That's the gist of the story in today's Sun (Sun.3.30), according to the group of 204 residents called "Neighborhood Schools for Our Children" or NSFOC. The group is suing the school board over the new site of the third high school at Eola/Molitor Rd. Here it is in a nutshell: Thirty-seven acres of the 87-acre site of the new school are owned by Midwest Generation which, until a year ago, operated a peaker power plant on 17 of those acres. The school board commissioned a consultants' report regarding environmental issues associated with the site, but those reports have been under wraps for the past three weeks. Now, the district is planning to go ahead and start construction in mid-April to ensure an August 2009 opening of the school. The district will seek IEPA approval on the site - a process that NSFOC attorney Shawn Collins says could take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. The district, meanwhile, will not build on the 37 Midwest Generation acres (that portion of the site was slated for tennis courts) but will start work on the remaining acres so that the school can be built simultaneous to the examination of the suspect acres by the IEPA.But that's not good enough for the
NSFOC. They want the whole site - all 87 acres - to have the IEPA's stamp of approval, after having, they say in their complaint, identified 26 chemicals connected to peaker plants that could permeate through the groundwater back into the school area and expose the kids to who knows what? The NSFOC is accusing the school board and the district of "rushing to judgment" in their haste to get the first bulldozers moving at the Eola/Molitor site. Where do you side on this issue? We'd like to know.
Finally, and hopefully - some sanity or logic may be hitting the table. HOW can a school board move ahead on property WITHOUT a clean bill of health. And not just from one area of the site, but from ALL THE LAND where our kids will attend? That's almost criminal to say that they can choose to build with knowledge that "clean up" is inevitable. And what is the cost of that clean up? No one has tested the ENTIRE property.
And I think now people need to discuss the liability issue moving forward. The cost to clean the area. The danger "unknown" to the area. Midwest Generator will not accept liability for future lawsuits, thus our SB will have to. More $$$$ for that in the future.
No longer is the discussion just about the SB's moving the location that was marketed. Now the discussion is also about building on land that is dangerous.
At what point do people like Mr. Glaw, Stephens, and a couple others step up to stop this insanity. We understand that Metzger and our superintendent are willing to "risk" the report or simply see it another way.
If the land was good, they wouldn't be in this situation.
The only people who can stop the insanity are the supporters of Metea going there. Problem with that is there are only a couple dozen people. They blog, the fix polls - and scream as if they are a group. I'd be so embarrassed to want a new school so bad that I didn't care what the IEPA said about the land. And I accepted the unknown dangers.
Yet, NSFOC group can attest to 3,000 to 4,000 or more residents who want the project stopped. They are raising money. How much money are their opposition group raising?
Pay attention everyone; pride will cost all of the district millions and millions. Cost for BB is cheap when you consider they (SB) will be paying "millions" to fight a lawsuit...and eventually millions to clean up the site. And who knows what other cost they don't care about.
Can you image if the correct information was given out before the ref passed for this school. It would have read something like this:
"Vote yes for the third high school at a cost of $130 million"
But, the marketing information would have to say "Please be advised that we may not be able to obtain the BB property, so if this happens, boundaries will be changed and a school site that has environmental problems may be our choice; and we will build on it before we know all the health hazards to our kids. And cost may be higher"
OUTCOME OF THAT VOTE would be clear. This is not funny anymore, this is scary. Why would any parent in this district support this.
It's like saying "we will allow 100s of kids to walk near a cliff, and we'll eventually find out how bad the fall to the ground is later."
How about not allowing kids near the cliff and build somewhere else.
To: Mark M on March 30, 2008 8:20 AM
Cool your jets Mister. Why don't you WAIT for the reports BEFORE spreading FALSE information about the site!!
IF the site is deemed "unsafe" and cannot be remediated safely, I am certain that they will not move forward with the site.
HOWEVER, your "cart before the horse" propaganda is EXACTLY why the community DETESTS NSFOC.
what? another one-sided opinion piece from mr. waldorf? never saw that coming (then again, it has been 3 days since his last one). keep up the good journalism tim.
all i ask is when the incredibly clean phase 2 reports are made public, please-oh-please write another one of your columns that day. can't wait to see how you'll spin that one.
I was unable to attend the February 19 SB meeting to discuss the boundaries, so I watched portions of the meeting video. Something that continues to bother me is at 2 hours and 52 minutes into the meeting. Dr. D begins to speak and people cannot hear him. I believe M2 tells him "They can't hear you." Then Dr. D. says, "Good". It is one of the most unprofessional things I have ever heard. This type of attitude towards the residents of 204 is a big reason why we are in this position today. Many feel the Board does not care what we have to say.
The residents of 204 deserve a little more respect.
Watch for yourself.
http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/Subpage.aspx/OnDemandVideo
Moderator Jim to nsfoctim: I wonder if you've even read the story. It accurately portrayed both sides of the story, from the construction head of 204 revealing their plans to start building, while staying away from the acres they believe need IEPA oversight to the NSFOC contention that the whole site needs an environmental okay. As for the phase 2 reports, I'd like to remind you that due to "confidentiality agreements" thre has been no public dissemination of the reports. So, unless if you a crystal ball, I wonder how you can say that the phase 2 reports give the site a clean bill of health? .
By nsfoctim on March 30, 2008 10:16 AM
what? another one-sided opinion piece from mr. waldorf? never saw that coming (then again, it has been 3 days since his last one). keep up the good journalism tim.
all i ask is when the incredibly clean phase 2 reports are made public, please-oh-please write another one of your columns that day. can't wait to see how you'll spin that one.
____________________________________________
I'd like to commend Mr. Waldorf. I thought the article was well written and factual.
nsfoctim, Have you seen the "incredibly clean phase 2 reports?" How do you know they are "incredibly clean"? If they are, why can't all of us see them?
I cannot believe this district is going forward building on the Eola site. I really wish they would slow down.
