulled from Neuqua) support the 3rd HS at Eola and don't want to have to pay legal fees for a frivolous law suit.

ToBy Southsider on April 20, 2008 11:19 AM
Here's a scenario for you. You live in the north and pay dearly for your house and about 24K/yr in taxes. A second high school is needed for the district. A referendum is put out to vote for the most expensive high school ever (at the time) to be built. You vote yes for this 2nd high school knowing you're very high taxes are going to this incredible overspending of a high school that your kids won't benefit directly from - only that their high school will be less crowded. You embrace your HS even though the 2nd HS gets all the money and the original HS can't even get funding for new computers. Not only do you have to deal with the lack of funding but you have certain people from TG and WE say "oh my" your in Waubonsie district - what ever are you going to do when your children hit HS?? Fast forward to the need of the 3rd HS and these same selfish people kick and scream so much that the board has to find land that they will approve of - one very close to the second high school - the BB site because they want it all for themselves. The board does everything to secure this site - but bc of things outside of their control - the BB site is out of the budget for our district. What ever are they going to do for the children of district 204 - there is very little land left here as everything is built out bc it's such a great school district. Then, literally by the grace of god - the Eola site becomes available having not been on the market previously. We should all be happy - I mean there were 2 - not one but two times the north was looked over as a site for the second and third high school and WE DIDN"T SUE! Didn't like it - but wouldn't even cross our minds to sue our neighbors -no WE MADE LEMONADE with the lemons we were given - and what beautiful lemonade we made. Not only does this selfish group sue - but they rip apart our beautiful northern location with lies and propaganda - calling our land cesspools and toxic waste dumps. Yes, we are outraged at what you've done to our community and please know, it is the nsfoc that did this not the Board as the board has passed us by 2 times and we didn't choose to rip our community apart.

To ANON 4/20 12:01pm as well as others you have used "frivolous" to describe the lawsuit

Quick Question: How do you know the lawsuit is frivolous? Have you read it? If so, then In your opinion it may be, but others obviously disagree with your assessment. I suggest we wait for a Judge to review and rule before we label it.

Thanks
GF

Southsider,
I understand what you are trying to say but Aurora East is not even in our district. It can't be compared to the exact same District 204 curriculum,opportunities etc.as NV and WV. My kids would have stayed at WV under the BB site and this was great to me!! I voted for the third high school because of the overcrowding in the district.

Now I will have one that will graduate from WV (Awesome school!) and one that could graduate from Metea. I am hopeful that Metea will measure up to WV and NV for my youngest child's experience.I guess I could say I bought my home planning to go to WV (I used to live in a subdivision that goes to NV) but we've been in this district too long to think that any school was a "sure thing". We just wanted a closer location to the train and I-88.

My point is that all of our schools offer the same excellent curriculum and 5-6 miles is what I travel now and am glad to do so. In fact, I would travel farther if I had to for the sake of education. But that's just me.We gave our kids the option of going to Benet Academy and they have chosen to stay at the public schools.To be honest, 204 offers far more AP/Honors courses than most of the private schools (30-40 versus 6 or 7).

Please understand ,I am not saying that I don't think you deserve to be disappointed not to be going to a closer school but I think we are still talking very reasonable distances for the majority of folks and all of our kids will benefit from the smaller school sizes in the end. Heck, I'd even drive to NV, but I doubt if there would ever be a scenario where that would happen...although I've learned to never say never!! :)

To Southsider-

Are you really comparing WV to Aurora East???? What makes WV a better school is the SCHOOL DISTRICT it is in, not the make up of student body (something a lot of the people in the southern part of the district can't seem to get through their heads!) Dist 204 is an outstanding school district, the curriculum offered, the extra curricular activites, the staff, the sponsored PTA programs etc. Test scores around the DISTRICT prove it. Your house value is also tied to the SCHOOL DISTRICT your house is in, NOT which HS your kid's butt sits in. They will get a great education regardless of which HS they attend. Have your house appraised...never once will the appraiser ask which HS you attend (or if you are in walking distance).

For the millionth time...you did not vote on a SITE for the 3rd HS--only if you wanted a 3rd HS for the district.

For the record, I believe that TG & WE are getting a bum rap as a whole. It really is very few families in both of those subdivisions who have an issue witht the site. I've met quite of few families from both TG and WE that are fine with going to WV--as it should be.

To Mark M you say "Right now it's a rush to build a school they KNOW 80% of the community didn't want, would have never been given the funds for. And who benefits? the school board members who live in the communities."

How in the world can you say that when we didn't even get 80% of the voters in this "community" to vote. The "community" is all eligible voters who are taxpayers of IPSD 204. Sadly enough we didn't even get 80% of those eligible voters to vote.

So those who did not vote should not have a voice in this at all. If you can't get off your lazy butt to vote in any election you have no right to complain about anything that our local or federal leaders do and say and that includes our SB.

