To: nosuchthingasneutral. Your usual mature posts abound when you say: "BTW - I prefer I-55 to I-88 for commuting." You should really try and have a more sophisticated response to "Hoping This Will End Soon's" elequint post to your shameful law suit.

To Hoping This Will End Soon:

Well lucky for you that they are building out your back door and that you were so sacrificial for all these years. Hopefully your house was cheaper when you bought for the sacrifice. Have you figured out yet that the Eola location is not best for the majority of the district due to safety concerns and major transportation costs/issues,? We will all have to sacrifice with tax dollars
BTW - I prefer I-55 to I-88 for commuting.

These blogs are interesting and I can see why it can be addicting. Even peoples sarcams makes me laugh.

Anyway, just to set the record straight with all those saying NSFOC is costing the taxpayers money. It hasn't cost the taxpayers a dime. You know why? Because the SB has not responded to the lawsuit.

However, Mark Metzger HAS COST THE TAXPAYERS: $5,000,000.00 BY SUING BB!!

Mark Metzger said they would win the case. I believe he got his head handed to him.

So I ask, why is it okay for Mark Metzger to file lawsuits, tie up peoples property for 2 years and now he is potentially COSTING THE TAXPAYERS ANOTHER: $20,000,000.00!!

Yet, your not saying anything about it? You don't think the school board should be held accountable?

Secondly, as far as the NSFOC saying the land is contaminated. Well, sorry wrong again! They are saying "IT MAYBE CONTAMINATED." They list out what could be wrong with the property. They want to know why did the school board choose this when they could have chosen BB (WHICH THEY PUSHED ON THE VOTERS), or any other property for that matter. Why chose a potential hazard? Walk away and chose another property.

Mark Metzger and the board costs us the taxpayers:5 MILLION DOLLARS ON HIS LAWSUIT!!

NSFOC cost the taxpayers: $0

I contacted the IEPA and they tell me that they have NEVER heard from the school board regarding the Eola site. Does anybody know what is going on? Thanks!

While I do not agree with every decision the school board has made, I do believe they have done the absolute best they could with the information they had at the time.
These people are only trying to give the district what we all desperately need....a third high school. They are not going through this process "for fun" and the toll it has taken on their personal lives must be extremely difficult. I think the folks at NSFOC really have no idea what this kind of stress is....they may have had a taste in the past few weeks but try a few years like the SB members have endured!

Hindsight is always 20-20 and there will always be people quick to point out "they should have done this" or "they could have done that" after the fact. Sometimes you have to make tough decisions, go with it and move on. Otherwise it just becomes "analysis paralysis" and absolutely NOTHING would ever get accomplished by second guessing every painful step.I've been teaching my kids this since they were little. I think it applies to all of us.

It is time to move forward. Get the third high school built and ready for the kids that desperately need it. My kids are old enough that they will be fine regardless of what happens but there are many more kids coming up in this community that will be greatly disadvantaged if our schools are allowed to become increasingly overcrowded.This district will not build on an unsafe sight. Period.

Quite frankly, this site will have been under more scrutiny and testing than probably any other site in the area.Goodness knows what we'd find if we put other area schools or even our homes under the same rigorous controls and sampling!

For the sake of our children, please allow the process to work itself out,stop pointing fingers and reliving how you would have done it better and let's MOVE FORWARD as a unified district. Thank You.

To Anonymous (posted at 3:36pm March, 25th)...

I would like to challenge a couple of statements you have made. By your comments, it sounds as if you voted YES to the votes we were faced with. What data do you have to support the attendance figures over the past 2 years as well as 2011? Just to clarify, I do NOT know them myself, however you seem to have a pretty firm grasp. Could you direct me to the hard data for those figures? I assume you would have done your research regarding these numbers before the vote, correct??

In terms of boundaries, they did NOT tell us "certain boundaries to get us to vote YES". They actually presented us several scenarios and we had the opportunity to vote on them. If they "schemed and plotted" then why would they present choices for us?

You also claim that they told us there would be "no tax increase". What they told us was that the tax payer liability would be ammortized over a longer period of time. I would assume that most folks can understand that the tax burden would essentially be greater in the long run.

To be honest, I think that the PRIMARY issue is that parents don't want their kids to go to WV. As a parent who's kids will attend WV, I am excited about the high level of education they will receive at that high school. ALL of IPSD's school are truly outstanding! What I am NOT excited about is the fact that they are now going to have to attend school with a bunch of primadona kids who will now (thanks to their parents), believe that they are superior than the other students who attend the school.

The real condemnation should be towards those who are feeding our already priviledged kids with a destructive sense of elitism and narcissism.

I am condemning the misinformation district 204 continuously circulates. Their never ending stories regarding the 3rd high school and their use of a consulting firm to flip the vote is scandalous.

District 204 officials have no shame.

They told us enrollment would skyrocket. Elementary school enrollment has dropped the last 2 years in a row and high school enrollment will peak in 2011 and then decline.
They told us certain boundaries to get us to vote YES. They schemed and plotted subdivision by subdivision as to how to divide the community to get the YES vote.
They told us the school would be at Brach-Brodie and they would get the land for 257K a acre. Knowledgeable people warned it was worth much more. They got their heads handed to them in court and then within weeks, changed the boundaries and picked a site they previously rejected as unsafe for children. Suddenly it was safe? What changed?
They told us "no tax increase", another lie.

They have told so many lies and half truths, they can't even keep their stories straight anymore.

Thank goodness someone is standing up to these people and bravo for your lawsuit.

The board should resign in disgrace and the adminstration should be fired.

To by Hoping it will End Soon... Nice post. So true, we have been more than willing to support the school board and the district for the schools they've built in the south - now it's their turn to show good character.

Let's go back a few years:

We moved to this wonderful town of Naperville nearly 13 years ago from the east coast and chose to live in the north because of the mature trees and close proximity to trains, downtown Naperville and I-88. In those years that we have loved our home and town, our tax dollars have paid for one school after another in the southern portion of this district. Sure these newer schools were more modern and state-of-the-art than the older school our children attended in the north but we had no problem with our tax dollars funding the needs of all children of our district. We didn't question the school board's motives at every turn or second guess the safety of every school campus and the soil/air that surrounded it. We let the district move forward.

Move forward to present. A sight has been chosen in.......the north (gasp)! We didn't beg for this to happen. We simply voted for a high school to make this district better for all children. By a process of elimination, the site has ended up in the northern part of town. Why are we the enemy? We just got lucky as you have for years while we built many beautiful schools around you. For a change, the folks in the south might not benefit directly from the building of this new high school. They actually might have to admire how pretty and state-of-the-art it is from afar!! And you might have to go to one of the older schools in the district. I assure you that if those older schools have been more-than-good enough for us for all these years they can be good enough for you too!

Do you not see how selfish you look to the rest of us?Please allow this district to move forward as we have for years.

Please, no one wants to listen to tantrums of growm adults - the SB was kind enough to listen to Todd A and his pathetic attempt to appease him and his 4 kids back when he was begging to stay at Neuqua and not go to the dredded WV.

To "Just trying to stay neutral"

Good advice! The more folks that show up to the board meetings in the hopes of a two way communication the better off we will be. The ones I have attedned so far do not lead me to beleive the board wants any real dialogue from their constituents at the present time. The feb meetings were a train wreck as we got the info on the new site, new boundries and the meeting to finalize all in a 2wk period (WOW, not much time for constituents to review/absorb the massive changes to the original plan the board laid out during the 06 referendum).

I did not attend last tuesdays meeting, but from my understanding, it was closed door, the sign up sheet was put out for approx five minutes and there was very little dialogue between board and constituents (they met behind closed doors for most of the meeting). I will try and be at the next board meeting in April, I will wait 2 hours for my chance to address the board, but hopefully the sign up sheet for my 3 minutes will be out and available from 6pm to 6:55pm before a 7pm meeting start time. THis will ensure all thoose wishing to address the board will have a fair chance to sign up.

Hope your Sunday (Easter day if you celebrate it) is going well!!
GF

Run Forest Run... on March 22, 2008 2:07 PM

Evidently, you don't know Dr. D! He doesn't care about the kids at all. He is a complete joke and needs to resign. He is arrogant and self fulfilling and doesn't listen to the parents concerns at all.

Additionally, do you know that he is cutting programs drastically for the special needs children and then trying to isolate them? The teacher's union for special needs is not happy either just call them they will tell you. We were #1 in the country for children with special needs and soon that will be a thing of the past. Those rooting for Dr. Destruct need to look further into his past. HE GOT FIRED BY THE LAST BOARD AND SUED ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT! I don't buy anything that comes out of that man's mouth.

Civics,
How about running for a SB position? You have the most level headed posts of anyone..and entertaining too :)

Greg Forrest, George Burdelle and Civics - each and every one of you are self serving individuals with nothing more to contribute to the community but your own self interests. Thankfully, we have real men out there handling your pouting in such an impressive way as to not cave to your tantrum - just like a good father would do. Thank you to the school board from all of us for forging on.

Great posts/info from the following: Greg Forrest, George Burdelle, & Civics. With the posts I have come to understand a couple of points. Greg I probably agree & disagree with you the most. George thanks for the info. regarding bb negotiations. Civics your tone is a bit smart a_s though I agree with your points the most and appreciate your concise writing style.
Civics is correct with regard to all points regarding our elected officials,there will never be another vote regarding boundary changes/high school location, nor should there be. What does concern me is the lack of perceived 2-way communication between the board and the public. There are board meeting every other week and they are sparcely attended (with the exception of boundary meeting). The participation from the public is quite limited at these meetings with maybe 1 or 2 people making any comments at all. I am guilty up until a month ago, but now it seems rather easy to find the time to go to at least 1 of these meetings a month. All three of you folks seem quite concerned regarding REAL ISSUES facing our district and I for one would like to hear your thoughts at a board meeting. Take away the boundary meeting, I have found the other meetings to be informative and at times entertaining.
What concerns me most is the lack of communication and understanding that may or may not exist. For the folks that that are emotional about the different issues within our district we probably have little to worry about. For these motivated folks will search out info within the district. The folks we need to aggressively seek out are the ones that are apathetic to what is going on in the district. Maybe some of you folks reading this have some ideas.
Thanks again to you three for helping me understand some of the many sides to issues facing our district.

Wow Great post RFR at 2:07pm!!!

very creative and entertaining to boot!!!

have a good weekend
GF

> I just love this old email from our old super. It spells out that the district did vote with the boundary and location. This was only written about a year ago.

You may have read in the local newspapers that a Naperville area developer
> proposed a concept to sell Indian Prairie a parcel of land in the
> southwest portion of the district for the construction of Metea Valley
> High School.
>
> The Board of Education reviewed but did not accept the developer's concept
> last October for several reasons. The proposal involved portions of
> property the developer did not own and involved multiple other parties and
> additional hurdles. No financial incentive for the district was offered.
>
> The referendum presented to the community was based on the Brach-Brodie
> land and boundaries were determined. Those boundaries would no longer be
> in effect if the location of the school changed. In our opinion, the
> location of the land and boundaries are contributing factors to why people
> voted as they did. A promise was made to the community and the community
> supported the district by passing the referendum.
>
> Further, when the two parcels of land are compared, we believe
> Brach-Brodie is still the best property for the high school. It is easy
> for someone to speculate on land value in the newspaper, but ultimately
> the value has to be proven in court.
>
> Although the land acquisition is taking longer than the we would like, we
> are confident that the district will purchase the Brach-Brodie land for a
> fair price as the legal process continues to move forward.
>
> Howard Crouse
> Superintendent

Agreed....

Thank God for Dr. Daescher and his willingness to move forward with doing what he thinks is best for the District. To those of you who continue to waste time challenging the direction the District is going, please, shut up.

Could you imagine what would happen if Dr. Daechner listened to what the people who disagree with him had to say?? We chose Dr. Daechner, and he knows better than the 204 teacher's union, the District PTA groups, the parents with special needs children, the jury in the BB case, the lawyers who say there is a case for damages due to the District walking away from the condemnation verdict, the folks from of Jefferson County who asked him to leave town, the parents who feel they have had their rights violated, etc.

Many parents feel they have not been wronged and does not a democracy mean that it is time for the rest to get in line (in that a majority feels they have not had THEIR rights violated, the rest have no right to care about their individual rights).

You can go to the polls and vote out the Board in the future. Until then, they have every right to spend your tax dollars as they see fit!

And I am tired of the whole constitution arguement. But for this document, the NSFOC would never have the right to challenge what is going on...nor would the judicial system serve as a checks and balance to challenge what the Board and District are doing.

In fact, it was the United States Supreme Court (elitists as well) that dare to step in and overturn Dr. Daechner's attempt to use race as a means of districting in Lville. Again, how dare they challenge Dr. Daeschner's authority (just a bunch of busybodies).

The press and that whole freedom of speech thing...a real problem as well. They seemed to have a big impact on Lville choosing not to extend Dr. Daechner's contract and running him out of town.

Again, thank you Dr. Daeschner (happy Easter...but do not even get me started on the whole Jesus thing).

To Anonymous at 11:27 a.m.

How can doing what's best for the district include moving ahead and putting the district's financial status, the district's children, and the districts reputation at stake when there are so many unknowns still out there.

Move ahead only AFTER:

#1) the Eola site is proven safe by an independent source and/EPA
#2) the BB damages are KNOWN

Any action prior to those two items are known exposes the entire district to unnecessary risk.

Thank God for Dr. Daeschner and his thick skin on moving forward and doing what's best for the district.

Does anyone else find this quote from Daeschner disturbing?

"If I slow down this district and wait for everything like that to happen, we don't get anything done," he said. "This is playing out in the papers. It certainly hasn't played out in the courts."

Why would we want to "slow down this district"?

How about a $20 Milllion lawsuit hanging over our head. A possibly contaminated site. NSFOC lawsuit. Unknown increased transportation costs. Expedited charges got get the school open by 2009. Unknown cost of wetland mitigation. The list goes on and on.

Hi George

Good info; I stand corrected on the negotiation part. I was just moving to Chicago from Cleveland at the end of 2004, so I must have missed that some negotiations did take place prior to the condem suit. I feel a little better now; upon hearing that the SB did at least try and talk to BB before the quick take/condem suit.

So, they would have bought the rest on the spot in 2005; but did not have the money because the first referendum in 2005 failed. I wonder where the 91 million projected budget surplus came from? Did most of it build up over the past 3 years (05, 06, 07)??? SB used some to buy the 25 acres (remember the ref failed, but they still used an extra 6 mill lying around in the change jar and bought a chunk) but not the rest? Something doesnt add up,

Yes I know SB asked for Quick take, then hit them with the condemn suit to freeze their assets. Fun stuff, as long as you arent the owner of the assets.

To Greg Forrest on March 21, 2008 4:06 PM:

Actually, there were negotiations on buying the Brach-Brodie property. (See Daily Herald 12/21/2004: IPSD204 leaders negotiated a deal to purchase 80 acres of the western half of what's known as the Brach-Brodie property for $19.6 million." The BB trust agreed to sell the SD 25 acres for six million dollars in 2005. The SD would have bought the rest then but didn't have the money because the referendum failed.

"Quick Take" did not occur. Our legislators in Springfield did not allow it. Using "Quick Take" powers WOULD have obligated the District to purchase the property at whatever price the jury set. Without the quick take power, it could still change its mind if the price was too high.

Greg - there is no voting on the site the SB gets to pick that. Sorry, you're having such a hard time not getting what you want - but it's not about what you want now is it.

