|
Post by Arch on Jun 18, 2008 8:29:03 GMT -5
For those who were "disgusted" with the lawsuit, I have a question. Will you feel the same way about any lawsuits filed against the City of Chicago in trying to build the Childrens Museum in Grant Park? Let's look at the parallels: The construction of the CCM, like MVHS, will be hugely expensive but arguably necessary and rewarding. The buildings will be permanent -- not likely be moved within a few decades at the least. The approval for the site was given by elected officials. Given those facts, would you be "disgusted" by those who will feel a lawsuit is the only hope for preventing a permanent mistake in Grant Park? Do Chicago (and Suburban) residents have to accept the rulings of possibly corrupt politicans as the final word, even when those decisions will outlast them? I guess the reasons for this are IMHO not at all parallel. #1 The CCM is a Private - for profit entity. (or am I mistaken) #2 There is an ordinance in place to prevent this, which can be modified. Not that I am opposed to this, it may actually be a great idea. A parallel I can think of would be let's suppose Great Lakes Volleyball (Sports Perfomance Volleyball Club) needed an even larger venue. They see this large peice of land owned by a Park Dist (I'll use Frontier Park for sake of arguement) and they want to use the land to put up a large Volleyball stadium....which of course they would "let" the Park Dist use. Would that be OK? NPD uses space at District 203's Central HS (Dance Room) through some cooperative arrangement. It would depend on what you define as 'let'. Let in this sense could be some form of monetary compensation (hard or soft dollar).
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 18, 2008 8:34:02 GMT -5
And in many school districts, this is the way it is done. Yes. Boundary changes themselves can be done anytime for any reason the District sees fit. The ruling against the NSFOC filing discussed in this JHB article makes it clear that this is the prerogative of the District, and the public need not be involved. My opposition isn't so much to boundary changes per se, more to a candidate running on a boundary change platform. There may be legitimate operational reasons to change boundaries. But if thats an campaign platform, I consider that a political agenda, and that is pandering for votes. For the record, I was not not at all happy even when candidates ran for pre-2006 referendum elections on such an agenda. Cheers. The beauty is no one has to run on that platform and can even say they are steadfast against boundary changes. When put against other candidates who might hint at a change, you've already said how you'll vote... So, all someone has to do it tell you what you want to hear and you'll vote for them... or you'll abstain.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 18, 2008 8:48:03 GMT -5
Yes. Boundary changes themselves can be done anytime for any reason the District sees fit. The ruling against the NSFOC filing discussed in this JHB article makes it clear that this is the prerogative of the District, and the public need not be involved. My opposition isn't so much to boundary changes per se, more to a candidate running on a boundary change platform. There may be legitimate operational reasons to change boundaries. But if thats an campaign platform, I consider that a political agenda, and that is pandering for votes. For the record, I was not not at all happy even when candidates ran for pre-2006 referendum elections on such an agenda. Cheers. The beauty is no one has to run on that platform and can even say they are steadfast against boundary changes. When put against other candidates who might hint at a change, you've already said how you'll vote... So, all someone has to do it tell you what you want to hear and you'll vote for them... or you'll abstain. yes - case in point: CV
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 18, 2008 8:58:08 GMT -5
And in many school districts, this is the way it is done. Yes. Boundary changes themselves can be done anytime for any reason the District sees fit. The ruling against the NSFOC filing discussed in this JHB article makes it clear that this is the prerogative of the District, and the public need not be involved. My opposition isn't so much to boundary changes per se, more to a candidate running on a boundary change platform. There may be legitimate operational reasons to change boundaries. But if thats an campaign platform, I consider that a political agenda, and that is pandering for votes. For the record, I was not not at all happy even when candidates ran for pre-2006 referendum elections on such an agenda. Cheers. This is exactly how I feel about any boundary changes proposed by a candidate. Unless they become necessary due to issues I've presented before, there is no point in discussing this again. Doing so would create further divides and we've spent enough time on this issue for the last 2+ years. Not only time to move on, but time to move on to educating our kids. In the big picture, there really are more important things.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 18, 2008 9:00:52 GMT -5
Yes. Boundary changes themselves can be done anytime for any reason the District sees fit. The ruling against the NSFOC filing discussed in this JHB article makes it clear that this is the prerogative of the District, and the public need not be involved. My opposition isn't so much to boundary changes per se, more to a candidate running on a boundary change platform. There may be legitimate operational reasons to change boundaries. But if thats an campaign platform, I consider that a political agenda, and that is pandering for votes. For the record, I was not not at all happy even when candidates ran for pre-2006 referendum elections on such an agenda. Cheers. The beauty is no one has to run on that platform and can even say they are steadfast against boundary changes. When put against other candidates who might hint at a change, you've already said how you'll vote... So, all someone has to do it tell you what you want to hear and you'll vote for them... or you'll abstain. No sense in re-hashing this yet again. We'll have to agree to disagree on how we vote for candidates. This thread is about the article. We've veered way off topic yet again. If you want to continue to talk about school board candidates and their qualifications, then I suggest you move this talk back to the School Board forum.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 18, 2008 9:01:13 GMT -5
Luckily, the board itself doesn't have to do the work on them.. their job is for one of them to put forth a motion, another to second it and vote AYE, NAY or abstain on proposed changes.
