It's official: D204 parents sue school board

Finally, someone has the backbone and fortitude to stand up to the waste, fraud and mismanagement that eminates from the Howard Crouse Education center.

The entire IPSD 204 board of education should be replaced and half the 100K a year administrators fired. The first to go should be Stephen Daeschner, Kathryn Birkett and David Holm. You are no longer welcome in the community.

This is ridiculous! Look at the court papers filed, they spelled Neuqua incorrect. Not a good start for a legal fight when your lawyer can’t spell!

Classic case of...."if you throw enough of it on the wall, some of it might stick.".... Mr. Collins et al plays the "fear" card on parents, before the phase II news is even in, because the boundary argument won't hold water and the clock is ticking. The Eola site news is now in (will be public Monday night) and the word is there's no major problems. What's next Mr. Collins, "there's a boogie-man under the bed."

In light of the formal lawsuit, I am reposting my late response on the previous blog in response to Warrior Teacher (March 8, 3:15):

We share the same vocation and I think you have a great "teachable moment" here. I hope you take advantage of it to share some valuable lessons:
1.People will not always agree - our democratic society allows for this, along with paths to peaceful resolution
2.Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are precious rights -we should appreciate them
3.Stereotypes are hurtful and wrong - we should all do our best to stop perpetuating them
4.Sources of information are not always reliable - they should be examined and critiqued for validity

Have your students compare and contrast two websites: http://www.nsfoc.org and http://www.nsfocfraud.com. Which one acknowledges that people have differing opinions on this matter? Which one says that all people in the district should be treated with respect, including the district administration? Which one resorts to stereotyping and using pejorative adjectives like "greedy", "arrogant", and "elitist" to describe people that live in certain demographic areas or subdivisions? They might be surprised at the results. I'm sure you are an excellent teacher and can think of more, or better, aspects of the websites to explore.

In case you haven't examined previous blogs in detail, here are just a few quick examples of the personal attacks and stereotyped comments my neighbors and I have withstood, along with comments about our children:

** I can't believe how many "soccer moms" who live in TG and WE are sitting at their computers complaining all day long.....how do your husbands stay married to women such as yourselves.
GET A JOB OR HOBBY (other than sitting on the computer and complaning all day long)
** Just a bunch of spoiled whiners! Get over it. If you don't like it move out of the district.
** White Eagle needs to get over themselves! Their children aren't any more special! The whole fight is over not wanting to send their kids to WV! I am so sorry! In my opinion, White Eagle residents have been living in denial all along.
** I have a question. How many Black or Hispanic parents were at the White Eagle clubhouse meeting last night? Thought so.
Followed by...
I love this post, because it brings to light the fact the room at the White Eagle Clubhouse was full of egotistical "I-deserve-it", types that will do everything they can to stop Metea.
OK, I'll type it. It's not the distance, the splitting, etc. They are EMBARRASSED to have to say they are going to Waubaonsie. (which my kids go to and is a great school)
** I wholeheatedly agree that WE and TG need to get over it. Their kids will survive going to WV, after all it is the same district and the same curiculum. Additionally all of their Abercrombie wearing friends will be headed to WV with them; welcome to the world beyond your elitist neighborhoods.
** The sense of entitlement and all the me, me, I's. It is no wonder TG & WE have a poor reputation and you're children have become selfish, spoiled, rotten little monsters. Now I know where they get it from. It's contagious... I hope you all get well soon!

I could go on, but I think you get the point. This cuts both ways. Oddly enough, if you read the blogs I don't think you'll find one criticism of WV, its students, its teachers, or the curriculum from people who live in Tall Grass or White Eagle (or anyone else who disagrees with the actions of the SB). It's pretty clear to me that it's pure conjecture and stereotyping of people in s/sw Naperville that has the WV students feeling bad. But, I would suggest to you that much of what they are repeating in the classroom is coming from their own homes. I assure you as a fellow teacher it is certainly not coming from mine.

I wish you luck in helping the WV students weather the storm.

Here's part of an article that was in today's Sun. You may want to read the whole. Much of the same rhetoric but I did like the last part.

Site study

DePaul said a Phase I study looks at historical data from the site and past property owners.
"A Phase I study is something that is done on basically every site," DePaul said. "A Phase II study we thought was prudent to do, and we have taken the extra step of involving the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. The IEPA will oversee any test results and cleanup protocol required to make sure the site is safe."

A Phase II study involves soil borings and ground water samplings looking for the presence of diesel fuel or antifreeze, which are chemicals commonly used at the site, DePaul said.

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."

And, in response to residents' concerns about electromagnetic radiation levels at the Eola site, Indian Prairie School District 204 hired Environ International Corporation, an environmental consulting firm, to analyze EMF readings on the property. On Oct. 30, 2007, Environ International took readings from a northern portion of the property likely to be the school's parking lot and athletic stadium, and reported to the district that readings ranged from .32 to 7.2 mG. The average reading on the Eola site was 2.1 mG.

Environ's report stated the typical EMF readings in a home range from 1 to 4 mG and the readings at the site were consistent with a typical suburban area.

"The magnetic fields produced by the high voltage transmission lines appear to be elevated only in close proximity to the lines," Crawford said in the letter. "Levels dropped off to normal background values at less than 300 feet from the lines. Since the proposed building site is removed from the power lines and in an area with low electromagnetic background, there should be no increased risk associated with the school location."

DePaul said everything in the results indicate a safe location.

"Basically what they found on the site is typical for a suburban area," DePaul said. "They didn't see anything they would identify this as an unsafe site or a site they would not recommend."

What a joke! I am so glad I got out of Naperville a few years ago. The traffic, high property taxes, infighting with the school board and weather were just a FEW of the reasons. Now I read this trash. Good luck and good riddance!

what a buncy of cry babies! If you dont' like it MOVE - but not into 203. We don't want people like you interacting with our children. You are teaching children the wrong things. I am embarrassed that you are part of the Naperville community. If you want this school on the Brach Brodie property, and you obviously have an over abundance of money, then take up a collection to make up the monetary difference in the price of the property. Then the school can be renamed 'Snobby Valley High School.

This lawsuit is absurd -- why did this group not come forward until after the boundaries were set ?? Why the lawsuit just a few days prior to a board meeting to discuss the findings of studies taken to review the concerns with the land for the new school ??
How about spending the time ( and the money ) to support the schools your are going to attend -- get involved at the school -- help the schools grow as positive communities accepting of the peoples who make up those communities -- accept the fact that difficult decisions needed to be made and the distict administration had the courage to make those decisions in the best interest of the entire district --
don't agree with those decisions - fine -- put your name on the ballot for the next school board election -- find out how difficult a position it really is --

Will the litigious few give up when the environmental studies turn up no problems? Of course not, because the IEPA "can't be trusted". Oh yeah, and because their real issues are with the BOUNDARIES...

After checking out NSFOC web site and their heading "Did you think it was over? It's not over." It sort of reminds me of John Belushi's speech in Animal House after dean Wermer pulled Delta's charter...."Nothing is over. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor"... and Otter said to Boone, "leave him alone, he's on a roll."

Well the same conclusion and ending will occur. The "Delta force"(NSFOC) and their misguided group will have their 15 minutes of fame trying to sabotage "the town parade" but in the end.... the losers will be expelled and the SB will say the same thing Otter said to Flounder (about his older brother's damaged Lincoln Continental).... "hey, you screwed up, you trusted us."

Big Picture Issues –

If there is no presumptive criticism of WV by those pushing the lawsuit, then why don’t they just drop the lawsuit and agree to send their kids to WV? Why the fight to keep the original boundaries? This just doesn’t add up.

T.B.

As much as I didn't like the school district at times, ITS BRACH BRODIES FAULT, not the school district! In case you forget, the district tried everything they could to grab that land. Instead of IDIOTICALLY suing I.P.S.D., you should be helping them to grab the Brach Brodie land, by SUING Brach Brodie. Are you guys too blind to see that the Brach Brodie Trust is why they ended up chosing the Eola Rd site? That site they could actually afford. You guys obviously want to make education for your children worst, by sending their education to the cleaners. They already have problems, when I went to Neuqua last year, lots of the bathrooms, were either broke or locked up all the time. If they actually had money, that stuff would be fixed, and stuff happens at Neuqua too, as does Wabounsie. I recall the naked guy, mothers fist fighting, the advocacy groups fighting about a certain shirt worn by a student, the list goes on. White Eagle, we all know why your really doing this. If you were in the Neuqua boundry still, you wouldn't care. A number of you are the same guys in Aurora who FAKED your way into Naperville by putting that as the city on your mailing address, which ended up getting your water shut off by the city of Aurora, because you didn't like the reputation of living there.

Link to suit: http://www.nsfoc.org/pdf/complaint.pdf

Here's the link to the supporting case law in the last count. http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/489/489.F2d.1098.73-1330.html

Even to the casual observer it is clear that there is a legal and moral and ethics issue related to the referendum. In short, the District, via the Board and administration, went out of their way to document the referendum as being for a school to be built at the BB site.

Despite the wording of the referendum itself, the satellite documents pave a defacto case on tehBB site as a basis for the vote.

There is a simple and inexpensive solution to your issues in 204:

Hold a special referendum election to re-vote on the funds AND the new site

This will DEFINITELY be cheaper than a lawsuit, would result in less bruised feelings, and can be done fairly quickly (again, much quicker than a lawsuit).

Problems?

Politicians tell half truths all the time during their campaign, and when elected they never do as they say. So what's next, people suing the President, Mayor, or any other elected official?? Just accept what happened and move on. Be thankful that you have healthy children to send to school.

Daeschner wasn't even here at the beginning!

After reading today's papers and now this blog I have to make a comment. I live in White Eagle and think we have gotten a bad rap. My 5th grade son is thrilled to being going to Waubonsie. He was a member of the Waubonsie Braves junior wrestling team for several years and has more friends on the north side of town then he does here. I was at the meeting at the White Eagle homeowners clubhouse just for curiousity really. There were some from White Eagle of course. There were also people from May Watts, and Stonebridge who were interested in the possible polution since it was their kids that had to go there. But what was obvious was this whole group that is protesting is first and foremost from Tall Grass. With them it is all about staying at Neuqua. Nothing more. They couldn't care less about the safety of the kids at Metea; it is just an excuse to stay at Neuqua at all costs. Tall Grass has been uncooperative and obstinate from the beginning. When Brach Brodie was first proposed they didn't like it because it took them away from Neuqua and a group from Tall Grass had a temper tantrum and stomped out of a public meeting making threats at the School Board. When we moved to White Eagle almost ten years ago this was a mellow place. The kids all went to Waubonsie and loved it. I attended the first football game between WV and NV. It was kind of a festive like atmosphere and the prevaling attitude was- "Hey what a great game, lets go out and have a beer".
However Tall Grass was just staring to go up at that time and the new residents all said they came because of Neuqua and no other reason. I know the word 'entitled' has become a four letter word of late but that has always been the attitude of Tall Grass residents concerning Neuqua. As someone who has lived here for the last decade, this is what I have seen and am not alone in this thinking. White Eagle is not Darth Vader in this matter. Tall Grass is. The reputation of 204 has really dropped because of the selfishness of this one subdivision.

This is deeply disappointing to me. We had planned to put our house on the market next year, but this ugliness makes me want to leave sooner rather than later. I'm in the Neuqua attendance area and my assignment is not changing in 2009. We were going to sell next year in hopes that the market would be a bit stronger, but we've decided to put our home on the market this Spring and price it accordingly.

To those of you who want NVHS so badly, come check out our beautiful subdivision, River Run. We'll miss our fantastic neighbors who have become good friends, but I won't miss the long winters here and I definitely won't miss the bitterness caused by this dispute. I've been shocked by comments made by people who live in one of the affected subdivisions. I'm not referring to anonymous posts on blogs, but I'm speaking of comments we've directly heard at dinner parties and children's birthday parties. We have lived in other parts of the country where rapid growth is occurring and redistricting is the norm, so we've been surprised by the reactions of some of the residents here. I'll miss many things about Naperville, but now I'm looking forward to leaving. Good luck to all of you.

Big Picture Issues...
My aren't we self-righteous! The people in this district have long memories and many derogatory remarks were made during the initial Matea boundary discussions. You can mask this anyway you want but it still smells the same. I don't like the new site either, but I'm not willing to have my taxes go up anymore than they already will just so a very small number of parents can get their way and force the district to build on Brach Brodie. It never made any sense to have all 3 high schools on this end of the district to begin with. Neuqua is still going to be overcrowded whether Matea ever gets built or not. To alleviate that overcrowding, those subdivisions that are equidistance to NV and WV (ie White Eagle) should still be moved to WV.
LET'S HAVE A NEW REFERENDUM, VOTE NO AND MOVE WHITE EAGLE TO WAUBONSIE TO ALLEVIATE OVERCROWDING AT NEUQUA.

Link to suit: http://www.nsfoc.org/pdf/complaint.pdf

Here's the link to the supporting case law in the last count. http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/489/489.F2d.1098.73-1330.html

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 11:32 AM
This doesn't support this little group's lawsuit whatsoever!!! NO PROPERTY NAMES WERE EVER ON THE BALLOT!!! YOU didn't vote for "Cherry"(Brach-Brodie) only to be replaced with "Palmer"(Eola). You voted yes or no for a third high school people! period.It doesn't fit the jello mold.sorry.

If we were voting for the 3d high school and not the site and boundaries....why did it fail the first time and why did the SB and District hold upwards of 25 meetings to tell the public that they were voting on boundaries and the BB location (see the complaint at www.NSFOC.org.

Parents Behaving Badly. The childish actions of a small percentage of parents in White Eagle and Tallgrass will only continue to make the look like selfish baby-boomers. Thank god not all the residents in these sub-divsions are irresponsible. The remaining sub-divisions in 204 will band together and once again put these babies to bed.

What people seem to be forgetting is that if a 3rd high school is not built, the boundaries would be changed anyway. So if the NSFOC gets their way and the referendum is overturned, new boundaries will be drawn up to eliminate the overcrowding that is still the issue. Where do you think you will go then? If the people from Tall Grass get sent to WV, which is likely in this scenario, then what? Who will you sue then?

Exactly as expected, those in Naperville who think they are better than anyone else, have decided to deprive everyone until they get what they want. These people who think they can disguise their misguided sense of entitlement are what is wrong with Naperville, and I am truly afraid of what the world will look like when their children grow up believing that they can have anything they want, anytime they want it, just because they have a few extra $$ in their pockets.

Grow up people, think of what you're teaching your kids ..... I only hope my children don't end up in school with ANY of yours. We may not be as "special" as you believe yourselves to be, but we have morals and ethics, and if your children are learning from your actions, they will have neither.

I too saved board emails and letters. Several indicate that the boundaries could always be subject to change if a new site had to be pursued.
Remember, everyone knew the BB site was NOT a done deal when voting in March 2006...the district did not own enough of the property yet....we all knew it was dependant on the future proceedings.
I saved one email in particular from Feb. 2006 that states...."When people ask us if boundaries could still be changed, we have to answer that theoretically they can be. WE also have stated that this is such a huge issue that if would be difficult to do. That is all we have said.

Howie Crouse

If we were voting for the 3d high school and not the site and boundaries....why did it fail the first time and why did the SB and District hold upwards of 25 meetings to tell the public that they were voting on boundaries and the BB location (see the complaint at www.NSFOC.org.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 01:12 PM

Anonymous,
Because people didn't believe or know whether the numbers supported a third high school.I didn't have any idea the number of kids in this district until I attended the meetings in 2005 and saw the populations in each of the high, elementary, and middle schools and grades. My husband refused to attend the "boundary meetings" because he said that was a waste of time since the district didn't own enough of any land to build a high school on it yet. Boundaries couldn't be set or enforced to 100% until the property was owned.Period.

Our vote needed to be based on whether we thought the district needed a third high school or not.That is why I voted the way I did in 2006. The ballot asked if I was in favor of the district building a third high school ...Yes or no.That's all.

Get Some Perspective
Self-righteous! More predictable name calling, but at least I give you credit for coming up with something new. Maybe I can ponder that assessment as I drive to my spa appointments and trips to the mall to buy my children, otherwise known as spoiled, horrible little monsters, more Abercrombie clothes. Oh, but wait, I actually have a job. Guess that won't work.

Once again, no simple acknowledgement that the mud-slinging is far from one sided and that people's opinions and rights should be respected - the only points I was trying to make, and certainly the ones I share with my children, regardless of how I'm stereotyped. As for the last time around, all I can say is that I personally never said anything negative about WV students, teachers, or Aurora residents. Why would I? I have friends that live in Aurora and my kids have friends in the WV attendance area. If other people did, they shouldn't have. Maybe my memory is not as long as yours but, if I remember anything about the last go around, it's the fact that it was NEVER one sided. So stop pretending it was.

If you don't like the site but are willing to settle for it, that's great. Absoutely your choice. Many people don't like the site and have decided to challenge, engage - whatever you want to call it - the SB to respond to complaints that have repeatedly been raised in public forums and emails but have been ignored. Again, their choice. You say that Neuqua will still be overcrowded whether Metea is built, or not. I agree. At the risk of sounding self-righteous again, maybe you should think about that and say, "Is this really acceptable?" or "Why is this the case?" If you don't ask those questions, is it because your kids won't go to Neuqua, the overcrowding won't affect you, so you don't really care? Hmmm...

The complaint against the SB is to do exactly what you suggest in an indirect way - if the situation needs to change, then have a new referendum. The important difference is, it would focus on much bigger issues than outing and chastising specific subdivisions, something people just can't seem to resist. If you don't like the site, but are willing to live with it, then don't cast stones against others who are not. You should have been worried about your taxes going up because of this mess long before this lawsuit, for which any cost to the district taxpayers will be negligible compared to the multi-million dollar check the board will be writing to the Brach Brodie parties for saying "Oops, we really didn't mean it."

Well, gotta run now. Can't miss that appointment to get my teeth bleached!

It seems to me that the residents of White Eagle and Tall Grass have forgotten to think about their children. Instead they are teaching them a lesson of intolerance, temper tantrums when they don't get what they want and adult selfishness. What a grave injustice they have done to their children. Shame on them. Go Warriors!

Big Picture Issues –

If there is no presumptive criticism of WV by those pushing the lawsuit, then why don’t they just drop the lawsuit and agree to send their kids to WV? Why the fight to keep the original boundaries? This just doesn’t add up.

T.B.

************
T.B. - The criticism is clearly against the School Board, the defendants in the suit. I think people have sadly misinterpreted concerns over WV (and MV) in terms of location relative to their homes and how that affects their daily lives, as well as how it clearly does not fit (for most) into meeting the Board's criteria of reduced travel times, reduced travel costs, splitting of schools, etc. as personal attacks. These facts and concerns are very different from criticisms of a personal nature toward students, teachers and residents of Aurora. The criticism is squarely on the shoulders of the school board. The fight, whether a person believes in the cause or not, is to keep the board accountable to its words and actions prior to and subsequent to the referendum vote.

The school district sold a referendum based on a

school site

boundaries

cost of 124.6 million

skyrocketing enrollment.

The site is different, the boundaries are different, the cost has skyrocketed to 160,000,000, in the last 2 years elementary school enrollment has declined by 284 students and high school enrollment will peak in 2011 & then decline.

Yes that's right, the district's latest projections have enrollment declining 1 year after the 3rd high school is scheduled to open.

You can not believe anything the district tells you.

Enough is enough.

Fight the district and pledge your support at

http://www.nsfoc.org/

Read the complaint at

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

Some people in TG/WG believe the SB/Admin broke promises as to the boundaries and location of the 3rd HS. Perhaps the SB should consider bringing the referendum back to the people and when it passed for the Eola site this would certainly silent those in TG/WG.

Look at what its costing Elgin School District for this on going law suite, can we afford this? http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=150182

Even if the SD would drop the 3rd high school, which it won't and should not. We still would have to re district between 2 high schools. Guess what? WE and TG you will still go to WVHS! Save your time and money give it to support sports, teachers, technology or AC. This is all about people who believe they are above the rest and should be treated this way. It is simple, we voted for a high school and we are getting one!

I do not understand all of the emotion and hate.

It seemed to be okay for the District to spend millions of dollars to sue BB for 2 years (charitable trusts by the way) for the land, but it is not okay for residents who feel they have been wronged (for whatever reason) to try to enforce their rights through the channels constitionally available to them?

Why did they wait...probably because up until 1/15 there was no issue and unlike the Board and District, normal people try to do research and due diligence before initiating something as serious as a lawsuit (or buying school land)? If the EOLA land was the right choice, why didn't the District try to condemn this land 2 years ago and why did the Board declare it unsafe?

It seems that is is going to be okay for at least most people on this blog when the District gets hit with a damage judgement (and opposing side's legal fees) of what is expected to be well over 10 million in additional dollars because it will have broken its word to buy the BB land for the price determined by the jury.

If you believe that the lawsuit has no merit, what are you worrying about (it will play out and we can all go about calling each other names when the new SB elections come about or when the operating referendums come up for vote, etc.)?

Quite frankly, I can not believe that anyone thinks any near-future operating referendums will be passed anyway so perhaps the people who have supported this lawsuit are doing us a big favor (sounds like having an empty 150 million dollar school would be a heck of a waste). In fact, I think I will send my $204 right now.....

I do not understand all of the emotion and hate.

It seemed to be okay for the District to spend millions of dollars to sue BB for 2 years (charitable trusts by the way) for the land, but it is not okay for residents who feel they have been wronged (for whatever reason) to try to enforce their rights through the channels constitionally available to them?

Why did they wait...probably because up until 1/15 there was no issue and unlike the Board and District, normal people try to do research and due diligence before initiating something as serious as a lawsuit (or buying school land)? If the EOLA land was the right choice, why didn't the District try to condemn this land 2 years ago and why did the Board declare it unsafe?

It seems that is is going to be okay for at least most people on this blog when the District gets hit with a damage judgement (and opposing side's legal fees) of what is expected to be well over 10 million in additional dollars because it will have broken its word to buy the BB land for the price determined by the jury.

If you believe that the lawsuit has no merit, what are you worrying about (it will play out and we can all go about calling each other names when the new SB elections come about or when the operating referendums come up for vote, etc.)?

Quite frankly, I can not believe that anyone thinks any near-future operating referendums will be passed anyway so perhaps the people who have supported this lawsuit are doing us a big favor (sounds like having an empty 150 million dollar school would be a heck of a waste). In fact, I think I will send my $204 right now.....

In response to:

(I saved one email in particular from Feb. 2006 that states...."When people ask us if boundaries could still be changed, we have to answer that theoretically they can be. WE also have stated that this is such a huge issue that if would be difficult to do. That is all we have said.)

That's great, but not in the brochures that the District put in my kid's bag (they clearly said that the referendum was in fact to build a third high school on the BB land). Looks like the consultants had different startegies for different niegborhoods (hey, reminds me of something).

In one of the other papers...

An additional note in regards to self interests:

In presenting the 2nd referendum (at which time the BB land condemnation site had already been filed), our District made a COMMITMENT to the CHARITABLE trusts that owns the BB land. In tying up the land for several years, the District promised the charitable trusts that it would "pay whatever price" that the jury came back with. In fact, the District specifically promised that it could afford the 600K per acre evaluation (80K less than the jury verdict).

Our Board President Mr. Metzger also has previously commented on the integrity issue:

"Beyond the practical reality lies the idea of simple fairness. We did the boundaries [i.e., those published by the District on 12/1/06] two years earlier than normal because the voters told us that they needed to know the boundaries in order to evaluate their votes. To change the boundaries after the vote smacks of a bait and switch and is just simply unfair."

Is it appropriate for our District and our community to disregard these promises because it now may have found "cheaper" land? I would suggest the issues of self interest and integrity cuts across both sides of the aisle.

Todd Andrews

NSFOC is just pouring salt into a wound! They are the equivalent of the RICHARD BAILEY of the missing Helen Brach story:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=case&no=952504

Suing to get Brach-Brodie instead of Eola will cost taxpayers more $ all around:
-$ for the lawsuit
-$ for the more expensive Brach Brodie land

Leave those people alone already!!

There are so many things that could have been done differently by our school board and administration over the past few months to prevent this division in our community, but the way I see it, what's done is done.

I would implore everyone to please stop with the name calling and labeling of entire areas as being selfish or even worse. Calling people "entitled" or selfish or anything else solves nothing and only divides our community more. Please, instead of trying to "destroy" the "opposition" can we all work together to find a solution?

"Beyond the practical reality lies the idea of simple fairness. We did the boundaries [i.e., those published by the District on 12/1/06] two years earlier than normal because the voters told us that they needed to know the boundaries in order to evaluate their votes. To change the boundaries after the vote smacks of a bait and switch and is just simply unfair."

Is it appropriate for our District and our community to disregard these promises because it now may have found "cheaper" land? I would suggest the issues of self interest and integrity cuts across both sides of the aisle.

