By Arch on April 8, 2008 11:07 AM
Kudos...

My home is what my home is and thankfully no one else in the district is being bussed to it.

As for the SB members listening. The administration already stopped listening and all but 1 SB member has stopped listening.

If they were still listening they would not be moving forward with putting a school that will have its entire structure nearly completely inside the PIR of those pipelines. It can also be thought of as the Kill Zone. Any mishap and lives will be lost. To have students and faculty there when construction is going on with 50+ year old high pressure natural gas pipelines is completely beyond 'crazy'. It's negligent, irresponsible and definitely not putting student safety first. It is more than obvious a 2009 HS is the first and only priority. Everything else takes a back burner to circumvent the bare minimum 'legal' requirements. This is why we are pressing ahead with purchase and ready to have the remediation plop in our laps before havig the seller clean up the land and receive the NFR letter prior to the sale. This is why we are moving ahead and putting a school, the students and faculty into a kill zone in the event of a pipeline accident. These are old pipes. The Carlsbad incident was with a pipe smaller and newer than these. The burn radius on that 30" pipe is enormous.

Take a look and take a read:
http://www.bobschuster.com/casestudies/pipeline_photos.php
http://www.bobschuster.com/casestudies/

I don't think there is any less safe spot to put a school in this entire district. How many kids would have to die for you to change your mind? More than 1? Is there even a number? If the answer is 1 or less than why are we building here? I'd personally rather endure split shifts (that will never happen due to the ACTUAL enrollment numbers) than put kids next to something like this.

Why are our 'leaders' even pursuing this dangerous and reckless endeavor? A better question is why do we have so many people in this district who want to put kids into such harm's way? The lines are not going anywhere and the danger will be at that location 24 x 7 x 365, every minute of every day. These things can fall to normal 'accidents' documented at the NTSB site and purposeful intent. Someone with purposeful intent can breach them in a matter of minutes. Columbine had kids bringing in propane tanks for the purpose of detonation. That's dinky kid stuff compared to what these pipelines could do. A pair of posthole diggers and a homemade pipebomb would take that whole place out in minutes. And yet, the district wants to put a school right next to it.

That's just unbelievable and evidence that they are not thinking through any of the consequences of their decisions.

I've seen too many people doing bad things in my lifetime. I can only deduce that others who can't fathom these types of scenarios have led a sheltered life and are simply ignorant to the dangers.

Ignorance does not make the dangers go away.
..................................................
Arch, absolutely right. These are the same type of folks that would actually laugh if the shoe was on the other foot and it was a site like this that we were pushing for. I also believe if an explosion happened or one of our children became sick, they would be laughing telling us, "I told you so". What hypocrites. If anything does happen they would be blaming everyone else and the same people would try to pretend that they weren’t such hypocrites just so they could sue the district for negligence. If the Eola sight goes through for any reason they should be forced to sign a waiver that they will not sue the school for any issues once so ever. After all that is what they despise in the NSFOC, right.
They always seem to be exclusionary and like to point the finger at everyone but themselves. Remember that these are people that feel they need to blame entire subdivisions for the problems the SB is faced with due to their own process. Well guess what, that is exactly what losers do. They don't talk with confidence or facts like the NSFOC. Oh, remember they have GOD on their side. What a joke. God would not approve of selling the AME land at a premium for the sake of the children. He would want them to give it to the school district because he doesn't believe in material wealth now does he. Seems so hypocritical to me that such a small group of haters can try to sway the SB to build on a site like this and intimidate entire subdivisions with character assassinations and claims of racism when none exist on these or any blogs. This is the same group that defends teachers making inflammatory, outlandish claims of racism and elitism only to tell us that she is wealthier, takes better and more vacations, and has massages once a week. Talk about calling the kettle black. They feel that it is appropriate for our teachers to be name-calling in public or at school. In any other job, they would be fired for such conduct. Free speech has limits in the real world. What a bunch of idiots.

Arch, thanks for your willingness "to put your money where your mouth is" but unless your are the NSFOC no need to. It's they who are sueing the taxpayers and concerned for all so it's they I want to hear that from. Not one lonely taxpayer. I want the NSFOC to come out and say "we are concerned for all children and looking into the safety of all our school sites". And while they are at it they might want to check all the sites where our kids have soccer/football/baseball practice. After all they roll around in those fields and even get that dirt in their eyes & mouths.

Has anyone investigated to see if the proposed site is under any flight paths in and out of O'Hare? Has anyone checked the orbits of satellites that may pass over head? If so, the site should be deemed totally unsafe and unacceptable as an airplane or a piece of space junk might crash there some day.

By Aren't you Tired ----

Yes, I know there are existing schools dangerously close to the pipelines.

I'm on record as being willing to put my money where my mouth is and move them if a referendum comes forward. Will you vote YES or NO to move them out of harm's way?

Pipeline companies have successfully lobbied against federal amendments to the easement requirements to pipelines for years including the operator of the 3 pipelines that run through the Eola property. They believe that just checking for the signs of a leak 2 times a year is sufficient to protect our children. The NTSB section on pipelines shows that they do not follow that schedule closely enough to prevent disasters. http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/publictn.htm

Make sure to get the PDF version of the reports so you get the nice pictures of the devastation that happens from these types of explosions.

Why don't you also google for the pipeline company's safety record for another sobering read.

This is what the Administration, the School Board and many parents say is an acceptable risk. Maybe for your kids it is, but it is not for mine.

Arch if those are the fed. gov. guidelines then why are some of our existing schools closer to RR and cell/radio towers and gas lines than MV will be? Google some of our schools (Brooks, Granger, Young, McCarty, etc.) You will see the same thing.

Time to move on Arch. Although we did have a storm tonight I did check and last I saw the sky was not falling. Just thought you should know.

Hi Arch

I went to college at the University of Washington and worked in Seattle, WA during the Bellingham, WA (90 min north of Seattle) Pipeline explosion. I remember the news reports about it. Three people died (Two 10 year old kids and an 18yr old senior.

Previous construction in the recent past at the site was one of the factors. NTSB and EPA investigated.

pipeline Company paid close to 40 mill in fines and millions more in safety upgrades. One of the families settled their lawsuit for 75 million. THe other family was an undisclosed settlement.

Not sure what the total monetary bill was. But I do know 3 kids died in that explosion.

I didnt think much of it at the time (hey I was in my early 20's). you can google it "bellingham pipeline explosion"

THAT WAS A 16 INCH PIPE. I saw the explosion on TV. I dont even want to fathom what a 36 inch pipe would look like. Its hard to imagine how big those explosions are until you actually see one.

These things are very rare, but they do happen. When they do, its catastrofic.

Let's put this another way since everyone wants to rely upon experts.

Hire a site security expert to come in and do an audit of the site plan, the land as well as the building plans and see if they don't charge you thousands of dollars to tell you the exact same thing I am telling you about the pipelines. They will no doubt also include the 3 additional pipelines out by the tracks and train cargo of deadly chemicals too.

The difference is my advice is free. But go ahead, ask the School Board and Administration to hire a Security Consultant and give a full report of the site.

The reason you are scared about this topic is because it's a danger that can only be mitigated by not putting a school on that land. You can not cover it in concrete and you can not move some dirt around and you can not simply fence it in to make it magically go away. It's inherent in the site and it will be forever present each and ever day students and faculty occupy the location.

The pipeline company said it's a HIGH CONSEQUENCE AREA with a school there. Those CONSEQUENCES are defined as LOSS OF LIFE AND LOSS OF PROPERTY to things INSIDE THE PIR (Potential Impact Radius). Those are the Federal Government's definitions.

That is not something that should be acceptable to a school district. I don't care how many times in the past this mistake has been made. We do not need to keep repeating the same mistake over and over again with school locations.

To: By Anonymous on April 8, 2008 4:12 PM

Do you actually have anything further to add about the pipelines (the topic at hand) or are you going to simply continue the childish personal attacks against me on here simply because you do not like the facts I am putting forth about them or about how bad of a location this is to build a school. ??

By Anonymous on April 8, 2008 4:12 PM
By yikes Arch, u scare me on April 8, 2008 12:54 PM
"Is it just me or is everyone else afraid of this Arch person and fear he/she should be on watch from endangering our kids? Arch, you seriously scare me more then the Eola site ever could."

I'm with you. Something about this guy rings odd.Suggesting Columbine mentality and sabotage methods in regards to pipelines.....borderline paranoia with extreme environmental phobias.

I agree. This guy spends too much time thinking up dooms day scenarios. Some of the stuff he blogs is dangerous. No need to give other unstable people ideas of what to do to get attention.

By yikes Arch, u scare me on April 8, 2008 12:54 PM
"Is it just me or is everyone else afraid of this Arch person and fear he/she should be on watch from endangering our kids? Arch, you seriously scare me more then the Eola site ever could."

I'm with you. Something about this guy rings odd.Suggesting Columbine mentality and sabotage methods in regards to pipelines.....borderline paranoia with extreme environmental phobias.

Yikes--

FEMA has documentation on Schools and harm to them. It's worth a read.

Maybe it will help you change your mind about the Eola location as a 'safe' location for a school.

http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/rms/rmsp428

Pay attention to chapter 4. No one likes to think about these sorts of things. Unfortunately, it's the world we have to live in.

Again, this is a terrible place to build a school because of the hazards on the property that will remain there.

NEWS ALERT!!.....NEWS ALERT!!....

BRODIE TRUST files NEW LAWSUIT against SCHOOL BOARD
APRIL 7, 2008....$40,000,000.00+ Damages!!

Yikes---

There are three pipelines that run through the middle of the property. 2 are 36" mains and 1 is a 20" main.

You are right.. BIG difference. 3 times the pipelines than Carlsbad, 2 are 6" larger in diameter, two of them are now OLDER than Carlsbad when it exploded. It was 50 years old when it blew. We have 3 lines in the middle of the property ages 57 years old, 51 years old and 38 years old.

The Shutoff valves only work between valves and when the pressure drops over 100PSI on the line.

Do you know where the valves are located and if they are on all 3 lines?

Any breach would still empty the contents of the lines at full pressure until the pressure drop could be detected UPSTREAM in the line to the closest valve and would still empty the contents of the lines.

Let me point out something here that maybe is escaping comprehension. A pressure drop is a RELEASE OF GAS. The volume of gas just on the property itself using a very conservative 600 foot length estimate of a single 36" pipe on the property equates out to roughly 127,000 gallons (using gallons since most people can not visualize cubic feet of gas). A 20" pipe would hold 39,167 gallons at normal atmospheric pressure.

Now, take those volumes ( 127,000 + 127,000 + 39,167 ) and we have 293,167 gallons of fuel before even pressurizing it to 680 PSI or above like these lines operate at.

You are right about something, it *IS* scary how much fuel is in there and even more scary how 'safe' people think the auto-shutoff valves make it and how much fuel would still be released even with those in place and actually operating properly. You would see a larger fireball than what happened at Carlsbad.

...And this is where people want to locate a school. Please take a moment and re-read everything I have posted. I am AGAINST a school at this location because of this mortal hazard that will be forever present at that location.

If talking about the actual site hazards bother you then maybe you should join me in trying to get us to not build a school there in the first place. Right now, it seems like no one in a decision making position is listening or is actually concerned about safety.

Is it just me or is everyone else afraid of this Arch person and fear he/she should be on watch from endangering our kids? Arch, you seriously scare me more then the Eola site ever could.

By the way the pipeline that runs through the Eola property is 20 inches and is 300 feet from the school. The pipeline you show in your links was 30 inches. Big difference. That pipeline is much more powerful then the one on the Eola site. Might I also remind you, there are also shut off valves that if any type of leak were to happen on the Eola site, it would shut down that pipeline immediately. I appreciate the continued propaganda and scare tactics but at this point you scare me more.

Kudos...

My home is what my home is and thankfully no one else in the district is being bussed to it.

As for the SB members listening. The administration already stopped listening and all but 1 SB member has stopped listening.

If they were still listening they would not be moving forward with putting a school that will have its entire structure nearly completely inside the PIR of those pipelines. It can also be thought of as the Kill Zone. Any mishap and lives will be lost. To have students and faculty there when construction is going on with 50+ year old high pressure natural gas pipelines is completely beyond 'crazy'. It's negligent, irresponsible and definitely not putting student safety first. It is more than obvious a 2009 HS is the first and only priority. Everything else takes a back burner to circumvent the bare minimum 'legal' requirements. This is why we are pressing ahead with purchase and ready to have the remediation plop in our laps before havig the seller clean up the land and receive the NFR letter prior to the sale. This is why we are moving ahead and putting a school, the students and faculty into a kill zone in the event of a pipeline accident. These are old pipes. The Carlsbad incident was with a pipe smaller and newer than these. The burn radius on that 30" pipe is enormous.

Take a look and take a read:
http://www.bobschuster.com/casestudies/pipeline_photos.php
http://www.bobschuster.com/casestudies/

I don't think there is any less safe spot to put a school in this entire district. How many kids would have to die for you to change your mind? More than 1? Is there even a number? If the answer is 1 or less than why are we building here? I'd personally rather endure split shifts (that will never happen due to the ACTUAL enrollment numbers) than put kids next to something like this.

Why are our 'leaders' even pursuing this dangerous and reckless endeavor? A better question is why do we have so many people in this district who want to put kids into such harm's way? The lines are not going anywhere and the danger will be at that location 24 x 7 x 365, every minute of every day. These things can fall to normal 'accidents' documented at the NTSB site and purposeful intent. Someone with purposeful intent can breach them in a matter of minutes. Columbine had kids bringing in propane tanks for the purpose of detonation. That's dinky kid stuff compared to what these pipelines could do. A pair of posthole diggers and a homemade pipebomb would take that whole place out in minutes. And yet, the district wants to put a school right next to it.

That's just unbelievable and evidence that they are not thinking through any of the consequences of their decisions.

I've seen too many people doing bad things in my lifetime. I can only deduce that others who can't fathom these types of scenarios have led a sheltered life and are simply ignorant to the dangers.

Ignorance does not make the dangers go away.

Arch...wow you went to all that trouble because your kids have allergies? My kids just take medications. Do you also make them go to school with surgical masks to prevent any outdoor contaminants and/or any perceived risks from the envionment in general?

As I'm sure you will see from the Phase II studies there was just surface contamination from diesel fuel and coolant. There was no migration of those fuels. If you live north of 95th street and west of 59 I would seriously look into the 4 underground storage tank leaks that happened within the last 20 years. Now those are very concerning!!!

Arch,
Had we known your level of environmental expertise the SB could have hired you to perform testing as well:). I think it is awesome that you have effectively remediated any and all environmental concerns in your home.Hopefully, you also removed the carpet in the bedrooms, don't have any pets and encased all of your mattresses and pillows in plastic to inhibit dander and dust mite activity. Good luck as you continue to strive for environmental perfection and try not to go crazy in the process.

I understand that the Federal EPA has a current pending lawsuit against Midwest Generation. Specifically talks about harm to children. They talk about children and respiratory issues, asthmatics, permanent lung damage.

If they are doing this around other sites what have they been doing here?

Come on, the school board should be running away from this site!

To Kudos:

I know you really are not genuinely concerned but only want to save face with your questions, but I'll entertain you with the answers.

Company was a very reputable full service construction consulting/management company north and east of here that a friend works at. He is an environmental specialist in the area of surface water runoff from sites. He also has access to many other specialists at his firm and I plan on delivering the phase 1 and 2 data to them in its entirety if the district ever releases it in full and paying for them to peer review it.

Having a family member with allergies lends itself to one being extra careful. This resulted in a complete upgrade of both HVAC units in the house, keeping it closed, HEPA filters in rooms near the doors, etc. The reading in front of the laptop which has a LCD screen (mostly dimmed) and not a CRT and is plugged into a WIRED ethernet hub/router with wifi disabled. I believe it's about as low as low gets in the computing world.

The readings at ground level at the Eola site ranged from .036 up to 7.72 with the higher readings being above the 3 pipelines running through the middle of the property.

When I live was corn fields, not gas stations. No RR tracks and the Nicor residential distribution line enters the neighborhood 1200 feet from my property. No transit pipelines or high voltage power lines above ground. Everything in below. City of Naperville re-worked my electrical box where the power enters into the house on a precautionary basis last year.

I'm sure everyone will see your 'concern' for what it is and not a save-face attempt or diversionary tactic in the discussion about a future school site.

"How exactly do you compare your home to a Peaker Plant?

The pipes are much bigger than what runs to your home." as posted by is it safe?

Actually, those pipes run for over six miles throughout district 204 and lots of homes, schools, businesses and daycare facilities are located over and all around them.The EMF readings at Eola were not any higher than most areas, including BB which has high tension wires on its perimeter except they are closer to the ground, which probably explains the HIGHER readings at that site....

I can compare my home and a new school to the peaker plant because neither is or would be built on or near an old peaker plant.That will be demolished during construction and remediated as necessary. It is over 30 acres away from the school building itself.

By Arch on April 7, 2008 12:51 PM
To "What next..."

"Some of us did have our homes thoroughly gone over before we landed kids into them. Radon, EMF, pesticides, particulate matter and other allergens, etc and even ruled out homes in the selection as a result of things like location, hazards nearby etc."