At least 80% don't want this school.

Probably nearly 100%....
and here's why:

Last vote: 40% said "No"
Then, the people who said "Yes" are now saying "NO"

That right there is near 70%.

Then, the remaining people are so disgusted with the way the SB has acted that they'd say "no" to anything the sb has done.

There are 25 people I saw who want this school: they all came to the last meeting.

And I saw 250 people there who were against it. Just listen to the clapping.

ONE THING NO ONE CAN ARGUE WITH; Bradshaw, Metzger and Clark are not on the board, this thing is not being built. Period.

it's a personal agenda; it's written all over their actions in the past.

Once again:

2005 "No"
SB says "no" because people want to know "where" it will be
SB says "here is where it will be"
2006 "yes" vote because of where it will be
c'mon, they even used 'boundaries' to help them get the vote.

2008 wake up supporters of MVHS; your going to a toxic area that the owners who cared would not even sale. And the only reason your going there is because a handful of sb members have wanted this for years and years and could never get it.

Facts are facts: this vote would have never passed. No way. No how.

New addition to the church sign anyone else notice

Here is the argument that is at the heart of the matter: watch how the writer actually confesses to why it's bait and switch..

---------------------------------------------------------
By Northener on April 20, 2008 10:40 AM

"This whole bait and switch thing is a joke too. When the ref. failed in 05 this SB did what it needed to do in order to get the 06 ref passed. They hired the consulting firm that advised them to focus the communitites attention on the emotional issue of boundaries. We went through the whole dog-n-pony show with the meetings, open houses, and the coffee meet and greets. When the majority of the district bought it hook, line and sinker the ref. passed. I truly believe that the SB had every intention of buying BB. When they couldn't agree on a price they went through the time and expense of having a trial (even trying to initiate quick take powers which would have forced the district to pay whatever). Hardly the actions of a SB that was intending to bait and switch. The would have switched property way before a trial. When the price came back double it would have been fiscially irresponsible of this SB to pay that price. They made the right decision in switching properties."

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

SO, THEY PLAYED US TO GET THE SCHOOL PASSED. BUT IF THEY HAD EVER INTENTION OF BUILDING A SCHOOL, THEY WOULD HAVE DISCLOSED THAT THEY COULD NOT BUY IT BB IF THE PRICE CAME IN HIGHER THAN WHAT THEY THOUGHT. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN 'GOOD INTENTIONS' ---

WHAT THEY KNEW - WAS THAT IF IT DIDN'T COME IN AT THEIR PRICE, IT WAS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE WHO COULDN'T GET A SCHOOL PASSED; THOSE UP NORTH WHERE 17% OF THE POPULATION EXISTS; WHERE THE SB MEMBERS COME FROM.

IT'S HORRIBLE. ONE JUST HAD TO GO TO THAT LAST MEETING TO SEE THE 80%. ONE JUST NEEDS TO SEE THAT THOSE WHO VOTED YES WOULD HAVE VOTED NO.

ONE JUST NEEDS TO SEE THEY ARE SCARED TO BRING THE ISSUE TO THE PUBLIC AGAIN.

RUSH ON TOXIC LAND. THAT'S SCARY

Mark M-

Did anyone out there ever think that the jury would come back at a price of over $500,000 per acre??? No way and if you did, I suggest you play the lottery this week. I thought they would come in somewhere in $350,000 range. I think the SB did what they had to do to get the ref. passed (you use the words "they played us") to some degree they did. This board was hell bent on getting a 3rd HS into this district, that was obvious. They did nothing illegal just refocused attention--you bought into it.

Look at it this way...No one with reasonable intelligence would sign a contact with a builder to build them a house when (a)if they didn't know if that builder owned the lot they were buying or (b)how much the cost of the house would be when they were done, but that's exactly what the Yes voters did.

If anyone has access to old '05 or '06 blogs that was what the NO voters were yelling loud and clear, but the Yes voters (from all over the district, not just the south)wouldn't listen. The bought the into the SB spin.

Also, check your numbers 80% of the community was not present at the last SB meeting. Furthermore, the land is not toxic, it's farmland.

To Southsider Tough analogy

A) Aurora east is out of district and not comparable to dist. 204 though they are making great strides in the positive direction.

B) S/B busted butt for 2 years spent tremendous resources and lost bb because of cost

C) Next best location put to bed in a timely fashion and in district i.e. eola location.

D) Not in real-estate but less crowded schools seem better than crowded ones.

E) The moment you stated out of district schools and falling real estate values your contribution to this blog became inflammatory.

F) Take your lead from GF he is a south sider has much better handle on some views there.

