Signatures 413 total
-
1
Name: Loren Olson on Oct 18, 2008Comments:Flag
-
2
Name: Joan Olson on Oct 18, 2008Comments:Flag
-
3
Name: Eileen Huston on Oct 18, 2008Comments:Flag
-
4
Name: John Huston on Oct 18, 2008Comments:Flag
-
5
Name: Mary Ellen Walksler on Oct 18, 2008Comments: Actually, the District 87 Finance Chairman has stated emphatically and repeatedly at Board meetings over the past few months, that the cost of this project is NOT in the five-year financial plan. At this fiscally perilous time, it is unthinkable that a District, still getting its financial house in order after the travail and disruption of the past 8 years, would willingly commit precious funding resources to what could loosely be described as a non-essential "luxury" project . . . at best!Flag
-
6
Name: Bernard Walksler on Oct 18, 2008Comments:Flag
-
7
Name: Ian Rahal on Oct 18, 2008Comments: With the difficult times ahead and finally a balanced budget in 87, suggest we table for some years until we see if we can afford it.Flag
-
8
Name: Tony And Lynne Adduci on Oct 18, 2008Comments:Flag
-
9
Name: Anonymous on Oct 18, 2008Comments:Flag
-
10
Name: Helen Conroy on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
11
Name: Martina Pratt on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
12
Name: Bruce Pratt on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
13
Name: Judy Marks on Oct 19, 2008Comments: Artificial turfs substantially increase the risk of serious injuries. What happens in the event of another flood where Lake Ellyn went over its banks Artificial lighting would totally destroy the character of the neighborhood Look at Lambert Field some evening and ask yourself,"Do we really want that in our neighborhood" Come on use some common sense!!!Flag
-
14
Name: Ann DeMong on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
15
Name: Madeline Gallagher on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
16
Name: Sarah Dean Peck on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
17
Name: Anonymous on Oct 19, 2008Comments: This proposition seems very one-sided. I believe the community has given enough support and tolerance already!Flag
-
18
Name: Jonathan And Suzanne Dela Cruz on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
19
Name: Zachary Dela Cruz on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
20
Name: Rebecca Dela Cruz on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
21
Name: Anonymous on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
22
Name: Jack Kahler on Oct 19, 2008Comments: We have better things to spend our money on. This is not a good idea.Flag
-
23
Name: Carolyn Kahler on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
24
Name: Lynnette Arendt on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
25
Name: Tom Skiles on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
26
Name: Jim Markby on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
27
Name: Craig Mandel on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
28
Name: Carrie Mancuso on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
29
Name: Frank Mancuso on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
30
Name: Carolyn Skiles on Oct 19, 2008Comments:Flag
-
31
Name: Anonymous on Oct 20, 2008Comments: These are residential neighborhoods and the proposed plans are totally inconsistent with that zoning. Other better locations such as Ackerman Park or a combined field at Glenbard South would work. This neighborhood already has frequent night time use of the tennis courts, High School and of the Glen Ellyn Boat House for private functions, it cannot and should take any more.Flag
-
32
Name: David Moorhead on Oct 20, 2008Comments: We hav temporary housing for classes in the grade school and some of the highest tax levels in the western suburbs. Not sure if the goal is to maximize a stadiums usage is the highest priority of the school system. I would ask the board to invest more wisely.Flag
-
33
Name: Janet Wrenn on Oct 20, 2008Comments: Costly & unnecessary. PLEASE leave the field as it is. Thank you.Flag
-
34
Name: Dayna Moorhead on Oct 20, 2008Comments:Flag
-
35
Name: Megan Feinberg on Oct 20, 2008Comments:Flag
-
36
Name: Janine Cooper on Oct 20, 2008Comments:Flag
-
37
Name: Janine Cooper on Oct 20, 2008Comments:Flag
-
38
Name: Michael Hornbrook on Oct 20, 2008Comments: It is irresponsible to even consider this luxury in the current financial crisis.Flag
-
39
Name: Suzanne Balk on Oct 20, 2008Comments:Flag
-
40
Name: Susan Cooper on Oct 20, 2008Comments:Flag
-
41
Name: Jonathan Dela Cruz on Oct 20, 2008Comments:Flag
-
42
Name: Tom Russell on Oct 21, 2008Comments: This is not an appropriate use of school funds (which are provided by the taxpayers). The mission of the schools, first and foremost, is to EDUCATE our children. Athletic programs, while valuable, are secondary to this primary mission. District 87, and Glenbard West in particular, already have more than enough space and resources dedicated to athletic programs.Flag
-
43
Name: Thomas K. Allison on Oct 21, 2008Comments: The best "benefit" for our young people Maintain a balanced budget that enables a continuation of quality program for ALL Glenbard students!Flag
-
44
Name: Lois J. Allison on Oct 21, 2008Comments: The Board needs to keep a tight hold on the purse strings.Flag
-
45
Name: Gary Prichard on Oct 21, 2008Comments: I strongly object to scarce taxpayers being spent on an unnecessary project that will damage the aesthetic appeal of one of the historic jewels of Glen Ellyn: Duchon Field, overlooking Lake Ellyn.Flag
-
46
Name: Steve Langford on Oct 21, 2008Comments: Adding lights is an absurd proposal in view of the current economic and environmental conditions. This is sending a clearly wrong message to Glenbard West students and residents on financial and on conversation (green) issues.Flag
-
47
Name: Joseph Montana on Oct 21, 2008Comments: The installation of artificial turf and lights at Memorial Field and Duchon Field will have serious negative effects on the surrounding residential areas. The removal of trees, instalation of lights and a broadcasting system at Memorial Field will have a dramatic effect on the neighborhood and the substantial number of sporting events at this location will destroy the residential neighborhood. Any comparision to other district school properties fails to consider the distance between fields location to nearby residential areas. For instance, South is on the intersection of Park and Butterfield Road. Duchon Field is adjacent to Lake Ellyn, which is one of the areas that make Glen Ellyn unique and must be preserved. Ongoing sporting events at both location will cause significant traffic and safety issues. If the plan is approved, I suggest nearby residents ban together to prohibit parking on Cresent Avenue and make the streets around the school one-way or dead end streets.Flag
-
48
Name: Mary Stollberg on Oct 21, 2008Comments: In addition to the above concerns, I think that the money could be spent to benefit a wider range of students. Technology upgrades, science equipment or laptops for students would benefit all students with skills they need for life.Flag
-
49
Name: Alan Thelen on Oct 21, 2008Comments: There are many reasons to oppose this but the primary one in my mind is for the safety of the athletes. Michigan State University had an astroturf field for years and finally replaced it with real turf after the evidence of injuries to the players was too much to ignore. Save the athletes a lot of pain and keep the natural turf with all its maintenance costs.Flag
-
50
Name: Colleen Staruck on Oct 22, 2008Comments:Flag