added: agreed, this should segway back to sb elections thread.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 18, 2008 9:23:58 GMT -5
I guess the reasons for this are IMHO not at all parallel. #1 The CCM is a Private - for profit entity. (or am I mistaken) #2 There is an ordinance in place to prevent this, which can be modified. Not that I am opposed to this, it may actually be a great idea. A parallel I can think of would be let's suppose Great Lakes Volleyball (Sports Perfomance Volleyball Club) needed an even larger venue. They see this large peice of land owned by a Park Dist (I'll use Frontier Park for sake of arguement) and they want to use the land to put up a large Volleyball stadium....which of course they would "let" the Park Dist use. Would that be OK? NPD uses space at District 203's Central HS (Dance Room) through some cooperative arrangement. It would depend on what you define as 'let'. Let in this sense could be some form of monetary compensation (hard or soft dollar). Just like FVPD using WVHS's tennis Courts. The Big Difference is that both are Governmental bodies, not a private corp and Gov. Body
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 18, 2008 9:39:08 GMT -5
NPD uses space at District 203's Central HS (Dance Room) through some cooperative arrangement. It would depend on what you define as 'let'. Let in this sense could be some form of monetary compensation (hard or soft dollar). Just like FVPD using WVHS's tennis Courts. The Big Difference is that both are Governmental bodies, not a private corp and Gov. Body Think of that symbiosis as a bigger contract version of Sodhexo and D204, or even Laidlaw. One needs the other and one's a govt body and the other a corp. Both benefit from the arrangement (whatever that arrangement may be in the details). In the case of parking a private facility on PD land, there should be some lease arrangement (again hard or soft dollar) for the land itself from the govt body to the corp. If the use of the facility by the PD drops to 0 they can jack up the price when the original mutual contract is up or terminated by either party per the terms of the contract.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 18, 2008 10:37:39 GMT -5
I suppose. I'll be honest, I have not been following the Grant Park Issue that closely, so there may be many details I am not aware of.
But I just think the lawsuits don't compare as asmodeus alludes to.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 18, 2008 11:06:14 GMT -5
I can't weigh in on the specifics of the suits themselves being parallel but what I took from it was the court system is a proper and legal avenue for people to resolve grievances; often beyond just simply voting someone in or out of office.
Naturally, they have to have a legal leg to stand on but that's another story... either way, the avenue is there to be used if necessary.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 18, 2008 11:49:12 GMT -5
I can't weigh in on the specifics of the suits themselves being parallel but what I took from it was the court system is a proper and legal avenue for people to resolve grievances; often beyond just simply voting someone in or out of office. Naturally, they have to have a legal leg to stand on but that's another story... either way, the avenue is there to be used if necessary. And that is where we differ in opinion. You are correct in that is why we have the legal system, and I would be 1st in line to defend anyone's right to that system providing, like you say, a legal leg to stand on. I don't believe they ever did, which is also what Popejoy thought.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 18, 2008 11:58:11 GMT -5
I can't weigh in on the specifics of the suits themselves being parallel but what I took from it was the court system is a proper and legal avenue for people to resolve grievances; often beyond just simply voting someone in or out of office. Naturally, they have to have a legal leg to stand on but that's another story... either way, the avenue is there to be used if necessary. And that is where we differ in opinion. You are correct in that is why we have the legal system, and I would be 1st in line to defend anyone's right to that system providing, like you say, a legal leg to stand on. I don't believe they ever did, which is also what Popejoy thought. The lack of a legal leg to stand on to thwart and the rights bestowed upon an entity is going to be something that will have a truck driven through it the other direction, I imagine.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 18, 2008 12:14:39 GMT -5
As JHB comments on the end of the lawsuit....I dont think as time goes this will completely be forgotten. But it will fade as an issue, though not by 2009. In our districts history, it will be thought of as an absurdity, nothing more.