Todd Andrews
posted by anonymous

These comments were in reference to the BB location that the SB tried very hard to get.MM was indicating that the BB boundaries should not change any further. At this point they still believed that this land was obtainable. All along they said that if the location changed then "while it would be a difficult thing to do..." the boundaries would obviously have to change too...common sense folks...this was a posting from two years ago about circumstances that were true two years ago.

Today the land is no longer available and Eola land is. Would you feel justified if we keep the BB boundaries and apply them to Eola? I mean the boundaries would not be changing then! Come on folks!!!!

Wow. That is all I can say. I just don't understand this. When a person moves to a growing community what do you think is going to happen? Things are going to change and you have to change with them. I just can't believe this is happening to the district. Not all parents in the district are as upset as this small group is. Words cannot express how mad, sad, and unbelievably bad I feel for those who are getting bad press (Waubonsie). We are not acting like adults, we are not acting like a community. We are acting like spoiled brats who did not get our way. I say we because once you say Naperville we are all lumped together. We don't all feel this way. It is time for those who believe we need to move on to speak up. It is time to stick up for schools and show them we care about all of them. It is time for this pettiness to be put to rest and start acting like compassionate, caring people. Please, stop this and show your kids what a true adult looks and acts like.

To: Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 05:01 PM
These comments (To change the boundaries after the vote smacks of a bait and switch and is just simply unfair." Said Board President Mr. Metzger ) were in reference to the BB location that the SB tried very hard to get.MM was indicating that the BB boundaries should not change any further. At this point they still believed that this land was obtainable. All along they said that if the location changed then "while it would be a difficult thing to do..." the boundaries would obviously have to change too...common sense folks...this was a posting from two years ago about circumstances that were true two years ago.

You are right when you said “this was a posting from two years ago about circumstances that were true two years ago” The referendum was two years ago, the real estate market was doing well and the Admin projected strong growth #’s for enrollment-two years ago, foreclosures were not hurting neighborhoods, communities and the national economy two years ago. Things have changed from two years ago, the SB & Admin now has to be held accountable, no one quite know what the BB damages would be, school enrollment is on the decline…Things has changed from two years ago, and so should the need for a 3rd HS, save us the tax increase SB add on to WV & NV, things has changed from two years ago.

I am deeply saddened (and disturbed, quite frankly), by all the hate being spewed at residents (AND CHILDREN) of WE and TG.

It seems to me that it will be up to a jury to determine the validity of the lawsuit. While that plays out, perhaps those of you who are hurling insults will consider what you are teaching YOUR children.

I previously had no reservation of sending my child to WVHS. Great school, great teachers, etc.

But with the venom I am witnessing (absolute hatred toward certain sections of the district), I absolutely would not put my child in this situation. How would they be treated at WVHS by other students (and even teachers?) I will certainly explore other options - I want a positive situation for my child.

I believe that the NSFOC's position does have merit. Is that what sends others into a frenzy?

I don't live in White Eagle or Tallgrass and neither do some of my neighbors who support the complaint 110%.

You can too!

http://www.nsfoc.org/

>Today the land is no longer available

The Brach Brodie land is still available.

Have you even read the complaint? These folks have a valid case.

Read the complaint at

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

It's clear they "sold" the 3rd high school based on boundaries and a site, this is what the consulting firm told them to do after the 2005 referendum failed.

The advise was "tell them whatever they want to hear".

One thing is clear, district 204 leadership operates by one credo: the end always justifies the means.

Ok, if the lawsuit is asking (as a remedy) to pay the NSFOC's attorney fees and costs, why does NSFOC need to collect any checks?

Reading the complaint, it's my opinion that this was written prior to last week's "initial" meeting at White Eagle. Since then NFSOC has just been playing a game in the media.

>why does NSFOC need to collect any checks?

If the lawsuit fails, they still have to pay the attorney.

Big Picture Issues –

If you truly think the reason for the lawsuit was the “reduced travel times, reduced travel costs, splitting of schools, etc.” as you stated, then why was the suit filed well after the SB abandoned the BB site and moved to the Eloa site?

The timing indicates the suit is more about where certain students attend and nothing else.

T.B.

My comments are focused on this Blog for the exchange of ideas and opinons. Its a joke. I have been to the meetings on the south side and know there have been dissenters in the room. Not one has had big enough cajones to stand up and tell us off like they do on this blog. I am all for a healthy debate, but this is "sooo junior high". People will spew hatred about fellow residents that they would NEVER say to their face. I invite you all to come to a meeting and have your say there. I will post where the next one is located. All are welcome. I encourage anyone who thinks my kid is a spoiled monster or that I'm a bad person to come down and say it in person.

Tomorrow is the SB meeting. Who wants to bet that the SB will pause and listen to the citizens who are outraged and try to get this decision back on track? They'll call a special meeting to meet the residents face to face and respectfully talk through both sides of the issues and attempt o work out a win-win. Right... me neither.

I recall that ~ 3/17 we will hear what the multimillion dollar damages estimate (over the alrady estimated $5-6M in legal fees we owe the BB attorneys) from the BB trust in court. Since we have plenty of money to burn I suppose we should let the SB continue on this runaway train of spending... WRONG. We need to know the cost of getting out of the BB site BEFORE we buy Eola. It will clearly be more than the legal fees.

The SB needs to stop this process and show us the facts about our liabilities on BB. These costs may well trump the "deal" they're proposing they're getting on the site on Eola. Lets assume there are $20M total liabilities. Add that to the Eola site costs and guess what... its

3/17 is a week away. I think its prudent that the SB cancel the meeting tomorrow and reschedule until those costs are known.

Folks, They're spending our money like drunken monkeys and we continue to let it go on. Lawsuit or not they need to be stopped. I personally feel if they had been up front with the facts and open to respectful discussion there would be no suit.

T.B. -
On what grounds could a complaint be filed until the Board announced its next moves? Please keep in mind that even though the BB property was abandoned by the Board awhile ago (with associated legal fees and damages owed by the district yet to be determined) all of the developments of the site choice and subsequent boundaries have all been very recent - January to present. As the NSFOC group stated, the option of a law suit was not taken likely, so as any responsible group would do, they did their homework before deciding to move forward.

Also, just to clarify, I don't think the reason for the lawsuit is because of travel times, splitting schools, etc. I said I think that some people are misconstruing those issues/concerns as personal attacks on WV. It is my hope that they do not, as people negatively affected - by and large - have nothing against WV, it's students, its teachers, etc.

The reason for the lawsuit is very clear. People feel disenfranchised and they have a constitutional right, and avenue to ask for redress.

Although we may disagree on the motives for those supporting the complaint, I want to thank you for engaging in dialogue without resorting to name calling. It's refreshing. Thank you.

Simple answer. There will be space for at least another 1,000, if not 2,000 students at Naperville North and Central in the next three to five years. Save your $126 million. Have a lottery for students in 204 to go to these schools during the peak in enrollment.

You might also be able to forgo another tax increase. The only saving grace of the 203 Overtaxation is that 204 taxes are more.

Reading this blog, you could have people bid for this option. Then again, maybe 203 schools are not better than 204.

>Please, stop this and show your kids what a true adult looks and acts like.

True adults have principles and stick to those principals, they don't succumb to group think or say one thing and then do another. When true adults see a wrong, they try to make it right.

The thousands of people who back this suit have rights, don't they? Are you trying to deny them their rights?

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

True adults would not insult the intelligence of another adult. I just looked at the pictures on the NSFOC website. Those pictures are far from where the school will be built. Posting those pictures is as bad as the attack ads we have to endure until November. They make it seem like the building will be built right on the land. It is not!!!!

Please, if you want credibility for your fight don't put pictures like that up on your website.

Furthermore, take a look around you, I bet you have a radio, cell or power tower near your neighborhood. My kids ES and MS have power lines very close to them. Should we knock down those schools and rebuild somwhere else. And yes the power lines were there before the school.

Scott,
I agree. Bring this back to the voters but wait a bit until the environmental issues are explored and also until we know what its going to cost US to get out of the BB property. The operating referrendum costs will also be known as well as updated population statistics.

I supported the decision of the voters in 06 when we all voted for the property and boundaries. Now that its changed and they're buying property they said they would not due to environmental issues we need to ask the district.

We can then live with the decision.

Scott.
Correct it needs to be put to a community vote again with all the facts: the cost to get out of the BB deal, the environmental testing and issues, the updated population figures as well as the operating costs.

Put all of the facts in front of our community and let us decide.

I doubt they will though since they give us select data piece meal over time in order to prevent the community from seeing all the facts as a package.

To all of the WE and TG bashers I'd suggest you take a field trip to one of the next elementary school events and see for yourself the racial and ethnic diversity. You may actually be amazed that these are very diverse communities. Time to stop with petty insults and to start focusing on the issues.

To Diversity Lesson who wrote: "To all the WE and TG bashers I'd suggest you take a field trip to one of the next elementary school events and see for yourself the racial and ethnic diversity. You may actually be amazed that these are very diverse communities. Time to stop with petty insults and to start focusing on the issues."

Couldn't have said it better. I have not heard one person from TG or WE bash WVHS. Our communities are made up of many people from different cultures. Our children are certainly not "monsters" as someone wrote on another Sun blog.

Stop the hatred. If you would like to debate the merits of the NSFOC complaint, go ahead, but attacking people should stop.

So what happens if NSFOC wins this lawsuit and then the SB decides, since they have to pay more for BB, that they will make MVHS smaller, which means they will have to send more students to Waubonsie and they end up sending TG and WE there anyway, just out of spite?

The SB has the right to change boundaries, and it doesn't require public referendum approval. Maybe that's not right, but it is the law.

In response to anonymous who felt that Kathryn Birkett should go and is no longer welcome in the community.Kathryn Birkett is the reason Neuqua Valley is the high school it is today.As impressive as the physical building is,it is her heart and soul that created the incredible spirit of N.V.I have never seen a principal be more proud of each and every student in her school.She was at every athletic and academic program and Neuqua has never had a better cheerleader and advocate for her students.I have no doubt that her pride now extends to the entire district.Lets remember her commitment and contribution to district 204.She created the school that you're all fighting over!!!

Hi, Big Picture Issues.

I would really, really like to agree with you when you say that the people "negatively" affected by this decision have nothing against WV and its students and teachers.

But I just cannot buy it. If that were the case, then why does the lawsuit state that the ONLY location acceptable to this group is BB? I can only surmise because that location gives them what they want. It isn't about disenfranchisement or concern with the Board. They just want their own way. And that's not right.

You also mention your desire to increase the respect and civility surrounding this debate. I agree. But the actions of the nsfoc crowd show that this group has no respect for their neighbors. They just want what they want, period. Everyone else? Too bad.

That's not displaying respect for anyone: For the board members, for their neighbors, for the community at large. Yet you demand respect for them. Why?

I suggest everyone go to the NSFOC website to get a real taste of the lunatic fringe group they are. They have posted pictures they are representing as the Eola Metea property, yet they are FAR away from the actual parcel, purposefully spun to think the school will be right under the friggin' power lines.

Even sadder than the above is they have now shamed our entire community by the assine actions of ~150 "supporters".

They have no case, and think they are "entitled" to sue because they have the money to do it.

Hello Judge, NSFOC is all about the boundaries.

Let's just simple this down a bit...A busload of children is driving home from a field trip. The driver (SB) stands up and says, "Where would you like to go for lunch?" The entire bus (204 taxpayers) begins chanting McDonalds; then two boys (NSFOC) stand up and say, "No, we want Burger King and IF we don't go to Burger King we'll stop this bus and no one on it will eat."

So you wonder why we are all annoyed and have succumbed to calling those sueing the school board spoiled brats. Don't you see how this perception is obvious! There are upward of 150 subdivisions in Dist. 204. The needs of less than five subdivisions are surely important but NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE OTHER 145 PLUS, who want this school built!

Those two boys who stood up on the school bus needed to learn the art of compromise....AND SO DO YOU!!!!

Is there a way to legally annex the Tallgrass subdivision from our distict? What a pleasant thought that would be.

From another paper this morning....A refreshing perspective from someone who has been associated in the press with NSFOC... as opposed to the ugly name calling that many people have resorted to:

(I just wanted to make one final comment in that I have received a great amount of feedback critical of Ms. Hirsch Blackman's lack of objectivity.

It is important to understand that Ms. Hirsch Blackman is in fact a columinist (not a reporter) and as such she has every right to express her opinions in her column. While I may not agree with her perspective, and felt compelled to respond on the blog because I think she took liberties in regards to certain facts (some which were specifically about me), I respect the fact that there are many people who have an opinion on this matter that may differ from my own (including Ms. Hirsch Blackman). This is one of the great things about our Country and I hope that as the dialogue continues, we can all avoid the stereotyping and hateful comments about each other and try to stick to the merits of everyone's respective opinions. I believe if the SB and Admin had done a better job communicating openly and honestly and treating all of our communites with equal respect, we may never have been here in the first place. Perhaps this is the first place that many of us can come come to a common agreement on.

Todd Andrews)

I like the bus example above, however I am not sure that it is the same as what stands before us. Although a majority of the District may be happy with the results being now being presented by the SB, I doubt many are satisfied by the process (or the fairness of throwing a couple of areas to the wolves to accomplish the end game that may satisfy the self interests of everyone else at the expense of a minority that was promised certain things which resulted in overturning the defeat of the first referendum).

The time between the announcement of choosing the EOLA site and the approval of this site (which was previously excluded by the Board as being unsafe) was less than 204 HOURS! Is that troubling in its own right...I believe it is.

Wake Up said it all!!!!!!!!!

Wow...look what you have created Dr. D. Again, welcome to Naperville (I am sure the folks down South are really missing you).

Perhaps with a little more respect to the entire community we would be in a much better place. The strategy of pitting neigborhood against neighborhood has certainly paid off (Kudos and well done!). I am already spending the reward for Bin Laden in that I have narrowed the search down to WE and TG (and am hot on his tail).

I just hope that I do not get distracted on creating http://www.nsdocfraudisafraud.com (should be up shortly).

Thanks again (and MM and others...you should have just told us that you were kidding about the AMES site being certain to harm our children 2 years ago so we could have gone along and avoided this whole mess).

Significantly less than 204 hours of time between presenting the change to the "certainly" dangerous AMES site and passing it in a vote...again kudos and well done.

As Dr. D would say...Goodnight.

Penelope said
"But with the venom I am witnessing (absolute hatred toward certain sections of the district), I absolutely would not put my child in this situation. How would they be treated at WVHS by other students (and even teachers?) I will certainly explore other options - I want a positive situation for my child."

Rest assured, Penelope, your children will be treated with respect and kindness. But at the same time consider this: The "hatred" toward certain areas of our district based largely on stereotype and prejudice is akin to the "hatred" felt by many of our students based also on sterotype and prejudice. Many of our student's have felt the sting that is making you so uncomfortable now. Like I said previously, this is a wonderful opportunity to open up communication with our students and increase their understanding of the feelings, perceptions and actions on both sides. I'm actually more hopeful that it will be the students that will pave the way toward the healing process.

From anon 9:34 "I doubt many are satisfied by the process (or the fairness of throwing a couple of areas to the wolves to accomplish the end game that may satisfy the self interests of everyone else at the expense of a minority that was promised certain things which resulted in overturning the defeat of the first referendum)."

So TG and WE were "Thrown to the wolves"? What does that mean? Who should have been "thrown to the wolves" in your place? The boundaries are logical, your closest to WV. I think your choice of language says a lot.

Can someone refresh my memory? Which school did the WE folks believe should take their place at WV? My friend's child attends Springbook (which stays NV under the current plan) and she told me that the WE group felt that Springbrook should attend WV instead of them. Is this true?

I'm not very excited at the prospect of having the children of these lunatics attend school with my children.

Birkett, Crouse and company are the reason the district was misled into voting on a referendum based on a site and boundaries.

The district should never have done that. They should have decided on the boundaries and site AFTER and IF a referendum passed. Oh wait, we did that in 2005 and the referendum failed.

So the district came back and bought the yes vote in 2006.
These people have no shame.

NSFOC may not win their case but that doesn't make what they are saying any less true.

Bait and switch for sure.

>Simple answer. There will be space for at least another 1,000, >if not 2,000 students at Naperville North and Central in the >next three to five years. Save your $126 million. Have a lottery >for students in 204 to go to these schools during the peak in >enrollment.

Oswego has a bunch of empty schools, they overbuilt just like district 204 is about to do.

Mark -

Sorry that you can't "buy" the fact that the motive of the NSFOC organization is not pure disdain for WV. After all, for weeks now certain neighborhoods have been repeatedly vilified on blogs and in the press. So, it admittedly takes a huge effort to reach beyond stereotypes and outright lies. Based on most of what I read, most are not willing to even try.

The reason the lawsuit states it has to be BB is simply because that is the site the board selected and promoted before and after the referendum - plain and simple. There would be no legal merit to claiming the school should be anywhere else. Besides, wouldn't THAT smack of the "crybaby, stomp your feet" attitude that the organization and certain subdivisions are being accused of having? Isn't BB what everone wanted and agreed to in the not so distant past? So, it's not what a certain group of people wants, it's what the board said it was going to do! So, all the organization is asking for is for the board to honor its actions and words....not to move the school site to a location that would make White Eagle and Tall Grass happy. Please remember, BB still does not put them at the school closest to their neighborhood (true for TG and about half of WE, anyway).

I really don't understand your logic in saying that fighting for BB is disrespectful. Up until January, that is where the school was going to be. That is what the sb had chosen, so why is trying to uphold the BB site as the location of the school disrespectful? Was it disrespectful to want this before the location was changed?

Maybe you view questioning actions, words, and decisions of a public entity as disrepectful, maybe many do. That is up for debate. Personally, I feel if it is done in a constructive, professional manner, questioning the status quo is far from disrespectful - it is what, as citizens, we are called on to do. But, what is certainly disrespetful, is being called a bunch of pointless names - elitist, snobby, selfish, spoiled, monsters, just to name a few. It is also disrespectful to try and negate people's opinions and Constitutional rights. If that does not characterrize all of the rhetoric being thrown toward the NSFOC, TG, and WE, what does? Please tell me.

I do give respect in correspondence on the blog and to every UNANSWERED concern and question I have submitted to the school board and administration. So, yes, I do expect it in return. Another unreasonable, elitist request, right?
Based on your logic and what you are saying, I can only assume at this point that you, personally, have some gain in the turn of events. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I will apologize. But, if that is the case, then please think about what is potentially motivating your intent to question the intent of others.

Dear 203,

Thanks for the offer of classroom space in 203 but 204 enrollment has peaked just like yours.

204 high school enrollment is projected to start to decline in 2011. By the time 204 gets the school built, it won't be needed.

quote big picture issues:

"So, it's not what a certain group of people wants, it's what the board said it was going to do! So, all the organization is asking for is for the board to honor its actions and words....not to move the school site to a location that would make White Eagle and Tall Grass happy. Please remember, BB still does not put them at the school closest to their neighborhood (true for TG and about half of WE, anyway)."

The board never promised BB. How could they with so many other factors/people involved. Sure, they felt like they had a very good chance at obtaining the land. The price was unreasonable. I, along with many others believe that it was fiscally responsible for them to walk away from BB. How about this, the rest of us agree to support you in the BB demand ONLY if TG and WE remain at WV? Afterall, it's only important that the new school be built on that land, right? It doesn't matter to any of you if your kid's attend it or not.

Warrior Teacher,

I'm sure that you mean well. But I think you should maintain some sense of objectivity and fairness. I have heard NO ONE bash WVHS. But I have heard lots and lots of bashing of WE and TG.

And no, at this point, I would not be uncomfortable sending my child to WVHS for that reason. I have no confidence that the children of WE or TG will be treated well at WVHS - not after everything I have read on these blogs.

Perhaps you could use your postion as a teacher to speak to some of those who speak so unkindly of our children (monsters?! come on!)

And your post came through at 9:51 - isn't school in session?!

Can someone refresh my memory? Which school did the WE folks believe should take their place at WV? My friend's child attends Springbook (which stays NV under the current plan) and she told me that the WE group felt that Springbrook should attend WV instead of them. Is this true?

Do not believe so. I think there may have been some people who attend Fry elementary who asked in the public hearings why the Board was turning back on the walking school criteria it had previously spoken about (speaking about the Route 59 street bridge).

I think members of the Board suggested in individual discussions (do not think it occured in the public hearing) that if Fry was removed, there were not be a lot of options that would work and perhaps Springbrook, which was not a walking community, would be the only other option to pull out of NV if you accepted Fry was a walking school, and accepted this as one of the major criteria that should be followed. But Springbrook was kept at NV because of the contiguous boundary map and the fact that the Board discounted that the Route 59 bridge would provide a safe walking route to NV (and I think one of the Board members resides in Springbrook as well which I expect was not completely lost in the decisions among the District and the Board).

Never know if a few individuals from WE(that probably do not represent the thoughts of an entire subdivision) may have said something else, but I do not think WE had an arguement tied to walking schools (so doubt this was a White Eagle argumement).

Just a note...I am not a resident of WE (I live in TG and support the NSFOC mission) but I believe the above is a fair representation of the discussions on this topic.

"throwing a couple of areas to the wolves to accomplish the end game that may satisfy the self interests of everyone else at the expense of a minority that was promised certain things which resulted in overturning the defeat of the first referendum)."

WOW it that doesn't just say it all. Thrown to the wolves? How dramatic of you. I find this so offensive.
Your interpretation of the board's duties are completely wrong. It IS their duty to satisy the MAJORITY, not the minority. I'm sorry that you (the minority) didn't get what you felt was promised but the rest of us got what we voted for...a new school. The majority would be rightfully appalled if a boundary plan was drawn upon "promises" made to a minority consisting of a few wealthy neighborhoods. How on earth could you even promote such an idea?

" Isn't BB what everone wanted and agreed to in the not so distant past? So, it's not what a certain group of people wants, it's what the board said it was going to do!"... by anonymous

This is the point the MAJORITY of the district NOT involved in the lawsuit is trying to make....
BB Is NOT "what everyone wanted and agreed to in the past"(although you and your little group may define yourselves as "everyone").
The people of District 204 wanted and agreed to a THIRD HIGH SCHOOL as evidenced by the majority vote in 2006, folks!
EVERYONE knew that there was a chance that BB could fall through because we simply didn't own the property we needed yet. This was well-publicized, PUBLIC knowledge.
For the sake of your children and ours, let's put this behind us and move forward.

Please, if you want credibility for your fight don't put pictures like that up on your website.
Anonymous

Not to defend NSFOC by any means, by if you wish to scold them of the picture selections, why not scold the district for the ridiculous post card they sent out to the entire community before the '06 ref. You know, the one where it showed how crowded it was a NV? Funny thing, it wasn't a picture of NV at all? It looked more like a hotel area or mall. People walking around with ID necklaces. Even saw a baby being pushed in a stroller. Talk about the improper use of information.

"Can someone refresh my memory? Which school did the WE folks believe should take their place at WV? My friend's child attends Springbook (which stays NV under the current plan) and she told me that the WE group felt that Springbrook should attend WV instead of them. Is this true?"

Sending Springbrook to NV was the perfect plan proposed by the Tallgrass HOA. I guess it was perfect because it kept them at NV?????

To those upset with TG residents:
Kindly remember that not all TG residents are alike. I neither support NSFOC nor am I bothered that my kids will go to WV. Would it be fair to conclude that since you live in 204 you must be some kind of snob/jerk/idiot because of the actions of other 204 residents? Thanks.

How on earth could you even promote such an idea?

Because the MAJORITY voted NO in the first referendum, and the SB and District hired consultants that advised them the only way to get the referendum passed was to base the referendum on where the school would be built and what the boundaries would be (to persuade enough NO's to YES's).

Perhaps the SB was only telling certain communities that the referendum was tied to the BB land to garner enough votes to get the referendum passed (the swing to get a majority "no" to a majority "yes" was done by persuading WE and TG with promised boundaries and BB land location (I think both communities voted over 70% yes in the 2nd referendum that swung the tide).

I suspect that without these promises, the 2nd referendum would have failed as well (but it is great that you and a majority of the folks out there ended up okay at the expense of breaking public promises to a minority that was needed to swing the referendum the other way).

As I said, throwing them to the wolves...

Penelope (and others), I'm really not trying to stir the pot here, only trying to share a perspective that persists among the anti-NSFOC contingent.

With the utmost respect to you I can muster in a written forum, the NSFOC site and subsequent lawsuit IS a bash against WVHS -- maybe even THE bash that sends people over the cliff.

I won't rehash the previous blog entries that add color commentary to these arguments. I do agree with you that both sides have become very emotional. Suffice it to say that people like me feel the lawsuit is indeed bashing and trashing our Warrior Pride. You seem to be sensitive to this based on the observations you made in your post, and I welcome any further constructive dialog.

