To North Site and Realist.

For the record we are a WV family moving to MV. We will miss WV and in the off chance the Neuqua Schools For Our Children folks win their sick lawsuit and MV is moved back to BB we will again be fine heading back to WV.

North Site, don't place your warped sense of values at my feet and expect me to behave the same way. I could give a you-know-what over what the exterior of the building looks like. The only bad thing about having to go back to WV is the loss of Jim Schmid and I don't think that's worth suing over.

We are fortunate enough to be able to choose (fincancially speaking)anywhere in district 204 (and 203 for that matter) in which to live. I would truly avoid Neuqua at all costs (Wuabonsie, Benet, North or Central would be the only choices for our children)-and that's not blowing any smoke.

Lets not beat up on the high schools.Families that have big doe or ones like mine trying to get 3 kids thru school and into college all have problems and concerns. I have seen great people from both sides of the fence. Sometimes when I read these blogs I get the feeling there is a deep seated anger towards certain geographic regions of the district. What I like to do is "Thank My Lucky Stars" every day. Have you given thanks to an educator today?

Curious & North Site is Wrong -

Trust me I don't and never want to have my kids go to NV. I chose to live in the northern part to avoid that at all cause. I've had the benefit to work in many SD and know well enough not to look at just the brick and mortar or the cars in the parking lot. There's more to educating a child than what you can even get out of a book.

WV has given my kids an excellent education and prepared them well for college. They learn(ed) about the true realities of life as well as math, science and reading. One day it could my kids' who is your kids boss or the next Bill Gates. Won't that be sweet!

I just wish you kids well in college. Hope their roommate isn't someone you wouldn't approve of because they don't have what you have...may even be a WV grad!!

To By Curious:

The reason the North is good with either WVHS or Metea is that (1)WVHS is what they had when they chose to buy their house or 2) Metea is what they would improve to ( with shorter transportation, newer facilities). Can't say that about the "unhappy" neighborhoods. They have a right to be unhappy and it doesn't help to pretend that the North neighborhoods are some sacrificial saints who aren't begging to go to NVHS.

Concerned --

No problem, I understand your point. I was agreeing to the earlier point that the northern part of the district is good with either WV or MV and that the southern part, IMHO, is Neuqua or nothing. I believe that's the real issue, everything else the NSFOC (which I believe to be the southern part of the district with a handful of northerners thrown in) is doing is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide this.

Just my opinion.

OMG!!! Did everyone realize that on NSFOC's website that now..."we are building on a site that is a former power generation plant and has 6 pipelines underneath."

6 PIPELINES UNDERNEATH!!!! OK NSFOC are you planting pipelines on the Eola site, hmmm, are you? You sneaky devils you!!! I thought there was only 1 to be concerned about and that is the Natural Gas pipeline that is 250ft away from the school and contains no hazardous material. Now there are 6??? When did this happen??? I also though there were some on the far eastern part of the property way over by the tain tracks that are over 2000 ft. away.

OK seriously NSFOC every day it's a new idea and now it's really starting to look like you're grasping for straws here and on top of that making information up.

I think it's time to walk away, walk away Mr. Collins, Mr. Andrews and NSFOC, while you still have very little dignity left!!!

To: Concerned

This is what Dr. D said to me and I'm paraphrasing. He's not an attorny and he wouldn't be surprised by anything. He's hoping that damages will be nothing but he wouldn't be surprised if there are damages. Regardless there will be a 3rd school built in the district. IPSD needs it, it was voted upon, and it will be built.

North and South huh? So then I'm guessing you have your confederate battle flag hanging outside of your house? Guess the South keeps trying to rise again.

To Curious:

Sorry about that, I did not consider the racial undertone. I didn't mean it that way. I just meant that it saddens me to think that some people view this as one of those "you're either with US, or you're with THEM" sort of situations. I think we would both agree that in reality all the people in the north don't go around hating all the people in the south (and vice versa) all day. I know I don't feel that way.

To Concerned.

Hadn't considered the Civil War reference. I do not want to go down the racial path you're proposing. Class warfare in this district is bad enough.

To Got My Shovel:

You say Dr. D "admitted to me personally that he's sure they will have to pay BB [damages]"? That's strange. He told the Naperville Sun YESTERDAY, as featured on the front page of their paper, that he thought damages would be $0. One of you -- either Dr. D or yourself -- is therefore lying. Which one is it?

And To Curious:

Your quote "And that, friends and neighbors of IPSD 204, is the difference between the North and the South." is about as 1861-ish as I'v ever heard. It's all black and white to you, eh?

I'm sure we will get hit with damages and attorney fees. However, it will still be less building on the Eola site. Dr. D admitted to me personally that he's sure they will have to pay BB. Regardless, the IPSD isn't waiting any longer and will break ground in April.

What you fail to realize is that the board has put more hours in this then any of us and has far more information then we do. However, with the way the district parents are acting they are now only releasing information as their attornys are advising them. Whild the SB was once open and forthcoming with everything they are now holding things more closer to the vest until it is time to release the information. The NSFOC forced the SB to act this way with their lawsuit.

You will see things move quite quickly when the Phase II results are released to the public, IL EPA signs off on things after MidwestGen approves remediation and land will be bought and digging will beging. Don't blink your eyes.

GO MUSTANGS!!!

To concerned,
Do you have any idea what was on your land before your house and the others around you were built? Do you know what kind of pesticides or chemicals are or were in your soil? Do you know what the EMF readings are in your house? Do you know the condition of the gas lines that are running under, around and into your house? For that matter, do we have this information for all of the schools in district 203 and 204?

Quite frankly, I'm feeling pretty good about all of the attention that the Eola site is getting. Whatever isn't clean will be by the time that school is built. Can we say the same about all of our homes and schools?

"Even if there was a re-vote what you fail to realize is that those that attended WVHS and are now going to attend MVHS at Eola don't care which school they attend. They loved WVHS and will be happy in the new MVHS."

Hear hear! I could not have said it better.

And that, friends and neighbors of IPSD 204, is the difference between the North and the South.

To "Got My Shovel":

When you say "Land will be purchased within the next week", how do you reckon this will all play out if the district subsequently gets hit with a $20 million damage/atty fee judgement to walk away from Brach Brodie?

Oh, but wait, the district told you that the damages will be $0. Therefore they must be $0, eh?

GO MUSTANGS!!

To Greg

"The Pro Eola folks would also have to live with the fact that they were in the minority if the vote comes back No for Eola."

First of all there won't be a "re-vote". Even if there was a re-vote what you fail to realize is that those that attended WVHS and are now going to attend MVHS at Eola don't care which school they attend. They loved WVHS and will be happy in the new MVHS.

Having said that the people that would come out in masses are those TG and WE group, or should I say NSFOC. Those are the parents that don't want their kids to attend WVHS. Correct me if I'm wrong but that is the group that say BB or nothing so that their kids could attend MVHS at the BB property.

So you see it wouldn't be a fair vote. The only way it would be a fair vote is if you polled only the familes that were slated to attend MVHS at the Eola site.

There will never be a "re-vote".

Open comment to D204 School Board and Superintendent:

If you have delayed releasing the results of the Phase II environmental report because you are attempting to work with the vendor to tweak, massage, downplay, or otherwise modify the results as originally presented to you by the vendor, then God help you.

Sorry if you think this is a rash thing to say. But when you say "the results will be here shortly and we'll be happy to share them with you", and then you say "there's been a slight delay, results coming shortly!", and then you say "we can't show them to you, but doggone it they look good!", and then you say NOTHING...you shouldn't be surprised when intelligent people in this community take notice.

I would tend to think that most inteligent human beings, when considering purchasing a piece of property would tend to run away as quickly as possible when they walk the property and encounter a sign which says "CAUTION CONTAINS PCBs". Oh, but wait, we're just entitled little snots. OK, go ahead and keep looking out for poor little shortsighted us.

1. Greg Forrest...There will be no "re-vote" or vote on the Eola property. I know this is something that you are really trying to push forward but I highly doubt that it will happen. If every minority group in the general public asked for a vote on every law our lawmakers made government would be even more of a mees it already is.

2. Phase II studies will be released tonight with no risks found. As for the diesel fuel found in the northeast that will be remediated by MidwestGen. The IL EPA will then approve the land for a school to be built.

3. Land will be purchased within the next week.

4. Ground will be broken in April. GO MUSTANGS!!!

anonymous march 19, 8:51PM,

can you please elaborate on your post. Did the Sb abondon the Midwest site and buy more of the church property? 26.5mil? BB was 31mil? Not much of a savings considering we will have to pay BB for damages.

Re: George Burdell & Greg Forrest,
Gentlemen it is pleasant to see two people that are not at the throats of others. I have differing opinions from yours but do understand many of your concerns. I too have had many concerns but rather than work with the nsfoc, I have chosen to go to the board meetings, care to join me? I hope you understand to take a vote at this time or in the near future would for all intensive purposes push the opening date of the new high school to 2010.
Gentlemen both of you may consider running for board members, as for me my skin will never be thick enough to take on a job of this magnitude. Good night.

Rumor has it that the school board has done a deal to purchase 37 more acres at AME ST. John for a total cost of $26.5 million and will announce this at the SB special meeting.

If so, there is still the issue about the 3 gas lines, and the fact that contamination at the site does not fall neatly within the fences per our board members. Please note that pipelines are a serious safety risk.

I found this link on the nsfoc site to a disaster that happened in the eastern US. Here's the link:
https://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82&Itemid=79

Hope the 204 taxpayers recognize the financial risk involved as well. There is another link attached about a hazardous environmental site (Over $260 million and no school in the end). Here's that link too:
https://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=77

This is NOT a couple of neighborhoods complaining...it is taxpayers trying to avoid a fiscal disaster down the road!

To Fred Rodgers: Thanks for the VOTE of confidence! (play on words since we both would like to see this get put up for a vote). Seems like there are quite a few of us in the "lets vote" camp! i hope the SB is listening!

To: George Burdell: yes its refershing that two adults can disagree on various points and while remaining civil annd respectful of each others point of view. I think we probably agree on more than we disagree on.

As for the 90 day freeze (i am assuming to gather the info, phase I/II, the BB final costs (before the ensuing appeal by our SB which will cost another 3 mill in payments to the BB lawyers etc. etc): My personal answer: I would definatley want to "suspend" the lawsuit as well (they freeze, we freeze). Perhaps we could get all relevant parties to the table and see if we can work ourselves out of this mess. If the SB were to propose this; I would be very vocal at the next NSFOC meeting that we should take that olive branch and also wait for more of the data to come in. (heck maybe we, the NSFOC, could vote on it?) If that "freeze" proposal comes from the SB, I will back that 100% at the next NSFOC meeting you can count on that. I am not a leader or insider (or whatever folks are calling them on the blogs) of the NSFOC, but I would make my feelings known in a big way.

Perhaps in that 90 day freeze, we could work on plans to get this on the ballot so we know (one way or the other) we have the support of the majority behind the Eola site. Again, I disagree with the Eola site on many levels (some due to safety, some on potential lawsuits/finacial risk in the future to be borne by all D204 long after this SB is gone, some due to my perception of "bait and switch" of the swing voters to move from No, to Yes in the #2 Ref, and yes, some personal reasons. I would venture a guess that EVERYONE on these blogs as some sort of personal attachment/agenda one way or the other, even if it is a minor consideration. I am sure the most extreme on both sides do not want to look in the mirror and admit that, but we all know it to be true.).

Bottom line (my opinion); if the Majority wants to walk into a Chopper blade (Eola) and its verified by the will of the voters in a sanctioned election; The NSFOC has to stand aside and recind the suit if thats what the vote durns out to be. The Pro Eola folks would also have to live with the fact that they were in the minority if the vote comes back No for Eola. Same criteria if SB tosses up BB for the vote if it turns out to be less expensive than EOla after the 20 mill estimated walk away fees/damages.

On your points regarding the high road and hysteria etc: I totally see your point and we can agree that both sides have pushed the envelope on a great many things. I wont list the many from NSFOCfraud site or my NSFOC camp; but to be sure select individuals in both camps have gotten out of hand from time to time. Ok I cant help it, the worst is posting google directions to someones house. Not sure what that indivudal was hoping would happen? Scary.

George, you are a most fair and even minded Man. Too bad you and I are not on the SB, perhaps together we could have helped our district to avoid the situation we are in today
have a good evening!!
GF

To Greg Forrest on March 19, 2008 10:43 AM

I'm glad we can agree to disagree civilly. These blogs don't really have the spirit of high-minded debate and I've let myself get dragged into the mudslinging and hyperbole.

I wonder if the SB said they would delay all action for, let's say 90 days on Eola/Molitor, would that be enough for NSFOC to drop its lawsuit? Has NSFOC made such an offer to School Board?

More of the 'high road' from NSFOC and less hysteria might win more people over. When I start seeing half-truths like leaving out the 'expedited fee" for building on Brach-Brodie (which may even be higher since it will take longer to close that deal), things like "Illinois children deserve California protecton" and the whole Belmont Learning Center discussion where they fail to mention the land was remediated and the school is opening in 2008, not demolished (although a portion was -- because it was on a fault line, not because of hazardous chemicals).

If NSFOC would stick to the facts and tone down the hype, they could have a lot more supporters. (And change the name, because it isn't about "neighborhood schools" any more. It's about "safety.fiscal responsibility. accountability.")

Here's a new one from the NSFOC website: "Glawe Wrong. D204 Children Deserve Same Protection Of California Law.
The Eola site should be disqualified from being the future Metea Valley High School site for the simple reason that it would be legally prohibited from being considered a school site in California. If it’s too dangerous for children in California, then it’s too dangerous for the children of IPSD 204. "

Six of the country's ten most polluted cities—Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Fresno–Madera, Visalia–Porterville, Merced, and Sacramento—are found in California. (Source: Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 115, Number 3, March 2007) So obviously we should all mimic them.

TO THE NSFOC: IF YOU WANT THIS TO BE THE LAW IN ILLINOIS, THEN TALK TO YOUR LAWMAKERS AND MAKE IT THE LAW. Otherwise, MOVE TO CALIFORNIA if you want this protection.

EVERY NSFOC supporter needs to stop driving their car RIGHT NOW because it violates California air pollution standards unless equipped with "California emissions". If these cars are too dangerous for children in California, then they are too dangerous for the children of IPSD 204.

To: Anonymous on March 19, 2008 11:41 AM

The Phase II studies will be released and the contamination will be shown to be very minimal of which MidwestGen will be taking care of. The IPSD is going ahead with the purchase of the land and ground will be broke in April. They are not waiting any longer for lawsuits or the BB costs.

To Anonymous on March 19, 2008 11:41 AM: "FORMAL ACTION may will take place at this meeting" What do you think this means?"

The school board is going to come out in tuxedos and ballgowns and do a dance number for us.

Gina,
Thanks for taking the time to post the report. I still have a copy of the report too. My recollection was that they were giving us a quick rundown as to why they thought BB might be the best site at the time. I think we can all agree they did everything they could to obtain that site. I voted for the third high school because I attended meetings that furthered my awareness of just how many kids are in this district and why the 3rd high school was justified. As they showed us pros and cons of potential properties I kept in mind these were very preliminary conclusions as no real testing had been done on any site yet ...for obvious reasons since we didn't have the money to own the land needed yet, let alone pay for soil samples,EMF readings, etc...that could just end up being moot anyway.
The part where they referenced ..."Board sees no advantage in constructing a third high school in such a location IF there is any possibility of abandonment for health reasons..." led me to think that why should we go through any extensive testing to ensure safety of a sight unless we need to? At that time they did think BB was going to be obtainable. Ironically, we don't know what we would find if we were to do similar testing at the BB site today. I have actually heard that someone very experienced with EMF testing showed higher readings on BB. Did you know that parcel is also surrounded by power lines that hang much closer to the ground? Depending on the gauge of the wire and voltage, you can actually get higher readings lines that aren't as large. Also, this was used as farmland and we know pesticides were used...but which ones?
The power plant is being taken out...fenced off until this is completed.