To CIvics:

Great Post! We are looking at this situation from two slightly different vantage points which in turn is going to ensure we do not agree on everything. We can agree to disagree on some of those points.

I agree with quite a few of your points in your above post. One point you left out though: THERE WAS NO Negotiation "sessions" with BB. Only Quick Take and condem suit and then our SB did not abide by the Quick take which requires them to pay the jury price. If there were negotiations PRIOR to the quick take and SB initiated lawsuit against brach brodie; I would be less upset and angered (and yes sitting in the peanut gallery) regarding how our SB operates and the questionable decisions that are made that get us as a district into so much trouble.

As far your last few comments;
1. you can beleive what you wish, but I can guarentee you that If it was put up for a vote AND it turns out the D204 majority want to move forward with Eola after we have the phase I/II studies and confirmation that we can make it safe; Then I have to stand aside. Will of the voters will have been heard.

2. Yes, I think there were some serious issues with the 2nd referendum. I voted against it because I did not beleive we needed a permanent 3rd HS. you disagree and that is fine. Many others voted on it based on boundry/location information from SD. So, even though I disagree with the 3nd HS I am perfectly fine with moving forward with the 3rd HS on BB site as I beleive that is what the voters wanted and why they turned a NO vote to a YEs vote from 2005 to 2006. Now, I would be equally fine with moving forward with Eola if we get the same confirmation. In my opinion, that is not such an extreme request.

3. As far as the risks (the "overstuffing" or crowding the HS etc. etc.) We can agree to disagree on whether that is accurate. I know the SD used some enrollment estimates back in 05/06; they dont seem to be standing firmily behind them now (yes they are only estimates). I guess only time will tell on which one of us is right.

Again, Great Post!! Even though we disagree on many points, I think we also agree on at least some things. YOu should give serious consideration for running for the school board. 4 come up for re-election as their terms expire next year. I would vote for you over any of the 7 current board members.

It's good to see that someone, anyone, is holding 204 accountable.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/854233,6_1_NA21_D204_S1.article

To anonymous 10:47am

are u another No voter and now are a happy camper with the switcheroo and are trying to protect your own self interests by avoiding a vote on eola at any cost?

Being afraid of a vote, maybe you are not looking out for the district as a whole. Maybe YOU are the fool. Name calling, sorry I have stooped to your level. I have to to stop reading these blogs

Greg

I dont know what your 'look in the mirror' comment means.

but for the record:

I voted Yes.

I donated to the Vote Yes campaign.

I am happy to pay money to build a new school because I think the educational outcomes will be better overall. And I think it would be a HORRIBLE outcome to see split shifts or trailers and I will do anything to avoid that.

But know this: my kids are young and are unlikely to hit the 'attendence peak' anyway. I dont want ANYBODY'S kids to suffer that kind of overcrowding. That is also bad for property values.

I think the situation we are in is abysmal -- but since I am not in the negotiation sessions with BB I cant really say whether I think anyone was arrogant or incompetent -- or whether it was them or us.

I do wonder about the people advising the board if they told the board it was worth half what a jury told them. I wonder about the judgement of the board if they did not ask harder questions which might have prevented us from being in this mess.

I would be happy to see the district spend the extra 17 MM on the BB land because I think that in the grand scheme of things and over the long term, it is a drop in the bucket.

I dont trust that the people in NSFOC would not try to prevent the BB purchase somehow, or delay the project, hoping to kill it. Because the people in NSFOC who THINK they are arguing location have made a deal with devil. They have gotten in bed with those who would like to derail the whole project. Or maybe that is who NSFOC mostly are in the first place ?

It is my observation that people love to point fingers and blame others (like the SB) after the fact. But they never actually put themselves on the line to make hard decisions and potentially let events prove those decisions wrong and have to suffer kibitzers nipping at their heals and hurling insults.

It worries me that i have not seen the phase 2 soil tests. Something about that smells bad to me.

If we go back to BB in the end, I will be happy if it is the best outcome for the district, the third high school get built and opens ASAP.

And the bottom line for me Greg is this: The past is the past, and I need not worry too much about it. Right now what I care about is FIRST what gets the new school built the fastest and SECOND making sure we do it by making the best decisions we can with the information we have right now. And that may mean swallowing pride and ignoring ego. So if I have a PLEA for the SB it is that they make sure they are not abandoning BB for the wrong reasons.

-----------------------------------------
Now Greg,

I dont believe that you will fade into the background as you promise.....unless the school project is derailed -- vote or no vote.

Because you believe that the poor stupid electorate was duped by the evil board into voting yes. But not you! You saw 'THE TRUTH.'

From my vantage point Greg, your version of the truth is simple: You would rather take a risk that more kids will be shoved into already overstuffed schools than take a risk that some of your money will be spent in support of better educational experience for a majority of the district.

To Anonymous:

Not really, Born in So Cal, went to HS/College in Washington, worked in WA and OR and moved to midwest 5 years ago. Was planning on staying: love Chicagoland, great people (well....the majority anyways)

Yes, thats what voting is for: I give my opinion on what I think is truely best. So does everyone else. Then we tabulate the votes and move forward. Lets do this with Eola site and MOVE on (either build the damn thing or go back to BB or look for a 3rd site people can agree on, the majority awyways)

I have not created this mess: in my opinion the SB did. Dont give boundries 2 years early and dont name the site to manipulate the swing voters if you cant follow through with your pledge. OH I FORGOT, that was tried already in the 1sr ref and it FAILED.

So, I am asking them to do exactly what they did on BB for the Eola site. THEY DID IT for BB, why wont they toss up Eola site and boundries for a confirmation vote. I am not asking for blood from a stone here; however they dont listen too well and dont negotiate too well and hence you have multiple lawsuits.... A shame.

If the SB announced a confirmation referendum on EOla, you would quickly see "the lets vote" support support fade away from the NSFOC. Until that day comes, I am 100% behind the NSFOC. I know there are folks that disagree with me and that is fine and very healthy (as long as we all try and remain respectful of each others opinions and points of views).

Thanks for the feedback Anonymous

Hmmmmm... taken from the NSFOC website

Please note, we have applied for a Federal ID for non-profit status.

If

we are granted non-profit status, then donations will qualify for tax deductibility and company matching funds. We will inform you of the final outcome, but you should give knowing the situation today, and the possibility that the non-profit status

may not be granted.

We will run as a non-profit either way. The tax deductability and company matching would be the only items impacted by the government's decision.

To Greg Forrest. Sounds like you've moved around a lot. Probably typical background of the majority of the NSFOC. Certainly characteristic of someone who would come in and (try) and make a huge mess for his own self interests and not care or have the foresight to see the benefits in the long run. You voted on the ref based on what it would give YOU not what was best for the district as a whole. That, my poor fool, was - well let's say foolish.

Registration of Charities
225 ILCS 460/2
Sec. 2. Registration; rules; penalties.
(a) Every charitable organization, except as
otherwise provided in Section 3 of this Act [225
ILCS 460/3], which solicits or intends to solicit
contributions from persons in this State or which
is located in this State, by any means whatsoever
shall, prior to any solicitation, file with the
Attorney General upon forms prescribed by him,
a registration statement, accompanied by a
registration fee of $15, which statement shall
include the following certified information:
1. The name of the organization and the name or
names under which it intends to solicit
contributions.
2. The names and addresses of the officers,
directors, trustees, and chief executive officer of
the organization.
3. The addresses of the organization and the
addresses of any offices in this State. If the
organization does not maintain a principal office,
the name and address of the person having
custody of its financial records.
4. Where and when the organization was legally
established, the form of its organization and its
tax exempt status.
5. The purpose for which the organization is
organized and the purpose or purposes for which
6
the contributions to be solicited will be used.
6. The date on which the fiscal year of the
organization ends.
7. Whether the organization is authorized by
any other governmental authority to solicit
contributions and whether it is or has ever
been enjoined by any court from soliciting
contributions.
8. The names and addresses of any
professional fund raisers who are acting or
have agreed to act on behalf of the
organization.
9. Methods by which solicitation will be made.

To Civics (your post)
By civics on March 20, 2008 10:46 AM
Greg,

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE dont ignore my sarcasm! I went to a great deal of effort writing it that way to try to irritate you!

Also, I had hoped my sarcasm might help show how foolish you and the other NSFOC supporters appear to people who have even a rudimentary understanding of how our system works. As for impeachment/removal -- I actually have no idea. But I suspect that unless they broke some laws, your stuck with 'em until the next election. I am sure you will let us know if that is not the case.

Finally, I think you need to show your true colors. According to your letters to the editor, you voted against the referendums. You dont want a third high school built. That is your right. But don't make it seem as though you are simply trying to get transparency on costs of the various options when it would appear more likely your real agenda is one of delay with a hope to somehow derail the whole project.

MY REPLY:
Havent had a chance to check IL Law on what can be done regarding gross negligence yet. I will keep you posted.

I have always shown my true colors and will continue to do so. (my opinion now): Many others on this blog (including youself) cannot muster the courage to "look into the mirror" and do the same. Your choice

Yes, I am on record as being a no voter on both Refs; I could not convince myself that a 3rd HS was needed once the enrollment spike had subsided. Looks like I might be right based on the SB backing away from the projections they made on enrollment in 05/06; but that is beside the point. I thought the best option was to expand the 2 HS's to accomodate the peak enrollment spike. My view was in the minority and I was perfectly fine the school on BB as I knew the will of the voters had spoken (Yes vote after the SB did its marketing (fear and carrots) with its consultant (paid for by us). I still disagreed with it, but could live with it.

What I cant live with, is the school board going back on its pledge to attempt to put the HS on BB. (My opinion) once they pull that rug out that swung the swing vote, then whatever new site they picked to "pledge" on building there should also go up for a vote.
I also cant live with the fiscal mismanagement, the BB debacle (talk about heavy handed, SB was begging to get slapped back after they did the quick take, condem suit, tied up someones assets for 2+ years, then walked away (well trying to walk away... we just flushed 3MM down the toilet to BB's lawyers fees we have to pay). Then in an 8 wk span, find a new site (one discounted in the earlier search), draw boundries and start buying more land. I will get my chance to speak again regarding who is on the SB when 4 of them come up for re-election.

I want to know the majority of the District agrees with this. THe only way I am going to know is if Eola is put up for a VOte. If it wins, I fade back to my life perfectly content that the majority was in agreement that this is what we want to do as a district. Then we build on Eola and life goes on. I can still disagree, but I will have had my say and that is all I am asking; for myself, and for the rest of my fellow D204 voters.

OK: I SHOWED MY TRUE COLORS: Easy to see as I send in a letter to the Editor and do not use a handle name.

NOW HOW ABOUT YOU!! What's your story? Should I guess?: You vote no last time and now you are a happy camper and dont want to see a vote or have anyone rock the boat on you? Sooo sorry if my thoughts/opinions create unease amongest those fearful of the possibility their own personal agendas might be threatened by a (GASP) VOTE?

To Basketball Fan:
Vols look tough, but I am a West Coast Boy. Since my UW Huskies are not in the dance this year, my pick is UCLA!!

Speaking of West Coast; I have lived in CA, OR and WA; the SB's there would run away screaming at the first hint of any safety issues or environmental concerns. That's ok "they/we" are just "crazy tree huggers out there" LOL.

Nope, the SB doesn't have to talk to us lowly voters. They can hold all the executive sessions they want.

They can demand that we sign up to speak.

They can limit our time to speak.

They can hire all the lawyers, consultants, and other experts they like.

They can tell us what they want us to know.

They can tell us what they want us to vote on.

And then they can turn around and do what they darn well please, can't they?

Well, so can we lowly voters when we are in the voting booth! Yes, there is going to be a very heavy price to pay. From what I am hearing all over town there is going to be one heck of a lot of revenge voting come next SB election and it doesn't sound like it is going to be pretty either. It may be time for some SB members to start thinking about what they are going to be doing with all the extra free time they are about to have on their hands?

To Lilly - you are 100% accurate that many of us actively supported the AT / CB / MM ticket, and no way we'd vote for any of them again. To be fair, everyone knew going in M2 was arrogant and full of himself - he was clearly as lesser of 2 evils vote. CB and AT really disappoint me though. These two have no independant will of their own, kinda like puppies on a short leash that are fearful of getting smacked by a newspaper if they fall out of line with M2 and Dash. Many folks at the nsfoc meeting were folk who worked on their campaigns last year, and we were pretty irked at the high-handed, public-be-damned attitude they've adopted since the Dash arrived.

To the person who thinks there should be a "do over". I guess that must be your approach to many things in your life - do you take a lot of "muligins" in golf as well...

>>Does anyone actually believe that this SB has the expertise to make major real estate decisions or handle millions of dollars of the taxpayers money?

No and the legal advise they have been getting is simply terrible.
Mark Metzger things he is the superintendent, our lawyer, our negotiator, our Springfield lobbyist and about 5 other things.

The truth is that he isn't good at any of them.

Most people I have spoken to think he is a pompous, arrogant ass.

What's next Mark? Rush into the Eola site before we know the cost of Brach-Brodie damages? Knowing Metzger, you can count on another boondoggle soon. 257K an acre for BB, hah! Wrong again MARK.

Momof2 wrote "I live in Brookdale and for those of you have been living under a rock...Brookdale was made an "island" in the second referendum. I believed in the 3rd high school and voted yes".

Well Jeanette, that is pretty much what we thought you would say.
But since you can't count and never graduated from college, I am not sure your vote counts. When you learn how to do basic trend analysis and can figure out how declining enrollment at the elementary school level later reaches middle school and then high school, check back with us. Okay, honey? Meanwhile, we haven't seen your usual sucking up to the teachers' union in awhile. Does that mean you aren't running for re-election or you are saving that for later..

Voted No AND Happy that more people can now see the complete incompetence of the Board of Education and District 204 Administration.

The 3rd high school was and will never be needed.

Several bloggers have said "heh , you voted in the school board members for re-election". Yes, this is true but keep in mind they ran on a platform of keeping things 'status quo'. They ran on a platform of keeping boundaries 'as is' and keeping the property location at BB. (against concerns that people may try to change the location ie: Paul Lehman to Macom site)

I can assure you that if the school board elections were NOW, there is no way any of the three (MM, CB, AT) would be voted in again.

To unbelievable on March 20, 2008 11:54 AM

NSFOC has blow up dolls at their meetings? Ok, I am signing up now. $204 is a lot less than Spritzer paid...

To Anonymous on March 20, 2008 1:58 PM:

Where was Brach-Brodie on your ballot? Did they have a different ballot in some subdivisions?

The text of the 12/19/05 school board meeting says the SB will attempt to buy the BB property to build a new HS. Yes, I think we all know that was the intention. No one from the SB is claiming otherwise. It didn't work out.

I don't understand "Any questions on their intentions now? Do BB, or Do Over." I don't see anything in those minutes that said "and if this fails, we'll give the money back". Did you HONESTLY think that was what the school board would do if they failed to take BB property by force?

Re: Algebra guy
May not agree with you completely, but one heck of a post w/out beating anyone up---sort of.

To: Algebra Guy

(Voted No) AND (Now Happy) = 0 or (Stonebridge + Brookdale)

Correction

(Voted No) AND (Now Happy) = (everyone tired of Tall Grass and White Eagle Entitlement)

To: Algebra guy

(Voted No) AND (Now Happy) = 0

Correction:
(Voted No) AND (Now Happy) = (Stonebridge + Brookdale)

To: Algebra/Set Theory on March 20, 2008 12:24 PM

I loved it, classic Mensa logic! You must have been a District 204 product?

p.s. for those of you who have to look up Mensa be glad that your kids are attending one of the Top school districts in the state.