Big Picture,

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying it. This lawsuit wasn't filed after BB fell apart; it wasn't filed after the new site was announced; it was filed only after the boundaries were announced. Why do I believe that this lawusit wouldn't be taking place if the SB could have pulled off the Marcom site?

I totally agree that fighting for one's beliefs is not only laudable but necessary in our community and our country. But when those beliefs are based on myopic, self-serving principles, then the ideal of a citizen's right to question our government does nothing but mock our proud heritage.

The referendum never promised the BB site. Boundaries were always up in the air. Your appropriate course of action is the ballot box, not the courtroom.

And while I agree that civility is always the best course, there has been mud-slinging on both sides of this issue -- or did you overlook the poster at the top of this blog who stated that three SB members are "no longer welcome in this community" for simply voting their conscience? So much for respect for one's actions.

And, no, I have not and will not benefit from this action. Just the opposite. I -- along with everyone in Naperville -- will lose because our community is being portrayed as a collection of selfish, unreasonable and arrogant people who cannot look out for the good of the community as a whole.

Finally, I've read the nsfoc site and I'm sickened by the superiority of the statements regarding WVHS on the FAQ page. The statement, "In fact, NSFOC is working on plans to help WVHS very soon as a show of support that they do not seem to get from school district officials. It's about time for WVHS to take it's rightful place, and we want to help make it happen" is grotesque. So you think you and you alone are in a position to "help" WVHS? Just why do you think this school needs your "help" if you already believe it is a great school? What make you think you can help the school more than the teachers, administrators, students and parents who already work and study there? Honestly. Such gumption.

" Isn't BB what everone wanted and agreed to in the not so distant past?"

And you know this how??? It certainly isn't what I voted for or necessarily wanted. Under the assumption that BB land COULD be obtained, my chilren would still atttend WV. I voted for a new school to relieve overcrowding, plain and simple. I didn't vote for BB. I don't think that you or your group should make sweeping statements like the above. Don't speak for the rest of us. You certainly do not know what was in the minds of referendum voters. But you've made it crystal clear what was in yours. Sorry you misunderstood what you were voting for.

"Perhaps the SB was only telling certain communities that the referendum was tied to the BB land to garner enough votes to get the referendum passed (the swing to get a majority "no" to a majority "yes" was done by persuading WE and TG with promised boundaries and BB land location (I think both communities voted over 70% yes in the 2nd referendum that swung the tide).

Yikes...I was waiting for the conspiracy theories! Far, far fetched. I don't think anyone buys the idea that the SB was that calculating and unabashedly decptive.

"I suspect that without these promises, the 2nd referendum would have failed as well (but it is great that you and a majority of the folks out there ended up okay at the expense of breaking public promises to a minority that was needed to swing the referendum the other way).

As I said, throwing them to the wolves..."

Oh, ok, so the board knew to come to the "power group," make some kind of backroom deal of votes for favorable boundaries and now you guys just expect the board to make good on your arrangement. Nice.
You keep calling yourselves a minority, do you really think that a minority groups wants should be placed above everyone elses? We live in a democracy. Majority rules.

"To those upset with TG residents:
Kindly remember that not all TG residents are alike. I neither support NSFOC nor am I bothered that my kids will go to WV. Would it be fair to conclude that since you live in 204 you must be some kind of snob/jerk/idiot because of the actions of other 204 residents? Thanks."

Posted by: TG resident | March 10, 2008 11:42 AM

TG resident:
Thank you for your response.I just wish there were more like yours and you probably feel the same in regards to the other direction.
I absolutely agree with you. There are a small number of misguided people from certain areas that continue to STATE THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS (hint-hint) thus giving the rest of the residents a bad name.I would not be pleased, to say the least, if this were happening in my neighborhood.I also would not state my neighborhood as if everyone who lives here shares my opinion...that's not fair to my neighbors.

At the same time, we have folks generalizing and assigning stereotypes to people we don't even know ....just because they happen to live in the same neighborhood as some of the folks whose views or actions we don't share . Please stop the generalized comments. The group has a name. NSFOC.

I can't imagine how it must feel to be so close to all of the "friction". I'm sure neighborhoods will be split over this. In fact, it must be more than a little unsettling to have neighbors solicit funds in such a personal manner. I truly empathize with you and hope for the sake of everyone this will be put behind us very soon. Good luck to you!

I suspect that without these promises, the 2nd referendum would have failed as well (but it is great that you and a majority of the folks out there ended up okay at the expense of breaking public promises to a minority that was needed to swing the referendum the other way).

As I said, throwing them to the wolves..."

Oh, ok, so the board knew to come to the "power group," make some kind of backroom deal of votes for favorable boundaries and now you guys just expect the board to make good on your arrangement.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2008 12:06 PM

Two points, Anonymous 12:06 PM, I wouldn't discount this so quickly. I was at one of those power group HOA meetings when the promotions were made....if you don't vote for the ref, there will be split shifts, boundary changes to WVHS ect.

I also remember much to do against BB during the 2005 ref campaign. Many in our community didn't want BB due to its location to Rt 59 and the cost to purchase it. I think that played a big part against it. The 2005 spelled BB out on the ballot...it failed miserably. Maybe that's one of the reasons the BB language was removed from the 2006 ballot.

One question I continue to hear (though not on this blog) is why the district was so quick in eliminating the Macom site. From a well placed contact within the SD this is what I understand,
The Macom site could have easily been purchased and what ever difficulties there might have been could have been cleared up without difficulty. The problem was having two brand new state of the art high schools in the South and nothing for the North. If the new school had been built at Macom the current divide between North and South would have been even wider. Choosing Eola so quickly was payback for the North who had been getting the shaft since NV was built. The SB members who live in the North are basicly taking care of their people. Besides certain members of the SB did not want to reward Tall Grass and have the school built right down the road from it.
Another thing, the SB member who lives in WE and was so strangly quiet during the meeting had made a condition for voting yes. Not wanting WE to go into WV alone he made sure that wherever WE went Fry (Tall Grass) would go with. It is all politics. You may not like the way they do business but there is nothing illegal about it.

I also remember much to do against BB during the 2005 ref campaign. Many in our community didn't want BB due to its location to Rt 59 and the cost to purchase it. I think that played a big part against it. The 2005 spelled BB out on the ballot...it failed miserably. Maybe that's one of the reasons the BB language was removed from the 2006 ballot.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2008 12:34 PM
Excellent point Anonymous!!! Now you're thinking like a lawyer :)They made it simple (for most of us). Do you want a third high school...yes or no....Can't get much simpler....

Get a clue, everyone who lives north of 83rd doesnt care.
Shouldnt this be in the Beacon or the Bolingbrook Sun?
This is a "SOUTH NAPERVILLE" problem.

To disagree with the person, not the neighborhood: Thank you!!!! As a resident of Tall Grass I appreciate your post. Our residents and especially our children are taking an unfair beating over this situation. There are district 204 graduates who live in our neighborhood and yes are proud WVHS alumni. I wish those whom post negative comments generalizing a neighborhood and its residents stop and take a minute to remember that before you hit the post button on your computer.

My apologies to the members of White Eagle and Tallgrass who are being grouped in to the ugliness of the NSFOC. There are many members of those neighborhoods who are looking at this situation fairly and are wanting the same things for their children that we all do.

In our frustration we are pointing our fingers at WE and TG, when it really should just be the narrow-minded NSFOC. Let's not stereotype entire neighborhoods.

Is there a way to legally annex the Tallgrass subdivision from our distict? What a pleasant thought that would be.

Posted by: WAKE UP | March 10, 2008 08:29 AM

I don't accept your apology! Your thoughts quoted above were quite offensive to me.

For those who feel that WE and TG are being slammed here, how can you not expect that. The simple fact that you are suing is sure sign you don't want you kid going to WVHS. Especially WE who is closer to WV and once attended it.

Some times you don't have to be as clear as others when you are trying to slam someone. My kids have dealt with the "oh you go to WV, for many years. It's out there and has been for a long time.

So just because it's not as crystal clear don't think it doesn't exist. At least those who are slamming certain areas are showing their true colors and you know where they stand. Others hide behind a shell and pretend.

"The suit, filed on behalf of the group by Naperville attorney Shawn Collins, calls for injunctive relief for violations of the Illinois and Federal Constitutions."

I don't believe that this suit has a glimmer of hope to accomplish anything but lining the pockets of Mr. Collins. Can any one from NSFOC elaborate on the allegations of constitutional violations? Have I missed the "Right to send my children to the school of my choice" amendment?

For everyone who is the "Silent Majority", please speak up and post your comments on nsfocfraud.com. Show your support for the SB and let them know how childish this whole situation has become.

Thank you to the Naperville Sun for publishing the many environmental problems with the Eola Road site. We have been concerned for many months and have not been getting answers.

The answers the district is promising today (Phase I/II results) only address one of the smaller problems with the site. They are only testing the soil for anti freeze and diesel fuel. The peaker plant operated for over 30 years with no pollution controls and released many other toxins into the environment. Why only test for the 2 toxins that they already know are in the soil? What about the other toxins released by the plant that may be in the soil that we don't know about?

The Phase I/II testing does not address the EMF exposure and pipeline problems that exist. The district disqualified the site due to the EMF hazard 2 years ago yet they ignore the elevated readings on the site. Instead they change the level of acceptable exposure from "normal household levels" to "expected suburban levels" because the site exceeds the 1-4 mG "household level." So if you don't like the answer you change the question?

I can't believe everyone is fighting over boundaries when our kids' health and safety is at stake. I also find it hard to believe that the district wants to close on the property before the known contamination is cleaned up. That is a huge risk to take with our tax dollars. What happens if, for whatever reason, it can't be cleaned up? Why not wait until the site is clean before you close?

Referring to the below referenced comment by whatsinaname:

"Penelope (and others), I'm really not trying to stir the pot here, only trying to share a perspective that persists among the anti-NSFOC contingent.

With the utmost respect to you I can muster in a written forum, the NSFOC site and subsequent lawsuit IS a bash against WVHS -- maybe even THE bash that sends people over the cliff.

I won't rehash the previous blog entries that add color commentary to these arguments. I do agree with you that both sides have become very emotional. Suffice it to say that people like me feel the lawsuit is indeed bashing and trashing our Warrior Pride. You seem to be sensitive to this based on the observations you made in your post, and I welcome any further constructive dialog."

With the utmost respect to you, I think the "WVHS bashing argument" is a way to avoid the real issues.

I think NSFOC's concerns are valid. Did the SB break their promises to the voters? And is the northern site safe? (the SB said it wasn't 2 years ago). Whether our children would attend or not (some associated with NSFOC will), our tax dollars were not supposed to be used for this site - it had been eliminated according to documents presented to the voters. Why should all the taxpayers of the district assume the liability for anyone being harmed by such site? We would all share that burden.

I see nothing in the complaint that references WVHS. If you or others interpret it that way, that is the way you see it - but it doesn't make it true.

I think what's going on by claiming it's all a bash against WVHS is a way to avoid discussing the very real issue of SB accountability and fiscal responsibility. And sadly, it doesn't just hurt the people who are the targets of this, but WVHS too. I would hope you would realize that - you and others like you are trashing your own school when you engage in this behavior.

I think those that either blindly trust the SB or are getting what they themselves wanted in terms of boundaries or site location have declared war on those that have valid concerns about the SB.

I believe they are trying to make it seem like NSFOC is some radical group - when they really seem to me that they just want the SB to keep their word to the voters. Then by calling whole subdivisions names (and the children who live there), they are hoping to make it shameful to share NSFOC's concerns and trying to pit neighbors against neighbors.

I teach my children to stand up to this kind of bullying. The SB needs to be held accountable for their actions. Other people ranting, calling names, skewing the argument, etc. shouldn't stop people from doing what they feel is right.

Mark 11:46 and Anonymous 11:51

I guess at this point it is the wisest use of my time and yours to say we should agree to disagree.

Anonymous, you are right, I should not have said "what we all wanted and agreed to". I don't know what everyone wanted, and what I meant to say just came out wrong. (In a hurry trying to type things on a lunch break....sorry) I didn't mean to make sweeping statements. What I should have said is "isn't BB what the SB was pursuing and we all thought we were getting until just a few short months ago?". Hope that clarifies and takes the edge off.

I voted for the third school to relieve the overcrowding. Please note that statistics the SB itself is now presenting are bearing out that the overcrowding was exaggerated/misrepresented, and will in fact be short lived. But, at the time of the referendum vote, that's not what I was told. What were you told? Guess I was wrong for believing what the SB told me, otherwise described as "not understanding what I was voting for".

I also voted for the third school because of information the SB said, published, and repeatedly promoted about BB and boundaries. I sat in meeting after meeting and read document after document that said - we know you want to know where the school and boundaries will be before you support a 3rd school. If I remember correctly, I was directed to study the information provided to me before casting a vote. Knowing full well that a yes vote would not keep me at the school closest to my house, I still voted in favor for the referendum. Again, I guess I should not have believed what the SB told me, otherwise described as "not understanding what I was voting for".

If you have no issues with the integrity of the information put forth by the SB, both before and after the referendum, so be it. I can only say I do. That will be true whether my kids end up at WV, NV, or MV. It is a matter of principle that, yes, I will certainly address the next time the ballot allows. In the meantime, I do not feel people who live in certain neighborhoods and the NSFOC group should be scapegoats for the absolute mess that has insued. But, that is exactly what is happening. I of course at this point would never expect a board member or administrator to stand up for me, specific neighborhoods, or people's basic rights. But they're not even sticking up for WV - the school, the students, the teachers that everyone in Naperville can't get far enough away from! Nothing. Absolute silence. Is that acceptable leadership through this **it storm? One more issue to address in the voting booth, I guess.

Haven't seen the bit about WV on the NSFOC website. I assume it's something they are trying to do to show support for the school- an effort which is obviously failing in your opinion. Maybe you can contact them to make a suggestion of how they should better show their support for WV. They are being pegged as a bunch of WV haters. So now that they have tried to address that perception, they are pegged as BIGGER WV haters. Guess some people can't win. They welcome suggestions, so please make your point to them about what "sickens you" and then offer constructive criticism about how you think it can be better.

Frankly, at this point, all conversations have clearly become a waste of time. What happens, happens. It is really just a pathetic situation in too many ways to count. Thanks for the "debate".

I just took the time to read the NSFOC complaint and, as a lawyer, there are numerous issues with it.

First, to address style over substance, can someone get Todd Collins to drive by NEUQUA so he can learn how to spell it? Did no one in NSFOC know how to spell Neuqua? Maybe it was a typo, but on a document this important, you think someone would proofread it.

The complaint forgets to mention the main reason CCO said the referendum failed was because taxes were already too high -- and THAT is why voters wanted more information -- to know where their tax dollars came from (See Daily Herald, 08/05). They also gloss over that in 2006, the feeder plant was still a viable entity that could be operated by MGE which would make the EMF higher, something that has materially changed since 2005.

The text of the referendum clearly does not list a site or boundaries. The fact that the district said publicly the money would be used to buy the so-called 'Brach Brodie' property is not relevant because the district put forth a good-faith effort (including a condemnation lawsuit) to acquire the property for the amount they said in those same communications they would spend.

The in pari materia argument is flawed because neither of the two Resolutions are ambiguous AND it is not being argued that the Board did not intend to purchase Brach-Brodie with the referendum funds. That was the intention, we all know it was the intention, the Board has stated both prior to and after the referendum that was the intention.

Unfortunately, the District and the owners of the Trust could not agree on a price and the Court ruled in favor of the Trust setting a price that was in excess of the amount the board could pay and still build the school. There is no evidence the district intended to change property locations until after they had exhausted all opportunities to purchase the BB land for the price stipulated and in fact there is substantial evidence to the contrary that the Board fully intended to purchase BB,including attempting to purchase a smaller parcel of the land, until such time when they realized they could not.

Yes, the Board did not include a site and location in the referendum. They couldn't -- they could not put forth a referendum to build something on land they did not own. There is no evidence presented that the Board, as an entity, said the location "would not change". Certainly that was the intention of the board, but never explicitly promised to any voter. The Board could not legally make this promise as they did not own the land and any such promise would have been dismissed by a Court.

Smith v. Cherry involved a case of "intentional" bait-and-switch conduct. No such evidence of intent exists and substantial evidence of the boards intent to build on BB after the vote does exist. No one has brought forth any evidence to indicate the Board intended to switch to the Eola site all along. But it can easily be shown the Board resisted any site or boundary change until after the lawsuit was lost.

NSFOC cannot prove the class of "swing voters" exists or that the boundaries were the reason they switched. There is no evidence of this and the difference in results could be because people who did not vote the first time decided to vote 'yes' the second time because they realized their vote counted. (I agree I have no proof of this, any more than NSFOC can prove this "swing class" exists. The CCO survey of 400 residents is not proof.

Note that if NSFOC wins, they are asking the board to purchase BB for the purposes of developing a high school site. If the SB loses, they can purchase the BB site and build an inferior HS on it and send WE and BB to this inferior HS.

They can also change boundaries at any time per state law without a referendum, so the could decide to build MV on BB even if they lost this suit AND keep the current Eola-based MV boundaries that send WE and TG to WVHS. I hope the supporters of NSFOC realize this.

I think it should be obvious to everyone that this School Board wanted the BB property and they wanted to build the 3rd high school there (even as many people posted here on blog entries that this was a bad idea). Going to court to get the Board to do what it has determined it cannot do is a lose-lose. Either we get an inferior 3rd school or the Board asks us for more money to buy the land.

For all the people who are bashing WE and TG shame on you. How immature are you to call other peoples children SPOILED BRATS. I'm sure you don't know these families personally. I feel sorry for these kids if and or when they attend WV. With comments like yours how are they going to embrace change with a positive attitude.

To "next | March 9, 2008 01:22 PM",

No matter how much you don't like it, the Board created a de facto referendum that specified both boundaries and location.

For proof, just pull out a copy of MM's letter.

First, to address style over substance, can someone get Todd Collins to drive by NEUQUA so he can learn how to spell it? Did no one in NSFOC know how to spell Neuqua? Maybe it was a typo, but on a document this important, you think someone would proofread it.
Posted by: A D204 Lawyer | March 10, 2008 02:01 PM

I think your post has a "typo" as well. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you made a human mistake.

It's important to note the correct name of the attorney representing NSFOC is Shawn Collins, not Todd Collins as you incorrectly posted.

This post, from above, is so acutely "on the mark" and factual that I had to repost it for all to read:

The school district sold a referendum based on a

~school site

~a specified cost

~boundaries

~~skyrocketing enrollment.

The site is different, the boundaries are different, the cost has skyrocketed to 160,000,000, in the last 2 years elementary school enrollment has declined by 284 students and high school enrollment will peak in 2011 & then decline.

Yes that's right, the district's latest projections have enrollment declining 1 year after the 3rd high school is scheduled to open.

You can not believe anything the district tells you!

Enough is enough.

Fight the district and pledge your support at

http://www.nsfoc.org/

Read the complaint at

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

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 03:27 PM

As someone with access to inside information, I thought I'd make a few statements to clarify a few things.

1. I feel terrible for the many good people within TG and WE who are being trashed. It is unfair to attack entire communinities based on the actions of a few residents.

2. I respect the people in our community who TRULY are concerned about the health risk at the AME site. Unfortunately there are many others who couldn't care less (NSFOC organizers), but have joined your cause simply because it helps their own agenda.

3. I espcially feel bad for most of the people in WE. Due to a lack of judgement by one WE resident who booked the clubhouse for the NSFOC meeting, WE has been given more blame for this lawsuit than they deserve.

4. The "organizers" of NSFOC are 100% TG residents. There are approx 10 of them. They have been plotting and scheming since the 2006 referendum to stay at NV. They have recruited a few WE leaders, but the core leadership group remains TG.

5. These "organizers" do not care about what's best for our district as a whole, or whether AMEs is a health risk. They care about themselves and themselves only.

6. The "organizers" are trying to court as many people/communities as possible because they know the power of mass. They are courting the health risk crowd, they are courting the "vote no" people, they are courting their "friends" in WE, they are courting anyone they can.

7. These "organizaters" are just using everyone. If the SB ruled tomorrow that TG would stay at NV, so long WE, so long AME health concern people, so long everyone... the fight would be over.

8. These "organizers" reluctantly were going to live with their second choice (MV at BB). But there is no way they were going to accept going to WV no matter what. They are essentially responding like a cornered animal. Attack.

9. These "organizers" don't believe any verdict will force construction at BB. All they really want is a delay or injunction. Because to them, doing nothing about our overcrowding still keeps them at NV. They would rather stay at a crowded NV than any other scenario that involves them moving.

10. Perhaps the most scary thing of all, is that these people seem to believe what they are doing it totally justified and right. I have found this to be the most frightening thing of all. Even when their freinds question their actions/motives, they are simply told to move out of the way. This train is full steam ahead.

"I think what's going on by claiming it's all a bash against WVHS is a way to avoid discussing the very real issue of SB accountability and fiscal responsibility."

Umm, the board WAS acting in a fically responsible manner when it chose to walk away from the BB deal when it was priced too high.

Post

So do I. There are those at WV who never wanted WE back in the first place. TG may have justed added themselves to that list. It's all about attitude.

Can someone summarize what NSFOC is seeking. I'm very confused by their info. Do they want a new school or not? Because they talk of "declining enrollment." Do they want a new school but only on BB land? Do they want it on BB land even if the boundaries remain essentially the same, particularly WE and TG remaining at WV?
Again, NSFOC, how do the board's actions indicate the state/federal constitutions have been violated??

penelope, I don't think the SB has done right throughout this process either and I too am concerned about their fiscal prudence. However, I do not think the NSFOC concerns are valid.

IMHO the school board did not make any promises. Vickers, in a rather weak attempt to shut down the 3rd HS altogether prior to the referendum, explicitly pointed out that the proposed referendum did not guarantee location, boundaries, or cost. I think her statement will be placed into evidence against the estoppal count and I find it ironic that the statements she made against MV will be what saves it from the NSFOC. I do believe the district and SB made a good faith effort to procure BB. It didn't work out. Is Eola safe? TBD. Originally it wasn't, but that was due in part to the configuration of the parcel. If you recall, the same configuration that's available today was not available initially. The Illinois EPA is now involved, I'll wait to hear there assessments as I do not believe they are part of any SB sponsored conspiracy. If they say we're good, then good enough for me.

What I fail to grasp is why the NSFOC is taking the stance BB or nothing. If the SB acquiesces and builds MV on the BB site, they will have to put forth another referendum to cover the increased cost of the land (good luck getting THAT one passed) or build the MV "light" version. I don't see where the NSFOC is advocating either of those scenarios. It's easy to say "hold the school board accountable," but seriously, what viable options are there? Build MV "light?" I wouldn't want my kids to go there, so I assume the TG/WE wouldn't either. Not build any school? OK, fine, NV will always be more crowded than WV -- that's OK by me. Procure land somewhere else? Macon has it's share of problems and issues as well.

Like you, I teach my kids to stand up to bullies. Unfortunately we find ourselves on opposite sides of this issue as it's my opinion the NSFOC is bullying the SB and the rest of the district over not getting their way. I live off of Eola, and I can tell you with 100% certainty those photos are not of the proposed MV site. I believe that's a bullying tactic designed to provoke and inflame people's emotions. I understand you see it differently.

There, we actually had an emotionless exchange of ideas.

I'm surprised that the WE folks are more interested in the safety of the kids going to matea that they decided to sue the board. Or is it because they were stuck with WV? We on the north side do not feel that way ... the site is safe enough.

Please - before everyone jumps all over me re: my 1:55 posting....
The line that says "But they're not even sticking up for WV - the school, the students, the teachers that everyone in Naperville can't get far enough away from!" is missing an important word. It should say "But they're not even sticking up for WV - the school, the students, the teachers that everyone in Naperville SUPPOSEDLY can't get far enough away from!" I think the sarcasm without that word being there would be evident enough, but everyone is one edge these days, so I just wanted to correct my mistake. God knows there is already enough hate for Naperville, TG, WE, etc. We don't need more fuel on the fire. I'm sorry.

This is for "NSFOC Insider" -

Those are some pretty hefty allegations, however, what are parents with legitimate concerns to do? We have been emailing and speaking out and asking for information. To no avail.

I didn't pass judgement on 204thekids for taking Laidlaw and Whitt Law's money to pass the referendum. Those firms could care less about our overcrowding but they need a $$funded$$ school district to pay their bills.

It sounds draconian but that is the way the world works. NSFOC got the environmental issues some attention in the newspaper. Finally. No amount of speaking to the school board / admin / sending emails got that accomplished.

Kudos to NSFOC for shining some light on this extremely important topic.

To "next | March 9, 2008 01:22 PM",

"No matter how much you don't like it, the Board created a de facto referendum that specified both boundaries and location.

For proof, just pull out a copy of MM's letter."

Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2008 02:12 PM

You seriously view this as "proof"? Well, then I have LOTS of proof to the contrary saved in my files ....:)

I believe that building the third high school on the Brach-Brody property is a much too expensive option for school district. Too much time and money has been wasted
by the school district pursuing the Brach-Brody property. I also believe that the Brach-Brody property is a poor option for the school district because traffic is already too congested in the area surrounding the Brach-Brody property.

Building the third high school at Eola and Molitor roads makes economic sense. There will be a $13 million dollar savings by building the third high school at Eola and Molitor roads. The three high schools in the school district will also be evenly geographically distributed if the new high school is build at Eola and Molitor road.

It is really too bad that the Naperville Schools for Our Children has filed a lawsuit demanding that District 204 purchase the Brach Brody property. All that this lawsuit will due is incur additional legal expenses for the school district. In the meantime, construction costs will continue to escalate as the lawsuit is fought in court while children are stuck in overcrowded high school classrooms.

I hope that the lawsuit filed by the Naperville Schools for Our Children organization is thrown out as a frivolous lawsuit. I also hope that the lawyers who filed this lawsuit are fined for filing such a frivolous and ridiculous lawsuit.

Thank you A204 Lawyer for your clear, concise take on this lawsuit. Just as we all suspected, there is no real legal case here just alot of grasping for anything they can get their hands on. Can a judge simple throw the case out and save us all alot of money? What a tragic waste of everyone's time.

Thank you also to the NSFOC insider who paints a very, very sad picture of the oganizers of NSFOC. They truly are acting like a cornered animal in attack mode. The collection of money for legal fees would be MUCH better spent to hire a public relations firm who could do some much-needed damage control in that one particular subdivision.

And when this is all said and done, the residents of that same neighborhood owe the rest of this district an apology for single-handedly bringing down this community to an all time low. Yes you, not the SB or administration, have shamed Naperville and Aurora.

JK-

Tou say the site is "safe enough". I hope you're right and those words don't come back to haunt you. Why don't you wait until all the studies have been conducted by independent sources. I would want to the site to be COMPLETELY SAFE.

I can not help but wonder how different everything would be if Tall Grass was not in the mix. My belief is that without Tall Grass everything would have been settled without the antagonism long ago. Certain people may not want there children to attend WV but this WE parent is not happy that my current 5th grader will be in Tall Grass at Scullen next year where he will be in the midst of hate and tension.

To: Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2008 04:16 PM

A 204 Lawyer's take on this lawsuit wasn't entirely "clear and concise." A 204 lawyer had the attorney's name wrong.

It could have been a typo, but "a 204 lawyer" was critical of such a thing.

Again, a human mistake making a silly typo mistake. But yet, "a 204 lawyer" was quick to criticize.

Personally, I think spelling Neuqua in correctly is minor. Getting the NSFOC attorney name wrong is a little more concerning. Maybe "a 204 attorney" didn't read the complaint very thoroughly.

I would think a real lawyer would not make such a huge mistake as to get the plaintiff's attorney's name wrong.

To concerned parent who wrote "...I would think a real lawyer would not make such a huge mistake as to get the plaintiff's attorney's name wrong."

Just make sure you spell his name correctly on the check you idiots are paying him, I believe that is all he cares about.

Sorry concerned parent but making a mistake on a legal document that people pay thousand of dollars to be written should not have a typo in it. Case in point, name of the school that is under the jurisidiction of the very same people they are suing.

I would wonder about those filing that document that they can't spell the name of the very same thing they are fighting for.

To: anonymous 5:15 pm

There you go again with the assumptions and finger pointing.

You are making an assumption I've already written a check.

Who is the idiot?

Anonymous,

I have a suspicion that the person who calls themselves a "lawyer" (comments above)really only plays one on TV.

If he/she is a lawyer, he/she should know that it is a matter of opinion and it will be decided either way be a judge. As they say, "an arguement has been made".

As for apologies, all the NSFOC bashers have been rude and disrespectful to any opinion but their opinion. Comments like "spoiled brats", "greedy yuppies", "poor parents"? That is what I call class? Are those comments in the spirit of being a good neighbor? If any fence mending is to take place, start by looking in the mirror!

As one of the "Swing Voters", I respect the stance NSFOC has taken. The last referendum was the only one I ever voted "yes" on. I did so because I thought it was the best way to keep the peace and put this matter behind us (the district). The referendum was all about the collective efforts and input of the entire district. I deeply regret my vote and will never vote for another referendum again. Not that it is scientific, but I know many people that live throughout the district that feel the way I do. Remember, there is only money to build this proposed school, not to fill it!

I do not know if a judge will think it was/is "bait and switch" that has happened with this mess. I do feel it is a good idea to have it looked at so the integrity of the system, at a minimum, is not completely spoiled. I do think, that without another referndum vote on this new site, it will always have a stink to it for many.

The most sickening thread in these blogs is the name calling and stereotyping of neighborhoods and kids.

I would venture a bet, say $204, that our kids could quite frankly not care less which of the schools they attend. Let alone what subdivision their new friends reside in. My middle schooler and her friends never talk about Springbrook, Ashbury, Tall Grass, Short Grass, White Eagle or Bald Eagle...

I would ask that the sun editor please block further trash postings that reference any kids in a derrogatory manner.

If parents disagree thats fine but come on people these are kids.

The core issue is our SB who have put all of us in this mess and are conveniently unavailable to comment on their blunders. Whether you favor or hate the idea of a lawsuit lets at least agree that the SB needs to be accountable to us who are paying the costs. None of us know what motivates any of us to do what we do or do what they do so lets stop pretending to be that bright.

My opinion is that insulting or threatening one another will solve nothing. The SB and Residents need to talk. Our Leaders need to act like Leaders and pull this together. If they proceed on a path ignoring all of this it will confirm the previous postings that they are behaving in an arrogant manner and are not interested in our feedback.

Lets direct some of this energy towards a resolution as quickly as possible and leave the insults (especially those aimed at kids) out of this discussion.

The SB maintains that the land chosen for MV is "safe enough". Why don't we suggest Dr. D and MM to invest in building their new homes next to this site. If they can survive it, my kids will survive it too! Do they accept to be guinea pigs or they want to test it with our kids' health. I am a MV parent, and am appalled my the site choice as we drove past it yesterday. It is a shame that the SB is stuck up due to ego problems or have they filled their pockets enough to rule out any health hazard.

"10. Perhaps the most scary thing of all, is that these people seem to believe what they are doing it totally justified and right. I have found this to be the most frightening thing of all. Even when their freinds question their actions/motives, they are simply told to move out of the way. This train is full steam ahead."

Posted by: NSFOC Insider | March 10, 2008 02:25 PM

NSFOC Insider(I knew you were out there:),

I too find your last point most disturbing. I have a background in Psychology and the basis for their lawsuit is definitely more than meets the eye.
It becomes more about personal validation and self- worth than what is considered rational or common sense to you or I.It becomes more about them, as people, than the actual issue at hand.
Educated, well-meaning people can get so caught up in a "righteous" cause that they forget what the cause is even about...especially if they are praised over and over for "doing the RIGHT thing" by others in the group.It doesn't even matter if the praise comes from someone they are paying to say what they want to hear.
The suit appears so confusing and irrational because these folks don't see what the rest of us voted on. They do not WANT a third high school.Some want their "moment in the sun".For some, 15 minutes of bad press is better than no press!
Above all, I agree...they would rather have ALL kids packed into the school of their choice than have to "settle" for something less than what they perceive to be the best scenario for themselves. Justification in their minds comes from selective (vs. objective) information gathering to promote their perceived injustices. They want to ride in on the white horse and save us all from ourselves.
There is a medical term/classification for this group's behavior ...but I won't use it.

Does anyone know who the people are that are running NSFOC? We know about Andrews but everyone else connected with the group is very secretive.

The SB maintains that the land chosen for MV is "safe enough". Why don't we suggest Dr. D and MM to invest in building their new homes next to this site. If they can survive it, my kids will survive it too! Do they accept to be guinea pigs or they want to test it with our kids' health. I am a MV parent, and am appalled my the site choice as we drove past it yesterday. It is a shame that the SB is stuck up due to ego problems or have they filled their pockets enough to rule out any health hazard.

Posted by: Bright Idea | March 10, 2008 05:47 PM

Bright Idea,
I hope you are not looking to the NSFOC website for the actual site.This would be yet another sad misrepresentation on their part.Dr. D and MM don't have to build their homes there. Lots of other great people already have.

If you stand at the intersection of Eola and Molitor RD.(entrance to Harris Farms sub.) you will be staring at the large, open site acreage. You will also see lots of homes right next to it on the South (Cambridge Chase Sub). To the North you will see a grove of mature trees. A little further North you will see a road. Even further North you will see a bridge that goes above Eola. North of that is a small building that was an animal hospital(mostly equestrian patients:) for many years. North of that will be the old land where the power lines are located. These are the pictures you see posted on the NSFOC website. Adjacent to the lines is Diehl Road.Take another drive by...

The third HS is supposed to reduce the overcrowding in WVHS and NVHS. Ironically, WVHS will actually be MORE crowded until the 2011-2012 school year.

Per the SB's website, current HS enrollment is 8182, of which 3,691 (45.1%) are at WVHS. The projected enrollments for the 2011-2012 school year have 28.6% of the district's HS students at WVHS. Using the SB's current numbers of students at each grade, here are the estimates for WVHS students for the 2009-2010 school year:

Seniors (currently 10th graders): 2085 x 45.1% = 940
Juniors (currently 9th graders): 2145 x 45.1% = 967
Sophomores (currently 8th graders): 2362 x 28.6% = 676
Freshmen (currently 7th graders): 2358 x 28.6% = 674

Total students at WVHS for the 2009 - 2010 school year = 3257. Good news, right? That's a 434 student decrease from the current numbers of 3,691. The problem is that the Freshmen campus will have been converted to a middle school, so you just lost space that currently is used for 967 9th graders. Everyone is now in the main WVHS building. You actually have 533 more students in this space than this year! The problem improves in the 2010 - 2011 school year, but you will still have more students in this space than this year. Not until 2011 will there be less students in the main WVHS building than there is today. Just in time for district enrollments to decline.

I still cannot beleive all of the ill will and childish remarks and hate bashing.

I live in Tall Grass and am estatic to go to WV. A smaller school with a great group of students.

Every comment that has been incredibly horrible has been written by someone about White Eagle or Tall Grass. Not the other way around.

It is time to stop this behavior for once and for all. Turn off your computers, give your kids a hug and maybe spend some time together. Reflect on wether all the snide comments are improving your life or just creating more negativity.

Thank you "leave the kids out of this"!

I just reread the site study report put out by 204 in 2005.

I'm pretty concerned that the district/board felt the AME site was more than probable (almost certain) that that site would present a health issue in terms of certainty of radiation effects.

I've also read the Environ report provided by district 204 on the EMF levels at the Midwest Gen/AME site. I'm unwilling to accept this 1.25 page report satisfactory for many reasons. First of all, it was taken in October (2007). From the research I've done, any legitimate study of EMF readings should be done when electric levels are at their highest point. I'd like to see what the readings would be on a 85 degree day before I feel comfortable with any formal report on the safety of the site.

I have a serious auto immune disease that I've had all my life. I have Lupus. From what I've read, even "satisfactory/acceptable" levels of EMF measurement (less than 2.0 mg) can have a very detrimental impact on persons with an auto immune disease. With a comprimised immune system, a person is more susceptible to cancer with even a low level EMF measurement.

We need more information, measurements on warm days, etc. before proceeding further with the AME site.

Article in the Naperville Sun today.

"Federal funds sought to separate grade crossings"

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/833872,6_1_NA10_EJE_S1.article

I am really sick of all the name calling and bad press people in this blog are writing about residents of Tall Grass. I moved to Tall Grass from Ashbury 6 years ago because I wanted to upgrade my house and improve my standard of living (solid wood cabinets, concrete driveway, brick exterior, stainless steel appliances, etc). Its totally unfair to generalize that all people living in Tall Grass act a certain way or will stomp their feet if they don't get their way. I have attended many wine/cheese socials and business events with other residents of Tall Grass and I find these people to be very kind souls. Please think before you write anything that could be hurtful in these blogs. The residents of Tall Grass read this too and it is not fair to lump us all into one category.

"Can someone summarize what NSFOC is seeking. I'm very confused by their info. Do they want a new school or not? Because they talk of "declining enrollment." Do they want a new school but only on BB land? Do they want it on BB land even if the boundaries remain essentially the same, particularly WE and TG remaining at WV?
Again, NSFOC, how do the board's actions indicate the state/federal constitutions have been violated??"

Let's set aside the deregatory neighborhood talk and try to get to the heart of exactly what the NSFOC hopes to gain. Any takers? Maybe someone associated with the group (I'm pretty sure you're reading) can tackle the above questions. You are an awfully confounded group.
What exactly are you hoping the outcome of this will be?

Has a group formed that is ONLY working on checking out the environmental issues associated with the Metea site?

Concerned Tall Grass Resident

Why do you feel the need to point out the appliances, cabinets, concrete driveway and wine & cheese party? How is any of that relevant to the subject of doing what's best for all of our kids? And she wonders why people have negative opinions of the Tall Grass residents.

Here's one for you all...I have a high school student in the district, one of the best in the country, and recently discovered that my student can't read. I was then told that my student had been released from reading improvement because they were "white, upper-middle class and likeable." I have been trying to deal with this issue since elementary school and no one wants to listen. Apparently, I am not the only one in this situation. I have heard this same story repeatedly.

So, can we quit squabbling over a stupid building and get onto the business of educating our children. What difference does it make where the building is located? Any reasonable person who voted should have realized that the district had not secured the land therefore creating a situation that could potentially change. This lawsuit is just another example of fiscal irresponsibility on both the taxpayer and the district. Ultimately, we the taxpayer will pay the bill to fight this lawsuit and our children will continue to suffer in overcrowded schools and classrooms. I should have voted no because by the time the school is actually built, I'll be a grandparent!

The law defines a "reasonable person" as just, rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual in the circumstances. It may refer to care, cause, compensation, doubt (in a criminal trial). It is safe to assume that the individuals filing this lawsuit are well educated and successful. So if you are one of these people, then you should have "reasonably" understood that the district had not secured the land and it would be subject to change. No switch and bait here...but thanks for spending your money, at least it helps the economy!

Concerned Tall Grass Resident (and all the other folks from TG who are offended by these posts)...

Your March 2008 HOA newsletter (published on your Tall Grass web site) says, and I quote:

"Unfortunately, at a special board meeting on February 19th, the IPSD School Board voted to approve the administration's boundary proposal for new boundaries in light of Metea Valley High School. This proposal changes the high school assignment for the Fry attendance area from Neuqua Valley to Waubonsie Valley. The collective effort put forth by the Tall Grass community in opposition to the District on this issue was something to be proud of. It was brilliantly organized, passionate, respectful and well presented. Again, on behalf of the Tall Grass HOA Board of Directors, thank you for all your efforts."

So, according to your HOA (which represents you), TG don't want to go to Waubonsie. And the HOA is proud of how the community is fighting the switch to Waubonsie. And you're offended that everyone lumps all of Tall Grass together and calls you names.

Got it.

"I wanted to upgrade my house and improve my standard of living (solid wood cabinets, concrete driveway, brick exterior, stainless steel appliances, etc)."

Concerned Tall Grass Resident, the first step in getting out of the hole that's been dug is to stop digging.

to anonymous 9:19pm

How do you read into the TG HOA boundary proposal that TG doesn't want to go to WVHS?

The administration in 204 asked for boundary proposals that best met the district criteria. The TG boundary proposal had no splits at the middle school level, had contiguous boundaries and balanced enrollment at the three high schools than the administrations boundary proposal or the board's final outcome did.

For example. The splits at the middle school level were unacceptable to me. I'm SURE that you are pleased. Can you state where you live? That might provide some clarity for many of us blog readers.

Also, the above mentioned boundary proposal did not OVERCROWD Waubonsie. Cramming Owen East into WVHS at the boundary meeting (no surprise), left WVHS overcrowded.

Do the math, numbers on the enrollment and repost.

Anonymous 9:19

Sorry you don't Get it...

The TG community organized a factual, professional and respectful argument to remain at their neighborhood HS using the SBs published guidelines. Not one of these representatives voiced concern about WV, quality of the education, neighborhood bashing, etc. They simply wanted to attend a school that is 75% closer that WV. TG/Fry is the second closest feeder gradeschool (second to Welch) to NV (thats a fact).

I remember vividly the presentations during the boundary process in 06 that was OPEN to parents where other subdivisions (Brookdale, Springbrook, etc) who felt passionate about their assignments made similar pleas. They were united as a community fighting for their cause. I don't recall TG firing off nasty grams to those communities so please show the same respect.

I also read in Sunday's Herald that Springbrook threatened a lawsuit against the SD/SB if they were pulled from NV instead of Fry/TG. Too bad the blogs were not live back then so you could criticize them.

Just because a community puts up a fight to attend their neighborhood school does not make them criminals.

Get over yourself and be open to other perspectives. If you attended the boundary comment session last month I think you'd agree that these residents were blown off by the school board and frankly deserve to feel stepped on.

Had the SB at least entertained a discussion of the facts and had a dialogue I suspect most (not all) of those fighting this rogue group would be satisfied that due process was held.

I have no hard feelings about Brookdale and Springbrook for voicing their opinion. Show some respect for these residents as well.

To Anonymous at 9:19 PM

Just as our SB represents the district 204 community, so does the HOA of a neighborhood. Just because they say something, does not mean they are representing the thoughts of everyone.

This blog is like road-rage, only with a computer. Most of the comments made would never be spoken directly to someone's face. Time to go read a book to your kids and treat your neighbors with respect. When you are in church next Sunday, remember that the horrible things that you have written on this blog could have been directed by the person sitting right next to you.

Remember what goes around comes around. Time to act like a community and focus on making sure a school is being built on a safe site.

Good Night.

Would the fairest thing be that the loser of this lawsuit be required to pay their opponent's legal costs? Would NSFOC members agree? If the District prevails, it wouldn't add any additional legal expenses to the majority of the District's taxpayers.

Anonymous 9:19
Will you just lay off already? What is your point besides spreading more hatred and making us a scapegoat for problems much bigger than the neighborhood we live in. Why are people in this subdivision not allowed to be disappointed or frustrated? Does everyone else in the Aurora/Naperville area have exclusive rights to those emotions? Neuqua Valley is 1.5 miles (or less) from our homes. Waubonsie Valley is 4 miles (or more). Our kids are on buses longer. They are being split from their middle school friends. There is more time and travel involved going back and forth for activities, etc. Everyone else would be upset, it's just Tall Grass that is supposed to be throwing a party over it. I don't get it. Please read it again - the newsletter does NOT say we don't want to go to WV. It DOES say that the decision is unfortunate, but it is only because of all of the very practical reasons listed above. Again, no slam on the school, the students, the teachers, the people of Aurora. That's what you WISH it said so you'd actually have something in writing to back up your ignorant opinions and stereotypes. Quit looking for things that aren't there. At this point, after every possible insult and slam has been made towards us, your tactics are tired and pathetic.

Furthermore, if you are going to bother to print excerpts from the newsletter, why didn't you include other things it said like, "At this point, it's time to look forward not backward." and "Most importantly, despite the anger and frustration many of us feel, we need to remain positively focused for our children." Couldn't bring yourself to write that now, could you, because it flies in the face of your misguided perceptions and hatred.

Why don't you re-read that last line I quoted you a couple of times and try it on for size. Then please to keep your nonsense to yourself. This district is already in an unspeakably disgraceful state. Enough already. Make an effort to meet people from Tall Grass and understand their position and feelings. Until you can be bothered to do that, quit being a coward by making ugly remarks behind an anonymous post.

Anonymous 9:19
Will you just lay off already? What is your point besides spreading more hatred and making us a scapegoat for problems much bigger than the neighborhood we live in. Why are people in this subdivision not allowed to be disappointed or frustrated? Does everyone else in the Aurora/Naperville area have exclusive rights to those emotions? Neuqua Valley is 1.5 miles (or less) from our homes. Waubonsie Valley is 4 miles (or more). Our kids are on buses longer. They are being split from their middle school friends. There is more time and travel involved going back and forth for activities, etc. Everyone else would be upset, it's just Tall Grass that is supposed to be throwing a party over it. I don't get it. Please read it again - the newsletter does NOT say we don't want to go to WV. It DOES say that the decision is unfortunate, but it is only because of all of the very practical reasons listed above. Again, no slam on the school, the students, the teachers, the people of Aurora. That's what you WISH it said so you'd actually have something in writing to back up your ignorant opinions and stereotypes. Quit looking for things that aren't there. At this point, after every possible insult and slam has been made towards us, your tactics are tired and pathetic.

Furthermore, if you are going to bother to print excerpts from the newsletter, why didn't you include other things it said like, "At this point, it's time to look forward not backward." and "Most importantly, despite the anger and frustration many of us feel, we need to remain positively focused for our children." Couldn't bring yourself to write that now, could you, because it flies in the face of your misguided perceptions and hatred.

Why don't you re-read that last line I quoted you a couple of times and try it on for size. Then please to keep your nonsense to yourself. This district is already in an unspeakably disgraceful state. Enough already. Make an effort to meet people from Tall Grass and understand their position and feelings. Until you can be bothered to do that, quit being a coward by making ugly remarks behind an anonymous post.

Concerned Tall Grass Resident -

That's pretty funny. Thanks.

T.B.

It's late and time for everyone to go to bed and while your at it put this whole subject to bed not to be woken up until the judge throws down his gavel and chases everyone out of his court room for wasting his time and the tax payers of this county/state.

The School Board announced tonight that they have experience YET ANOTHER DELAY in releasing the Phase I and Phase II studies of the Eola/Molitor site TO THE PUBLIC...citing they don't have "permission"...this is the second delay as far as I know. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? Something is not right. Actions speak louder than words. What "permission" can they possibly need to release PUBLIC information to the PUBLIC?

Also, did you know that they are paying a PREMIUM to their proposed construction company to work more hours and get the job done faster? haven't even broken ground and already behind schedule. WHAT IS THE RUSH?

Tallgrass--enough with the victim mentality! "Why is everybody picking on us?" BECAUSE YOU FILED A SELFISH LAWSUIT AGAINST THE REST OF US! You try to compare your antics with other neighborhoods that have had issue with boundaries in the past like Brookdale and Springbrook. The enormous difference is they presented their arguments without declaring that their needs were more important than others and with respect for other neighborhoods, the school board and administration. And THEY DIDN'T SELFISHLY SUE THE DISTRICT! Big difference folks!

Two years ago at a referendum meeting the president of your HOA had to publicly apologize for the behavior of his TG neighbors. But unfortunately nothing has changed since then. Everyone's got your number and no one's to blame but you. Is there something in the water there that doesn't allow you to see this?

To Joe at 8:39 PM and Anonymous at 9:33 PM

If you believe 'Concerned Tall Grass Resident' truly lives in TG I have some ocean-front property in Arizona that I'll give you a great deal on!

And to the 'Concerned Tall Grass Resident' imposter - play fair - stick to the facts. Both sides of this debate have merit without having to resort to that.

check out this slide show on the NSFOC website...if you just click one picture, it will enlarge and you can click slide show. this eola site is really scary, actually...i knew it was questionable...but it is really not a great place to build a school. i feel terrible and scared for these poor kids. check it out.
http://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_expose&Itemid=70&album=6

Regarding comments...
suggest everyone go to the NSFOC website to get a real taste of the lunatic fringe group they are. They have posted pictures they are representing as the Eola Metea property, yet they are FAR away from the actual parcel, purposefully spun to think the school will be right under the friggin' power lines.
Even sadder than the above is they have now shamed our entire community by the assine actions of ~150 "supporters".
They have no case, and think they are "entitled" to sue because they have the money to do it.
Hello Judge, NSFOC is all about the boundaries.
Posted by: MH | March 10, 2008 08:27 AM

MH, FAR away? Maybe you and the Anonymous guy who seems like a SB member need a geogrpahy lessen. I just drove around up there today, and looked at the NSFOC site and it is pretty close, like 50 feet for the bridge, and 100 feet for the peaker plant. Everything else in the pictures are on the property. I am confused as to why you say FAR away when it is not FAR away. Look for yourself...there are words on there now.
http://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_expose&Itemid=70&album=6

There's also more detail on the site as well under this link.
http://www.nsfoc.org/pdf/notagoodplace6.pdf

Another thing I do not understand is your comment about the lunatic fringe. Mr. Andrews was very balanced in all comments so far. This group seems pretty main stream compared to the SB who had an "expert" on EMF tonight telling the audience that he was not the expert on EMF. Kinder Morgan Pipeline called the property with a school on it "a high consequence" site. Do you know what that means? High Casualties. On top of that the SB is moving ahead with plans to contract without a completed environmental study results, full cost estimates for remediation, mitigation of wetlands, etc., costs at BB site, the SB president says he cannot release parts of the study because "I don't have permission" from who - he's the president of the SB! The study is done and was supposed to be posted in its entirety on the district website. And they apparently plan to fence off not a small patch but 17 acres for remediating "later" after the school is built? 1 acre is about four homes and yards for the novice, so 17 homes and yards worth of land. Yes, build the school first. ANd they are moving ahead at their own peril meaning any money spent is lost as of now. Now who is the lunatic fringe here????