Just so there is some perspective on the video on the NSFOC site of the pipeline explosion in New Jersey.

This incident occurred 14 years ago. One resident of an apartment complex next door died of a heart attack. One person.

The probable cause was a gouge in the pipeline caused by excavation equipment. "Officials say the catastrophic damage was all caused by unsafe digging, likely done by a backhoe, that resulted in a 1 1/2-inch long by 1/5-inch deep hole in the pipe". At the time there was no "One Call" (in IL, known as "JULIE") service in place in New Jersey requiring an excavator to call to locate the pipeline and the pipeline company had no knowledge the digging had taken place.

There have been 27 reported national incidents to the NTSB since 1985 (about one per year). Of those involving natural gas pipelines, ALL of them were due to construction-related incidents and only the one in NJ was not due to current, on-going construction.

Natural gas pipelines are everywhere. They run through your yard to your home. The vast majority of times a pipeline is hit, it is not fatal. We just had one this week, in Naperville, on Plainfield-Naperville Road between 95th and 104st. No one was hurt. No one was evacuated.

Shame on Naperville Schools For Our Children for politicizing a dramatic event and blowing it (no pun intended) out of proportion to try to scare D204 residents.

Oh Anonymous at 11:whatever,

I see you have jumped topics but are still Californina Dreaming! Didn't your mother tell you that you shouldn't drink before 5:00? Besides once again just a reminder this is ILLINOIS not CALIFORNIA, I-L-L-I-N-O-I-S, come on say it with me, I'll go slow! California has more idiotic laws on the books than any state in the union, many of them based on pseudo-science and it's impact on envirnmental issues. Come on man, you would be riding a bike in Cali every day because the emmissions from your car would be over the legal limits in the great state of CA. Besides as I've said before their school system sucks, not one to emmulate.

Ask the Board about the wetlands...900K...I think not. Please do the research on what the law is in regards to wetlands (especially in regards to remediation).

You are not being told the truth....

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...

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 towns willing to school its children on property with such risky conditions.

Original comment from - if you wait long enough they'll do it to themselves... on March 18, 2008 7:45 PM wrote.........
Could everyone that thinks (including the folks that are suing us) that the Eola site was ruled out because of environmental issues,etc. PLEASE watch the board meeting recording from Jan. 22!! This site was NOT AVAILABLE in 2006 as the church was not willing to sell. Also, the power plant was still in operation thus it was not a viable option. It was never ruled out due to the "supposed" or "perceived" environmental issues that people are attempting to project onto it today.

response:
You are correct, the land was not available in 2006, OR NOW - the school board approached Midwest Generation with an offer of 5 million for their 37 acre portion this time. The district still has no contract on that land. (and may never obtain it). To purchase the AME portion without the 37 acres owned by Midwest Gen is a scary similarity to what they did with the 25 acres at Broch Brodie. Now we are stuck with that. I want to trust that our school board is acting on the communities best interests, but feel that the pace they are going is reckless.
Wait until our financial responsibilities to the BB site are determined by the court. Sell the 25 acres at BB or build a middle school on it as originally planned. Wait for the environmental reports in full on the eola site. Then weigh the options.
To explain the whole story (as we know it) read the site report.

I have included the whole original site report as information but read the exerts below.

The bottom section says wetlands would require abandonment of a site, and

“the proximity of potential electromagnetic radiation and the cost of land elsewhere make such a possibility unattractive.”

The original location of the Patterson Elementary school in sight

of electrical power lines caused uproar over the possibility that electromagnetic radiation might create health issues for the students, and the site was moved to its current location.

While the Patterson site created the possibility of exposure to electromagnetic radiation, the Eola/Molitor site is somewhere between a probability and a certainty for exposure to such radiation.
Although the scientists studying the question of whether such exposures do or do not create health concerns continue to disagree, the Board sees no advantage in constructing a third high school in such a location if there is any possibility of abandonment for health reasons.

I SAY IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS REGAURDING EMF SAFETY -WHY TAKE THAT CHANCE? 2 YEARS AGO OUR BOARD SAID THEY WERE NOT WILLING TO CHANCE IT - NOW THEY ARE?

WHAT CHANGED WITH THE WETLANDS? NOW WE ARE JUST GOING TO FENCE OFF A 17 ACRE AREA?

WHOLE SITE REPORT:
THE OPTIONS FOR A SITE
The Eola/Molitor parcel

This parcel is presently owned by the St. John’s African Methodist Episcopal Church.

Some have suggested that because the Church has traded parcels twice, they might be

open to selling the land to the school district and pursuing a different parcel elsewhere.

District representatives met with the Church Pastor to discuss the Church’s intentions for

the parcel. The Pastor reminded District representatives that in his meetings with them

previously, he had expressed the Church’s desire to build at this location. He reiterated

that the Church has no interest in selling the parcel, except at a price so high as to ensure

the District’s lack of interest. Part of the reason for the Church’s lack of interest in

selling stems from the fact that this parcel is now at the northern and western edges of the

area in which the Church’s members live. The Pastor (correctly, in our opinion) believes

that any replacement site would likely be substantially to the west, and therefore of

limited interest to the congregation.

The parcel is planned for residential purposes. The parcel is unplatted.

Location wise, this parcel is distant from the student population center of the School

District.

Utilities are all located adjacent to parcel.

The northeast parts of the site are immediately adjacent to two high energy electrical

switching substations. That means relatively high electromagnetic radiation would be

present at that location. The original location of the Patterson Elementary school in sight

of electrical power lines caused uproar over the possibility that electromagnetic radiation

might create health issues for the students, and the site was moved to its current location.

While the Patterson site created the possibility of exposure to electromagnetic radiation,

the Eola/Molitor site is somewhere between a probability and a certainty for exposure to

such radiation. Although the scientists studying the question of whether such exposures

do or do not create health concerns continue to disagree, the Board sees no advantage in

constructing a third high school in such a location if there is any possibility of

abandonment for health reasons.

The area is nearly fully improved. The District would incur moderate road and site

improvement costs related to the construction of a high school.

The buildable part of this site is just under 80 acres, but workable. There is no exposure

to a “damage to the remainder” claim.

Access is constrained only by the fact that Eola is a relatively congested road already.

The land is very flat.

There are limited wetlands issues on the easternmost part of the parcel.

- 10 -

This parcel falls within the Aurora planning area, with which the District has enjoyed

good working relationships in the past.

The price for a non-litigated acquisition of this parcel is, as noted above, deliberately at a

level to ensure a lack of interest in purchase. The Board is not entirely convinced that the

power of eminent domain (i.e., condemnation) extends to land owned by a church, but

even if it does, the Board anticipates that the jury in such a cause would look with

hostility on such a taking, making the price quite high.

There is the possibility of the School District acquiring a different parcel to trade with the

Church, but the location of this site, the proximity of potential electromagnetic radiation

and the cost of land elsewhere make such a possibility unattractive.

Wetlands

If a site includes wetlands, abatement would be required. The precise scope of what

constitutes wetlands is outside the scope of this report. It is sufficient to note that certain

areas in which water is nearly always present qualify for this status. If improving the

land requires removal or elimination of any area of wetlands, an equivalent amount of

wetlands must be established elsewhere. In large part, “abating” wetlands is the process

of securing alternate wetlands.

Beyond the environmental issues, the cost of constructing a proper base and foundation

for a building can be influenced by the presence of wetlands, which require different

degrees of effort to achieve the necessary soil compaction to support a building or

structure. To a small extent, abatement of wetlands is also concerned with the

construction difficulties such a situation can impose.

Overall, the nature and extent of the wetlands drives the cost of the necessary abatement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This is OUR district. Regaurdless of where we live we should all be working together. It takes a village to raise a child.....

There are no do overs. Didn't you learn that as a child?

Look at the national headlines. No do overs in Florida. Remember the Bartman ball, no do overs there either... etc.

Enough is enough.

To Gina Carlson: Well written and thought out Post!

To: By Numbers: I have seen many sets of numbers: all are estimates at this point and it is very difficult to know which estimates will be "closest to the Pin" in 2012 and beyond. I would imagine alot has to do on new new enrollment inflows (net new families moving into D204) and where the economy is at over the next few years.

To George P Burdell: Another great post!! (even though I disagree with parts)
1. The first referendum Failed.
2. Second ref passed based on the marketing and propaganda from the SB identifying the location/site of the new school and the estimated new boundries (successfully got the swing vote block to switch from No to Yes with providing this new information)

3. Third Vote: I can definately see your point especially if there was no second referendum with the additional details from the SB that allowed the 2nd to Pass. If it was 1st ref and a No, then the 3rd and a yes (no 2nd ref that totally muddied/minipulated the waters), I would say there would definately be another suit by some group in the North that wants the Eola site cleaned up/sanitized and a new school on top of it.

4. I agree with you SB does not need a Referendum for land purchase and boundries (unless that is how they "sold" it in to get the swing vote to swtich and get the 2nd ref to pass when others had failed to capture the money they needed. This is my opinion only). At the very least the SB went back on their "word" due to the costs of BB. However SB did not negotiate with BB, they did quick take and slapped them with a condem lawsuit to freeze their land assets for 2+ years. if someone Froze me out of my assets for 2+ years I would be hopping mad and I dont blame BB for fighting back (sounds like the Jury thought the same) Then SB decides the jury decision that they themselves called for was out of the budget and decide to walk away (still no negotiation or return calls to BB folks) and just pay whatever fees/damages come ouur way? I know they didnt preplan this, but it almost looks like they were hopinng the BB site would fall through so they would be unencumbered and could act with impunity on any new site and any new boundries which is what they wanted in the first Referendum. I dont beleive this "premeditated" theory, but I can see where people could infer this by the SB actions regarding BB.

Yes, we agree on most of the rest. We have gotten all parties backed into a corner. Someone else bloged about the possibility of getting all concerned parties in a room to hash this out OUTSIDE of the courtroom. Dont know if that is even in the realm of possibility, but it would be great to see.

Again great points you made: gives me something to mull over today on the dangers of yet another lawsuit if we go with another referendum to validate Eola and it fails.

This all may be moot: both sites may be over the budget depending on what the courts come back with later in the spring on the BB damages. Then there would be a 3rd ref anyways since both are out of budget and either that the SB choooses would need more funding unless they go back on their word yet again and dip into the 91M budget surplus to help fund capital project.

Ms. Carlson...

Very proud of your courage to express your opinion. Do not be dismayed by negative comments in that there are many of us (either quitely or otherwise) who support your message.

Thank you again.

Just as the above post stated that not everyone in WE supports the NSFOC, not everyone in TG supports the NSFOC. It appears that some in this district need to direct their anger over the situation at someone or in this case entire neighborhoods. It is unfair and I am sure if your neighborhood was constanly being attacked, you would be upset as well. There are many fine people in TG and WE just as there are in all of the District 204 Community.

How about we stop the name calling and try as a District to come up with a solution. I agree with Greg Forrest regarding putting this up for a formal vote. Both sides think they are the majority, but with what facts are they basing their assumptions? I think that is the only way to get past all of this unrest.

I also do not want the SB to close on the Eola property until we know the final outcome of BB. I have no faith in the SB's judgement at this time.

To Greg Forrest on March 18, 2008 6:31 PM:

The problem with a 'vote on eola as the 3rd HS location" is that NOT everyone will "live with that". Someone from up north, near Eola/Molitor, will file a lawsuit claiming the second vote was illegal because the first referendum was to fund a 3rd high school and was not for a location. (I am not agreeing with this stance, but I'm sure you could see the logic that would be used -- it's essentially the opposite of the NSFOC argument). So they will say you can't have two referendums for the same funding.

Boundaries and specific land purchases don't require a referendum, they will say. So the vote wouldn't be binding anyhow.

Lawsuits are not the answer. I supported the Tall Grass parents when this started. They want their kids to go to the school closest to their home. So do I. So do, I imagine, most parents. I would have joined petition drives and given out pamphlets. I would have supported an independent environmental audit of the Eola land. But the lawsuit only makes Shawn Collins richer and the residents of the district poorer. If NSFOC wins, they are bound to purchase BB at whatever cost or else abandon the 3rd high school. The lawsuit leaves no room for any other alternative.

Greg Forrest

The only numbers that start to decline in 2012 are at NV. WV and MV will remain constant in in some cases MV grows. This in relationship to if MV is built on the Eola site.

Hi Jim

Thanks your your comments. I really hope that you are right on your feeling that there will be many good things for our district in the future.

I know the board is under incredible strains and has a most diffucult task. I did not mean to diminsh that point and probably should have commented on that point in tandum with my critiques of board actions that I view as major concerns during this entire process. Sometimes I let my passions regarding this subject get in the way of attempting to keep myself open to other viewpoints and visualizing the board's perspective and obsticles.

Regarding the "deadline" for fall of 2009; I would much prefer to ensure we as a district get this right rather than obsess over an artifical (my opinion) deadline of Fall 2009. If the new school opens in fall of 2010; what would be the incremental enrollment over that one year? I should think we (SD/SB) should be able to manage that 1 school year peiod without the world ending.

We should at the very least wait to see what the final BB legal fees/damages etc are going to be BEFORE we buy/close on another site that could be more than the original 31MM BB site when walk away costs are added to the 16.5M price tag for the Eola Land.

Moreover, Given all the turmoil surrounding the first 2 referendums and the latest switch from BB to Eola; one would think the board would really want to know they are on firm ground and has the majority support of their constituents (hence my call for a vote on the new site). I know if I was a board member at present during this "crisis" I would be extremely vocal regarding this and in fact I would be advocating this at every board meeting. 4 board memebers come up for re-election soon as their terms expire in fall of 2009.

THanks; again I really hope you are right! I have never been involved in politics (national or local) except for voting. This is the first time I have felt strongly enough and been upset enough to become active. I am going to take your advice and try and attend as many board member meetings as I can to try and get a more detailed picture than the one I got in Feb (that was the first board meeting I attended and yes, I too had a very bad taste in my mouth at the very beginning during the commentary by our super.

Our school board has given many untruths over the years, and managed our tax dollars very irresponsibly. As much as I disagree with the general idea of suing - I fully support this lawsuit. I think our school board has made many decisions hastily, and acted as if their pockets were bottomless.
Mark Metzger said the lawsuit was unnecessary and we should voice our opinions in the voting booths. We did that. Our votes on the 2005 referendum said we don't want a 3rd high school. The school board went to great lengths to set up boundaries and lobby for the BB site. Our votes in the 2006 referendum said yes a third high school should be built at BB. Our children zoned to attend MVHS were given a vote on school colors for Metea, and voted on what the mascot should be. Our votes were cast, and then ignored. If a lawsuit is the only way to be heard, it is unfortunate, but necessary. We need to get the board to stop jumping into decisions without due diligence, without proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the site is safe, then that is what we need to do.
Of course NSFOC is trying to gain support and educate people on their cause. Did most of us know EMF was linked to childhood leukemia, and certain cancers in some studies? NSFOC is asking questions we should all be asking. It was not something I thought too much about, but when our school board says they are going to build a high school several stories high (bringing it closer to the lines) and then test only 4 feet off the ground, it bothers me. If EMF was linked to certain cancers in some studies - it makes me think of other dangers that were originally only questioned. Lead paint, smoking, pesticides, drinking alchol while pregnant to name a few. Any links are too many. I don't think it is such a bad idea to try to get our school board to justify why they feel building over pipelines is safe - even though CA has laws that prohibit it.
If the law suit is about boundaries, and just the people of tall grass wanting to attend NVHS then why would it fight for the Broch Brodie site? That would put Tall Grass at Metea. Broch Brodie is what the referendum passed on.
Midwest Generation has stated they will not be responsible for the cost of remediation. This is in contrast to what our school board has stated. Find out for yourself.
I don't judge those that disagree with my opinions. I just felt the need to state mine.