Am I missing something? As far as I know, the district has NOT closed on the land. They promised to (1) release the P2 Studies to the public, (2) then hold a Special Meeting to discuss the P2 Studies, and (3) only after it was agreed that it was safe with the stamp of approval of the IEPA, would they close on the land.
So how is it now that the District Project Manager is saying that "construction of the high school will not be delayed" by the environmental concerns of the land?
I'd like to remind the School Board that they ratified the following amendment to the proposition to close on the land at the 1/22/08 Mtg: "...sign a contract which includes complete remediation of any and all environmental issues." Please don't tell me that the school board is going back on ANOTHER promise!!!
Following is an exact quote from the 1/22/08 board meeting that I find rather ironic given the current report:
Mark Metzger:
2:16:00
“With regard to the Phase 2 environmental: I don’t anticipate it, but that could certainly turn into a deal-breaker for us. I mean, it’s entirely possible that some irretrievable problem is detected. But that’s why we’re doing that. That’s why we’re checking it... And we have engaged, er, requested assistance from the Illinois EPA to help us look through that and make certain that it is as clean as it can possibly be. And determine whether it does, once and for all, represents any kind of a health hazard or problem.
Given the timing that Todd shared with us, I take a certain amount of comfort in still proceeding tonight knowing that we have multiple opportunities to stop this transaction if we need to based on the Phase 2."
It now seems that they have no intent of stopping for anything.
Viewing from afar, several comments:
1. I have seen other posters on this topic state that “Tallgrass has the same right of way problems with respect to utilities as the latest school site”. Someone buying in Tallgrass can make a choice if they are willing to live with the risk. Once a school district is assigned, the family has no choice on assuming the risk, their kid has to go there. You can always argue that they could pay twice for education if they don't like the way it is being served by 204. They could also choose to not pay the school taxes and ultimately have the Sheriff drag them out of their house so the auction can begin.
2. The 204 school board promised “A” when they convinced the residents to buy their new school plan and original location. Now they are delivering “B” instead of “A”. It’s been a while, but under the UCC, if this were a business transaction would it be a fraud? Bait and switch is the generic term. Order a Ford; get a Chrysler?
3. Since the age of populations in geographic areas tends to ebb and flow, could the millions be put into a trust fund? Then the revenue could be used as + or - 1000 vouchers to attend private schools in the area. This would be a perpetual self-supporting-fund. If more than 1000 kids are signed up for vouchers, hold a lottery. This would be the least expensive way to add 1000 seats to the district; outsource to address a temporary capacity problem. Huge sums could be saved on salaries, overhead and utilities.
Diversity of education?
Hopefully today's article will clarify to the many bloggers and believers out there who have said that the SB would never build on land before it was completely remediated and safe that yes, in fact, it will. Today is proof positive that it will. The IEPA has not been involved in the Phase I or Phase II testing - it has been done by a contractor/consultant who have decided amongst themselves what they are going to test for. If you read MM's comments in the paper today they are also very telling - "everything that was located - and it's very minimal at that - is easily and regularly remediated". What did they test for? The minimum? The obvious? Oil and gas used to run the Peaker Plant? Leaves them a convenient "oops" loophole for later on, when the IEPA is involved and Midwest Gen is OUT of the remediation picture legally and financially. The SB will tell us about more problems and more expense to clean up contaminants that were not "found" during the Phase II study - because they whole property was never tested, and they never tested for all possible contaminants in the first place.
No way is the cost of this land going to ultimately be for the "savings" they are claiming to be giving us by abandoning BB.
The SB's conduct in this matter is absolutely reprehensible. At this point, it is beyond comprehension how anyone can support their actions or this site for a 3rd HS. Those who still support the Board and the choice of this site should stop dismissing the press and the NSFOC (even if you do despise them) and start asking yourselves why you should have to rely on these groups to bring issues to light in regard to the Eola site. Seems to me the more people start asking questions, more inconvenient truths about the SB and the handling of this matter come to light. The SB is treating us like stooges - we, and certainly our children, deserve better.
to Moderator Jim,
You defend Little Timmy as being impartial but when is little Timmy going to report on who the NSFOC is? The NSFOC became an official corporation on March 18. They have to have a board of directors. They had to declare on the corporation papers if the "members" have voting rights. Timmy used in one of his articles the term "members" to describe the suppporters of the NSFOC. Where they really members or just donors. The state requires a corporation to declare what type of members the members are - voting and non-voting. You may ask why this is important. If the lawsuit cannot be won, will they settle? If they settle, who decides what they settle for? If this is just a couple of people from a certain subdivision? Is it ethical for them to collect donations if they can settle this if the district comes back and says that Tall Grass can stay at NVHS? Timmy doesn't even have to list the names of the directors...just specify in which subdivisions and how those subdivisions are effected by the new boundaries.
I am not asking him to make any subjective points in the article. Just list the facts...there are X numbers of directors (owners), The live in Subdivision A and/or B, the members have voting rights or do not have voting rights, the owners/directors of the NSFOC can settle anyway that specific number deems fit or they need to put it a vote of all the members.
Timmy should do this since the NSFOC will not volunteer this information. They cannot even be straight about tax deductability of donations. They tell you to go find out for yourself - even though they already have this information.
Moderator Jim, I look forward to your reply prior to making the same recommendation to the Hearld.
So Midwest Gen is NOT willing to accept liability for the site after closing? This was also a part of the motion Mr Glawe added before the clan approved purchasing Eola on 1/22. So add this to the list of broken promises.
I have a possible solution for the loud mouths who are willing to send their kids to this site without thorough testing and clearance by the IEPA. Sign up to cover any future litigation so that the rest of the district who wants the answers up front are not on the hook for your haste to get a school in your backyards.
If I was Midwest Gen I'd call off this deal. The first student with cancer will greate a gound swell of litigation and if they subpoena these blogs the school board has no defense. Mr Metzger why did you not liten to the concerns of your community BEFORE closing? Well, umm, you see I am a lawyer and though... Dr Dash, How about you... You see judge those parents think they're entitled to info but I've got a lot of experience with people questioning me and I just ignore them. Its such a bother and it slows me down.