Correction...17 acres = about 68 homes/yards in Aurora. Pardon the oversight.

Anonymous 11:43 -

Get your facts straight, quit perpetuating lies. Show some responsibility here. Tall Grass has not filed a law suit. I'm sure some Tall Grass residents support the group that did, but many do not. Tall Grass is not the only "group" that is discontent with the performance of the SB. Get over that fact.

I am not one of the people who made derogatory comments about the SB or other groups last go around. An apology was issued from TG for those from TG that did. So, what's your beef? Were you at the site and boundary meetings this year? If so, give me some concrete examples of what you heard from Tall Grass to justify your statement that "nothing has changed". If you weren't there, who are you to say "nothing has changed"? Can't use the excuse that what has changed is the fact that Tall Grass has filed a lawsuit because that is a lie.

The way I figure it, the only reason I am sitting here defending myself, and the 99% of Tall Grass residents who also didn't say anything bad last time, or now, is because of people like you intent on having a scapegoat for the unexcusable mess the district is in today. Scapegoats are truly the easier way to go aren't they - no authority to question, no facts to look at, no questions to ask, no feelings to consider. Just point fingers, stick out your tongue, and hurl a few insults - all while hiding anonymously behind email. Perfect!

Seriously, leave Tall Grass alone. Everyone has YOUR number -and it's getting old.

TG resident here:
Please aim your anger at NSFOC and not TG residents as a whole. There is a small percentage here that support this lawsuit.

The SB shows no signs of slowing down or giving the taxpayers full disclosure.

At the meeting last night, they didn't release the environmental studies. Remediation will be done at a later date and 17 acres "fenced off"? And yet they went ahead and approved construction contracts?

If they were building their own home, would they do this?

It reminds me of BB. They decide to buy land they didn't know the price of. Would they have done this with their own money?

And lastly, they head off into executive session to discuss the lawsuit filed by NSFOC.

This district needs new leadership.

I am thankful there is a group questioning their decisions. And I am thankful there will be an objective person (not someone caught up in the emotion of all this) that will listen to it.

To Anonymous 7:34 am who suggested that anger be aimed at NSFOC and not all of TG:

Why don't we aim our anger at the SB? NSFOC has valid concerns.

In my opinion, the SB has bungled this whole thing every step of the way ever since they sold the public on the freshman centers and told us no 3rd high school was needed. Then they formed a committee to study over crowding at the middle school, but stacked the deck for them to come to the decision a 3rd high school was needed. The voters turned down the referendum, so they bought 25 acres at BB anyway and hired an expensive consultant to figure out how to manipulate us all.

Now here we are today (after being threatened with split shifts, etc.) Kids are stuffed into middle schools with no relief in site. They are buying land that they previously told us was unsafe and the costs of the project have escalated dramatically. They will issue bonds in excess of the referendum amount. We don't know the fall out legally from BB yet, but contracts were signed last night to speed ahead on the new site.

They came up with boundary criteria that they didn't apply fairly. They took a walking community away from a school 1 mile away and they wonder why people are upset?

The people bashing those behind NSFOC are doing it IMO because they KNOW there is merit to their concerns about the SB. They can't answer with facts, so they spew hateful comments to stir up community unrest. It's the only way they can think to stop what is a legitimate complaint.

I'm not falling for it - and it's getting old. People can see for themselves what's going on. A train wreck. Thank goodness someone has the courage to stand up and try to stop it.

No one is answering the question...what are you hoping to gain from this lawsuit NSFOC? What is it that you want? Let's stop talking neighborhood and get down to the reality of what this minority thinks their entitled to.

Hi, Anonymous at 8:05.

It's clear that no one from NSFOC will answer your question because they won't admit to the truth. What they want is very clear: They wanted to stay at NVHS. The legal "merits" of their case are absurd: They cannot dictate where the Board builds the school. Their hope is that a lawsuit slows down construction of a new school so their kids remain at NV. This way, they get what they want, and the rest of the district can jump in the lake as far as they are concerned.

They won't answer your question because they would have to admit their selfish motivation.

This is just ridiculous. What a waste of time and money.

Does anyone actually believe that these "concerned parents" would be singing a same tune, if they had been put in NV's boundaries?

This is disgraceful. This isn't about kids going to neighborhood schools. It's about parents wanting their kids to go the "prefered" school. Naperville snobbery at its worse.

In response to PJ's quote:
"To Anonymous 7:34 am who suggested that anger be aimed at NSFOC and not all of TG:
Why don't we aim our anger at the SB? NSFOC has valid concerns."

-my point is TG residents and NSFOC are not the same thing. If you are upset about the lawsuit, you should direct that anger at NFSOC, not all TG residents.
I agree that the SB has made bad decisions and we all should expect better.

The NSFOC doesnt realize that even if they slow down the process, or stop it entirely, the board will have no choice but to change the high school boundries anyway to help the overcrowding issue at Neuqua. So guess what, Tall grass and White Eagle will end up at Waubonsie anyway!!! The last laugh is on them.

>There is a small percentage here that support this lawsuit.

Don't kid yourself, thousands of people are quietly cheering the lawsuit.

Going thru the numerous blogs and communication available to all of us motivated me to attend the last 3 board meetings and 1 high school pta meeting. This by no means makes me an expert on the following but here goes. The meeting last night was very informative on the pipelines running north and south along the far east section of the Eola site. These pipelines are monitored and inspected according to federal protocol. They are also inspected visually on a regular basis. For those concerned about the pipelines on the property, I can only comment these types of pipelines are all around the metro Chicago area. Another words they are near hospitals, schools, churches etc. If there is any doubt about the contents of all three of these pipelines they all transport natural gas, the same gas that heats many of the homes we reside in. The phase 2 results were not discussed in entirety last evening but the board communicated that most of the data came in line and would not be disruptive to the tight time-line for opening the new school. There was much discussion between the board members and Captain Steve D.(superintendent) on the hang up of results on Phase 2. It was then decided that there will be a meeting set up for the public to go over these results. All contracts regarding the third high school had contingencies and one of these contingencies was that the phase 2 results come in satisfactory & THAT THESE RESULTS WILL BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PUBLIC. The emt issue was also gone into quite extensively with the board and many at the meeting learning about electromagnetic fields. I would suggest anyone wanting to learn more to do some of their own research for this is beyond my scope. The education that many received on this topic was thorough and can be summed up as follows. The power lines are almost a football field away from any proposed school buildings, the emts under the power lines are a bit higher but if you were to figure the power lines were in the "end zone" by the time you walked to the 8 yard line the emts would be that of background levels. The nearest building would be clear across the field at the 20-25 yard line of the opposing team (220+/- ft. away). This I felt much more comfortable with especially considering there are photographs circulating that makes these various power lines appear much closer, ( I was even concerned enough and went out to the proposed site parked my car and took a peek, the north & east power lines are quite a distance from the proposed buildings. Overall I felt this was one of the most thorough presentations regarding some of the concerns that have been voiced to date. The board will schedule another public meeting regarding the phase 2 results and I hope that meeting will be as informative as last night. By the way I noticed last night's meeting had a little stronger attendance may I encourage more participation in the future I know I have learned a lot and feel attending is worthwhile. If you would like to voice an opinion there are 2 times set aside at these meetings to do so. Just make sure you sign in before the meeting starts.

To reggie regarding your post: "The NSFOC doesnt realize that even if they slow down the process, or stop it entirely, the board will have no choice but to change the high school boundries anyway to help the overcrowding issue at Neuqua. So guess what, Tall grass and White Eagle will end up at Waubonsie anyway!!! The last laugh is on them."

The core TG group that is behind NSFOC definately does NOT agree with your statement. I'm not sure if I do either.

If the 3rd HS was canceled, some communities currently attending NV would need to switch to WV. WE most certainly would. But I'm not so sure TG would. If fact, I think they probably would not.

And again, the leaders of NSFOC, who are all TG residents, definatly believe they would stay at NV.

As far as they are concerned, even a delay of the 3rd HS until 2010 is a win for them, considering some of them have current 8th graders. A delay for even one year would ensure that their current 8th graders would stay at NV all 4 years.

This exposes how the core of NSFOC is using WE to help their current cause, but would quickly throw WE under the buss and gladly send them off to WV, and then TG would happily stay at a still crowded NV.

NSFOC....it IS really, really tough to believe that your motivation for this lawsuit is anything other than simply hanging on to NV for dear life. I haven't heard anything in your arguments that lead me to believe otherwise. Where is the illegality on the board's part? Most people believe and the talk around town is that you just don't want WV, plain and simple.
I actually think the new boundaries finally address equity issues across this district in terms of creating more diverse schools based on racial and economic factors...which is the way it should have always been. WV has unjustly been looked at the the "bad" school simply because the mix of students, as compared to NV, is much more challenging. I applaud the board for these more balanced boundaries.

Anonymous at 9:21,

Dont be to sure!! I have a reliable source that TG will indeed end up at WV anyway. Even if the delay happens, the district's hand will be forced to redo the boundries to help the overcrowding. Welcome to WV, Tall Grass and White Eagle!

I can't speak for NSFOC but I have donated. I think what we want(maybe just what I want) is to get what we voted for. A new school on Brach Brodie. We were told we would either stay in NV or go to the school on the new site. As for the environmental concerns on the EM site, why take a chance? The SB broke their end of the deal, so now we are too. It's that simple, no hard feelings towards our neighbors. The SB has a difficult job, no doubt about it, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable. As a citizen it is not only our right but our duty to challenge elected officials. I have also said before please come to a meeting and grab the microphone and have your say. Just like you were looking for an answer from NSFOC, I am looking for a real live person from this blog to actually say something at a meeting. I doubt you get an official response from NSFOC and I also doubt I hear an NSFOCFraud member actually speak up at a meeting.

reggie,

I hope you are right!!! I was just pointing out what I know for a fact the core NSFOC people believe.

California law:

Proximity to Pressurized Gas, Gasoline, or Sewer Pipeline

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

"I continue to believe there is no need for the third high school based on enrollment and capacity facts as I see them…..”

"I cannot speak for other board members or for the board as a whole....I can only speak for myself...”

--- Christine Vickers

I have a question. Why is Ms. Vickers suddenly voting yes to approve monies to move forward on a high school for which she sees "no need"? That seems irresponsible.
Does she now represent just another member of the board of group think? Or, does she see that the school is inevitable so this is her chance to "stick it" to many of us who voted for the 3rd high school now that the site and boundaries have changed to favor the Eola corridor from which she receives her support. Those yes voters didn't listen to her warnings and now she is going to show them?

Is that the real story?

"I continue to believe there is no need for the third high school based on enrollment and capacity facts as I see them…..”

Really?

Could have fooled me based on how she votes.

What a shock the Phase II results are delayed to the taxpaying public. Did we expect anything else from this board? In addition to extra lawyers and a 5 year daytimer/calendar, this outfit needs a PR firm as well. When M2 asked for the report, you mean to tell me, he didn't say this report will be a public document. Dr. D said they got the report Friday and the results would be available Monday, now the environmental consulting firm is dictating another delay. It's kinda like getting medical records from your own doctor isn't it? Whose report is it anyway, there's or ours? I'm against NSFOC's lawsuit but doesn't this SB realize that any further mis-communication just adds fuel to the fire. Always manana, manana...(tomorrow).... and the check is in the mail.

Jim Jandick,

Thanks for the informative post on what was learned last night at the SB meeting. The site is safe, though many are going to continue to push forward on an endless tirade.

If everyone will take a moment to look at how the school board "balanced" all the schools populations here is the data from the 2007 school report cards reflecting the new boundaries:

NVHS minorities 27% low income 1.6 population 3967

WVHS minorities 42% low income 8.7 population 2657

MVHS minorities 43% low income 7.8 population 2653

Anonymous 11:43 p.m.

I don't remember Brookdale/Springbrook presenting only self-less arguments at last years boundary meetings. I was at every public meeting. In fact, most of Brookdale/Springbrook speakers argued why Brookdale should go to Metea(BB) and Springbrook should stay at NVHA. Self-less? I heard plenty of pleas about split schools (Brookdale) and our closest school (Springbrook). Funny, that's exactly what the current SW unhappy people want. Then when it was decided that Brookdale was to stay at WV there was a lot of shouting and swearing and stomping out. Threats to a school board member, I do believe. I don't judge all of Brookdale because of that one person. But some are sure ready to judge all of TG based on someone's negative words last year.

And the Brookdale/Springbrook lawsuits never came to fruition because in the end those two schools got what they wanted. So to try to make them(you?) out as being any different than TG/WE is really kind of laughable.

"I can't speak for NSFOC but I have donated. I think what we want(maybe just what I want) is to get what we voted for. A new school on Brach Brodie."

Again, "A new school on BB land" is NOT what you voted for. I can't understand why it is that you (and the NSFOC) don't understand this. BB was not on the ballot. What about the rest of us who voted for the 3rd school without any misconceptions over where it would be located. I voted for a new school, that's it. You wonder why this group comes across as so self centered? You really expect us to believe that the SB "promised" you anything? Even if that was true (which I highly doubt) why should this area be making deals with the SB? Honestly, that just sounds soooo self-important that your group can some how make deals with the SB for what it wants and then you expect to be paid back. That actually sounds pretty dirty on BOTH sides. I guess the rest of us just don't rate that well. Anyone else get together with their neighborhood to "make a deal" with the SB? Brighton Ridge, did you make a deal? Buttonwood how about you? Um, you've left a lot of "hard feelings" with your neighbors...that happens when you sue them.

"The SB has a difficult job, no doubt about it, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable"

Held accountable for what? Being fiscally responsible by walking away from BB when the price sky-rocketed? The majority of us in the district would have gone through the roof had the district paid that price just to satisfy a minority.

I have heard the same information that has been listed above. Even if something happens to that 3rd high school property we will re district and WE and Fry will still be at WV. What a waste of money this lawsuit is. Try giving it to a family in need or a sick child.

How about everyone leave boundaries out of the discussion and compile a report on costs. Construction costs, operational costs, transportation costs. Also look at current enrollment numbers. Then have a discussion about what is best for our community.

Maybe then we can all see our state of the union without any personal bias and make the right choice for us all and hopefully come together as a community. Will it really matter in 20-30 years from now? Will anyone's child have really suffered?

I live in District 204 and am thankful for the great teachers we are fortunate to have in our district no matter which school my children attend. I hope you all realize the same.

I ask the school board to step up, be held accountable, lead this community, and put a stop to this for once and for all.

And yes, my children will potentially change schools and be split from others. But what matters is, we stop this and make thoughtful decisions going forward. Please give real thought to your comments and make sure they are productive and you would say them at a board meeting with everyone in attendance including your children.

Jim J.,
Thank you so much for the above post! I appreciate the info. as I was unable to attend the meeting last night. I actually drove by the Eola site on Saturday 3/8 at approx. 5:00 p.m. and witnessed a gentleman in khaki slacks taking the pictures of the power lines from the Eola bridge on the Northern part of the property. I had a pretty good idea what his motives might be and sure enough, soon after, I went to the NSFOC website and there were the pictures.
I did not see one picture of the ACTUAL school location site in the "slide show".
If you stand at the intersection of Eola and Molitor RD.(entrance to Harris Farms sub.) you will be staring at the large, open site acreage. You will also see lots of homes right next to it on the South (Cambridge Chase Sub). To the North you will see a grove of mature trees. A little further North you will see a road. Even further North you will see a bridge that goes above Eola. North of that is a small building that was an animal hospital(mostly equestrian patients:) for many years. North of that will be the old land where the power lines are located. These are the pictures you see posted on the NSFOC website. Adjacent to the lines is Diehl Road.

Folks, it is WRITTEN into the contract that the school being built is contingent on the safety results.NOONE in this district would stand for an unsatisfactory safety issue. There was and is NO need for a lawsuit based on this.

STOP giving your money to the NSFOC for this reason.Those who joined the NSFOC with legitimate concerns are being played by the organizers. They are suing for ONE reason. So their middle schoolers (eighth graders) can go to Neuqua and stay there by the time the process is done being tangled up with the suit.

They don't care whether a third school is built or not. By that time it won't affect them personally any more....ALL they want and "need" at this point is the injunction relief part of the motion. This alone would satisfy their timelines and personal goals. Let your voices be heard today at the Dupage County website.

The school bus analogy is good. But I'll go further. What if the school board handed out menu's that said we were going to Mc donalds and then switched to Burger King at the last minute? You're on the bus you've thrown your support and money at going to McDonalds and your being busjacked to BurgerKing. I'll bet you'd be pissed too. Now that being said you can't change the fact that the land is now to expensive. The courts have ruled. Your children need the facility soon. I believe the school district is to blame for the bad feelings everyone has. Yes the bus ride will be a bit longer for your children but children on the northside of town face this everyday now don't they? I'm afraid as the song goes "it's not the distance it's the ride" applys here. It's difficult to accept that your school may not be right down the street but your children will recieve the same level of education as that is district wide. Put your disgust where it belongs back on the district because they started this bus up

California law:

Proximity to Pressurized Gas, Gasoline, or Sewer Pipeline

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

Posted by: Anonymous | March 11, 2008 10:24 AM
Thanks. I don't think that particular California law applies to Illinois but I guess it's good that the pipelines on the EMF property were natural gaslines...nothing hazardous.

Hey Nosuchthingasneutral, let's try not to judge and call names. If you want to call me something you can do that in person anytime you want, let me know. I'm pretty sure the SB had been in negotiations with BB at the time of the referendum, what were we supposed to think? If they weren't promising BB, can you produce a document with another property name on it that they were seriously considering? As for the price of the property, they are going to be into BB for few more million after they(the taxpayers) lose next week. BTW, whoever is posting these notes for the Sun is goofing up the names. I think the easiest thing to do is put it out to a vote with the actual property, boundaries and costs. If it passes you won't hear another word out of me. I do realize we already did vote, but it wasn't for this.

Dear for the love of....,

How would you feel about a requirement that all 204 administrators and teachers have to live within the district?

They should be subject to the pain of the same tax bills we all experience.

I think you are missing the point. Make a clear decision without bias that is financially responsible. Emphasis on financially responsible.

I am not sure how our teachers are responsible for the mess the school board is putting everyone through.

Thank you for being civil.

Hey Anon, no, SHAME ON YOU!!!! You pose open-ended questions to partial quotes taking what she posted out of context. The answers you need are right in front of your face. SHAME ON YOU for selectively picking and chosing the words you want for your own agenda! All the information you need for your inquiry is there. I repost them the ENTIRE quote below. SHAME ON YOU!!!!

"With regard to your "yes voter" comment, the reason I supported the site was out of respect to the 2006 voter majority not because my opinion has changed. As an elected official I believe I have a duty to uphold the will of the voters on a voter-approved initiative. As you know, the 2006 voters overturned a 2005 "no vote" against the third high school. Quite frankly, my hands have officially been tied."

School teachers and their unions are often huge proponents of building new schools, necessary or not, which they see as helping their membership through the creation of new jobs. Plus, they very often help control the school boards by getting union candidates elected. D203 is a prime example. The union practically bought the last election with all the money they gave to candidates and groups that acted as shells. They should reap what they sow.

Where were you? I assume you mean "weak" attempt due to the fact she had six board members and the Supt Crouse down her throat faster than she could open her mouth to speak not to mention a majority of board and referendum proponents threatening her. If you think it's easy to be an independent thinker on this board, why don't you run for a 2009 seat!

Nosuchthingasneutral:

Who should move out of NV instead of Tall Grass? You talk about the SW people wanting the closest school, but to do that someone else would have to move out of NV. Who should it be, based on total distance traveled to WVHS? Someone closer to WVHS and NVHS or someone close to NVHS but much further away from WVHS? Please give us a logical suggestion as to who should be moved instead of Tall Grass.

>my hands have officially been tied

Nonsense. No hands were tied.

After 3 years of opposing the high school and repeatedly asking for more information and due diligence and then stating "there is no need for the third high school based on enrollment and capacity facts", in a matter of weeks Ms. Vickers helped rush into a site previously deemed unsafe, rushed new boundaries and starting approving monies for a school for which she "sees no need".

Talk about flip-flopping.

SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER OATH OF OFFICE

"I further swear (or affirm) that:

"I shall respect taxpayer interests by serving as a faithful protector of the school district's assets....

http://www.iasb.com/elections/oath.cfm

Protecting our assets by approving the expenditure of monies for which she sees "no need"?

Wow, really?

I actually drove by the Eola site on Saturday 3/8 at approx. 5:00 p.m. and witnessed a gentleman in khaki slacks taking the pictures of the power lines from the Eola bridge on the Northern part of the property. I had a pretty good idea what his motives might be and sure enough, soon after, I went to the NSFOC website and there were the pictures. I did not see one picture of the ACTUAL school location site in the "slide show". Folks, it is WRITTEN into the contract that the school being built is contingent on the safety results. ....NOONE in this district would stand for an unsatisfactory safety issue. There was and is NO need for a lawsuit based on this. STOP giving your money to the NSFOC for this reason.Those who joined the NSFOC with legitimate concerns are being played by the organizers. They are suing for ONE reason. So their middle schoolers (eighth graders) can go to Neuqua and stay there by the time the process is done being tangled up with the suit. They don't care whether a third school is built or not. By that time it won't affect them personally any more....ALL they want and "need" at this point is the injunction relief part of the motion. This alone would satisfy their timelines and personal goals. Let your voices be heard today at the Dupage County website.
Posted by: NSFOC (no school for OUR children...we don't care what happens after that..)

Dear No School For Our Children, Anonymous, re the pictures on NSFOC site,

I know the guy who took the pictures. He was not wearing Kaki slacks that day, but why do you use THAT for credibility? This man was motivated by Arch the blogger on ProBoards76, a concerned parent who is worried about the site. He went there to see it for himself, as many people should do I think. The site is between that pedestrian bridge over Eola runs south to AME sign on Eola, then east to the RR tracks. He took pictures of the worst places because those places are of paramount concern and have not been seen. His cell phone ran out of memory because he snapped too many shots of the area. The rest of the property looks like normal property - sure that's all you'll see from the district. Please stand back and recognize that some parents are concerned enough to ask questions. PR from newspapers presenting unbalanced views will not stop these parents from finding out the truth. The guy joined NSFOC. He thanks Arch and hopes Arch will step forward and be counted in real life.

Quote from March 11, 2008 11:02 AM

"Folks, it is WRITTEN into the contract that the school being built is contingent on the safety results.NOONE in this district would stand for an unsatisfactory safety issue. There was and is NO need for a lawsuit based on this."

Too bad the School board's "expert" on the pipelines are the guys that own and operate the lines. That's kind of like buying a used car from a mechanic, and the mechanic says the car is in perfect working order. Can you really trust that mechanic, or does he just want to sell you a car??

To Anonymous, March 11, 12:09 PM

Your Post: School teachers and their unions are often huge proponents of building new schools, necessary or not, which they see as helping their membership through the creation of new jobs. Plus, they very often help control the school boards by getting union candidates elected. D203 is a prime example. The union practically bought the last election with all the money they gave to candidates and groups that acted as shells. They should reap what they sow.

My Response: Unions have nothing to do with electing a Superintendent or a Board Member. The board hires the Superintendent and not the union. The teacher’s of 204 were not involved in hiring our new Superintendent, neither was the union.

From Newspaper:
Earlier in the evening, the district reviewed its long-term financial outlook, which shows the district maintaining a cumulative surplus of $91 million at the end of the year. That amount is equal to roughly 35 percent of its operating budget, and it is projected to fall to roughly 20 percent – or $61 million, by 2012, which is now the earliest date District 204 administrators can foresee seeking an operating fund tax increase.

Dr. MM, SB President:
We would like OUR $ back now, not in 2 years. $91 million surplus? How did that happen with our supposed tax assessment and collection regulations? No wonder why our SB ignores the public. They are exceedingly wealthy with OUR $!

NSFOC, if you see this...add that to your lists of questions. I'm going to join that group I think. They seem to be the only group who will stand up to this incompetent SB. The many of the rest of you seem to be less than brave, or very challenged in the areas of math, safety, logic and fiscal reesponsibility. The majority always gets what they ask for, no matter how it turns out in the end.

Can you imagine this headline, "Kinder Morgan comes to school board meeting and says pipelines are unsafe"?

Kinder Morgan says it's safe, it must be.