Greg, great idea on another referendum for the Eola site. The actions of the NSFOC has ticked off so many 204 residents, I can guarantee you that a recount will result in a landslide "YES" vote for the Eola site.
Go ahead; propose it. It'll be great to see egg on the faces of everyone connected to the NSFOC.

I just want to say that not EVERYONE in WE supports the NSFOC. A lot of us are looking forward to our children attending WVHS.

Re: Anonymous March 18, 7:14pm
What I am critical of on the nsfoc site are the original pictures of power lines etc., that are in some cases 2-3 football fields away from the proposed building,& railroad tracks that are 3 football fields away.There must have been a new twist since I last visited the site as I now see utube video of pipelines blowing up. To the folks operating this site, will this further your cause? I think not.
To Greg Forrest, I commend you on a well written post. I am sorry that you have lost all faith in our school board because that is a sad situation indeed. I can have empathy towards your beliefs especially after the mayhem with the third high school. I also felt anger especially after the new boundary meeting meeting in late Feb. Lets just say I was not impressed with the intro from our supt., and the way the public was addressed. So instead of stewing about my 1st impressions I went to a pta meeting and the following board meetings. I am glad I did not trust my initial impressions.
The actions taken at these meeting have been upfront and professional. The loss of the bb site can be described almost like the death of a friend. Many of us in the district feel this was the best location for the next high school. It is easy when angry to lash out and find fault (just read the blogs) with the board over the apparent death of this (bb) location. For many I feel the alternative North location will in time grow on all of us. The board in the meantime is up against difficult deadlines for a 2009 opening.
In conclusion Greg I hope you can find a way back to putting some trust with our board. I feel there will be many good things for our district in the future. I know thereas been many good things for my family.

Could everyone that thinks (including the folks that are suing us) that the Eola site was ruled out because of environmental issues,etc. PLEASE watch the board meeting recording from Jan. 22!! This site was NOT AVAILABLE in 2006 as the church was not willing to sell. Also, the power plant was still in operation thus it was not a viable option. It was never ruled out due to the "supposed" or "perceived" environmental issues that people are attempting to project onto it today.

Can we also be clear that none of the sites were ever or should ever be "voted" on. So you're going to vote yes the kids need the school BUT only IF it's a location I like? AND you're going to admit it?!!
Okayyyy, well thanks for making it sooo... transparent for us. For those of you that wanted to give this little group the benefit of the doubt... Thanks to a couple of their earlier posts they have effectively cleared the doubt themselves :)

To Jim Jandick on March 18, 2008 5:04 PM

What on the NSFOC site is false? The pictures? Is the District not acquiring the land in the pictures? Who will be liable if someone gets sick from this site? It doesn't sound like Midwest Gen is going to be liable, that leaves the taxpayers.

What would happen with the $130 Million school if someone did get sick? Would we close it or just "fence off areas"?

Anonymous 4:35,
The other 3 pipelines are not adjacent to the property line. They are east of it. The NSFOC site was a little "off" in regards to this. But are you surprised?

Hi Jim

Yes, I have no doubt that there are "half truths" everywhere on both sides of the coin. There are "extremeists" on both sides of the fence to be sure. I have looked at both sets of pictures (NSFOC Fraud site and NSFOC site) my guess is that the reality lies somewhere inbetween both sets of "shots" Kinda like realtors "cropping and angling" shots for houses they are trying to sell :)

I do support thhe NSFOC as I have lost all faith in the credibility oof our school board and I do not take anything thay say as the truth either (othersise I would have beleived their flyers and website on the location for the new school being BB site. Fool me once shame on you (SB, not you Jim :)) Fool me twice Shame on me

What I would like to see is a vote on eola as the 3rd HS location if that is LESS then the BB site after we pay all the legal fees to BB lawyers and the damages for loss of value to the land while we (SD) tied them up from selling to anyone else for the 2+ years. If Eola is lower in cost AND site is proved safe; but it up for a vote. If it comes back that the majority want the school on the Eola site with a yes vote; I can live with that (I dont agree with it, but can live with it since the majority has spoken). I would hope most people would feel the same. It sounds like some on the other side of the coin cant even agree to that. I wonnder of they also have some "personal agendas" to protect in this whole mess similiar to what they are accusing the NSFOC of?

Hi all
Let me see if I can breifly respond to some of the comments directed towards me:

To Anonymous 3/18 3:05pm:
Question: If we vote again (for the Eola site I am assuming) would that be the end ? Greg Answer: for me it would be with either a yes or no; the majority has spoken. I would be in disagreement if it turned out to be a yes for Eola, but I would live with the decision by the majority.

Question: What happens if (Eola I assume) is voted down would we see a lawsuit be the Eola supporters: Greg Answer: I dont know. However there would be no perceptions of "bait and switch as the REferendum would be for the Eola site and it was voted down (in this scenario). This is in contrast to the BB site where we had flyers from IPSD in our kids school bags and on their web sites saying this is what we would be voting for. I know the referendum did not have the site location on the ballot, but this is pretty deceptive in my book and why I am so upset about the manipulation that took place by our SB/SD. So my guess would be, it would be very difficult for anyone to refute "the majority" from a sanctioned election with specific location on the ballot.

Question: Ref by public on the ballot? This is very intriguing; do you know if it would be binding to the SB/SD? Ie would the board/SD have to abide by the vote outcome from a public ref? If so, I LIKE THIS IDEA

Thanks for your feedback Anomyous 3/18 3:05pm

TO: GIVE ME A BREAK:
YOUR QUOTE: "There was a vote for a referendum for money to be allocated towards a 3rd HS. It passed. The site picked didn't pan out due to greedy BB lawyers. An alternative site was chosen. Studies are being done for environmental concerns"

My reply: No body voted for the alternate site. It was removed from consideration from the 2nd referendum due to the environmental concerns by our board and brach brody was selected. I beleive people voted for the 3rd HS at BB site (which is why the 2nd passed when the first FAILED). I am on record (see my letter to the sun editor) that I was against a 3rd HS as I was still not convinced that a PERMANENT 3rd HS was needed after the peak enrollment spike had subsided. My understanding is that after 2012 the estimated enrollment figures begin to decline and continue to do so out through the study. Yes, we have an issue for a few years to be sure. In either case, my position was in the minority and I was perfectly fine with Meta being built on BB site. All I ask is that we VERIFY that the majority wants a 3rd HS on the Eola site! It would be nice to see how much we actually owe "the greedy BB trust" before we dive right on in to ENSURE Eola is still within our budget AFTER adding the 15 to 20mill to the 16.5 mill of Eola.

I agree with you that this is a shame!! We all moved here partly for the great school system. Your comment (as well as "by select groups" similiar comment) on the 1 to 2 subdivsions and the minority IS EXACTLY WHY I want a VOTE. Lets find out who is the majority and who is the minority the way it should be discovered (gasp, the voting booth?) dont think that is too scary a thought.

To By Select Group:
Your Quote "Oh, you mean overwheelmingly the rest of the district except for 1 or 2 neighborhoods? Is that the select group you're refereing to? I think most people refer to that as the MAJORITY!!!

My reply: IS EXACTLY WHY I want a VOTE. Lets find out who is the majority and who is the minority the way it should be discovered (gasp, the voting booth?) dont think that is too scary a thought

By select groups I meant the small group of folks out there with very abusive comments and veiled threats. Its funny, I think ALL of these have come from either handle names or anonymous. Its easy to make hateful remarks and threats behind the safety of a fake name.

Your Quote: Bully type tactics? What those be? Mean people saying mean things on a website (boohoo...get a backbone)? Give me a break

My reply: no, I am not too concerned with "people saying mean things" about me. If they disagree with my opinion and choose to verbalize that disagreement with venomus language and intent, this is their choice. I would prefer folks wouldnt hide behind anoymous or handles while doing it, but again that is their choice. I choose to use my real name in the hopes that the school board will hear my plea (and others pleas on the same request) to put the new site location up for a Vote. Perhaps "some mild mannered parents" will choose to google map the directions to my house (as they apparently did to Todd Andrews) to try and encourage what pray tell?

I just hope cooler heads prevail at some point. Putting the new site up for a Vote would go along way to give confirmation that the majority are in agreement with the new site. However we must INCLUDE ALL REALTED COSTS from BB walk away including the BB damages and legal fees we have to pay their lawyers due to our our SB's heavy handed "condem suit." to see what the true costs to walk away from BB and build on eola will be. (great negotiation skills, lets not negotiate price, lets hit them with a suit and block their land for 2+ years. Talk about heavy handed. Very similiar to how the SB treats its individual constituents in my opinion. BB got the same treatment as the folks trying to get their voices heard in the 2 week rush of this site switch, but BB is having the last laugh at our D204 taxpayers expense. Why is that? its becasue BB didnt roll over and die when the SB played hardball with them. The SB is finding out what when you attempt to run roughshot over EVERYONE, sometimes it comes right back at you.

Re: Greg Forrest
Greg I also use my full name (along w/George Fox). My real concern with the nsfoc lawsuit is not the idea of slowing down the third high school construction rather it is the the untruths / half truths that are on the website. I was concerned enough to ask the Sun to get a map of the projected north site which was done with great skill (thanks Moderator Jim). The pictures on the website are completely false and much of the info is based on inconclusive information. I will say with this much false info swirling around it motivated me to get off my butt every other Monday and get to the school board meetings. At the meeting there are people who have the knowledge to make the RIGHT decisions for our kids.

To Anonymous March 18, 2008 1:29. How

How do you think that natural gas gets to your house? Are their pipes in your neighborhood or is delivered to your home in a different manner than the rest of us.

To safety is being addressed on March 18, 2008 12:52 PM

I heard The D at the school board meeting address safety. He said there were going to put up a fence around 17 acres, so kids won't be able to access the area.

I'm not really sure how that addresses safety?!?

Mr Andrews,

I see your note as nothing more than an attempt at damage control for the floundering NSFOC. Thanks for at least admitting that this IS about boundaries. One correction though, you are the key organizer of the group, however I completely understand why you wouldn't want everyone to know that.

Best regards,
Someone with inside access to your core group.

To George Fox,
I really think it would be a great team, we all need a little humor regarding this very serious situation. Don't change the name.

To Give me a break on March 18, 2008 3:22 PM

"There was a vote for a referendum for money to be allocated towards a 3rd HS. It passed. The site picked didn't pan out due to greedy BB lawyers. An alternative site was chosen. Studies are being done for environmental concerns."

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the school didn't get BB not because of the BB attorney's, but the stupidity of our school board. The school board knew exactly how much things were going to cost. Quick take anyone? Maybe things would have turned out differently if the SB had truly negotiated in good faith.

This is just another attempt to deflect attention from the asinine mistakes this arrogant school board makes. Instead of trying to fix some of these mistakes, they keep plowing ahead making new mistakes; never learning from the first mistakes.

TO cousin vinny on March 18, 2008 1:29 PM

"Eola pipes don't carry hazardous substances,acutely hazardous materials, or hazardous wastes."

3 pipelines under the school property carry natural gas. The other 3 pipelines that run adjacent to the property carry crude oil, natural gas, and gasoline.

Since when is natural gas, crude oil, and gasoline not hazardous substances?

Have you seen what happens when a natural gas pipeline explodes? Search the internet, do your own research.

Forget all this hubbub of where the 3rd high school will be built. Please tell my why the district has a $95,000,000 surplus? What is it for? How did it grow to such a large figure? I believe D203 has a $11m surplus and those tax payers are questioning that!

Look at the test scores. Both 203 high schools have older buildings and resources by far superior test scores.

Perhaps this controversy is just the tip of the iceberg...

Give me a break, I am confused:

Maybe you lost me on the lips on the butt comment (kinda interesting that one side seems to be advocating the high road in regards to verbal attacks and the other continues to resort to name calling and intimidation).

The confusion is however that on one hand you indicate that it is a shame that the lawsuit is being brought to protect a minority position, but on the other you conclude that if there is a third referendum, it would not pass (presumably because the MAJORITY would not support it?).

Just an observation.

As an aside, in regards to the group posting directions to someone's house on one of the other blogs....SHAME ON YOU (are we supposed to believe that this is for our children!)

To: Jim Jandick

__________________

I hate to say it, but I'm not really George Fox. I picked the monicker to add a little humor to a really unfunny situation. We all could use a little laugh right now.

I wish I had the courage to use my real name on this blog but I'm a little concerned with the extreme emotion and downright nastiness we are experiencing on this and other blogs and in the 204 community.

I would love to sit all parties down in a room and hammer out an agreement that would allow us all to move forward. Wouldn't it be nice if some local elected leaders could lend us a hand in solving our differences? I think it is beyond unfortunate we are in the situation we are in today.

I completely agree with some of the NSFOC arguments yet understand why others in the district are upset.

I'm so disgusted with the name calling and neighborhood labeling that is going on. It's ridiculous.

Someone needs to intervene and stop this train wreck very soon or all of us in 204 will suffer.

To Greg Forrest:

" Kudos to your comments (Todd Andrews) and conviction in the face of all these bully type tactics coming from select groups"

Select groups?

Oh, you mean overwheelmingly the rest of the district except for 1 or 2 neighborhoods? Is that the select group you're refereing to? I think most people refer to that as the MAJORITY!!!

Bully type tactics?

What those be? Mean people saying mean things on a website (boohoo...get a backbone)? Give me a break. As opposed to the gutless tactics that the NSFOC used by filing a frivolous lawsuit instead of just dealing with a 6 mile commute and change. Please, it was revealed that only 30% of Tall Grass is even a walking community.

Regarding Rubel Shelly's quote that Todd Andrews used: "If criticism is mistaken or mean-spirited, rise above it. Maintain the high ground when you're under fire. No victory is worth winning at the expense of picking up the mud that has been slung at you and throwing it back."

Sorry Mr. Andrews the only mean-spiritedness and mud slinging that has been done is by the actions and behavior of the NSFOC Group.

To Greg Forrest:

Hope you can pull your lips off of Todd Andrews bottom to read my post.

There was a vote for a referendum for money to be allocated towards a 3rd HS. It passed. The site picked didn't pan out due to greedy BB lawyers. An alternative site was chosen. Studies are being done for environmental concerns. Once those pass....fire up the dozers.

Having another vote will only create more distrust and disgust between IPSD familes. What if the 3rd school gets voted down, then our children are to pay for overcrowding, if you believe that or not. The first referendum failed, the second passed, I seriously doubt that there will be a 3rd vote for passage of a 3rd high school. My concern is that if the SB does have to come to us for additional money operational costs or they went over budget the IPSD residents will vote it down.

