|
Post by gatormom on Apr 14, 2008 23:51:26 GMT -5
D204, church reach $19M land deal for Metea
Indian Prairie School District 204’s school board approved Monday the purchase of 84 acres along Eola Road in Aurora from St. John’s African Methodist Episcopal Church. D204, church reach $19M land deal for Metea
April 14, 2008 By Tim Waldorf twaldorf@scn1.com
The deal is done.
Indian Prairie School District 204’s school board approved Monday the purchase of 84 acres along Eola Road in Aurora from St. John’s African Methodist Episcopal Church for the construction of Metea Valley High School. The purchase should allow District 204 to open the 3,000-seat high school in the fall of 2009, as planned.
"I want to personally thank the Rev. Jesse Hawkins, pastor of St. John’s, for his leadership in this endeavor, especially with his willingness to sell all 84 acres, and with the support of his trustees and congregation,” said Superintendent Stephen Daeschner as he introduced the measure. “This would not have happened without these great people. He is doing this on faith that they will find appropriate land to build their great church.”
St. John’s intended to build a new church on roughly 34 acres of the property, but decided to sell the entire 84-acre site to the district after Midwest Generation decided last week not to sell 37 acres of adjoining property selected for the school site. District 204 will purchase the property for roughly $19 million.
The board voted 6-1 in favor of the purchase. Board member Christine Vickers cast the lone dissenting vote.
Vickers cited the failure of enrollment projections to pan out, and the fact that the district had not secured an appraisal of the property as two of the reasons for her vote.
Vickers’ colleagues took issue with her rationale. They reinforced their beliefs that continued enrollment growth waits ahead, and they stressed that, while time didn’t allow for an appraisal, their extensive study of the area’s real estate market led them to believe the price was appropriate.
“We’re no strangers to the real estate market,” board member Curt Bradshaw said. “We’ve been working in it a great deal as part of the Brach-Brodie case.”
Depending on the outcome of outstanding legal issues, the site is estimated to cost between $9.5 million and $12 million less than the 80-acre Brach-Brodie property originally selected as the school site, but abandoned after an attempt to condemn it returned a price twice what the district anticipated.
Residents overflowed the board room for the meeting. Some had to watch on a closed-circuit broadcast from another room. Of the 200-plus in attendance, 26 addressed the board, and most of them urged the board to slow down, saying the district should wait until the courts determine damages the district will owe as a result of its decision to abandon its Brach-Brodie condemnation effort.
The board did not.
"I embrace that concept 100 percent, but, in reality, the world does not pause with us,” Bradshaw said. “In reality, if we wait for these lawsuits to be settled, we may be one, two years, or more than that down the road. And the reality beyond that is that inflation costs for construction do not pause with us, and each year we delay, we need another $5 million to $10 million on top of that for construction costs.”
Nor will students wait, board President Mark Metzger said.
“At the moment we literally have hundreds more middle school students than we have space for, and that will soon be thousands more middle school students than we have space for,” he said. “As those students move up in age, we will eventually be in a position where we will have 1,000 or 1,500 of 1,800 more high school students than we have room for at 100 percent capacity.
“These problems don’t go away,” he continued. “Slowing down serves every one of those children an enormous disservice, and I believe it would be a grave error for us to stop now."
But this vote will not stop opposition to the district’s plans, either.
In response to the decision to purchase the property, Neighborhood Schools for Our Children, which has filed a lawsuit demanding that the district build Metea on the Brach-Brodie property, continued to express its disappointment with the direction the board has chosen.
“The thing that becomes more clear to us tonight is that this situation has become more complicated, not less,” reads a statement NSFOC member Jasmine Grassi distributed to the media following the vote. “This school board has become more secretive, not less. This community has become more divided, not less.”
