|
Post by slt on Apr 22, 2008 13:37:13 GMT -5
For those who keep saying the site was not decided/publicized in the 2005 referendum vote, here is an LTE I had published at that time in the Beacon and Fox Valley Sun. The letter refers to the BB site but not by name as it was well-known that this was the site we would build on if the ref passed at that time. ---------------- District 204 residents -- please educate yourself about the upcoming referendum. The passage of this referendum is crucial to all district residents. Myth: Taxes will increase astronomically if the referendum passes. Reality: The bonds and interest tax rate would not increase from the rate paid last year and in fact would stay the same or decrease from that rate each year www.ipsd.org/ref_tax_calculator.asp. Myth: Today's options will be available later if the referendum is defeated April 5. Reality: The district will lose the centrally located high school site if the referendum fails. Myth: The referendum committee was hand-picked and rushed to a predetermined decision. Reality: The committee was comprised of volunteers from all areas of the district who dedicated their time and effort to researching the data and options and coming up with the best possible solution. www.ipsd.org/referendum.asp has complete information. Myth: We should explore options such as split shifts, year-round schooling, housing thousands of students in portable classrooms, using space at COD, or additions on the high schools. Reality: The committee discussed all options and chose the only one that makes sense. These other options would have negative impact on property values and the lives of students and their families. Local politicians who have expressed anti-referendum opinions didn't give input to the referendum process. Our two high schools will soon be over capacity. We cannot change earlier decisions that ruled out a third high school. Now is our chance to rectify this situation. Please vote yes for District 204. Sherry Tatar Aurora
|
|
|
Post by forthekids on Apr 22, 2008 13:57:57 GMT -5
For those who keep saying the site was not decided/publicized in the 2005 referendum vote, here is an LTE I had published at that time in the Beacon and Fox Valley Sun. The letter refers to the BB site but not by name as it was well-known that this was the site we would build on if the ref passed at that time. Reality: The district will lose the centrally located high school site if the referendum fails. I'm not sure what your point is. This is your LTE, not something put out by the SB. The "reality" is the wording of the referendum did not specify the site. So, where are you going with this?
|
|
|
Post by slt on Apr 22, 2008 14:04:17 GMT -5
For those who keep saying the site was not decided/publicized in the 2005 referendum vote, here is an LTE I had published at that time in the Beacon and Fox Valley Sun. The letter refers to the BB site but not by name as it was well-known that this was the site we would build on if the ref passed at that time. Reality: The district will lose the centrally located high school site if the referendum fails.I'm not sure what your point is. This is your LTE, not something put out by the SB. The "reality" is the wording of the referendum did not specify the site. So, where are you going with this? Yikes. Opposite of what I think you are taking this as. Many are saying the ref was voted down the first time with no site and no boundaries and voted yes the second time when site and boundaries were known and this is what was changed. Many continue to say that no site was known the first time we voted. This is not true. The planned site was well-known to all voters at that time and had the ref passed, we would have had that site. Some say that the ref passed the second time due to site being known and therefore the site cannot be changed. The site was NOT a difference between the first and second referendum. I do not have access to the archives of the newspaper to find the articles but I don't understand why it's not well-known that the site that was planned for the school was NOT a change between the no vote and the yes vote. Therefore making this NOT grounds for saying that this was promised the 2nd time and why it passed vs. failing the 1st time. The referendum itself did not specify a site either time. The first time we knew that a yes vote would get us that site for sure. The second time we knew that there was a chance we wouldn' t have that site. I think this is the opposite of what NSFOC is claiming in their lawsuit. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Apr 22, 2008 15:09:48 GMT -5
For those who keep saying the site was not decided/publicized in the 2005 referendum vote, here is an LTE I had published at that time in the Beacon and Fox Valley Sun. The letter refers to the BB site but not by name as it was well-known that this was the site we would build on if the ref passed at that time. Reality: The district will lose the centrally located high school site if the referendum fails.I'm not sure what your point is. This is your LTE, not something put out by the SB. The "reality" is the wording of the referendum did not specify the site. So, where are you going with this? Yikes. Opposite of what I think you are taking this as. Many are saying the ref was voted down the first time with no site and no boundaries and voted yes the second time when site and boundaries were known and this is what was changed. Many continue to say that no site was known the first time we voted. This is not true. The planned site was well-known to all voters at that time and had the ref passed, we would have had that site. Some say that the ref passed the second time due to site being known and therefore the site cannot be changed. The site was NOT a difference between the first and second referendum. I do not have access to the archives of the newspaper to find the articles but I don't understand why it's not well-known that the site that was planned for the school was NOT a change between the no vote and the yes vote. Therefore making this NOT grounds for saying that this was promised the 2nd time and why it passed vs. failing the 1st time. The referendum itself did not specify a site either time. The first time we knew that a yes vote would get us that site for sure. The second time we knew that there was a chance we wouldn' t have that site. I think this is the opposite of what NSFOC is claiming in their lawsuit. Does that make sense? I didn't have any questions as to what your point was the first time around. In 2005, BB was assumed to be the site selected then, as well and the statement that if the referendum in 2005 failed, then BB might be off the table. Which it now is even after fighting so hard to get it when the 2006 referendum passed. Clear to me.