It's a shame that one of the reasons all of us moved to this area was because of the schools and yet we vilify the school board when we should be passing every referendum they throw our way because in the long run it benefits our children. Not suing the school board because a minority group didn't get what they wanted. Nice concern for all of our children.

To Greg Forrest on March 18, 2008 2:13 PM:

How many times will we have to vote? If we voted again and people approved this site, would that be the end? Or would some other subdivision group form another new organization to sue the School Board over THAT vote?

Or if it is voted down, would we see a lawsuit from people near the Eola property saying the new referendum was unfair because we already had approved the money?

Finally, you do know it is possible for the voters to get a referendum on the ballot, right? Why isn't NSFOC working on a 'back door' referendum to stop the land purchase?

To Todd Andrews

I applaud your comments and your courage of your convictions! It is a shame there are so many people spewing such vile comments towards those they do not agree with. I am horrified that any "mild mannered parents" would attempt to post directions to your house. I shudder to think what "they" are trying to accomplish by their actions.

I have been very vocal both in the papers (Letter to the Sun Editor) as well as on some of these Blogs about my concerns with the process, the fiscal mismanagement, trying to buy Eola BEFORE we know final costs on BB damages (WHICH MUST BE TAKEN into account for the total cost to switching to Eola Site) and (in my opinion) the deceptive practices and actions taken by our school board.

I want the school board to do one simple thing which would allow emotions to calm and cooler heads to prevail: PUT IT UP FOR A VOTE WITH THE LOCATION LISTED. I do not care which site they put up for a vote (BB or Eola after it has been PROVEN SAFE through all the testing for the PCP's EMF, and the other related chemicals/compounds commonly found on industrial sites such as this). I can live with the decision either way; even if I disagree with the final outcome. I can do this because I know the will of the voters will have been heard and honored. I wonder if the most vocal and antagonistic folks on the other side of the coin can look in the mirror and say the same thing? I would hope so. If not, then their arguments and comments ring very hollow in my ears and should in the ears of the many folks out there that dont know what to think about this entire quagmire we have gotten ouurselves into.

Putting it up for a vote would also go along way in restoring/rebuilding some beginning level of trust (at least by me) in our school board. If I were on the board, I would be demanding we get confirmation from the constituents of D204 on a decision of this magnitude given the level of division that has chopped the district in half.

It looks as though (pending the final damages for abandoning the condem suit of BB) both sites might be "over the budget" SB confirmed BB price of 31M is outside the budget. Eola at 16.5M + 5M budgeted by SB for legal fees to BB lawyers + 2.5M in fees for the first 25 acres already purchased gives us a running total WITHOUT damages for land price differential for not allowing BB to sell to anyone else in 2005 of: 24 million for Eola so far. If the damages for land price gross up for walking away total 7+ million, then Eola will be over the budget as well.

If this comes to pass; I would think the board would have to come back to ask for more money unless they go back on their word yet again and dip into the 91M projected budget surplus for one of the properties. Therfore, maybe I will get my request granted, but for the wrong reasons (they need more money).

Again Kudos to your comments and conviction in the face of all these bully type tactics coming from select groups. I really wish we could have avoided this (as I am sure you do as well) but I have also joined the NSFOC in the hopes that my voice will be heard.

We have one other thing in common! We both use our real names on these blogs!! I wish more folks would also think about making this comittment as I believe some of the most henious comments would fade away (when real names are used) and we could get back to focusing on the issues (both sides of the debate) without the more extreme comments on some of these blogs clouding the environment.

My family and I have been living in our home for almost 11 years and our backyard is literally the future site of the AME church and Metea. I have never been concerned about all the "hazards" right in my own back yard. I have a WVHS grad and two future Mustangs and have to say it was always a win-win situation for us. 204 is a great school dist and I know my kids will get a great education regardless where they attend school. I have to say I am tired of being treated as the "stepchild" to the southside. We are paying taxes for your children to attend their designated schools, so please stop making this site about the safety of our children when the majority of you fighting are not even going here. Aurora is a wonderful place to raise a family and receive a great education. It is NOT always about Naperville.

Todd,
I don't think Rubel Shelly (preacher) would appreciate your using his quote to justify your lawsuit against your neighbors so your kids can go to the school of your choice. I think you may be misinterpreting this one too.

To Anonymous at 11:13,

Unfortunately the California recommendations would also EXCLUDE Brach Brodie.......proximity to major roadways, condition of traffic and school bus safety...

ALSO

, abandoned farms and dairies, and agricultural areas where pesticides and fertilizer have been heavily used

AND

this one actually supports that Eola is safe from this viewpoint...

Proximity to Pressurized Gas, Gasoline, or Sewer Pipeline
Education Code Section 17213 prohibits the acquisition of a school site by a school district if the site "contains one or more pipelines, situated underground or aboveground, which carries hazardous substances, acutely hazardous materials, or hazardous wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line which is used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood." Public Resources Code Section 21151.8 uses the same language with reference to approval of environmental impact reports or negative declarations. (See CCR, Title 5, Section 14010(h).)

Eola pipes don't carry hazardous substances,acutely hazardous materials, or hazardous wastes. They are part of the National Pipeline system that carries natural gas to all of our homes and businesses and schools.There are no Hazardous Liquid lines on this site. That's it.

"No one knew what the results would be from the jury on the BB land. How can you blame that on the SB? Also to date no one knows what the results will be from Phase II on the Eola site and/or the IL EPA. I really don't understand the basis for your lawsuit? It can't be about the BB land, that fight was lost. It can't be about environmental issues, those haven't even been released. As an outsider it can only be about your unwillingness to attend WVHS. I see no other reason for you to sue your own district? It really is quite sad residents are actually suing their own school district."..AS POSTED BY SAD IN 204

I agree! I just re- watched the January meetings and the public comment....even took notes:)...I might add I recognize some of you from your posts on this blog....very telling. There was NEVER a need for this lawsuit. NSFOC didn't "slow" things down or make the SB do anything they weren't already doing in their plans. Watch for yourselves.Performing an extensive phase 1 and phase 2 safety evaluation was in place LONG before the NSFOC decided to sue over not going to the school of their choice. The meeting answered practically all of the questions that keep going round and round on this blog.
I still submit that it seems very "coincidental" that our SB/district should end up in the position of being sued from two totally different firms, both virtually trying to FORCE us as a district to buy Brach Brodie ...or else? Could it be that Mr. Collins knows the attorney's for BB? I wonder...

Re: George Fox
Great post on the 17th. Forget the politicians you and I should get the opposing sides together and "get down to business". I think we could crank this out in a couple of evenings. I see you have no problem using your full name. If this makes any sense give moderator Jim a call at the paper he has my contact info.

To anonymous on March 18th at 12:01pm

Pay attention would you? Did you even attend or watch the 3/10 board meeting? FYI...you are pulling from California recommendations on school sites, not Illinois. Regardless, the SB is making sure they are addressing each of those things outlined in California Law. The issues you raise are being addressed, and so far:

1. It is not near an airport
2. The proximity to high-voltage power transmission lines is not within the range to the high school to warrent concern. Plus, EMF readings found on the North end of the school is at or lower then one would find in their home or of any suburban area.
3. There is no presence of toxic and hazardous substances on this site.
4. There are no hazardous air emissions.
5. No proven health hazards exist.
6. Proximity to railroads is hundreds of feet away.
7. High pressure natural gas lines was not mentioned but nice try. MVHS would be more the 200 feet from a gas line that is monitored daily through computers, has automatic shut off valves, is inspected by foot twice a year and driven over with a detector that lets them know if there is a gas leak of one of the above doesn't catch it first. In addition it is also monitored by a smart pig that goes through it every 7 years and also monitored by air. No gas lines, sewer lines, high pressure water pipelines exsist. By the way Niles HS and Joliet HS have been near a gas pipeline for over 50 years.
8. The existing propane tank is hundreds of feet away and will be removed and nothin school related will be in this area except for maybe tennis courts.
9. Noise? There is noise every where.
10. Major roadways, yep those are every where as well.
11. Soil analysis? Only thing shown to date is diesel fuel and not near the school and will be remediated by MidwestGen.
12. Safety of school buses I'm sure is met.
13. Safe routes to school is met.
14. No other joint use projects.

While I appreciate your scare tactits all these issues have been addressed or are being addressed. Hope you have a better back up plan?

Anon @ 1155 Everyone is rich, but not everyone is wealthy. The wealthy don't reside in Naperville either.

Ok,consider this a quick lesson in environmental 101 for all of those who believe the sky is falling at the Eola site. When the environmental reports are released, there is bound to be mention of minor contamination in certain areas on the site. We have heard about the potential of Petroleum Hydrocarbons (diesel fuel) being detected in the soil near the peaker plant. This can be cleaned up/capped to greatly reduce or eliminate the exposure. We have also seen people on this board quote that there is contamination in the groundwater on the site. It will be clearer in the environmental reports when they are released, but I am guessing that the groundwater is down at least 10 feet below the ground on the Eola site. What exactly are you worried about? Do you really think your child will be drinking the water from directly below the site? Yes, there are some natural gas pipelines running down the eastern portion of the site. To be fair, I suppose you could say that there is hazard with having the pipelines run close to the school. However, do you believe that the pipelines begin and end on the Eola site? These pipelines run for miles through our school district. Probably on or near the property of a school your child does or will attend. Maybe even near your home. I am not even going to address the EMF as it is truly a non-issue for the school that has been beaten to death.

There are environmental laws, both state and federal, that require contamination to be cleaned up to a certain level depending on the use of the site. Neither the seller or buyer of the Eola site is exempt from these laws. It is my understanding of this deal that Midwest Generation is going to take care of all known environmental liabilities related to their portion of the site. The district will then take over any unknown environmental liabilities that may or may not exist. This is common in transactions. The school district will also be responsible going forward for any environmental conditions that they create. This is ok.

As a parent, I am more concerned about the environmental liabilities that the school district will have post construction due to their own operations. These liabilities currently exist in all facilities operated by our school district. These liabilties include, but are not limited to, mold and indoor air quality, storage and potential release of cleaning and maintenance chemicals, storage and potential release of pool chemicals, and the potential for the existence and management of asbestos in some of the older district buildings.

I think that we all need to have faith that our school board is doing what is best for all of those in our district. Brach Brodie is not the only solution and is no longer a solution due to costs. Our school board is FINALLY acting responsibly and is pursuing another viable site four our children. I lay much of the previous irresponsibility on Howard Crouse who wanted to put his "flagship" school on the corner of 75th and 59 for all of the world to see. I could comment for days on that mess, but don't feel it to be necessary. Yes, we will owe money to get out of that mess, but let's move forward and be unified for the sake of all children of this great school district.

todd andrews, I respect the fact you make it clear that it is the boundaries that motivate you. Honesty is important here. Unfortunately most of us that have an issue with the NSFOC is that the lawsuit is designed to build on the BB site or punish the entire student population by not building another HS at any site. Of course this minimizes your child's opportunity for hockey. The environmental issues will be addressed. The environmental testing companies that both sides of the issue will hire will be objective. Testing is a quantitative science and not subjective. The testing companies are national companies. No one should believe that these companies would harm the reputation of thier firms for the sake of just 1 school district.

The NSFOC is spreading fear needlessly. You are active in thier fight and although you say you support NSFOC over boundaries, you are still supporting an organization bent on spreading misleading information about the Eola site.

Also, attorneys for BB and the district have both said that there is no case law supporting your case forcing the district to buy the land. The best you can hope for is that you child doesn't play hockey because there will not be a third high school.

To Anonymous on March 18, 2008 12:01 PM:

From "http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/schoolsiteguide.asp#gas" link:

We don't live in California. We don't have to obey their nutjob laws.

Just thinking how many taken into consideration for our new school.

From "http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/schoolsiteguide.asp#gas" link:

Evaluating Safety Factors
Safety is the first consideration in the selection of school sites.
Certain health and safety requirements are governed by state regulations and the policies of the Department. In selecting a school site, the selection team should consider the following factors: (1) proximity to airports; (2) proximity to high-voltage power transmission lines; (3) presence of toxic and hazardous substances; (4) hazardous air emissions and facilities within a quarter mile; (5) other health hazards; (6) proximity to railroads; (7) proximity to high-pressure natural gas lines, gasoline lines, pressurized sewer lines, or high-pressure water pipelines; (8) proximity to propane tanks; (9) noise; (10) proximity to major roadways; (11) results of geological studies and soils analyses; (12) condition of traffic and school bus safety; (13) safe routes to school; and (14) safety issues for joint-use projects.

District 204 is in a real sorry state! The neighboorhoods have become more divided than ever over this whole 3rd high school debacle. I, for one, believe there never should have been a referendum for it!The numbers were not there to justify the school! When they approached the voters the first time, it was rejected soundly. Unfortunately, the pro-referendum people were ready the next year and pushed it through with their money,and influence particularly from the southern parts of district! Well, it back fired on them now since the White Eagle/Tamarack residents now have to go to Waubonsie! Thats really what its all about right now---isn't it??? As long as White Eagle either got the new high school at the Bradie-Brauch site or Nequa Vally, they were happy! And I might add that they have been manipulating the school board for several years as well. So now we have law suits and all kinds of nonsense flying around. Its really disgusting at whats happened in this town! I believe this is an ugly side of Naperville that we are seeing-----rich people have moved into what once was a nice town 20 some years ago, pushing out the old people, and using there money/power/infuence to get there way! The town has changed dramatically and not always for the better! Its become a struggle of the rich vs.the common sense older generation struggle in Naperville!

To Anonymous on March 18th at 11:13am:

The state also says the following are to be used a guidelines (ranked in order of importance):

1.Safety
2.Location
3.Environment
4.Soils
5.Topography
6.Size and Shape
7.Accessibility
8.Public Services
9.Utilities
10.Cost
11.Availability
12.Public Acceptance

Looks to me like the SB is doing everything from 1-11 to satisfy those items. Sorry for you though that your little group of NSFOC ranks #12. Sorry those other things are more important then you TG, and the NSFOC temper tantrums. Any judge will look at what the SB has done from 1-11 and basically laugh your frivolous lawsuit out of court.

To Todd Andrews,

Very well said. AMEN

This Eola site would basically be illegal in states like California.

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/schoolsiteguide.asp#toxics

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/schoolsiteguide.asp#railroads

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/schoolsiteguide.asp#gas

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/schoolsiteguide.asp#highvoltage

Why would district 204 think it is okay to build a school on such a dangerous site with hazards both above and below the ground?

To: The only spokesman to come forward from NSFOC thus far is Todd Andrews from the TG community. I suggest that those who do not believe it's all about boundaries to please watch the video from the 1/28/08 School Board meeting (see link below).

I was in fact very much involved in the issue regarding the representations the District made about the Route 59 Street Bridge.

As many of you know, I live approximately one mile from NVHS (you can see this from the google maps posted on other sites showing specific directions to my house, so that everyone who disagrees with my position knows exactly where me, my wife and four young children live).

My initial concerns were exclusively related to the fact that the Fry community was the only walking community in the entire District that was being relocated from their current high school. When I read the District's memo (which was just one of a handful of pages attached to the boundary recomendations), it became apparent to me for the first time that this was an Administration that was willing to say and do anything to reach its objectives (or at least, was not concerned about doing due diligence before misrepresenting its opinions as facts).

Subsequent to the release of this memo, the City (in writing), the Naperville Park District(in writing) and IDOT (via telephone conversations) contradicted the substance of almost everything represented by the District about the walking Bridge and its justifications for treating the Fry community different than every other elementary school community in the District.