"Any questions on their intentions now? Do BB, or Do Over."

I think you're doing a great job of proving the point that the SB made every to secure BB and that they attempted to do so in good faith. Kinda hard to claim bait and switch here.

to anonymous at 11:02 am. That is the point, they did try to buy the land. There was no bait and switch. If they had not done everything possible to buy the land, I would agree. Don't you agree that it is irresponsible to buy the land at any price? There must be limits. The referendum did not give the district a bottomless pit of money. I am sure the NSFOC beleives that the entire district should pick up the tab on overpriced land so the Tall Grass and White Eagle property owners can have the shiny new school, but it is unreasonable to ask the entire district to pay for this. I am glad the school district put a cap on what was reasonable in the price for the new school. If the NSFOC thinks they should pay for the land at any price, why not a special assessment for Tall Grass and White Eagle to pay for it? Quit spending my tax dollars for your selfish cause!

It's too early to be slapping D on the back and buying him drinks, folks. Dr. D hasn't saved us any $$ yet. If BB gets anything close to the damages they're asking for, and they got what they asked for last time, then D will have LOST us millions. The only thing he's succeeded at so far is putting our school district in a precarious position. Hold off on the "attaboy"s until the final judgment is in.

To: Anonymous on March 20, 2008 1:58 PM

What are you in kindergarten? Have you not been reading these blogs, the newspaper etc. There is no do-over.

We voted on a 3rd HS - with the original hope/intention of it being on BB. That didn't work so we moved to a different site.

Any questions on YOUR intentions now?

To Politicians Lie on March 20, 2008 11:02 AM
who voted based on the text of the referendum. "Shall...District...204...acquire and improve a high school site, build and equip one new high school building and issue the bonds...to the amount of $124,660,000.00 for the purpose of paying the costs thereof?"

I voted after having read the following in the APPROVED minutes of the 12/19/05 school board meeting:

http://www.ipsd.org/Uploads/Board_brd_min_121905specialjb.pdf

Page 3, item 330:

330. Administrative
Reports and Recommendations –

Eminent Domain

It was moved by Mr. Glawe and seconded by Mr. Metzger that
the Board of Education approves to begin eminent domain
proceedings to acquire the remainder of the Brach-Brodie
property to build a new high school.

The president declared the motion passed on a voice vote.

==================================

Any questions on their intentions now? Do BB, or Do Over.

Hey Algebra One,

You need to change the voted no and now happy category to at least one. I'm sure I'm not the only one who still thinks we may not really need a third school that there were other options that were less expensive but have resigned myself to the fact that my vote was not in the majority and have moved on (unlike some who are now suing). I don't buy the whole toxic unsafe BS, what next maybe they'll find an indian grave yard and worry about bad things happening to the kids at MV from the spirits that weren't pacified by the "pardon our dust" signs. I'm glad that the SB under Dr. D's guidance finally looked at other sites than BB along with it's astronomical price tag. Standing ovation from me for attempting to keep this within budget.

P.S. NSFOC way to show fiscal responsibility by suing yourself. Kind of like saying I'm in debt and should maybe consider bankruptcy since I can't afford my property taxes... what the heck let's go shopping, mama needs new shoes we've got room on one of the credit cards right?

This yet another example of the SB/Admin cherry picking numbers to support their pre-determined solution. When BG was so adamant that Option 5A was the "best" boundary option, he had points on transportation miles and RR crossings. Mysteriously absent in MWGEN evaluation? You got it - Transportation miles and RR crossings. Guess what? Both are higher at MWGEN than at BB.

Glawe cited 4 schools crossing RR's. Now we have 9! ..and we've put the school next to the tracks. ..and we know train traffic is going to increase due to the merger. Oh, and we'll need to increase busses because some people within 1.5 miles, who normally aren't bussed, will need to be to get across the RR tracks. Pure genius.

Another one of Brucie's stats was transportation miles - which are over 10% higher at MWGEN than they are at BB. Spend an hour with google maps and a spreadsheet if you don't believe me. So that means we'll be spending more on transportation. I'm sure Laidlaw isn't giving us a frequent buyer discount, although the Admin sure acts like it.

So in their defense of MWGEN being "cheaper" they've conveniently forgotten that the any savings from the site purchase will quickly be consumed by increased transportation costs, WHICH ARE FOREVER! This finacial analysis would get a "F" in any business course taught at our high schools. Cost = fixed + variable. What's so hard about that? Well, it didn't support their conclusion.....

Oh yeah, the rocket scientists at CEC also used current year enrollments to balance the schools. Curt wanted to use peak enrollment, but evidently lost his spine, or had it removed for him. If you did the analysis on peak enrollment, you'd see the transportation costs are even more of a nightmare. As an added kicker, you've now tossed the BB property back into the mix for the developers to have a field day with, so thank the SB for the extra unplanned kids that will come from there.

The egos and bravdo of DrD and his merry minions is astounding. Their actions are so fiscally irresponsible it is sickening.

D204 Attacks NSFOC Full Page Ad

March 19

According to the SUN, ISPD 204 Superintendent Stephen Daeschner is bothered by the circulation of "misinformation" regarding the district's decision to build Metea Valley High School on 87 acres at the Eola site, instead of on the 80-acre Brach-Brodie (BB) site. "I'm very frustrated by some of that stuff," he said. "I'm kind of amazed at it, in all honesty." Well how far off is NSFOC and D204 ...really now anyway?

http://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=92

To: majorianthrax

You're correct they make the decisions and I guess you could use that comparison of calling them CEO's. Where I fail to see your analogy is how they lost millions of dollars, please share with me where you get your facts.

I see them operating in a way that the public (or their employees if we're using the CEO analogy) voted for them to build a 3rd high school using the 124 million the IPSD voted for. They have fought a long hard fight and are now begining to build that high school finally after long legal battles that delayed and benefited the same group (the NSFOC) that is now suing them.

It's like the employees ask for something of the CEO and the CEO trying to give it to them and they say "oh no, that's not what we meant we meant something else". Well, the CEO is just giving the employees what they asked for, read the referendum. The CEO did not mislead them all the CEO is doing is giving them what the employees wanted.

As far as a "bait and switch" that would mean trying to sell their employees on something cheap initially and then the CEO changing their mind and selling their employees something more expensive. Well as we all know it will be less then buying the BB land, so that arguement doen't work. However, have you noticed that the NSFOC crowd is trying to make it sound like the Eola site will cost more money? Why? So they can try and sell their "bait and switch" tactic. If anything if the SB does try and build now on the BB property it would be more of a "bait and switch" because that propery is far more then what we were lead to believe. Sorry, not gonna work. End of story.

I bet not many brackets in this area were filled out this year. Since everyone in this area seems to be number crunchig thinking they have the right numbers of what new school and law suit will cost (not to mention student population for the next 20 years).

Me on the other, I'd rather waste my time (some may think that but not me) filling out the bracket and hoping to cash in. I'm thinking the Vols this year. It's about time the guys reached the level of play the Lady Vols have for years. Maybe Candace could help them out while Pat cheers them on.

Really folks there's a lot more going on in life than this dog fight. So step away from your computer and focus on something else like college basketball.

In this case our CEO Dr. "D" has SAVED us millions AND had made sure there are no environmental concerns the children would face. He deserves a raise!

For those out there keeping score, but who are confused, here is a simple rubric that might help.

(Voted Yes) AND (Now Unhappy) = (Yes Voters from TG + WE)
(Voted Yes) AND (Now Happy) = (All Yes voters) - (Yes Voters from TG + WE)
(Voted No) and (Now Unhappy) = (Voted No) + (Yes Voters from TG + WE)
(Voted No) AND (Now Happy) = 0
(Yes Voters from TG + WE) + (Voted No) = NSFOC

This is not 100% accurate -- it would really help to be able to use Venn diagrams to explain it, but hopefully you get the idea. And of course, there are surely some exceptions to these rules, but I believe you will find that they are generally applicable.

Take a look at it all from a business prespective. The SB is in the business of running our schools and making all the decisions. They are the CEOs in comparison. If a CEO or any business executive lost millions of dollars in the way the SB has that individual would be fired or even face legal action for misuse of funds.

To all of you suing your SB. We should really be supporting our district and fighting against the idea that BB could ask for anything - given that a price was never agreed upon. Todd A - IF BB does succeed (which I doubt - I doubt your success as well) your support of their charging the district $$ will cost us millions. You will get blamed for this as well. But as I said, that's why we have rational lawmakers and SB officials - otherwise things would be run by irrational self-interest groups like the NSFOC. Thankful for a democracy.

Hey anyone going to the next NSFOC meeting? Since they seem to be having trouble with numbers and basic facts I thought that maybe someone (other than Greg and Todd) should go to get an accurate count of their "supporters" Make sure you don't count the maniquins and blow up dolls.

To Anon 3/20 at 9:09--Dr. D has not saved us millions of dollars yet. No one can claim this until the BB damage judgment is in, and we won't get this information until after the Eola site is purchased. Given Dr. D's massive misjudgment on the outcome of the land price verdict, you would think he and the school board would have the common sense to wait just another month or so before committing to an alternate plan. If the damage award comes in at around what Dr. D plans, then fine, build the school on Eola. But if we get hit with a massive damage amount around what BB is asking AFTER we've broken ground on Eola, then Dr. D had better plan to use some of that 90M surplus to fund the operating expenses of Metea, because I will not give this SB one more dime. I realize I helped fund this fiasco by voting yes on the last referendum. I will never make that mistake again as long as D is superintendent.

@ DrDave on March 19, 2008 9:41 PM

So you don't believe a word DrD is saying?
So you don't believe a word the SB is saying?

Then why is NSFOC suing the school board to overturn the referendum based on the SB 'saying' the school would be at Brach-Brodie and 'saying' what the boundaries would be?

I've said this before and will say it again. THEY ARE POLITICIANS. THEY LIE FOR A LIVING. If you voted for the 3rd high school based on PROMISES from a POLITICIAN'S mouth, well, you got what you deserved.

I voted based on the text of the referendum. "Shall...District...204...acquire and improve a high school site, build and equip one new high school building and issue the bonds...to the amount of $124,660,000.00 for the purpose of paying the costs thereof?"

I didn't believe the boundaries were set in stone then or now. Why did you believe POLITICIANS?

To stop the school board on March 19, 2008 10:59 PM
"Honey, OF COURSE, the rest of the parents in D204 (that demand safety for all children, fiscal responsibility from ipsd204 and accountability for ipsd204 actions to date) are invited!"

1) I am not your 'honey'.
2) So only those who agree with you are allowed at your meetings?

Greg,

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE dont ignore my sarcasm! I went to a great deal of effort writing it that way to try to irritate you!

Also, I had hoped my sarcasm might help show how foolish you and the other NSFOC supporters appear to people who have even a rudimentary understanding of how our system works. As for impeachment/removal -- I actually have no idea. But I suspect that unless they broke some laws, your stuck with 'em until the next election. I am sure you will let us know if that is not the case.

Finally, I think you need to show your true colors. According to your letters to the editor, you voted against the referendums. You dont want a third high school built. That is your right. But don't make it seem as though you are simply trying to get transparency on costs of the various options when it would appear more likely your real agenda is one of delay with a hope to somehow derail the whole project.

To: WV Mom on March 20, 2008 9:26 AM

I would like to echo some of her comments and add that a large number of us are not native to Naperville and our kids survived the transition from whatever school they used to attent to district 204 schools just fine. It didn't kill them, did it?

Kids are much more resilient than many of the parents on this blog would have you believe.

Are you still friends with kids you new in elementary school, middle school or high school? Not many of us are.

Meeting new kids will make your kid a better rounded individual and expose them to the REAL world. Not the protective bubble named Naperville that they (currently) call home. And, by the way, they'll get a good education to boot!

NSFOC would have you believe that the only way for ALL kids in the district to get a good education is for THEIR kids to attend NV. And the minute anyone disagrees they stutter, gasp and grasp at "other" reasons why the boundary decisions are flawed.

Get a GRIP people!! NSFOC are scam artists.

To Cowlishaw Parent on March 20, 2008 4:49 AM
"land that has a good chance of being unsafe". And you are a scientist? Or Environmental engineer? Or have some basis for your 'good chance' statement?

Good luck with that rash lawsuit. It's your kids' inheritance you'll be squandering.

I love the post that included suing the NSFOC. Can we, as taxpayers, counter sue the NSFOC?

To the NSFOC I'm waiting and doing my do diligence. If you lose this law suit, can you say Class action lawsuit. We are going to use all your same tools. Freedom of information goes both ways. We get the list of supporters and sue to collect the spent tax dollars from defending this scam of a lawsuit. This includes the WE HOA and Golf Club for providing the meeting place for the first meeting.

While I don't agree with how the SB has handled all of this, suing on false motives is not the answer. as posted by Things Everyone Should Know ....

Amen! These poor souls (I say this because I do think they were naive with an exaggerated 'sense of self' to boot)clearly got "railroaded" by a fast talking, let's make a buck lawyer who told them what they wanted to hear.

To be fair, I know for a fact that most of the WE folks had no idea the meeting was going to be held there(you only need ONE member to secure a room for personal purposes for permission to be granted).After they caught wind of the group and its motives and purposes, there was no way a second meeting would be held at that location. Hence, the local hotel location for the next meeting that was suddenly cancelled due to needing a "bigger room" :)You get the idea.... The list of supporters is primarily from one neighborhood and it's not WE.I know a person who calls themself "NSFOC insider":)

More Civics....YOU SAID IT ALL!!!

Enough of the SB bashing it's getting old. Take a look a the boundary meeting in which they spent 45 minutes at the end of the meeting apologizing to the Tall Grass neighborhood. Stating that they did everything to get the BB property and it didn't work out. They made the decisions based on what was best for the IPSD not Tall Grass. Furthermore, they hoped that Tall Grass could move on, but apparently they haven't been able to.

I just watched Todd Andrews' plea to send his kids to Neuqua not Waubonsie. At the end he stated "the board members were certainly not overpaid with all their hard work". Nice to have video of his real motives in this lawsuit. Interesting post earlier on suing on false motives and the legal ramifications that go along with that. I'm sure this would hold true not only for Todd Andrews but for his legal council as well. Don't they have reponsibility to ensure intent before filing - especially if it's on tape distributed publicly??

You know, I had a thought.....and it deals with electing a new group of SB members.

My thought took the form of a question: Why would somebody choose to run for school board, not get paid, work hard, make difficult decisions, and put up with the outrageous accusations of jerks like people on this blog?

Now, ignoring the conspiracy theorists for a moment (ignore posts which include references to Rezko, Abramoff, or the grassy knoll) I think I have an answer. It MIGHT be because they care more about the education of your kids than they do about your wallet.

Now I accept that you might reverse the relative importance of those things. And that is certainly your right.

But I think it possible that the type of people who are willing to run for School Board are the type who, when the question comes down to one of quality education for your kids vs your fat wallet, will usually tend to favor quality education.

Which MAY mean that you are destined to be sad, bitter, and full of dissatisfaction with ANY school board that is elected.

Sorry,
I guess I should have clarified things. Ed mentioned his kids go to White Eagle. When I said White Eagle is in Aurora, I meant the elementary school, not the entire subdivision. Guess I should have added that to the original post.