|
|
|
Post by spicytuna on Apr 22, 2008 15:13:13 GMT -5
Not sure about the 2005 referendum, but the School District had posted on its website that the 2006 referendum was to build a third high school on the BB site (75th and route 59).
In addition, the District sent home flyers with students just days before the referendum that were printed on school copying machines (when using school property and resources, by law, the District is not allowed to publish opinions about the referednum..only facts) that indicated exactly the same (specifically stated that the referendum that was being presented to the voters was to build a third school on the BB site for 126 million dollars).
The language of the 2006 referendum presented in the booth was site neutral....but the District represented to the voters on dozens and dozens of occasions prior to the March 2006 vote that the referendum was to build a third school on the BB land.
As importantly, the District represented AFTER the 2006 vote that the referendum that was passed was to build a third high school on the BB land. It made this representation to the Illinois General Assembly and it made this statement UNDER OATH in court filings (to advance the condemnation lawsuit.
The court fight will be on whether the language of the referendum intentionally excluded the BB site or whether the previous statements and representations by the District result in these promises being incorporated into the referendum. On the legal side, I could see this going either way based on what facts come out (although the statements under oath after the referednum was passed and the school flyer issue is going to weigh in heavily in the decision). There certainly could be an equitably decision by the chancery court indicating that the referendum needs to be revoted based on there, at the very least, being a discrepensy.
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 22, 2008 15:20:47 GMT -5
I do remember that BB was the site for the '05 referendum. At the time, I didn't pay attention to the site and I didn't even care about the potential boundaries...I just voted yes because we needed a 3rd HS. Thanks for jogging my memory. Again, more proof that this is about boundaries only for some people and not about the promised BB site.
I guess I get offended when people tell me how I voted. There are so many people that voted no the first time because they didn't have enough information, or they felt the cost was too high, or they were too lazy to get off their couches because stuff always passes in this district. So for a lawsuit to claim EVERYONE voted based on these boundaries is incorrect. I'm sure there were tons of people that voted no in places like Ashbury, High Meadow etc. who wouldn't have been affected by boundaries and were staying at NV anyway. But maybe they realized between 05 and 06 that we need a third HS and the district explained things better so they voted yes. Again, nothing to do with the site or the boundaries. There is no way voter motivation can be proven in court and this is the basis for their lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by spicytuna on Apr 22, 2008 15:27:47 GMT -5
I agree...it would be almost impossible to demonstrate whether someone voted for the 2006 referendum because of the promise to build the school on the BB site or not.
This is exactly why the Court may order that the referendum is null and void (based on the representations made by the District both before and after the March election) and needs to be voted on again (as opposed to forcing the District to purchase BB and build the school on this land).
I actually tend to believe that this will be the likely outcome (and that the Court will probably not order the school to be built on the BB land, but will make the District stop construction at AMES until a new referendum is passed by the voters).