So you'd rather build a school quickly than to do it safely? Good Night Steve. Time to find anothe school disrict to screw up.
Well, why would we expect anything different from our SB? There is nothing anyone can do at this point with the EXCEPTION of the 7 board members (if 4 could actually manage to find a backbone, some sanity miight return, at least for a brief period). THe lawsuit wont stop the construction, but later in the process may force the SB to actually test for all 26 chemicals on the entire parcel (we have no idea what the SB tested for other than diesel fuel and anti freeze since phase II has not been released). If the SB looses the lawsuit, they may have to halt construction and abandon the site/location; but that is aways off. If BB comes back at 20 mill in fees, SB would be over budget and have to dip into the 91M they have squirrled away (break yet another promise) to complete this train wreck or go for another ref to ask for more money
Nothing Suprizes me anymore regarding this SD/SB. As they come up for re-election; they will be removed; however the damage will have already been done. God help the poor souls that have the fortitute to run for SB in April 2009 to begin to clean this mess up.
From 3/9 Sun Article:
A clean site is written into the contract for the sale of the property. DePaul said the site must pass IEPA standards in order for the district to start construction.
"Midwest Generation has committed and will follow through to clean up anything to get a letter of no further remediation from the IEPA," DePaul said. "We hope this will reassure not only the school district, but also the residents that we have gone the extra step to make sure this site is safe."
From 3/20 Sun Article:
..both the district and its opponents agree that both development and implementation of this IEPA-approved plan won't be complete before Daeschner's mid-April deadline. According to the IEPA, the property has not yet been enrolled in its voluntary site remediation program.
=====================================
So the district has LIED about needing to meet IEPA standards before construction! I never want to hear that our kids safety is a priority for the school board. Never, ever, ever.
And what on earth happens if we run into more serious issues with the site? This is the most fiscally irresponsible thing this district has done.
anybody else think its ironic that the NSFOC wants the farm portion of the Eola site tested but never sued to require the same tests at the farm land on the BB site?
Hooray for the School Board! It is so refreshing to see the good guy will prevail! Yes, and Tim Waldorf, you've done a job on your reputation as a reporter here - having sooo much obvious bias to one side. Exactly what a true reporter should stay clear of. Yes, we all have biases, the reporter is employed to leave those biases at home and come to work professionally - which you have not in this case.
The residents of Tall Grass do have a choice to buy a house there - next to the sub station, electrical wires, gas lines and all. Once they purchase their home their, they are taking a legal stance in their support of their families safety in this area. Thus, nulling their RIGHT to file a law suit stating land like the land on which they live - is unsafe! To TG and WE residents responsible for dragging Linda Holmes into this, how selfish of you to risk destroying her career for something so petty and selfish - of course she could have and should have steered clear of this on her own and maybe you were not aware she would pull acts of intimidation to Mid West to accomplish her goal of derailing this project (but my guess is you were all just fine with this tampering. The parents with children slated for Metea at Eola are 100 percent supportive of the school board!
Moderator Jim to Anonymous: Did you read the story in today's Sun (Sun., 3.30)? Both sides were accurately represented. In your post, you fail to touch on the environmental issues associated with the site as accurately reported by Tim Waldorf. You may want to catch up on your reading before attacking him. I think you're a little - if not a lot - behind on this story.
It's absolutely shocking to see your pathetic rants on the Eola site "not being safe" when you (TG) all live on the same soil! You really are a sad excuse for role models for your children. It's sooo obvious the environmental reports are ALL clean, as the SB would not plan on breaking ground w/o that knowledge. Remember, they are the ones with the information. When Metea does open up, we will all feel confident in sending our children to school there, but I'm not sure I'd let my kids go to TG for soccer or swimming - now THAT area sounds like an environmental mess!!!
I do believe that the attitude to push forward at all costs is ridiculous. The SB is doing this to at least keep one promise - an opening in 2009. But also they know that a delay may allow more opposition to form and organize(those against the 3rd school, those against the site location)
The bloggers who are supporting how safe the site is (something we don't know yet) have got to be residents of Stonebridge, Brookdale, Oakhurst North and that one neighborhood that already backs up to the site. They want a new school that is closer to their homes (maybe secretly want to leave WVHS) and will accept the risks and a remediation bill yet to be determined to improve their own situation (commute, property value, new facilities). I'm amazed how only 17%of Brookdale voted "yes" for the third school AFTER the first boundaries were approved and after they learned they would be in a split middle school staying at WVHS. Now you have the same people casting stones at NSFOC supporters and promoting the "charge right ahead plan" to get the school built. That's hypocritical. Brookdale you should actually be NSFOC members and supporters so that maybe the process will slow down, be re-evaluated, and perhaps never built - which is what the large percentage of you wanted. Oh.....it was never about the need for a third school was it? you just didn't like the boundaries! Sounds like a few people in TG. (sorry to the 17% in Brookdale who did vote "yes")
P.S. Hey does this mean that Metea won't have tennis teams for some years while they de-contaminate? What other things won't this equal school have?
It's SO funny that people who disagree with an article bash the author and personally attack him or her.
It's the "luxury" for us citizens to have a press that does not just take at face value what politicians or government officials 'say.'
Press keeps (or attempts to) keep politicians honest, and one of their greatest assets to its readers and community is that they look deeper into things that affect our community.
Read John Kass in the Tribune. Read Carol Marine's investigative article column in the Sun Times today.
I have one long word for you who want to bash Tim Waldorf - can you say BLAGOVICH? This guy can't even hold a press conference now and answer questions asked of him. He is now close to being indicted.
I have some other words for you who want to base the writer who writes from two sides: Watergate, George Ryan, Mayor Daley's indicted head of staff Sorich - and the list goes on and on.
So, you may disagree with a writer's facts, but don't personally attack writers. They may be the ONLY thing that gets corruption into the spotlight.