I still will stand by my belief that anyone who buys a house in 204 or any rapidly growing district is not guaranteed to have their kids attend a specific school, despite what the builder or anyone else says. Builders need to start selling their homes based on the district as a whole, not on specific schools.

My son only experienced one school change due to boundaries since most happened when he was transitioning to a different school level. My daughter changed elementary and middle schools due to boundary changes, and once due to a move. We faced every change as an adventure. When she got to high school, she was able to get reacquainted with some of the kids she had been friends with when she was younger.

WV does a great job with their students. My son is doing quite well at the U of I. My daughter was offered admission at to the School of Social Work at NYU, but has chosen to stay closer to home and attend Loyola whose program is very similar. Both were happy and successful at WV.

We are overwhelmingly supporting Dr. "D" and the school borad with the Eola site and Thank them for saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. Thank you also for making sure there on NO environmental concerns on the Eola property. I'd like to see all the schools in our district pass such scrutiny - doubt they all would. Again, thank you Dr. "D" and School Board for all your hard work and professionalism in spite of the incredibly selfish behavior you've been exposed to here - which I'm sure you've not been exposed to in other areas - shocking isn't it...

Looking forward to the school board forging on with the Eola site plans - finnaly they're putting the best interest of the whole district into play here and not being railroaded into the selfish WANTS of TG.

By Greg Forrest on March 19, 2008 8:31 PM
Forgot to add: Fire up the Dozers" the boats movin full steam ahead QUICKLY, before the BB danages come in the spring and the poop really hits the fans.... Interesting that FOUR board memebers come up for re-election as their terms expire in 2009....

UHHHH.....Greg,

Don't go getting any more delusional ideas. The chances of you or anyone else from your little group getting elected to the SB after your "little stunt" are less than impossible to the tenth degree. That train left the station with Mr. Collins as the Conductor.

Let's look at the events caused by NSFOC/TG. You've made everyone so angry with your behavior, no matter what happens - you're sure to be attending Waubonsie. Exactly what you're fighting against.

To By Civics. Love your post!! Here Here!
"Now this is where it gets complicated, so please pay attention. We didn't get to vote on the location of the school. That is something we left up to our representatives. All we said was 'I want a new school.' It is their job to find the best location, negotiate a price, hire the contractors, and ultimately buy the basketball hoops and desks and so on."

So our super Super has fired back? Well, he did that months ago. Is it not ironic that the SB and "Super DDD" acted within the past year to move public comment to the end of SB meetings???? This obvious move to contain the citizens and is an insult to everyone in this district. Now the SB is ready to move once again on "acting" with little or no concern as it relates to public comment and feedback. How many residents will really sit through hours of endless drivel only to get their two minutes of input in front of this arrogant SB? One only has to wathc the video of the boundary discussion and you can plainly see how this SB really feels about its residents...can you imagine sitting through a meeting in a corporation and acting like that?

Recall DDD, send him back to KY.

To anonymous on March 19, 2008 9:16 PM

Your numbers are just made up conjecture with no backing.

The $17.0M in damages is NOT (per SUN news 3/17/08). That is an estimate made by a reporter based on what the trust may ask for. Just as NSFOC is happy to say "we'll have our day in court", the court will decide this too.

The $1.2M for wetlands mitigation ASSUMES worst case scenario. According to the National Center for Environmental Economics (Part of the US EPA), the cost is between $10 to 50K per acre -- NOT $150K per acre. The $150K costs (in DuPage Co., actually $175K) assume the land CANNOT be mitigated (e.g. naturalized buffer cannot be created) and the landowner needs to pay into a wetlands banking fund which is used to create new wetlands in a non-wetland area.

The $10.0M expedite fee (SB says $5M) is needed for both properties. It is NOT "only needed now because D204 did not buy BB". The school board COULD NOT buy BB in a timely manner to complete the school in 2009. EVEN if they had agreed to the purchase after the jury decision, they still said THEN they would need to pay expedite fees.

The $20.0 M Remediation cost is completely made up. There is no evidence that there is a "full story" left to be unlearned. Just more NSFOC fear and hysteria.

The $24.0M in extra transportation costs over 20 yrs is a myth as well. No one is saying WVHS will ever close. Take a worst case downward trend line from when enrollment starts dropping and it will be 20 years before enrollment drops to a point where they could consider closing WVHS. We'll all have our flying cars by then. (Or at least alternative fuel vehicles with substantially less cost of ownership).

Can NSFOC stop making things up?

To TIME TO VOTE on March 19, 2008 9:22 PM

We already HAD a vote. We approved funding for a 3rd high school. I'm sorry if you believed the SB when they told you that you'd get to go to shiny new Metea at Brach Brodie but you don't get vote on location or boundaries. (Just like you don't get to vote on new laws in Springfield or Washington).

You voted for representatives (the school board) to act on your behalf. If you are unhappy with them, well, we got what we deserved. We elected (and re-elected) them. Want to make a change? Find a candidate in the next election you can trust and VOTE THE SCHOOL BOARD OUT

Notice to the SB, its administration and the rest of the district.

I cannot believe that the Board with a suit against it from parents and the BB estate is moving forward on land that has a good chance of being unsafe. What is the Board thinking? I am very concerned for the safety of my child and I don't have the option to just move.

If my daughter gets as much as a skin rash while she is attending Metea, I will sue the district for so many millions of dollars the parents of this district will think they work for me.

I am a relatively recent addition to Southern Naperville and have very young children who won't be attending high school for over a decade. The way homes are going up around this area (plainfield, aurora, naperville), I trust that by the time my kids go to highschool we will have been subject to several changes in where they will be scheduled to attend.

It seems to me that our tax dollars would be best served by waiting to see what the costs of pulling out of the BB site will be before closing on the new site. Only recently paying attention to this whole situation I trust the decision to build a new highschool rather than expand the existing schools was based on projected need, cost, and the physical limitations of the current properties.

I do know that if I were trying to offload contaminated property, I'd set up an LLC to limit my future exposure and do everything in my power to ensure that if testing was done on the land it would only be released if favorable (they still have to sell it if the school system backs out). I'd also be sure to hire a testing firm that was going to yield favorable results.

My thoughts are that:

1. There will be penalties for what appears to have been a rather poor strategy concerning the BB site, and

2. If ground contamination exists at the new site it will be very expensive to clean up if not clearly identified and addressed in the closing.

Based on these conclusions the old site is looking more like the wise choice if a decision needs to be made immediately. I would argue the wise course is to wait and get more information on the damages and the degree of contamination, if any, before proceeding.

Sorry to those high school kids that would be inconvenienced an extra year or two, but better to excercise caution now than be stuck with a poor decision for decades.

To civics:

I will ignore the sarcasym, yes you are right the SB are our elected officials. They make TACTICAL decisions for the taxpayers. They do have to ask us for money via a referendum. They did and it failed. (my opinion) they managed to manipulate the swing vote from No to yes by expertly dangling key information on their web site and in our kids school bags HOPING to manipulate the vote in favor of a yes. THey were successful.

Now to the question of "if we dont like it" then vote them out. Yes, I am sure as they come up for re-election many will have a difficult time getting re-elected (if they even run again at all. I sure wouldn't if I had mis-managed the BB debacle among other things as ineptly has they have managed to)

Problem is: they can do ALOT of damage before more fiscally sound folks get in there and clean that mess up. For startes how do you move full steam ahead WITHOUT KNOWING our final liability on the BB legal fees and damages (as high as 20M per Sun and that is BEFORE you take into account extra payment for our legal fees and BB's fees that we will have to pay in any appeal). INCREDIBLE. THe board is moving so fast if makes me wonder what real agenda they have behind the curtain.

Now for the Kicker: We have "options" with other elected officials such as impeachment to remove from office etc. I am not so sure we have similiar avenues to us if they do grossly mismanage the fiscal realities and move forward before knowing our liability on BB.

I am not fully versed in IL state law. Civics, since you seem to have a basic grasp on well... Civics. Maybe you can give me some insight on this? Anyways, this gave me a wonderful idea, I think will spend a little of my time looking into this (a voter referendum to remove the school board for gross negligence IF THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH Eola WITHOUT knowing final liability to the district from BB Debacle.

Thanks!!

To the rest of the "put it up for a Vote" movement; THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT via your above blogs!! Hopefully sanity will prevail somewhere along the lines in this terrible quagmire D204 is entangled in.
GF

I cannot believe I have three kids in #204. This is like watching a circus. The truth is we really don't have a very sharp group of people on the SB and the taxpayers in this district continue to elect and allow them free reign to spend our money. People complain how incompetent the SB is yet they stay in. Mark Metzger was reelected by a landslide. Curt Bradshaw was reelected by a large margin. Alka Tyle's was closer but returned to the SB. If you put people on the SB who are mediocre this is what you are going to get.
Does anyone actually believe that this SB has the expertise to make major real estate decisions or handle millions of dollars of the taxpayers money? I believe Dr Dash said something to the effect of coming to an agreement on the Eola land after a good talk and a handshake with "the Good Pastor of the AME church". If those are the kind of business deals this SB makes then God help us all!

First the current owner of the property are required to clean up the soil once a phase II study is done. If the EPA finds any PCB on the property they will force Mid West to clean it immediately. Second, the Illinois super fund will pay all costs of cleaning the property up. I know an owner of an enviremental clean up firm and uses this fund to clean up properties all the time including properties of closing power generations and transformer facilities. As for the list of chemicals released by the peaker plant your car produces the same chemicals when burning gas.
First the current owner of the property are required to clean up the soil once a phase II study is done. If the EPA finds any PCB on the property they will force Mid West to clean it immediately. Second, the Illinois super fund will pay all costs of cleaning the property up. I know an owner of an environmental clean up firm and uses this fund to clean up properties all the time including properties of closing power generations and transformer facilities and it cost the owners nothing. As for the list of chemicals released by the peaker plant your car produces the same chemicals when burning gas.

To the NSFOC I'm waiting and doing my do diligence. If you lose this law suit, can you say Class action lawsuit. We are going to us all your same tools. Freedom of information goes both ways. We get the list of supporters and sue to collect the spent tax dollars from defending this scam of a lawsuit. This includes the WE HOA and Golf Club for providing the meeting place for the first meeting.

While I don't agree with how the SB has handled all of this, suing on false motives is not the answer.

I justed wanted to make a few comments.
I live in Brookdale and for those of you have been living under a rock...Brookdale was made an "island" in the second referendum. I believed in the 3rd high school and voted yes. I voted yes even though it wasn't the best for my children who are in grade school. I felt that it was the best for the district. I remember Howie Crouse telling us (maybe some of you didn't hear this...or chose not to listen) that the boundaries were not set and that we were voting for the 3rd high school...not the boundaries. I do realize he was trying to win Brookdale over, regardless, it was said. The ballot read that we were voting for the 120some million dollars and the 3rd high school...it didn't state that we were voting yes to the BB site or the boundaries. The SB felt it necessary to do something different from the first ref so that it would pass. I don't think they were trying to "trick" us.
I am so ashamed of the way my neighbors (all of ya'll...who live in D204) are acting. It seems like we all care about our kids, and hopefully all of the kids in the district. Oh and yes, even title 1 kids or kids that live in Aurora. (Gasp!). Maybe we should start focusing on the big picture.
As far as the safety issues go...GIVE ME A BREAK! Do you really think the SB would knowingly put our kids in danger? I don't even want to go there...for those of us who fed our kids McDonald's this week...we probably are hurting them more than whatever EMFs or whatever the kids will come in contact with in the soil. I do think health/safety is important but not enough to home school my kids. Oh yeah...I had Radon in my house when I bought it. I hope that thingy on the side of my house is still working.
I believe the SB is at fault for only 1 thing...building NV to be as great as it is. I think Waubonsie is a nice school...but it is kind of like comparing Wal-Mart and Target...we all know they have the same things...but it is much nicer shopping at Target. Given the choice most of us would choose Target...right? The great thing about a 3rd high school is that it will hopefully balance the district. I think more attention will be paid to WV and hopefully MV will be built reasonably and that all 3 high schools can be a "Nequa".
The only people to blame in this fiasco are the lawyers (no offense to the maybe 1 or 2 decent ones reading this), not the SB. They are the only ones who are going to win in this. Maybe we should sue them...I am sure we could work out a reason and get some money back. Please be kind...the more you think about other people the happier you will be. The more you think that you are being "scre*ed" the more upset you will be. Have a glass of wine, hang with your friends and think of some positive action you can take to make things better. Or you can always move.

Folks, who make up the school board? Yours and my neighbors, people from the 204 district. We asked that the SB be held accountable. In addition to the SB being held accountable, ALL of the district's citizen should be held accountable as well. Those that are complaining that this isn't what was voted on is not fit to served on the SB or criticize either.
Folks are complaining that the SB is not doing due dilingence. However, the same folks are also saying they voted on BB. So you didn't so due dilingence either i.e. same as signing a contract without reading the details. By voting yes to the referendum, you in effect spent TAX payer money. If any of these folks are elected then can we trust them to be any more competent than the current SB.

This situation is eerily similar to the Iraq quagmire. Congress gave President Bush the power to start the war. Now many of those congress person/senator are saying they authorize "the use of force", not a war. KNOW WHAT YOU ARE VOTING FOR OR AGAINST BASED ON THE ACTUAL WORDING OF THE BALLOT/RESOLUTION/REFERENDUM, ETC.

TO Anonymous on March 19, 2008 12:42 PM
re:

"Parents from Brookdale, Longwood, Cowlishaw, Watts, Brooks, Young...if you are at all concerned...come to the next NSFOC meeting and introduce yourselves...we are here for you. "

you wrote: Are the rest of the parents in D204 not invited? Do you not want to hear from us?

Honey, OF COURSE, the rest of the parents in D204 (that demand safety for all children, fiscal responsibility from ipsd204 and accountability for ipsd204 actions to date) are invited! i was responding specifically to one persons email that mentioned those schools (in support of NSFOC)...that's all. okay? we not only want to hear from you...we want to see you at the school board meeting tomorrow and at OUR next public meeting next week (register on the website if you want more info!). sweet dreams, anonymous.

TO Anonymous on March 19, 2008 12:42 PM
re:

"Parents from Brookdale, Longwood, Cowlishaw, Watts, Brooks, Young...if you are at all concerned...come to the next NSFOC meeting and introduce yourselves...we are here for you. "

you wrote: Are the rest of the parents in D204 not invited? Do you not want to hear from us?

Honey, OF COURSE, the rest of the parents in D204 (that demand safety for all children, fiscal responsibility from ipsd204 and accountability for ipsd204 actions to date) are invited! i was responding specifically to one persons email that mentioned those schools (in support of NSFOC)...that's all. okay? we not only want to hear from you...we want to see you at the school board meeting tomorrow and at OUR next public meeting next week (register on the website if you want more info!). sweet dreams, anonymous.

To All D204 Residents who oppose the third high school location!!!

Please Plan on Attending * Let Your Voice Be Heard* Show up* Fill the seats*

The School Board of IPSD 204 has announced a “Special Board Meeting” for THURSDAY, March 20, 2008.

Crouse Educational Center 6:00 p.m

Please attend – we all need as many people there as possible to show support AGAINST the D204 School Board taking any further action.

Please come prepared to publicly comment - GIVE 'EM AN EARFUL. Remember the “sign up sheet” will be pulled away at exactly 6pm…so if you wish to address the Board, you must arrive well before 6pm in order to sign up to speak.