The change in location boils down to one thing and one thing only. The cost of the land. The cost of Brach Brodie was no longer affordable to the district. It would have pushed the cost of the third high school way out of line with the budget that was voted on in the referendum. Had the whole price not been out of line, the school woul still be built on Brach Brodie. But with the cost of the land, the financially responsible thing to do was to find a new site. The district did not anticipate this happening. They did not decide to try and pass a referendum in anticipation of making a switch in locations. It's something that just happened due to the rise in land cost. It was not a bait and switch. For it to be a bait and switch, the district would have had to plan that they were going to do this before they passed the referendum.

Let's say you wanted to build a home and had the choice of two lots of similar size, in the same general area, but not the same subdivision. You decide on one, make plans for it, but in the process of getting things ready to sign, the owners of the lot you chose double its cost, making it too expensive for your budget. Would you still build on that land? If you would, then you don't make very good financial decisions.

This was not in the district plans, it just happened.

To:Northerner:
I only picked Aurora East because of its proximity. The make up of the student body meant nothing to me. All three schools will be relatively diverse. (Although 12:37 sounded a bit elitist). We hate giving up our school as many others will hate to give up theirs. And 12:29...you are probably right...WVHS probably did frequently get the short end of the stick.

Thank you warrior pride great statement.

To anyone concerned. Many missing the boat on communication idea. Get to know people in pta they have excellent knowledge of things in district. If you must speak at board meetings great get your concern stated then speak of some positive experience you have within district. If you have no positive experiences to speak about say nothing.When your ideas are voted upon don't leave angry. Stay for complete meeting thus validating that you are truely concerned about what is going on in district. When looking fro a seat at meeting don't sit next to your next door neighbor-go out on a limb and surround yourself with people you know nothing about. Strike up a conversation you may find a different reference point refreshing and educational. Follow-up a meeting that did not go your way with a second,third or even fourth meeting, you may find your perspective of the district changed.

Anyone want to guess the amount of concerned patrons left sitting at the end of last meeting(hint you can count by using ones hands no feet needed). If you were not one of them maybe next time.

To Mark M

I am going out on a limb but is it safe to ASSuME that you were not one of the select few to finish the last board meeting. Angry today could not help but noticing the emphasis of ALL CAPS in your response.

Calling Civics, Perspective and the group come on down!!

from a different blog but applicable here!

We voted for a 3rd HS to eliminate overcrowding. How does the current proposal relieve overcrowding at WVHS ? For all those who are screaming that we need a 3rd HS to help distributed the student population. Explain to me, how are we going to accomplish this at WV, given the current proposal, using SD projections ?

**********************************************

Spring Brook Mom,

You ask a very good question. I actually analyzed the numbers in an old post about a month ago. Here is what I came up with - not exact district numbers, but this should be close:

The third HS is supposed to reduce the overcrowding in WVHS and NVHS. Ironically, WVHS will actually be MORE crowded until the 2011-2012 school year.

Per the SB's website, current HS enrollment is 8182, of which 3,691 (45.1%) are at WVHS. The projected enrollments for the 2011-2012 school year have 28.6% of the district's HS students at WVHS. Using the SB's current numbers of students at each grade, here are the estimates for WVHS students for the 2009-2010 school year:

Seniors (currently 10th graders): 2085 x 45.1% = 940
Juniors (currently 9th graders): 2145 x 45.1% = 967
Sophomores (currently 8th graders): 2362 x 28.6% = 676
Freshmen (currently 7th graders): 2358 x 28.6% = 674

Total students at WVHS for the 2009 - 2010 school year = 3257. Good news, right? That's a 434 student decrease from the current numbers of 3,691. The problem is that the Freshmen campus will have been converted to a middle school, so you just lost space that currently is used for 967 9th graders. Everyone is now in the main WVHS building. You actually have 533 more students in this space than this year! The problem improves in the 2010 - 2011 school year, but you will still have more students in this space than this year. Not until 2011 will there be less students in the main WVHS building than there is today. Just in time for district enrollments to decline.

To Anonymous on April 20, 2008 10:39 AM--

FYI:

1) The quick take was never filed. It got bungled at crunch time in Springfield and never went through.

2) There is much more to the NSFOC than Todd Andrews, he isn't even one of the "entitled nine". There are many other core players. Todd Andrews is not doing all this on his own.

3) If you want an injunction against Todd Andrews or anyone else, you're on your own. Apparently they cost mega $$. If they didn't, NSFOC would have filed one long ago to stop the Eola land purchase.

I think you're up too early. Go back to bed.

To Anonymous on April 20, 2008 12:29 PM--

RE: the end of your statement:

"I mean there were 2 - not one but two times the north was looked over as a site for the second and third high school and WE DIDN"T SUE! Didn't like it - but wouldn't even cross our minds to sue our neighbors -no WE MADE LEMONADE with the lemons we were given - and what beautiful lemonade we made. Not only does this selfish group sue - but they rip apart our beautiful northern location with lies and propaganda - calling our land cesspools and toxic waste dumps. Yes, we are outraged at what you've done to our community and please know, it is the nsfoc that did this not the Board as the board has passed us by 2 times and we didn't choose to rip our community apart."