Think about it!

I suggest a do over new vote. If they can do it in a presidential race(Florida and Michigan) can't they do it in 204. If it passes by a majority then so be it. People will live with the decision and move on.

Dear No School For Our Children, Anonymous, re the pictures on NSFOC site,

I know the guy who took the pictures. He was not wearing Kaki slacks that day, but why do you use THAT for credibility? This man was motivated by Arch the blogger on ProBoards76, a concerned parent who is worried about the site. He went there to see it for himself, as many people should do I think. The site is between that pedestrian bridge over Eola runs south to AME sign on Eola, then east to the RR tracks. He took pictures of the worst places because those places are of paramount concern and have not been seen. His cell phone ran out of memory because he snapped too many shots of the area. The rest of the property looks like normal property - sure that's all you'll see from the district. Please stand back and recognize that some parents are concerned enough to ask questions. PR from newspapers presenting unbalanced views will not stop these parents from finding out the truth. The guy joined NSFOC. He thanks Arch and hopes Arch will step forward and be counted in real life.

Posted by: ConcernedFather | March 11, 2008 12:52 PM

ConcernedFather,
Thanks for the response.After 26 pictures being taken where the school will NOT be built, I am not surprised his camera phone ran out of battery. I just found it a rather ironic choice of "disclosure" on the "search for truth" NSFOC website shall we say. I'll have to look at my camera phone and double check on the khaki pants...I figured I might as well take a picture too.I don't need any evidence for credibility...just stating what happened.
I am also a concerned parent and have asked plenty of questions...I guess the difference is that I see no evidence for a lawsuit today. I do see people searching very diligently for shreds of information to support their "cause"....as if working backwards from the lawsuit to find info. to plug in as a rationale.
I(and many others) have NO problem being the first to sue if the board would choose to move forward on a property deemed unsafe by final results...but that is already written into the purchase contingency and the final results are not completed.

If this is truly the impetus of the suit, why not hire your own specialists to assess the sight instead of relying on public safety agencies that we trust daily with our safety in our homes? This money could go toward alleviating your true concerns with the sight and not into Mr. Collin's pocket (has he done any EMF testing for you or is he just trying to work on the "injunction relief"?...There is no basis for a lawsuit at this moment in regards to environmental issues. I can only conclude that the lawsuit is being driven (hence supported by propaganda where you find it)by something OTHER than the "safety card". I just hope that diligent, concerned people don't get caught up in the agendas of leaders with far different motives. That's all....

From the NSFOC site: "2006: Referendum for new high school is passed by the voters based on the price ($124.66 million), the location (BB), and the boundaries presented by the SB and Admin."

This is only their perception, not truth. How can these people get any with this stuff? I hope that the court disposes of them swiftly.

You think about it, Anonymous 1:21. It isn't just the school district that would have liability if a pipeline leaked/blew up. Kinder Morgan has every incentive to operate and maintain their assets in a safe manner. They would have no incentive to encourage the construction of a school near a pipeline if there was a major safety issue.

As for the guy who used the used car/mechanic analogy: Exactly what is Kinder Morgan selling to the school district? NOTHING.

For the life of me, I cannot understand the blind trust in a school board that has made one bad decision after another for the past five years. If you think some TG residents have gone nuts because of the fear of the "WVHS effect" on property values, look at what is happening here. Some residents who may benefit from having MVHS in their backyard just want to get the deal done ASAP. Who cares if the guy telling you it's safe is the same guy trying to sell it to you?

What's the harm in slowing this down so we don't have to add one more collosal bad decision onto this pile of ...

From Newspaper:
Earlier in the evening, the district reviewed its long-term financial outlook, which shows the district maintaining a cumulative surplus of $91 million at the end of the year. That amount is equal to roughly 35 percent of its operating budget, and it is projected to fall to roughly 20 percent – or $61 million, by 2012, which is now the earliest date District 204 administrators can foresee seeking an operating fund tax increase.

Response:
Why is the surplus DROPPING 20 percent by 2012? Are we operating in a deficit? Or will the new 3rd High School create the deficit?

>Unions have nothing to do with electing a Superintendent or a Board Member

If you don't believe that the teachers' union dumps money into school board elections, then you really have no idea what you are talking about.

I suggeest you keep reading the paper for a few more weeks and then you are welcome to come back here an admit you were wrong.

The teachers' union controls the school board and gets school board members elected. Dr. D inherited the problems from administration and the board but he's been less than stellar and professional considering he gets paid a quarter million a year.

We all keep hearing about how the referendum didn't mention a specific sight, right? Well, the referendum didn't mention projected enrollment numbers either, did it? But I bet if you voted at all you voted at least in part, if not entirely, based on what you read, heard, about enrollment from the SB and admin. right? After all, this was about addressing overcrowding. So, while it might not stand in a court of law, you at least have to acknowledge that what the Board says, does, presents, promotes, etc. to the public DOES have a bearing on how people vote. It is not as simple as people "not understanding what they were voting for".

Now, part two. It is a known fact - a known fact - that the numbers the Board represented as defense for the need of a 3rd H.S. were off - yes, incorrect - by close to 2000 kids. By its 3rd year of existence (the first two which, by the way, will cause INCREASED crowding at WV) student enrollment will be declining. This is district info - not people doing their own crazy version of math. So, this school being built looks to be, by and large, a monumental waste.

Anyway, if we are stuck with it, based on the referendum, the Board could at least do a better job of picking the place to build it - and we should do a better job of trying to influence that. Maybe it's not too late if enough people get behind it (and I don't necessarily mean by supporting the lawsuit). Why? Even if you are not caught up in the site/boundary fiasco today, don't get too comfortable, because you might be down the road. Here's why..........

As the enrollments decline and the small percentage (15%) of student population in the northern end of the district declines in particular, where do you think the SB is going to go fishing in the years to come to find kids to fill the big new school that is almost as far north as Butterfield Road? That's right - central district keeps getting bused north, south keeps getting bused central. Can't let a shiny new school sit too empty. That would be the proverbial egg on the face, wouldn't it? So, more movement of kids out of their neighborhoods, more buses, more travel time, more travel expense.

So, this is just something to think about beyond this disgraceful, chaotic place we now find ourselves in. All of the neighborhoods who have been "up for discussion" regarding movement before, may some day again be just that. Targets seem to be those west of Rt.59, north of 95th street, and those considered to be more islandish, i.e. Owen.
If we are really going to have to suck this up due to bad information - on the ballot, or not - then shouldn't the school at least be closer to where the majority of the student population is? That might leave the north siders feeling left out in the cold, and no harm is intended. But the demographics are what they are - the majority of the students live south. The only future growth of any significance can only occur in the south. It is just how the district has developed over time.

We are told BB is too expensive. The condemnation suit says we will pay "whatever the jury decides". What happened there? Did we not mean it, or more bad judgement on what the cost would actually be? Also, we clearly had an open checkbook when the Board pursued quick take powers for BB...had those been granted by the Illinois General Assembly, we'd have BB half built by now, and we would have started building NOT KNOWING WHAT THE JURY VERDICT ON THE PRICE WAS EVEN GOING TO BE! It could've been 800,000/acre and certainly there would have been no walking away once the project started. So, why we can't afford it now, I'm not sure, and it doesn't really matter. The Eola site will be no monumental saving either, which many folks seem to still believe is the "responsible" fiscal choice, since the SB will not be allowed to abandon BB at no cost. We will foot the bill for the BB attorney fees (5M, or so), in addition to whatever damages BB sues us for (anywhere from 5-20M) for not following through on the condenmation suit filed by the Board. All that money only to turn around and build the school where there is no viable, sustaining student population. Does it make sense?

So, please stay above the fray of insulting your neighbors who are impacted now.......down the road, it could be you.

3 Mile Island was safe...until it wasn't....

A study in 2005 looked at how close children lived to high voltage power lines when they were born. The aim of the study was to find out if this affected their chance of getting leukaemia. It found that children who lived within 200 metres from these lines had an increased risk of getting leukaemia. It also showed a smaller increase in risk for children living between 200 and 600 metres from these lines.

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=3946

I can't imagine we are going to build a school in a location that no person in their right mind would even consider building a house?

On top of that, it will kill the resale value of the property when enrollment declines and we need to sell it. Who would want to buy it?

I believe that in the long run Brach-Brodie will be purchased and the boundaries changed again.

It is the only thing that makes sense.

to monstercreatingselfabsorbedjerk:

Where in my post do I call anyone names? Are you reading the right post? Posts are above the name. I think you may be referring to what is below my name, but it was hard to tell since there wasn't exactly name-calling in that one either..

Yo, anonymous at 2:19, AMEN Brother!

to Anonymous 12:43.

You asked who should move out of NVHS, so SW can move in.

That's not the real question. I think they should relocate the new school site to where it is needed and re-do the boundaries based on the established criteria (for real this time). Where they put the school will determine who stays at NVHS and who goes.

A nice plot of land down in the SW corner should be sufficient. Actually I am not sure the new school is even needed anymore. That has to be re-proven.

To Anonymous | March 11, 2008 01:52 PM:

If Kinder Morgan actually thought there was a safety issue, would they tell us?

Pipelines can fail from 2 sources. Someone hitting by the pipeline by digging and corrosion. I didn't hear from any metal experts on corrosion, did you?

To Anonymous 2:32,

Do you not see the homes that are already build adjacent to the proposed school sight? The pictures on the NSFOC web page picture the school directly under the power lines. Those power lines are on Diehl road acutally. The school sight is nestled next to a residential neighborhood which has been there for years. There children atend are fine schools. I havent read in any paper any of their kids that are sick or glow in the dark or anything. Why is it ok for them but it cant be ok for you?

To answer why a lawsuit was filed before the envirenmental studies were even done?

I think that the SB and District were ready to to steam roll this land through if a lawsuit was not filed. Contracts were signed, clsoing dates were announced and it was declared that there were no expected problems before any envirenmental phase studies were even started (even though the Board had excluded this site two years ago because of envirenmental concerns).

Perhaps all of the data will come back and contradict the earlier comments by the Board indicating that this site was unsafe. I am just grateful that this has been slowed down and that the folks down south who have no children going to the school are footing the bill (ha-ha).

I am especially concerned that after reviewing the results, the Board has backed off Dr. Daeschner's promise to release the phase II studies yesterday. Please....for the sake of our kids, let's take some time to make sure this site is safe (and then let TG and WE argue all they want about going to NV)!

Just how do propose the SB purchase BB? Are you putting up the money?

I will start by saying that I was motivated to become more informed due to the health hazards the Eola site presents for my children.

Now I find out from the paper today that we are sitting on 91 million dollars in excess operating funds.

There are so many enviromental problems with the Eola site (wetlands/pipelines/EMF exposure/chemical contamination). And now I find out we can, in fact, afford a safe site for our children but our School Board has chosen not to purchase Brach Brodie and instead spend our money buying the mountain of problems that come with the Eola site and paying off the Brach Brodie attorneys.

It is really unthinkable to me. If they were really that concerned about being "fiscally responsible" they would be sticking to the real budget that we voted on - $124,660,000. The Eola site is coming in well above that. And I found out from the district's own financial analysis that purchasing Brach-Brodie at the jury award price and opening the school in 2010 would put us over the "new budget" by 3 million dollars. So they are choosing a sick site to save 3 million dollars and keep 91 million in the bank. This is a sad day in our school district.

Home ownership has always been part of the American Dream. Most parents strive to give their children an even better life and opportunities than they have had themselves. A child's school and educational opportunities play a vital role in that goal. As parents aspire to work hard and give their kids the safest and most positive environment in which to grow, they should not be faulted or called nasty names because they seek to provide the safest experience for their children.

What parent would want to have their child on a bus for a half hour or probably much longer to attend a school that is seven plus miles from home when there is a school less than one mile from the home they worked so hard to attain? SAFETY IS THE ISSUE!!! And that safety issue can affect home values too!! These parents and homeowners are not protesting student diversity in any way. If WV was a mile away, this protest would not have occurred. Who wants to wait for a bus (probably in the dark) and then sit on a bus that fights the dense traffic of Naperville every day twice a day??? The longer the ride, the more the risk of heavy traffic and accidents.

As a realtor for more than twenty-two years, it has been my experience that people want to have their schools as close as possible so as to avoid any long bus rides and to be able to enjoy extra curricular activities etc. more easily. They also want to know that where their children spend most of their day is a safe environment that is free of any environmental hazards.
WALK A MILE IN THEIR SHOES!!!

"Who cares if the guy telling you it's safe is the same guy trying to sell it to you?"

The IEPA will have the final say as to the site's safety. The district can't build until IEPA signs off....not just some guy. Let's get the facts straight.

I keep seeing people saying that we will save 13 million dollars by buying the EOLA site instead of BB. How do educated and intelligent residents come up with this number?

There is likely going to be at least 10 million dollars in damages for backing out of the BB land purchase (and THIS COULD BE MORE). If BB was purchased, there would be no such damages. Thus, doing simple math...the difference looks something like 3 million dollars....not 13 million dollars.

3 million dollars out of 150 million does not seem unreasonable given the location and envirenmental issues tied to the EOLA land and the fact that for 2 years the District has yelled from the mountaintops (and declared under oath) that the BB land is the best solution for the entire District.

It was reported that BB called Mr. Metzger in the last few days to see if they could negotiate a reasonable number (presumably less than the 31 million verdict) BUT THAT NO ONE WILL EVEN CALL BACK). What if BB was willing to cut another 3 million off to get this behind us?

Seems like pride may be coming before the fall!

Was just forwared an email from NSFOC supporters telling me about the Sun on-line poll about whether I support the lawsuit.

Even though everyone agrees that the poll is unscientific and easily manipulated, it sure seems important to some to have a certain "marketable" outcome.

A HA!

Now I get it!

NSFOC is made of parents with kids currently at NV. They know their lawsuit won't fly, but are hoping it will DELAY the construction of Metea so their poor babies won't have to be moved from NV before they graduate.

Gotta love the dramatic examples. 3-Mile Island??!! I didn't realize the school was being built by a nuclear power plant. (FYI: No one was injured in the 3-Mile Island accident. Even if there had been a school right beside it, there would have been no injuries - there was no release of radiation.)

And your cancer study - why didn't you bother to print the last sentences in the paragraph?

"These results are not straightforward. No one can say for sure if living close to high voltage power lines increases the risk of leukemia, and even the researchers say these results could be due to other factors or chance."

This environmental scaremongering has got to stop. Let the test results speak for themselves.

Dear No School For Our Children, Anonymous, re the pictures on NSFOC site,

I know the guy who took the pictures. He was not wearing Kaki slacks that day, but why do you use THAT for credibility? This man was motivated by Arch the blogger on ProBoards76, a concerned parent who is worried about the site. He went there to see it for himself, as many people should do I think. The site is between that pedestrian bridge over Eola runs south to AME sign on Eola, then east to the RR tracks. He took pictures of the worst places because those places are of paramount concern and have not been seen. His cell phone ran out of memory because he snapped too many shots of the area. The rest of the property looks like normal property - sure that's all you'll see from the district. Please stand back and recognize that some parents are concerned enough to ask questions. PR from newspapers presenting unbalanced views will not stop these parents from finding out the truth. The guy joined NSFOC. He thanks Arch and hopes Arch will step forward and be counted in real life.

Is this the famous Eagle Dad?

Is he behind the NSFOC??

Maybe

"3 Mile Island was safe...until it wasn't...."

That is an excellent point, Anonymous 2:32. To wit, no one has mentioned ANYTHING about the excessive amounts of Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) contaminates at the Eola site.

I encourage everyone concerned with the level of toxins at Eola to check out this website for the COMPLETE story on DHMO!!!! http://www.dhmo.org/

This from the website -- Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.

NSFOC people, please talk to your webmaster and get this link added to the NSFOC website! The more education we can provide the community about DHMO at Eola, the better!!!!

to "next | March 10, 2008 03:37 PM",\

Pull it out! De facto documentation has won many lawsuits, and I believe it will be important to this one.

The Board President sent it to voters ---- period!

All of the meetings had speeches and signs stating the location ---- period!

The boundaries is NOT as strong an issue for the lawsuit. The rest may not be gold, but it is shiny and expensive!

I have been involved with NSFOC and I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty....this is not about TG going to NVHS.

I think it is pretty clear that Tallgrass is NOT going to NVHS no matter what happens!

This is also not about going to WVHS. I think I can also tell you with pretty clear certainty that even if the school is built on BB or another site that has not been ruled out as being unsafe in the past, WE and TG may still go to WVHS (which is fine with almost every person I have spoken with in TG and WE).

This is about integrity, safety, fiscal responsibility and due diligence, and this is about the lack of respect that has been demonstrated by Dr. Daeschner and certain Board members.

I would think that this lawsuit could be dropped tomorrow if the Board and Admin promised to slow down, start fresh and evaluate a list of new sites and select the new location (even if it is not BB) based on the same analysis it prepared in the past. I can assur ethe choice may not be BB...but it also would not be the EOLA site.

I know that the arguement by the District is that they can not afford the costs of waiting another few months...but then how can we afford the costs of trying to build a school in 18 months that we heard last night would need 25 months to build (the answer is paying potentially millions of extra dollars in ovetime costs to have people work 19 hour days, 6 days a week).

I just feel sad! I believe that Metea will be built and that "The New Great WVHS" that the board members talked about is only a figment of their imagination. The new WV is made up of the struggling schools in the district and those who are so desperate not to be there that they will file a lawsuit to stop it.
WE & TG parents PLEASE spend your time focusing on what will be at WVHS when you get there. I almost cried when it was announced our stable principal was leaving. We need to make sure that many of our fine teachers don't get taken away with him. We have wonderful teachers at WVHS and we want to keep as many of them there as possible! SOME members of the school board are clueless of the the needs as WVHS so we all need to band together to make a great place for our kids.

Bottom line - this lawsuit is ludicrous - the concern about a lawsuit should be how it would impact the students. The unfortunate thing is this is going to cost the schools money. It will take money away from the kids.

We all voted on a 3rd high school not a site. Brach-Brodie was not on ANYONES ballot. The so called "environmental" concerns are so obviously bougous and a huge waste of not only everyone's money but more importantly the infringement of the education of our children. This is getting very personal - Whoever suggested forming a group to counter sue Todd Andrews and his group might have a good idea here on grounds of filing a frivolous law suit - lack of personal jurisdiction - as the filers on record are not in the boundaries of proposed school
These efforts to try and derail the wishes of the (until now - silent) majority who very clearly favor moving forward with the third high school at AME at a $13 million savings versus Brach Brodie.
For those who can't bear to send their children to Waubonsie, there are other choices out there - please use your money here and stop this selfishness.

(editor's note: this was posted on another thread, and it seemed like the commenter intended to post it here.)

Yes, we must have more tests for DMHO before moving forward. How could we have missed this?! The safety of the children depends upon it!!!

Yesterday while I was geared up in my hazmat suit and at the Eola school site, I think I saw a gray bat. I'm pretty sure that its an endangered species. Better blow a call to the US fish and wildlife dept.

Why are the resident of TALL GRASS complaining about POWER LINES at the Eola site when they have POWER LINES running through their neighborhood? You can't miss them and I'm sure you've all noticed them. I guess when it comes down to it, POWER LINES must be okay, or why else would they choose to live next to them? And Kinda contradictory isn't it?

>These results are not straightforward. No one can say for sure if living close to high voltage power lines increases the risk of leukemia

So we should take a chance that children will get leukaemia?
I think not.

You can not believe anything the district tells you!

Enough is enough.

Fight the district and pledge your support at

http://www.nsfoc.org/

Read the complaint at

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

Brookdale also voted no because as they said they were concerned about a split in MS, even though the MS boundaries were not completed. Now look at all the splits, so the Brookdale residents can have a hs. Brookdale wanted out of WVHS, that was their motive. Now they critize others for not wanting to go to WVHS, but that isn't even what the lawsuit is for.

To MH: who wrote "poor babies"

Resorting to name calling seems to be something TG is not doing to other neighborhoods. Funny how the ones who are protesting the most about actions and lawsuits of "others" are the ones who have resorted to name-calling. It's like you can't dispute the facts, so the best you can do is say malicious things about kids and parents you don't even know. Diversion, I'd say.

To the person who wanted to "annex" TG. Did you know that annex means to add or join or incorporate?

It is is really hard to argue that the SB picked the best site for the district and that they optimized their own criteria. I would like to hear the anti-lawsuit people defend how the school location is the best for the district and how the boundaries balanced enrollment (Neuqua left as huge) balanced diversity (Neuqua 25% minorities, other two - 40%) and minimized transportation (north site, bussing longer distances for many). Oh and minimized splitting of schools (Still and Scullen - split at the middle school level).

There are also those involved in the lawsuit who do not want to leave WVHS. Get the facts and stop labelling certain areas. Please blame your SB/Administration. Email them and express your concerns. Tell them to be honcest and communicate with the taxpayers.

There are 1000 homes in TG plus some large number (250?) more if you add Penncross Knolls and Remington. There are probably 50 homes backed up to those power lines. Maybe that 4-5% doesn't care. But potentially the other 95% could care. I wouldn't buy a house that backed to them.

rush to open;

Duh.... the school board is going to pick a sight that is in their best interest because that is the intrest of the school district. That is why they were elected!

- Jeanette Clark wants a site in the north so she shafted the south and her neighborhood Brookdale is elated

- Jeanette Clark did everything she could to get kids from her neighborhood - Brookdale - out of WVHS

- Alka Tyle did everything she could to get Springbrook out of WVHS and shafted other neighborhoods in the process

- Bruce Glaw didn't want WE to be alone in going to WVHS so he pulled along TG and others

- Metzger wanted to prop up WVHS and MVHS in Aurora - his city

- Its all about people shafting others to get their neighborhoods special deals

- The SB did not negotiate BB in good faith - they still don't want to negotiate even though they are facing damages and BB reached out to them

- The SB is rushing to close the EM site so parents don't hear how it is going to cost more because of the BB damages

- The SB did not negotiate with Macom because they wanted a site that served their neighborhoods

- The only recourse in the short term is legal for those that have been shafted

to: school board sucks,

Clarks daughter will graduate from WV next year so you are way off base here.

Do you question the NSFOC's real motives? Visit http://www.nsfocfraud.com. In 48 hours, over 600 members of the Silent Majority have registered on our site. We invite you to review the facts and do the same.

school board sucks:

Exactly what I was thinking! Great response.

Reggie - I don't think Clark did this for her own child. WVHS is a fine school. But her house remains in the neighborhood. And her "neighbors with kids who still haven't entered into HS" are getting what they wanted - a North school. A location that makes no sense.

The suit is working!! The SB is finally sharing information with the parents. ALthough not all of it there is at least a recognition by the AD and SB that the parents need to know.

Dr D. Keep it up and now bring the parents to the table to review their other concerns. Maybe you can teach a really old dog new tricks.

For those of you willing to throw other people's children "under the bus", as the school board is -

Would all of you be willing to have your children sit on the bus for 45 minutes each way regardless of how long it actually takes them to get to school?

Would you choose to put your child in danger - crossing dangerous railroad tracks and in rush hour traffic - even if you didn't have to?

Uhuh! I thought not. Walk a mile in your neighbors' shoes before you judge!

SB said "someone needed to be sacrificed"! Should those being "sacrificed" go like lambs to slaughter? If you want them to sacrifice their children - what kind of people are you?

Parenting is a raw emotion - if you want to harm my children - be prepared to face my wrath!

This is an unscrupulous, unprincipled, fiscally irresponsible, lying, cheating, ....school board that needs to be stopped!

Join NSFOC and donate generously - the only voice in the wilderness fighting the school board! http://www.nsfoc.org

Here is another famous Mark M quote...

“Absolutely not. Never, ever, ever,” he said. “We made a commitment in September that we will only spend capital funds on this project, and we intend to keep that commitment.”

Lets remember this one in two years when he lies again...

Remember the lies before the referrendum?? "We will buy BB. Even if the condemnation suit is more that we estimate we have reserves. I can't tell you how much since that will show them our cards but we have build into our budget a cushion" The look was also one of how foolish you parents are to think that we the SB and me the attorney will lose this one. Now go home and take care of those kiddies. We'll take care of the rest.

Well Mark.. Maybe we can borrow that "cushion" to sit on while we heal the huge pain in the axx you've created for all of us.

To: school board sucks,

How all of a sudden do the railroad tracks become dangerous? They werent dangerous to those of us who have been crossing them for years. All of a sudden when you have to cross them they are dangerous. OMG get a clue! Again regardless of your pitiful lawsuit WE and TG will end up at WV. Give it up!!!

I CAN NOT BELIEVE THAT THE SB WILL NOT SHARE THE PHASE II RESULTS! This is an insult to our community and yet another broken promise (Daeschner PROMISED we would see it yesterday and they were all too happy to share the Phase I results.... so I do not buy the "we do not have permission" arguement).

