Addition Planned For Building Not Built Yet

They bought the whole east side of our street.

Posts: 685 | Location: Formerly Glen Ellyn/Now Wisconsin | Registered: April 12, 2003

Ignored post by Mrs Arten posted

GlenEllynite

Posted

quote:
Seems that PD wants to have only half of the parking spaces required by code, AND they anticipate building an addition to the new building in about 10 years.

So, just to make clear - they're designing and building a building now and they already know that they want to add to it in 10 years. Somehow I missed this in the referendum literature.

Wait, you mean the building they never listed as an option in the community surveys, and that they never mentioned prior to convincing a majority of our neighbors to write them a blank check? Oh yeah - THAT building!

Given the lack of interest I've perceived for this project, the reduced number of parking places shouldn't be an issue.

Now tell me why there is not a major outcry over this. Is it really what most of our neighbors want and the way they want things done? Are we few simply out of touch?

Posts: 2153 | Registered: April 14, 2003

Ignored post by Dinsdale posted

GlenEllynite

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by GE Fan:
There's no outcry and should be no outcry because the citizens voted FOR this behemoth.

This old man's memory may be fading, but could you remind me of ANYTHING related to the referendum suggesting that people were voting FOR a fieldhouse at Ackerman? I don't recall ANY mention of a fieldhouse until well after the votes were counted.

Of course, this may be a subtle distinction between what I recall as voting for the PD to spend referendum funds however they pleased.

Posts: 2153 | Registered: April 14, 2003

Ignored post by Dinsdale posted

GEmom2

GlenEllynite

Posted

I do remember this vote from several years ago - but I have never actually heard anyone I know say that they voted for it. I recall being very surprised when it won/passed.

Posts: 1153 | Registered: December 18, 2006

Ignored post by GEmom2 posted

GlenEllynite

Posted

Thanks for the info, Fan.

I obviously misremembered - had no recollection of this proposal having been mentioned prior to the ref. Perhaps what my addled brain was scrambling was that an Ackerman Taj Mahal played no part in the initial attempted ref that failed, but came out of nowhere in the 2d.

Anyway, thanks for clearing the cobwebs.

Posts: 2153 | Registered: April 14, 2003

Ignored post by Dinsdale posted

DTM

GlenEllynite

Posted

No doubt, one of the reasons this ref passed was due to the signs that read, "vote yes to keep taxes the same". This implied to most of us, if you voted no, taxes would have risen. The literature that was just linked by Fan, shows how much your taxes would have dropped if the ref had been voted down...

It's the spending, Stupid!

Posts: 2261 | Registered: January 08, 2005

Ignored post by DTM posted

GlenEllynite

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Dan the Man:
No doubt, one of the reasons this ref passed was due to the signs that read, "vote yes to keep taxes the same". This implied to most of us, if you voted no, taxes would have risen. The literature that was just linked by Fan, shows how much your taxes would have dropped if the ref had been voted down...

[Quote]The total referendum request is for
$11.9 million. If approved, the park district's
referendum debt will remain at its current
level for approximately 11 years. There will be
NO ADDITIONAL COST to taxpayers for the
proposed improvements because our existing
debt will be paid off in 2007 - this new debt
will simply replace the retiring debt. [Quote]

This does not seem, to me, to be misrepresenting the tax status. Would your taxes have gone down if it failed? Yes. Were they misrepresenting, or blurring the distinction? Doesn't seem like it to me.

“just like in real life there's still rules on this team. Unlike real life? Nobody's above the rules on this field."
– Coach Eric Taylor

Posts: 817 | Registered: January 10, 2005

Ignored post by Rob Herbold posted

DTM

GlenEllynite

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Rob Herbold:

[Quote]The total referendum request is for
$11.9 million. If approved, the park district's
referendum debt will remain at its current
level for approximately 11 years. There will be
NO ADDITIONAL COST to taxpayers for the
proposed improvements because our existing
debt will be paid off in 2007 - this new debt
will simply replace the retiring debt. [Quote]

This does not seem, to me, to be misrepresenting the tax status. Would your taxes have gone down if it failed? Yes. Were they misrepresenting, or blurring the distinction? Doesn't seem like it to me.

Rob, unfortunately, all those parkway signs did not explain this as you did. The signs simply said, "vote yes to keep taxes the same."

It's the spending, Stupid!

Posts: 2261 | Registered: January 08, 2005

Ignored post by DTM posted

GlenEllynite

Posted

Do you base your opinion and vote on what yard signs say? Do the majority of voters? A sign may make you more inquisitive about a subject, but to influence your vote would have to be one hell of a sign.

“just like in real life there's still rules on this team. Unlike real life? Nobody's above the rules on this field."
– Coach Eric Taylor

Posts: 817 | Registered: January 10, 2005

Ignored post by Rob Herbold posted

GlenEllynite

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by jombl:
As clear as the selective text is - the campaign and "message" were not. But it was much more a fogginess of fine print and sleight of hand compared to D41's wall of lies and arguable criminality.

Agreed, yet, the message from the PD leaned farther into confusing territory the first time around in reference to keeping your taxes the same. The second time would be a shame on you category. As for some of the misconceptions regarding the Superdome, I agree it was ambiguous at best.

“just like in real life there's still rules on this team. Unlike real life? Nobody's above the rules on this field."
– Coach Eric Taylor

Posts: 817 | Registered: January 10, 2005

Ignored post by Rob Herbold posted

GlenEllynite

Posted

This was not the first instance in which a taxing entity used the "keep taxes the same" slogan when bonds were in danger of being retired.

I never quite understood the appeal of such a message. I mean, a whole bunch of people out there are opposed to taxes actually going down?

Posts: 2153 | Registered: April 14, 2003

Ignored post by Dinsdale posted

GlenEllynite

Posted

quote:
I never quite understood the appeal of such a message. I mean, a whole bunch of people out there are opposed to taxes actually going down?

I don't think it is as much a matter of people being opposed to taxes going down as the value added if their taxes do not change. You can debate the value added portion, but if you have already budgeted for the tax over the last X years, it may hurt less to keep it the same than to raise the tax later when something may be necessary instead of wanted.

“just like in real life there's still rules on this team. Unlike real life? Nobody's above the rules on this field."
– Coach Eric Taylor

Posts: 817 | Registered: January 10, 2005

Ignored post by Rob Herbold posted