1) You didn't sue because your location was never "sold" to the voters or in any way connected to a referendum the way the BB site was. You may have gotten lemons, but you knew the situation and accepted it when you moved into that area. It wasn't forced upon you after the fact.

2) The NSFOC did not attack YOUR land, they attacked the MSGen land. The NSFOC attacked the northern SITE, not the northern PEOPLE. It is the northern people who attacked not only the NSFOC, but the folks in WE and TG and all southern residents in general, and they did so in a very personal and ugly way. The NSFOC as an organization or through it's leadership has never attacked, insulted or demeaned anyone who opposed them. Go back and read the blogs. It was the northern residents and Eola supporters who attacked the southern residents and their children with labels as selfish, self-centered, elitists, snobs, brats, racist, on and on. It is these people who have torn this community apart with their take no prisoners approach to getting what they wanted, not the NSFOC or its lawsuit.

One more thing to Anonymous on April 20, 2008 12:29 PM--

3) I have heard the "lemons to lemonade" statement from a lot of people who are now at WV and will be going to Metea if it is built. Why is this? Do you really consider Waubonsie to be a lemon?

An injunction to stop an injunction? Takes me back to the saturday morning cartoons "injunction injunction whats your function?" LOL :)

No need to for SB to file injunction/TRO and I dont think they even can. What they can do (and I am sure they will attempt to do) is have the case dismissed at the hearing. If they fail, it moves on. If they suceed, then only the two BB suits remain standing.

In terms of "paying" for the costs. Both sides will want the other to pay all legal fees. SO if SB wins, not much of a dent in the taxpayers pockets in terms of the NSOFC suit. We all know we had to pay both ours (district) legal fees as well as the BB fees for the condemn case. Same thing will happen with the NSFOC suit.

I heard rumors that one of the other land/site options came to SB and offered A price about 7 mill under what we paid for EOla and SB blew it off. Could be cuz eola could be executed on earlier (the drive for 09 superceeds everything else including land appraisals) or cuz they always wanted eola and its their first choice but it just wasnt available in 2006. Or a zillion other conjucture points. I would be most curious to see if some of this comes out at the hearing.

By Greg Forrest on April 20, 2008 5:54 PM
An injunction to stop an injunction? Takes me back to the saturday morning cartoons "injunction injunction whats your function?" LOL :)

No need to for SB to file injunction/TRO and I dont think they even can. What they can do (and I am sure they will attempt to do) is have the case dismissed at the hearing. If they fail, it moves on. If they suceed, then only the two BB suits remain standing.

In terms of "paying" for the costs. Both sides will want the other to pay all legal fees. SO if SB wins, not much of a dent in the taxpayers pockets in terms of the NSOFC suit. We all know we had to pay both ours (district) legal fees as well as the BB fees for the condemn case. Same thing will happen with the NSFOC suit.

I heard rumors that one of the other land/site options came to SB and offered A price about 7 mill under what we paid for EOla and SB blew it off. Could be cuz eola could be executed on earlier (the drive for 09 superceeds everything else including land appraisals) or cuz they always wanted eola and its their first choice but it just wasnt available in 2006. Or a zillion other conjucture points. I would be most curious to see if some of this comes out at the hearing.
_____________________________________

Greg,

The rumor you heard about one of the other land/site options being 7 million lower is true. The SB misrepresented one of the land options to the public. I know that as not rumor, but a fact.

I hope this comes out in any one of the trials.

Moderator Jim to Nincompoop: Why don't you enlighten us all about that last piece of information and then we can all discuss it.

To:
By Dollars and sense on April 20, 2008 5:51 PM

One more thing to Anonymous on April 20, 2008 12:29 PM--

3) I have heard the "lemons to lemonade" statement from a lot of people who are now at WV and will be going to Metea if it is built. Why is this? Do you really consider Waubonsie to be a lemon?

FYI... The lemons to lemonade statement was made by a NVHS resident that is slated for WVHS trying to gather everyone and make WVHS a "better" school - which we believe WVHS is already a great school. Nice try again you guys are the ones that have damaged the reputation of a great school - not those who are already at WVHS. Another pathertic attempt to Twist words by TG and/or WE.

The bulldozers are closing in. Seems to be the bottom of the ninth with 2 out 2 strikes and no one on base for Shawn Collins and co. Time will tell but good news 30% + chance of drought this summer excellent construction weather (and we will need it for 2009 opening).

Duh? Like who couldn't predict that one of these groups wouldn't file an injunction?

If anyone thinks the first injunction is the last they are badly mistaken. Groups opposed to what the SB is doing, how they are behaving, their conduct, etc. can and will keep filing injunctions against the SB.