However, I am no longer interested in bridges, or having my children attend the high school one mile from our front door (and do understand that lines have to be drawn somewhere and that the numbers and location of the EOLA site created a situation where the Board and Administration could not satisfy everyone).

After attending the open boundary hearings (which occured after several Board members were quoted in the papers as having already made up their minds), and seeing Dr. Daeschner intentionally divide the community in his comments about entitlement, I became very interested in what my neighbors and friends were telling me about other issues (the fact that the first referendum failed, what was specifically promised and represented by the District and Board before the 2nd referendum, the fact that the District represented that it could pay up to $600,000 per acre for BB, the fact that BB had a large claim if the BB land was abandoned, representations by the Board in the past that the EOLA land was not a place to build a school, etc.).

I have given up any expecation about my children attending NVHS and I will be very proud to send my children to WVHS if this is the result of a fair process and logical decision making (my daughter is excited that WVHS has a planetarium and my son plays hockey and would have a better chance of continuing to play at the high school level at a smaller school).

However, I am concerned about fairness... I am concerned about being treated with respect by the Administration... I am concerned about safety (whether it be envirenmental or transportation)... I am concerned about reasonable due diligence...I am concerned about fiscal responsibility... I am concerned about fiduciary duties and bad decisions, I am concerned about the decisions and political motives of our District leaders, and I am concerned about the divisive strategy undertaken by the Administration (and being carried forth by other groups who also have self interests).

To make one thing very clear, I am not the leader or founder of NSFOC (and this grassroot effort is not about me). Nor am I the lead plaintiff. However, I have registered on the NSFOC website and am very proud to support NSFOC (by actively sharing my time and trying to share my thoughts in a respectful way). I also have met or spoken with hundreds of people involved in the NSFOC cause and respect what they are doing very much (their position is about fairness, fiscal responsibility and our children).

We as a community need to slow down the train, move beyond our egos, and make sure that our children and taxpayer interests are being looked after in a reasonable manner. Just like the District had a right to file a lawsuit against BB, residents of the District had the right to file its legal action against the District (and the Court system is designed to be part of the check and balance process and will decide what is right).

One final note directed specifially to NSFOC supporters. You can probably predict the response to this posting will be (by mild mannered parents and others). Someone I respect very much forwarded the following quote that I would like to share:

If criticism is mistaken or mean-spirited, rise above it. Maintain the high ground when you're under fire. No victory is worth winning at the expense of picking up the mud that has been slung at you and throwing it back."

Rubel Shelly
Preacher, Educator and Author

Best regards to all and I look forward to seeing this end as soon as possible (with a fair resolution to the entire 204 community).

To: The only spokesman to come forward from NSFOC thus far is Todd Andrews from the TG community. I suggest that those who do not believe it's all about boundaries to please watch the video from the 1/28/08 School Board meeting (see link below).

I was in fact very much involved in the issue regarding the representations the District made about the Route 59 Street Bridge.

As many of you know, I live approximately one mile from NVHS (you can see this from the google maps posted on other sites showing specific directions to my house, so that everyone who disagrees with my position knows exactly where me, my wife and four young children live).

My initial concerns were exclusively related to the fact that the Fry community was the only walking community in the entire District that was being relocated from their current high school. When I read the District's memo (which was just one of a handful of pages attached to the boundary recomendations), it became apparent to me for the first time that this was an Administration that was willing to say and do anything to reach its objectives (or at least, was not concerned about doing due diligence before misrepresenting its opinions as facts).

Subsequent to the release of this memo, the City (in writing), the Naperville Park District(in writing) and IDOT (via telephone conversations) contradicted the substance of almost everything represented by the District about the walking Bridge and its justifications for treating the Fry community different than every other elementary school community in the District.

However, I am no longer interested in bridges, or having my children attend the high school one mile from our front door (and do understand that lines have to be drawn somewhere and that the numbers and location of the EOLA site created a situation where the Board and Administration could not satisfy everyone).

After attending the open boundary hearings (which occured after several Board members were quoted in the papers as having already made up their minds), and seeing Dr. Daeschner intentionally divide the community in his comments about entitlement, I became very interested in what my neighbors and friends were telling me about other issues (the fact that the first referendum failed, what was specifically promised and represented by the District and Board before the 2nd referendum, the fact that the District represented that it could pay up to $600,000 per acre for BB, the fact that BB had a large claim if the BB land was abandoned, representations by the Board in the past that the EOLA land was not a place to build a school, etc.).

I have given up any expecation about my children attending NVHS and I will be very proud to send my children to WVHS if this is the result of a fair process and logical decision making (my daughter is excited that WVHS has a planetarium and my son plays hockey and would have a better chance of continuing to play at the high school level at a smaller school).

However, I am concerned about fairness... I am concerned about being treated with respect by the Administration... I am concerned about safety (whether it be envirenmental or transportation)... I am concerned about reasonable due diligence...I am concerned about fiscal responsibility... I am concerned about fiduciary duties and bad decisions, I am concerned about the decisions and political motives of our District leaders, and I am concerned about the divisive strategy undertaken by the Administration (and being carried forth by other groups who also have self interests).

To make one thing very clear, I am not the leader or founder of NSFOC (and this grassroot effort is not about me). Nor am I the lead plaintiff. However, I have registered on the NSFOC website and am very proud to support NSFOC (by actively sharing my time and trying to share my thoughts in a respectful way). I also have met or spoken with hundreds of people involved in the NSFOC cause and respect what they are doing very much (their position is about fairness, fiscal responsibility and our children).

We as a community need to slow down the train, move beyond our egos, and make sure that our children and taxpayer interests are being looked after in a reasonable manner. Just like the District had a right to file a lawsuit against BB, residents of the District had the right to file its legal action against the District (and the Court system is designed to be part of the check and balance process and will decide what is right).

One final note directed specifially to NSFOC supporters. You can probably predict the response to this posting will be (by mild mannered parents and others). Someone I respect very much forwarded the following quote that I would like to share:

If criticism is mistaken or mean-spirited, rise above it. Maintain the high ground when you're under fire. No victory is worth winning at the expense of picking up the mud that has been slung at you and throwing it back."

Rubel Shelly
Preacher, Educator and Author

Best regards to all and I look forward to seeing this end as soon as possible (with a fair resolution to the entire 204 community).

In light of the revelation that natural gas pipelines run through the entire metropolitan Chicagoland area (to include thousands of district 204 residences,businesses, day care facilities/schools and such we am now formally declaring a new group and soon to be up and running website.
We call ourselves W.A.N.S.A. or www.WANSA.com if you will. Folks, WE ARE NOT SAFE ANYWHERE! We will be posting information regarding chemicals and pesticides in our farmlands, radon,EMF's, gas lines under all of our houses, lead in everything your kid plays with,ozone layer, MSG,sacharine,RMF's,acid rain,latex allergies,MRSA, and power lines to name but a few. Don't worry there's more where that came from!
Our website will offer a donate button via Paypal where you can choose to donate once, weekly or even monthly! Your strength and awareness will help to aid those less "aware" by funding brochures sure to panic, radon kits, personal EMF devices and of course hazmat suits. We will be filing lawsuits as well, and retaining fees don't grow on trees, people!
Please join us as we march. We will be meeting on Thursday at 9:00p.m.(EMF's are usually lower this time of day).We will meet at the intersection of Montgomery Road and Normantown. Be careful, there are gas lines and hazardous liquid lines below according to my National Pipeline Map.
I will be the dude on the corner in the bubble suit with tin foil wrapped around my head. After this, we will meet in a place large enough to hold all of us.Thank you.

In response to:
"There is NO contract with Midwest Generation (only a letter of intent), and Midwest Gen has NOT agreed to cover unlimited remediation costs (another urban legend).

Please check your facts before regurgatating the District's misrepresentations." You are wrong...

Although there is only a letter of intent at this time (0f course that is all you have until closing when the K is fully executed), the negotiations contanined and the terms of it and the subsequent contract, do include site remediation costs by midwestgen. Subsequent testing to verify compliance are also covered. To date, all test results from the independent agencies show minimal risk and remediation. Those ARE the facts. Of course, TG/WE/Shawn Collins (if paid) would have us all believe otherwise...let truth prevail...

To NSFOC:
Well, I just went back and watched the whole 5 hours of the 1/28 board meeting in which the boundaries were voted on by the IPSD. As an oursider looking in:

How can you possibly say that the school district didn't do everything in their power to fight for the BB land?

How can you say they didn't run the numbers every which way possible after hearing how much time they spent on talking about the numbers in so many different ways?

How can you say your neighborhood is a walking neighborhood when only 30% is based on what is considered a walking neighborhood (distance from your home to the front of the school as traveled by roads not the pedestrian bridge)?

How is this all about environmental issues when only a handful of people brought this up during that school board meeting and those residents and the residents that are part of NSFOC won't even be attending MVHS?

How can you be so selfish? Each member of the school board personally apologized to the TG neighborhood and said they understood your frustration and prayed you would move on and focus on making your new school (WVHS) the best possible.

You better hope that a judge doesn't view that school board meeting because the judge will see how sincere those board members really are and the time they took to do what they felt was right for the whold school district. Did things not go as planned, yes, but I don't think it was to any fault of theirs.

I really hope for the IPSD and for your fellow residents and neighbors you can move on quickly with your anger. The example you are setting for you kids and your anger over a high school that you don't want to attend (for no vaild reason) really isn't healthy.

No one knew what the results would be from the jury on the BB land. How can you blame that on the SB? Also to date no one knows what the results will be from Phase II on the Eola site and/or the IL EPA. I really don't understand the basis for your lawsuit? It can't be about the BB land, that fight was lost. It can't be about environmental issues, those haven't even been released. As an outsider it can only be about your unwillingness to attend WVHS. I see no other reason for you to sue your own district? It really is quite sad residents are actually suing their own school district.

By amb on March 17, 2008 4:20 PM
If you want real scientific evidence regarding EMFs - electromagnetic fields caused by electrical sources and the effects of EMFs on health, go to a credible, scientific source. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/electromagneticfields.html

MedlinePlus is part of the National Library of Medicine, a repository of scientific information, resources and research that anyone can utilize. The information on MedLine plus is real research studies that the US National Institutes of Health has funded with your tax dollars through research grants to our nation's best scientists and medical professionals.

Here's a bit of what the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has to say about the effect of EMFs on our children's health. Bottom line, there isn't much if anything to worry about regarding the power lines near the new high school site, those by Neuqua or those running through Tall Grass. They might not be pretty, but unless you touch them, there's not much of a health issue.

Electromagnetic Fields

Also called: EMFs

Electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) are areas of energy that surround electrical devices. Power lines, electrical wiring, and appliances produce EMFs. Some people worry about EMF exposure and cancer. A few studies found a link between EMF exposure and a higher risk of childhood leukemia, but the link is weak. Other studies didn't find a link between EMF exposure and other childhood cancers.

For adults, studies of EMF exposure from power lines and electric blankets show little evidence of a link to cancer. In adults, EMFs may reduce heart rate and interfere with brain electrical activity during sleep. This may or may not affect your health.

Some people worry that wireless and cellular phones cause cancer. They give off radio-frequency energy (RF), a form of electromagnetic radiation. Scientists need to do more research on this before they can say for sure.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Start Here http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/

AMB,
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I researched numerous medical studies over the weekend at a major medical institution located in downtown Chicago. There are studies that claim a small percentage of linkage to Cancer and studies that totally refute them. The problem is that we are exposed to EMF all of the time, everywhere. There is no way to isolate a study to just power lines or anything else for that matter. There does appear that there needs to be a genetic predisposition as well. I don't think anyone needs to lose sleep over this if they attend NV, WV, live in Tall Grass or any other neighborhood with lines running through or next to it. The same would be true for the Eola/MV site. I'll add a response a family friend had to the subject below....

I spent most of my career working as an environmental engineer and, based on what I have seen and know, I'm more cautious about environmental exposures than most people. Studies on health risks from Electromotive Fields (EMFs) have been inconclusive or contradictory. However, there are a couple of things I'm going to tell you that should help.
First, you have exposure to EMF already -- wherever you are -- from the power lines that come to your house, from the wiring in your walls, from your appliances and tv, computer monitor, stereo speakers, electric blanket, AC-powered snooze alarm, and your cell phone, to name a few.
Second, if the lines you were worried about were running above me, it would bother me (although it wouldn't bother everyone). However, 1/16 or even 1/32 mile away is pretty far in EMF terms. That's because the strength of the EMF falls off exponentially as you move away from it. (If you move from being at a point, say, 80' away to one that's, say, 1280' away, any EMF you can measure has dropped off to about 1/250 -- less than 1/2 of 1% -- of what it would be at the closer distance). For that reason, it's possible that any EMF you could measure at the building from those high power lines 1/16 mile away could be less than EMF from the power line coming into your building and the wires that run down your street.
Lastly, if you wear your seatbelt, don't smoke, and look both ways when you cross the street, you'll have eliminated far more risk than I think those lines pose.

To:

As for the claim that site remediation costs will be borne by the taxpayers. That is simply untrue. If site remediation is needed, those costs will be incurred by Midwest Generations. That was part of the negotiations for the land.

There is NO contract with Midwest Generation (only a letter of intent), and Midwest Gen has NOT agreed to cover unlimited remediation costs (another urban legend).

Please check your facts before regurgatating the District's misrepresentations.

There are PCPs on this site? Who in their right mind would build a school on a site with contaminated ground water, contaminated soil, huge pipelines of gas and hazardous materials flowing all over the property and high voltage power lines above?

Are the kids going to dress in haz mat suits everyday?

District 204 has lost its mind!

http://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_expose&Itemid=70&album=6

http://tinyurl.com/38vzns

To BINGO on March 17, 2008 5:04 PM: "Funny how I haven't seen any NSFOC representatives come to my neighborhood or local grocery stores handing out their flyers trying to use the emotional scare propaganda tactic."

They won't go anywhere near any community staying at Waubonsie or Neuqua. They know they'll have their flyers ripped up in their faces.

To Anonymous on March 17, 2008 8:18 PM:
"Can you imagine what would happen if a train derails here and is carrying hazardous material!? Our children will be dead before they reach the exit door to the school!"

Oh, PLEASE! NOW it's the proximity of the train tracks? The same ones that have been a mile away from Waubonsie Valley for 30 years. The ones that run right behind White Eagle subdivision? The ones along side the "Macom" property people wanted 204 to buy? Do you think hazardous materials can't travel a mile after a derailment?

More NSFOC hysteria. NSFOC == NAPERVILLE Schools For Our Children

Many thanks to Mr. Andrews and his courage in this matter. If it was not for his efforts none of this dialogue would have occurred.

I live in the north and initially opposed the NSFOC suit. But after reviewing the decisions by our SB I am appalled. This is a blatant failure of their fiduciary responsibilities. How dare they throw my tax money away! At this point the entire matter should go back to the voters.

Wouldn't it be great if they could build on the south end of the site and the church builds on the north side? The Illinois EPA will make sure the site is safe but it sure would be great to silence the TG people over environmental facts that are yet to explored by the experts.But of course, the common person off the street seems to be an expert.

By MH on March 17, 2008 7:07 PM
In two or three weeks, we will own the land and these ridculous blogs will be a distant memory.

Time to fire up the Dozers!!!

_________________________________

Good lord I hope you are wrong. In "two or three" weeks we won't know what the damages award will be for BB.

If for some reason the damages come in at 20 million we are all in big trouble.

Or, the district can just cut the stadium, tennis courts or the pool from Metea at Eola to make up the difference.