D204 ---- until now there was not a unified organization trying to fight the decisions of the sb. This group has a right to organize, right to discuss and a right to question.
The Sun is blowing away the Daily Herald right now on the issue. And let's face it, take a look at the blogs and the residents who are upset; they have a right to be heard from the press.
Not in favor of current site - current school district team seems arrogant with their hurry to start constuction when all safety studies on the proposed site have not been released to the public.
How can construction begin when there are lawsuits pending against this issue ?
If we really need to build another high school - why is it not in the southern sector of Naperville where all the growth has been in the past 5 years ?
Not in favor of current site - current school district team seems arrogant with their hurry to start constuction when all safety studies on the proposed site have not been released to the public.
How can construction begin when there are lawsuits pending against this issue ?
If we really need to build another high school - why is it not in the southern sector of Naperville where all the growth has been in the past 5 years ?
By anonymous on March 30, 2008 2:39 PM
anybody else think its ironic that the NSFOC wants the farm portion of the Eola site tested but never sued to require the same tests at the farm land on the BB site?
**********************************
You're kidding, right? Trying to compare farm land that never sat next to a peaker plant to farm land that is right on top of one that operated without controls for 30 years.....really? To say something that silly, we'll just have to assume you are trying to drum up more hatred toward the NSFOC organization with nothing real to back it up. Yawn.
Hopefully, in everyone's best interest, the SB DID DO some kind of tests on BB before they started down that path. Who knows? They only disclose bits and pieces of information in the first place, then lie and contradict themselves when those bits become too inconvenient or throw off their schedule. If they do have to come back to BB for any reason, maybe you should follow up on this. Please don't rely on the NSFOC to do it for you.
To whomever thought they were the spokesperson for the district with the comment of "The parents with children slated for Metea at Eola are 100 percent supportive of the school board!":
No, we are not. Plenty of parents with children slated to go there now have been asking about the safety of the site and pointing out the discrepancies in historical documentation between what is documented by the Department of Energy, the Seller themselves and what the SB/Administration is telling us about the property; pointing out the falsehoods, the incomplete data they are using to make a decision and pointing out the hazards, future liability etc of the site for months now. That which did not fall on deaf ears what quipped back in smart-allek replies by the School Board President with more false statements. Interestingly enough, my own personal quest into the site information began well before it was even 'selected' and well before the boundaries were even approved.
Over 8 weeks ago I was told the test results would released 'real soon'. This site paints a huge SUE ME target on the back of the district because it has been documented over and over that the Administration and School Board members are aware of the problems and future liabilities of the site. There is plenty of documentation to show that they KNEW and also SHOULD HAVE KNOWN of any problem there. Choosing to not perform proper due diligence is just that, a choice. The public will have to live with the consequences of that.
God help us when the first problem reveals its ugly head. This district will be bankrupt because many lawyers in town already have plenty of documentation in their possession about this site, its history and the dangers present there as well as documented impact potentials from those hazards.
Before you make the assumption, NO, I am not a member of NSFOC or any other group and have given nobody any money for any side of this problem our district faces. I'm just a parent who cares about protecting the lives and health of his children and trying to ensure that our district does not take the big one up the backside due to people's rash, rushed and uninformed decisions to try to meet an unrealistic deadline for a HS (Aug 2009) at a site that has too many hazards and remaining unknowns from a safety perspective.
Dear Mr Lehman,
I know I've blown you off in the past and misrepresented your final reduced cost to acquire your land. I also admit that despite your offer and the support of both the park district and the city of Naperville I did not pursue your property. You see I had this other great piece of property that was closer to my home costed more than you offerred, was further away from the population of students and had no environmental concerns,
Well, seems that these Naperville folks are a bit sharper than the folks in Louisville. I find myself in a bit of a pickle. I was trying to rush this project and open the school in order to beat the election of 4 of the board members and before we know the final BB costs to walk away in 2009. Well, that 2009 date does not seem to be the possible.
I've figured out the land on Eola was so cheap since its got alot of issues (more than yours did) and so I'd like to meet you to discuss us working out a deal. Can we do so quickly though since when I announce this the northern part of the district is going to flip out more than the south side did when they heard about Eola.
Your property does make more sense since its closer to the kids, there is less travel time (lower transportation costs) and fewer environmental issues. The only thing it didn't have was the 2009 opening date and since thats a lost cause I want to talk. Hindsight is always 20-20 and its never too late to make a big blunder right when it is afterall ALL ABOUT THE KIDS.
With warmest regards,
SD
School Super for 2.1 years and counting down.
go to this Illinois Secretary of State website:
http://www.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/
enter in "Naperville School for our children"
click on the Name,when it appears.
Do you notice some key information missing here?
Who is behind the NSFOC?
only time will tell.
I hope 204 has some great liability insurance. If and or when a child were to come down with some horrific disease they would be on the hook. You have to ask yourself why the rush??? It seems more important to them to open next year than the students safety. Stop and wait for a complete testing of the site. If all comes back clear than start construction, not one second before.
go to this Illinois Secretary of State website:
http://www.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/
enter in "Naperville Schools for our children"
click on the Name,when it appears.
Do you notice some key information missing here?
Who is behind the NSFOC?
Note I left off the "S" in "Naperville Schools for our children"
$10 and the anonymous poster about the Naperville Sun's coverage...
The NSFOC is a couple of people...that it is all they are...the corporation appers will show it. The legal entity of the NSFOC is 2 or 3 people. Everyone else who say they support this, or have donated to the NSFOC are being mislead to believe tehy are members of the NSFOC. Little Timmy and the Naperville Sun calls them "members."
And this is unbiased reporting. This is a major misleading mistake that encourages others to donate. Of all the posts on these blogs questioning the legal make up of the NSFOC, not 1 response from the NSFOC. Not 1!
The truth will come out. It will probably be the Daily Herald that will report it since the editorial staff of the Naperville Sun probably live in the south part of town. But the the truth is that 300 people sent in checks so that 2 or 3 people can hire an attorney just to get the boundaries changed.