Got to love our judicial system, don't you? And there isn't a dog gone thing they can do about it except watch and wait for the next shoe to drop.

The SB will be kept tied up in court until the next election and we will have to wait until we know who is elected for the next term to see when and how any of this may be resolved.

The only possible way out for the SB at this time is to start listening to the voters, stop being aloof and arrogant, and to work to find a reasonable compromise that is in the best interest of all stakeholders. The SB is fighting an uphill battle as defendants in three different lawsuits. Who knows how many more lawsuits may follow. Maybe the SB wins, maybe they lose. What is really important from a time perspective is that it doesn't matter if they win or lose because either side will file an appeal. And maybe another appeal after that to the next level. And all this will take how long? And cost how much?

The smart money says a 2009 opening simply isn't going to happen. So what does that mean in real terms and what do we as taxpayers say to our SB?

Let me guess, the "new plot" of land offered for $7 million less was no doubt Macom's???? ha ha

To Northener:

Again, I have no confirmation on any of this: but Not sure which one. I was told which one, but forgot. I am also not very good with directions and I get them confused (macom, hammond, etc etc). I also think it was closer to 5 mill less, not 7 so I think I missspoke on the $ amt in savings. What I do remember, was the offer hit in the time between midwestgen going out and we announced the Eola deal. During the 4 day "all options on the table" period. I found this (if true) to be most distressing. However, at this juncture, it appears to be moot in any case since the board took a pass for whatever reason/set of reasons. I am hopeful that some of this (if true) will come out for the general public in the upcoming lawsuit hearings. At the very least, I am hopefull we will get the full picture and key information will not be buried/hidden from public view.

(If true) I can totally understand why the board/admin would not be very anxious to have that inforamtion for public consumption.....

By Naperville Sun editors on April 20, 2008 7:25 PM
Moderator Jim to Nincompoop: Why don't you enlighten us all about that last piece of information and then we can all discuss it.

_____________________________

Moderator Jim,

Call the landowners that were listed on the final option report, find out for yourself who thinks they were misrepresented. I don't feel comfortable violating the trust of those I spoke with without their consent.

It would be a good story, trust me. While you are at it, find out how much due diligence the district did with all the sites listed, call the park district, etc. The public should know how much effort the district put into negotiation with land owners.

If you'd like my email address for more information, let me know. I stand by my post.

Duh, the SB did listen to its voters (those who took the time to vote). We voted for a 3rd school for X amount of $. The original site is not possible so they found another piece of land that is wihtin the $ amount of what we voted. So they did listen to us the voters.

You can argue that they didn't listen to you because of the change of boundaries. Those of you who are whining about the boundaries obviously have not lived here long. If you have you would know that they have had to change boundaries more than they care too. Some kids have been to 3-4 different schools before they entered HS. Those kids all did fine.

And as far as the rumor, you all sound like a bunch of school girls. I heard on the bus that Susie's sisters' best friends brother's girlfriend......

If you have facts let us hear the who, what, where and when. Otherwise your post is complete nonsense. As the kids learn in school rumors are a form of bullying.

Enough already!

By Northener on April 20, 2008 8:19 PM
Let me guess, the "new plot" of land offered for $7 million less was no doubt Macom's???? ha ha
___________________________________

$7 million less is laughable to you??

Not to me regardless of the land site! $7 million dollars is laughable? Huh? I don't get why you are laughing!

Sorry quick follow up:

besides embarressment (if true): a couple of big issues bubble to the surface.

No appraisal on the eola land.

A lower bid for comparable property.

Isnt there a law in IL that district cannot overpay market value for property? I will have to double check and/or we could ask another administrator in another SD to confirm.

At the very least, we could have used that lower bid to get eola at a lower price. whatever we saved could then go back to the district overall. or maybe it could have been used to further enhance eola. Like the piddly football fields in our district currently at WV and NV, an extra 5 mill could go a long way to get a real texas/ohio type football stadium at MVHS. ok maybe there are higher priorities (for sure there are) for the extra cash...I just continue to be "underwelmed" every time I look at our FB statiums and it keeps sticking in my craw for some reason....

To Anonymous on April 20, 2008 7:30 PM--

FYI... The lemons to lemonade statement was made by a NVHS resident that is slated for WVHS trying to gather everyone and make WVHS a "better" school - which we believe WVHS is already a great school. Nice try again you guys are the ones that have damaged the reputation of a great school - not those who are already at WVHS. Another pathertic attempt to Twist words by TG and/or WE.
__________________________________

Wrong as usual. Read Anon on 4/20 at 12:29 again, slowly, and this time READ FOR MEANING. Anon ends her post with "WE DIDN"T SUE!" Notice the word WE when referring to how those in the north reacted when being passed up for a HS site twice in the past. She also says "the board has passed US by 2 times and WE didn't choose to rip our community apart." I put "us" and "we" in all caps so you wouldn't miss it this time. In fact, the whole post is written from the perspective of someone who has been in the WV district for awhile. This blogger is NOT a NV resident, as much as you might like her to be.