Agenda

I. Call to Order – Roll Call

II. Pledge of Allegiance

III. Executive Session: Pending Litigation and Acquisition of Real Property

A. Action Items Resulting from Executive Session (what action items??? don't you have TWO lawsuits against you? hmmmmm.....)

IV. Administrative Reports

V. Public Comment

VI. Adjournment

Dear Ed,
I truly wish your children well and hope they attend Nequa. I dread the thought of running into you at the school my children attend. I truly love our schools and have 5 children benefiting from them. Our oldest son will graduate in May and pursue a Medical career, can you believe that, from the school you look down your nose at? Wow, you must think I'm making this up. This next year, I will have 4 children in 4 different schools in the area you despise. Please make sure you do NOT come to my area. I don't want you in my schools.

Wasn't the land for the new HS formerly farmland? If it was ok to grow corn on that so called "toxic soil" why isn't it ok to have a building and parking lot on it?

And why hasn't the NSFOC checked into the safety of all our schools. I haven't seen anything on their website assuring me that all schools are safe. After all they are fighting for the safety and well being of all children.

Dear editor,
Please consider additional polls for the website:

Should the new site, demographic stats and costs for MV be put back out for a re-vote?

Do you feel confident in the current leadership of the School District and Board?

Do you feel the school board should have at least one teacher as a member?

Thanks for your consideration.

Heloooo Greg,

Point one on your lengthy blog ... it's an agricultural site not an industrial site. Take a drive by some time and be sure to note the residents of cabridge chase that back up to the property.

Point two: tell your buddies at NSFOC to stop suing themselves (and me) one less law suit to deal with:)

Point three: Hummmmm? 217,000 per acre or 560,000 per acre let's see...

As for personal adgenda I just want the school to be built so everyone will stop whining ... you know better to ask forgiveness than permission.

As for the vote you had two of them already! I voted no (twice)!

I am cracking up reading these posts. DrD responds and the public automatically believes what he is telling us? Fact is that we, including myself, believe what we wish to believe. This man is selling us a bunch of garbage! To see if to believe...talk is cheap and once I see reports for myself and the final amount of damages for BB, then I will have validity of what is true and what is false. Wake up 204.....the SB and Super are counting on our ignorance.

Dear M2,
If there is overwhelming support for the new school location and its such a fantastic bargain with no significant environmental issues and there is no way we'll pay more than the $3M in legal fees to walk away from BB then put it out for a vote.

If the SB is only doing whats best and the majority rules put this out for a vote.

If its voted in lets dismiss the lawsuit and move forward.

If you do not put this to a vote my read is that you know this is not the will of the people it is the will of the great and all knowing SB and accomplishes the SB agenda to do social re-engineering of the demographic to mask underperforming students. It appears to be a cop out to shuffle schools in order to "balance academic performance rather than do the right thing... provide the kids who need support to excel in their early years rather than waiting til high school and mixing them into the batter of a large school and blended demographic. Nice try but we see right through your lousy plan.

I saw the SUN article denying the NSFOC figures in the full page ad. I would say that the figures in the ad are perhaps a little low when you consider the real costs the of this Eola site....

BB Site $31 million (assuming BB lawyers will drop all charges/Yes)

Now the REAL Eola..

$16.5 million = Land cost before additional St. John AME land
$10.0 M = Additional 37 acres bought from AME
$ 3.0 M = Lawsuit cost (district agrees with estimate)
$17.0 M = Damages (per SUN news 3/17/08)
$ 1.2 M = Wetlands mitigation(per WA guide,but D204 never shared)
$10.0 M = Expedite Fee(only needed now because D204 did not buy BB)
$20.0 M = Remediation cost paid by taxpayers when full story is learned and MWGen is nowhere to be found and taking no liability - IN THE CONTRACT)
$24.0 M = Extra transportation costs over 20 yrs busing students to north and west to backfill in declining students in the north(including those students attending WVHS when the district closes the HS in next 5-10 years due to declining population - the excuse then).
-----
$101.7 million (plus or minus $20 million...if you like)

-----
$ 70.7 M (plus/minus 20 mil if you like)

Remember these figures!

The Votes have been made - we have no time for your petty behavior. We are all excited for the 3rd high school. We are thankful to the board for not paying the high retail cost of BB and finding a site more appropriate for the 3rd high school. Especially thankful to the school board for not being derailed by your "witch hunt". Thank goodness for a democracy, no calling for a second vote because you didn't like the outcome of the first.

Dear Greg,

Here, present and accounted for! Yes, I too question the validity of the time pressure. What exactly is going to happen in 2009 if the third high school is not finished?

Dear Go Dr. D.,

"EPA gives their stamp of approval ground WILL be broken at Eola. Why should the school board wait for the courts, what happens happens. Regardless we need a 3rd HS."

WOW! Are you sure you are willing to bet your tax dollars on another "sure bet" court decision by the school boards word? Are you willing to pay more money for a third high school at a site with some problems that need to be remediated?

If you really feel "what happens, happens" then there is no need to rush. The kids are fine, the schools are fine. We should wait for the judgement before we get into even hotter financial water.

I love the idea of more kids involved in extra curricular activities (that's why I lead one at a 204 school). I also love the idea of smaller student to teacher ratios. There are many ways these can be attained. Let's make sure we do this the right way and wait until we have all the facts. It appears ego's are involved and some pride may have to be swallowed to do the right thing for our entire school district.

Hey Greg,

We have what is called a 'representative form of government.' In that system, you dont get to vote on everything the government does -- that would be impractical. Instead, you 'elect' someone to represent your interests. In this case, that group of elected officials is called 'The School Board.'

Now for some issues (aside from who represents you), you DO get to vote. In this most recent instance, you had the opportunity to vote on something called a 'referendum.' It asked you to decide if you wanted a third high school.

Now this is where it gets complicated, so please pay attention. We didn't get to vote on the location of the school. That is something we left up to our representatives. All we said was 'I want a new school.' It is their job to find the best location, negotiate a price, hire the contractors, and ultimately buy the basketball hoops and desks and so on.

Of course we have the right to contact them and tell them our views on any issues we like. But at the end of the day, they are the ones who get to make the decisions. Those decisions probably wont please everybody. But if a 'majority' (that means more than half) dont like the decisions they make, then we have a simple remedy. We vote them out of office at the next election.

Hopefully that is clear to all of you. If it isnt, be sure and ask a question and I will be happy to explain it again and use smaller words. OK?

Forgot to add: Fire up the Dozers" the boats movin full steam ahead QUICKLY, before the BB danages come in the spring and the poop really hits the fans.... Interesting that FOUR board memebers come up for re-election as their terms expire in 2009....

More mudslinging. Looks like my 3 buddies from the other blog have moved onto this one. Hi guys/gals!!

Seems to me some of your comments sound desperate. All I am asking for is a confirmation that the majority supports the Eola site. Why does a sanctionned vote to confirm the majority wants to walk into this chooper blade scare you so? if it turns out the majority favor moving ahead with the Eola site, then you wont hear a peep out of me. I will still disagree with it, but I will live with decision of the voters as I will know the will of the voters has been honored. You already know that I do not agree with Eola for the following reasons:

1. Concerned about safety (lets see the environ reports and testing for all the chemicals including PCB's and all related chemicals commonly found on an indurstiral site such as this and ensure it can be cleanded up. Maybe this one is moot maybe not. My point is, lets find out BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD.

2. Potential future lawsuits/financial costs that would be BORNE by ALL D204 residents (I agree with a blogger above, in a perect world if we could contractually agree that only meta boundy residents would be responsible for any potential liability, that would satisfy me on this point.

3. 2nd Referendum "bait and switch" First ref failed, then SB did its homework and marketing and successfully got the swing vote to switch from No to Yes. This doesnt sit well with mme, I guess the lesson is do not trust anything this board says unless in is in a contract? or sorry that leads me to my next point BB....

4. BB: no, we dont want to negotiate (we are not good at that type of thing); we say "quick take" and also for good measure we will hit you with a condemation suit fezzeing your assets for 2+ years and we will pay the price the jury comes back with. WHAT? thats way too expensive, ok sorry we are walking away but we will pay your legal fees and flush some of our 91M surplus we are extracting out of our cash cows that live in D204. Opps, why is BB so mad at us, they are asking for damages for freezing their assets for two years and not allowing them to sell to the developers in the Boom for 600k an acre. No worries. lets move ahead with Eola BEFORE we know how much we have to pay. Sneak it by the taxpayers after the eola land is signed and closed on (that way there isnt much anyone can do, except pay more taxes or move)

The list goes on. We all have some level of personal agenda/desires in this thing. For some it is the overriding factor and blinnds them to reason. For others it is futher down on the list (but is always there). I have them, you have them. Not sure if you are willing to admit to that or not, I am willing.

Hence my call for a vote. I will live with the Decision either way. Will you? Sounds like you are not and hence the "desperate" comments etc. etc. you are just hoping and praying that the SB sneaks this one under the buzzer to protect whatever "agenda" you have in this.

This might help explain district 204 leadership behavior and deceits...will a current or former district 204 official be named....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-court-story,1,81976.htmlstory

Around that time, Levine said, he also helped Willett bus company buy its way into city school business. "They wanted contracts with the Chicago Board of Education to supply school buses," said Levine, adding that he took in hundreds of thousands of dollars and paid bribes on the company's behalf.

Thanks NSFOC for posting the pictures of the new HS site. It gives me a better picture how the school will be laid out. I'm so excited I feel like a kids at Christmas time. Can't wait for oepening day. Time to get working on the school song!

To Anonymous on March 19, 2008 3:40PM

I Voted "NO" and when the school board seats were up for election I voted against them being re-elected too!

The FACT is that this is NOT a site of "peaker” power plant - nice try again NSFOC very desperate

I can't wait to see 3 people outside of Tall Grass (especially during real estate open houses) holding signs saying "Power Lines Hurt Children!" I still don't know how the NSFOC can ask prospective homeowners to pay big bucks for the same environmental issues they raise about the Eola site.

To "little buddy" Anonymous.

I respect that you voted for the referendum for the short term reduction in taxes but the point made is a fair one. The Naperville Dist. #204 board seems to be confusing our requests for transparency, integrity and fiscal accountability with a “sense of entitlement”. Give us the facts before we vote and don't change the plans after we vote.

To GO NSFOC!! on March 19, 2008 3:40 PM

No, we should not "let the School Board spend our money willy nilly." We VOTED to let them have this money, remember?

If you want to hold the "School Board accountable" -- STOP RE-ELECTING THEM!

To Federal Advocate on March 19, 2008 4:18 PM:

I'm sorry, do try again, but there is no such provision in the "RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT". Please do at least a modest search before spouting nonsense.

Go to http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/laws-reg.htm#regs and show us this provision.

3 people holding signs? Todd, Greg, and??? a Brach/Brody attorney?

To: Federal Advocate

The remediated peaker plant may be on school property but it is not where the school will be built. In fact, this area won't even be accessable for years and be used as a storage area. The school will be hundreds of yards away. Nice try but I don't think your idea will work.

By GO NSFOC!! on March 19, 2008 3:40 PM

To: inside the minds.......

So by the jist of your comment. We the taxpayers should let the School Board spend our money willy nilly. Yep, just spend, spend, spend and NOT hold the School Board accountable.

No. I think we should sue them so we can pay for that too. That'll show 'em!!!!!

My kids are slated for MV and I'm 100% behind their findings and their work they have done. No we can't predict the future and what the court will hand down as far as damages. The Phase II reports haven't been released either and the IL EPA hasn't given their stamp of apporval. Having said that I know for a fact that once the Phase II studies are release and the IL EPA gives their stamp of approval ground WILL be broken at Eola. Why should the school board wait for the courts, what happens happens. Regardless we need a 3rd HS.

Hey this is wrong,

You can ask kids to sign on the dotted line but considering that most kids who would be entering MV, oh sorry the toxic dump as you call it, would be minors I don't think it would hold water in court so you might want to rephrase that to parents, leave the kids alone, geesh! As for all of the NSFOC supporters in the north we saw all three of them a few weeks ago standing on the Eola property with signs before they moved on to thier granola snack break and ended their protest with a canle light vigil and tree hugging for all. Looked like a rip roring good time but I had to take a pass, on my way to drag race with my V12 engine. Vrooom Vrooom I can hear the polar ice caps melting now. Eola is the least of my kids worries.

Under the RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT... former sites of Peaker Power plants cannot be turned into School site. Happy to report the Federal Government will rein in these clowns. What are the provisions of impeaching the school board? Perhaps when there is room on the court docket... Lisa Madigan can investigate who is getting the kickback Cash to make this happen? Illinois tradition you know.

Naperville ...excellent place to raise kids?? Oops! did you mean Healthy Kids?? sorry.... not here at this site.

To: inside the minds.......

So by the jist of your comment. We the taxpayers should let the School Board spend our money willy nilly. Yep, just spend, spend, spend and NOT hold the School Board accountable. Clearly you must not be a taxpayer of D204.

By the way, who do you think will pay for the mess the school board has got us into? Here's a guess and it is not MidwestGen!

It would be>>>>>>> US the TAXPAYERS!!

"Greg,
I told you to post a lot of times but use different NAMES. Don't post the SAME post twice with different names!! "We need to push the idea that we have LOTs of people from ALL over the district", "Geesh!"

"Sorry Todd""I got confused . There's so much to remember. It's hard to keep it all straight!"

This is in reponse to "interested" who mistakenly believes that only Aurora kids will attend MV at Eola and only parents that don't have children slated for MV are concerned with the site safety.

First, my kids are slated to attend MV and I can't yell loudly enough that this site needs more testing before we declare it safe! The site needs to be remediated before we begin construction and before we close and the title switches hands. Daeschner has been dodging the question: Will the rememdiation happen while kids are at the school? I don't believe a fence will adequately protect my children from the toxins during remediation. The toxins present in the soil are only one issue on a long list of environmental concerns with the site.

Secondly, please review the elementary schools slated to attend MV, because you are again mistaken if you think that the majority will be from Aurora:
Brookdale - Naperville
Longwood - Naperville
Cowlishaw - Naperville
Watts - Naperville
Brooks - Aurora
Young - Aurora
portions of Gombert and Owen at 83rd Street - Aurora

I am a 203 resident, but have been following the 204 issues for a few years now.

I see it as incredible that an elected group (the 204 School Board) can be so disingenuous and dishonest with their voters!

Why do I say this? The list is long and not-so-complex:

From the demographic data used to support the alleged need for a third high school (which is proven false every new school semester!), to the use of precious tax money for public relations firms and polls to manipulate voters to approve the referendum, to the 204 Board President’s self-described “bait and switch” of locations and boundaries, to the unbelievable surpluses being built ----- the 204 Board consistently ignores the base intellect of the voters and insults their sense of morals.

I understand that there are those out there who see them as some sort of heroes because they have taken on a thankless job. Hogwash!

They ran for the School Board knowing full well it is a tough job and historically folks who run for a school board OFTEN use it a s a stepping-stone to other offices (think Mr Cassioppi and the 203 Board for a very recent example).

The bottom line is that the 204 Board is dysfunctional, has severe internal problems among it’s members, and has an absolute lack of a grasp on the current realities of it’s venue.

I actually find that I agree with some of what is being said on this board by the extremists.......NSFOC is not only people from WE/TG.

Indeed...it includes people from all over the district........who voted NO on the referendum.

These two groups have found common cause. They also have one all-important common characteristic -- NEITHER of them feel the obligation being honest about their primary motives. WE/TG is about boundaries. Vote NO is about stopping/slowing the project.