Wow you really did do a thorough job!I don't know anyone that went to the testing extent you did! Just for "kicks" what's the EMF reading a foot from your computer right now? Average is about 30.0mG.Average readings at Eola site was around 2.0. How did you test for particulate matter and other allergens? To test for pesticides you must have had soil samples. What company did you use? Maybe you could give the names of the different environmental specialists you used prior to your home purchase to the SB. Do you know how many gas stations used to be off of Rt. 59 south of 83rd st. prior to all of the southern neighborhood developments? One day they were there...the next day gone...I wonder where all of the holding tanks went...

What next..... on April 7, 2008 11:38 AM

I prefer to compare it to "the pot calling the kettle black".

How exactly do you compare your home to a Peaker Plant?

The pipes are much bigger than what runs to your home.

The powerlines are easily 25x more than what run through any neighborhood putting out much higher EMF readings.

Also, soil contamination is much higher than your home unless of course there was a peaker plant on the property before hand.

Now last but not least, they are not looking at the "Smart Build" program that can cost taxpayers $30,000,000.00.

I will go with Anonymous on April 7, 2008 12:04 AM

You really need to compare apples to apples. Not apples to oranges.

To "What next..."

Some of us did have our homes thoroughly gone over before we landed kids into them. Radon, EMF, pesticides, particulate matter and other allergens, etc and even ruled out homes in the selection as a result of things like location, hazards nearby etc.

For fun, I would love to see the inside of your home (and the outside) if you actually believe it has more contaminants, pollutants or hazards than a former power plant location filled with several 3 foot diameter pipes pressurized with natural gas between 650 and 700psi that are decades old.

Please post a url of your video or pictures of your dwelling with these greater hazards. I am sure many here are curious.

By Anonymous on April 7, 2008 12:04 AM
What next..... on April 6, 2008 4:00 PM

"You really need to compare apples to apples. Not apples to oranges."

I prefer to compare it to "the pot calling the kettle black".

My point is that the very folks who have become "newfound environmentalists" most likely have no idea what environmental factors they may be exposed to inside and outside their own homes.EMF's,gas lines,and potential soil contamination can be anywhere and possibly even worse on our own home properties than at an eventually remediated Eola site .I just think the stance could be viewed as slightly hypocritical.
I can tell you that I haven't done any environmental testing on my own property and I don't know offhand of anyone who has.

What next..... on April 6, 2008 4:00 PM

You really need to compare apples to apples. Not apples to oranges.

Clark's kids will go to WV and Bradshaw's kids are too young to go to Matea. So zero SB members will go to Matea. Clark's kids are almost out of the system.

IS IT SAFE,

When you put your home up for sale, just hope the interested buyers don't ask for 100 plus soil borings , EMF readings, radon reports and anything else that your group comes up with next..p.s. have you checked the condition of the gas lines that run to your house? What's in your drinking water? Ever been tested?

WHY, would you want to put a child on toxic land. 96 borings are not telling us anything. The school board is trying to pull a fast one. Who is going to pay for this when kids get sick? Here's a hint YOU the Taxpayer.

The school board is not doing anyone any favors don't kid yourself. If they truly cared about the kids they would not even consider this property. I would like to see a HS on a site that doesn't have this nagging question. IS IT SAFE?

Test every acre and do at least 100 borings PER ACRE down to the water. We are sending kids there after all!

I personally feel the school board should avoid this site so no one will have to question the site and wonder if they are sending their kids into danger.

To anon at 12:18 am:

First, what in the heck are you doinging blogging at 12:18 on a Sunday morning?

Second, what in the heck is your point??? That TG has more foreclosures than the "established" North side of Naperville??? Is this some sort of character issue?? I actually doubt that this is the case (that there are more foreclosures in WE or TG, but also expect with the housing crisis, there have been foreclosures throughout the town (including in these communities).

Perhaps your point was that because of the brakes that have been put on future growth, is there really a need for a third school (was that what you were trying to say??). In that case, I agree! Thanks for the post.

Go to www.foreclosures.com punchin the zip code of TG and you can them all. Their is no area in Naperville that has been immuned to foreclosures or decline in home value.

fully grown..who would be jealous of TG people? Since that is newer construction, they will see a bigger decline in housing values than the established neighborhoods. This is a nationwide trend and I bet it is hitting Tall Grass. Can any realtors on this blog tell us how many foreclosures there are at Tall Grass? I would bet more than at any of the established northside subdivisions.

Absolutely amazing that Midwest Gen has Never had one polution violation at the Eola site, 30 acres away from Metea High School - not one. I bet gas stations everywhere (including near Neuqua)can't even claim that.

I am a dristrict 203 resident and have nothing to personnaly gain from this post. I would like to say how sorry I am to the 204 residents that will be attending Metea that the NSFOC group is doing this to you. It only makes sense to have the third high school in the north to balance things out. There motives are obvious to everyone, hang in there, It'll all come out in the wash.

To:By Completely Mystified By It All on April 3, 2008 11:27 AM The NSFOC doesn't need to support any other site whatsoever. Their issue belongs in a counselors office and nowhere else. The site of the new high school is not up to the TG and WE residents, although it is obvious they think it should be.

"First of all, I will print this in uppercase for you to see clearly. I AM NOT FROM TALLGRASS OR WHITE EAGLE!

It is unfortunate that you have to keep bashing 2 subdivisions because you are so jealous of them. Grow up!"

This was the best one yet :)Aren't they cute?!!!

oh please!!! on April 4, 2008 9:09 PM
Anonymous on April 5, 2008 12:18 AM

Well you two must be school board junkies or high schoolers!

First of all, I will print this in uppercase for you to see clearly. I AM NOT FROM TALLGRASS OR WHITE EAGLE!

It is unfortunate that you have to keep bashing 2 subdivisions because you are so jealous of them. Grow up!

I believe this school board has not listened to ANY voters. They have their own agenda always had and could give rat about the best for the district.

Here let me clarify for the ignorant........

There should be people on the board from around the district who have the WHOLE district in mind and who are fair. Hard to argue but I am sure you will find a way.

Oh Please...you raise a scary premise. The district would be doomed if the SB was made up of TG people. No money would go to any school except the school their students were assigned. They would redraw the boundries to put their kids back at NVHS even if it meant busing the rest of the district to another district. Imagine Ashbury kids being sent past NVHS to go to WVHS or to Eola just to make room for the TG kids at NVHS? The NSFOC is going to kill property values as it is now, but can you imagine what happens next?

To: ANONYMOUS2 on April 4, 2008 6:03 PM

"DO NOT RE-ELECT THE SCHOOL BOARD! START NEW WITH FAIR INDIVIDUALS WHO REALLY HAVE THE WHOLE DISTRICT IN MIND."

Defined: Let's only elect members that will only look out for the south specifically the TG and WE neighborhoods. Especially the TG neighborhood because we think it was unfair we got grouped in with WE to go to WVHS because gosh darn it, we are a walking school.

OH PLEASE!!!

Anonymous on April 4, 2008 10:18 AM

GET REAL!! NSFOC isn't bringing problems to 204 Mark Metzger and his arrogance is along with Bradshaw and the rest of them. They are the ones causing the problems. They are the ones for constant increase in taxes and now they want a operating referendum put out in a couple of years!

DO NOT RE-ELECT THE SCHOOL BOARD! START NEW WITH FAIR INDIVIDUALS WHO REALLY HAVE THE WHOLE DISTRICT IN MIND.

Here is why I believe we should have no school near the PIR of a natural gas pipeline.

http://www.viadata.com/ntsb/227189.pdf

Please be sure to read section D.

If you wish to have more data about the entire incident, it can be found here: http://www.viadata.com/ntsb/default.htm

Understand that the Administration and School Board both believe this is an acceptable outcome in the event of failure of things beyond our control.

If it is not acceptable to assume this risk in the event of a worst-case scenerio then we should not be at the Eola property or have any school located near any pipeline at all in the district.

No one hopes these happen, no one plans for these to happen. Unfortunately however, accidents DO happen. I'm personally not willing to accept that risk for anyone's child. I hope the Administration and School Board members can see that no amount of supposed 'savings' is worth putting anyone's kid in this zone of risk.

Now I'll sit back and let the orchestrated personal attacks begin from those in favor of the site who are no doubt going to be angered by the posting of this factual information.

By Anonymous on April 4, 2008 10:18 AM
NSFOC is not watching out for any kid but their own. If they were worried about all the kids in 204 they would be questioning the safety of all our school sites. After all, many of them are closer to power lines, radio/cell towers, gas lines, and RR tracks than the new HS. Why haven't they done anything about those. I have seen that question asked over and over again.

____

exactly. If they care so much about all the children, why haven't they listed all the schools near pipelines and powerlines on their website and demanded changes? The answer of course is that that has nothing to do with getting TG/WE the new high school.

The NSFOC is already damaging D204 housing values. They take out full page ads in the local newspaper that highlights how the Tall Grass and White Eagle students will go to WVHS and at the same time try to keep the entire district from getting a third high school.

To the person posting By Anonymous on April 4, 2008 10:18 AM

As stated earlier, I am not in NSFOC, but I will field your question about why all school site safety issues are not being looked at.

I stated earlier on here I would be willing to vote for ALL referendums that addressed relocation of any schools currently too close to safety hazards like RR tracks and Pipelines. After making that statement, some 'anonymous poster' called my 'irrational' for holding that point of view.

What's happening now by the proponents of the Eola site is they are not addressing the safety issues. Rather, they are insisting on personal attacks against anyone raising these concerns at this location or any other school location in the district.

On another board one even had the audacity to say that I must want something bad to happen there so I can say "I told you so".

Let me be clear on this: I DO NOT want a school on the Eola site because of the potential for disaster. I do not want a "I told you so" scenerio. I want it AVOIDED ENTIRELY by not placing a school there to begin with.

The fact that someone wants to project their GUILT onto someone who wants the entire can of worms never opened in the first place is evidence of the previously mentioned 'irrational' thought going on by some in the district.

This is a bad site for a school. It should not be placed here because the physical structure and places where kids will be doing school activities is within the 'danger zone' AKA PIR of the pipelines. One accident, and lives will be lost. It's NOT worth the risk, for any price or supposed 'savings' the District is saying.

There is no price I put on someone's kid. I'll open my wallet all dang day and go get another job to ensure we can buy the safest site out there, even if my kids do not attend it. No one's child deserves anything less.

NSFOC is not watching out for any kid but their own. If they were worried about all the kids in 204 they would be questioning the safety of all our school sites. After all, many of them are closer to power lines, radio/cell towers, gas lines, and RR tracks than the new HS. Why haven't they done anything about those. I have seen that question asked over and over again.

These people are what brought down the good name of Naperville. It's embarassing to say that you live in Naperville and don't even mention you live in 204. It's the NSFOC that is going to jeopardize housing values if this 3rd HS is blocked (which I believe seeing Elvis and Emelia Earhart playing poker is more likely).

I wonder what wonderful lies the School Board is going to tell us on Monday. Oh we tested the land with 96 samples with the kit we got from target and it came out clean. Did it in my kitchen! I saved they taxpayers money by reviewing the results myself! Way to go School Board here is another fine mess you got us into!

"My eyes had been closed but now they are wide open and I am amazed at what people will do to get this HS in their backyard".by sickofnamecalling....

I completely agree! I mean folks are even desperate enough to sue their fellow district residents over it!!!!But, noone should take it personally. nsfoc is secretly watching out for all of us :)

sickofyourbabble on April 3, 2008 5:19 PM

First of all, the newspaper investigated ILEPA story and reported on it.

Second of all, if the school board had open discussion and put their arrogance aside who knows where we would be.

Third, don't kid yourself about the meetings the NSFOC holds. Sure they want to keep raising funds and they also want to inform those who want information. Did you not ask questions and they gave the answers they had. As far as the money did you count it? Quit making stuff up and admit you are grasping for anything at this point.

By the way, since you seem to have all the answers how about the $20,000,000.00? Do you really believe Dr. Destruct when he said we won't pay anything. Yeah, that will be the day.

Your right, I am sick of your babble!

I guess it's all on how you view it. I don't believe that the school board has lied to us. MM and the IEPA keeps coming up. How do any of you know that he hasn't talked to the IEPA or has had one of the consultants do so? I love how everyone comes up with assumptions without knowing the truth. Just because someone from the NSFOC calls the IEPA and talks to one person doesn't mean that the SB wasn't talking to someone else. Heck, IPSD doesn't even own the land yet. I will agree they could have chosen to handle some things differently, but I also blame that on some of the residents of the district that have caused the school board to react the way they have, and keep certain things in executive committee when they otherwise or previously would not have done so.

Funny because at the NSFOC meeting they said they knew a primary person of the NSFOCfraud site and they were dead wrong!!! Well, I guess if the NSFOC members are afraid of going to meetings they don't have to have any additional meetings, right? I'm sure they have enough money and their membership is huge. Afterall, this IS the primary reason for their meetings is to generate more money!!! I don't know what else you could call the meeting on 3/25 because no new information was shared as far as I was concerned. Unless they needed to inform their own members and tell them what to do next because in my mind it was nothing new. Judging by the sad turnout on 3/25 and the lack of donations they better figure something else out fast, time is running out!!!

Sorry about all my typing mistakes!!! Not the best typist when I am in a hurry.

To Anon 10 12:14 a.m.

If you are truly living in 203 and wrote all those comments, I am in awe! You would have to be neutral, right? I thought you did an excellent job of capturing what is wrong with plowing ahead. And how those people who are for the Eola site have twisted the truth, diverted the issues, made up stuff about other neighborhoods, - all in the name for getting what they want (either a closer school or out of WVHS).

It is hard to prove that someone was writing down liscense plates numbers, but it is TRUE!!!! I even has his name. He was caught and it is one the leader's of the fraud site. They are trying hard to find out who the members are and I bet you if things don't go theri way they will be painting profanities on their garage doors, just like what happened to WE after the 06 ref. Go to the meetings and you can see it for your own eyes. My eyes had been closed but now they are wide open and I am amazed at people will do to get this HS in their backyard.

204,

I could care less if the NSFOC or the fraud site twist facts to support their cause. What I do care about is how this SB has lied over and over again. They told the IEPA would be involved. They told the public at the site meeting that they would be involved. But once again they were not telling the truth. They have also made comments about EMF's and switching stations at Macom, but somehow the ones at Eola are just fine. Just the bridge memo alone was filled with lies and they present this to the public. I am not part of any group, just one taxpayer who has had enough with these tactics. District 204 deserves much better then this and I see this district going down the tubes.

The name calling was started by are own leaders and now look at all the hate in this district. The SB knows how to play us and they do it well. Divide the district so they can continue on their destructive path while we call eachother names and stop looking at the facts. The love all this hate towards TG. That is what they want and we all fall into pretty fast. Stop the hate and start looking at the SB!!!

I am completly mystified by all of the intense anger and venom being expressed in these blog entries. The hate being expressed here is beyond comprehension to me. I see these postings that say those in the southern part of the district are liars and that those in the north are losers. The undertones of class distinction, racism and economic status prejudice is absolutly sickening. I have no children that will go to any of the schools in discussion and will likely derive little or no ecomomic benefit from the new school where ever it is eventuall built - if it in fact ever is constructed. However, I do know that I will, like every other taxpayer in District 204, be impacted by the cost of lawsuits and delays and the like.

The Eola site is unacceptable to some, the Brach Brodie site apaprently economically unfeasable others. Is there another site that would be workable? I have not heard of anyone proposing any alternative to either of these locations. If there are other viable alternatives, why are they not being expoused by the NSFOC organization or explored by the school board?

It seems to me that focus has been lost on this issue. The real questions that need answered are:

Does the district truely need a 3rd high school?

Is there an alternate site?

Would the NSFOC support an clean, safe, affordable alternate site that did not include the Brach Bodie location and required a boundry arragement similar to the one most recently prepared by the school board?

I had to do a double take on this one:

By Anonymous on April 2, 2008 11:00 PM

You say that I am completely irrational because I stated that I would be willing to pay a premium price to relocate schools so that no child has to attend near hazardous pipelines that could kill them in the event of an accident???

How many lives lost is your threshold for acceptable/unacceptable or rather, rational/irrational ?

Mine is 0. 1 life in danger and lost is too many in my book.

Not having a school within the 'high consequence area' of those pipes will help ensure that the number stays 0. Putting a school inside that zone and even having athletics ON TOP of the lines puts kids in an area where they will die in the event of an accident.

I think it's rather clear what the irrational thought really is with this topic.

lies on April 3, 2008 9:30 AM

Wow! Lies I think your title fits you.

To: threats on April 2, 2008 10:18 PM

Why? I'll tell you why. Because some people want to know who they are, what their plans are, how they are making decisions. What will be their next actions once the Phase II studies are released? How are they allocating the funds that were donated and who decides that? I want answers!!

Sorry I don't feel for Todd Andrews one bit. He took on the roll just like all politicians and school board members do. There are crazy people out there. I'm sure the school board members has had far more threats and phone calls then Mr. Andrews. One difference is they don't complain about it. If Mr. Andrews is so passionate about his cause then he can handle it. I even encourage him to put up his house to further pay for the NSFOC. I hear they are low on funds as it is. Only 4-5 donations the last meeting.

I'm sick of this notion that someone wrote down license plate numbers. Show me proof. Another sad attempt to make those that support the school board and the Eola site look bad. I was there, my license plate number didn't get written down. Lies, lies, lies.