And I've seen many other posts over the past weeks where WV folks have used this same expression, like Anon above. I can understand this comment coming from NV residents, and I have read a couple that did. But it makes no sense coming from WV residents. If Waubonsie is that great, why would you consider it a lemon? If you're so happy there, why would you need to make lemonade? Why use this saying at all?
__________________________________________

One more thing to the original Anonymous on April 20, 2008 12:29 PM--

4) The SB did not choose the BB site to make TG and WE happy. In fact, the BB site had been selected by the SB prior to the 05 ref, which didn't pass. That's why the SB was able to go ahead and purchase 25 acres at BB immediately after the 05 ref failed. This was all they could afford and they figured they could at least put a middle school there.

TG and WE were very happy at NV and did not want to leave at all, even for Metea at BB. Some TG folks were even hoping that once Metea was built at BB and enrollment dropped off, they would be permitted to return to NV. This is a first-hand account; I had these discussions with them personally. Those from TG and WE who voted for Metea at BB did so because they understood there simply wasn't enough room at NV for everyone, not because they wanted Metea all to themselves. They would have preferred to have stayed at NV and been left out of the whole mess entirely.

Moderator Jim:
Talk to Macom. They made an offer of $12m for their 80 acres last Monday before the board meeting to approve the AME land.

By Northener on April 20, 2008 8:19 PM
Let me guess, the "new plot" of land offered for $7 million less was no doubt Macom's???? ha ha
------------------------------------

Maybe you Northerners have $7M to spare but I don't. Yes, I think it was Macom who sent Daschner a late offer the day of/or before the presentation on the land options back in Jan.

Daschner did not present this reduced price to the community. Who knows why not... I suspect he did not want any competition for the site he selected and worked so hard to get. Had the board only worked as hard on plan B in case BB did not happen we would not be in this place. They told all of us a plan B was not necessary since they knew they were getting BB. What fools.

Its really a shame. The population is South, the land was cheaper, it would have taken a little longer to make Macom work, they could have kept the same boundaries but it was obvious the SD and SB did not want a school that close to Neuqua.

I never understood it. The folks going to WV seemed content (Except for Brookdale of course) and the community attending NV wanted to stay. Why not put the 3rd school close to NV where the kids are and the parents want it. Logic does not play into the SBs decisions.

Seems the only legitimate argument against Macom was the 2009 timeline self imposed by the board to rule out Macom and Hamman.

The punchline is that Macom/Leman was offerring this to the SB for 12-18 months and although his motives were selfish (ie to get the Ashwood folks to live there) the property seemed like a fit. So had the district worked on this as a plan B we might not be stuck with this suboptimal piece of property, distant from the population center, that won't be completed on time and will cost more than Macom.

This school board's antics will be in the history books forever and will hopefully teach future board members (204's and others) what not to do.

This board and Superintendant are embarrasing!

To Anonymous on April 20, 2008 12:29 PM--

"Fast forward to the need of the 3rd HS and these same selfish people kick and scream so much that the board has to find land that they will approve of - one very close to the second high school - the BB site because they want it all for themselves."

The following was taken directly from the BB lawsuit and illustrates what I stated in #4 (just in case you have any doubts):

7. In the event the District placed the School Referendum on the April 5, 2005 election ballot and the referendum was approved by the voters, the District would be able to simply close on the entire 80-acre Acquisition Parcel at the agreed price set forth in the Settlement Agreement on or before May 31, 2005. In the event, however, that the District placed the School Referendum on the April 5, 2005 ballot but the referendum failed, the District could elect to proceed with the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT in full force and effect by complying with the terms of Section 11 of the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by electing ". . . on or before May 17, 2005, to purchase the 25 acres sought to be condemned in the Proceeding for Six Million Four Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($6,437,500) and to pay such funds to Owners, on or before May 31, 2005."

See? No "kicking and screaming from the selfish people" to force the SB to choose BB. The SB was pursuing BB and making settlement agreements with them long before it was common knowledge, definitely way before the 05 ref, which voters, including many of your so-called "selfish people", voted down.

Before you display any more holes in your logic, please go to the NSFOC website, click on complaints, and review the history for yourself. It's not a difficult read; boring, maybe, but not difficult, and very straight-forward. It will illuminate for you why the NSFOC and BB have filed suits.

I threw out Macom's name as a joke. That guy has been trying to off load his land for a while now. He has been sitting on that under developed subdivision for years. Of course, he would under cut the church land price(plus let's not forget he doesn't even own all the property the district would need--they would have had to negotiate with 3 other property owners). No, I don't think $5-$7 million less is a joke--BB for $31M is a joke, NSFOC is a joke, and Macom...well let's not even go there.