Perhaps Midwest Gen and AMES are in fact not giving permission to release the results, but that would indicate there are real concerns.

This started a decade or so ago as a fight between Brookdale and WE.....

Brookdale wanted to go to Neuqua, WE went to Neuqua....this whole mess...the wasted money, the lawsuits, the rancor...is all Brookdale's revenge....Jeanette Clark's revenge....

Unfortunately, others who weren't even in the district at the time when this started are being "sacrificed" by the SB and Brookdale

We could have stopped this....we could have picked a site that made sense based on objective criteria like demographics, geography, safety, cost reduction...but no - Brookdale, Aurora and Springbrook's interests would not have been met if we had been objective...so the choice was made by this lousy school board to "sacrifice" other people's children to serve their nefarious intent.....

The last battle was won by WE a decade ago, this battle may be won by Brookdale, Aurora and Springbrook.....

The war could have stopped.....the school board chose to keep it going....

They could have listened to reason and logic...they chose to humiliate and denigrate...

Most of us are fine going to WVHS, unlike Jeanette Clark's Brookdale and Alka Tyle's Springbrook, but we are not fine with the humiliation and the callous disregard you have shown for our children....hence the war continues....

Except when we win the next battle - we will be fair - we will end this! We will use objective criteria like demographics, geography, safety, cost reduction!

This is an unscrupulous, unprincipled, fiscally irresponsible, lying, cheating, ....school board that needs to be stopped!

Join NSFOC and donate generously - the only voice in the wilderness fighting the school board! http://www.nsfoc.org

"balanced diversity (Neuqua 25% minorities, other two - 40%)"

I think that it will always be tough to "balance" NV due to it's location. I think they did the best they could.

"Perhaps Midwest Gen and AMES are in fact not giving permission to release the results, but that would indicate there are real concerns."

Midwest Gen. isn't calling the shots. The IEPA is overseeing (has overseen) all of this. The IEPA has approved the tests to be conducted and will have the final say as to whether the land is safe to build upon. All of this horrible enviro. speculation has got to stop. If the IEPA gives the sight the thumbs up, it's a go people. that should be good enough for all of you. All of a sudden people are so concerned with enviro. issues but I bet many of you don't even have Radon mitigation in you own homes.

"Would you choose to put your child in danger - crossing dangerous railroad tracks and in rush hour traffic - even if you didn't have to?"

Yet another example of how these NSFOC people and sympathizers are clueless as to what the rest of us has dealt with for years. Sorry you guys, your comments only add credence to the impressions that many of you are a tiny bit elitist. Well, off to a neighborhood wine and cheese....

to "info@nsfocfraud.com "

How can 600 people represent a "silent MAJORITY"? I don't know how many residents there are in District 204, but I'd bet 600 people are not the "majority" of them. Sounds more like a few "loud mouths" stating and restating the same lame arguments over and over. If you think that this is a "fact" - that 600 people are the majority of District 204...then I strongly question the "facts" (more like slanted views) on your website.

Once again everybody's up in arms about the 2009 election and that's fine. But keep in mind that YOU guys re-elected MM to 4 LONG years, so he's in place until 2011. I voted to keep CB but to replace MM and AK. I hope everyone who is soooooo unhappy with the actions of the Board voted last Spring, but somehow I doubt it...

Can someone from Tall Grass please explain to me just what happened in the last School Board election. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't YOUR sub-division put up 2 candidates for the Board? With over 1000 homes in Tall Grass how in the world did both of those candidates get defeated? If you guys really wanted some representation then why didn't you turn out in big numbers to support one of your own?

I'm trying to keep an open mind about all of this, but it really does look like the boundaries are the driving force behind the discontent. The families that I know in TG (who, according to them, were "too busy" to vote in last year's SB election), privately say that they don't want their kids to attend WV. I seriously doubt whether they would say that publicly because of the lashing that bloggers are getting here, but that's how they feel. They are minorities themselves, so I don't think the "diversity" issue that everyone mentions is the issue. I do think some folks are hung up on the cosmetics. NV is the pretty school, and WV shows its age. Maybe the SB should invest some serious $ on renovations to WV -- not just a paint job. Everyone keeps screaming that NV and WV are equals with regard to curriculum, teacher quality, etc., but let's make them look more like equals cosmetically. Probably sounds shallow, but it just might make a difference in people's perceptions.

I wish I was back in Philly. What a bunch of sore losers live here! Now I know why there is such poor sportsmanship at the youth sporting events around here. The apples don't fall far from the tree.

To all those people - probably from Brookdale - who think its ok to put someone else's child in danger because you've had to face danger yourselves - Do you hear what you are saying?

The rational approach would be to put NONE of these children -yours or theirs in danger!

Do you hear how mean spirited and vile you sound!

When we win the next battle - we will be fair - we will end this! We will use objective criteria like demographics, geography, safety, cost reduction!

You may be blinded in your hatred - but we want the best for all children. You may think its ok to harm children - we dont!

No wonder you support the SB - who wants to "sacrifice" children.....

This is an unscrupulous, unprincipled, fiscally irresponsible, lying, cheating, ....school board that needs to be stopped!

Join NSFOC and donate generously - the only voice in the wilderness fighting the school board! http://www.nsfoc.org

Very good point by "justic" about how Tall Grass and others screwed up in the last election.

Things change with time ....2009 ...2011...2013...

....see how Brookdale and Jeanette Clark shafted the whole district to keep Brookdale out of WVHS....see how Alka Tyle shafted the district to keep Springbrook out of WVHS....see how Metzger shafted the whole district to serve Aurora...

Hopefully in the coming years people who think more rationally can come up with better solutions than these losers! Yes, they're losers because of their actions and the mismanagement!

Things change.....elections come and go.....things can change...perhaps this in"justice" will trigger something in those shafted by the SB...

This is an unscrupulous, unprincipled, fiscally irresponsible, lying, cheating, ....school board that needs to be stopped!

Join NSFOC and donate generously - the only voice in the wilderness fighting the school board! http://www.nsfoc.org

Uhuh! I thought not. Walk a mile in your neighbors' shoes before you judge!

SB said "someone needed to be sacrificed"! Should those being "sacrificed" go like lambs to slaughter? If you want them to sacrifice their children - what kind of people are you?

Parenting is a raw emotion - if you want to harm my children - be prepared to face my wrath!

This is an unscrupulous, unprincipled, fiscally irresponsible, lying, cheating, ....school board that needs to be stopped!

Join NSFOC and donate generously - the only voice in the wilderness fighting the school board! http://www.nsfoc.org

Posted by: school board sucks | March 11, 2008 05:30 PM

School Board Sucks,
I can help you. I am a trained professional. Relax and take a deep breath..easy. There is a medication called Ativan. 10mg is an appropriate dose that can be taken po (by mouth) every four hours as needed.Call your doctor.Seriously....

What I find funny about this board is it is the same NSFOC posting all day just under different names. It is the same babble over and over just trying to drum up some support for your cause. If you group is so powerful, why don’t you divulge who is on the board? Perhaps it is you that have something to hide? Perhaps there really is not that much support? Perhaps that is why you cancelled your latest meeting?

I don't understand Illinois politics...but can someone explain to me why we elect officials to represent us, yet we still have to give them permission to do anything via the referrendum process? It's like we're saying, "hey we like you, and we might trust you, but just in case you need to ask for permission before you make any really big decisions."

The reason we appear to be in this predicament is the fact that we handcuffed the SB during the first referrendum. Then, the costs of the BB property went through the roof. And, by the time the second referrendum passed the SD could no longer afford the property.

LET THE SB DO THE JOB WE ELECTED THEM TO DO!

Thanks to the NSFOC a-holes we now have to pay MORE taxes to defend this senseless lawsuit and their inane arguments that are obviously NOT the REAL reasons they are complaining about the Eola property.

NSFOC stands for...
N = Naperville's
S = Self-Righteous
F = Fallible
O = Out
C = Casts
(okay, I know outcasts is one word...but it worked out better this way)..

I took a look at the pipeline report. Are the NSFOC folks now going to ask for Gombert, McCarty and Georgetown schools to be abandoned and moved to new locations?

I would really like to see the new high school get built as soon as possible to avoid over crowding, whether it is at the new location or 10 miles from here. The cost of the Brock Brodie site is way too expensive. Maybe a smaller high school could be built at the Brach Brodie site and be subsidized by paying tuition to attend the school. My earlier preference would have been to build 2 or 3 new smaller high schools instead of one big new one. Smaller schools would be closer for everyone to attend high school and the schools would be smaller giving more children the chance to be in sports programs. I do not understand the benefit of building such huge high schools. Also, why not consider all year round schools to optimize the existing facilities that we already have.

Folks this continual verbal abuse of our board and specific adm. has gone way to far & has a scary feel to it. If your having a bad day and want to vent wonderful, could we keep it more in general terms.
Thanks in advance.

To: reggie
How all of a sudden do the railroad tracks become dangerous? They werent dangerous to those of us who have been crossing them for years. All of a sudden when you have to cross them they are dangerous. OMG get a clue! Again regardless of your pitiful lawsuit WE and TG will end up at WV. Give it up!!!

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

The train tracks are only going to be more dangerous (they have always posed a hazard imho) as the rail traffic will more than double once the merger goes through. There is a blog site here discussing this issue without much opposition to the merger. Please feel free to take 5 minutes to show your opposition to the merger and increase of rail traffic on the blog and how it will affect our community negatively.

FYI, CN is ranked 4th most dangerous rail line with over 33 reported rail-highway accidents in 2007 and EJ&J is ranked 22 with 5 reported rail-highway accidents in 2007 in Illinois. These reported accidents are only the ones involving highway traffic and their rail line at a crossing.

Do people cross rail lines, most certainly. Have people done so for years and years, of course. Is there potential for accidents, of course. Could inexperienced drivers be educated on safety around dangerous obstacles more than they already are, it probably wouldn't hurt. Would it benefit the community if more underpasses and overpasses were built in strategic areas to alleviate traffic delays and danger for school buses, definately!

Someone needs to censure "school board sucks" for the rude, scary posts he/she is making. This person really sounds as if they need professiona help and is a really bad spokesperson for the NSFOC group. With friends like these....

For the love of God and all things Holy please please please don’t make our kids go to a place where they will end up with leukemia or who knows what other life ending diseases. Their lives are fragile and precious. They are the future of our community. The thought of even the possibility of losing a generation of children for no good reason should be reason enough to not build this high school in such a potentially deadly place. Please stop this madness before it is too late!

The good news: hopefully the lawsuit can forestall the building of the school long enough that enrollment will plunge because all of you disgruntled people will leave the district. Then the rest of us who live in the district or as in my case, UNFORTUNATELY own property in the district will be able to convince the tax and spend crowd the school wasn't needed after all as others have correctly advocated numerous times in the past. You see, 204 has a history of building schools and having them sit vacant. I'm surprised no one ever complained about that. To the woman yesterday who wrote she is putting her house on the market sooner in light of this debacle, you probably aren't going anywhere in the next year or so unless you are real lucky market wise. Its tough to sell a house in 204 now and not lose your shirt. So sit back and let these people have their day in court. Its called due process. The citizens have the right to redress grievences in court, regardless of how long it takes or what it costs. Stop complaining about the costs to the taxpayers, most of you vote to increase your own taxes most of the time anyway. Who are you kidding about the costs to the taxpayers?

It is really unthinkable to me. If they were really that concerned about being "fiscally responsible" they would be sticking to the real budget that we voted on - $124,660,000. The Eola site is coming in well above that. And I found out from the district's own financial analysis that purchasing Brach-Brodie at the jury award price and opening the school in 2010 would put us over the "new budget" by 3 million dollars. So they are choosing a sick site to save 3 million dollars and keep 91 million in the bank. This is a sad day in our school district.

-------

Remember the lies before the referrendum?? "We will buy BB. Even if the condemnation suit is more that we estimate we have reserves. I can't tell you how much since that will show them our cards but we have build into our budget a cushion"

--------

Why is this happening, if BB is willing to work the numbers to get this done, why is the SB not willing to sit down for one meeting? We already had a boundary decision for that property that everyone agreed to, there are no other hurdles to cross. Maybe BB have come to their senses and are willing to work with you a little to finish this. I can tell you, if you could work this out and budget for more renovations at WVHS it would definately go a long way in the community to bring everyone together again.

Reggie - didn't you buy your house knowing your kids would have to cross those tracks to get to school? I would think you are at fault for that safety risk. Shouldn't have bought there. That is not the same as buying your house within 1.5 miles of a high school with no railroad crossings, and then being re-zoned to 6 miles away over the tracks because a SB decides to place the new school to benefit their own neighorhoods.

info@nsfocfraud: Remember 600 registrations doesn't mean 600 supporters. Some are nosey and some are spies. Or on the other hand how many homes are in Stonebridge and Brookdale?

Thank you Jim Jandick, I wholeheartedly agree. Everyone can get their own thoughts, feelings and/or point of view across without all of the colorful rhetoric. I am beginning to get scared too.

I was reading through these comments and someone posted the following quote from 204 Board President Metzger:

“Absolutely not. Never, ever, ever,” he said. “We made a commitment in September that we will only spend capital funds on this project, and we intend to keep that commitment.”

Then I reviewed the district's financial analysis again. Nowhere are the monies paid to Whitt Law for the Brach-Brodie trial accounted for. Nowhere are the architectural fees paid for the plans drawn at Brach Brodie accounted for.

I am having trouble at this point believing that operating funds haven't already been spent on "acquiring a 3rd high school site." The financial analysis shows that no monies whatsoever have been spent on the 3rd high school so far.

http://www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17229_3.pdf ("Financial Comparison of Land Alternatives" shows that $146,240,000 of "capital funds" are available for the project. The $5 million in legal fees are only the legal fees owed the Brach Brodie attorneys as they do not show up on the Brach Brodie side of the analysis. Are there monies spent that are unaccounted for?)

In any case, you can look to our neighbors in District 203 that are paying for part of their building projects with excess operating funds. I really am struggling to understand how we walked away from Brach Brodie - with all of the political implications that has - and chose a "sick" school site - with all of the implications that has - when we have the money to do what was promised to the community and build the school on a safe site that is close to the district center of student population.

I am also really struggling with repeatedly being told that we can't afford Brach Brodie and now finding out that we are sitting on $91 million dollars.

Our neighbors in District 203 are funding their facilities upgrades with $25.4 million from their operating budget. We only need 3 million.

Here is the information on District 203's referendum.
http://www.naperville203.org/faq/index.asp?CATEGORY_ID=12

a. Sale of Walnut Woods - $5.8 million
b. Land Cash money - $1.2 million
c. Interest Income - $3.5 million
d. Operating budget allocation - $25.4 million
e. Borrowing against TIF - $36.0 million

Good Lord.

The way these NSFOC people are talking about the "dangers" of this proposed site location, you'd think we were about to send our children to school in Baghdad instead of North Naperville.

They way they talk about the "dangers" of the environmental remediation issues, you'd think that the homes surrounding this site were full of six-legged mutants instead of families who have lived there for years.

The way they talk about the "corrupt" school board, you'd think that Vito Corleone was the superintendent.

Stop the scare-mongering. Stop the childish tantrums. You're showing your desperation and you are alienating the rest of the community. Pitiful. Really, really pitiful.

'FYI, CN is ranked 4th most dangerous rail line with over 33 reported rail-highway accidents in 2007 and EJ&J is ranked 22 with 5 reported rail-highway accidents in 2007 in Illinois. These reported accidents are only the ones involving highway traffic and their rail line at a crossing.

Comparing the CN with the EJ&E for rail crossing accidents isn't really apples to apples. The CN has hundreds of miles of tracks in in Illinois whereas EJ&E has 100 miles. Of course the CN is going to rank higher in accidents. More track = more crossings.

This is about how the school board shafted some communities in order to benefit their neighborhoods - plain and simple.

As hard as people from communities like Brookdale and Springbrook may try to shift this onto other communities. The source of this strife is the unrestrained effort by school board members to twist the school site and boundaries to favor their communities.

The right way to move ahead is not for any community to manipulate the process to their benefit. Pick the school site and draw boundaries based on demographics, geography (proximity), safety and transportation cost reduction. This will ensure that all children attend school in their neighborhoods, they get to school safely and attend school in safe locations. That is what NSFOC is about!

Are the people of Brookdale really that desperate that they would want to send their kids to a school built on 3 natural gas pipelines and contaminated with who knows what - considering that the school board is now hiding the results of the phase 2 tests.

Heck if its that important to Brookdale and Springbrook that you don't want to attend WVHS - go ahead attend MVHS and NVHS - just put the school on BB and have the SB negotiate with BB in good faith.

I've just called your bluff - I bet you'll be ok with BB now!

This is about Brookdale and Springbrook not wanting to go to WVHS - as it always has been!

This is an unscrupulous, unprincipled, fiscally irresponsible, lying, cheating, ....school board that needs to be stopped!
Join NSFOC and donate generously - the only voice in the wilderness fighting the school board! http://www.nsfoc.org

Earlier today I commented on the board meeting and must change a statement regarding a power line issue. It is not the power lines that are nearly a full football field from the proposed building but the three natural gas pipelines that are 220 ft from the building. The power lines to the east of the proposed building appear to be significantly farther away from the building 600 ft +/-, while the com ed right away to the north seems to be 300 ft +/-. If this is of any interest it is on the following site www.ipsd.org go to rss news feed. I am sorry for this mistake.

Moderator Jim: Hi Jim, thanks for insightful participation in the discussion.

Dear School Board Sucks--it's comments like yours that are the exact reason your group is sooooo disliked.

And to clarify, Brookdale has never, ever had a problem with Waubonsie. Ask ANY family with a student there and they will sing the Warriors praises any day. In the last go-around with BB, Brookdale was hopeful they could shorten one of the longest existing commutes (at 6.9 miles) to attend MVHS but were more upset about being separated from all other feeder schools at Hill.

Their anger was short-lived and they picked up and moved on. Did you hear about the lawsuit Brookdale residents waged? Ummm...no. Because there wasn't one, nor was there even talk of one. So please don't try to say Brookdale is no different than you. The rest of Naperville would agree, no other sub could possibly hold a candle to you.

Comparing the CN with the EJ&E for rail crossing accidents isn't really apples to apples. The CN has hundreds of miles of tracks in in Illinois whereas EJ&E has 100 miles. Of course the CN is going to rank higher in accidents. More track = more crossings.

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

Missing the point, RJ. Those are both the rail lines that are planning to merge, therefore everyone should be concerned with both numbers.

Why is the school board in such a rush to build on Eola Molitar?

To create a ground reality before the true costs sink in to the people of the district.

Eola Molitar will be more expensive to build on after the likely damages from the BB lawsuit are factored in. Why not wait until we hear what the damages are going to be so we know the real cost of Eola Molitar?

When we have other viable options like BB and Macom - why build on a site with pipelines, power lines and contamination? We're not that hard up for sites!

There is only one explanation - to benefit Brookdale and to keep Brookdale and Springbrook out of WVHS....that is the only thing driving this entire sordid affair....

Lets keep all neighborhood politics out of this.....

Pick the school site and draw boundaries based on demographics, geography (proximity), safety and transportation cost reduction. This will ensure that all children attend school in their neighborhoods, they get to school safely and attend school in safe locations. That is what NSFOC is about!

This is an unscrupulous, unprincipled, fiscally irresponsible, lying, cheating, ....school board that needs to be stopped!
Join NSFOC and donate generously - the only voice in the wilderness fighting the school board! http://www.nsfoc.org

At the pta meeting at NVHS superintendant Stephen Daeschner spoke about horrible commuting times especially if you are traveling north!?!!! Then why are we building a school at the very northern edge of our district where most will have to travel north through commuter traffic to attend?????

You may view the full story at dailyherald.com but here is the excerpt

"The traffic patterns I observe around here are pretty ugly between 6:30 to 7 or 8 a.m., especially if you're heading north," he said to a room full of nodding heads. "You can basically eliminate your high schoolers from that traffic pattern if you start later. Think about it."

It took me a while to dig up but there seems to be a lot of negative comments about board member Christine Vickers. I went back to a previous potluck discussion dated march 7 2:33 am. Christine had a very insightful intelligent letter explaining her voting record for years past. Today her name comes up with the same crap written about her. In her defense (she can defend herself) she was the board member that brought up concerns from 204 families regarding phase 1 and phase 2 completed results. There was a very in depth discussion regarding 204 families knowing the results before any contract could move forward. The board and Capt. Steve D. worked in harmony and hammered out the contracts in such a manner that all "who were concerned" would be able to meet at another board meeting.
Now I have this to ask the fine people reading this: How many are going to get off their rear ends and find a seat at this meeting. Of the few that will probably show up, how many are going to address the board. Of those few, how many are going to have a POSITIVE THING TO SAY TO THE BOARD OR ADM.
On a final note Christine V wrote her concise letter at almost 3:00 am, I on the other hand am done. I hope we have 100-200 people at this next meeting, Good Night.

"I took a look at the pipeline report. Are the NSFOC folks now going to ask for Gombert, McCarty and Georgetown schools to be abandoned and moved to new locations?"

Nah, no need for the NSFOC to get involved. Those are all Title 1 schools, they're fine right where they are ;-)

I am new to this blog and very saddened by the division that has occurred as well. Unfortunately, I think this has been ignited by our SB and SD who chose to completely ignore the concerns of district residents and it's sad that some people are trying to make it all about the boundaries. Problems that have been completely ignored by our School District and School Board:

1. The site is too far from the population density. With the current boundaries, Metea is only at 80% capacity. They had to move Owen OUT because it was too far away. When the time comes, and population wanes, WHO will they move back in?! How long will their commute be? This is a bad sign when a school opens without equalizing the enrollment in the district. Just a sign of future problems to come.

2. Transportation Concerns. This site is situated WEST of the RR tracks that are scheduled to grown in track number and traffic - significantly. 2/3 of our district's population is EAST of the RR tracks. This site is dangerous for our children.

3. Environmental Concerns. Who wants to take this kind of risk with our children's health and our tax dollars that are at risk of a much heftier lawsuit than the one posed by NSFOC?

People want to pretend everything's fine with this site so that we can move on, get it over with. Have you ever made a hasty decision that you later regretted? Be prepared with this one. It is only a matter of time.

Finally, it makes me sick to see the number of people so quick to say that this lawsuit is about people not wanting to go to Waubonsie. Give me a break! It is about a total loss of trust that the SB and SD are acting in the best interest of the district - it is about accountability - keeping your promise to the community. Many people have many concerns about this site and maybe you should rethink whether you really want this to go through because it's best for the district or because it just gets it over with. If it is the right answer, the SB should have no problem in slowing it down and thinking things through.

I think "School Board Sucks" forgot to take their meds today. To be that upset about someone you don't even know who your talking to is crazy. Their was a post earlier from a shrink maybe you should contact him.

Jim, Thanks for clearing up the locations of the powerlines and pipelines. I'd like to clear up the issue of the boundary lines. A post (a few dozen ago) said the school site is from near the walkway bridge to the billboard for the church on the south. If anyone has seen the plans for the school, you would find that the north end of the main building (building, not the south property line)is approxiamtely lined up with the site of the church billboard. If you look at the vast amount of land that stretches from the Cambridge subdivision on the south all the way to the line of trees to the north, you can get an idea of the entire parcel of available land. The church will reside on approximatley the southern third of the vacant land. The school property is the remaining portion of the land. If you were to stand on Molitor road and face due east, you would be facing the center of the main building. I invite everyone here who thinks those pictures describe the school site as accurate to go to the proposed site and look around. The pictures from the NSFOC were not taken on the property. Don't succomb to fear. All the posts here challenge people to do the right thing. I am doing the same. Go to the site and make up your own mind. There are no property markers up but you will see an access road owned by ComEd. The property line will be south of that road. I challenge you to find where those pictures were taken. And I don't care if the guy who took them was wearing khakis or bvds. The pictures posted on the website are misleading and quite frankly insult the intelligence of the people of D204. While you are there, take a walk down to Molitor rd and let me know if you think that is under the powerlines.

Another post mentions 17 acres that will be fenced off for remidiation later. First, if that was true, 17 acres shows just how far from the north boundary that the buildings will be. And second, state law prohibits any land that requires remidiation from changing ownership until remidiation is complete.

I address this to those people with environmental concerns. If you support the lawsuit over boundary issues, checking out the site for yourself will just be a crushing blow.

I just watched the video of the environmental discussion of Monday's SB meeting. There is a link to it on the IPSD website within the Superintendant's update letter. I highly recommend that everyone view it, especially the 15:56 mark where during a discussion about the AME property, Bruce Glawe states, "I haven't been there to visit the whole site yet." Now there's due diligence!

Posted by: one of the many anonymous;

"Missing the point, RJ. Those are both the rail lines that are planning to merge, therefore everyone should be concerned with both numbers."