You're right this is about the issues. The issue is how a disgruntled group of unhappy parents who didn't get their way decided to sue the IPSD. They decided to paint them as a runaway school board and make safety a bigger issue then their own lawsuit. They have also decided to try and play this case in the media because it is a long shot of ever getting a trial in court.

Here is latest alert from NSFOC:

NSFOC Alert!
Dear 204 Neighbors and Friends,
(including Taxpayers, Renters, Parents, and D204 Staff, Service Workers and Students)

Thank You All for your increasing engagement and donations! Here is the latest updates from www.nsfoc.org . Feel free to forward to your own distribution lists. This is important because the media and D204 are trying to play down this very serious movement to stop the district from squandering your money, time and safety. You should be concerned about that. Ask your friends to at least take 15 minutes and review the website, then decide for themselves. We respect opinions and feedback either way.

We just learned D204 is violating the State "Build Smart" program for building schools which clearly states that a school built next to high pressure gas pipelines can be an "extreme hazard to students in the case of a rupture or explosion"; that high voltage power lines "present several hazards for the school site"; that "railroad lines located adjacent to a potential school site could raise safety, noise and vibration issues...[including] ...the possibility of derailment and/or hazardous material spills." See www.nsfoc.org for the full article.

See the latest information at www.nsfoc.org :
- Full-page ad in 4/1/08 Sun "Why Won't D204 Put Safety First"
- More unanswered questions for D204
- A new flier you are welcome to distribute in your neighborhood
- An appeal to all future Metea attendees and parents
- Revelations that the Illinois EPA is not involved at Eola site
- Over 7000 admitted environmental violations by MW Generation
- No contract with MW Gen protecting taxpayers from liabilities
- Infamous quotes from officials and others shared by taxpayers

See the latest and most recent NEWS articles:
- D204 Set To Violate State's "Build Smart" Program
- Special Meeting Monday 4/5/08 - Phase I and II Testing Review
- Why Won't D204 Put Safety First?
- D204 May Squander Up To $46 M Even Without MW Gen Deal
- D204 Breaks Another Promise: This Time At Eola Site
- Thank You From NSFOC
- Opposition Launches Effort to Convert Gov't Officials and MW Gen
- Accelerating Transportation Costs of Eola Site Not Shared by D204
- NSFOC Concerned About IEPA's Own Policy and D204 Plans
- NSFOC Informational Meeting Expands Interest

This is no time to sit silently while your time, money and safety are being compromised. Please consider a $204 donation to help us make the district keep its promises. It's a lot of expensive effort on your behalf, but many 204 taxpayers are willing to keep this commitment around tight schedules of living, working and volunteering. Don't just believe us - research the facts on your own. Maybe you can help us.

Sincerely,
NSFOC
www.nsfoc.org

Dear all folks blogging on this thread,

I read most of it and will try to comment on some of the themes and specific comments seen.

Regarding Shawn Collins being late for the meeting - I understand he was scheduled for the time he arrived...maybe he was 10 minutes late.

Regarding NSFOC meetings - most have been open meetings, and from what I've seen they have patiently gone over their positions and answered all questions asked. They appear to have nothing to hide.

Regarding NSFOC data - they seem to be willing to admit mistakes and correct them when they come up. The group is trying to keep up with the information between busy lives (like we all have). However, the more they dig, the worse it gets for D204 officials.

For Example 1 - NSFOC thought the power plant was adjacent to the Eola site, but when pictures were attacked, they dug some more and found that the power plant was actually on-site, and got more pictures like the sign on the fence of the peaker plant that read "Caution: Contains PCB's". Are you blind or something? How can you get more explicit than that? PCBs may not be found by Testing Services Corporation even though it's on the sign (remember this for Monday).

For Example 2 - The transportation costs were thought to be negligible, but as NSFOC dug deeper, the numbers became significant ($14++ million in net present value terms). Obviously, the one person attacking that transportation number has no idea how NPV works. The Net Present Value (NPV) is all the annual differences added up, then discounted back to today's dollars. In other words, the real dollars are much higher - like $30 million or about an incremental $1.5 million more for Eola than BB - then discounted and summed up to $14++ million. You see Eola has to get nailed with all the incremental costs for new bus riders from south to central, and from central to north..as well as the extra time and fuel costs - All because the northern site is much farther from the student population. Even the slowest person can figure that one out.

Regarding the comment about "Naperville" schools for the children - the BB site IS in Aurora - always was. I believe NSFOC is trying to get the SB to go back to BB site right? So what were those people talking about?

Regarding the Metzger comment about being engaged with the Illinois EPA - The IEPA was never contacted and confirmed as such. This is an indisputable lie. I understand that all quotes are backed up by video or written copy. Those quotes are all over the place. To use the IEPA to build public trust is criminal in some people's views.

Regarding the fixation on members of NSFOC - you have seen them everywhere in blogs using their names, in the newspapers, at meetings. And who cares where they are from? They will never give up any donor or member information because they do not have to. The directors (3) will be known, but they are already in the papers (thus no news). I would want them on my side even if they were from Wheaton! They could save the district $100 million in my view.

Regarding safety - very real issue I think - like more kids on buses for longer times, more student drivers/parents in rush hour traffic, high pressure gas lines through the middle of the site, EMF, PCBs, possible 26 other hazardous chemicals, potential train derailment - Am I missing something here? The potential lawsuits from any major accidents or sick kids...these can run $100 million when its all over. Are people having a blind spot or something?

Your school board is well on it's way to destroying your school district. I already have moved to district 203...and waiting for my property values to rise during the mass exodus from 204.

What is so funny is how the "unaffected" 204 people are not watching. Well, they will be watching when the backfill requirements to fill up the declining northern enrollment reaches further into the NVHS nation. That will be fun to watch. And now that there will be a nice new school in the north, the closing of WVHS will also be fun to watch. Then people will be wondering where the NSFOC is then. Well, if supported they will be in 204 with a smaller MVHS or a larger Frontier campus, a great WVHS, and a great NVHS...having saved the district from itself. If they are not supported they may be in 203 by then with a closed WVHS in 204 and many more kids being bused north to MVHS including new boundaries where north of 95th goes all the way to MVHS! ..and a poor district on the edge of insolvency due to lawsuits from perceived sick kids that cannot be defended.

Regarding the timing of the NSFOC organization forming - hell, you try to organize like that. As I understand it, the organization was formed only when the last straw was hit. One strike or two might have been OK, but 3 was the killer. This does not mean that any one was more important than another. The problem is the SB went too far, and now they will pay. I would want NSFOC on my side (these people are on mission, well-funded, and hardened warriors..with right on their side. Right is very hard to stop or silence).

To me it looks like the issues are constitutional (voted for X and got Y), safety, and cost exposure. The current total cost (all in principle/interest/operations) of $350 million should turn a few heads. Are the other "currently unaffected" taxpayers watching this space? Are they blind fools?

So I predict the following: NSFOC wins. BB site cannot be done on basis of referendum cost. New referendum is attempted but the SB/district screw that up too. Referendum is defeated. No new high chool. Revelations finally surface that it was never needed. SB gets thrown out. Super gets fired. Some referendum bond brokers and 2 former school board members go to jail. There is a brief crunch period say 3 years of crowding, then the steady decline begins and everyone lives happily ever after having saved $350 million and set D204 on track to become best in Illinois!!!!!

Forgive the length because I only blog once every few months.

y kids wil never attend MV on the Eola site. After reading all of this controversy I wonder if there were another site in the North end of the district would potential MV parents prefer the SB select another site? If so then then it would seem to me that the Northern parents are grasping at straws to keep the imperfect site since if they do admit its wrong they lose the site.

There are 9 other sites the SB considered back in the fall/winter of 2005. Maybe all should be put back on the table.

This insanity has gone on too long. Maybe an independant third party needs to intervene since the community has lost confidence in the SB and Superintendant. The SB and Superintendant are not communicating with the community. Metzger feels communication is optional "we don't have to do this". A suit is filed by concerned parents. We don't know what the walk away costs are for BB and how we'll pay them and whether those costs will influence the Eola decision. Too many questions unanswered and we need some level heads to get us through this mess. We have a great community but people feel helpless and are saying (or typing) things that they will feel bad about some day. I also think the SB and SD will regret what has happened and hopefully will feel accountability for part of this mess. One lesson learned for me is that this community wants and demands to be involved in this district and the SB and AD can not only engage us when they need referrendum money. I have heard many people tell me that they will NEVER support another referrendum in 204. What a shame. We need to fix this mess and heal from this trauma. I keep hoping that the SB will open its doors to the community and stop this mascarade. The site and boundaries were selected in isolation and so I don't buy that they stopped communicating due to the suit. They were almost silent through it all and that behavior needs to hault so level headed problem solvers can prevail.

Do you all not hear how incredibly irrational your thoughts are. This is exactly why we have a group of professionals to roll out our 3rd high school bc of completely irrational comments like this posted by Arc: "If there were referendums to relocate our existing schools that are too close to these pipeline hazards I would vote YES for every single one of them and I would do it right now." That pipeline runs 6 miles down Eola south - yes that's right - south, through subdivisions, schools, etc. We are all living around pipelines and high tension wires everyone in the world. Here's something to remember "Empty Cans are the Noisiest" - fits the NSFOC very well.

Arch, you said "This is the risk we are saying is 'worth it' to save whatever sliver of money it nets out to be for every family in D204 over the lifetime of the school building. You may call it 'worth it'. I do not."

You are wrong - there will be no sliver of money at all. This site will have increased transportation costs due to: a). Increased bussed miles, and b). Extra busses to keep average transportation times down (Kathy B's brainchild). So, these "savings" you speak of will be gone in 6 - 12 years. You are wrong :)

There are some posters desperately seeking more information on "the people behind NSFOC". Why?
Simple - to threaten them, to cow them so that there is absolutely no opposition to irrational actions of the School Board.

They have apparently threatened Todd Andrews. They have called his house, posted maps of his house with arrows to his house. They have terrorized his family.

They wrote down license plates of cars at the NSFOC meetings.

This is bordering on stalking.

Despicable.

We need to focus on the issues - not on the people or where they live. The primary issue is the runaway school board.

To Anon on 4/2 6/15 PM--

"Who the "members" are where they live are irrelevant since they don't have voting rights. That is my point. That is what the NSFOC doesn't want anyone to know."

What????

You call the NSFOC dishonest by not posting "on thier website that the corporation is owned by x number of individuals, y number live in TG, z number live in WE", then say it's "irrelevant since they don't have voting rights."

You call the NSFOC dishonest for not telling members they don't have voting rights when the NSFOC never told or so much as implied to anyone that they did.

And the nuttiest of all:

You call the NSFOC dishonest for posting that donations are not yet tax deductible because "They already know the donations are not tax deductable. But they REFUSE to tell you that on their website." Didn't they just--?

Why don't you be honest and admit that your only point is that you really don't have one. I was right, you prefer to spend hours on this blog flinging around the same statements over and over, getting nowhere and learning nothing.

You're a rabble rouser, pure and simple.

No wonder you hide behind a anonymous handle; if you used a moniker you'd be held accountable for all your nonsense.

getting tired of the clueless NSFOC on April 2, 2008 6:47 PM

Maybe you should get a clue. I don't live in tall grass and I did drive by the neighborhood and look at the powerlines. Let's get something straight. Those powerlines put out different EMF's and there are a lot less of them. Maybe you should drive by the Eola site and another thing if you think they should only be testing for ant-freeze and gasoline your out of your freaking mind.

Again, you sit there assuming everyone is from TG WELL HONEY I AM NOT!! You think NSFOC should get facts straight what about you cry babies and you idiots who don't give a damn about their kids. Well, guess what at least I care about my kids to want to know if it is contaminated and not with just ANTI-FREEZE AND GASOLINE!!

Yes the farmland can be contaminated and I want to know. You want facts how about looking them up but then again your too lazy so you rather sit there and bash people who are going to different sources to find the information. You figure the school board should know the answers............funny they haven't been able to provide anything but continual lies to the point that they don't know what they are saying anymore.

Here are actual facts by the way the NSFOC provided if you were listening at the meeting.

Fact: The Director of the IL IEPA said the school board had not contacted them and Per your IL LAW they are required to contact them to remediate the property.

Fact: Mark Metzger lied to the voters to get his YES vote.

FACT: Per Lisa Madigan's Office Midwest Gen is known to have 7600 admitted to violations. Damn right I am a concerned parent.

Fact: You have stuck your head in the sand and don't give a hoot about any child.

They even told you where the information was from. Again, too lazy to verify for yourself, well guess what I did and they are facts.

Why don't you quit your insane babbling and get a clue.

NSFOC GETS ANSWERS!! on April 2, 2008 4:53 PM

What answers? NSFOC keeps repeatedly complaining that they're not getting the answers they seek.

So what sort of questions are you asking that aren't getting answered if NSFOC is giving you answers? It's a circular argument.

Or, just perhaps, NSFOC is making up their own answers to the questions??

Hmmmmmmmmm, that might just be it!!

To: Anonymous on April 2, 2008 5:19 PM

I was at the meeting and I know at least 10 people who are not NSFOC supporters that were also at the meeting. I walked in 10 minutes late so I do not know who was showing the powerpoint going over that has taken place for the past 3 years in the district. I also left around 9pm. I also asked many questions of Mr. Collins. Anything you'd like to quiz me on feel free.

Regarding - "Regarding, Eola if this site has any contamination what so ever we should disgard it and look at something different."

If it is something as simple as gasoline or anti-freeze why should we abondon it? As far as the power lines and sub station it didn't stop TG residents from building their houses why should it stop a school that is hundreds of yards from these same things.

Regarding - "The IEPA said the property in question will need to be put into a remediation program that would be anywhere from 6 - 12 months depending on the complexity of it and you want your kid attending that school?"

OMG..I can tell the NSFOC is running out of ideas because you keep saying them over and over again. TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS!!! THE SCHOOL WILL NOT BE BUILD ON ANY CONTAMINATED PROPERTY!!! It was former farm land just like the BB property.

Yes MM did say they were working with the IEPA. Do you know for sure he hasn't contacted someone from the IEPA? Do you know for sure MidwestGen hasn't been in discussions with the IEPA? The IEPA said themselves that they can build anything they want there as does IL State Law. Furthermore, unless you know what the land contains I would like to you personally quit throwing out there how bad it is for our kids. My kids will be going there I'm guessing yours won't. I don't care if you're a taxpayer or not, so am I. You don't think I'm concerned? Difference is I'll take the experts word for it and not a selfish, self absorbed entitlement groups advice such as the NSFOC. WE ALL KNOW THEIR TRUE INTENTIONS!!!

NSFOC getting me the facts!!! That's a laugh. The only fact I've received from them is that they are suing US the IPSD. In fact their lawsuit has made the school board who was once open with us now tells us very little on a need to know basis.

PCB's again, do you know that? Do you have studies that we don't? I'm guessing you haven't even been by the land because if you have you will see that the area that potentiall has PCB's is over 5 football fields away. Probably around 25-30 acres away. Plus that land will not be used by the school and will be used for storage and district vehicles.

If you're that concerned abotu contaminated land I'd have a look just NW of Route 59 and 95th street where there have been 4 undergroudn storage tank leaks in the past 20 years. Not that is some scary stuff. If you don't believe me check out the IEPA site yourself.

I'm so tired of the assumptions and scare tactics by the NSFOC and their supporters. Come to me with tests, studies and real facts. The public isn't buying your propaganda!!!

Hey Dollars and Sense...

Who the "members" are where they live are irrelevant since they don't have voting rights. That is my point. That is what the NSFOC doesn't want anyone to know. Techically, I don't believe per their articles of incorporation that have any "members."

You want to jump my case by posting as anonymous but you use a monicker. You must be special.

For those of opposed to NSFOC and who claim to have been at the meeting. I am sorry I can not beleive a word you say.

The reason, Mr. Andrews was not even at the meeting. So why, would I beleive anything that you say about NSFOC. Your looking like Lunatics stop your stupidity and get informed.

Regarding, Eola if this site has any contamination what so ever we should disgard it and look at something different.

Those of you who say that BB settlement will ONLY be $5 million, isn't that $5 million too much. Also, what about the other $5 million?

I will say it as well, Mark Metzger came right out and said they were working with the IEPA. The IEPA said they have never been contacted by the SB. The IEPA said the property in question will need to be put into a remediation program that would be anywhere from 6 - 12 months depending on the complexity of it and you want your kid attending that school?

Those of you who think the school board is acting in the best interest of the district, here is a thought maybe they are telling you whatever you want to hear and later you will be paying for it.

The facts are there beneath the surface and NSFOC is finding them as quickly as they can and when they do they let you know. That is more than I can say about our School Board.

So you want potentially contaminated land. The one that has the sign on the fence telling you there are PCB's?

Sorry, not me.

We would all like to say thank you to the School Board and Dr. Draescher for moving forward with the plans to build a third high school on contaminated property and for not being responsible for the safety of our children. Thanks for your coniving and cunning ways of dividing this district. Thanks for marketing the BB site to get your YES vote only to abandon that site and cost us millions of dollars. Oops! That's right Dr. Destruct said we won't be paying anything. By the way thanks for bringing him in to destroy the programs for special needs children and to run a muck amongst our community. Yeah, Thanks!

Dollars and sense on April 2, 2008 4:04 PM
To NSFOC member on 4/2 at 3:01 PM--

I'm a registered member of the NSFOC and I get email updates from them all the time. They're as bad as the school board when it comes to answering email questions from their members, tho. They shouldn't blast the SB for not communicating with 204 residents if they're going to do the same thing. You should get on their case about this, but don't expect an answer through this blog.