Now, if the poster wasn't talking about Macom then let's hear it...

Thanks to Dollar and Sense for reminding everyone that BB is not most of TG's first choice of school site. NVHS is - due to it's location, family traditions, friends, whatever. Although Tall Grass is not NFSOC, the end result of the lawsuit does not get TG what it wants. Therefore it is not TG's selfish lawsuit.

The school district should build 3 new high schools instead of one.
Optimal size is less than 1,000 students according to studies. This way the schools can be close to everyone.

Why does everyone want just one high school.

Is it the price? Should require the same number of teachers.

Is it transportation? Transportation should be less if the schools are closer.

Is it because of sports? That would be a bad reason I think because smaller schools give more kids an opportunity to play sports.

Moderator Jim
Macom may appear cheaper but if you go out to that property you will notice a ranch home at the corner of 248 & Wolfs Crossing. I would lay odds that the people that reside in that home are the ones that have a portion of that property tied up in a living trust. After taking a spin around the area don't forget to look at the power lines that would have to be moved because the roof of a new high school building would touch them. And if those two concerns are not enough there is a electric substation just to the north across 248th and east of the rr tracks. Oh then of course there are those pesky pipelines that are on the rr right-away.

When looking at the bigger picture there are concerns with all of the proposed 3rd school locations. Decision is made-time to move forward-find some closure- hope for good construction weather.

Had anyone noticed that WVHS has failed the NCLB for 5 years. Why hasn't this been talked about? The SB has been wasting taxpayers money for over two years in legal and lobbist fees. Now I hear they will be using our money to pay for a PR person for DR. D. So now we get to pay two salaies for out super!!!

I believe this site and the boudnaries are ment to fix WV, but we are not allowed to talk about WV problems. I am upset that the SB wants to bus my child around to increase test scores and hide the underacheiving students in this district. HOW ABOUT WE TEACH THEM, not ignore them and spread them through out the district.

Does anyone know just how difficult it is to get an injunction? One must ask the court to stop a work in progress and will need to prove specific consequences of the work in progress that damages the plaintiffs in this case. I believe that is the reason that they needed to add named individuals as well as the NSFOC et al (a perceived class action injunction is almost impossible -- according to my best legal eagles at least). I blame the SB for their role in this debacle, but we all have an amount of blame to accept as well. I think the lawsuit will most likely be thrown out, but whole heartedly agree with GF that since the NSFOC does not appear to be backing down, we must let the judge decide.

While playing armchair legal experts may be fun, would anyone here like to change the tone of this blog into a more constructive forum of how we can prevent this type phenomena from reoccurring?

I for one would welcome that thread.

Kind regards

Dollars and sense 4.21.08 1:08 am
If the first referendum would have passed would we have any of these lawsuits. Second question how did the bb property go from 258K=/-per acre to 550k=/- per acre in such a short time span. Could there be some relevance to the idea that the property was never worth the price the jury came back with. D/S I know you are great with the #s, can you give us your input to the time between the 258K & 550k per acre price.

If the Macom land fire sale for $12M was true, it is a day late and the dollars short don't matter. Can't get a school going on Macom for a 2009 opening. But, all the NSFOCers and South Siders would be jumping for joy.

Perhaps Moderater Jim should look into the NSFOC and Macom relationship?

TO WVMom:

***Let's say you wanted to build a home and had the choice***

Don't mean to stop you there (your point is valid) however, in my humble opinion, this choice was not made available. To explian my feelings while expanding on your analogy here's the scenario.

Potential owner enters into a contract to build on a specific property. Builder unable to obtain land at expected cost. Builder tells potential owner that due to unforeseen events he is still going to build but on another site and, by the way, you are obligated to fulfill the terms of the original contract in spite of what the builder advertised. Now while site 2 may be a perfectly acceptable substitute, potential owner should still have a say.....shouldn't they.

To All: This is merely expanding on WVMom's analogy and not meant to perfectly parallel the BB/Eola situation.

"The SB did not choose the BB site to make TG and WE happy. In fact, the BB site had been selected by the SB prior to the 05 ref, which didn't pass. That's why the SB was able to go ahead and purchase 25 acres at BB immediately after the 05 ref failed. This was all they could afford and they figured they could at least put a middle school there.

TG and WE were very happy at NV and did not want to leave at all, even for Metea at BB. Some TG folks were even hoping that once Metea was built at BB and enrollment dropped off, they would be permitted to return to NV. This is a first-hand account; I had these discussions with them personally. Those from TG and WE who voted for Metea at BB did so because they understood there simply wasn't enough room at NV for everyone, not because they wanted Metea all to themselves. They would have preferred to have stayed at NV and been left out of the whole mess entirely."...as posted by Dollars and Sense.