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Apr 15, 2008 6:19:11 GMT -5
...“The thing that becomes more clear to us tonight is that this situation has become more complicated, not less,” reads a statement NSFOC member Jasmine Grassi distributed to the media following the vote. “This school board has become more secretive, not less. This community has become more divided, not less.” They can spin it however they want, but I'll tell you what, it's not the SB doing the dividing, it's them. I'm very tired of the SB getting catching all the crap.
|
|
|
Post by JWH on Apr 15, 2008 7:14:33 GMT -5
This is great news for our district, and I'm looking forward to moving ahead with Metea. Be prepared to read tons of crap in the next few weeks. I'm sure certain groups will drop the environmental mantra, and focus on the lawsuits (which will not be decided for years) since that's all they have left.
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 15, 2008 9:00:52 GMT -5
This is great news for our district, and I'm looking forward to moving ahead with Metea. Be prepared to read tons of crap in the next few weeks. I'm sure certain groups will drop the environmental mantra, and focus on the lawsuits (which will not be decided for years) since that's all they have left. Believe me, they are coming up with more. They are now on a witch hunt to expose the SB for blatant lies to the community, based on their statement that Macom was $300/acre and macy has a FOIA that says differently. This is not over.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Apr 15, 2008 9:06:09 GMT -5
This is great news for our district, and I'm looking forward to moving ahead with Metea. Be prepared to read tons of crap in the next few weeks. I'm sure certain groups will drop the environmental mantra, and focus on the lawsuits (which will not be decided for years) since that's all they have left. Believe me, they are coming up with more. They are now on a witch hunt to expose the SB for blatant lies to the community, based on their statement that Macom was $300/acre and macy has a FOIA that says differently. This is not over. The site assessment has an estimated price of $18M at Macom (unknown due to NPD land swap) - and no chance of an 09 opening
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 15, 2008 9:15:07 GMT -5
Believe me, they are coming up with more. They are now on a witch hunt to expose the SB for blatant lies to the community, based on their statement that Macom was $300/acre and macy has a FOIA that says differently. This is not over. The site assessment has an estimated price of $18M at Macom (unknown due to NPD land swap) - and no chance of an 09 opening According to macy, MAcom was willing to come down below whatever AME's price was. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. And whether they actually presented that to the SB is the million $ question. Her point is that they are still telling us it was $300/acre (regardless of other costs involved) when according to her, it was less. I agree Macom has its issues, but if we are being lied to by this SB, that upsets me.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Apr 15, 2008 9:41:18 GMT -5
The site assessment has an estimated price of $18M at Macom (unknown due to NPD land swap) - and no chance of an 09 opening According to macy, MAcom was willing to come down below whatever AME's price was. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. And whether they actually presented that to the SB is the million $ question. Her point is that they are still telling us it was $300/acre (regardless of other costs involved) when according to her, it was less. I agree Macom has its issues, but if we are being lied to by this SB, that upsets me. One SB member mentioned that price, 300K. I believe it was BG. It has been proven by the NSFOC that any SB member on any given day can misspeak. Go figure, they are human. There were several roadblocks to Macom, price being one of them but it was impossible to open in 2009, no chance of that happening. That drove any price Macom had up with the built-in costs of dealing with a 2010 opening. I am done with talking about other pieces of property. Time to move on at least for me. I think one claim the NSFOC makes may come true. The AME property will end up cost us more and they will make sure of it. I hope I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by JWH on Apr 15, 2008 9:50:05 GMT -5
The site assessment has an estimated price of $18M at Macom (unknown due to NPD land swap) - and no chance of an 09 opening According to macy, MAcom was willing to come down below whatever AME's price was. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. And whether they actually presented that to the SB is the million $ question. Her point is that they are still telling us it was $300/acre (regardless of other costs involved) when according to her, it was less. I agree Macom has its issues, but if we are being lied to by this SB, that upsets me. I guess I don't understand - - I didn't think Macom was on anybodys table at this point.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Apr 15, 2008 9:59:53 GMT -5