Fundamentally, this lawsuit was about a small number of people trying to control where a school was built and who goes to which school. This was clearly recognized and emphatically pointed about by the judge. The judge expressed this in a clear, thoughtful, logical, and legal way. Say what you want about the "namecalling" (and yes, the JHB article does rehash that). But for many in the district, this was an imperfect way for them to express their recognition that at its core this lawsuit was not about voters rights, safety, or costs. It was about something else. The judge clearly and fairly explained this, I believe.
Maybe I should have done some "celebrating" as JHB describes. When it happened, it was much more relief felt by me. Truly, that still describes my feelings on this. But maybe this is what should be celebrated: A handful of plaintiffs were not allowed to void a legitimate election (my vote and the vote thousands of others). All in the name of there misguided claim that they didnt understand or where mislead on their ballot and had rights violated. And these plaintiffs werent allowed to make a decision that is to be made by elected representatives who we all had a say in choosing. I am celebrating the fact that the integrity of both the election and representative-government process were upheld.
Lets take the long view of this issue. In a few years when the dust settles and the new schools will have had a few classes pass through them. (I am calling not just MV and Fischer MS new....but all with new attendance areas). I think the neighborhood that predominately supported this lawsuit will come to realize they have been assigned to a very fine school. I think they will come to know and love the school. They will see their students opportunities and good experiences there. And in the end, this is the way all this lawsuit stuff (and, yes, boundary worries) will fade away.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 18, 2008 12:49:19 GMT -5
As JHB comments on the end of the lawsuit....I dont think as time goes this will completely be forgotten. But it will fade as an issue, though not by 2009. In our districts history, it will be thought of as an absurdity, nothing more. Fundamentally, this lawsuit was about a small number of people trying to control where a school was built and who goes to which school. This was clearly recognized and emphatically pointed about by the judge. The judge expressed this in a clear, thoughtful, logical, and legal way. Say what you want about the "namecalling" (and yes, the JHB article does rehash that). But for many in the district, this was an imperfect way for them to express their recognition that at its core this lawsuit was not about voters rights, safety, or costs. It was about something else. The judge clearly and fairly explained this, I believe. Maybe I should have done some "celebrating" as JHB describes. When it happened, it was much more relief felt by me. Truly, that still describes my feelings on this. But maybe this is what should be celebrated: A handful of plaintiffs were not allowed to void a legitimate election (my vote and the vote thousands of others). All in the name of there misguided claim that they didnt understand or where mislead on their ballot and had rights violated. And these plaintiffs werent allowed to make a decision that is to be made by elected representatives who we all had a say in choosing. I am celebrating the fact that the integrity of both the election and representative-government process were upheld. Lets take the long view of this issue. In a few years when the dust settles and the new schools will have had a few classes pass through them. (I am calling not just MV and Fischer MS new....but all with new attendance areas). I think the neighborhood that predominately supported this lawsuit will come to realize they have been assigned to a very fine school. I think they will come to know and love the school. They will see their students opportunities and good experiences there. And in the end, this is the way all this lawsuit stuff (and, yes, boundary worries) will fade away. GD, I most certainly agree with your comments. And I sincerely hope that the section I highlighted in red proves to be true. What worries me is the group(s) of people who will always look at this and say "If only", or "what if", thereby disallowing them to look at the experience for what it is or what it could be. I'm afraid there will be those that will stay firmly in the past so they can prove a point and will blame any inconsequential event on boundaries, the school they were assigned to, etc. I'm certain there will even be those that, after their child grauates, will say "If only Jimmy could've gone to xxHS, he would've gotten a much better education and gotten into xxCollege/University". I'm afraid these are the groups of people who won't ever be able to move on. I hope I'm wrong, though.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 18, 2008 12:54:47 GMT -5
eb204,
How someone chooses to feel about it is their own burden to carry, not anyone else's.
Some people still play the 'I could have...' game from the dot com bubble many years ago.
Let them.
|
|