--------------------------

one other point. would you morons quit saying that the Eola site is contaminated with 'PCPs'? It may yet prove to be contaminated, but it wont be with PCPs.....PCBs maybe......but not PCPs.

"PCP (phencyclidine) was developed in the 1950s as an intravenous anesthetic. Its use in humans was discontinued in 1965, because patients often became agitated, delusional, and irrational while recovering from its anesthetic effects." Hmmmmmm......perhaps the drinking water at the NSFOC HQ is contaminated with PCP???? Food for thought......

Politics, infighting tripped up Louisville
How Erie can avoid missteps Lousiville made in spending its GE grant money
http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080108/NEWS02/801080369/-1/NEWS02

Time Doesn’t Heal for JCTA
January 8th, 2008 by rick
http://thevillevoice.com/2008/01/08/time-doesnt-heal-for-school-board/

The 5.25 million needed to speed up construction is due to the due diligence the board was trying to attain by purchasing the BB site and if that number increases it is due to Todd Andrews his brood. The $6.4 million District 204 already spent to purchase 25 of the 80 acres of Brach-Brodie property originally selected as the site of Metea will be sold sell and will offset costs associated with the Eola land purchase.

Dear By inside the tainted minds of NSFOC (No school for our community) on March 19, 2008 2:21 PM

Umm....This blog is about the numbers released by Dr. D. You are on the wrong blog. And it's ok to disagree with someone. There's just no point to getting emotional and slinging mud, everyone just gets dirty.

I have read some excellent comments stating the school board should wait for all the hard numbers (BB) before purchasing the eola property. Or we may end up spending MORE to build a school in a LESS desirable location.

There is no reason this school must be opened by 2009. Please take a few minutes to send your comments directly to the 204 school board at board-members@ipsd.org.

Maybe the more appropriate question is should we build it at all?

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/opinions/letters/849614,6_4_NA19_LETTERS_S1.article

Actually, about 3 weekends back there were 3 people standing on the shoulder of Eola Road with signs that said

FREE TOXIC DIRT

I am surprised he entered "0" for the sum of damages, he should of at least entered "5mil" that he has budgeted. And he did not even mention any cost of purchasing 7 acres of wetlands that have to be purchased to replace the purchased wetlands at eola. Those are hard costs that exist and belong added in to the price of the eola final tally. I do not believe his numbers until I see those figures added in.

Again, those of you that try to turn NSFOC into all TG and WE thing are so wrong! Sure it started with a grass-roots effort in TG but trust that it doesn't end there. There are members that have signed up from all over the district. Beliee it or not, there are future MV parents that aren't ok with the Eola site. Do they publish their names for public ridicule? Of course not as they would be ostracized by many. Not everyone that is slated to go to a school at Eola thinks that environmental issues don't matter. That's a very foolish thing to assume. Believe it or not, there are NSFOC members that live in StoneBridge and they are NOT good with a toxic dump for a school site. I think there are many that just want to stay at Waubonsie and who can blame them? I'm with the suggestion of asking any future MVkids/parents to sign on the dotted line relinquishing future litigation. Who's signing up?

"By Former BP/Amoco Employee"
Todd, stop the role playing again! :)I sense a feeling of desperation among the NSFOC ranks. NSFOC insider, you were right on about these people's motives! You called it from the beginning! The legal fees increase by the hour and now the embarrassing full page ad chock full of inaccurate information! NOone will be sending children to an unsafe school.

Please recognize the NSFOC tactics. The lawsuit states build on BB or don't build a third school at all.

In other words, the whole "it's about the 'walking' distance to NV" at the beginning of their mess( but under BB wasn't Tallgrass going to MV..the new school...they weren't walkers then !?), turned into "It's about the environmental concerns at the new site" ...but.. "we're TOTALLY fine going to WV". "WE are concerned for other people's kids so we're going to file a lawsuit against the School Board, all of you, AND ourselves while we're at it...that'll teach this board about fiscal responsibility!"

Meanwhile BUILD AT BRACH BRODIE OR DON'T BUILD AT ALL!

Fast forward to.....okay the "Walker" method didn't work, the "environmental" method is not working either...let's see...we already tried traintracks...what else.. let's blame it all on the school board!!! We would rather have NO school for everybody (let's join forces with all of the "no" voters and anybody else who will give us money) than to have to send our kids to that other school... "Hey, I know! Let's put it up to a vote. WE can vote NO this time" Our kids will stay at NV and then we're OUTTA here!"

YEAH!!!!....let's focus the attention on "This is all the school board's fault. We had no choice but to SUE."

YEAH....I see your point....hmmmmmm

By Stop the Scoog Board: If your really slotted for Metea, please state your name - I doubt very mech there is anyone out there who would support the NSFOC unless they are slotted to go to Waubonsie. Remember this is a lawsuit they are filing for boundaries - not a concern to make certain the land is safe - which they are doing due diligence here as any healthy minded adult can see they are doing.

Everything that you wanted to know about peaker plants in Illinois is available here.

http://www.compliancepublishers.com/iec/IllinoisPeakers.pdf

I am SO TIRED of Naperville residence calling INDIAN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT "NAPERVILLE SCHOOLS"!! Look at the boundarys!! IPSD ARE NOT NAPERVILLE SCHOOLS, they are Aurora, Bolingbrook and Naperville Schools for one! Two - Your property values are NOT going down because your kids will go to WVHS either. I work with property values and several different school districts and in 20 years at my job have never seen property values fall because of school boundaries. All the highschools are good schools. The problem here is that NAPERVILLE people again are looking for status, and they have a problem with "their" school having an Aurora address....well too bad.

How about we put a sign outside Metea that reads, "Don't eat the dirt"

Would that make the Naperville Schools For Our Children happy?!

I wonder what the NSFOC would do if the District built on the BB site but kept the new proposed High School Boundaries?

Ron -
I don't think a 3 year contract for a Super is unusual. I think the length of his tenure also, though, has something to do with his age. I believe he is in his 60's and has already retired from another school district in KY. Last, but not least, it stands to reason that the board brought him in as an outsider (no past, no future) to ride rough shot over everyone in an attempt to manage what remains of this disgraceful referendum/boundary/new school debacle. Dr. Daeschner has brought with him from Kentucky quite a laundry list of lawsuits (it was printed on one of the blogs awhile back and I'm sure it's easy enough to find in the public domain), so maybe the board thought that experience would come in handy....one thing they got right, I guess.

little buddy - gilligan,

don't forget that some people voted for the second referendum because it restructured the bonds - lowering the short term property taxes. that's right, the referendum lowered the property taxes in the short term. it did spread the taxes out over more years but actually lowered the taxes during the life of the original 15 years of the previous bond. if anyone at nsfoc can prove that every swing vote was just to send the tall grass and white eagle kids to the new high school building, i'd be interested in seeing that data. i wanted the lower property taxes.

Did you know, according to the EPA, typical emissions from plants like the Eola “peaker” power plant contain CO2, N2O, Lead, SO2, Methane, Benzene, Acrolein, Acetaldehyde, Butadiene, Ethyl Benzene,
Formaldehyde, Naphthalene, PAH, Propylene Oxide, Toluene, and Xylenes; Typical oil-fired turbines at plants this “peaker” power plant could emit Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury,
Nickel and Selenium?

A sign on the peaker power plant gates reads “CONTAINS PCBs”.

I wouldn't go pheasant hunting on this property much less have kids running in the grass. Totally inappropriate site.

What are they smoking over there at 204 headquarters?

If we take a moment and set aside environment issues, cost concerns, and personal agendas there are three fundamental questions that need to be answered.
1. Whose money is this? (Undeniably, the taxpayers.)
2. Who is in charge of spending it wisely? (Undeniably, the School Board.)
3. What is the primary issue? (Undeniably the location of the proposed school site).

It's safe to say that most of the voting residents in Naperville bought their houses knowing (or at least thinking that they knew) where their children would be going to school. It influenced their decision to move to specific neighborhoods. The voters in Naperville District #204 were lead to believe that they were voting to increase their taxes in order to approve a school to be located at a specific location. After an earlier referendum failed, the School Board informally communicated the proposed location of the proposed school prior to the second, successful referendum. Had many voters known that the school would be located at a different location, or had they know that massive redistricting would be required, they may have voted against the referendum.

The School Board can't deny what was said leading up to the second School referendum. The right thing to do is to put the referendum to a re-vote and specifically state where the school will be located. The Eola road location needs to be approved by the voters, not by well connected land owners, lawyers, or personal feelings.

The School Board needs to do the right thing, tell us the facts, tell us where the school will be located and tell us how you intend to redistrict as a result of the proposed location. Then, and only then, will you have the right to spend the voters tax dollars.

You do realize that a lot of Waubonsie graduates are teachers at Neuqua.

Boy, the NSFOC folks are really going to be freaking out about the meeting scheduled for tommorrow. How dare the School Board move forward?

Hope they sign the contract so they can start building our new high school that we voted for.

Midwest Generation wasn't even trying to sell the Eola site until 204 came knocking? Why? They thought no one would want it!

"Hi, yes this is District 204, would you like to sell your PCB contaminated site on which you operated a peak plant with no pollution controls for 33 years. No, no we aren't with the government superfund, we are a school district and we would like to build a school on top of your contaminated soil and water. Oh, we can good a good deal on the land? We'll take it!"

Is it safe? Hardly.

http://www.nsfoc.org/pdf/notagoodplace8.pdf

To Stop the School Board on March 19, 2008 12:33 PM

"Parents from Brookdale, Longwood, Cowlishaw, Watts, Brooks, Young...if you are at all concerned...come to the next NSFOC meeting and introduce yourselves...we are here for you. "

Are the rest of the parents in D204 not invited? Do you know want to hear from us?

Sorry Dr D you have no credibility with us.

Unfortunately, you inherited a mess and are working for a SB that is not trusted by the community it represents. Its also suprising to me that with the continued blunders (read the BLOGs) for proof by this SB that they have NEVER once admitted they made mistakes. I am sickened by the way you and your administration (including the SB) are wasting our hard earned money and seemingly with no guilt.

I believe one of the tenants of the SB is that they must act in a fiscally responsible manner. My humble opinion is that you'd be hard pressed to prove that is occurring within our district. Therefore we as a community should demand you step down for breaking that contract with us.

I am not sure what you (dr D) did (or did not do) that resulted in you being released from Kentucky but based on your performance since arriving here my vote is that you're current contract is a terminal one.

The SB starting with MM should resign NOW and allow fresh blood to fix this mess. MM himself preaches that the residents/parents are not objective and are selfish in their opinions and that the SB members look for the greater good. Really? MM, have you read the email your fellow board member AT sent to the Springbrook community? THis is a joke and would be funnier if the consequences were not so serious.

I do not favor lawsuits to resolve issues but I applaud the NSFOC for at least attempting to challenge this team who is by each passing day becoming more of an embarassment as the leaders of our SD and SB.

Instead of trying to bring folks closer together, they are proceeding and ignoring the community they represent. I understand the board members are volunteers and may be working hard but the results are disgusting and this district needs new leaders and a team that the community can uniformly support.

I don't buy for a moment that the support from our Northern neighbors is sincere since you voted down the 06 referrendum but now are getting a school and so are behind the SB. Wake up folks. I don't buy it and the SB, SD and the rest of the district ought not to buy it either.

To Mark on March 19, 2008 11:50 AM: "Bottom line is that the School Board has shown they are continually wrong. After all this horrid handling of the situation not 1 board member has resigned. These people need to be made accountable for their actions. And only a court of law can do that."

Wrong. YOU (and me, and all the other residents of D204) could have made them accountable for their actions. WE HAD A VOTE. WE RE-ELECTED THESE PEOPLE. So who is really continually wrong -- is it the voters who keep voting for the school board and the referendum and the taxes? Who BELIEVED what POLITICIANS were peddling?

To "My kids are assigned to MV"...please come to the next NSFOC meeting.
We are well organized and will support you. We KNOW that there are many, many parents out there who are concerned about the site (we know because we have received your checks! Thank you!) ...and yet these blogs keep singling out 2 neighborhoods to convince themselves this is a "TG/WE thing".
Parents from Brookdale, Longwood, Cowlishaw, Watts, Brooks, Young...if you are at all concerned...come to the next NSFOC meeting and introduce yourselves...we are here for you.
Parents who are not concerned, who live in D203 or who are otherwise not convinced that this is a problem...good luck with that and we wish you nothing but the best.

Dr D. is Frustrated?

Here's my advice. Go back to Kentucky and don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. No wonder he got dumped by the SB down there.

He's frustrated! We have been dealing with the incompetence of district 204 leadership long before this "yes man" arrived.

So powerlines are safe to live under in Tall Grass but not for a school? And yet the residents of Tall Grass feel entitled to put their school choice/location above the rest of the district. I think the property owners of Tall Grass should hurry up and sell their homes before they spend anymore money promoting their view of the hazards of power lines.

Ed layer, I'm sorry you think the second drop in property value is due to the new boundaries. Maybe you should ask NSFOC to quit seeking publicity for their selfish lawsuit. The NSFOC is not only sueing themselves, they are doing everything they can to drive down property values for Tall Grass and White Eagle.

As a former D204 student I understand the need for another high school. I went to WVHS when NVHS was still being built, and was there when they made the switch over. Traffic within the halls was horrid. Maybe it's me, but I don't believe ANYTHING politicians (including School board members) say. All they do is feed Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. As Mark said, the first Referendum failed, along with the second. I think that major things need to change. We, as tax payers, need to tell the district to get their act together and settle this once and for all and get our students the education that they deserve.

>Thoughts...

The school board and administration are incompetent and change the story whenever it suits them.

They have no clue what they are going to owe on the BB property but are rushing ahead with a contaminated piece of property surrounded by high voltage power lines and railroad tracks.

What idiot would build a school on a piece of property with PCP contaminated soil and groundwater?

They were just begging to get sued.

The board needs to be replaced and the administration fired.

http://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=77

Apparently the full NSFOC Sun advertisement didn't get printed.

The last line was supposed to read:

"Ensuring that our children will NOT attend WVHS....... Priceless"

"I hear lots of people who are opposed to the new school asking for a new vote on the referendum because the location is unsafe and they are concerned for the children's safety. I think they are right, there should be a new vote, but the only people that should be allowed to cast a ballot are those whose children will go to Metea. After all, who would care more about the safety of the school than people sending their kids there".

How about adding language to the above vote that only residents within boundaries of Metea School will be liable for all future lawsuits regarding the unsafe conditions of the site.

YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. COMMON METEA RESIDENTS, LET US SEE HOW MANY OF YOU AGREE TO THE ABOVE.

This is in reponse to "interested" who mistakenly believes that only Aurora kids will attend MV at Eola and only parents that don't have children slated for MV are concerned with the site safety.

First, my kids are slated to attend MV and I can't yell loudly enough that this site needs more testing before we declare it safe! The site needs to be remediated before we begin construction and before we close and the title switches hands. Daeschner has been dodging the question: Will the rememdiation happen while kids are at the school? I don't believe a fence will adequately protect my children from the toxins during remediation. The toxins present in the soil are only one issue on a long list of environmental concerns with the site.