According to macy, MAcom was willing to come down below whatever AME's price was. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. And whether they actually presented that to the SB is the million $ question. Her point is that they are still telling us it was $300/acre (regardless of other costs involved) when according to her, it was less. I agree Macom has its issues, but if we are being lied to by this SB, that upsets me. One SB member mentioned that price, 300K. I believe it was BG. It has been proven by the NSFOC that any SB member on any given day can misspeak. Go figure, they are human. There were several roadblocks to Macom, price being one of them but it was impossible to open in 2009, no chance of that happening. That drove any price Macom had up with the built-in costs of dealing with a 2010 opening. I am done with talking about other pieces of property. Time to move on at least for me. I think one claim the NSFOC makes may come true. The AME property will end up cost us more and they will make sure of it. I hope I am wrong. Of course they will. Several people on the other board were saying how they HOPE that the BB attorneys will stick it to "us" or something to that effect. Do they not realize the "us" they refer to is everyone living in this district? The "us" isn't the school board or pro-Eola people or whoever. It's the entire District and its residents. They are on a witch hunt and calling regional superintendents and ISBE people to report Dr. D and school board members. They are hanging their hat on this appraisal announcment. Do they not know that when you are looking at property, you use comps from the market and it is the mortgage company who actually does the appraisals? Buyers don't normally do appraisals, lenders do. Again, fair market value is when the seller and buyer agree on the price. With BB, the buyer and seller couldn't agree so someone had to do that for us. We didn't like the price, so we walked away, doing the financially responsible thing. I also take exception to the other board's remarks about the church making a fortune on this. Just because they are non-profit doesn't mean they can't have noney in the bank. This was simply a good return on their investment. Would you or I be criticized for getting a good return on some stock that we bought at a low price and we sold for higher? No! In fact, the church could have held out for more, but they didn't. They are good people. Even people who make a 600% return on their investment can be good people. Who is the greedier party here anyway? The BB people aren't making a profit on that land? I'm sure they didn't pay over $500,000 an acre for it, yet no one is saying they are greedy. Of course, it's the church that are the greedy ones. They will find anything to pick apart. This is what desparate groups do. I have not engaged in anything on the other board because it will do no use. Let them grieve, stew, throw verbal attacks, have a tamptrum. But let them do it by themselves. Just like a tantruming child, you have to ingnore them and not give them the attention they want. I'm not going over there anymore. It's like picking a scab. Everyone needs time to heal now.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Apr 15, 2008 10:19:28 GMT -5
According to macy, MAcom was willing to come down below whatever AME's price was. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. And whether they actually presented that to the SB is the million $ question. Her point is that they are still telling us it was $300/acre (regardless of other costs involved) when according to her, it was less. I agree Macom has its issues, but if we are being lied to by this SB, that upsets me. I guess I don't understand - - I didn't think Macom was on anybodys table at this point. Yeah, I dont understand what macom has to do with anything at this point. If we wished it to be reconsidered after the MWGen deal fell through.....the NSFOC lawsuit took care of that. It had nothing to do with the decisions last night IIRC, $300k was the original macom offer (~May 2007?). Maybe that was in BG mind. as warriorpride stated above, the site selection report 1/15/2008 www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17229_3.pdfclearly states Macom at $18 mil, or $209k per acre. Even then macom was judged an inferior location for various reasons, as GM said above. There is no deception here. There is no coverup. Also, BG comment was made in the context of appraising the land. Not by a detailed appraisal, but by comparing it to fair market value of similar land. (which I believe is perfectly valid). If Macom was willing to sell for $300k in May 2007, I believe that is a fair approximation of its perceived value. I think macom's willingness to go below the AME price might have actually been going below fair market value for the land, but maybe macom saw this as good business decision because they figured in return they would sell more houses and turn a profit.