I have to ditto you on that.

To NSFOC member on 4/2 at 3:01 PM--

I'm a registered member of the NSFOC and I get email updates from them all the time. They're as bad as the school board when it comes to answering email questions from their members, tho. They shouldn't blast the SB for not communicating with 204 residents if they're going to do the same thing. You should get on their case about this, but don't expect an answer through this blog.

To 'archless',

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/PAR0301.pdf

Carlsbad, NM

Underground section of pipe burst and exploded. Killed 12 people in the wrong place at the wrong time who were at least 675 feet from the explosion point. It was a 30" pipeline that exploded.

Yes, the people were trespassing. All 12 died (including several children and infants). They were too close and literally got cooked and all died of burns or burn related injuries.

Was it planned? No. It was an accident, caused by corrosion.

This is the risk we are saying is 'worth it' to save whatever sliver of money it nets out to be for every family in D204 over the lifetime of the school building. You may call it 'worth it'. I do not.

To Anon on 4/2 at 10:25 AM--

"They already know the donations are not tax deductable. But they REFUSE to tell you that on their website."

Please explain how you know this. Where did you get this information?

"So you have to attend the meeting to get them to answer anything about the ownership structure?"

Why not? If it's not on their website and you think it should be, then go and say so. At least you'll get the answer.

"Why won't the NSFOC post on thier website that the corporation is owned by x number of individuals, y number live in TG, z number live in WE, and the members have no voting rights?"

You might want to ask how their members are distributed throughout the 204 district. You'd get the same information, but it would sound less accusatory. And the only place I've seen the voting rights question is on these blogs. So it doesn't seem your questions are making it into the mainstream.

How can you expect answers if you won't ask the questions? And asking them anonymously on this blog obviously isn't cutting it. You can't know if the people you're directing your questions to are even reading this. So if you really want to know, take an hour or so out of your life and find out. Or you can spend hours on this blog flinging around the same statements over and over, getting nowhere and learning nothing.

Unless that's what you really prefer to do.

By Is BB still available? on April 2, 2008 2:29 PM
Pardon my confusion. I drove on Route 59 past 75th Street today and saw a sign - "Coming Summer 2009 - The Marketplace at 75th Street." Is this the property the SB was looking at?

***********
Last I "heard", meaning I did not check the facts personally, this marketplace was always supposed to go in on a small parcel of land, along with the high school. But, this too, has fallen apart, as the investors backed out of the deal once they heard 204 wasn't buying. Why? As part of the necessary land development for the school, the SB was supposed to be sharing in the cost of putting in the necessary utilities, etc.
So, this is either already PART of the reason why BB is purportedly going to sue the SB for upward of 20M, or it is yet SOMETHING ELSE that is going to be added on to the tab. Not sure of the timing, but maybe it's why BB asked for a continuence last time they went to court against 204 on this issue - wanted to make sure their ducks were in a row and losses properly calculated so they could hand the SB a nice big bill.

This is why the SB's decision to just "walk away" may turn out to be very costly......it is naive and/or arrogant for Dr.D to say he expects no damages. Hard to tie up a prime piece of commercial property for 2+ years and not cost somebody some serious money by doing so.

I'm sorry to do this but it's about time. I'm sick of the SB being accused for dividing the district. That simply isn't true!! The only people that have divided this district is the neighbors of TG back in 2005-2006 and the TG residents that have now formed and run the NSFOC. You're immature actions and selfish ways from back in 2005-2006 to your lawsuit for selfish reasons today in 2008 against all of us in the IPSD need to be CALLED OUT!!!

YOU ARE THE REASON FOR THE DIVISION TG RESIDENTS OF THE NSFOC, AND YOU ARE THE REASON FOR THIS MESS. FROM BEFORE MM WAS PRESIDENT OF THE SB AND NO ONE EVEN KNEW DR. D'S NAME YOU'VE ACTED THIS WAY!!! I KNOW THERE WASN'T A NSFOC THEN BUT YOU ACTED THE SAME WAY.

You should be ashamed for the way you act and the example you set for you kids. "Kids if you don't get your way and you don't like things, sue". Nice example. It's not about safety it never has been you know it and we know it, quit the games. In your own lawsuit it says BB property or nothing.

Yes, those of you who have acted in this selfish way are to blame for the division of our district. You have cost us untold millions because if you are successful and no 3rd high school is built we will have overcrowded schools and no one will move to this area and all of our property values will suffer.

Thanks!!!

to: BB still available? on April 2, 2008 2:29 PM

I believe that portion of the property is separate from the BB land and has been designated for stores for awhile. Part of the Pennsylvania Real Estate Trust.

I'm a registered NSFOC member how come I haven't been contacted by the NSFOC? I'd like to know as well who makes the decisions of what to do with the money that was donated? I think it is about time you informed your membership. I was also at the last meeting and left my name and email and still I haven't heard anything from the NSFOC.

If the NSFOC were a "true" corporation I would be asking for the replacement of your decision makers because you don't communicate with your membership. I want answers and I want them NOW!!!

"Making a decision based on BAD or INCOMPLETE information is negligent and irresponsible."

So is making all of your decisions on "what-if's" and "what could happen". Sorry I don't live in a world like that. I don't fear going in a car because I might get in a accident. I don't refrain from taking a shower because I might fall. I don't stay indoors when their is a thunderstorm for fear of getting struck by lightening.

What do those things above have in common? They all have a more likelyhood of happening then a pipeline exploding 300 feet from MVHS. Even if a pipeline were to rupture or have a leak you make it sound like all of the kids will die.

I'm sorry but I don't have a problem at all if my kids were supposed to go to that school. What I think you're doing instead is trying to scare as many people as you can and I think it is dirty tactics. Give me facts on when the last gas pipeline exploded from corrosion and peple died. Maybe then I'll pay attention to you.

To: sickofnamecalling on April 2, 2008 12:12 PM

"Mark Metzger told us the IEPA would be working with us and they still have not been contacted. LIES, LIES, and more LIES from our dear SB."
_____________________________

You are correct MM did tell us that. He just didn't tell you when they would need to work with the IEPA and everyone assumed they better do it ASAP. What's got you all upset is that the SB isn't telling you their every move and I'm laughing because the TG residents and the members of the NSFOC brough that upon themselves. Mr. Collins also told you the SB doesn't have to work with the IEPA. Maybe you sould pay attend to what people are saying a little more or done some research youself.

The NSFOC just keeps twisting what people said and twising the facts over and over again.

to What?

You are right on top of the issue. The NSFOC is not really trying to get this case to a court of law. They are trying to get the general public (the uninformed) to believe that the site is dangerous and therefore force the SB back to the BB site.

If this goes to court, it is over for the NSFOC. NSFOC and Collins know it.

The NSFOC has now taken to attacking the school board, the IL EPA, and Midwest Generation. But who is teh NSFOC? It is a handful of people who live in Tall Grass/White Eagle that are upset that their children will go to WVHS. The court of public opinion does not care about these handful of people.

I am still waiting for the NSFOC to be honest with their own donors. When the truth comes about about the true nature of the NSFOC, they will be broke. We know it. The NSFOC knows it. Soon the uninformed will know.

Come on NSFOC...you ask a lot of questions, now answer some.

How many corporate owners are there of the NSFOC?
In which subdivisions do they reside?
Did you file your incorporation papers with the state of Illinois classifying your members as voting or non-voting members?
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the corporation is set up as an activist not-for-profit?
Why don't you inform people on your website that their donations are not tax deductable?
How long do you think you can keep hiding all of this?

Pardon my confusion. I drove on Route 59 past 75th Street today and saw a sign - "Coming Summer 2009 - The Marketplace at 75th Street." Is this the property the SB was looking at?

To What? on 4/2 at 11:45 AM--

I applaud you for making the effort to educate yourself about the NSFOC. That's a step that most folks blasting them on these blogs don't bother to take.

Good, so Andrews identified himself as a leader. Collins showed up 1 hr 10 mins. late, but he was there and did answer questions. Did you ask if any other leaders were there and who they were? Did you ask specific questions of Mr. Collins if you had them? They're not mind readers; they won't know to discuss a particular issue unless you bring it up. If you are uncomfortable asking these questions publicly, you can ask them privately after the meeting. As long as you do so in a respectful manner, challenge them with the tough questions.

If, when all is said and done, you conclude that the NSFOC is full of it, fine. You've made an informed decision.

What I'm seeing so much of on these blogs are folks forming opinions about the NSFOC based on the absence of information, even when that information is easy to find. God forbid they should read the website or attend a meeting. But they'll throw around the same questions endlessly, as if just asking them is proof enough. All this proves is how much they don't know. It would be refreshing if they actually knew something they could contribute to the discussion.

To Need some clarification:

No question about it. Homes are built within the PIR of these pipelines. Each family makes the decision whether the cheaper price for those homes is 'worth it' for the added risk, regardless of how minor it may statistically be.

The unfortunate truth is that if there is an accident on those pipes, the homes within the PIR would face damage and there is a very high probability for loss of life or grave injury to the occupants. That's just the nature of blasts and temperature. It's physics.

The problem with locating a school inside that zone is that the decision making ability to accept that risk is now being made for each family that will attend that location. We are doing this because the Administration says it's "cheaper" to put a school there.

If the Administration later decides that they can save money by being more lax on other safety policies or procedures that could have a detrimental effect to the life of your child would that be OK with everyone in the district?

If the lines were only on the eastern edge of the property (out by the railroad tracks) we would have the building OUTSIDE of the PIR and most kids will have activities OUTSIDE of that range as well.

The rub on this property is that there are 2 - 36" gas mains and a 20" gas main traveling through the MIDDLE of the property (North/South) and are very close to where the school building is slated to be. This is a LONG TERM decision and the *COST SAVINGS* of accepting that higher risk over the next decades needs to be re-evaluated. Pipelines do not get stronger over time, they get weaker. Internal and External corrosion is now one of the top 2 causes for all pipeline accidents. The other is construction/excavation. The School Board/Administration intend to have construction ONGOING while kids attend the school. Again, this is an unacceptable elevated risk to the children in our district.

Everyone can cite all of the statistics they want to about probability of an accident but they will offer no comfort to anyone who loses a child if the unthinkable happens at that location.

Statistics do not make up for one's absence at the dinner table each night.

It's a dangerous place for a school. It's really that simple, IMO.

To Wrong Again:

There's the ridicule, as predicted.

If there were referendums to relocate our existing schools that are too close to these pipeline hazards I would vote YES for every single one of them and I would do it right now.

What other districts choose to do is their problem, not ours.

If you have better numbers for the PIR of these pipelines and the consequences to life and property that refutes what I put forth then please post your math and your sources.

Please tell us the stand-off distance needed to ensure no one dies and the district's property (Actually, OUR property: the school) is not damaged in the event of a pipeline accident on the property.

To Big Picture Issues:

I have been sending them data about site safety since the middle of January. The most engaging response I got back was from the School Board President attempting to re-frame an inaccuracy I posted about Dr. D's presentation to the board on Jan 22 with regards to the pipelines and Peaker plant history and even in his re-framing he was wrong and finally admitted that the data I had about the plant from the Department of Energy since 1970 was more complete than their 'paper copies' from 1991 that they were working from and subsequently basing decisions on.

Lack of information means you go and get the information. Making a decision based on BAD or INCOMPLETE information is negligent and irresponsible.

Arch,

Appreciate the numbers. My kids are potential MV attendees so I'm doing some digging too. Looks like the school will be built pretty close to the pipeline. I've actually driven across that pipeline on many of the E-W roads in the 204 area trying to see what's in its path. Throughout my travels I document many subdivisions with homes backing up to less than 150' from the pipeline (well within the PIR). In one McCarty subdivision I "eyeballed" the pipeline at a distance of 80' +/- 20' from 3 homes.

What I'm trying to gain an understanding of is the "correlation" in the level of danger existing homes are facing with the pipeline and the level of danger facing the school. Seems the school would face less danger than these homes since the school, while still within the radius, is twice as far away. I'm trying to wade through the hysteria of "never build anything anywhere NEAR a pipeline" and the observation that literally thousands of residents live nearer to the beast than the school. I'm struggling to reconcile it being OK for families to raise their children next to this thing 24x7 but not OK to put the school there. I'm also trying not to succumb to non-factual data such as the standard "something could possibly happen."

I appreciate the hard facts you present and apologize I'm responding with only half facts and half questions.

Again, I commend you on presenting data.

I have to wonder how many people from outside of 204 or outside of the Chicago area are reading all of this. If I had a young family was was looking to move into the area 204 is one place I would choose to avoid. With the negative and just downright mean attitudes who would want to live here and have neighbors like this. My kids are still in the system and will be for a few more years. Several parents we know who were considering moving here are making other plans. Yes the SB screwed up in many ways but the behavior of the parents had been as bad as their kids on the playground. Suddenly the luster has faded. NV is no longer the school everyone wants their kids to go to. 204 has been torn apart. We will never be what we once were.

sickofnamecalling on April 2, 2008 12:12 PM

Please take a closer look at the NSFOC site and tell me that 100% of the content on the NSFOC website is:
- absolutely 100% true
- not slanted in any way
- not a quote taken out of context
- not an excerpt from an document that supports the NSFOC opinion but the remainder of the document has information that is contrary to NSFOC opinion, but conveniently left out because of it.
- not a scare tactic
- not an exaggeration of the truth
- based in reality
- not for self-serving reasons
- totally forthcoming with regard to your REAL motives

I doubt can answer yes to all of these questions, which is why nobody believes a word you have to say.

And yes, I am sick of sickofname calling.

To Anon on 4/1 at 5:59 PM--

"The School Board worked for two years trying to satisfy the TG residents. I've never heard of a school board trying so hard for so long to satisfy one subdivision. We all should have been up in arms with them for the waisted 2 years in trying to pacify the TG residents."

What in the world are you talking about? And why is it the most ignorant statements always seem to come from anonymous posters?

204,

Mark Metzger told us the IEPA would be working with us and they still have not been contacted. LIES, LIES, and more LIES from our dear SB. But wait we should all just shut up and trust them. No way now that they have been caught lying over and over again.

Anonymous on April 2, 2008 8:48 AM

It appears to me that the only ones creating smoke and fanning the flames are NSFOC.

To: Anonymous on April 2, 2008 8:48 AM

Yes it is obvious you haven't done your research.

All the way back to 2005 and 2006 the same group of people that is now mainly the NSFOC were complaining back then as well.

The tax dollars were passed for a 3rd HS so need to argue about that. I know my tax dollars are going towards a 3rd HS no matter where it is. It basically comes down to this.

1) Those that are suing the IPSD and those that are not.

2) Those that didn't get their way and are unhappy and if they can't be happy then they will sue vs. those that believe we live in an amazing school district and see how hard the SB has been working towards a 3rd HS at the BB property and now at the Eola property.

3) Those that choose to selfishly use scare tactics about the safety of our children to accomplish #2 above vs. those of us that believe the school board will do the right things in regards to ensure our children are safe.

I think that about sums it up. You can either choose to believe that mud that the NSFOC is throwing around or you can find out the real facts and the real motives behind the NSFOC. I have observed since 2005 the later.

To: Dollars and sense on April 2, 2008 12:44 AM

"Or do you prefer to sit around and stew in your own ignorance because knowing the truth might just prove you wrong about the NSFOC?"

I did attend the last NSFOC meeting of which there were between 88-93 people in attendance. Of which I knew about 15 that were non-NSFOC supporters.

"You'll then be able to meet some of the leaders and their attorney and ask them these questions, including anything about land remediation. The NSFOC is not hiding, they make themselves available to people such as yourself every time they advertise a public meeting."

I didn't see anyone identify themself as a leader except for Mr. Andrews. Mr. Andrews also couldn't share that much informatio about remediation as he didn't have that much knowledge on the subject. We were told to wait until their attorney came to the meeting to answer the majority of the questions posed to the only identified leader Mr. Andrews.

About 1 hour and 10 minutes into the NSFOC meeting their attorney Mr. Collings finally showed up and proceeded to answer questions.

As far as your comment above "knowing the truth might just prove you wrong about the NSFOC."

I did not hear much truth nor was a proven wrong about the NSFOC. I listened carefully to Mr. Collins case against the IPSD and I'm sorry to say but you might want to look into different legal counsel or withdraw your case all together. Trying to throw around assumptions, false truths and being accusatory might play well in the local media, but it will not work for Mr. Collins in a court of law.

To: Arch on April 2, 2008 12:10 AM

Guess we better look at moving close to 200 other schools in the Chicago land area that are also close to this gas pipeline. Many of which are much close to this pipeline then MVHS will be. Including the 3 other schools that are close to this pipeline in IPSD.

Nice try of using scare tactics again, but this pipeline also runs past many schools and through many neighborhoods. Sure accidents do happen but I also don't live my life in fear about the "what-if's". For all of you that aren't paying attention this is Mr. Collins tactic of painting as many "what-if's" as possible. Heck if we all worried daily about "what-if's" we'd never leave our homes and live in a plastic bubble.

Dollars and Sense...I read the website. And I agree that it says they will tell you when they get status that the donations are or are not tax deductable. That ismy point. They leave that on the website but they already know they are not. They have a lawyer who markets himself as a CPA on his website and they hired a professional company to handle the incorporation papers. They already know the donations are not tax deductable. But they REFUSE to tell you that on their website. They continue to tell you they have applied for the status and tell you to ask your tax preparer. That is like saying, "we know but you have to find out for yourself."