I sure hope the district has the sense to hold off on signing any contract until they know the final walkaway cost for the BB land.

Who knows, Midwestgen might be getting cold feet and back out of this deal in the next two or three weeks. If I were in their shoes, I'd be running for the hills. They've already stated they are not liable for future liability, yet the district has told residents that Midwestgen is contracted to turn over a "safe" site. We STILL haven't seen the results of the phase II study, etc. Something is not sitting right with me.

Could the future liability really be worth the profit of such a small parcel of land for Midwestgen? I don't think so. After all, they've already stated publically they weren't actively trying to sell the land, they were approached. To me, that was a big hint that they are thinking of walking away. Wise move in my opinion. It's not worth any future lawsuit that will most certainly come their way.

I'm thinking they are going to run for the hills.

This community is toxic. And no, I'm not referring to the land at the proposed site of Metea Valley. I'm referring to the way the folks in this community now address one another. It's truly sad to see adults communicating with each other in this manner.

I'm in River Run, so my assignment to Neuqua is not changing, but we're moving on to the next city in our journey. Naperville has been a bit of a bust for us, and frankly I'm looking forward to departing. With all of this in-fighting and sniping, Naperville just didn't live up to all the hype we had read about in Money Magazine.

I find it ironic that when our realtor showed us homes in Tall Grass, we weren't interested because we thought the power lines were unsightly. We also didn't like the proximity to the Laidlaw bus depot. We enjoy opening the windows on cool days, so the thought of bus fumes wafting into the home was unappealing. I don't know what to say to friends in Tall Grass who express concerns about the Metea site. My goodness, I wonder how they sleep at night since some of their homes are right by those power lines. Wow, maybe that's what's causing all of this odd behavior in town. It's the fault of the powerlines... Hmmmmmmmm

This nastiness is doing irreparable harm to this community. I hope that some sort of compromise can be reached. Good luck guys.

http://media1.suburbanchicagonews.com/multimedia/na16_meteaplan_pdf.pdf_20080314_22_14_49_119.imageContent

Can you imagine what would happen if a train derails here and is carrying hazardous material!? Our children will be dead before they reach the exit door to the school!

With the CN takeover of EJ&E there will be close to 400 hazardous loads a year. To me this is a huge concern!

This is no place for a school.

Here you go, Anon:

From: Alka Tyle
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 6:01 PM
Subject: please vote

another insane poll that NSFOC is going to use in court...please spread the word for people to go to the following page and vote No. don't know when they will close it, so sooner the better.

thanks,
alka

NSFOC Insider nailed it indeed. The night the boundaries were announced there were many many speakers. 2 individuals threatened lawsuits - both from the TG community. Their strategy to diversify their group to give the "appearance" of community support is nothing if not very good strategy. Transparent to those of us who know the truth, though.

The only spokesman to come forward from NSFOC thus far is Todd Andrews from the TG community. I suggest that those who do not believe it's all about boundaries to please watch the video from the 1/28/08 School Board meeting (see link below). Go to 58:12 where you will see the NSFOC spokesman talk at length about boundaries, his proximity to NV, the TG bridge and why his children should go to Neuqua as opposed to WV. No mention of any environmental concerns at the Eola site. No mention of SB "promises" that the SB made regarding Brach Brodie. It was all about the boundaries. The lawsuit is nothing but a vehicle to stop the 3rd high school from being built, so that their community stays at NV.

http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/Subpage.aspx/OnDemandVideo

In two or three weeks, we will own the land and these ridculous blogs will be a distant memory.

Time to fire up the Dozers!!!

By A novel suggestion on March 17, 2008 4:52 PM
From the other blog...

By Give peace a chance! on March 17, 2008 4:24 PM
I would suggest it is time for everyone to stop the B.S. and talk (novel approach).

Is there some political leader out there willing to have a summit between the District, Board, NSFOC and BB, whereupon BB agrees to reduce its price below 31 million, NSFOC agrees to drop its lawsuit and waive any damages and legal fees fron the District, and the District agrees to build a third high school so that we can have a new school up and running as soon as possible (which was in fact the referendum passed by the voters of 204).

I see no possibility of this resolving in the next 6 months, in which case we will have incurred millions of additional legal fees and perhaps worse (20 million being requested by BB).

Please, for the sake of all of our kids, let's take a deep breath and work something out (the pride thing is getting old).

NSFOC, Dr. D, MM, BB (anyone willing to address this?).
_______________________________________________________

This is a great post and also a great idea. I sincerely hope someone that can make a difference in this situation is reading this blog and will respond to this idea.

This might be the only way out of this nightmare.

Dave, you can start with me. I would love to share the 100's of documents now in my possession (some no longer available on the IPSD website) that we collectively have in regards to promise after promise made by the District.

How about interviews with the 100's of people who bought homes and made very serious life decisions because of the written and verbal promises by the District that NO MATTER WHAT THE JURY CAME BACK WITH, the District was building on BB.

Or maybe an expose and an accounting of the MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS spent by our elected public officials (and the resulting mess that has resulted).

Or Dave how about the District sending materials in our kids' backpacks encouraging yes votes on the referendum (can anyone say....violation of election laws which actually may void the referendum altogether!).

Something tells me this will be more interesting that investigating the motives of the personal (not elected) residents in NSFOC.

(and Chris B from S.cal, tell your boss that yes...this is real and we appreciate his generous financial support).

To: NSFOC Insider on March 17, 2008 4:50 PM

You nailed it!!!

Funny how I haven't seen any NSFOC representatives come to my neighborhood or local grocery stores handing out their flyers trying to use the emotional scare propaganda tactic. Come to think of it...if they have been in my neighborhood they are probably lucky I didn't see them!!!

From the other blog...

By Give peace a chance! on March 17, 2008 4:24 PM
I would suggest it is time for everyone to stop the B.S. and talk (novel approach).

Is there some political leader out there willing to have a summit between the District, Board, NSFOC and BB, whereupon BB agrees to reduce its price below 31 million, NSFOC agrees to drop its lawsuit and waive any damages and legal fees fron the District, and the District agrees to build a third high school so that we can have a new school up and running as soon as possible (which was in fact the referendum passed by the voters of 204).

I see no possibility of this resolving in the next 6 months, in which case we will have incurred millions of additional legal fees and perhaps worse (20 million being requested by BB).

Please, for the sake of all of our kids, let's take a deep breath and work something out (the pride thing is getting old).

NSFOC, Dr. D, MM, BB (anyone willing to address this?).

To Stonebridge who wrote: "This is not about your children nor the childred who will attend MVHS. This is about your selfish desires and how you want the new high school for your own personal reasons, ie property values, I don't want WVHS, etc. Do not insult us by implying you care about the safety of the site or the children who will attend. Any person and/or judge with minimal knowledge of this could see through your claims to the crux of the matter and the obvious truth behind your smokescreen claims."

You hit the nail on the head. The NSFOC organizers (all from TG) are aware how transparent this looks... that is why they have tried from day one to turn this into a non-TG thing. That strategy is actually written in some interal planning emails. They succeeded in coercing a WE resident to book the WE clubhouse for the meeting. They have actively been trying to recruit people who actually ARE concerned about the safety of the site. They have actively been trying to recruit the original NO voters. They have actively been trying to recruit any other communities who might not be overjoyed with the new boundaries.

Part of their documented strategy is try to diversify the group as much as possible so as to hide the FACT that the people truly behind NSFOC and the lawsuit are 100% TG. People so mad at how the boundaries turned out, that they are determined to screw the whole thing up for everyone else.

By Anonymous on March 17, 2008 3:20 PM
I think the Sun should do an investigative report (Dave Savini style) on the people behind NSFOC.

What they would find is that there are about 10 core people, all from TG, who all stormed out of the school board meeting on 1/22 (after the boundaries were announced), who were all shouting "THIS IS NOT OVER, THIS IS NOT OVER". Within days of their emotional outburst, they formed NSFOC and and filed a lawsuit.

I'm so glad that they were able to channel their self-serving anger towards a better cause.... the safety of school children located 10 miles from their own community (sarcasm). Give me a break.

These people need to be exposed!!! Come on Sun, do some real reporting.
_________________________________________________

This post takes the cake as the most absurd thing I've read on these blogs.

Go ahead, call Dave Savini. I encourage you to also have him look into how and why District 204 got into the position we are in today. Maybe he can uncover the cost to all of us taxpayers/parents as result of poor leadership and decision making in district 204.

Can you also ask Dave to get us a $$$ amount spent on lobbyists for quick take?

If you want real scientific evidence regarding EMFs - electromagnetic fields caused by electrical sources and the effects of EMFs on health, go to a credible, scientific source. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/electromagneticfields.html

MedlinePlus is part of the National Library of Medicine, a repository of scientific information, resources and research that anyone can utilize. The information on MedLine plus is real research studies that the US National Institutes of Health has funded with your tax dollars through research grants to our nation's best scientists and medical professionals.

Here's a bit of what the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has to say about the effect of EMFs on our children's health. Bottom line, there isn't much if anything to worry about regarding the power lines near the new high school site, those by Neuqua or those running through Tall Grass. They might not be pretty, but unless you touch them, there's not much of a health issue.

Electromagnetic Fields

Also called: EMFs

Electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) are areas of energy that surround electrical devices. Power lines, electrical wiring, and appliances produce EMFs. Some people worry about EMF exposure and cancer. A few studies found a link between EMF exposure and a higher risk of childhood leukemia, but the link is weak. Other studies didn't find a link between EMF exposure and other childhood cancers.

For adults, studies of EMF exposure from power lines and electric blankets show little evidence of a link to cancer. In adults, EMFs may reduce heart rate and interfere with brain electrical activity during sleep. This may or may not affect your health.

Some people worry that wireless and cellular phones cause cancer. They give off radio-frequency energy (RF), a form of electromagnetic radiation. Scientists need to do more research on this before they can say for sure.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Start Here http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/

To the WE/TG whiners. This is not about your children nor the childred who will attend MVHS. This is about your selfish desires and how you want the new high school for your own personal reasons, ie property values, I don't want WVHS, etc. Do not insult us by implying you care about the safety of the site or the children who will attend. Any person and/or judge with minimal knowledge of this could see through your claims to the crux of the matter and the obvious truth behind your smokescreen claims. It reminds me of the OJ trial....throw enough mud on the wall in the hope some will stick.

Due dilligence has been and will continue to be done by the board and those associated with the Eola site development. I applaud them on their efforts to most efficiently use our tax dollars to acquire this site in a timely manner and to stay on schedule in the aftermath of the BB debacle. Site testing by outside agencies has been posted to date and show comparable results far lower than standing next to your refrigerator or microwave, for example. In addition, these issues were discussed and responded to at length at the public board meeting last month.

As for the claim that site remdiation costs will be borne by the taxpayers. That is simply untrue. If site remediation is needed, those costs will be incurred by Midwest Generations. That was part of the negotiations for the land.

It is also important to note that the reason for moving ahead as voted on and planned is not only to maintain the construction schedule, but to avoid escalation costs in the millions from the site contractors if delayed. That factor is, and should be considered by all. Lord knows the attorneys filing these claims are looking to delay as much as possible. That, my friends and neighbors, are only benefiting them, not the taxpayers nor our children. Let truth prevail...

Hey Jim, why not a blog about the Final 4 because this whole mess in 204 is getting old and people are acting worse than the Duke fans in the 80's. Yeh anyone over 40 I'm sure remembers those days. Won't see that this year as Duke didn't even make it to the dance this year.

Does anyone have the text of Ms. Tyle's email? If so can you please quote it here for us? It is important to see what our board representatives are saying.

Thanks.

I think the Sun should do an investigative report (Dave Savini style) on the people behind NSFOC.

What they would find is that there are about 10 core people, all from TG, who all stormed out of the school board meeting on 1/22 (after the boundaries were announced), who were all shouting "THIS IS NOT OVER, THIS IS NOT OVER". Within days of their emotional outburst, they formed NSFOC and and filed a lawsuit.

I'm so glad that they were able to channel their self-serving anger towards a better cause.... the safety of school children located 10 miles from their own community (sarcasm). Give me a break.

These people need to be exposed!!! Come on Sun, do some real reporting.

To Anonymous on March 17, 2008 12:45 PM

You are "really, really, really, stupid...and mean and unfair and I don't like you (and you are ugly and stupid and mean)."

Have you taken your meds today?

After reading these blogs I've just realized what a waste of time all this is.

Thank goodness for March Madness. Can never have enough of College BBall. If you haven't done so yet go to www.MarchMadness.com and fill out your bracket. This is a good use of your time. No name calling, backstabbing antics. Just good old clean fun.

NSFOC WEBSITE...

Our goal is to get the IPSD school board members to SLOW DOWN, RETHINK AND REDO the new high school, the boundaries, their own criteria and fiscal responsibility.

NSFOC FRAUD WEBSITE:

We hate you and you are really, really, really, stupid...and mean and unfair and I don't like you (and you are ugly and stupid and mean). We are mild mannered parents, but you are not, and we hate you and you are really, really, really, stupid...and mean and unfair. Joni and Tyle think you are really, really mean too, don;t you Tyle and Joni!

IPSD 204 WEBSITE as of last week:

"We will not be derailed and will close on the EOLA property on March 19th. Breaking ground on April 1st. Everything is safe...trust us.

IPSD 204 WEBSITE(as of today):

"No comment"

IPSD WEBSITE next week

The new land selection process will be announced on April 15, 2008, with the new boundary recomendations to be announced shortly thereafter and well before new land is purchased (NO PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME)!

If you DON'T support the lawsuit. Vote by going to:

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/d204suit/index.html

In regards to:

Good luck soliciting with your "truthful" brochures. Oh yes, BTW, NO SOLICITORS does means you.

If you are one of the volunteers handing out brochures, please do not go to his house (he seems kinda grumpy).

Stick to the facts and let's keep pushing ahead. Thanks again for everyone's efforts.

No matter what happens my kids will continue to go to a very good school - WVHS. I pray that the IEPA approves the site and MVHS is built on Eola so I can welcome our new neighbors from White Eagle and Tall Grass to our school.

Thanks for the info, Jim. It's unfortunate that the link to the graphic seems to be cut off. In the front page picture, you could clearly see that the tennis courts are right next to/ practically on top of / the peaker plant area. You really can't see the other adjacent areas in the picture that is now there.

"However, PLEASE, those of you who continue to support slowing down our Board and Administration....we need your help. Do not rely on others to carry forward your voice on this important issue. Please consider making a donation at www.NSFOC.org to help us carry forth the momentum and protect ALL of our communities.".. as posted by WE are slowing down..

I AM already making a donation with my hard earned taxpayer money, and so is everybody else.... to defend your stupid lawsuit against US!AND please, be clear, you are not "the voice" and do not speak for the majority of this district! Give me a break!! :)

By now you and your "masses" should have more than enough to cover your tens of thousands of dollars (or should I say hundreds of thousands?) of Mr. Collins "justified" legal fees....Good luck soliciting with your "truthful" brochures. Oh yes, BTW, NO SOLICITORS does means you.Thank you.

By the way, "We are slowing down," great post - just wanted to point out that it is May Watts and Owen West.

To all interested parties: On our home page we now have a special archived section of stories relating to the D204 controversy over the new high school. Included in this is a link to the pdf of the satellite image graphic that appeared on the front page of Sunday's (3.16) Sun. Click the link and you can see the map - in color - outlining everything on the Eola/Molitor site.