|
|
|
Post by gandalf on Apr 15, 2008 10:52:17 GMT -5
One SB member mentioned that price, 300K. I believe it was BG. It has been proven by the NSFOC that any SB member on any given day can misspeak. Go figure, they are human. There were several roadblocks to Macom, price being one of them but it was impossible to open in 2009, no chance of that happening. That drove any price Macom had up with the built-in costs of dealing with a 2010 opening. I am done with talking about other pieces of property. Time to move on at least for me. I think one claim the NSFOC makes may come true. The AME property will end up cost us more and they will make sure of it. I hope I am wrong. Of course they will. Several people on the other board were saying how they HOPE that the BB attorneys will stick it to "us" or something to that effect. Do they not realize the "us" they refer to is everyone living in this district? The "us" isn't the school board or pro-Eola people or whoever. It's the entire District and its residents. They are on a witch hunt and calling regional superintendents and ISBE people to report Dr. D and school board members. They are hanging their hat on this appraisal announcment. Do they not know that when you are looking at property, you use comps from the market and it is the mortgage company who actually does the appraisals? Buyers don't normally do appraisals, lenders do. Again, fair market value is when the seller and buyer agree on the price. With BB, the buyer and seller couldn't agree so someone had to do that for us. We didn't like the price, so we walked away, doing the financially responsible thing. I also take exception to the other board's remarks about the church making a fortune on this. Just because they are non-profit doesn't mean they can't have noney in the bank. This was simply a good return on their investment. Would you or I be criticized for getting a good return on some stock that we bought at a low price and we sold for higher? No! In fact, the church could have held out for more, but they didn't. They are good people. Even people who make a 600% return on their investment can be good people. Who is the greedier party here anyway? The BB people aren't making a profit on that land? I'm sure they didn't pay over $500,000 an acre for it, yet no one is saying they are greedy. Of course, it's the church that are the greedy ones. They will find anything to pick apart. This is what desparate groups do. I have not engaged in anything on the other board because it will do no use. Let them grieve, stew, throw verbal attacks, have a tamptrum. But let them do it by themselves. Just like a tantruming child, you have to ingnore them and not give them the attention they want. I'm not going over there anymore. It's like picking a scab. Everyone needs time to heal now. I hate to disagree with you , but since you are on the mounatintop preaching what people on the 'other board' feel and playing , Mr Know it all-- hjre is my final response. I will be deleting my ID after this and basically after last night, my only interaction with 204 from here forward will be as a taxpayer. Temper tantrums ? You mean like the orange shirts brigade ? Like an area voting 80% no to try and kill the HS ?Yes I know they did not represent everyone from their areas either but do these acts not qualify also, as well as many hurtful things said by each side, or is it just a tantrum when a group you disagree with does it ? Including some of the posts here after MWGEN backed out ? I read those too, and they were very hurtful -- I don't consider myself a a-hole, or an elitist or some of the other comments that were made becauase there is a significant group of people who disagree with this action, over and above the nsfoc. No one in this fray should be throwing any stones. Did you ever once consider that there are people who disagree with th Eola site for reasons such as safety and financials, as well as location, that do not fit into your comfortable mold of the elitist snobs that gets portrayed regularly in the papers as well as on this site by some posters ( surely not all as I am not going to blanket codemn people as you seem to like to do> ) Did you ever consider that some cannot join in this happy dance because they have valid reasons ( valid to them even though you obviosuly know better- and can gurantee everything is OK) - to be concerned about safety. There are others that believe the true cost of Eola will outstrip that of BB, and neither of us will ever know that because no one will EVER see a full accounting from day one of what has been spent. You may trust everything is where it should be, as a former auditor, I don't have that same trust until someone shows me. I also think that is a fair request since it is all of our money - your and mine. Still others look at this and wonder - how does one area get to be walkers for ES and walkers for MS and get the closest HS to their home, while others get the 3rd closest MS to their house, and the furthest HS from their house and get told to sit downand shut up and take on for the team. We listen