NSFOC, care to share the true corporate make up of your organization? I am not asking for names. I would liek to know how few people can "vote" on the resolution of your lawsuit amd where these people live?
FYI, the remediation issue is simple and common. Please note how they have a NSFOC spokesperson comment on the adjoining land and not Collins. Collins has to be careful not to mislead since he can be censured. He is an environmenatl attorney (and personal injury) and he knows that what the school is proposing doing (remediate the 1 area while building on the other is common).
The NSFOC is a fraud and the Naperville Sun only reports what is told to them. They do not look into anything prior to printing.
by $10 will do on March 30, 2008 4:56 PM
Maybe the question is, what subdivision do you live in and who are you? NSFOC had an open meeting and introduced themselves to everyone who came through the door. If you wanted to know who they were you should have shown up and asked a question, but the answer is they are the people trying to stop this run away train. When your ready to identify yourself then feel free to ask more questions.
if the Naperville Sun is indeed objective in thier reporting, why didn't little timmy ask Shawn Collins if any of the chemicals he claims might be on the land cannot be remediated? That is a very simple question and a reporter should have known that an environmental attorney should know the answer to that question.
Keep in mind: to tear apart NSFOC is nothing more than a tactic that does not deal with the facts and issues:
c'mon supports of Metea, stop chomping at the person and let's see your issue with the facts.
1) Land compromise and dangerous
2) IEPA can't confirm it's safe.
3) Cost more than BB whe issues come up
4) No one voted for the site; and 3-4k or more upset
Deal with the facts, not the messenger.
It's like saying "I really don't like Toyota's owners, so instead of talking about what's wrong with Toyota, I will tear apart those that own Toyota's.
It's so hurtful to you to tear down the organization as opposed to the facts.
We saw the anti NSFOC person at the meeting. He was all red and upset; someone who hid behind the fact. If he was proud of his anti NSFOC site he would have stood up in front of the group and said something. Instead, he just sat there and said "So, what do we have to do to get rid of this SB."
All supporters of Metea, join the factual side and stop trying to tear down people (ie. writers, residents) --- it's a sign of weakness. Do you realy care more about a new shiny school than the school being done right?
moderator jim -- yes, i did read the article first. thanks for checking though. i guess the quote from site opponents (where's the quote from a site proponent?) -- and the multiple quotes from NSFOC members (where are the quotes from non-NSFOC members?) -- and the multiple quotes from collins (where are the quotes from D204's counsel?) -- and closing the story with 'where did all the hazards go' quote -- and...
amazingly, all that fairness must have blinded my ability to see 'both sides of the story'. good to know what you define as fair, moderator jim.
by $10 will do on March 30, 2008 4:56 PM
Maybe the question is, what subdivision do you live in and who are you? NSFOC had an open meeting and introduced themselves to everyone who came through the door. If you wanted to know who they were you should have shown up and asked a question, but the answer is they are the people trying to stop this run away train. When your ready to identify yourself then feel free to ask more questions.
This is taken from the Sun's Article on Sunday:
According to the IEPA, the property has not yet been enrolled in its voluntary site remediation program.
"They'll start out with a site investigation just identifying what the contaminants of concern might be, and what the extent is, and then they have to propose a way to clean this up - a way to remedy it," Maggie Carson, spokeswoman for the IEPA, said of work that awaits District 204. "This often is a back and forth issue, depending upon the complexity of the site, until ultimately the IEPA accepts the cleanup work that they have done."
Now I hope people will start asking the School Board the questions.........Mark Metzger said that they were working with the IEPA but.................... they never were.
Think about your child.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
Moderator Jim to nfsoctim: Sure you read it? The site proponent, the construction guy, was extensively quoted concerning how they plan to build on the acres not near the peaker pant i.e. where the tennis courts will be. We've been reporting both sides of this story - indeed wasn't it Dr. Daeschner's quote that they'd be in " trouble" if they didn't break ground by mid-April that kicked this thing off. Also, it's tough to get the full other side when the school board is constantly ducking and diving and standing behind "confidentiality agreements" that have been confidential for at least three weeks. Would you have a lot of confidence in that site - the way things stand now - if you had a kid going to Metea in the fall of '09? Maybe you should invest in a pair of reading glasses.
Moderator Jim to Anonymous: Any more references to "little Timmy" and I'm going to ban you from the blogs. As for chemicals and remediation - aren't you being a little premature since the IEPA isn't even involved yet?
By mark m on March 30, 2008 6:05 PM
....NSFOC is nothing more than a tactic that does not deal with the facts and issues
...I couldn't agree with you more.
To the School Board,
Keep up the hard and unappreciative work.
There are those that keep trying to keep crap up, but the majority of the votes are right behind you. I guess they want to use some superdelegates. Who knows?
By withholding information only makes sense. If you don't know anything then there is nothing too much to complain about. You have those who are trying to sneak through the back door, side door, and even the windows to get information. Hint, Hint - Holmes.
Keep fighting for what we voted for and not what people thought they had voted for. You have all of out children's best interest in mind, not just a select few.
No do-overs here.
PS: If the school doesn't get built, I'm going to sue to make sure my kids get to go on the a.m shift :)
To the NSFOC
we're peeling one layer at a time, matter a fact, we're going for the core.
to anonymous and Nsfoctim
tsk,tsk - you guys/gals outta be careful. It won't be any fun out here on my own, if you guys keep ticking off the moderator.
You got some good stuff. This is NSFOC territory.
Ok folks, the SB can do nothing with the IEPA until they own the land. They hired consultants, along with the seller, to identify the contamination that may exist on the land. There is probably some wording in the purchase and sale agreement that says who is responsible for any contamination and how it will be handled. I think it is safe to say that this is the reason the Phase II has yet to be released. The parties are still at the table negotiating all of the details. There are several things that can be done to aid the seller and the SB in this transaction and in the future. A few of these items would be indemnities, escrows, "sharing", and environmental insurance.