Dollars and Sense, thank you for helping me to make my point that they refuse to be honest with their donors.

Proves the NSFOC will tell you anything to keep you donating. A fool and their money are soon parted.

So you have to attend the meeting to get them to answer anything about the ownership structure? Maybe they should shut down the website and if anybody wants to know anything they should attend the next meeting? Next NSFOC Naperville Sun ad: "We know something but we aren't going to tell you ...find out what it is at the next meeting! - but send money NOW!" Why won't the NSFOC post on thier website that the corporation is owned by x number of individuals, y number live in TG, z number live in WE, and the members have no voting rights? If the NSFOC really is looking ouot for the best interest of 204, why do they refuse to disclose this? Why the secret? I'm sorry. I forgot. If they tell everyone the truth, the uninformed quit donating.

Proves the NSFOC will tell you anything to keep you donating. A fool and their money are soon parted.

By Arch on April 2, 2008 12:10 AM

Knowingly building a school within this distance to these lines is gross negligence and completely irresponsible, in my opinion.

The site may have 'remediation' wrapped up behind a nice little fence, but this pipeline danger will be present every single day going forward at that location.

I'll now welcome the floor for those that want to call this objective presentation of facts just 'fear mongering'. I can't blame them, really because the numbers speak for themselves.

****************
Thank you, Arch, for another FACTUAL insightful post. Have you considered submitting/speaking to the Board about this?
Not that they would listen, but maybe it would bring the focus off of all of the pointless rhetoric and back to what really matters - the overall risk and number of issues associated with the Eola property. This information should really be published........maybe an editorial to The Sun?

to: Anonymous on April 2, 2008 8:48 AM

Remember another proverb. Opinions are like as_holes. Everybody has one.

And, you are one.

204 on April 1, 2008 8:14 PM

LOL!!!

Looks like IS IT SAFE?? got your undies in an up roar. They must be hitting a nerve. Love the comedy coming from you it really makes you look like a fool.

On another note, I think MIDWEST GEN should pull out of this deal and run away. What are they thinking selling a piece of land to this district? Pipelines, and PCB's should be enough to stop and think. D204 we know you can do better than this.

P.S.

I have swampland in Florida I can sell you?

The D204 has grown to be too large. I have not done research but my guess is D203 is not this large in area. The amount of tax dollar D204 gets is as large as some sizable company. The D204 SB cannot handle this kind of $$$$ responsibly. It is time to make a new SB.

I do not want to pay tax to a district and its SB who is so irresponsible.

Why not divide this D204 in to two new areas? Several thoughts comes to mind on how by reading these blogs above.

1) People who actually read the articles and people who do not.

2) People who want to know all the facts before putting their tax dollars and people who do not.

3) People who cares about child safety and who do not.

4) People who has no idea the direction the SB is taking them in to and people who has some.

5) People who thinks that a site can be cleaned up overnight and people who do not.

6) People who thinks kids from one area should be bussed for 30 mins to get to their school and people who do not.

I for one would like to see kids of this community safe and without health problems years after they have left the school. As a scientist I want to urge both sides to walk away from the Eola Site.

Remember a proverb if there is a smoke there is a fire.

To Anon on 4/1 at 7:17 PM--If the uninformed are the easiest to scam, you're a prime target.

Regarding MWGen violations, the NSFOC website states:

"Midwest Generation is selling the School Board 37 acres for new Metea HS site – the violations reported above are not specific to the Eola/Molitor location, but that site was operated by the very same company identified in the article."

You can find this statement under the article "Why Won't D204 Put Safety First?", if you would just bother to read it.

Regarding the tax deductability of donations, the NSFOC website states:

Are my donations tax-deductible?
Not yet. We have applied for a Federal ID for non-profit status. If we are granted non-profit status, then donations may qualify for tax deductibility and company matching funds. We will inform you of the final outcome.

You can find this information in FAQs under the Main Menu, if you would just bother to read it.

Regarding your questions about ownership of NSFOC and voting rights of its members/donors:

If you really want to know this, get off your butt and attend their next public meeting. The NSFOC meetings are open to the entire 204 community and anyone, supporter or not, is welcome to attend. You'll then be able to meet some of the leaders and their attorney and ask them these questions, including anything about land remediation. The NSFOC is not hiding, they make themselves available to people such as yourself every time they advertise a public meeting.

Or do you prefer to sit around and stew in your own ignorance because knowing the truth might just prove you wrong about the NSFOC?

Add this up:

Laziness + Willful Ignorance + Mud Slinging From a Perch of Anonymity = YOU

The fact of the matter is that this school building and the children attending it will be within HALF the distance that is determined to be the PIR.

Potential Impact Radius (PIR)

The radius of a circle within which the potential failure of a pipeline could have significant impact on people or property. PIR is determined by the formula r = 0.69 * (square root of (p*d2)), where r = is the radius of a circular area in feet surrounding the point of failure, p is the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) in the pipeline segment in pounds per square inch and d is the nominal diameter of the pipeline in inches.
Note: 0.69 is the factor for natural gas.

Source: http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/gasimp/Glossary.gim

High Consequence Area definition: http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/FactSheets/FSHCA.htm

One single 36" pipeline (there are 2 - 36" pipelines plus 1 - 20" pipeline running through the middle of the property that will be underneath the athletic fields) has a PIR between 650 and 700 feet using the pressures noted by the pipeline operators in this document: http://www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_18004_2.pdf

Using the site-plan map with a googlemap overlay it appears that the building of MV will be somewhere between 200-300 feet from these 3 pipelines. Any failure of a pipeline will have a 'High Consequence' 'impact' on the building and the occupants.

Accidents are called accidents for a reason. The pipeline company told us that they will perform a check every 6 months for signs of a leak (Hint: that means the explosion danger is already present) and will do a pressure test every seven years. I believe that at least one of the lines contains non-odorized gas which means you can not tell if there is a leak without a special gas meter. Again, a lethal condition could be present at the site with children there and we will be unaware of the volatile danger.

Knowingly building a school within this distance to these lines is gross negligence and completely irresponsible, in my opinion.

The site may have 'remediation' wrapped up behind a nice little fence, but this pipeline danger will be present every single day going forward at that location.

I'll now welcome the floor for those that want to call this objective presentation of facts just 'fear mongering'. I can't blame them, really because the numbers speak for themselves.

that should read the uninformed are the easiest to scam.

NSFOC needs a recount.

If NSFOC is counting everyone who signs up on their website as a supporter their numbers are badly skewed.

Many, many, many people in the community have only signed up to keep their eye on them.

Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.

You'd think if Shawn Collins as so successful that he could afford a decent haircut and also to close the huge gap in his choppers.

Nice physical image to portray...perfect match for his professional image.

Let's all say it together... "ambulance chaser"...

the uninformed are the easiest to scam...you have to love the math on their website. They claim it will cost $14 to $18 million for busing transportation for the Eola site. Then they add that to the $20 million the BB trust is asking for to walk away from the site for a total of $38 million more to have the Eola site over the BB site.

How stupid do you think your donors are?

First, if the busing charges only apply to Eola, is the district eliminating busing if they build the school at the BB site? $14 to $18 million at Eola but $0 at BB?

Second, the trust is suing for $20 million but it is doubtful they will get anywhere near that. They even admit the case law supporting this size of a claim is shaky.

Nice try...I am too smart to ever support a scam designed to profit a few individuals in TG.

204 is correct.It's not about safety is about Tg and We not wanting their kids to go to WVHS or anything near Aurora...

By Anonymous on April 1, 2008 7:17 PM
....Shawn Collins is also a CPA

Are you sure?

I see it mentioned on his webpage, http://www.collinslaw.com/BIOsmc.html, but according to the..

Illinois Public Accounting Act was amended requiring all individuals who hold themselves out to the public in any manner in Illinois as a “Certified Public Accountant” or use the abbreviation “C.P.A.” or “CPA” or any words or letters to indicate that the person using the same is a certified public accountant must be a Registered Certified Public Accountant (RCPA) or a Licensed Certified Public Accountant (LCPA) with the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Professional Regulation.

Individuals who are NOT currently licensed or do not practice public accounting as defined in Section 450/8 of the Public Accounting Act but hold themselves out to the public in Illinois as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) must become a licensed RCPA on or before October 1, 2006.

Perhaps I am overlooking his name, but the only Shawn Michael Collins I find,

license expired in 1986, perhaps this is someone else.

See for yourself... and yes I looked under Licensed & Registered CPA.

https://www.idfpr.com/dpr/licenselookup/default.asp

I'm sure I am overlooking this information:)and also as smart as Mr. Collins is, I'm sure he didnt overlook this very important change in the IPAA.

Peeling layer by layer - in memory of NSFOCtim. FYI - he/she was banned from this blog.

IS IT SAFE?? on April 1, 2008 5:42 PM

Of course you would prefer your quotes because that's only a portion of the article. And FYI, the quote I blogged was taken from THE SAME ARTICLE AS YOURS....but you extracted the portion you wanted to in order to fan the flames against Eola.

Well, honey, it's not convincing me even though you keep cutting and pasting the sames quotes over and over again from the same article. So, you can stop now.

We should be scared of you and your lynch mob because you've lost your marbles! Get out the torches and stop the Bastille!

To anonymous 5:59

You state the school board spent two years trying to pacify the TG area? I respectfully disagree.In fact, the school board President, who voluteered to be the school board FRY liason(2006-2007) never visited Fry despite numerous invitations. He ignored invitations on at least three occasions. When he was called out for doing that during the school board election in 2007, he blamed it on his "spam" filter but went on to say he considers many of us in TG to be the "hostiles".

There was no pacifier for the Fry community. We are "hostiles" according to Mark.

Again, the NSFOC is throwing 7600 violations to scare people but not 1 violation ever at the Eola site. They don't tell you that. If they tell you that, you won't send money.

People this is about money and boundaries. Youhave to ask yourself 1 question...if they cannot be honest about the ownership/voting rights and whether or not the donations are tax deductable...what else are misleading you about to get your money?

Shawn Collins is also a CPA...and yet the NSFOC will not tell you if the donations are tax deductable.

Shawn Collins is an environmental attorney and yet they refuse to tell you that ALL contamination except radioactive contamination can be remediated.

Shawn Collins is trying his case in the press rather than a court of law in order to raise donations.

Can't you people add this all up???

Eola Site can be remediated + Ownership can settle this whole matter as to how 2 or 3 people see fit + not honest about the donations = the uniformed are the easiest to scam.

The NSFOC updates its website constantly and yet they refuse to come clean to the very people who support them.

The School Board worked for two years trying to satisfy the TG residents. I've never heard of a school board trying so hard for so long to satisfy one subdivision. We all should have been up in arms with them for the waisted 2 years in trying to pacify the TG residents. Really, take a nice long vacation, take a look at your behavior, and come back with a nice big apology to the residents district 204 when you've settled your emotions.

Most probably, they won't have to clean much - as the land in which the school will be built is not on the land in question - it's several hundred yards away - closer to a subdivision on new homes. Again, the witch hunt you are on only makes you look paranoid - really.

204 on April 1, 2008 4:19 PM
Right back at 'cha sweetheart.

I rather post facts unlike those opposed to NSFOC who just want to make things up for their own benefit.

FACT: The sellers have over 7600 admitted pollution violations.

"They don't have to deal with the Illinois EPA at all. There's no legal requirement that they do it," said attorney Shawn Collins,"

Which is exactly why you should be concerned. They don't have to clean up anything! Then we are going to send innocent children to that school..........................Thanks School Board for not caring about our kids!

Here's a thought: Don't re-elect these idiots to the school board next year.

My other thought.........We should be scared!!

"The sellers have over 7600 admitted pollution violations"

This is the latest quote you'll see from the NSFOC to try and scare the district into thinking that the Eola property is bad bad bad. They fail to mention that there is no proof even 1 of these pollution violations occured at the Eola site. Please NSFOC show me proof of that!!!

People don't let they sway and scare you, there are deeper motives here. The school will be built on farm land. There is no proof the land the school will be built on has ever had any issues. The former peaker plant is hundreds of yards away in the NE corner that will be fenced off. Much like the active electric substation is fenced off within the TG neighborhood right next to their pool.

Wait for the facts from the school board and MidwestGen. NSFOC is trying its hardest to win public approval because they have no basis for a lawsuit, their active membership is maybe 50 people and they are running out of money fast!!!

They can run newspaper ad's as much as they want and make assumptions but they don't have any proof!!!! Don't buy into their propaganda!!!

The school will be built on the Eola site where there is no contamination, previous farm land, just like the BB property.

As far as the NE corner, it is hundreds of yards away. That's not where my kids will be going to school. At best there is gasoline and anti-freeze. Approximately 24 acres away from the school. What's it like to live in constant fear?

to: IS IT SAFE?? on April 1, 2008 2:22 PM

Do you actually have an original thought? Or are cut and pasted quotes from the newspaper the only way you know to try to make your point?

Right back at 'cha sweetheart.

Taken from Naperville Sun on 3/30.

Right from the Horse's (as_) I mean Mouth.

They don't have to deal with the Illinois EPA at all. There's no legal requirement that they do it," said attorney Shawn Collins, who is representing Neighborhood Schools for Our Children in the group's lawsuit demanding that District 204 build Metea on the 80-acre site at 75th Street and Route 59 known as the Brach-Brodie property.

Believe It!!! on April 1, 2008 2:27 PM

The sellers have over 7600 admitted pollution violations and you think it is okay to send my child there. I don't think so! I don't care if they can as you say Build, Build, Build. I want the school on safe land and there is other land that is safer than this. We should not even be going near a "Potentially Hazardous Site!!

By the way you need to go back and read Sundays Article. You purposely left out some important information. Like the following:

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."

This remediation can take up to 12 months. You want this going on when our children are attending the school? NOT ME!!

REPOSTING:
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)

To: 204

Thank You!! That was the best laugh I've had all week. It was so perfect and pretty much sums up what we've all heard since the boundary meeting. Wait, no we heard those things as well back in 2005 and 2006 minus the Eola site scare tactics.

I'm sure some NSFOC supporter will try and post MM or Dr.D's quotes and try and twist them. Fact of the matter is they did everything they could to satisfy those NSFOC/TG members/residents for 3 years and it fell through. There were never any guarantees. The SB and MM should be commended for the hard work they did for 3 years to fight for the same people that are now suing the IPSD.

To: Unbelievable! on April 1, 2008 1:13 PM

"they don't need to wait and can buy the land without knowing that it is safe."

How do you know if the land is safe or not? You keep saying the same thing over and over again under different names. The SB has had the results of the Phase II studies for over 3 weeks. You don't think they are working out remediation plans? The spokeswoman for IEPA said it herself. They don't have to wait. As long as testing has been done and there is remediation plans in place they can build, build, build. The IEPA just has to review the test results and the remediation plans themselves. You honestly don't think they are doing everything behind the scenes to make sure that site is safe?

What I think you will be shocked at is that when those Phase II studies do come out there is nothing to get all up in arms about. However, the NSFOC still won't be satisfied and will require more test and more tests. Finally the IEPA will come in and the NSFOC will won't be happy. Remember it isn't about safety for the NSFOC it is about the school being built on the BB property. Look at their lawsuit.

If you have a problem with the way the IL State Law is I highly recommend you take it to the NSFOC and have them file a lawsuit against that State of IL. However, I highly doubt they care about the safety of all the kids in IL to do that. Remember this is about their own self interests and their taxes. But wait, they care about my kids so why shouldn't they care about all the kids of IL. Tell you what NSFOC if you do file a lawsuit against the State of IL I'll personally write you a check for $5000.00.

By Unbelievable! on April 1, 2008 1:13 PM
Absolutely not. Without a doubt I am and have always been a concerned parent to a fault - anyone who knows me knows that. Undeniably and overwhelmingly, it is the WE and TG residents who are doing the name calling - evidenced by your post claiming that I am anything but a concerned parent. I hold a masters degree and have always chosen to live by informed educated decisions - not emotionally charged end of the world scenario's, such that the NSFOC is trying to scare into the minds of people. I know that, upon the opening of Metea, the Peaker plant will not have been in operation for over 2 years, and that an site other than a nuclear site can be remediated. I do have one honest question, do you think their are some people that have joined this group that actually believe Eola is a nuclear site or are they ALL in it for their own selfish boundary reasons like Todd Andrews? Let's see if I get a calm, logical answer back, or the typical name calling offered up so well by the NSFOC. Again, thank you, thank you Dr. Dreascher and the School Board for completing your due diligence in ensuring the Eola site's safety, we are all supporting your tireless efforts in this!

to - it's not about safety....nsfoc is about broken "promises" :) on April 1, 2008 2:02 PM

Funny how that is NOW their battle cry.

Since NSFOC likes to quote everyone. I thought I'd compile some not-so-famous quotes from NSFOC supporters:

"there's no way my kid is going to WVHS"
"I can see NV from my house"
"The bridge was built for me"
"I'll have to drive 5 minutes longer to school"
"RR crossings are dangerous"
"Eola is a toxic waste dump"
"the power lines"
"the peaker plant"
"gas lines"
"The North"
"WVHS has gangs"
"If my kid gets a rash I'll sue"
"I pay a lot in taxes so I should go to the school of my choice"
"I don't want my kids to mix with that class of people"
"stop calling me names"
"the sky is falling....ohhh, nooooo"

Go away NSFOC. Nobody "promised" you anything.