Secondly, please review the elementary schools slated to attend MV, because you are again mistaken if you think that the majority will be from Aurora:
Brookdale - Naperville
Longwood - Naperville
Cowlishaw - Naperville
Watts - Naperville
Brooks - Aurora
Young - Aurora
portions of Gombert and Owen at 83rd Street - Aurora

TO WV MOM;

Although I fail to see the relevance ....White Eagle subdivision is in BOTH AURORA AND NAPERVILLE. The entire subdivision has a Naperville address which was requested/obtained by the developer many years ago and which NO residents had a say in.

And I do agree with you ; District 204 is NOT a Naperville school district...it is for Aurora, Naperville, Bolingbrook, and Plainfield!

People please wake up!!!! How can you trust the SB after all the mistakes they have made with BB. You are kidding yourselves if you don't think that BB will get a lot of district 204 $$$ by walking away from BB. They will come back for damages and our arrogant SB will once again mess up. This is not a boundary issue!!!! This is about the mistakes and throwing away our tax money.

Bottom line is that the School Board has shown they are continually wrong. Let me say this again; they are continually wrong. Wait. It gets worse. They DO NOT admit when they are wrong and it costs us millions. Examples:

A) 1st referendum - failed (they were wrong)
B) 2nd referendum - failed (they were wrong, it would not have passed if they marketed Eola site. Period. So, what passed was BB land.)
C) lawsuit - failed, they were wrong. They said they would win, they failed miserably. Metzger's emails used in the lawsuit. What else do you need to determine that these board members are dangerous. And Dachner's job is based upon the Board members being happy with him.
D) Need for school different today then 4 years ago; no need now, enrollment will drop off

Wake up. After all this horrid handling of the situation not 1 board member has resigned. At some point they should stop doing things the way they think are right: its' only given us results that EVERYONE determined are inappropriate.

They've cost us millions of extra dollars in waste. And now they have decided to build a school where it's dangerous. Anyone who agrees with them must have some subjective view; like the fact they never were slated for a new school and now they are.

Keep it simple. Ask someone impartial and they'll say the same thing anyone does: these people need to be made accountable for their actions. And only a court of law can do that.

After all, just look at what the court did in BB. When there is an indpendent ruling, the sb looses. And that's because they are skewed in everything they do.

Facts are tough to argue.

To Democracy Advocate: Great post!!

Admin and SB should wait until we have the final damages in the spring that WE have to pay, and THEN evaluate our choices from a cost perspective. Problem is our SB/SD track record is horrible and I fear they will dive right in ONCE AGAIN without looking. If I didnt live in D204, I would say this is comical, but the laugh is on us; the taxpayers.

I donnt blame BB at all and I think they have a pretty good case. If someone didnt negotiate with me at all, and did quick take (hey we will pay what a jury decides, we dont want to talk to you!!) and then slapped me with a condem suit and tied up my assets for 2+ years THEN said NO and walked away; I would be a very unhappy person and would be fighting tooth and nail as well. I think the Jury sees this as well (puts themselves in the shoes of BB) which does not bode well for the District. SB should not be suprised with the jury decision of 518/acre or the upcoming damages for the land price differential between 05 and jan08. When you play hardball and try and run roughshot over everyone (the arrogance is mind numbing) sometimmes it comes right back at you. SB is finding out you cant bully everyone because eventually you will run into someone or some group that stands up to it.

A shame. We need to get our Admin/SB enrolled in a couple of negotiation classes and conflict resolution classes. Would sure help their handling of our D204 business (if they are still in their roles as they come up for re-election)

The School Board has given notice of a special meeting March 20th.

" FORMAL ACTION may will take place at this meeting"

What do you think this means? Are they going ahead with the AME site purchase? Are Phase I and Phase II studies going to be released?

Thoughts...

To everyone wondering what the Brach Brodie damages are for.

The valuation that the jury awarded Brach Brodie was $518/acre. The valuation date is the date the district filed suit - December, 2005. So they have a judge and jury agreed valuation of $518/acre in Dec. 2005.

To:

All Brach Brodie needs to do is have their same real estate appraisers do an appraisal as of January '07 - when the district abandoned the property. If the January '07 appraisal is less than $518/acre - there's your damage claim.

Brach Brodie was not allowed to sell their property from December, 2005 until January '07 due to the D204's condemnation suit. Actually I agree with them on this point - they probably could have sold that property (given it's residential) during the real estate boom and now they are stuck with it during a bust. And it's D204's fault for forcefully tying up their property in a lawsuit and then walking away from the purchase.

EXACTLY RIGHT....

Of course there is no precedent for the damages being sought against the District by BB, because governments do not back away from condemnation jury verdicts! Find me ONE sitution where a District's calculation was HALF of the fair market value (this does not happen when reasonable due diligence is employed). If you can find me that example, I would doubt that it occured in a market where real estate has tumbled like now (so there would be fees but no damages if the land appreciated in costs during the condemnation case).

There is NO QUESTION that BB will be entitled to damages (just is common sense based on the representations made by the District during the case). Will it be 20 million....I do not know (depends on what the appraisals say as suggested above). However, if our District is moving forward based on Dr. Daeschner's "expert opinion" that there will be no damages, this Board and District are even more irresponsible than NSFOC and others have given them credit for.

Thank you NSFOC for dedicating your time and effort to try to get answers as to "IS IT SAFE".

I like the fact that everyone who is against NSFOC can only comment on "Power Lines" in TG and WE and that they want to go to NV. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

First of all, for those of you who are misinformed TG and WE were NEVER going to NV in the first place they were going to MV and they were fine with it.

Second, there is support from around D204 and alot of it, not just TG and WE subdivisions. There may or may not be 100% from every subdivision but is there ever.

Third, Stop looking up at the power lines like the school board would like you to do and start "LOOKING BELOW YOUR FEET"! That is where the REAL problem lies. If your child spends 7 or more hours a day on contaminated property YOUR CHILD WILL BE EFFECTED.

The ground could be serouisly contaminated and you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend otherwise. How many of you who are for the Eola site actually will have kids attending the school?

If so, Why wouldn't you want answers as to "IS IT SAFE!!"

If the NSFOC is trying to make sure that a child will not become seriously ill or die because ground contamination then we should be thankful.

I feel sorry for those of you who are so short sighted that your jealousy for TG and WE rage through your blogs and no I am not from either subdivision. This is not about TG and WE it is about the KIDS coming first something our school board has elected not to do.

I would like the school board to slow down and wait. What's the rush? Usually, you have something to hide when your in that much of a hurry.

I hear lots of people who are opposed to the new school asking for a new vote on the referendum because the location is unsafe and they are concerned for the children's safety. I think they are right, there should be a new vote, but the only people that should be allowed to cast a ballot are those whose children will go to Metea. After all, who would care more about the safety of the school than people sending their kids there. As a parent who will be sending my children to Metea, I can assure you I am not the least bit concerned about their safety. In many conversations with my neighbors, I do not beleive any of them are concerned either. I do appreciate my neighbors from the south showing their concern for my kids, but please know us Aurora people can take care of our kids if we thought it necessary.

Paul W. no I wouldn't build my house around power lines and RR tracks. That's why I DON'T live in WE & Tall Grass.

Quote from sunnews:

But from there down, "it's a whole different ballgame," he said.

My children are not effected by the boundary issues in any way, but, my family is effected by our tax dollars being wasted and our quality of life has changed when our community is in the midst of an US versus THEM mentality in a redistricting fight. We have already lost. Now let's look at HOW MUCH versus HOW MUCH MORE? Naperville sun March 19th page 6 'comparing pricing.' Where are the (any) estimated figures in the BB column regarding LS costs & damages? We need to be realistic here people, we didn't think the jury would come back with the #'s they did. So we need to know how much it is really going to cost to pull out of BB.. Bottom line, everything included. To pull out of BB after we sell back the 22 acres we already own. How much will we be ahead or in the hole????? I don't think we can make an educated decision on whether or not to abandon BB. What will the judge/jury award BB in damages/revenue loss. At best we are hedging a bet.
THE NEW SITE: The only thing that concerns me about the new site is the possibility of long term contamination problems. Any future problems with the site will become our (taxpayer) problem. Midwest Generation does cleanup now, EPA says good job, MG take their money and say, see ya. Will there be more contamination? Obviously, the Board, before they had all the information, felt it was worth the risk. What we All, School Board included, need to do is stop, slow down and carefully review all the information. As of today we don't have all the information. Are we saving $17mil - $3mil or are we minus $1mil? I don’t have a crystal ball. I can’t make a decision because I DON’T KNOW.

Higher taxes, a supposed dangerous school site, a supposed incompetent board?

These are all choices here?

Move!!

Several years ago the SB made the decision to travel down this dark and murky road. The SB hand picked and selected the consultants and gave them their marching orders for the study to justify the need for a fourth HS. Since then the SB has put more spin on this issue than a Washington politician.

And now the SB is upset about a group who would dare spin the "truth" in the opposite direction? Give me a break. Spin is spin. Most of us are smart enough to realize that people on both sides of this issue are going to do their very best to try to convince us that they are right or to otherwise manipulate us into agreeing with their perspective. Somewhere our own intelligence needs to kick in and we need to be responsible for our own conclusions and decisions.

Maybe, just maybe we should go back to square one and start again from the beginning. How many HS students do we need to educate? Were the earlier projections accurate or inaccurate? Is there a bubble or not? What is the most cost effective way to educate these students at present and for the future? Would a reasonable solution be to build additional space and student capacity at all 3 of our existing HS's? Or do we really need a fourth HS? If we agree that a fourth HS is truly needed then what should it look like? How many acres are really needed? If we are buying more than what is needed what can be done to economically dispose of the surplus acreage? How big of a footprint... i.e. one story vs multi-story building? What kinds of amenities... swimming pools, field house, stadium, auditorium, practice fields? Parking lots or parking decks... for how many cars? What kind of interior finishes? Environmental friendly? Energy conservation? Building life cyle?

These are all important questions that speak to what we will get for our tax dollars and most everyone voted for or against the original and second referendum without knowing the answers to the vast majority of these questions.

Maybe, just maybe, before all of us have "buyers remorse" we should learn what the answers to all of these questions? The best decisions are made based upon fact, not emotion. Right now this entire issue is totally fueled by emotion. In so doing the whole concept of need vs. want has been turned upside down. A lot of folks want certain things that tend to be more self-serving than anything else. Let's all step back a few feet and see if we can agree on the facts and what we really need. Life is a compromise and we all should realize that the needs are what are most important. Want are great, but we don't always get what we want.

Our School District in Court:
You see your honor, we're sorry we can't pay the jury verdict for the Brach Brodie property. It's just too much money. We're so very sorry we kept their land tied up for 2.5 years, but we don't think we should have to pay any damages because of that. Clearly we don't have the money. We only have a $91 million surplus.

By Anonymous on March 19, 2008 8:44 AM
He should resign as should the entire school board. The are incompetent and have mislead the public evey step of the way.

My response

The NSFOC should resign as should everyone involved with them. They are incompetent and have mislead the public evey step of the way.

To WV Mom:

The southern part of WE, basically south of a line extending from 87th street was added to the City of Naperville under ordinances #93-200 and 95-64.

So it appears Dr. Daeschner is now selling us on the fact his calculation show that the Eola/Molitor parcel is cheaper. Before, the sales pitch was that we can't afford Brach Brodie and must walk away.

Turns out we are sitting on $91 million and now know that we indeed can afford Brach Brodie.

Here's the biggest problem with telling us that the reason for the site switch is due to the cost differential. We all knew Brach Brodie was more expensive before the referendum. The district's now infamous site selection report pointed it out more than 2 years ago: "The only obvious downside of the [Brach-Brodie] parcel is that the land cost would be relatively high."

So now Dr. Daeschner has torn this district apart to save a few bucks in the short term when the voters agreed that the more expensive property was a better long term solution. Add to that flawed assumptions regarding the real cost of walking away from Brach Brodie as well as the health and safety concerns surrounding Eola/Molitor and it's not even going to be cheaper in the short term.

Let's see, the district told us we would get the land for under $300,000 per acre, and they were so sure about this that they walked away from an early offer by BB to sell us the land for $420,000/acre. So we spend countless millions on feeble lawyers, and end up with an order to pay over $518,000/acre. Brilliant.

Now Dr. D "believes" that there won't be any walk away costs at BB, and is working full speed ahead to further obligate the taxpayers money without having all the facts in from BB. God forbid they're as right as they were last time. And to top it all off, he's annoyed by all the "misinformation" out there. Gee, maybe that's because he shut down all opportunity for community discussion of this issue. People are forced to discuss it in their own communities passing along the best information they can gather independently.

And speaking of misinformation, how about the pack of lies we've been fed all along by the school board? Freshman campuses would be all we would ever need, vote yes for the referendum and we promise to build on BB we have the money even for the top end, no problem getting the land for our price, don't worry we'll get quick take - we spent more of your money on lobbyists to insure it, We have eliminated the Eola property from consideration due to probility to certainty of EMF problems, Oh wait a minute forget what we told you last year it's fine after all trust us, there is only one pipeline on the property, oh did we forget about the other two? sorry.

PLEASE. Dr. D is only getting some of his own medicine - spread misinformation to get what you want.

By WV Mom on March 19, 2008 9:36 AM
Ed,
First of all, White Eagle is in the Aurora City limits, not Naperville.

To WV Mom and everyone else: The south portion of WE, basically south of 87th street line is in the City of Naperville.

Ed showed that this is all about his children going to NVHS.

It doesn't matter if the on time bonuses are $5m or $10m. They apply to either site - Eola and BB. NSFOC pretended that they apply only to Eola.

If you read between the lines, the price differential between the two properties will all boil down to the settlement. If it is zero, as the district claims, then Eola-Molitor is $17mn cheaper. On the other hand, if it is $17mn, then the price of the two pieces of land is the same, with the Brach-Brodie site having less environmental problems and less community relationship problems since it was the site presented during the ballot period.

I hope everyone understands that the district has to say publicly that it thinks it will 'win' the damage claim by not having to pay anything. That is completely unrealistic, but they'd be killing their own case to say anything different.

The Brach-Brodie lawyers probably went for a damage amount that would make the district indifferent between the two choices. That is a smart legal tactic on their part. Can they really get that? Who knows, but they got pretty much everything they wanted in the first phase of the trial, while the district somehow thought a piece of land would cost half of what the jury determined. Given that this is going back to the same court, I have to think the Brach Brodie people have the upper hand.

This story points out that there is no precedent for a settlement like this. That does not mean that the district will likely not have to pay anything. There is no precedent because government bodies that condemn property don't normally back out. I've never heard of a government backing out of a condemnation case.

What normally happens in a condemnation is that the government body offers 90% of market, the land owner and attorneys ask for 125%. An eventual out-of-court settlement or in-court settlement results in the land being sold to the government for 100-110% of market value at the time the condemnation proceeding started. Normally land prices go up during the condemnation proceeding. That is the first aspect of this particular case that is unusual because in this case land prices have clearly gone down. The second unusual aspect is the fact that the jury didn't find a value in the middle--it sided with the landowner, which suggests that the district's offer wasn't legitimate in the first place. But the fact that the district backed away and didn't purchase the land once the jury ruled is by far the most unusual aspect of the case.

This case has the makings of a Supreme Court classic. Can a government entity make a lowball offer for a property and tie it up in a condemnation proceeding for years, thereby preventing the landowner from either selling or developing her land, and then walk away without penalty? That is the issue at question. I have to believe that the decision will be appealed several times, regardless of how it comes down, because it will set a potentially important precedent. Is the district prepared to pay all of those legal fees? Is that what we the taxpayers would want the district to do with our money?