Shame on Mr. Collins for only sharing the negative side of the story. I would hope that he is sharing all of the details about why the NSFOC could lose their lawsuit and all of their money.
Don't get me wrong, I am a concerned parent who wants to make sure the site is safe for all of the children in our district. I am also smart enough not to jump to conclusions. Let's all take a deep breath and remember to do what is best for the children, not for ourselves.
Moderator Jim. No I am not being premature in asking about the chemicals and remediation. The involvement of the IEPA does not change whether those chemcials can be remediated or not from ANY site. They list those chemicals on thier website to solicite donations. They do in a such a manner as to only ask the question but not provide any answers. Without a doubt, Collins has answered these questions for the owners of NSFOC.
If those chemicals are present at any site in the country, Eola or anywhere else, the answer as to whether or not they can be remediated is the same. Why can't you ask Collins that question in the numerous propaganda meetings he has with employees of your paper? Don't you think the people should know in advance of sending their money if they are being misled or intentionally misinformed?
To $10. I agree, this is the domain of the NSFOC. It appears that the Naperville Sun shows no interest in digging into the whole story. It is amusing how moderator Jim says the SB is ducking questions but no one from the NSFOC is willing to state how the corporation is structured in advance of cashing everyone's checks. Just send in your checks and don't ask any questions.
To the person who wrote that the majority of the district is behind the SB - think again and recognize that the tides are shifting. I was not supportive of the NSFOC until I found out today that the district and the SB lied about having the IEPA involved. This is just proof that they say things without any basis - just to say what they think we want to hear.
So how do you know which of their most recent comments are also lies? Is it the one where they told us that Brach Brodie will never get the $20M in damages they are requesting because there's no precedence? Is it the one that says they can get the school built by Fall of 2009? Is it the one that says everything looks fine in the Phase II reports - no cause for concern? Is it the one that says Eola is cheaper than Brach Brodie? Ask yourself how you will feel if they move forward and spend the money at the EOLA site and we still don't get our third high school because there were too many problems. Will it be worth it then? Then you can thank yourself for leaving all of our kids in overcrowded schools.
I have tried to be supportive but THIS is the final straw for me. I'm done giving them the benefit of the doubt.
I hope the SB will think long and hard about their actions and how they will be remembered in the future of this district. They're taking a big gamble with our kids and our money. At some point you have to stop blaming these mess-ups on bad circumstances and as Mark Metzger likes to say, "Look in the mirror and ask yourself, 'What did I do for the kids today?" Hope you like the answer!
What has the NSFOC said and or done that was threatning/name calling/ innacurate/ immoral? I see more threats, secrecey, name calling, and lack of factual information here on this blog than I have from any NSFOC meeting. They hold open meetings, ask questions, and provide information. All documented, and factual. There are unanswered questions. The school board has only choosen this Eola site 2 months ago -SLOW DOWN! Get the facts, hold the school board to keep promises, and stop threatening people for caring about our district.
The SB can not get the IEPA involved since the owners of the land are the only ones that can get them involved and why do you think MWGEN doesn't want to make that call???
Once the IEPA is involved it can take 6 to 12 months. Do we really want kids in an unfinished HS and without the IEPA blessing.
Also just love the north's name calling. That is the only way they can fight this fight. No facts, just name calling. Shame on you Brookdale. I don't think your petition will help make the site safe.
Tim thanks for the fair and balanced coverage. It is sooo refreshing to finally have someone call out this SB/SA. I sure hope we can stop this train before it ruins our district.
to $10...and don't forget who paid for full page ads in the Naperville Sun. Money buys friends.
Mark Metzger at the School Board Meeting on January 22, 2008
2:16:00
“With regard to the Phase 2 environmental: I don’t anticipate it, but that could certainly turn into a deal-breaker for us. I mean, it’s entirely possible that some irretrievable problem is detected. But that’s why we’re doing that. That’s why we’re checking it... And we have engaged, er, requested assistance from the Illinois EPA to help us look through that and make certain that it is as clean as it can possibly be. And determine whether it does, once and for all, represents any kind of a health hazard or problem.
Given the timing that Todd shared with us, I take a certain amount of comfort in still proceeding tonight knowing that we have multiple opportunities to stop this transaction if we need to based on the Phase 2."
You can't believe anything this school board says. Now we are hearing IEPA hasn't been called and won't be involved right away.
Ok folks, so what is being said "by To the reasonable folks" is that "something will be worked out" ----
But, what that is, ie how much it will cost us - and what comprehensive testing will be done to satisfy "parents" is unknown.
The SB said no to this property before. The SB said there could be danger. They have said that they will buy the land with the proper plan for clean up. Don't jump to conclusions you say? Well, sorry jumping to conclusions is part of decision making...
And tell me again why this choice is better than BB or Macom land? Is it price? Is it safety? Is it the 'speed' to get it built? Thus, if the #1 priority of criteria is "how fast can we build it" --- then we have the cart before the horse logic. Maybe the reason they want to rush the project is that as enrollment figures continue to be measured, there may not be the need there once was. Thus, they want to build it NOW why they believe they can.
However, to build it asap and disregard other elements means that we are doing things without being prepared.
1) 2004 ref said no until boundaries and school site selected
2) SB spent money to have consultants design a plan that can help pass the ref
3) This plan was to build at BB and to create boundaries around BB that passed the ref
4) then ref passes due to the data provided, and the statements and emails of the SB
5) Now we are worse than where we were in 2004 when ref failed. We now have a situation whereby the voters voted for something opposite.
Put the new criteria on the table and see if would pass. It would not. Most of the people who voted yes only voted yes due to the location; look at the lawsuit, who are those people? Why would they be so upset?
Supporters of Metea location need to advocate to the SB to not be afraid to slow things down. You don't want to pay more tax dollars for a property that is sure to have environmental concerns.
The only way this project will stop is if the people who supported SB would join the NSFOC.