The simplest solution is to put it to a vote. If they really cared, they could have gotten it on the April ballot. Now, of course, it's too late. I'm sure they wouldn't have anyway because they know there is NO WAY this site would pass a vote.

I'm sorry for people like anonymous and others who are very excited about the new school. It would be great, but I think many are blinded by the upside. You are too quick to negate all the added risks with this site. EMF, pipelines and fuel contamination, more people crossing RR tracks, an increase in commutes for many that outweighs the decrease for fewer.

80 volunteers (which represents only a small number of those who are supporting NSFOC) are handing out NSFOC flyers today throughout the District, and hundreds and hundreds of people have made donations, and continue to support the action to slow down our Board and Administration.

Meetings are taking place every single day in homes and coffee shops throughout the district (although, most of the public activity has been centered in South Naperville, it has grown into many of the MV communities including Mays West, Owens West and yes...even Stonebridge).

People may be intimidated by the tactics used by many in the community, but this is a grassroots effort that continues to grow everyday. Just read the recent stories in the Sun and Herald if you have any question as to where this is heading---. LOOK AT THE FACTS and decide whether the path and speed being employed by the Board and District are in the best interests of the District.

If the Board and District had their way, they would have closed on EOLA and would be breaking ground as we speak (is this reasonable due diligence when we still do not even have the Phase II results)?

However, PLEASE, those of you who continue to support slowing down our Board and Administration....we need your help. Do not rely on others to carry forward your voice on this important issue. Please consider making a donation at www.NSFOC.org to help us carry forth the momentum and protect ALL of our communities.

One of our Board members (Ms. Tyle) made it clear this weekend in her mass email to her subdivision who she is protecting, but who is looking after you? The answer has to be YOU if there is a chance to continue to make sure that the District and Board engage in a fair and reasonable process, and do not make dangerous decisions that we will all have to live with for years to come.

Thank you all.

This could happend to your child while they are at school.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyMbaZ9FVjA

High pressure pipelines run all over the Eola property!!
The Eola site is wrong for our children.

Call you elected officials!

Hey Chris B, get off the blogs (just sending out a hello to the peeps ont he street). Still 50 and 0, and going strong! Looking forward to continuing the streak.

My son will be a freshman next year at WV, and if all goes well, and the SB is successful in meeting their time lines, he will be a member of the first graduating class of Metea Valley. We are very excited about this proposition for a number of reasons. His commute to school will be reduced, he will have greater opportunities to become involved in extra curriculiar activities due to the lower student population, and he will always have the honor of being a member of the first gradutating class from Metea Valley.

The people who have filed this lawsuit are claiming that the site is unsafe. I would like to know how anyone can come to any conclusion on whether the site is safe or not without all of the testing results. If the complaintants only concern was for the safety of the children, I don't beleive the lawsuit should have been filed until after the enviromental testing results had been made public.

I am still crossing my fingers in hopes to having Metea Valley open for my son next year.

You want to see a blog in regards to Ms. Tyle's email yesterday...go to:

http://www.ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=sb&action=display&thread=1205707896&page=1

Completely inappropriate from a Board member! Kinda sick of hearing about how TG and WE want to stay at NV (when we all know this is not going to happen and that these communities are accepting of this). Looks like Ms. Tyle and her community will do anything to stay at NV! (I guess their self interests are at least being protected by a Board member and Joni).

Yes, the power lines run through NV and across Frontier Park and on through Ashbury. Not sure the size but they're pretty big.

By Wake Up 204! on March 17, 2008 8:07 AM
Some of the people in this community just don't get it. Take a look for a moment at what has gone on here:

1) D204 drives a referendum through to get us to agree to build a third high school at Brach-Brodie.

2) They try to buy the land and the jury gives them a really high price.

3) They choose an inferior alternative site. They get the community riled up into filing a lawsuit.

4) So now, what will they do? To appease those people who are so upset over the Eola/Molitor property and its environmental concerns and to appears the NSFOC people who want their kids to go to their 'neighborhood' (read: Neuqua) school, they'll agree to buy Brach-Brodie. BUT it's going to cost an additional $10-20 million dollars -- and the referendum to approve that additional cost is coming your way. After all -- IT'S WHAT YOU WANTED, right? To build the school at BB? That's what NSFOC is saying.

The School Board is playing us. They'll end up with just what they wanted -- a 3rd high school at Brach-Brodie and we'll pick up the tab because, hey, the residents sued to make it happen.

....I must have been sleeping because I didn't even figure this one out! "Wake Up 204" you are RIGHT ON POINT!!!

By 204 on March 17, 2008 9:31 AM
Here is a link showing the electric substation and power lines in relation to Tall Grass. You can zoom in and move around within the map to get your bearings.

The tan colored rectangle towards the top of the map is the substation and the power lines run just south of it. You can make out the power line poles.

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/Naperville+IL+60564/?#a/maps/l:::Naperville:IL:60564:US:41.7059:-88.1973:zip:Will+County/m:hyb:12:41.698311:-88.210313:0::/io:0:::::f:EN:M:/e

MY COMMENT....It helps if you ZOOM in to Level 14 on the mapquest link.

Start at the busses,(the yellow rectangular objects) go a little south until you see a white rectangular shape. This is one of the buildings of the storage company, go left of there and you will see the substation and south of there is the power lines.

My family recently moved into the Harris Farm neighborhood, the subdivision directly across the proposed location for MVHS. My kids are young, but if we stay here, ultimately they will attend MVHS. Our backyard faces the new Eola/Molitor site and in fact we have a Bird's Eye view of the entire location from our bedroom window. I've even taken pictures of the property from our backyard and would be more than willing to share them with the moderator to post here if interested. In all honesty, the true picture (how the property looks) is somewhere between the extremely negative pictures on nsfoc.com and the extremely positive pictures on nsfocfraud.com

We ultimately bought our home in Harris Farm assuming that our kids would go to WVHS (this was before the BB site controversy). We've heard great things about WVHS from our friends in Oakhurst and Stonebridge and were really excited about sending our kids there.

Getting back to the issue here, I am very concerned about the environmental hazard that this site MIGHT pose. However, I am waiting to hear from the IEPA and read their report before taking any sort of action. It is at least comforting to read that a school will not be built on this site if the IEPA finds reason to believe that it could be harmful to kids.

What I do find interesting though is that there's not so much chatter from the folks who would be directly affected by this new site - namely families whose kids would be attending the new MVHS. The lawsuit appears to have originated mainly from the TG/WE communities, and while I appreciate their humanitarian concern for our children, I would really like to hear from my nearby neighbors how they feel about this issue. It would really help if you identified your subdivision in your post.

It looks like those lines run directly overhead the NV soccer fields? What kind of lines are these? It looks like they go 6 wires or so across....

Here is a link showing the electric substation and power lines in relation to Tall Grass. You can zoom in and move around within the map to get your bearings.

The tan colored rectangle towards the top of the map is the substation and the power lines run just south of it. You can make out the power line poles.

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/Naperville+IL+60564/?#a/maps/l:::Naperville:IL:60564:US:41.7059:-88.1973:zip:Will+County/m:hyb:12:41.698311:-88.210313:0::/io:0:::::f:EN:M:/e

To: Editors/Moderators:
Move two years forward, they did the environmental studies, and the site is safe.

They did???Perhaps you are on the special secret mailing list and you have been provided with the Phase II studies that are being held back from the rest of us. Perhaps the couple of weeks of testing is not anywhere close to what will be required in regards to placing a school on an industrial site? Keep reading the papers....we are months away from the real testing being completed!

Has the District concluded this site is now safe (yes, somewhere around January 15th before any of their cursory testing was performed). The District excluded the site because of exactly what is happening today.

Editors/Moderators:

Why are you trying to incite further NSFOC riot with the rehashing of the parcel evaluation from two years ago?

Two years ago the School Board listed "perceived" environmental issues on the Eola site as one of the concerns with the location. They did not perform environmental testing on the site. All possible locations had concerns listed. The biggest one with Eola was the sellers didn't want to sell. Now they do.

Move two years forward, they did the environmental studies, and the site is safe.

Amazing how the most vocal of those pushing their environmental concern/agenda are those who are being now relocated to WVHS???

Some of the people in this community just don't get it. Take a look for a moment at what has gone on here:

1) D204 drives a referendum through to get us to agree to build a third high school at Brach-Brodie.

2) They try to buy the land and the jury gives them a really high price.

3) They choose an inferior alternative site. They get the community riled up into filing a lawsuit.

4) So now, what will they do? To appease those people who are so upset over the Eola/Molitor property and its environmental concerns and to appears the NSFOC people who want their kids to go to their 'neighborhood' (read: Neuqua) school, they'll agree to buy Brach-Brodie. BUT it's going to cost an additional $10-20 million dollars -- and the referendum to approve that additional cost is coming your way. After all -- IT'S WHAT YOU WANTED, right? To build the school at BB? That's what NSFOC is saying.

The School Board is playing us. They'll end up with just what they wanted -- a 3rd high school at Brach-Brodie and we'll pick up the tab because, hey, the residents sued to make it happen.

Jim, curious what the reaction of the Sun is in regards to the NSFOC.fraud website that attacks Mr. Waldorf's "objective" reporting.

It sure is funny how the law suit talks about EMF from the power lines by the Eola Road site, yet no one raised a syink about the power lines running behind NVHS and through the Tall Grass Subdivision.
The Eola Rd site is the best choice. It does not make sense to have 3 high schools clumped together in the middle of a district.
To all you parents who say they don't want their children crossing the railroad tracks to get to WVHS; should children really be driving?

So now NSFOC is concerned over the costs of lawsuit against BB. And their answer to that is to file ANOTHER lawsuit so the school board has to pay MORE legal fees?

See through the smokescreen people. The lawsuit is all about certain people getting their children into Neuqua Valley.

NAPERVILLE Schools For Our Children.

Sorry - Point taken about it not being a Naperville High School. Let me re-state:

(the site)"Looks lovely. Not. Whether it is safe or not, the perception of power lines isn't great. So all those visiting schools (baseball, tennis, football) can enjoy the view too. ("why would Indian Prairie School District, consisting of mostly Naperville, Aurora, a few neighborhoods from Bolingbrook and one from Plainfield build a school here? (Eola site)

Any chance of the Naperville Sun posting a satellite picture of Tall Grass with the powerlines, rail tracks and gas lines highlighted? It would be great to see a comparison.

Please people it is NOT Naperville building the school it is the tax payers of IPSD 204 which is consists of Aurora, Naperville, Bolingbrook and Plainfield.

Enough of the "Naperville" BS it is not their SD.

Much of what has been said above (from both sides of the coin) makes sense...(ie. let's wait for the results).

Up until a few days ago, the District continued to state that they plan on closing on March 19th and breaking land on April 1 (I think the official position at this time is "no comment").

I do want to give Mr. Metzger credit in that he has now come out and stated that the land will close when the land is ready to close (which is certainly a more prudent and responsible approach).

Jim, I appreciate you acknowledging that the Board has to answer why it raised the concerns regarding EMF when they excluded this site 2 years ago. They should also address why the Illinois PTA has a position against building schools near such power lines. To date, there has been no such answer forthcoming!

It is clear (and consistent with precendence) that reasonable due diligence on whether a school should be built on industrial land such as this should be comprehensive and should take months.
This is especially true given Mid West Gen's contradiction of the statements by the Board and the District that it would carry liability going forward.Fortunately, I think we are finally heading in that direction.

One small example to illustrate the point... the District's EMF readings shared to date were inexplicably only taken near ground level. I expect that the school will be 2-3 stories tall, and obviously the higher the level, the closer it will be to the power lines (and preseumably, the higher the EMF numbers).

As an aside, many of us refuse to accept the comparison to hair dryers, etc. There is a body of evidence to suggest that there is a higher incidence of childhood leukemia the closer a child lives to power lines (and folks, the size of the power lines at this site are not the power lines you see in our subdivisions). Perhaps if a child used a hair dryer for 8 hours a day for 200 days a year, there would be a similar connection (I do not know).

Regardless, the Board itself suggested the concern regarding EMF in the past and excluded the site because of this (as has at least one other State which prohibits building a school within a certain distance from powerlines---and building on this site would be illegal per se if we lived in that State).

The EMF is just one small example of what has emerged in the District's testing, and I believe that there will be independent testing performed over the next months as well that will in fact shed light on whether this site is in fact safe. I suspect that the fact we have not been provided with the test results promised by the District speaks volumes in regards to the remediation that has emerged after these rounds of cursory testing (that as Midwest Gen pointed out, were only done under under the supervision of the District's hired experts).

I understand the frustration and emotions that are attached to this issue (after all, these are our children). However, I would hope that everyone would agree that before we spend our taxpayer money on closing on this land (and starting construction), these issues need to be answered in a satisfactory manner.

I pulled up the Eola map on the Naperville Sun website with no problem.

Why is the district buying the church site if there isn't anything planned for the land? Why is every jammed to the north and east up against the power lines?

Looks lovely. Not. Whether it is safe or not, the perception of power lines isn't great. So all those visiting schools (baseball, tennis, footbal) can enjoy the view too. ("why would Naperville build a school here?)

http://www.healthy-energy-lifestyle.com/HealthyEnergyLifestyle_ChiWaveGuard.htm

It would appear that we all need one of these :). I have been poring over medical literature and EPA sites the last few days.The only thing that I have concluded is that we should all have cancer by now due to EMF's. Actually our homes have the highest levels.To put it fairly, one must have the genetic presence for the EMF to cause a disease such as Leukemia but nonetheless... There are lots of sites in our district that have higher EMF readings and you would be surprised where they are. Folks we are opening a can of worms, bigtime. Eola/Molitor is the least of our concerns....

RJ -
I didn't mean to attribute anything to Dr. Daeschner other than:
"That will not occur for quite some time now," he said. "So, in all honesty, that whole entire area is going to be fenced off, if you will. It will be not be utilized, certainly until it is totally remediated, but we will have nobody - kids or anyone - working in that area for quite a while down the road."

So, you are right. The rest are my words. Because, in effect, the SB wants to close on the land and get going, with the outcome of the peaker plant dismantling, subsequent land remediatation, and IEPA test results TBD. In my opinion, and for my dollars, that is an awfully big thing to leave open ended. It would be nice for Daeschner to specify the timeframe of all this - "quite some time" is rather vague, isn't it and clarify to the taxpaying public in writing that Midwest Gen is responsible for all associated costs, no matter how long it ends up taking. Would you feel comfortable buying a house if the builder told you it will be ready "some time from now"? And, oh, by the way, we don't know what we might find once we start digging in the ground. We'll let you know once we cross that bridge. I think people might feel more comfortable if the SB was more forthcoming with details. They give off the appearance that they, themselves, don't know - or they don't want us to know. Not sure. But sharing some more information would go along way in securing public trust.

It would be helpful if folks contributing comments to this blog indicated which high school their neighborhood will attend under the current plan. Do neighborhoods slated for Metea support this lawsuit or not? If the crux of the lawsuit is about the safety of the site, it seems to me that theirs are the only opinions that should matter.

from Moderator Jim to Anonymous 2-

"Telll you what, I'll contact them in the morning and try to get it up on their web site as well. Thanks."

---
thank YOU, jim; and, maybe, the people of aurora might thank you, also.

anonymous2, it must be your computer. I also have no problem with the PDF opening up by just clicking on the Sun's link. Maybe a visit from the geek Squad is in order?

from Moderator Jim to Anonymous 2-

"Sorry about that, but glad you were able to get it. weird, I had no problem on my computer. Maybe it was just a temporary glitch"

-------
it's not a temporary glitch- i have had this happen before with the sun pdf's... i will ask other people if they have trouble clicking directly on the pdf links, and getting the info directly.

