$15 million meeting

Your right Mac and Lynn. That number percentage of NO votes can only happen if the voters get out the vote. Voters cannot stay inside and watch from behind the curtains any longer. Your vote does count. We must keep the Chamber/Renew machine from bankrupting this community.

The "separate entity" has an online presence at hopkinspool.org. The DPD executive director, Cindy Capek, is listed as the "informational" contact person. Trouble is, only she and the county clerk are listed AT ALL. I've tried two different browsers and can't bring up the actual contacts page. I ended up contacting Ms. Capek to get another committee member's name and that's what anyone would have to do to get a button or yard sign. The lack of separation is troubling.

I agree with Mac that it is imperative the "no" votes actually get out to vote as the Chamber/ReNew machine is in full swing.

Skeptic… Believe it or not I think the referendum does stand a chance of passing. I'm sure there is at least one architect and one bond salesman who is hoping that an alliance with former ReNew Our Schools supporters would result in enough votes to prevail in a low voter turnout election — which is common in non-Presidential General Primaries.

With voter turnout of 22% or lower the referendum stands a good chance. I think that was the turnout in the most recent election.

Mike Verbic was at the public meeting last night sporting a Vote Yes button for the Park District. He made a point of asking if he could interest me in wearing one. I made a point of telling him no.

There is a separate entity. I'm sure the signs will be paid for by that committee.

The Park District paid for a bulk mailed postcard that I received. It was informational and did not use language that urged readers to vote yes. I saw nothing to question its legality but do question the cost efficiency and need for a full color glossy informational postcard. Some might question its intent.

Those who attend candidate forums should ask candidates for States Attorney how vigorously they will prosecute violations of public trust.

I certainly wouldn't stay home from the polls thinking this referendum is DOA.

No way DeKalb Skeptic. No's will win this one at about 76% of the voters voting NO.

The poll was given to those who attended the swimming pool over the course of the summer and from a list of those who had purchased annual passes.

I know of no one who received a survey asking about the pool and what I felt should happen. Remember now that the Park District is using architects numbers to base the repairs to the current pool and that $15 million isn't just for the aquatic center but for any and all improvements necessary to Hopkin's Park. Generalized wording on the ballot

Mac, do you know if a separate entity was set up to promote the referendum?

Who paid for all those blue "Vote Yes" yard signs stacked up at the referendum meeting (there didn't seem to be many takers!).

Can we get the State's Attorney on record as to whether he will be filing charges?

What's the price tag invested in this project so far with the architecture and promotion plan?

The Park District's 2007 survey showed 66% thought a referendum would pass. Could the methodology have been flawed, have times changed, or perhaps the specifics of this referendum weren't detailed to the respondents?

Anybody out there think this thing will pass with 66% of the vote?

If anyone caught the special City Council meeting on Tues Jan 13th you might have missed this. DeKalb Aldermen Simpson and Ald Baker go on record mocking the Park District referendum. The Audio link is below:
http://www.youtube.com/user/DeKalbILLINOIS#p/a/u/…

(10 ILCS 5/9‑25.1) (from Ch. 46, par. 9‑25.1; formerly Ch. 46, pars. 102, 103 and 104)
Sec. 9‑25.1. Election interference.
(a) As used in this Section, "public funds" means any funds appropriated by the Illinois General Assembly or by any political subdivision of the State of Illinois.
(b) No public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition, or be appropriated for political or campaign purposes to any candidate or political organization. This Section shall not prohibit the use of public funds for dissemination of factual information relative to any proposition appearing on an election ballot, or for dissemination of information and arguments published and distributed under law in connection with a proposition to amend the Constitution of the State of Illinois.
(c) The first time any person violates any provision of this Section, that person shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. Upon the second or any subsequent violation of any provision of this Section, the person violating any provision of this Section shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(Source: P.A. 87‑1052.)
http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocNam….

I just wish to go on record here.

I am not against this Aquatic Center. I am against property tax paying the bill. I have no problem if after the Park District loses this referendum that they proceed using revenue bonds and pay for the facility by user fees just as they are the Recreational Center.

Just no more burden on the taxpayers of this community especially since we have no clear idea where the school referendum is going to bottom out at and won't until the high school is completed and redistricting accomplished.

She just doesn't get it does she?

Once again, a government entity gives us one choice. It's either this or nothing! You take what the architect says this community needs or we won't fix the old pool, so there!

By the way, is Ms. Capek stating that this next pool will last the community 75 years? Also, did you hear you say not once but referred to it several times that the one good day this summer that she got to go out on the deck, she counted about 90 people in the pool. How does this community afford a $15 million aquatic pool project when only 90 people showed up on a good day?

My mom took my two younger sons swimming this summer and it cost her $24.00 for the three of them and they were there for only several hours. She also did mention how foul mouth many of the children and teens were and even several of the mothers in the pool area. Where are the lifeguards to control this? This is the family environment that will keep our kids off the streets with something to do?

Once again, it's not the superintendent using her professional experience to tell us whether we need a pool or not, it is being promoted by an architectual firm who is being paid and is paid solely on the cost of the total project. Sounds just like the school district, doesn't it?

Not all of the Park Board Commissioners are 100% behind this plan either. Where has practicality gone to? Is there no common sense any longer? Yes the community needs great education and great parks if a community cannot pay for them exactly how does that better the lives of those in the community?

For those who use the excuse that my kids need something to do all summer. Your kids really went to the pool everyday? For what this new aquatic center is going to cost this community in the long run, it's must cheaper just to go to Sycamore and swim.

Why is there not a plan that would replace the current aquatic features in a different location with plans and infrasture in place to add on in future years as the economy gets better and we know that construction and development is once again thriving in this community? If I presented this plan to any of the local banks in this community, it would be shot down within minutes of being in the bank. Why not the Park District? Because they are trying to get you the taxpayer to cosign and pay for it. Remember, while the taxpayer pays for it, the Park District gets to have its fun and use the money generated by the users fees for anything they wish and you can bet it won't be to help pay off the bonds.

We are SWIMMING in Taxes! What a pile of nonsense. This is NOT the right time for this tax increase. The Park District has has gone off the DEEP END here.

Pardon the puns here. Oh ,never mind, I meant to use the puns.