New boundaries would have to be drawn with a new site. New School Board members will be elected. If certain board members can admit this is a problem, slow things down and consider other properties; they will be electable next election. If they push through this deal when they have so much opposition from residents; it would seem impossible for them to be elected in the future. Even their greatest supporters or non caring people would admit that they are building something now one asked for.
It would be interesting if there was a simple blog that said "do you support the Board members current actions" ---- and the site could not be compromised, they'd be overwhelming support that said "no" --
But when the SB catches that data it gets skewed. Last thing I heard was the SB spin the results from the survey. Let's face it, if those last opinion surveys were correct, you would not have 4,000 + people organizing to stop them, and 12 people supporting them.
Key is that boundaries where never slated with their new school site. So, here again, the "spin" is the ability to gather details in the way they want to see them.
Naturally, 30% upset and 70% would be happy. Those 70% are people who got something that the vote didn't get them. The 30% are the people who voted for something and are now upset. Yet, this 100% population IS NOT the district wide input. That happened during the last election.
This peaker power plant was mainly fueled by natural gas, when they built this plant they also built-in "containment" interceptors in the ground, so if there were ever any problems they could not gravitate off the property. Some of our very own D204 residents were part of the team that designed this plant.
The SD cannot release reports/results yet because of legal hurdles with the current owners. If you are one of those residents that has been caught-up with the "sky is falling" mentality, please take a step back and do some research on your own.
I understand that you want to protect your children; no one is out to deliberately hurt them. There are way too many policing forces involved that it would be impossible for the SD to move forward if there were any environmental problems. You ask then, why not wait, for financial reasons? No one is building on the peaker power plant; the tennis courts will have to wait. Please take the day-off from work and visit Neuqua or Waubonsie and view the overcrowding now. Yes we are in a down market, but things will rebound and housing starts will pick-up again. Please look at past market history and you will see that we will all recover financially too. Oh, and this will be more of a reason for new boundaries to come.
As far as pipelines, there are many homes that sit along that pipeline. I just don’t have the time or energy to explain how that works too. Please don’t just join the bandwagon on a blog, do some research on your own, ask the experts.
I’ll leave you with this assignment: Which piece of land, south of 83rd and west of RT.59, had remediation issues when builders wanted to develop communities there?
Mark Metzger at 1/22/08 site selection meeting:
Mark Metzger:
2:16:00
“With regard to the Phase 2 environmental: I don’t anticipate it, but that could certainly turn into a deal-breaker for us. I mean, it’s entirely possible that some irretrievable problem is detected. But that’s why we’re doing that. That’s why we’re checking it... And we have engaged, er, requested assistance from the Illinois EPA to help us look through that and make certain that it is as clean as it can possibly be. And determine whether it does, once and for all, represents any kind of a health hazard or problem.
Given the timing that Todd shared with us, I take a certain amount of comfort in still proceeding tonight knowing that we have multiple opportunities to stop this transaction if we need to based on the Phase 2."
My favorite part is: "THAT'S WHY WE'RE CHECKING IT...AND WE HAVE ENGAGED, ER, REQUESTED ASSISTANCE FROM THE ILLINOIS EPA TO HELP US LOOK THROUGH THAT..."
Really Mark? Then why does Illinois EPA say "the property has not yet been enrolled in its voluntary site remediation program" and apparently (although I will raise my hand and admit that I cannot prove this for a fact) IEPA has not even BEEN CONTACTED about the Eola site? What's the deal here 204? Are you speaking with the same ficticious person who also works for the City of Naperville and The Naperville Park District regarding the Route 59 ped bridge? (Don't throw stones at me as being a "ped bridge" supporter...I agree that's a flimsy argument at best...I'm simply alluding to the fact that certain things said by our SB/SD seem to be, for lack of a better word, LIES.)
RE: To the reasonable folks on 3.30.08 8;42 pm
Well said, LET'S ALL JUST TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND RELAX!
Yo, brain dead people.
Won't the SCHOOL be built on the FARMLAND portion of the site. Much the same type of FARMLAND that the BB property has. Why all the hubbub about the farmland on Eola when the same outcry didn't exist for BB?
So, that leaves the peaker plant portion of ths site. Which won't be developed until a later phase of the project.
Wake up people. Face the fact that BB is gone and isn't coming back. Get over it.
To the reasonable folks on March 30, 2008 8:42 PM
"Don't get me wrong, I am a concerned parent who wants to make sure the site is safe for all of the children in our district. I am also smart enough not to jump to conclusions. Let's all take a deep breath and remember to do what is best for the children, not for ourselves."
You Should be concerned, also, the IEPA CAN GET INVOLVED PRIOR TO A SALE OF A PROPERTY. The current owner of the property has to request it and they haven't. The SB could be demanding this but they think a chainlink fence for our children is okay.
Nope, SB it is not! I don't want my children anywhere near this site.
Dr. D wants his deadline but not the safety of the kids. I am now convinced the site is deadly.
Naperville Sun editors
I'm a little confused. In this blog you allow bloggers to bash the school board and Dr. D and even allow one blogger to make up a fake letter looking like it came from Dr. D to Mr. Lehman. However, you are going to kick someone out for saying "LT"?
If we are going to set rules then let's make it from now on we don't call out school board members or IPSD members by name and we don't call out NSFOC members by name (whoever those few are). I fail
to see how one is ok to do but the other isn't? I can see how calling someone "LT" is derogatory but there have been far more hateful and derogatory things said about MM and Dr.D. If the Moderators are going to call one one thing unfair call the other unfair. None of us like the negative things said about other people regardless of if they agree with them or not. However, you need to be fair about allowing one and not allowing the other.
Riddle me this?
How can the NSFOC file a complaint on 3/7/08 when their weren't incorporated until 3/19/08? I think a judge should be aware of this before Mr. Collins goes in front of him.