how this is deserved because some areas have paid for all the schools - well I have news for you, I've been here almost 20 years, I've paid for them too and my area gets totally screwed in this. Sorry if I am not thrilled about any of the 3 above issues, but I am not. I truly believe AME is thee wrong site based on the totally ignored build smart program. For what it 's worth I believe the same to be true of Hamman and Macom - so myself and others like me don't fit into that niche either..yet we are all lumped together. I would not the AME property if it was across 75th street from me, and those who know me know that is the truth, and I am not alone in this. There are more voics than you are willing to give credit for. Why are we ticked at the SD and SB ? Well many of us also worked 20+ hours a week for years to get the 3rd HS passed. And yes, I can read and I know what the ballot worinding said, and I also know what we sold to voters as the site and the school. That causd some to vote yes, and others to vote no. You can't convinceme the Brookdale area would have voted 80% no if they had been voting on just a 4rd high school. I have gone to MS in that community and I know many of those people well. I knew why they were upset and understood why they would justifiably be upset at that time. The SB screwed them over by leaving them alone at WV from Hill. Watts would have gladly joined them, and many of us conveyed that to SB memebrs - who didn't listen then either. But today, when Watts is hosed beyond belief with this commute, I don't see the same support back the other way, that does concern me. Another reason, We workd day and night on a boundary proposal tomake sure NO ES ( not only us) went to the furthest HS from their home. 1/2 the SB-SD didn;t even bother to read it as they dismissed it per them , for moving walkers - yet we had zero walkers bing moved. Another of the totally - the hell with Watts area views we have received lately. Then follow thatup wih the fact a SB memebr told some inner circle people in hes area how the boundary meeting night would go down - and how Owen East would not be left at AME- just be patient. Whenthis word got out and people in Owen West and ou area were told- they didn't believe it -- yet exactly what happened ? An area literally 2 minutes door to door from my home gets adjusted because in the SB words, their commute was grossly nfair, yet even though we spoke - Watts was never even mentioned as a consideration - again aevery thing pre planeed.Inever realized how all encompassing crossing 75th street was. Although I don't want MACOM either, to quote $300K an acre last night was utter nonsense - and the speaker knows that. Why the need to spread misinformation? There is no overwhelming push from any coordinated group for MACOM. At least be honest. Another member quotes popualtion numbers that are wrong, by their own official documents - again why put incorrect data out there. Most people, myself and most of the people in my area havenever disagreed a 3rd high school was needed. This is why I trust little to nothing any more...yet there seems to have to be this us vs them mentaility to everything. I believe a lot of it is orchestrated, intentionally or not, by things being misrepresented like the above examples. If I have offended anyone, it was not my intent and I apologize..as that is not my goal. I love this district and only yesterday likely over reacted to something, but when my love for Hill MS / WVHS or 204 is called into question, I am sorry but I lose it. I have done nothing to deserve being labeled as anti 204 or any school here I know. I have given for a lot of years, and trust me it breaks my heart to be leaving more than any of you will ever know. Yes, I blame the SB and Sd for this. Never in a million years when I scraped together every nickel I had to move to this distict did I think I would have to pull my child out and send them to prvate school. I would have laughed at such a suggestion, but I am not laughing now. Yes we have some crowding, my daugher is affected by it as was my oldest years ago..but the 2009 'deadlne' to deliver 1/2 a high school to kids - who get one chance at a HS experience is just wrong. I feel this way whether this was BB or AME or anywhere else. Do not cheat them out of this --there was screaming when some construction left was proposed at BB, but today, it's jut fine. I am sorry but I don't understand that logic. For those getting a school near your home, I am happy for you. I mean that sincererly as I know how much easier that makes things ( although I wish it was on different land ) - but I also ask that you consider those who get so screwed over by this. I know people post all kinds of mapquest routes and times, but reality is it will take people by me 3 times + the time to get there in rush hour to see their kids in stuff, and will cut any volunteerism for them ( working parents) before the games. It literally takes 10-11 minutes and 4 stoplights to get to WVHS from here.. I make the other trips all the time, in real workd conditions - to Hill MS