Dollars and Sense,

I agree with you. I think the TG/WE crowd wanted to stay at NV or maybe end up back there someday if numbers went down again.That is why they voted for Metea (at what they thought would probably be BB location). I also heard this from a first-hand account. The problem came to fruition shortly after we all realized BB was no longer a viable option. New land (EM) would mean new boundaries. Those prepared to sue waited until the new boundaries were announced. Going to WV would NOT happen without a fight from nsfoc. I have lived in one of those neighborhoods and know this as a fact.

Absolutely amazing TG and WE are now fighting for Macom (albeit - a waste of breath)- a site with more "environmental" issues than Eola. And you wonder why you have no credibility throughout the district - or with say the Civil Rights Bureau - what a joke the nsfoc is.

To: By Dollars and sense on April 20, 2008 10:20 PM

No - as usual it's the nsfoc that are wrong - Please read the following thread re: the lemons theory posted by a Southside group that calls themselves the Southwest Naperville Warriors Lemonade Committee on April 16th. And you wonder why you didn't get what you were voting for a 3rd high school NOT BB - jumping to conclusions again - shame shame...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Life Gives You Lemons... on April 16, 2008 4:53 PM
No one may know this yet but there is a small and growing group of us down South that - while not excited about having to travel to Waubonsie since we bought homes close to Neuqua for a reason - understand what has happened and why and are not happy about it but have moved on.
There will be meetings all summer long by this excited group of parents - we will be planning our Waubonsie car pools and fundraisers and activities. We will grow and many of us will be meeting with administrators, getting to know teachers, learning all about how this school works and will be very actively involved on a daily basis in every single aspect of this school to ensure a great experience for our children and to protect our interests and representation at all levels.
This is a chance to make this school as "ours" as we want to and need to. A little farther away, a little older, not what we thought we were getting...but ready and waiting for our personal touch and our TLC. We will improve it with our time and involvement and monetary contributions. We'll change what we don't like. We'll work on what needs work. Our kids really need our support and enthusiasm. They are going to get it for sure.
In just a few short years, you will see a tremendous difference - an amazing improvement - Waubonsie will be the envy of all schools -we know we can do this. Life gave us this lemon - come on! We're makin' some lemonade. Join us!
The Southwest Naperville Warriors Lemonade Committee (SNWLC) :)

To Dollars and Sense - you really should change your name - as you have no sense. There goes your theory of bait and switch - the SB was trying to secure this land far too long - thank god they moved on to Eola to save us time and money - Kudos to the school board.

I submitted a comment to post a couple of hours ago, but since it still hasn't shown up I'm re-doing it. I apoligize if this becomes a duplicate.

No, I do not think a price $5-7M under the church's price is a joke. I threw Macom's name out as a joke. It is no surprise he would undercut the church's property price, he has been stuck with an under developed subdivision for years. What a stand up guy he is (he has NO allies here in the WV area after the inflammatory remarks he made regarding WV). He would love to get rid of that land. Since he doesn't own the entire 88 acres--the SB would have had to deal with 3 other owners in order to secure all the necessary acreage. I'm sure that would have gone smoothly!

I think $31M for BB is a joke, NSFOC is a joke, all of these lawsuits are a joke, and Macom well...let's not even go there.

If the original poster wasn't referring to Macom. Then let's hear the whole story.

The whole appraisal issue is a red herring. Appraisals do not determine the offer, they validate it. In residential deals, the appraisal is ordered by the bank to make sure their collateral is sufficient. It happens *long after* there is a binding contract at the negotiated price. Even if the appraisal was way lower (it never is) it would be too late to change the price. In many states, the buyer is not even allowed to see it. Where there is no bank involved, there is usually no appraisal at all. That is very typical in commercial deals like this one. It is completely misleading to suggest that the SB skipped some crucial step.

The fair price whatever the market will bear. You have to look at comps. The Eola cost per acre is comparable to the original BB offer. It is comparable to the original asking price for Macom and Hamman. It is comparable to the (appraised) value of the Midwest Gen site. It is *half* of what the new BB price is. If anyone has actual evidence that we overpaid, please post it. Otherwise you should probably let this issue go and find a better stick with which to beat up the SB.

To NSFOC needs to learn:

I applaud your energy and goals. Just a quick comment on part of your statement

"This is a chance to make this school as "ours" as we want to and need to. A little farther away, a little older, not what we thought we were getting...but ready and waiting for our personal touch and our TLC. We will improve it with our time and involvement and monetary contributions. We'll change what we don't like. We'll work on what needs work. Our kids really need our support and enthusiasm. They are going to get it for sure.
In just a few short years, you will see a tremendous difference - an amazing improvement - Waubonsie will be the envy of all schools -we know we can do this. Life gave us this lemon - come on! We're makin' some lemonade. Join us!"
---------------------------------------------------

Please remember that there is a great foundation already in place at WV. While many great