The NSFOC is right when it says the district would be advised to slow down and not purchase the Eola-Molitor site. I'm sorry Dr. Daeschner, but there is a lot of evidence that the district is a lot better at public relations than due diligence. Can you imagine IPSD-204 buying an environmentally damaged site and then having a court rule that it has to either build on the Brach-Brodie site or pay the Brach-Brodie trusts the whole $17mn savings? That would be as stupid as offering $250/acre for land that is obviously worth over $500/acre. Oh wait, the district did that. Buying the Eola-Molitor site now would be as short sighted as overestimating HS enrollment by 900 students and elementary enrollment by 2000 students in data released just prior to a referendum. Oh wait, IPSD-204 did that. Buying the Eola-Molitor site now would be as stupid as not putting in A/C when a building is built and then telling residents that the district would be happy to raise taxes and retro-fit the schools at 7 times the cost of putting it in at construction time. Oh wait, the IPSD-204 did that too.

If you read between the lines, the price differential between the two properties will all boil down to the settlement. If it is zero, as the district claims, then Eola-Molitor is $17mn cheaper. On the other hand, if it is $17mn, then the price of the two pieces of land is the same, with the Brach-Brodie site having less environmental problems and less community relationship problems since it was the site presented during the ballot period.

I hope everyone understands that the district has to say publicly that it thinks it will 'win' the damage claim by not having to pay anything. That is completely unrealistic, but they'd be killing their own case to say anything different.

The Brach-Brodie lawyers probably went for a damage amount that would make the district indifferent between the two choices. That is a smart legal tactic on their part. Can they really get that? Who knows, but they got pretty much everything they wanted in the first phase of the trial, while the district somehow thought a piece of land would cost half of what the jury determined. Given that this is going back to the same court, I have to think the Brach Brodie people have the upper hand.

This story points out that there is no precedent for a settlement like this. That does not mean that the district will likely not have to pay anything. There is no precedent because government bodies that condemn property don't normally back out. I've never heard of a government backing out of a condemnation case.

What normally happens in a condemnation is that the government body offers 90% of market, the land owner and attorneys ask for 125%. An eventual out-of-court settlement or in-court settlement results in the land being sold to the government for 100-110% of market value at the time the condemnation proceeding started. Normally land prices go up during the condemnation proceeding. That is the first aspect of this particular case that is unusual because in this case land prices have clearly gone down. The second unusual aspect is the fact that the jury didn't find a value in the middle--it sided with the landowner, which suggests that the district's offer wasn't legitimate in the first place. But the fact that the district backed away and didn't purchase the land once the jury ruled is by far the most unusual aspect of the case.

This case has the makings of a Supreme Court classic. Can a government entity make a lowball offer for a property and tie it up in a condemnation proceeding for years, thereby preventing the landowner from either selling or developing her land, and then walk away without penalty? That is the issue at question. I have to believe that the decision will be appealed several times, regardless of how it comes down, because it will set a potentially important precedent. Is the district prepared to pay all of those legal fees? Is that what we the taxpayers would want the district to do with our money?

The NSFOC is right when it says the district would be advised to slow down and not purchase the Eola-Molitor site. I'm sorry Dr. Daeschner, but there is a lot of evidence that the district is a lot better at public relations than due diligence. Can you imagine IPSD-204 buying an environmentally damaged site and then having a court rule that it has to either build on the Brach-Brodie site or pay the Brach-Brodie trusts the whole $17mn savings? That would be as stupid as offering $250/acre for land that is obviously worth over $500/acre. Oh wait, the district did that. Buying the Eola-Molitor site now would be as short sighted as overestimating HS enrollment by 900 students and elementary enrollment by 2000 students in data released just prior to a referendum. Oh wait, IPSD-204 did that. Buying the Eola-Molitor site now would be as stupid as not putting in A/C when a building is built and then telling residents that the district would be happy to raise taxes and retro-fit the schools at 7 times the cost of putting it in at construction time. Oh wait, the IPSD-204 did that too.

To Paul W.

"Would you build your house on a piece of property surrounded by high voltage power lines and railroad tracks?"

I live in Oahurst North and although my house is probably 300 yards away and protected by a large hill I'm much closer to BNSF railroad tracks and those are much larger then the E&J tracks which is 1 track. MVHS will be at least 600 yards from those tracks. As far as the high voltage line I believe TG and WE residents are closer to high voltage lines then MVHS would be. MVHS would be close to 300 yards from the high voltage lines. Have you driven to the Eola site and/or looked at the proposed site, there is no danger, no more then Cambridge Chase (neighborhood on Eola, WE or TG.

"How about one which you knew to be contaminated and required a superfund clean-up? How about PCP contamination, would that be a problem?"

Contaminated with what? Have you seen the Phase II reports? The only thing so far they have found is diesel and that is limited. PCP? Has this been shown in an area in which will be used by the school? Please explain to me where you're getting your information, I'm curious?

"Now throw in high pressure gas and hazardous pipelines running under the middle and all around your new piece of property?"

High pressure gas? Yep, that pipeline is about 200 yards from the school (2 football fields). Also know that there are about 12 other schools in the Chicago land area that are actually close to a gas pipeline then MVHS will be.

Hazardous pipelines? Please explain to me what is hazardous? Natural gas is not hazardous. There is a pipeline down the middle of the property which is gas and 200 yards from the school. There are other pipelines to the east which are even farther away.

Please Paul get your facts straight.

Why construct a High School on property having several large diameter DOT Hazardous/Flammable pipelines running through it, having major industrial electrical power lines adjacent to it, and having potential long term safety/environmental concerns resulting from a heavy industrial plant still on the property? Wouldn’t anyone of these unsafe conditions by itself be enough not to purchase such a site? Wouldn’t all three combined together suggest even greater safety risks? Can you imagine all the governmental required warning signs that may need to be posted on the property telling children and parents to avoid flammable, environmental and electrical dangers? We all know that some forms of construction can occur within 25 to 100 feet of pipelines. Do you honestly believe this standard should also be applied to school children? Do you think evacuation thousands of children would be easy should an explosion or fire occur. Why take the chance? I’ve been to the property and its worse than I thought. Does someone really believe it's possible to adequately mitigate away these safety risks?

Our Naperville children and the Naperville/Aurora communities deserve better. I’m surprised a local newspaper hasn’t printed an editorial illustration depicting Naperville/Aurora as a towns willing to school its children on property with such risky conditions.

Ed,
First of all, White Eagle is in the Aurora City limits, not Naperville. District 204 is not a Naperville school district, it is a district that serves Aurora, Naperville, and Bolingbrook.

One reason we built a home with the builder we used was that they were honest to people about the chances of schools being switched at some point. They pointed out that 204 was a constantly changing district and boundary changes were inevitable and could impact anyone moving into the district at any time. Unfortunately, many builders will sell homes based on the schools they believe that the kids will attend rather than the fact that it could change. We purposely chose not to utilize a builder who in their talk with us said that our kids would be able to attend a school on land in the subdivision. At that point they could not guarantee that a school would ever be built on that site. You have obviously lived in 204 for a while, you should have known that nothing is written in stone with boundaries here. If your builder guaranteed that your kids would attend specific schools, you should take the issue up with them.

Keep in mind Dr. Daeschner chose to move his family into a home where his daughters could attend WV. His junior is at WV while his senior is at the Frontier Campus. Both will be out of school before Metea opens.

Looks like a big announcement tomorrow night at a special Board meeting (about acquisition of land). Are they finally going to close on land. Anyone have any insight??

I guess with "Neighborhood Schools for Our Children" launching of their first ad on page 39 of the Naperville Sun, a tactic was stolen from the Napergate Man's book of ideas to beat the system. Not so simple!

Unfortunately, unlike the Napergate Man, the NSFOC did not do their homework. They were taken apart at the seams and had their credibility shattered by the Superintendent of 204, as soon as the full page ad was published. The Napergate Man always did his homework and his information, data and numbers eventually held up. He reviewed what he wrote and had others vet it out for accuracy!

Forgetting that the BB property actually cost 31 million plus 6.4 million or 37.4 million showed that the NSFOC did not do their homework on its first attempt to mimic the Napergate Man.

Conveniently forgetting the expediated expenses resulting in overtime, apply to both sites equally, was misinformation that also led to a massive failure of credibility.

Doubling the cost of the expediated expenses to speed up construction from 5 million to 10 million was also a ridiculous fairy tale!

Assuming District 204 was going to lose its litigation before it is even launched, is yet another flaw in NSFOC analysis.

Full page ads do not work automatically. They have to be credible. That is why the Napergate Series of Ads worked. They were credible!

I advise and recommend Neighborhood Schools for Our Children attempt to regroup and restart all over again. They need to try it again and understand ads don't work unless they are truthful, credible and sensical. If you are going to copy the Napergate Man mimic him all the way and be CREDIBLE or you will LOSE!

Does the NSFOC really believe they can publish whatever they want in print and on the web and actually believe that the general public won't see through the B.S.? I hope the taxpayers of 204 have the legal right to counter sue NSFOC for all expenses incurred by their temper tantrum.

Breath deep the gathering gloom or if you at the Eola site, the PCPs.

Would you build your house on a piece of property surrounded by high voltage power lines and railroad tracks? How about one which you knew to be contaminated and required a superfund clean-up? How about PCP contamination, would that be a problem? Now throw in high pressure gas and hazardous pipelines running under the middle and all around your new piece of property?

Would you build your house on such a piece of property? Of course, you wouldn't.

Then why in the world would be build a school on such a site?

He should resign as should the entire school board. The are incompetent and have mislead the public evey step of the way.

So the decision to continue with the purchase of EOLA is based on the fact that Dr. Daeschner does not forsee damages from BB (despite an ongoing lawsuit where the Sun reported over 20 million dollars is being sought)?

If I recall correctly, the District did not "forsee" having to pay more than $275,000 per acre for BB (the actual cost is $520,000 per acre, ALMOST TWO TIMES what the District "forsaw").

Not feeling much better about things. Not only do we have multiple boundaries and mutliple referenda, we will now most likely pay (at least partially)for two high school sites.

Not how I want others spending my taxpayer money.

I can see his point about that ad. It appears that the ad was not truthful and in my opinion hurt NSFOC.
Also why does Dr. D only have a three year contract with the school district?

Thank You Dr. Stephen Daeschner!!! It's about time someone set NSFOC straight. As a school district I wonder why you would even waste your time with a group like the NSFOC and countering their wrong calculations and misinformation. Truth is no one knows what the court will hand down but in all unlikelyhood they won't require the IPSD to purchase the BB land, there is no precedent for that. Take one look at the NSFOC's web site and anyone educated on this issue can see how the NSFOC twists the truth and raise issues on things that have either been answered or addressed in the past. It's is their way of pushing ahead or scaring residents in regards to their frivolous agenda.

Your hard work along with our school board and the long hours you've spent on this project will be well worth it for the whole IPSD. Unfortunately, we still have and will continue to have upset neighbohrs because things didn't go the way "they" wanted. In time hopefully those residents will move on as well and make the best of their situation. I hope they can.

I look forward to the Phase II studies and breaking ground in April.

The only way to know if the BB costs are accurate (as provided by Dr. D.) is to wait until the ruling on BB damages is made. To proceed with the Eola purchase without knowing that piece to the puzzle is reckless!

Our school board and their attorneys have a history of mis-reading court rulings. We were shocked by the jury verdict on the BB land, lets not get shocked again by a huge BB damage award!

I urge the Eola supporters to not make the same mistake many people made in relying on and believing the words of MM regarding how sure he was that the jury verdict would be in the districts favor on BB. History has proven that the judgment of our school board should be in question.

Regardless of which site the school is built on I am confident my kids will receive an excellent education in this district. What I am not confident about are the decisions that need to be made by our school board to ensure a fiscally responsible use of my taxdollars.

Thank You IPSD!!!!!

End of that argument NSFOC? You're putting out "half truths", or worse yet, completely incorrect information to gain support for your group. Apparently the only way you can do it is to exaggerate costs in your ad and create hysteria over "safety" issues - which will soon be debunked if not completely thrown out of court.

Face it. We all know what you're REALLY concerned about is BOUNDARIES. Stop the charade.

How come there is no mention of redistricting? my wife and I moved to Heatherstone 2 years ago because we wanted our kids ( now at White Eagle) to attend good schools. The price of our home reflected our kids being in district to eventually attend Nequa or Metea. Then, against the dictates of the referendum, the district boundaries change and our kids are slated to attend the very schools that we moved away from. Our home value dropped once due to the real estate bust. After the district announcement, it dropped again. We do not have the money to send our kids to private school and cannot afford to move. Is this what out astronomical property taxes are for? To give District 204 a huge surplus so they can save some money by placing kids at risk at a site that cleary presents environmental risks and breaking faith with many other families ( White Eagle, Tall Grass) by placing their children in schools that are ranked far far below the schools that they thought they were paying for? Is this how Naperville takes care of its own?

I would like to hear what Mr. Daeschner would have to say about saving money if his family were placed in the same situation as ours.

So Dr. Daechner is frustrated? Wow, now that is something. Maybe he might be getting some of the same slop he is feeding to the district? As far as I can see, with all the "we believe" in the disricts budget comments, what makes the ad any less credible?
Here are some bits that the district will not say or comment on:

1. They have under priced the cost to clear up the wetlands issue in their budget by using best case numbers. That number will likely go up.
2. The mitigation cost for the Mid Gem clean up will likely go up, up, up. If the enviromental report back on this property were good, Dr. Daechner and Metzger would be doing a Kentucky 2-step in celebration. As these things go, the site is fixable but at a price. They say that the district will not have to pay for clean up? As these things go, the seller will ask the district to help cover the cost of the added clean up or the sale will not be worth the sellers time. The helpless district, so far along in the project, will have no choice but to pay. Who cares....use some of the districts 91 million dollar surplus? Will that show in the Eola budget? Watch!
3. On time bonuses at 5 million? Folks that is just a start! This project has not even started? It will stay at 5 million when pigs fly. When the district realizes they are behind schedule, and there will be, money will be flying. The word out is that they are already tossing out bonuses like drunken sailors. It will continue and get worse. Watch!
4. "We believe there will be no damages on BB"? Currently, the 3 million is only for legal fees. A judge would not be studying this if there were not some damages. Even Metzger bragged that they have 5 million in their "budget". I guess the extra 2 million is not part of the Eola budget? Is it part of their 91 million dollar surplus from over taxation?
5. The sale of the currently owned BB property will offset the cost of Eola. Who really knows this as a certainty? It will not be if "the church" is sold the piece? Likely at a greatly reduced price? Part of a friends to the district sale? If that sale does not happen, what makes the district think they can sell the piece at what they paid for it? They are already betting that the BB piece should not be awarded any damges? Watch!
6. Oh yeah....trust what they say? These people also promised to their graves the BB piece. Fanned out to 25 communities promising the BB site, school, and boundries. How has that panned out?

Dr. Daeshner should not be shocked at what he is seeing and hearing. This is what he did in Louisville. Finally fed up, the Louisville district let him go. Now, regretably, he is our problem. An expensive problem. Watch!

It's about time the School District responded to these ridculous claims.

Again folks, there are no PROVEN environmental issues with the site besides a small section of land, that is easily remediated.

And, the math in that ad was laughable.

Good job Dr. D.

I think it's great that Dr. Daeschner finally responded publicly to some of these ridiculous claims by the NSFOC group. The ad in the SUN was yet another alarmist attempt by them. What was spelled out in your article today is the true estimated costs.