and also to other place near rt 59 and North Aurora ave. We didn't ask for much, pleae don't send us to the furthest HS, pleae don't riple our commute, please put us on safe property ( and whether you think it is or not will not change my perception)- and we got zero of that IMHO. So be open minded to the opinions of those who will be traveling there when it opens, they will not be happy, nor should you expect them to be. Maybe over time it will get bnetter, but I saw a grudge against NV last for 10 years here ( and I never understood that) - so you may have to be very patient. I will not subject my child to be a part of that... and I realize that is a personal choice, but I felt I really had no choice. To my friends here ( and I believe I do have many ) - I treasure your friendships and hope nothing will change that, but I felt I had to say what I said - and at this time because I believe it may get even uglier soon. I know some o your only wanted a 3rd HS anywhere - and that is what you got, so I know you are happy. I hope the school turns out to be what you want it to be, and for those lucky enough to go to Waubonsie Valley, I couldn't be more envious. Take care of the place because although the SB feels they have to have a "New WVHS" that does not include Watts and Cowlishaw as I believe it shoud - and the booster looks forward to all that extra money they foresee ( one of the more hurtful things I have ever had to sit and listen to) - I will always hold a special place in my heart for what I still believe is the best HS in 204 and will remain so. take care..... adios, this broken hearted Warrior signing off....
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Apr 15, 2008 11:28:12 GMT -5
Gandalf you are a mighty warrior. Even though we haven't always agreed, you will be missed.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Apr 15, 2008 12:43:37 GMT -5
Gandalf, a sincere, moving, and touching post. I truly hope your broken heart mends with time. You and your family have all my best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Apr 15, 2008 13:05:47 GMT -5
Gandolf, You might not be reading this anymore, but I wanted to respond anyway. Just as I was venting in my earlier post, I know you are venting now.
I don't claim to "know it all". I don't. But I am very passionate about what I feel and think. When I'm wrong about something I will admit it. However, just like you, I don't feel I'm wrong on the points I've made. I respect your opinion and you have a right to air it. But I have a right to mine and to air it as well. This is what my post was about.
For what it's worth, this school will not be in my "backyard". In fact, I, too, have one of the furthest commutes of the district. The BB site would have been in my backyard and I did prefer it, if we could have gotten it at a reasonable price. But I am a taxpayer, too and I made my decision to support the Eola site because I've heard and read for myself the reports on this site. I am comfortable sending my children there. If you are not, then that is OK, too. I get that...some WILL be unccomfortable not matter what. But please don't lump me in with the orange shirts or anyone else for that matter. I speak on my own behalf. My beliefs happen to line up with others from that or any other group.
Those who know me know that I speak for myself and I speak what I believe. I am a strong supporter for this district and have done some good things outside of this high school issue. If you knew me at all on a personal level, I doubt you would feel the same way. I would hope you would believe me to be who I say I am--just a passionate parent with a lot of conviction. I have a lot of common sense and I try to weigh all sides. Even in these last few days, I stepped back and tried to examine the issues and really questioned if I would rather be at BB for the price they were asking. I looked at the lawsuits and yes, it gave me pause. But I do believe that as much as I'd personally love to have that HS within walking distance, I couldn't condone spending that price for the land when we can get (in my mind) equally comparable land. I know you totally disagree with that, but that's just the way I feel. I won't back off from that.
And yes, I'm worried about the damages that might come from BB. But we can't wait this out while our kids are in crowded schools. I know nothing I say about this will make a difference to those who wanted the BB site, so I won't say any more.
I respect your opinion as I hope you respect the opinion of me and others on this board, as well.
Best regards.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Apr 15, 2008 13:11:03 GMT -5
Gandalf. From one old Warrior to another. That was a very good post. I know it came from your heart. Even though we are of separate opinions on a few of these issues, we are also of the same opinion on several others. I still think of you as a good friend, and hope you do too.
I will miss your posts here. We'll have to go watch a Warrior VB match somewhere. I'd even come watch a Redbird one....... Take care my friend.......
|
|