204 on April 1, 2008 8:24 AM
To: IS IT SAFE?? on March 31, 2008 9:05 PM

Mooooooooooooooooooo. Herd mentality.

______________________
Wow, so this is the type of people who want to build on the contaminated site. I think you just proved how mature you are.

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.

Additionally,

Midwest Gen - 7600 violations they admitted too and you ask why the NSFOC and others are up in arms?

7600 KNOWN AND ADMITTED TO VIOLATIONS!!

204 on April 1, 2008 10:02 AM

If you were informed then you would have known that the IEPA was contacted to verify that the School Board DID "NOT" contact the IEPA as Mark Metzger told us.

So, sorry to disappoint you but it is a FACT nothing more.

THE SCHOOL BOARD DID NOT CONTACT THE IEPA.............EVER? FACT!!

Wounded warrior,
You are right. Sad in 204 knows it too. Good luck next year at Notre Dame! This could actually be a good case study :).Stay proud!!!

Unbelievable! on April 1, 2008 1:13 PM

Since the NSFOC is doing my parenting for me now, please have them come over to my house my kid needs to be changed!

By Anonymous on April 1, 2008 12:43 PM
You wrote, "I would like to say Thank you to the School Board and Dr. Daeschner! What a great job they've done in securing a piece of property and taking all the proper steps to ensure its' safety in spite of the folks with their agendas down south."

I guess you missed the part where the SB said that it was working with the IEPA and then said they don't need to wait and can buy the land without knowing that it is safe.

You must want a school on Eola pretty bad to abandon you parental and fiscal responsibilities. Thank God the NSFOC is doing your parenting for you.

I'm sorry, but the north has been doing most of the name calling and to use a murder of a 23 yr. old is sick, sick, sick. The more I hear from you up north, the more I am believing what they say.

Actually, I am glad I know people that live in the north to know that these are a few in number. There are drugs, fights, ect at Neuqua too. You people are UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!

I would like to say Thank you to the School Board and Dr. Daeschner! What a great job they've done in securing a piece of property and taking all the proper steps to ensure its' safety in spite of the folks with their agendas down south. So glad someone who has not been influenced by the TG and WE people behind this is in control - finally. I was fine with Neuqua going down there and once again fine with the third high school going down there as well, but now with the BB property falling through (only after 2 years of hard work trying to make it happen) - it's soooo nice to see someone who is not in the back pockets of the TG and WE people behind this absolutely selfish suit. Thank you thank you Dr. Daeschner and the SB - it's nice to see elected officials that are not in the back pockets of people who try ever so hard to get people in the back pockets of so many.

To: sickofnamecalling

Sorry that the murder was brought up, but if you have been paying attention over the last 3 weeks shots have been taken at us in the north again and again such as:

- drugs at WVHS (like they don't exist at NVHS)
- rape at WVHS (which I want proof of)
- prostitution and drug bust in Aurora (which was pointed at us in Aurora)
- gangs at WVHS (again proof is needed)

Sorry that the murder was pointed at those in Naperville (it is a shame that things like this occur), but when shots are taken again and again at us... Well, I guess some people feel the need to throw insults back. I guess it's the attitude of some people in the south and they direct that attitude towards those in the north.

To those who are trying to lie again (obviously the TG & WE residents), and claim their are 4,000 trying to sue - please know - no one is buying this line either. You really should start trying to up you moral code here as you have no credibility whatsoever.

OMG!!!! What is wrong with you people!! You would use a death of a 23yrd old in the debate over a 3rd HS. This shooting happened very close to the Stillwater subdivision.

Man, are there some really disturbing people out there.

Man SHOT AND KILLED less than a mile from White Eagle and Tall Grass. Between Sheehan and Skylane. TODAY.

The south side sure is getting scary.

Every single person in 204 has a vested interest in Metea. If they build the high school without an absolute clean bill everyone will pay. Why put any child at risk. The SB should take all the necessary time to insure the taxpayers this site is completely safe.

Re: Moderator Jim : Job well done, thanks for the fair minded actions on both the blog and in the newspaper.

to; Anonymous on April 1, 2008 9:33 AM

I heard that, so I am informed.

I also choose to leave such things to the experts, as I am not expert on site safety and whether any particular site is more suitable than another. As such I don't continue to fan the flames and perpetuate the scare tactics that NSFOC is so hell bent on fanning.

Unless you are an expert with a wealth of KNOWLEDGE on site safety -not speculation, regurgitating information you "heard" someplace else, and other conjecture. I recommend you go elsewhere to continue your rant. Because (other than the NSFOC cult), the rest of us don't care what you have to say.

204 on March 31, 2008 8:51 PM

If you were informed then you would have known that the IEPA was contacted to verify that the School Board DID "NOT" contact the IEPA as Mark Metzger told us.

So, sorry to disappoint you but it is a FACT nothing more.

To Sad in 204: Well put. Agreed on all counts. I hate that the irate people demonize the people on the other side of their opinions. I just think that in a logical, professional scenario we would be building the school at a site (whether BB or not) that the SB pre-markets to the community, or, at worst, at a back-up site which is also premarketed to the community prior to the referendum as the backup site in the event that the primary site falls through. After the pre-marketing period, the vote takes place, the majority rules, and the school gets built at Site A, or at worst, at the preannounced Site B. And whatever site gets built at will have a clean bill of health per the Illinois EPA on all acreage purchased for development as school grounds (rather than having to 'opt out' / delay IEPA oversight as is apparently the case at Eola).

Doing it any other way is just going to come across as not being above board, ram-rodded, self-serving, bungled and all the other negative connotations which at this point have been well documented. Then not following through as promised (e.g. not putting the enviro reports in the public's hands, not partnering with the IEPA as you claimed you would do in your press releases, not acknowledging when directly asked [or not being informed enough to even know?] that the gas pipelines run through the middle of the property, to name a few), and then, in spite of not following through as promised on so many issues, announcing that you must hurry, hurry, hurry to build, and then basically acting aloof and cocky towards the community just is not going to get you very far as a school board.

Irate people, go ahead and skewer me I guess. I just don't see how you can if you have a level head. But, have at it.

to-IS IT SAFE?? on March 31, 2008 9:05 PM

What questions do you have that are magically getting answered by all-knowing NSFOC?

I am not a member of the NSFOC, as I stated, my children will attend Neuqua, and consistently wonder why everyone in this district does not want to ensure this is a safe site (as we were told in 2005 it was not) before we spend $140 million on it.

Getting information about the testing AFTER we close on the land, getting the IEPA involved AFTER we close on the land, doesn't help anyone if it comes out unclean, and it isn't what Metzger said in January he was going to do.

If we are running late on this school (two years since vote), it is because our SB pursued a court case they didn't win. I'm sorry Disgusted with Disgusted with 204SB blogger, but I don't think we should waste more money just because the SB was incompetent for the past two years. We need to know what we're getting into before we continue down this path. I also think the $20 million we might be facing at BB in damages affects our ability to build this high school at all. This is not the fault of the NSFOC, but rather of our SB members.

Alka Tyle can send out any e-mail she likes, I guess, but as an elected official in this town, you'd think she'd show more professionalism. Why not have a neighbor send it and save herself the embarassment? I would have liked to see the Naperville Sun report that she sent that e-mail.

If the site is clean, then the Eola site is fine with me and I'm sure most would agree. This is not about boundaries as I said. It is about fiscal responsibility. And yes, I am biased against this board whom I feel has run amuck for the past few years with my blank check in hand. I meant when I wrote "no bias" that I was not against Eola because of the boundaries that went with it. I simply want the t's crossed and i's dotted before we charge ahead. That doesn't seem unreasonable.

Offended Warrior,

I am so sorry that you are taking this so seriously. Please do not listen to the name calling on this blog. How you feel is what they want. Blinded with anger that you don't see the facts. This lawsuit could not go forward if there were not those involved who would be going to MV. This is not just a TG/WE thing. There are many through out the district who are unhappy with this site. Many are those who will be attending MV at the Eola site.

Warrior, I too have many friends throughout the district. A lot of them attend WV. I think they are great people and I know they love WV. Just ignore those who say what they say. What this SB has done to this district is very sad.

moderator jim, what is your official role with the sun? are you a reporter? a columnist? perhaps a journalism school drop-out?

for those who want biased moderators, we can hang out on the blue or green boards. it disgusts me that the naperville sun empowers you to post your one-sided and/or insulting responses on their blog.

in the end, i guess i should say thanks. many people feel the sun is in the NSFOC's back pocket. you've gone above and beyond to fuel that fire.

let me close by saying LITTLE TIMMY, LITTLE TIMMY, LITTLE TIMMY. now kick me off this tabloid rag -- PLEASE!

To: IS IT SAFE?? on March 31, 2008 9:05 PM

Mooooooooooooooooooo. Herd mentality.

$10 person, your comment - is again - showing your lack of logical argument: you say the following:
________________________________________________
By To $10 will do on March 31, 2008 8:48 PM

Fortunately, there is a long list of blog records with your caveman comments, so it will be easy to enough to determine who you are, if necessary.

You really should join an anger management group - all of your comments are very mean spirited. Have a nice day, sunshine.

----------------------------------------------------------
WOW, MAYBE THIS IS A SCHOOL YARD GAME FOR SUPPORTERS OF Eola. Again, you personally attack people with words like "Caveman" or "easy to determine who you are"

It's amazing. I'm starting to feel sorry for you guys who support MTVH where it is. The only defense that you have is "name calling" and "insults."

Your tactic doesn't work. It just makes you feel better. Again, when is your next meeting. We know the guy who is against the NSFOC was welcomed at the last meeting. He was scared. He got all frustrated when he saw he was 1 vs a group of 3-4k people. He realized that there is little to no support from his side.

I'd be happy to write out a check if you can show me that even 1500 people agree with keeping the school on dangerous land.

To: mark m on March 31, 2008 8:35 PM

Now the SFOC has 4,000 people supporters? Just a week ago you had 300 true supporters and 3000 people signed up for the web site according to the NSFOC's own numbers. Stop twisting the truth.

Mark M, is it safe and Sad in 204, apparently it is your week to cover this blog for the NSFOC propaganda campaign. Last week it was JAS. Perhaps a new technique is necessary because most of use se right through this!

To Offended Warrior--My God, girl, get a grip. You're taking all this far too personally. If you want to know why the NSFOC is suing the school district, go to nsfoc.org and read the lawsuit. It has nothing to do with the health concerns at the Eola site. The lawsuit predates all that is happening now; in fact, it goes back to 2005. You were probably in middle school then and not too interested in all this, but since you are now, learn your history. Then come back with some informed comments.

To Anon on 3:31 at 1:57 PM--

If I were the NSFOC, I wouldn't talk to you on this blog, either. It sounds like you're not simply looking for answers to a few questions about their organization here; you're looking for ways to discredit and tear down their group. If you really want the answers to your questions, get off your butt and attend their next public meeting. The NSFOC meetings are open to the entire 204 community and anyone, supporter or not, is welcome to attend. You'll then be able to meet some of the leaders and their attorney and ask them about their corporate structure, the subdivisions they reside in and where their supporters reside, the tax exempt status of donations, whether their members/donors/supporters have voting rights, etc. The NSFOC is not hiding, they make themselves available to people such as yourself every time they advertise a public meeting.

I've read their website and the lawsuit and attended the first NSFOC meeting where the lawsuit was presented. I found them to be very open about their organization and the lawsuit. Like you, I'm not supporting the lawsuit because I think the SB tried their best to acquire the BB land. I don't support the course the SB is taking now--buying a site they labeled in 06 as unsuitable under any circumstances, plowing ahead with safety issues still unresolved, etc.--and my votes on future referendums and school board positions will definitely reflect this. But the lawsuit is a separate issue from what's happening now, and while I don't support it, I do support the right of others to pursue it. Lawsuits are an effective way for people who feel they have no voice to be heard by organizations who have the power and resources to ignore them, much like the way our SB is ignoring its own residents now.

So don't just sit around and demand that the Sun or someone else look into things and get the answers for you. Get them yourself, and you can do so easily by just getting off the couch the next time the NSFOC has a meeting.

To: IS IT SAFE?

Your fearless leader Mr. Andrews said it will never be safe for him. Do you stand behind that as well? Will you continue to file lawsuits even after they release the Phase II studies and remediation plans?

Are you really getting answers because of the NSFOC? Really? Then I suggest you keep donating because if you haven't noticed it is because of the NSFOC that the school board has decided to keep quiet about things and not release information that they used to be open about their plans and next steps.

Rewind the past 2 years and the school board you have such hatred for told you everything they were doing to aquire the BB property. I didn't see anyone offering their suggestions then or complaining.

It was only until they couldn't aquire the BB property for the price they wanted and they chose a new site and felt the backlash that they stated to keep quiet about information.

So let me get this straight the Eola site affects your children because you pay taxes? Is that what you said? Well then the NSFOC affects my children because I will have to pay taxes on a frivolous lawsuit.

one more thing. I am not trying to find out where the money support is coming from. I realize someone is posting that under the $10 will do name but obviously was not $10 will do. Where the support is coming from is not the question. The question is who decides how to settle this suit and where so they reside? People are claiming 300 plus members but the nSFOC has yet to state the defition of memebrs per teh guidelines required by the Illinois Secretary of State's office in the articles of incorporation. How many owners? Do the "memebrs" have voting rights? This has nothing to do with the number of donors unless the NSFOC memebrs have voting rights. If they do not have voting rights, the donors are meaningless in the actual resolution of this conflict.

FYI, I think everyone would have to believe that if the voting rights issue was a nonissue, the NSFOC would have answered that question by now.

To: Mark

"Dr. D...if he's doing such a wonderful job why is that 4,000 parents wan to sue him?" "tell me how you can justify the purchase of property that 4,000+ residents to not agree with."

First of all the NSFOC isn't suing Dr. D or the school board, they are suing you, us, everyone in IPSD 204 who pays taxes. Secondly, the NSFOC couldn't dream of having 4,000 members. That's laughable!!! They couldn't even drum up more then 90 members in their last meeting of which aobut 15 that I knew of weren't NSFOC supporters. I could go on and on about the lack of support the NSFOC is receiving day by day. It's more like maybe 2-3 dozen people that keep their gougp going, and that's being generous.

"Again, children before property value or desire to get a 3rd H.S. where no one voted for"

I'm sorry maybe I missed something. Correct me if I'm wrong but no one voted for where the school would be. We did however vote for a 3rd high school. Therefore, I am putting the children before property value. Those of the NSFOC are clearly putting property vaule before the children and using the children as their excuse. Go back and review the school board meeting where parents stood up and said we want to go to NV, we built our house here to go to NV. Those are the parents and people that are driving the NSFOC. Unfortunately, they are using the children as pawns to further their selfish lawsuit.

"NSFOC fraud guy, admit please that you came by the last meeting; and you had no support."

The "NSFOCfraud" guy was not at the meeting. Truth be told there are a lot of people that contribute to that web site. There were many non-NSFOC supporters at the last NSFOC meeting. I don't think any of us went there for support. Just like there was no one there recording license plate numbers. Gotta hand it to the NSFOC they are good at scare tactics.

By BigMike on March 31, 2008 11:11 AM
They also keep pointing out that NSFOC meeting attendees / donors / mailing list members aren't really "members" of NSFOC in the legal sense of the word, like that's a big deal or something. Who cares? And they keep pointing out that the contributions are not / may not be tax deductible and that somehow NSFOC is hiding this fact to scam its donors. Again, who cares? What impact would that fact have on an NSFOC donor's 2008 tax bill? Fifty bucks?

Big Mike, The status of the members is a big deal. You think you are sending money to support 1 cause and yet it might really be to support something completely different. They owe the donors NOTHING when it comes to a settlement. The tax deduction claim on their website is just proof to the degree that they will withhold information or lie in order to keep the donations coming in. The NSFOC cannot be straight with the very people who want to support their stated cause. Its not about saving 50 bucks, its about knowing that your money is going to support what you believe it is and not just to keep TG and WE out of WVHS. Don't you think the donors have a right to know the true ambition behind the NSFOC? I find it frightening that you would say who cares if the NSFOC is scamming their donors.

to Mark M.

A).I voted for a third HS. I did not vote for a specific site for the third HS. I can read a referendum.

B.) If you ask your hired environmental attorney, you will find that unless there is radioactive issues, everything can be remediated. You can no more guarantee the safety of the BB property than any other property. Can you say without a doubt that the BB property never had a diesel spill from a broken tractor? The IEPA and Federal EPA have standard remediation procedures that are used everyday in this country. And your attorney already knows this. The handful of owners of the NSFOC have already heard this from thier attorney and do not release to rest of you since your donations will dry up. Diesel is one of the easiest chemicals to remediate. Look it up.

C.) How did the number jump to 4000? There are only 300 donors. You cannot count the sea monkeys in your kids fish bowl.

And to the issue of ownership, aren't you in the least bit curious as to who is taking your money and twisting or outright omitting the truth for the sake of drumming up more donations?

At some point, the layers will all be pealed away. It will be proven that the ground is safe and the NSFOC knew it while you all donated money to handful of people who do not want to send thier kids to WVHS/see thier property values go down.