|
|
|
Post by spicytuna on Apr 22, 2008 15:30:00 GMT -5
As an aside, with the BB lawsuits pending, I would imagine that it will be unlikely that a new referendum will pass until these damages are resolved---. Thus, it is very ironic and disappointing that it is possible that the District's action will result in no new school at all.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Apr 22, 2008 15:31:39 GMT -5
I agree...it would be almost impossible to demonstrate whether someone voted for the 2006 referendum because of the promise to build the school on the BB site or not. This is exactly why the Court may order that the referendum is null and void (based on the representations made by the District both before and after the March election) and needs to be voted on again (as opposed to forcing the District to purchase BB and build the school on this land). I actually tend to believe that this will be the likely outcome (and that the Court will probably not order the school to be built on the BB land, but will make the District stop construction at AMES until a new referendum is passed by the voters). I should hope not. People voted yes on the wording in the ref and this is what the district is delivering. They intended to build on a site which is no longer feasible. I hope that nothing in the courts will derail the potential of a 2009 opening. We need a new HS and MS and this has not changed. If nothing else, we have more proof of that now than we did before.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Apr 22, 2008 15:44:44 GMT -5
As an aside, with the BB lawsuits pending, I would imagine that it will be unlikely that a new referendum will pass until these damages are resolved---. Thus, it is very ironic and disappointing that it is possible that the District's action will result in no new school at all. District's actions? I respectfully submit that this is not entirely the fault of the district if a third HS is not built. NSFOC needs to look in the mirror and hold themselves accountable at this point.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Apr 22, 2008 15:47:20 GMT -5
As an aside, with the BB lawsuits pending, I would imagine that it will be unlikely that a new referendum will pass until these damages are resolved---. Thus, it is very ironic and disappointing that it is possible that the District's action will result in no new school at all. District's actions? I respectfully submit that this is not entirely the fault of the district if a third HS is not built. NSFOC needs to look in the mirror and hold themselves accountable at this point. Correct. The district's actions are leading us directly to having a new HS and 7th MS in fall of 2009.
|
|
|
Post by forthekids on Apr 22, 2008 15:52:43 GMT -5
Yikes. Opposite of what I think you are taking this as. Many are saying the ref was voted down the first time with no site and no boundaries and voted yes the second time when site and boundaries were known and this is what was changed. Many continue to say that no site was known the first time we voted. This is not true. The planned site was well-known to all voters at that time and had the ref passed, we would have had that site. Some say that the ref passed the second time due to site being known and therefore the site cannot be changed. The site was NOT a difference between the first and second referendum. I do not have access to the archives of the newspaper to find the articles but I don't understand why it's not well-known that the site that was planned for the school was NOT a change between the no vote and the yes vote. Therefore making this NOT grounds for saying that this was promised the 2nd time and why it passed vs. failing the 1st time. The referendum itself did not specify a site either time. The first time we knew that a yes vote would get us that site for sure. The second time we knew that there was a chance we wouldn' t have that site. I think this is the opposite of what NSFOC is claiming in their lawsuit. Does that make sense? I didn't have any questions as to what your point was the first time around. In 2005, BB was assumed to be the site selected then, as well and the statement that if the referendum in 2005 failed, then BB might be off the table. Which it now is even after fighting so hard to get it when the 2006 referendum passed. Clear to me. Got it now. Sorry I was confused (haven't been feeling well and not thinking clearly). I did vote yes in 2005 but honestly paid no attention to any site info. I always vote yes when the issue of giving something to the kids is on the ballot, so sites and boundaries don't concern me. I have always known when they placed WE into NVHS that a day would come that both high schools would be overcrowded. Logically, it made sense that WE would be moved out of NVHS if any new location was north of NVHS. WE is the furthest development north of NVHS. It is just logic. Can't argue with logic. Oh wait, yes some people can! I still can't get over how people on the other board are still talking about Macom. The district is being sued because they are not building according to the perceived (by some) "promise" to build on BB. Where is the logic in constantly bringing up Macom?
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Apr 22, 2008 16:02:04 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong (it has been known to happen from time to time), but I believe the wording on the 2005 referendum ballot itself stated that BB was the site we were voting on. That language was obviously removed on the 2006 ballot, so yes we were all well aware of the location of the 3rd high school throughout both referendums.
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Apr 22, 2008 16:07:12 GMT -5
This is exactly why the Court may order that the referendum is null and void (based on the representations made by the District both before and after the March election) and needs to be voted on again (as opposed to forcing the District to purchase BB and build the school on this land). I actually tend to believe that this will be the likely outcome (and that the Court will probably not order the school to be built on the BB land, but will make the District stop construction at AMES until a new referendum is passed by the voters). Is there precedence for this? I'm just curious what you are basing this opinion on. If it's just an opinion, fine, we are all entitled to them, but if it is based on something more then I would be interested in learning what legal precedent there is to support your belief.
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Apr 22, 2008 16:18:31 GMT -5
It is just logic. Can't argue with logic. Oh wait, yes some people can! I still can't get over how people on the other board are still talking about Macom. The district is being sued because they are not building according to the perceived (by some) "promise" to build on BB. Where is the logic in constantly bringing up Macom? My new favorite thing is the load of people on blue hoping Macom is developed as a Catholic HS and pledging to send their kids to it if it happens. The environmental differences between Macom and AME are squat, so how can they be so opposed to AME but willing to spend thousands of dollars a year for a Catholic school on an equally "toxic" site? This isn't about boundaries my a$$.
|
|