To: By Arch on March 30, 2008 4:05 PM If you want credibility to your post, Please state your name - plenty of others on this site have stated their full name and subdivision - I doubt your claim very much. The SB IS doing due diligence in ensuring a safe site for our high school. ANY property can be remidiated, unless if was a NUCLEAR site. The peaker plant will not have operated for more that 2 years upon the school's opening AND the land would have faced and cleared more scrutiny than any other high school site in the district. Without a doubt I will feel confident sending my kids there. Anyone opposed to allowing them to move forward and complete due diligence is obviously associated with the ever selfish group of TG and WE residents responsible for this law suit - which I imagine you are as well - Nice try on the false post.
For all of your NSFOC supporters. The school will be bult on FARMLAND!! It will be hundreds of yard (yes yards) away from the powerlines or former peaker plant. I will trust the Phase II studies and the remediation plans and trust that the SB, MidwestGen and the IL EPA will make sure the site is clean in the far NE side of the property. I also have to laugh because the school will be built righ off of Eola road. Have you driven on Eola road and tried to look to that NE corner? You can barely see if from Eola road that's how far it is away, hundreds of yards. Again, the HS will be built on farmland.
Having said that it was said at the NSFOC meeting on 3/25 that regardless of the Phase II studies and the remediation plans they, the NSFOC, will still not be satisfied.
To all the fellow parents in IPSD 204, the NSFOC will never be happy!!! This will prove to you that regardless of what they find at Eola it is about the NSFOC and their kids!!! It doesn't have anything to do with the safety of the kids of MVHS at Eola. You watch, they are going to file another lawsuit and request a "white glove" test and as many tests as Mr. Andrews and Mr. Collins can dream up. This will prove that it is about the NSFOC's perception of WVHS and having to travel 6 miles to go to that HS.
For those TG residents that are part of the NSFOC I would encourage you to find if Phase II studies were done on your property where you built your house? I would also encourage you to hire someone to do EMF studies in your neighborhood. I can without a doubt gurantee that the HS will be just as safe as your neighborhood. Especially if the person you hire does studies less then a hundred feet behind the houses that have power lines behind them or those houses or swimming pool that have the ACTIVE electric substation behind it. The difference is that the HS will be hundreds of YARDS from any power lines and even further from the former peaker plant on the NE side of the property.
Should the Eola site fall through and the IPSD has to build on the BB property I plan on requiring the same EMF, Phase I and Phase II studies be done on the BB property. Who knows I might even start my own incorporation and file a lawsuit. Then again I'd have nothing to be unhappy about because I would be proud if my kids went to WVHS or MVHS. Isn't that was it all comes down to NSFOC!!??
By confused about moderators intent on March 31, 2008 9:24 AM
....However, you need to be fair about allowing one and not allowing the other.
should we sue? Okay, okay just kidding. I don't want to be banned.
I totally agree with you "confused about moderators intent"
I guess we could go back to being the true silent majority and sit in silence. This blog wouldn't be to interesting, though.
My children will go to Neuqua, so I have no personal bias in the boundary decision.
That said, I DO have personal bias in this district and how our school board treats its residents as well as how it manages our money. I think we must SLOW DOWN and get things correct with our third high school. Why are we rushing? We were promised IEPA approval. Now we're not going to get it. We were promised full disclosure of the testings done....we're not getting that either. We may still be on the hook for up to $20 million in damages at Brach Brodie...we don't know. (remember, we thought we were SURE to win the price per acre lawsuit, so don't say we're SURE we won't be on the hook for damages)
I want the Naperville Sun to ask the hard questions, whether I like the outcome or not. I want them to dig and dig and dig to figure out what's going on here. I want them to report that Alka Tyle is trying to sway the results of polls, sending out e-mails all over her subdivision. I want them to badger each and every one of our SB members to find out WHAT'S GOING ON. Sorry, I know the SB has other jobs to do, but they ran for these positions, and this is part of the job. It is what it is. We MUST hold these SB members accountable; we need to get to these meetings in full force and DEMAND they give us answers.
No, my kids will never go to Metea; how is this my business, some will say. My kids DO go to school in this district and my tax dollars go to it as well. I don't want to be on the hook to pay through the nose if this doesn't turn out well....so it is my business. It's all of ours.
Please, take the personal bias out and let's GET THIS RIGHT. SLOW DOWN SB!!!!!
I can't tell you how many people, mostly from district 203 and some from south disctict 204 have said to me, my neighbors and friends: I am sooo sorry what the NSFOC (TG and WE) is doing to you guys - it's shameful!! And that's the truth! Since it is the TG and WE residents who filed the law suit and turned this into what it is today I thought I'd send this new book title out to you: "A New Earth" it will do wonders for your outlook on life.
To Anonymous 10:17
I know Arch from other blogs, and your post is really unfair. He is NOT from TG or WE, and has done extensive research on the safety of the Eola site. Many of us have a great deal of respect for him, and know him to be honest and credible.
To: By Arch on March 30, 2008 4:05 PM If you want credibility to your post, Please state your name - plenty of others on this site have stated their full name and subdivision - I doubt your claim very much. The SB IS doing due diligence in ensuring a safe site for our high school. ANY property can be cleaned, unless it was a NUCLEAR site. The peaker plant will not have operated for more that 2 years upon the school's opening AND the land would have faced and cleared more scrutiny than any other high school site in the district. Without a doubt I will feel confident sending my kids there. Anyone opposed to allowing them to move forward and complete due diligence is obviously associated with the ever selfish group of TG and WE residents responsible for this law suit - which I imagine you are as well - Nice try on the false post.
Why is it that all these NSFOC Fraud people want so badly to get the names of the NSFOC people? I heard they had a representative at the NSFOC meeting writing down license plate numbers too? I'm envisioning Wilford Brimley's character from the movie "The Firm" standing in the parking lot of the VFW hall with his dark shades on.
What are you going to do, attack their family? Form a lynch mob? No, I don't think you'd go that far. But you would join blogs and post their names and subdivisions (anonymously, of course) and say disparaging and slanderous things about them, right? People, this is creepy hillbilly behavior and DOES NOT BELONG in our community!
They also keep pointing out that NSFOC meeting attendees / donors / mailing list members aren't really "members" of NSFOC in