Here's another exact quote from our School Board (January 22nd SB mtg):

Bruce Glawe
1:58:30
“I feel that we absolutely have to, especially in the contract with Midwest Gen, have an understanding that they are fully responsible for a complete remediation of the site. There’s no question about it.”
1:59:15
…”this Phase 2 is very important to us, to get the results. But I know that whatever the results are that that has to be built into the contract with them. That whatever is identified, that they have to remediate fully. So I take comfort in that.”

But now it seems that we're going to close on the land to start construction without Phase 2 test results, without a public meeting to discuss the Phase 2 results, without remediation, and without a clean bill of health from the IEPA???

Offended Warrior on March 31, 2008 6:57 PM

"My big question is why NSFOC is even sueing the district for reasons that don't even apply to them or their children."

Are you kidding!! How do you know that it doesn't affect my children?

It is my tax dollars the School Board is wasting with this hazardous site. I want answers and I am getting them thanks to the NSFOC!

Hey $10 will do, - what do you plan to smoke out since they aren't hiding.

May I suggest you take your $10.00 and go see a shrink! Sounds like you need one.........badly.

to: IS IT SAFE??? on March 31, 2008 5:35 PM

Just because my opinions are not the same as yours does not mean that I am uniformed.

I'm assuming that if I quoted newspaper articles and other propaganda in support of NSFOC you'd find me to be a "genius" and to be "quite well informed".

Sorry to disappoint you, but I choose to be a "free thinker" and not fall into the same trap as you by joining the herd of cattle spewing half truths and "the sky is falling" half-baked misnomers.

Fortunately, there is a long list of blog records with your caveman comments, so it will be easy to enough to determine who you are, if necessary.

You really should join an anger management group - all of your comments are very mean spirited. Have a nice day, sunshine.

Once again, tear apart the group and NOT DEAL WITH THE FACTS: "
By $10 will do on March 31, 2008 5:54 PM

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=135033,00.html

Exempt Organizations Public Disclosure - Obtaining Copies of Documents from IRS

How can one get a copy of an organization's

exemption application

or annual information return from the IRS?

To request a copy of either the

exemption application

or the annual information return,

submit Form 4506-A, Request for Public Inspection or Copy of Exempt Organization IRS Form.

Dahhh, when you tear about the group and not the facts you weaken your agrument.

A) tell me how to support a vote that did not vote for Eola property
B) tell me how you can agree with a build at land that we cannot guarantee the safe clearance that says it's fine to build
c) tell me how you can justify the purchase of property that 4,000+ residents to not agree with.

You continue to weaken your position by tearing down the stature or reputation of the motivese of the group ---- and not the facts.

The greatest value that anti NSFOC show is there inability to answer the question of why you can continue to be a supporter of something that no one voted for --and the lack fo IEPA approval.

Every time you attack the messenger and not the facts it illustrates the lack of respect for your argument. How much money have you raised? When is your next meeting? What following do you have?

Again, children before property value or desire to get a 3rd H.S. where no one voted for.....

Give me your openness and not your personal blogs. Let me know your next meeting. We already know the anti NSFOC guy attended the last meeting.

Be proud of your actions or don't do them.

NSFOC fraud guy, admit please that you came by the last meeting; and you had no support.

Please, join the movement on behalf of our children. Do not put your property value of a new school ahead of the best interest for our district.

Offended Warrior - Your comments are deeply disturbing to me. You are turning this into such a personal thing. Do you really believe people think they are better than you? I live in TG and I'm deeply offended by your comments. I have friends all over the district - in Aurora and Naperville. Who attend WV and who attend NV.

I have friends active in the NSFOC and they are good people who really want to get the school board to be responsible and responsive and thorough with our tax dollars. The way the site selection and boundaries were handled proved that there are serious issues with the way this situation is being handled.

I think it would do you good to try to see others' perspectives. I'm not asking you to agree with it, but at least make an effort to understand it. I can clearly see your perspective and recognize that you feel excited about the new school and easing the overcrowding. I'm excited about that too. I just don't want to see the district make a bad short term decision that will have lasting repercussions. If they can show that it is a solid decision - environmentally and fiscally - many people would have to wave the white flag. Unfortunately, it will take time to show those things, and they are not willing to take the necessary time.

Just so you know, WV is twice as far timewise as MV at BB and 3-4 times as far compared to NV. It takes about 15 minutes to get there, 6 minutes to BB and about 4 minutes to NV. Many of us have driven it. Just want to set the record straight - not sure how many miles, just looking at driving time.

I hate to even bring that up, because by now it is not even about that. And for you to say it's not our business where the school is built and if it's safe, that's not fair either. Evidently you don't mind having your tax dollars potentially wasted. I'm not that much of a gambler. The only way the NSFOC will cause the district to lose money is if the district rushes ahead with these decisions and buys the land before the verdict is reached.

Please try to remain civil and don't make this personal. No one is personally attacking the people (like you) who agree with the SB, just the actions of the administration and the SB.

Ok, simple issue here: "
By Offended Warrior on March 31, 2008 6:40 PM

Excuse me NSFOC, but you have absolutely NO RIGHT to say such awful things about our superintendent. He is doing the absolute BEST that he can for EVERYONE...and if that doesn't seem to float your boat then just leave the district. If you REALLY want what’s best for your kids, then you’d accept the decisions with grace and dignity...and GET OVER IT! Mr. Daeschner thought he was joining a great district with a great reputation and now he's getting a bunch of bologna from people like you.

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

dahh, so if he's (Super, Dr. D) if he's doing such a wonderful job why is that 4,000 parents wan to sue him? Great district again, is due to great parents who look over their kids.

Can you say "Dr. D had nothing to do with our past" and "he has nothing to do with our future unless you consider a hazard that the IEPA not engaging in our safe land.

HELLO, please anti NSFOC people, see the facts: Dr. D not part of the problem, but part of the problem. No one really agrees with him but Mark Metzger, Jeanette Clark and those who were never suppose to get a new school near them until they ignored BB price and Macom.

My gosh, deal with facts; nothing against Dr. D - but if he were doing right he would not ignore 4k plus residents supporting the movement against him.

At what point do you say "hey, let's slow down and not give a dangerous land that no one voted for to be materialized."

By $10 will do - What are you hoping to find? on March 31, 2008 7:01 PM
Once you know who the people are, what do you think that will do for you? You will find the listed officers - what does that really mean? So you know Sally, Jim and Joe are the officers...now what? Then you might know x% TG, x% WE, x% Watts x% cowlishaw, x% owen and x% StoneBridge have contributed. What does that really tell you? I really don't get what it means. It's growing and changing daily. What really matters is does NSFOC have a case? If you think it's a bunch of bunk, it probably won't go anywhere anyway. So what's the worry? You sound like someone who is awfully worried about something.

I plan to smoke'm out, then....

I guess you'll have to wait and see. For those of you with the foresight and background, it is plain as day.

peeling layer by layer to get to the core.

Board of Education's HS Site Selection Report and Rationale - 2005
"Location wise, this parcel is distant from the student population center of the School District." "The Eola Molitor site is somewhere between a probability and a certainty for exposure to such radiation." "....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."

Great Post Is it Safe? Reposting:

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.

Once you know who the people are, what do you think that will do for you? You will find the listed officers - what does that really mean? So you know Sally, Jim and Joe are the officers...now what? Then you might know x% TG, x% WE, x% Watts x% cowlishaw, x% owen and x% StoneBridge have contributed. What does that really tell you? I really don't get what it means. It's growing and changing daily. What really matters is does NSFOC have a case? If you think it's a bunch of bunk, it probably won't go anywhere anyway. So what's the worry? You sound like someone who is awfully worried about something.

My big question is why NSFOC is even sueing the district for reasons that don't even apply to them or their children.

TG and WE kids aren't even going to MVHS. So its not even legit for them to complain about these health hazards if it's not even going to affect them.

Once again this all leads back to these parentals wanting their kids out of WVHS...this was never about concerns for the district as a whole but for their own selfish desires...

What a way to show society how truly classy you all are! Congrats NSFOC!! You should be proud!

Wow, we demand honesty from the NSFOC about the ownership of it, but we don't demand this from our SB.

The SB loves that we get into this game of name calling. We are too busy ripping eachother apart instead of looking into the facts that our SB is ripping this district apart.

Excuse me NSFOC, but you have absolutely NO RIGHT to say such awful things about our superintendent. He is doing the absolute BEST that he can for EVERYONE...and if that doesn't seem to float your boat then just leave the district. If you REALLY want what’s best for your kids, then you’d accept the decisions with grace and dignity...and GET OVER IT! Mr. Daeschner thought he was joining a great district with a great reputation and now he's getting a bunch of bologna from people like you. The least you could do is RESPECT him for his calm manner and professionalism while dealing with this situation. If that means your kids attend WVHS then GREAT!!!!!!

This whole deal with Waubonsie being "too far" for your poor babies to get to is ridiculous- 5 whole miles, WOW!! I bet you drive your kids 5 times that distance just to take them to their after school activities. Your tax money is paying for buses, so why not put it to use? Hey, you could help save the environment and probably lives with fewer crazy, careless teens driving on what you consider busy roads!! HMMM!!! There’s a thought!

Enough with the excuses; everyone knows you don't care about the new high school at all. The sole concern fueling the hoopla is that you don't want your kids going to Waubonsie because you think Neuqua is so much better. HELLO: NEUQUA is on the ACADEMIC WARNING LIST and is considered a FAILING SCHOOL just like WAUBONSIE...and NAPERVILL NORTH and NAPERVILLE CENTRAL...so what makes you think your kids are so much better? Were all those lessons you taught your kids like don’t discriminate, be biased, or prejudiced just lip service? How about “don’t judge a book by its cover”? You all are the biggest hypocrites this side of 59. How can you just assume that because the neighborhoods that feed into Waubonsie aren’t as well heeled as you snobs, that WVHS isn’t as good of a school as Neuqua. Maybe we have a larger Latino and African American population than you, but does that really make us “bad” or “ghetto” or “stupid”. NO! And how would you know anyway. You don’t walk through those halls everyday, you don’t sit in those classrooms, and don’t know any of our teachers or what we are learning. YOU JUST DON’T KNOW! So you have NO RIGHT to make these false accusations. I am an honors student at Waubonsie and am offended by these claims. Everyday I see what goes on and it is wonderful! The students around me are eager to learn and want to be just as successful as anybody at Neuqua. You might think that we have gangs and a bunch of druggies controlling the halls-WRONG! Do you even know what goes on inside the doors of your own school? Did you ever think about the fact that drugs and alcohol are just as readily available to your kids? Remember that the next time you let your kid go to a party. You better check to see if the parents are home. Sex, drugs, and alcohol aren’t bound by social status. Oh, that’s right; your kid’s are perfect little angels! EVERY high school has problems, there will ALWAYS be problems; you can’t deny that. So I’m really curious to know, what truly makes you think that you’re so much better than ME…you don’t even KNOW me…Stop the lies and get your facts straight….or would you rather get shown up by a teenager? Don’t stress yourselves, I already know the answer. Anyone who sues themselves must be a complete idiot and will never get it!!!

To: nosuchthingasneutral on March 31, 2008 4:40 PM

" One thing I've learned is that it really doesn't matter if you "prove" something won't harm you or you prove there is only a one in a million chance of something bad happening, you still have a problem. It's going to cost you some money, and about four times what you expected, to change that public perception. Or you may never be able to change it."

You proved an earlier point. Thank You. So no matter what the SB releases on the Phase II and the remediation plan the NSFOC will never ever ever ever be happy and keep filing lawsuits.

Hey nosusuchthingasneutrual what's next? A lawsuit that states that your kids have to go over railroad tracks and they stand a 1 in 2 billion chance of getting hit by a train so you think you'll sue?

NSFOC you really need to just pack up your 300 (you claim) donations and find something better to do with your money. You have no leg to stand on. However, there is a small part of me that hopes you're successful and then watch how many lawsuits come after you!!!

Keep up the great coverage Jim. If it wasn't for the press we'd all be in the dark. Ignore those who criticize you for not agreeing with their position. Continue to report the news and we'll continue to read! Fair and balanced coverage is what we all expect and is what you've been delivering.

to 204,

Then calling other parents in 204 brain dead is a good idea??? I think we have a lot of smart people who figure out that our SB is lying to us once again. I know for a fact the majority of the fraud group is from the north. They even have a petition going. They have continued to call names and slander those who are against the site. Scare tactics that are not working, but strengthing the resolve of many. I am not in the lawsuit, but I can see where it has come to that.

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.

This quote once again shows our SB lying to the public. When they repeatedly lie to the public especially when it is as important as safety and I am to say ok just build the school?????

Mark Metzger had a meeting in Stonebridge and drummed up support for the Eola site before the site selection. The north has constantly named the south as snobs. I for one am tired of their name calling. It has made this a north/south thing. Thanks SB.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=135033,00.html

Exempt Organizations Public Disclosure - Obtaining Copies of Documents from IRS

How can one get a copy of an organization's

exemption application

or annual information return from the IRS?

To request a copy of either the

exemption application

or the annual information return,

submit Form 4506-A, Request for Public Inspection or Copy of Exempt Organization IRS Form.

Mail the form to the applicable address listed below:
IF you want...

A copy of an exemption application

THEN mail Form 4506-A to...

Internal Revenue Service
Customer Service - TE/GE
P.O. Box 2508, Room 4024
Cincinnati, OH 45201

IF yoy want a copy of a return, report, or notice

THEN mail Form 4506-A to...

Internal Revenue Service
Mail Stop 6716
Ogden, UT 84201

You may also purchase copies of scanned Forms 990, 990-EZ for IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, and all 990-PF returns on CD-Rom from the Ogden Submission Processing Center.

In a nutshell, the form 990 won't be due until 5/15/09. So, why wait, they had to have filed for exemption status, Right????

So NOW a copy of the exemption application should be out there, you would think.

On this exemption application is the list of Directors, Officers, etc,. Compensated or not.

Peeling layer by layer to get to the core. The watchers of the watchers are being watched.

204 on March 31, 2008 4:54 PM

Tsk, Tsk,...you keep blogging the samething. Get informed and then come back and blog will you.

I am reposting this from another blogger for your benefit:

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.

to nosuchthingas neutral. You are absolutely right...it doesn't make a diffference if 100% of NSFOC owners are from TG if they disclose that to people before they take their money. I am just saying be honest. They can't be honest or the donations will end. They can't even be honest about the tax deductability of the donations. They have their own agenda and want the uninformed to finance it.

I do not understand why you believe you were lied to to by the SB. Did the pursuit of the BB site and all the lawsuits happen in my imagination? Didn't the SB go above and beyond in thier pursuit of that land? I find they did the reponsible thing by putting a limit on what they would pay. It is not right to spend too much for a site when other sites are available. Why mortgage the future of the entire district so you don't upset the people of Tall Grass?

Your last comment is very telling. So your occupation has taught you what the Shawn Collins refuses to say - with the exception of nuclear contamination, all land can be remediated? And you go on to say that it doesn't matter if the land is safe or not as long as the NSFOC makes people believe it is not safe. Very telling and finally some truth.

It is amazing that parents would not demand a clean bill of health for a site the SB is about to spend $1.25 MM building a school. I cannot believe that people are not demanding an accounting and voicing concern that a BB suit may approach $20 MM.

What is the hurry? To rush forward is reckless. The land may be unsafe. The SB promised phase II test results and has not delivered. They stated that they IEPA would validate that the land is safe. This weekend they said the hell with waiting we are moving forward.

What that heck is wrong with you people? Why aren't you telling the SB to prove the land is safe before they start building on it. Don't you have a thread of common sense?

to: nosuchthingasneutral on March 31, 2008 4:40 PM

You say. "I think Tallgrass (for the most part) doesn't care if others want to send their kids to Metea at Eola. But they do care that the SB lied, contorted, backed out on, messed up, waffled on criteria"

I say. "I think Tallgrass (for the most part) doesn't care if others want to send their kids to Metea at Eola. But they do care that THEIR KIDS WILL HAVE TO GO TO WVHS."

And that, is the root of the evil called NSFOC.

Who cares if ALL of NSFOC is Tallgrass residents? That doesn't make the SB any more right with their speed ahead plan nor make them any less incompetent. Most of the District residents are unaffected, and a bit apathetic and could hardly explain what's really going on here. Most of the South doesn't care if the Metea is built for more money in a ridiculous location (love the "in the OUTPOST comment"), with potentially unsafe issues and expensive remediation ahead becuase they aren't changing schools due to Metea being built. Some probably still don't want the third school at all because of the taxes.

I think Tallgrass (for the most part) doesn't care if others want to send their kids to Metea at Eola. But they do care that the SB lied, contorted, backed out on, messed up, waffled on criteria, , refused to listen to reason,favored their own neighborhoods, and potentially are going to waste more money than anticipated because they can't take some time to re-do the process of coming up with a good site.

But NSFOC consists of others besides Tallgrass, and some of those people do care about their kids going to that location.

I work for an "organization" that deals with the public and among other things, nuclear and environmental concerns. One thing I've learned is that it really doesn't matter if you "prove" something won't harm you or you prove there is only a one in a million chance of something bad happening, you still have a problem. It's going to cost you some money, and about four times what you expected, to change that public perception. Or you may never be able to change it.

It is remarkable that all the parents in this district would not be up in arm when a district is pushing to meet an artificial timetable. For God's sake people, demand a clean bill of health for the land and an accounting for what these people are spending.