..." As for the Aurora paper, I {MOD JIM} can't speak for them. They do their own thing. You might want to contact them. Thanks."

-------------
that's unfortunate that the Aurora side of district 204 does not have this map, or info(they have to do a 'search'.. it's not on the website 'front page')...

and the Aurora City Council is meeting to discuss, further, on whether to annex this parcel of land(!) on Tues 3.18, and Tues 3.25.08.

Is the Aurora Beacon relevant to the people of Aurora, and the Aurora City Council?

............."That takes you to the story along with a PDF of the site map. Just click on that link and you'll have it in living color on your computer"
-----------------
Sorry, i get nothing when clicking on pdf but the following:

.."Windows has the following information about this file type. This page will help you find software needed to open your file.

File Type: Unknown

Description: Windows does not recognize this file type.

You may search the following Web site for related software and information:

Windows Live Search
You may purchase or download software related to this file type from the following Web site:

Windows Marketplace

Have questions? See these Frequently Asked Questions"....

-------

.. but then i copied the above mentioned pdf link, saved it to my desktop, then opened it with adobe acrobat, and it worked...

that'a a lot of hoops to jump thru to open this pdf file!

big picture issues: Here is exactly what Dr.D stated in it's entirety;

"That will not occur for quite some time now," he said. "So, in all honesty, that whole entire area is going to be fenced off, if you will. It will be not be utilized, certainly until it is totally remediated, but we will have nobody - kids or anyone - working in that area for quite a while down the road."

Nowhere does he state it is "going to need more remediation in the future before it is safe for students and employees",nor does he state "If it's not being done now, it is not being paid for by Midwest Generation. It will be paid by us, the taxpayers, down the road! So, POOF, there goes the rest of our "savings".

Those are your words. What this means in reality is, MWGEN needs to dismantle the peaker plant in it's entirety and remediate the property to the satisfaction of all parties, including the IL EPA, before it turns it over to the SD. Meanwhile, the rest of the site can and will be built on as this process is done, as it would be foolish to hold up the start of construction on the actual school until this process is complete.

RE: This blog

'In today's Sun (Sun. 3.16) we outline and put the new site for the proposed third high school for District 204 in full context. In a

detailed front-page graphic, using satellite imagery, we show the exact location of where the school stands to be located at Eola and Molitor Rd.The precise locations of the power lines, gas pipelines and the peaker plant are shown where they are in relation to where the high school will be." .....
----------

i saw the 'front page graphic map' on the front page of the Naperville Sun.. why isn't it on the Naperville Sun website? and it isn't on the Aurora Beacon, The Plainfield Sun, or the Bolingbrook Sun websites.

you have to 'search' to find today's (sun 3.16.08) article in the Aurora Beacon; and you can't find today's article, at all, in the Plainfield or Bolingbrook Suns.

Yet, you have a 'poll' on the Naperville Sun front page which will be on for another week- is this story important, or not??

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

Environmentally safe or not, the site is in the wrong and an "unsafe" location to serve the student community and the population density. This Eola creates a situation where more children and parents going more distance each day by bus or car. That is where the risk is - automobile accidents. Also not to mention a great waste of gas and adding more traffic on an already congested mess on the maain roads of Naperville.

I think the NFSOC took their "best" argument forward to maybe win a case, but it is about all those other things. People who don't want the third school (taxes taxes), people who don't want to go a school further than the one they go to now, people who think the SB was untrustworthy, (almost illogical at times and definitely played the own agendas), people who think they were mis-led by SB , and people who think that a nice new HS should be situated in the SW or SE corner of the district would solve alot.

To: Your Narrow Mind........

To quote you: "Afterall the lawsuit doesn't even mention the Eola site, all it says is BB or nothing. Give me a break, let me worry about my own kids safety and you concentrate on your falling real estate property values by the way your acting."

Your comments do nothing except prove my point about the level of ignorance that exists on many, many levels. And, again, all you can do is resort to more name calling. You have obviously not read the complaint. It does mentione the Eola site and a good portion of the complaint actually focuses on the concerns surrounding it, including the fact that the SB itself dismissed it because of potential hazards two years ago. Try reading it, then try looking at a map that plots out the school and its "amenities". Maybe the school is not right on top of the peaker plant and oil storage container, but that doesn't mean that kids will never be near them.
I won't be sucked in to your ridiculous comments about property values. They only land and the only property value I'm concerned about at the moment is that of Eola/Molitor.

To RJ: Thanks for at least refraining from name calling. I can understand that it is standard operating procedure to fence off areas that are under construction for any reason. My concern, and focus of my comment, was rather at the timeframe we are looking at here. It's "full steam ahead" on buying the land and getting the school up and running while the "bad part of the property" sits fenced off "for some time", according to Mr. Daeschner. Further he says, "It will not be utilized until it is totally remediated, but we will have nobody - kids or anyone - in that area for quite a while down the road." As a concerned person and taxpayer, this means to me that it is not going to be remediated any time soon - remaining as a risk and a future tax burden. Midwest Generation is NOT going to be around to pay the bill, or assume any interim liabilities - that is clear.

Moderator Jim to Anonymous: Very good point. The SB's prior rejection of this site is one of the big unanswered questions in this story. Sooner or later they're going to have to answer it.

I don't know what there answer will be but I'll guess..

Think of a beauty pageant. The winner is disqualified. The first runner up takes her place. She wasn't good enough to win, but she won by default.

I would assume the SB rejected the site, because they could only choose one "winner" and the POTENTIAL hazards of the "1st runner up". As you see, they are trying to see if the POTENTIAL hazard is an ACTUAL hazard.

Sorry to use such an analogy, but some people need things explain by illustration and laments terms.

Wow, now that was interesting. I just read Shawn Collins letter to the SB(nice job in earning $204 per idiot just to sign his name on a letter).

If you take everything in his letter to the SB as truthful and apply it to the Tall Grass subdivision. They never should have built homes in TALL GRASS. There exposed to high EMF readings due to the power lines in their subdivision.

add the Laidlaw bus fumes and the noise level of freight train horns all times of the day and night. This should have been the land the school board should condemn and looks like they would have gotten a bargain.

When moving to Naperville we looked at houses near high power lines. Why do you think these houses cost less than similar houses in the same neighborhood?...Because there are questions regarding the safety of living under high power lines. We chose not to consider those homes for purchase "just in case". For the exact same reason, the school board rejected this site previously. Why do you think this property is a bargain for 204? I guess, for me, that risk is just too high.

Let me pose a question to the NSFOC. Say there is no serious risk at the Eola site or better yet what if they picked a site still in the "north" that had no risk. I'm guessing you would have still filed your frivolous lawsuit, right? It still would have been BB site or bust, so your kids can go to the new HS or NVHS. I know it is a hypothetical question but I'm assuming my asnwer is correct, you'd still sue and think of a different propoganda technique to further your self interests. We all see through your BS.

To: Anonymous at 11:06am

What do you care, seriously? I will bet you don't even live in that area and probably have never been there yourself. Please stop worrying about those kids and focus on your own. Oh wait, you are because you helped file a frivolous lawsuit because it's BB or nothing so your kids can go to the newest HS because you don't want them going to WVHS. Did I get that about right? I thought so.

I see you are already gearing up for an excuse if the EPA comes back and states everything is fine.

Quoted from the sun

"The studies are being overseen by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which must approve all test results and will ensure the site is clean before the district will build the third high school at the Eola site."

By Anonymous on March 16, 2008 11:06 AM
"That site will never be safe, I don't care who they hire to say otherwise"

You see where this is headed NSFOCfraud, please include this comment on your website. These people will never be happy, even after everything comes back fine. ITS ALL ABOUT NV. Not MV. Not the SB. Just a bunch of BS.

To the sun, you ask about which side do you believe? The ones with accurate and hard evidence, not those who have the NV or bust mentality.

Facts? More hysteria. No one really knows anything despite the chest thumping in the media. This question will not be answered until an independant study is made by professionals that have no emotional attachment to #204 and makes its findings public. The SB has lost its credibility and are spending more money by hiring another law firm. NSFOC main objective is to keep Tall Grass at NV so they are not creditable. No one can be believed until outside studies are completed.

I love the comments from our superintendent that we will just rope off the contaminated area that we really do understand?

Yep, you kids will go to school next to a toxic dump but don't worry, we will build a fence around it.

What a joke.

Do you want to take the risk that your children will go to school on a site that we may discover in 10 years was completely unsafe all along?

That site will never be safe, I don't care who they hire to say otherwise.

..and I thought Chicken Little was a fictional character. This is quite entertaining.

To: big picture

"PLEASE PUT PERSONAL AGENDAS ASIDE, STOP ACCUSING YOUR NEIGHBORS OF SELFISH MOTIVES"

Oh, you mean like your person agenda of suing the IPSD because you want the school in your backyard or no where at all? Because you don't want your kids attending WVHS? Kinda like those agendas and selfish motives? Will your kids be attending MVHS? Mine will so I like the rest of the parents who's kids will be attending MVHS will wait for the professional results and not trust NSFOC and their greedy lawyer. Afterall the lawsuit doesn't even mention the Eola site, all it says is BB or nothing. Give me a break, let me worry about my own kids safety and you concentrate on your falling real estate property values by the way your acting.

big picture issues on March 16, 2008 9:49 AM

"Furthermore, it has been confirmed by Daeschner in today's Sun article that plans for a good portion of the Eola property may need to be changed and that that portion of the land is going to be "fenced off" for awhile. Why?"

The area around the peaker plant will be fenced off during the dismantling and remediation process. That is standard procedure on any site,regardless of environmental concerns. The fencing helps to limits liability from nosey busybodies looking for evidence and curious children getting hurt snooping around the site.

H-E-L-L-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO People....

Why doesn't everyone just cool their jets on the whole "is the Eola site safe" argument and wait for the results of testing?

I'm sure that once the results are presented everyone will have a chance to review them and better understand whether the new site is suitable or not. Until then it's all just conjecture, speculation and idle chatter.

By Anonymous on March 16, 2008 7:12 AM

"If there are differing opinions on weather or not the site is safe, what gives the school board the right to decide it is safe for our children?"

It is no different than a select few claiming the site not safe for the sole reason they don't want their kids going to WVHS.

This is serious! It is time to stop the name calling and pay attention to the facts. For those of you who honestly believe the SB is acting financially responsibly and is "saving" us 13M by buying Eola/Molitor over BB, please read Justin Kmitch's article in the Daily Herald yesterday! (follows) Botton line, the SB may have to pay BB attorney fees and damages to the BB trust for abandoning the condemnation suit, upwards of 13M DOLLARS! They don't even know the final amount yet - it could be more! So, this perceived "savings" is a joke - people need to wake up to this fact.
In the article Metzger admits they have budgeted $5M to pay the BB lawyer fees, but nothing for damages. The SB apparently thinks they can tie up someone's property for several years, then walk away without a care! Where do you think the money to pay the attorney fees and damages are going to come from? Our tax dollars! So, millions of dollars and counting..........just to back out of a deal. They don't know the final amount owed, yet want to sign a contract on Eola in 4 days (per Daeschner). This is responsible?

Furthermore, it has been confirmed by Daeschner in today's Sun article that plans for a good portion of the Eola property may need to be changed and that that portion of the land is going to be "fenced off" for awhile. Why? Because it is unsafe and is going to need more remediation in the future before it is safe for students and employees. If it's not being done now, it is not being paid for by Midwest Gerneration. It will be paid by us, the taxpayers, down the road! So, POOF, there goes the rest of our "savings".
So, at the end of the day, the EOLA PROPERTY WILL PROBABLY END UP COSTING MORE THAN BB. We will forever also have safety issues in the back of our minds, whether our children attend there or not. To quote today's Sun article: "building a school over gaslines will change the status of the property to a "high consequence area".

PLEASE PUT PERSONAL AGENDAS ASIDE, STOP ACCUSING YOUR NEIGHBORS OF SELFISH MOTIVES AND READ/UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL (and environmental) FACTS. THE DISTRICT WANTS TO USE OUR TAX DOLLARS TO BUY A SUB-STANDARD PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR THE NEW SCHOOL. They themselves turned this property down for the very issues that are now coming to light. Is the degree of seriousness of these issues really the point? WHERE IS THEIR INTEGRITY? After looking at THE FACTS, and not surmising about what may or may not motivate your neighbors, how can anyone think, in good conscience, that this SB is doing the "best that it can". This is a disgrace. The SB should be ashamed of its recklessness, lack of leadership, and its continued promotion of pitting neighbor against neighbor as a distraction to understanding what is really going on here.

Daily Herald article (3/15) by Justin Kmitch*******************

Imagine being forced to pay $13 million for something you don't even want.

Indian Prairie Unit District 204 officials could find themselves in that position pending the outcome of Monday's court date regarding their failed effort to acquire the Brach-Brodie land in Aurora for Metea Valley High School.

The district and representatives of the Brach-Brodie trust are expected to appear at 9 a.m. before Circuit Judge Robert Kilander. They will discuss what the property owners want to recoup as a result of the district's decision to abandon its pursuit of 55 acres near 75th Street and Commons Drive. The district already owns 25 acres there.

District 204 had selected the Brach-Brodie site for the proposed 3,000-student high school, but backed away after a jury decided the 55 acres were worth $31 million -- about $17 million more than the school system was prepared to pay.

"The court will want to know who's going to make what kind of claim, when we are going to have a hearing on those claims and if there is going to be discovery to determine whether the claims are bona fide," property trust attorney Steve Helm said.

Those claims could top $13 million, Helm said Friday. He said that figure is based on reports from hired experts who determined the value of the acreage rapidly declined between December 2005 when the district attempted to condemn it and this February when the district formally ended its condemnation effort.

Helm said his clients first will ask the judge to force the district to use funds secured in its $125 million 2006 referendum to buy the property.

If the district is unable to do so, it will be asked to reimburse the trust for about $3 million in legal fees and roughly $9.5 million in damages caused by the decreasing value of the property.

"The property has undergone a big loss in value from December 2005, when we were subjected to the condemnation lawsuit, until Feb. 4, 2008," Helm said. "During that time the market went from a fantastic market to all of a sudden being a market that is not as good as it was.

"The Brodies will be seeking that reduction in value that results from the abandonment if they don't come back to buy our property."

School district attorney Rick Petesch did not return calls Friday. School board President Mark Metzger said the district has budgeted for some of the estimated legal fees but not for any decrease in property values.

"We asked early on in October for the fee estimates and we were told they would be as much as $4 million, so we budgeted $5 million," Metzger said. He would not comment on any additional damage claims the trust might seek.

Officials say Monday's proceedings are unlikely to derail the district's plans to build Metea on their newly selected site along Eola Road south of Diehl Road near Aurora.

Superintendent Stephen Daeschner last week said he hopes the district will close on the 87-acre Eola Road parcel owned by St. John AME Church and Midwest Generation on March 19.

On Friday, Metzger declined to set the same target date.

"The sale will close when it's ready to close," he said.

The Aurora City Council is expected to annex the Eola Road site on March 25.

School officials say they're still hopeful they will be able to open the bulk of Metea Valley in the fall of 2009.

If there are differing opinions on weather or not the site is safe, what gives the school board the right to decide it is safe for our children? They have decided without any input from the community. Put the site to a vote at the very least.