It is insane not to demand this from the SB. Do not abandon your parental and fiscal obligations because you want a school in your neighborhood.

Naperville Sun Editors:

I just want to say "Thank You" for you coverage on this important issue. You are in fact reporting both sides unlike what is mentioned above. Keep up the good work.

To DEAD ON - The reason NSFOC formed in such a hurry was that it became abundantly clear first in the site selection meetings and then in the boundary meetings two week later that the SB/SD was listening to NO ONE and didn't feel the need to slow down. Once that realization occurred, folks knew if they didn't act quickly the SB would have us in a huge financial pickle between the BB damages coming down and investing money in a site that might not even be salvageable.

Who is the district going to sell the land to if it comes back problematic??? NO ONE will want to buy it then and how do you plan to get our money back. No money, no new school, nothing to show for our well thought out vote and all the SB's big plans with a three year history.

By dead on on March 31, 2008 11:12 AM
To: Anonymous on March 31, 2008 10:26 AM

Your knowledge and summary of this issue are DEAD ON!!!

I also like the comment that if the NSFOC wasn't the NSFOC until 3/19 how can they file a lawsuit on 3/7? That is quie curious. I'm sure they will say they had their paperwork filed to become an incorporation before 3/19. Goes to show you they did this all last minute and was only because of the boundaries. Funny how they in one breath they say it isn't about the boundaries when it is in regards to the environmental issues. But in the next breath they say it is about the boundaries because the SB deceived them. Fact is it was always about a 3rd HS, that's it!!!

So any word on the $20,000,000.00?

What are the School Boards final damage numbers for the BB?

Keep up the great work NSFOC? We are finally starting to see things more clearly. Keep the info coming!

For you opponents of NSFOC, at least these guys are getting us answers and sharing it unlike the School Board.

ROCK ON NSFOC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

to: sickofnamecalling on March 31, 2008 12:40 PM

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong.

First of all, I'm not from the northern part of the SD I am from the SW side - and no, not TG or WE.

Second of all, the neighborhood I live in is not slated for a change, nor has it ever been in any boundary scenario. So to act as if all the opposition to NSFOC is from the northern part of the district is absurd.

Even more absurd is your desire to perpetuate the disagreement amongst the community as being a North vs. South thing. It is not. This is a SD thing. And, as we all should remember, the SD encompases areas of Aurora, Plainfield, Bolingbrook, and Naperville. So...basically this is a North, South, East and West thing.

I am sorry that the BB property didn't work out. This would have saved us all from the DRAMA that we're currently going through. However, I firmly believe that the Eola property is the best currently availabe property.

You all need to let go of the BB property "dream". That moment has passed and it is time for us to move on and unite on the Eola property.

to: sickofnamecalling on March 31, 2008 12:40 PM

First of all, I'm not from the northern part of the SD I am from the SW side - and no, not TG or WE.

Second of all, the neighborhood I live in is not slated for a change, nor has it ever been in any boundary scenario. So to act as if all the opposition to NSFOC is from the northern part of the district is absurd.

Even more absurd is your desire to perpetuate the disagreement amongst the community as being a North vs. South thing. It is not. This is a SD thing. And, as we all should remember, the SD encompases areas of Aurora, Plainfield, Bolingbrook, and Naperville. So...basically this is a North, South, East and West thing.

I am sorry that the BB property didn't work out. This would have saved us all from the DRAMA that we're currently going through. However, I firmly believe that the Eola property is the best currently availabe property.

You all need to let go of the BB property "dream". That moment has passed and it is time for us to move on and unite on the Eola property.

To: Do Not Trust School Board

Cleared by whom? The IEPA stated that as long as the SB has done testing and has remediation plans in place they don't have to wait. Did you miss that?

Canned speech? Was it canned at the end of the school board meeting when they spent 45 minutes discussing their awareness that TG was not going to be happy and for that they were sorry. Each member of the school board talked about that. They hoped that TG could get past the boundary issues, but apparently they haven't. Did you miss that as well?

Seems like the NSFOC is missing a lot of things or twisting it the way they feel convient to suit their lawsuit.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD IS NOT REALLY TELLING EVEYBODY THE TRUTH, ESPECIALY WHEN THEY ALL HAD A CANNED SPEECH TO ANY QUESTIONS AT THEIR MEETING. WHAT SEEMS TO BE THEIR HURY TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PROPERTY WITHOUT BEING CLEARD . GUILT MAY BE THE PROBLEM

to Big Mike,

I have been asking people to look into the corporate structure and never said they should name the names of the owners. In fact I specified that they should not name the names but indicate the subdivions they reside. I did this so the donors know what they are donating to...a coporation that has no legal obligation to pursue anything more than try to get the boundaries changed for their subdivision. I think it is deplorable that any corporation represents themselves to look out for all residents in the district yet they cannot be honest enough to let the donors know they have absolutley no voice (voting rights). I ask the Naperville Sun to spell this out since it is their reporter that refers to the donors as members.

I repeat, I never said to name names. I did say to list the number of owners, the subdivisions in which they live, and whether the "members" have voting rights. I have posted this for 4 days and am yet to see any response from any owners of the NSFOC. I am sure they know that that information will be the end of their donations.

To: Mark on March 31, 2008 1:06 PM

"Farmland at BB is NOT NEXT TO environmental dump!"

Environmental dump? LOL!! Now there's dumping that has been happening at the Eola site? Wow, news to me. That was quite possibly the dumbest comment I've seen. Grow up you baby.

The Eola site is just as much of a environmental dump as TG.

TG vs. Eola site

Power lines within 100 feet of homes vs. power lines hundreds of yards from school.

Active electric substation right next to neighborhood pool vs. electronic substation hundreds of yards from school.

No peaker plant vs. a remediated peaker plant that will be remediated and is even farther then the hundreds of yards from the school that the power lines are.

If anytihng else you know of as it relates to an enviornmental dump exists at the Eola site please let us all know or at least the equally uninformed Mr. Collins.

Oh, I did some digging and I found 4 underground storage tank leaks that happened very close to the TG and WE neighborhoods within the last 20 years. Geez, you might be living on bad soil yourself. I'd look into that to make sure that you're not living on dangerous groud yourself. All that stuff could come up through the ground and poison your family. I don't believe there were any underground storage tanks at the Eola site, but there were in your neighborhoods!!!

To: sickofnamecalling

Really? That's all the north has huh? Well that's a telling statement how you feel about us. How about the north has amazing parents that has made WVHS the fine HS it is. It's just too bad you don't believe that.

As far as your comment regarding voting no for the referendum. Look at the rest of the results in 2005 and 2006 other then Brookdale. What you'll find is we did support the 3rd HS. We also supported the 1997 referendum that gave us NVHS.

"I can't believe how inept this SB is and that there is no way to stop them. That is why there is a law suit!!!

I'm sorry but you can't believe this is why we have a lawsuit. It has nothing to do with the SB and if the NSFOC and Mr. Collins tries to take that angle with their lawsuit they WILL fail. It has always been about a group of parents that are unhappy the HS will not be built on the BB property and their kids will have to attend WVHS.

For those parents in the north that did vote "yes" for all the referendums the differenct between us and you is that we don't care if we go to WVHS or MVHS (just don't send us to NVHS). We think WVHS is a great school!!! We're happy either way. Those at the NSFOC aren't!! Don't believe me, go back and listen to the residents of TG during the boundary meeting.

Here's something else for you to consider. If all the residents in the north were fighting that hard for a high school at Eloa we would far out number the couple hundred members of the NSFOC. Fact is we're happy either way, don't you get it? However, we don't feel the SB or IPSD should back down to the NSFOC because they aren't happy now because the school won't be built to benefit them and (boohoo) they will have to attend WVHS. That's our issue with those organizers of the NSFOC!!!

For those who suggest that there is nothing unique about the selected land in comparison to other "farm land" that was considered, please note:

On the fence to the peaker plant is a yellow sign warning of the presence of PCB's. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were outlawed in the 70's due to their high toxicity. The "reportable quantity" per federal EPA laws for PCB's is 1-pound. So if you were to spill about one-tenth of a gallon of this on the ground, you would be required by law to report this to the EPA, because they deem that a serious environment risk. PCBs are nearly water insoluable (rain won't wash it away), it is volatile (disassociates from liquid into vapor), and one of the harmful routes of entry is inhalation. So if this was ever spilled into the earth, it is possible that it is still there and giving off poisonous vapors. To suggest that the proximity of the peaker plant to the school building is immaterial strikes me as being either uneducated or reckless.

This isn't a court of law where it is "innocent until proven guilty." When the safety of our children is concerned, it is "potential health risk until proven not to be."

Not only am I still awaiting the Phase 2 test results - I'm still awaiting confirmation that PCB's were even TESTED for. All I've heard is that they are testing for "antifreeze." There are hundreds of compounds that qualify as "antifreeze," and I want to see that they are testing for the specific ones they had on-site.

And please be mindful to the fact that I'm NOT saying the site is contaminated - I'm simply saying that there is ample reason to suggest that a certain degree of testing is appropriate to assure us that it ISN'T contaminated.

Farmland at BB is NOT NEXT TO environmental dump!

To: Disgusted with 204SB

You obviously have a bias as is indicated with your name or you haven't done your research. Or you're just one of the few NSFOC members who try to portray yourself as a concerned parent of the IPSD.

1. "Why are we rushing?" Because it's already been 2 years and a referendum was passed to build a 3rd high school. How much longer should we wait do you propose? For the NSFOC to file more lawsuits because it's the latest spin technique they thought of? Sorry, but if I were on the SB I'd want to get a high school built ASAP as our schools aren't getting any smaller. It also doesn't make sense to me to hold everything up for the BB settlement (which they know they will have to pay something), or for the frivolous NSFOC lawsuit.

2. "We were promised IEPA approval, now we're not going to get it?" Who indicated to you that you weren't going to get it? It is my understanding that the IEPA must see test results and a remediation plan before they give their approval. However, if these items are being addressed and there is a plan there is no law that requires that these plans be given to the IEPA before construction begins. Obviously the SB feels that the test results are minimal and construction should be held up to go throguh the red tape of approval.

3. "We were promised full disclosure of the testing done." Again, who said we weren't going to receive this? I'm sure when the SB wants to disclose this to the public then they will. There is also MidwestGen and plans have to be made should remediation be required. Furthermore, the NSFOC isn't going to be happy regardless so why release those studies earlier then when they purchase the land and start remediation? I'm sure once once the City of Aurora, IPSD, MidwestGen and the church agree on testing and remediation has been planned and the land has been purchased then you will see the final results of the testing.

4. I'm not sure why waiting until the courts decide for the BB damages makes a difference? it could be under $5 million ir could be more then $5 million. If the IPSD has to pay they have to pay, it still doesn't change the fact that we need a 3rd high school and that was approved by the voters in 2006.

5. Alka Tyle did send out an email suggesting that people vote according to how they feel regarding the frivolous lawsuit the NSFOC filed. She did not try to sway the results any more then the NSFOC tried to sway the results or the NSFOCfraud tried to sway the results by posting it on their web site. She's entitled to her opinion as a parent of IPSD.

6. You want the Sun to badger the SB? Well, I want them to badger the NSFOC and find out who their directors are and where they live. Yes, you hear me where they live!!! I want them to find out the real reason of the lawsuit which we all know is about boundaries. It never was about safety until they knew that the boundary issue wouldn't play well in the media. We must also hold those accountable who are part of the NSFOC and what their true intentions are!!!

7. "Please take the personal bias out and let's get this right." Sounds like you have a personal bias even though you stated you have no personal bias.

For you or the NSFOC to say you have more of a concern because you're a tax payer then I do as my children will be attending MVHS is a JOKE!!! So those who don't have kids attending MVHS stop your silly arguements and scare tactits. You honestly think you're more concerned then I am about contamination when it's my kids health?

Thank you but I'll trust the professionals and not those of the NSFOC whom are doing all of this so they can go to the new HS and don't have to attend WVHS.

To by 204 March 31, 9:15, nice going with the brain dead comment. I am sure many will feel better about your name calling. That is all the north has. Threats and name calling. Boy what the north will do to get a new HS. Who cares about the rest of the district. It was the north who voted no to the first ref. and good old Brookdale who voted no in 2006.

So we really should start construction on the Eola site not knowing if the MWGEN site is safe???? We should purchase land and rush not knowing, that we might be stuck with land we can't use. We should have kids going to an uncompleted HS while they fence the back off. We are talking teenagers here. They are concerned about kids safety???

If the site is clean then why isn't MWGEN calling the IEPA??? Why haven't we seen phase II? If it were clean Mark Metzger would be shoving it down our noses to show we are wrong. I can't believe how inept this SB is and that there is no way to stop them. That is why there is a law suit!!! It is the only way and it is very sad that it has come to this.

I think that we can all agree on one thing: D204 SB members need to find a new hobby. If any of them are re-elected after this sham, there's no one to blame but the taxpayers.

If anyone thinks that the school should be built without checking on environmental safety first, shame on you. There are schools around this city that have been studied as "cancer clusters" over the years precisely because this step was overlooked. Got your attention on that? Ask people who have lived in this town 40-50 years. Naperville has a lot of full closets.

If they build this school prior to receiving a clean bill the SB is asking for trouble. If a child were to become sick the fallout would be tremendous. It doesn't matter if the current owners say their not liable they would be brought into the mess anyway. The SB should not proceed with anything until the site is deemed completely safe.

To: Anonymous on March 31, 2008 10:26 AM

Your knowledge and summary of this issue are DEAD ON!!!

I also like the comment that if the NSFOC wasn't the NSFOC until 3/19 how can they file a lawsuit on 3/7? That is quie curious. I'm sure they will say they had their paperwork filed to become an incorporation before 3/19. Goes to show you they did this all last minute and was only because of the boundaries. Funny how they in one breath they say it isn't about the boundaries when it is in regards to the environmental issues. But in the next breath they say it is about the boundaries because the SB deceived them. Fact is it was always about a 3rd HS, that's it!!!

The person posting as Anonymous calls out credibility because someone does not post their name? You are joking, right?

For your amusement, I am from the Watts subdivision. I blog/post mainly here about District 204 stuff: http://ipsd204.proboards76.com/

Sign up and join in. It's postings are real-time.

There you will find tons of factual references to the proposed site in question.

The peaker plant was mainly fueled by DFO in its first decade of operation. According to Department of Energy documentation which was submitted by the power company, they burnt over 279 MILLION gallons of Diesel Fuel Oil over the plant's lifetime. They did this with no emission controls or emission monitoring ability on any of the turbines.

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 the legal sense of the word, like that's a big deal or something. Who cares? And they keep pointing out that the contributions are not / may not be tax deductible and that somehow NSFOC is hiding this fact to scam its donors. Again, who cares? What impact would that fact have on an NSFOC donor's 2008 tax bill? Fifty bucks?

And I am tired of hearing people trash the neighborhoods in the south on this Blog. "They just want Neuqua"...."They just don't want Waubonsie", etc. Based on my reading of the NSFOC complaint, they just want to build at BB or, alternatively, to go back to the drawing board and build MV at a site premarketed to the community as part of the referendum process. THAT IS FAIR. I am so sick of all the people who say "you didn't vote on a site, hee hee, look at your ballots next time morons!" Folks, YOU are the ones who come off as morons when you say that. Look at how much collateral material the district published prior to the referendum with BB as the site selected. It was EVERYWHERE. If you deny that and stick by your stance, then you are effectively endorsing the bait and switch because you cannot deny that all that collateral material existed. And look at their pre-referendum attitudes towards questions of what their "Plan B" would be. You know....there is no Plan B...we are highly confident of obtaining BB at a reasonable price...even if the price is higher than we expect we have ways to cover it, all the other sites (Eola included) are inferior/unacceptable, etc... Yet now, suddenly they are acting like we have no alternative to building at Eola. How about we slow down and start over?

I don't know what Dash and the SB are thinking. My hunch is that they (correctly) think that slowing down, in addition to making them look more inept than they already appear, will create more time for the community to realize that the advertised/projected enrollment numbers are coming in WAY below what was used to sell the community on the referendum, which will lead to a whole new Pandora's Box of whether we need the 3rd high school at all. I personally acknowledge that the HS's are really overcrowded and thus I don't dispute that maybe we do need a 3rd high school...or maybe just major expansion efforts at both HS's which I would have to assume would be cheaper than building a 3rd HS and would enable us to slog through the peak enrollment years (remembering that the "peak" looks like it is going to be lower than we were led to initially believe)...but that's not my point. My point is that Dash and the SB have thoughts and concerns which they are not openly sharing with us, which leads us into this toxic (no pun intended!) atmosphere in D204.

BTW, I am not a donor to, member of, or meeting attendee of NSFOC. But I am vehemently opposed to moving forward with Eola with this "damn-the-torpedoes" attitude, and all of the B.S. that the SB/SD have been feeding us, and spending a hundred-and-whatever-it-has-now-escalated-to million dollars to build on a site that was not marketed to the community as part of growing support for the referendum.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!!!

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.

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!!??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

RE: To the reasonable folks on 3.30.08 8;42 pm

Well said, LET'S ALL JUST TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND RELAX!

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.)

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?

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.

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.

to $10...and don't forget who paid for full page ads in the Naperville Sun. Money buys friends.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

$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.

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"

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.

only time will tell.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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 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!!!

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.