What everyone should be concerned about those statistics is the fact there are that many people who disregard both law and common sense by being on the tracks when a train is approaching.

To: School board Sucks,

I have a great solution for you home school your child then you and them do not ever have to cross those dangerous railroad tracks. You can stay inside your protective bubble. Your child doesnt have to attend WV then either.

To: No such thing as Nuetral,

I bought my house in the location it was because of the location, knowing my child would be intelligent enough not to cross railroad tracks when the gates and lights are flashing. Its not a hared concept to understand. When the lights flash and the gates come down you dont cross the tracks. People have been doing that for hundreds of years, why is it so hard for your child to grasp that concept?

So, how many of these 600 families who registered on the NSFOC site voted in the last SB election? If you had 600 votes for TG candidates, you surely should have place one of your candidates on the SB (along with just minor support through the rest of the district).

School Board Sucks wrote: This is about Brookdale and Springbrook not wanting to go to WVHS - as it always has been!

I absolutely agree with this. We saw Brookdale last go-round (all dressed in orange) fighting like mad for the new school. Yes, they were upset about being split from the other schools at Hill, but it was clearly something more. They had 2 SB members in their neighborhood and they thought they had a ticket to the new school. When that didn't come through, there was shouting, etc. at the last meeting. Over a middle school split? I don't think so.

And yes, Springbrook..... in every starting scenario last time, they were at the new school and Fry at NVHS. This makes sense because Springbrook must be bused, but many at Fry will walk beginning this spring. Springbrook is fighting very hard to stay at NVHS - and their SB member is firmly behind them. AT tried very hard to take Owen East to NVHS. To create a buffer perhaps?

When people state this is all about boundaries - they are right to some extent. The people kicking and screaming because NSFOC has filed a lawsuit LIKE the current boundaries (even if they don't make sense and the new site is questionable). And they don't want anyone to mess up what they think they've got coming to them.

This is just the ugly truth and dirty little secret. Schoolboardsucks doesn't need meds - they've got the whole thing figured out.

@ Concerned Parent: Yes, I confused the names Shawn Collins with Todd Andrews. The difference is a blog post is not a legal document, which one would hope had been proofread my multiple parties before being filed. Lawsuits have been thrown out over typos on numerous occasions.

This was one line in my response, which I threw out at the beginning and clearly stated was an issue of style vs. substance. You apparently had nothing to say in response to the substance of my argument, unlike my response to NSFOCs. Your only issue with what I wrote was with my typing of the attorney's name? If I didn't read the complaint carefully, how is it possible for me to quote parts of it in my response?

@JK: Nice suspicion, but you would be wrong. I've never been on TV, but I am a lawyer. Unlike SHAWN Collins, I don't find the need to have my name in the newspaper.

Yes, it is a matter of opinion. I thought that was what ALL of us were doing here -- stating our opinions. That was mine. My opinion is that there are numerous portions of the complaint which are flawed. Yes, "an arguement [sic] has been made". I was posting a "counter-argument", also known as a "rebuttal", which is a common tactic used in reasoning.

I did not bash NSFOC and did not use any derogatory terms towards them, although I did make fun of their lawyer. Does anyone here have a problem making fun of lawyers? We've heard all the jokes and probably even have better ones than you do.

My comment on "swing voters" was simply to show that there is no evidence for NSFOC's stance. You may be one of those, but a single example does not constitute evidence that there was a 'class' of such voters or that even if there were, it constituted the difference in the election. There is now way for NSFOC to prove this point as election results are anonymous and people claiming ex post facto that they were part of such class does not constitute evidence.

The problem with claiming 'bait and switch' is there is no evidence to prove there was a deceptive act on the part of the school board. The board's actions in pursuing BB AFTER the referendum are counter-proof that the board fully intended to make good on its original proposition until such time it was deemed unfeasible. "Bait-and-switch" also usually requires that the "switched" good be of higher value and/or cost more. If you believe the NSFOC environmental arguments and the current cost for the land, neither is true.

Am I the only one reading this board who instantly tunes out anything "school board sucks" writes? This person has an obvious dislike of two areas - Brookdale and Springbrook - and this colors everything this person says. It's a real turn-off to those here who have intelligent, logical comments to make concerning the lawsuit. Give it up already buddy!

Sad in 204: I think the argument against the Eola site would have had much more strength if the people angry now had spoken up immediately rather than wait until they found out the boundaries would negatively impact them. If environmental concerns were the primary issue, where was everyone when the Eola site was announced? I think this is a big reason many people don't support the lawsuit - it appears it was filed only after people realized they would not get to attend either a new school or stay at NV.

I've read the complaint on the NSFOC site. I think it has merit. I've driven by the Eola and Molitor site and have read the limited information the district/school board have provided on the safety concerns. What's more concerning is the delay on providing the public the phase 2 environmental studies. The school board should slow down, provide more information to the public and get a second or third opinion on the safety of the site.

If the NSFOC wanted the BB property - back when the SD could actually afford it - then the 1st referrendum should have been approved. But noooooooo was the answer. Then when the second referrendum came up they voted yes and the SB tried their darndest to purchase that property - in case you didn't know that (duh!). However, the BB trust wanted tons more that the SD could afford - and likely tons more than it is actually worth. So now the SD can't afford it. So, the SB did their best to find the most suitable alternative. Now that NSFOC doesn't like the alternative they want the BB property back. Too late, you should have said yes a few years ago and our kids would be in your "neighborhood school" like you want it. NSFOC talks about "bait and switch" tactics. NSFOC are the ones who are doing the "bait and switch" with their schizophrenic voting habits and "oops what I REALLY meant was...."

Does anyone care about the danger to our children? Read the SEC reports and EPA reports on the site instead of Subdivision Bashing. This is about the health of your children...concerned parent?!!

The EPA permit report states that it operated an electricity plant there from 1970 to 1995 with NO pollution or monitoring controls in place. Read about the effect of the toxins like benzine etc on the health of your children and your future grandchildren. Plenty of research on the roles of toxins poisoning our kids. Look at McCain pipeline safety act from 2002 (long before these battles) why was it created ? Because of exploding pipelines on school property!

Did you buy a home with a powerline in your backyard? wonder why those homes are discounted and impossible to sell? Check California legislation & incidence of leukemia and Childhood cancers due to this exposure risk. Wake Up .. get rid of this school board and lets elect responsible people.

Glad to see so many people responding to the "safety" issue regarding railroad crossings. I mean, we're talking high-schoolers here, not pre-schoolers. Do you really think they don't know what flashing lights and lowered gates mean? What have you taught them up to now? When they see those flashing lights, they should lie down on the tracks and roll around? Do you still hold their hands when they cross the street to go to their current school?

Come to think of it, that would explain a lot. Methinks we have quite a few helicopter parents on this board.

By the way, does anyone else think it's interesting that half of the questions on nsfoc's FAQ page deal with the handling and amount of donations? Kind of telling.

Today's Sun article is a perfect example of why many distrust the Board. I am shocked to read that district officials have been contacted by the BB attorney, but the district has not contacted the representative. Mr. Metzger EXPECTS their asking price to come in at 31 million. If we are looking at paying their legal fees and unknown damages, I can't believe that the Board is not trying to negotiate and that they are assuming what BB wants. Real estate transactions are all about negotiation. Nobody pays full price for a home.

I love when people start saying "everyone", so let's make a few things clear.

"Everyone" did not agree with the BB boundaries (they look like political boundaries drawn in Chicago wards) and some of us still voted for a new high school. The fact is the high school is more important to us than the boundaries will ever be. I don't believe the lawsuit people agree with that assertion which makes their argument selfish at the very least.

The overall goal is to get the high school built so that those of us that can't afford private schools can send our children to a place that they can learn and be part of a system where there isn't 30 kids in each classroom. If we end up with three high schools with 2600 kids in each, that is a great learning environment.

Our volunteer school board is doing a great job and made a fiscally responsible decision for the district. Yes, some of us were upset with the BB boundaries, and now some of us are upset with the Eola boundaries.

Life is hard, it's time to move on for the kids. Send your $204 to WV instead of supporting the lawsuit, it will help our kids future far more than our friends who want to give it to a lawyer.

After reading the NSFOC complaint and comments on ipsdproboards, I do not understand why the school board continues to pursue the Eola site. The board has implied in the past that this site is not safe and we could risk having to walk away from it. No amount of testing is going erase that from the minds of many people in this district, especially some of us whose children are slated to attend there.

This bargain site doesn't appear to be such a bargain anymore. With the lawyers fees and anticipated damages factored in, walking away from BB doesn't appear to be fiscally responsible anymore. Factor in the cost of sending hundreds of kids north in all of those extra buses as they sit idling in rush hour traffic with gas at $4/gal. If enrollments decline and more students are sent North, the costs are going to escalate. Hopefully, the promised after-school activity buses won't disappear when the busing budget gets tight.

The NSFOC group claims that this lawsuit is not about the boundaries but the site. What is to stop the board from purchasing the BB site and redoing the boundaries anyway they want to? Send WE and TG to WVHS if that makes them feel better. Better yet, send Brookdale to the new school at BB like they always wanted.

To the school board: Do anything you want with the boundaries, just don't buy a site that doesn't make sense. This could be (another) decision you'll regret for many years to come.

reggie - I totally appreciate your idea of telling your kids not to cross the tracks when the gate is down, however, we all know that even the best taught teenagers act recklessly. They're told not to drink, not to drink and drive, not to have unprotected sex and they do it. With this site, you are significantly increasing the number of students crossing rr tracks twice a day, not to mention going to work on group projects or visit friends. Students for whom it is not unusual to oversleep, get a late start, etc. Students who would consider trying to beat a train to get to class on time. Over RR tracks that will have significantly increased traffic. I just saw an adult do it on Normantown Road a week ago. It is NOT NECCESARY.

The BB attorneys said themselves, quoted in the paper on Tuesday, that the land is still available and they would still sell to the SB. The price will not be a significant enough difference to take on ALL the added risk and increased travel times associated with the Eola site.

Word to the wise.....
Those of you who will be asked to sign the court document/petition please recognize what you are effectively signing...
You are signing your name that you agree to ALL of the Relief points. You are NOT signing something stating you "don't like the school board or its decisions".
You are NOT signing that you don't like the EMF site due to location or potential safety concerns.

You are agreeing to the following....

The "Relief Requested" indicating the resolutions that the group wants are as filed on page 18 ...

1.Order the Defendant(US) to purchase Brach-Brodie

2. Order the Defendant(US) to refrain from purchasing land other than BB

3. IF Defendant is unable to purchase Brach Brodie, return money collected from the 2006 referendum to the people.

4.AWARD PLAINTIFFS ITS ATTORNEY'S(aka Mr. Collins and staff) our FEES AND COSTS !!!!

If you believe in your heart that this is the just and ethical solution for our district then you need to sign. Just be VERY CLEAR on the word choice. This is why certain words are present or aren't present.
Thank you.

I am torn about this issue for one I do not like the 3rd high school placed so far North. Second I have a child that would be in the first class at a new school if it was in the soutth and I am not sure if I like that due to the lack of sports and history and continued construction. With the north school my kids will switch from NV to WV and I am ok with the schools but would prefer the shorter commute.

My big concern is the true need for the 3rd High school based on the continued overcrowding until the 3rd school is fully populated with all 4 grades which is 2011. By 2011 the district has projected the decrease in enrollment numbers. So does a 3rd school really help any overcrowding? Or is the overcrowding a bubble that is going down on its own by 2011?

Is the school in 2011 when fully built and populated when we have 3,000 at WV and NV each and 1,200 at each freshman campus and 600+ at the frontier campus that equals close to 9000 seats?

Just my concerns sorry if there is not enought venom in my points towards either specific subdivisons or to the pro or con groups.

I've looked into the numbers regarding 15% of the district goes to the North side of the district. So, I did a little research.

Taking the boundary of 75th street to be the North/South dividing line and extending 75th street to the west would cut in half the McCarty and Steck populations, I decided to only put McCarty in the North for comparison purposes only. There are 7 elementary schools north of 75th street: Longwood, Brookdale, Brooks, Young, Watts, Cowlishaw, and McCarty in the north (7/21 elementary schools or 33%), and 2 middle schools: Hill and Granger (2 of 6 middle schools or 33%).

Using the Sept 30 enrollment figures on the IPSD website (I'm sure someone will say these are incorrect because the SB doesn't put out accurate information), there are 4167 elementary students north of 75th street or 31% of the district and 2103 middle school students north of 75th street or 30% of the district.

Now doesn't it make sense that 33% of the high schools would be in the Northern part of the district? And no, WV is not north of 75th street.

Just the facts please, just the facts.

From Newspaper:
Earlier in the evening, the district reviewed its long-term financial outlook, which shows the district maintaining a cumulative surplus of $91 million at the end of the year. That amount is equal to roughly 35 percent of its operating budget, and it is projected to fall to roughly 20 percent – or $61 million, by 2012, which is now the earliest date District 204 administrators can foresee seeking an operating fund tax increase.

Response:
Why is the surplus DROPPING 20 percent by 2012? Are we operating in a deficit? Or will the new 3rd High School create the deficit?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 11, 2008 02:01 PM
----------------------
I would like to point out that I as well am struggling to reconcile this information.

We have repeatedly been told that we can't afford the Brach Brodie property without going for another referendum or forgoing major items like a pool and stadium. The financial analysis shows we are 3.1 million short for a 2010 opening.

When parents brought up legitimate health concerns regarding the lack of air conditioning in our schools, we were told we have no money and must go to referendum for the 20 million needed for air conditioning.

Now we find out that we actually can afford these things because we are sitting on $91 Million dollars.

But we can't touch any of that money because they decided in September that they wouldn't use operating funds on any construction projects? I don't remember this promise being stated in the newspaper or discussed at Saturday morning coffees. Why does this "promise" suddenly override everything the district has told the public for the last 2 years?

And suddenly we are $20 million over budget on the high school project itself, no matter where the school is put.

In addition, we are spending part of this $91 million dollar surplus on attorneys to fight with the Brach-Brodies and concerned parents in the district. How is this considered a good use of those funds when it all could be avoided by using a small portion - 3 million - to do the right thing and build the school at Brach Brodie?

On another note. The school board published a report two years ago stating that the Eola site will expose children to electromagnetic radiation and "risks abandonment for health reasons." What happens when the first child at Metea gets sick - for any reason? The district needs to set up some sort of contingency fund and start setting aside money now for this. They knew 2 years ago the site was unsafe and published that information. I can't even imagine what kind of jury award would come down against the district in a "sick school site" case.

Someone please explain this to me?

1) We Pay $16.5M for EOLA Site
2) We pay $5-10M in Damages for the BB Suit
3) We pay $10M in construction EXPEDITE fees to open in 2009? Is this true?

And it’s NOT OK to by the Brach Brodie Land for $31M and open in 2010?

The BB site is pristine, WEST OF THE TRAIN TRACKS, what the taxpayers approved, and centrally located which lowers transportation costs.

Regardless where it’s built, it’s clear to me the new school should open in 2010. 10M is too steep of a construction premium.

I'm absolutely disguested by the actions of Neighborhood Schools for our Children. Who's children? That's right TG and WE children!! Don't try and tell me you're concerned about my children because you're obviously not. I don't remember being contacted from your organization on the safety of my children. Let's be honest here, this all comes down to you and your perception of WVHS and you don't want "your kids" to attend that HS. You're property values aren't going to drop are you that nieve, no more then mine or anyone elses in this district. If anything your lawsuit makes all of us and this district less desirable (because of you) then it was because we can't get along within our school district. So let's quit blaming the school board because YOU and your neighbors filed this lawsuit. You didn't see a lawsuit come from the parents and neighborhoods that were negatively effected after the boundary decision 2 years ago, did you? Want to know why? Because they are grown up enough to deal with change and make the best of it and know that their kids would get a great education regardless. It amazes me how (I'm assuming) you got to where you are professionally because of the way you act personally. Nice example you set for your kids. "Son, daughter, if you don't get your way, sue, sue sue". I guess the days of doing you best by perseverance and hard work are over? Why do that when you can sue, right TG and WE?

So give all you money, complain all you want, be unhappy and kick and scratch that your kids will have to attend WVHS. You live in one of the best school districts in this state. I'm proud if my kids went to NV, WV or MV. Now when will your complaining end? Never!! Because now you'll just complain how you donated so much money to a frivolous lawsuit! You going to ask the school board to pay you back next?

Here's what I'm happy about:

1. My kids will never have to attend school with your kids. That a sad comment to make but unfortunately it's true. If you as parents have such an elitist attitude I hate to see how your kids are going to turn out.

2. That you donated so much money! Keep donating. Heck, donate your kids college fund as well. It's High School, please.

3. What I find ironic is that TG wasn't happy 2 years ago either until they complained and made big fools of themselves until they were able to stay at NV. Now that things have changed and you have to attend WV you're saying it has to be the BB property or nothing. Is this your way of making a compromise. "Well, ok, if we can't have our way at least we want to go to the new school". Sorry, it doesn't work that way, you voted on a referendum, not boundaries. If you didn't know that then it was your own fault.

3. Tall Grass and White Eagle are officially now known as the joke of the School District. You have officially hurt your own property values. Do you really think someone will want to move to your neighborhood now? With the way you've been acting once home buyers hear about you I'm sure they will steer clear. Trust me there are plenty of neighborhoods in this district that are just as nice as yours with house sizes that are the same as yours. However, I'm sure you don't know where those neighborhoods are becuase you don't go over railroad tracks. The time is not to stop saying how the school board divided this school district. NO, you did that to yourselves.

Best of luck in your lawsuit. I will be laughing in the background on how you've spent all your money and hurt your reputation. As will the other 75-80% of the district.

You get what you pay for. There is a reason BB costs $31M……it’s worth it. Any perceived savings of the EOLA site vs. the BB site will be consumed by INCREASED TRANSPORTATION COSTS over time.

In addition, any actuary would conclude the district’s risk exposure has increased due to increased School Bus railroad crossings; increases in bus miles traveled, and increased risk of future environmental lawsuits.

But take don’t take my word on it, it should be evaluated independently.

On another topic, if the NSFOC bashers on this board are convinced that the boundaries and School location are the best for the district, they should not fear re-vote via a special election. Let’s find out if NSFOC is truly in the minority. A special election in Illinois can be arranged in under 8 weeks.

Here’s my view of what it would take to get the end the Lawsuit quickly:

1) Re-opening of the BB negotiations. BB is still interested in selling per the Sun article today. We are in this mess because the SB continues to refuse to negotiate.
2) Have the FEDERAL EPA review the EOLA site rather then Midwest Gen and the Illinois EPA.
3) Have a re-vote on referendum.

To Anonymous at 9:42am:

I'm sorry but I need to educate you on a few things.

1. Rush hour in the morning and afternoon on Route 34 or Ogden is going the opposite way. Plus, in case you weren't aware there are other options to drive then on Route 34.

2. Brookdale never didn't want to attend WVHS!!! Would they have liked to attend the new HS at the BB site, sure, but they didn't sue over it. Brookdale residents didn' want their middle school split. I don't live in that neighborhood but I attended every school board meeting 2 years ago regarding the boundaries and remember their issues. Do you know why they didn't want their middle school split? Because they cared about the title 1 school that fed into their middle school and wanted to see the best for them. Now that is an example of being unselfish in your motives.

3. What you are witnessing now are a small group of parents in 2 neighborhoods that are being selfish in their motives!! That's what it comes down to.

4. The district wasting more money. Yeah, because they have to defend a frivolus lawsuit. My only wish is there were able to go back and countersue all of those residents that have complined and delayed this referendum that was passed 2 years ago.

5. If you don't think the school board did everything in its powers to get the BB site then you haven't been paying attention.

Dr. David Carpenter, Dean at the School of Public Health, State University of New York believes it is likely that up to 30% of all childhood cancers come from exposure to EMFs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns "There is reason for concern" and advises prudent avoidance".

Martin Halper, the EPA's Director of Analysis and Support says "I have never seen a set of epidemiological studies that remotely approached the weight of evidence that we're seeing with EMFs. Clearly there is something here."

Concern over EMFs exploded after Paul Brodeur wrote a series of articles in the New Yorker Magazine in June 1989. Because of Paul Brodeur's reputation. his articles had a catalytic effect on scientists, reporters and concerned people throughout the world.

In November 1989, the Department of Energy reported that "It has now become generally accepted that there are, indeed, biological effects due to field exposure."

The EMF issue gained more publicity in 1990 when alarming reports appeared in Time, the Wall Street Journal, Business Week and popular computer publications. ABC's Ted Koppel and CBS's Dan Rather both aired special segments on EMFs.

In a draft report issued in March 1990, the EPA recommended that EMFs be classified as a Class B carcinogen -- -a "probable human carcinogen and joined the ranks of formaldehyde, DDT, dioxins and PCBs.

To Sabrina:

You obviously didn't attend the school board meeting 2 years ago or you wouldn't have written such a fictional statement.

Do you not recall that 1 of those school board members who lives in Brookdale recommended that Brookdale attend WV as did the past superintendent.

Get your facts straight.

to "Kathleen" and others with the same lame arguments...

Isn't that what site remediation is all about? Duh! Do you REALLY think the SD would allow a school to be built on land that was so dangerous as to put our kids in harms way? Get real!

As for you losers who arguee the RR issue. If your kid is stupid enough to cross the tracks while the lights are flashing and the gates down...well then I guess we'll know who to blame and it ain't the SB, SD or railroad's fault. It's the process of natural selection and survival of the fittest. One less dumb-ass in the world fighting for a worthless causes at someone else's expense.

Another thing to note is that the Brookdale neighborhood has been crossing railroad tracks for 30 years to go to High School and nothing bad (to my knowledge) has ever happened to their kids!!!

I don't live in Brookdale but we should all be thankful for that neighborhood because they built the school district that you and I live in. They are one of the longest tax payers in this whole district.

Prior to the referendum this was on the district website:

Changes if the Referendum Passes
After spending many weeks reviewing options and hearing community feedback, including almost ten hours of public comment, the Board of Education selected Option 5A as the new high school boundary plan. Upon community approval of the referendum, the boundary changes are expected to begin in 2009.
Changes if the Referendum Does Not Pass
Should no new classroom space be available, boundary changes will be required to balance enrollment beginning in 2007. In addition to boundary changes, split shifts will be implemented at both high schools in 2009.

Addl info about the infamous train issue.

I have a different perspective. I happen to work near another rail line operated by the same canadian company who is planning to purchase the rail which runs through our district.

Since that company has purchased the rail the trains have been increased in length (more cars) and now run slower.

The train results in HUNDREDS of our employees being late for work each month since the train crosses a major intersection and there are no bridges or viaducts. The track is also between the community and a major medical center and ambulances cannot pass either when this occurs.

The canadians have been deaf to any input from the community, the legislators and the local business community including the hospitals impacted.

I think there is always a risk of injury whenever you cross the tracks but my biggest concern is that the traffic (especially our children who are being bussed all over this community) is going to be a nightmare. I think its very unlikely that the new owners of that railroad will listen to us.

There is a solution though... move the location of the school and you gain at least three benefits...

Less traffic across the railroad tracks (fewer delays) and avoid any potential environmental concerns with Eola, build the school nearest to the children (ie closer to the population...60% live South of 75th and growing).

The simple truth is that if TG would have been assigned to NV, there would be no NSFOC and there would be no lawsuit. That is a fact.

Yes, there would still be some people concerned over the site. Yes, there would still be some people upset about the boundaries. Yes, there would still be the "vote no" crowd sending the sporatic letter-to-the-editor about declining enrollment. Yes, there would still be some people slamming SB integrity. ETC.

But no one would have taken such extreme action as the emotional and self-serving core of residents who happen to live in TG (not a bash on TG as a whole).

I do not feel the board has given the people of this district fair time to speak up on the real issues of the site. They went from assuring us BB was the location for 2 years to announcing the Eola site and it's boundaries within weeks. People have reacted to the boundaries because that was we were told we had a voice in. We did not. People DID oppose the site right away - in 2006 it was dismissed as a posibility. When it was recently revisited it was again opposed by some. That opposition was overshadowed by the boundary issues. I believe that was an intentional tactic by the board to distract people from the enviornmental issues. The information below is directly from the original site report.
The bottom section says wetlands would require abandonment of a site, - the Eola site has wetlands
It also states “the proximity of potential electromagnetic radiation and the cost of land elsewhere make such a possibility unattractive.”
The board refrences the original plan of Patterson Elementary school being changed due to power lines..
The original location of the Patterson Elementary school in sight
of electrical power lines caused uproar over the possibility that electromagnetic radiation might create health issues for the students, and the site was moved to its current location.
It then states:
While the Patterson site created the possibility of exposure to electromagnetic radiation, the Eola/Molitor site is somewhere between a probability and a certainty for exposure to
such radiation.
Although the scientists studying the question of whether such exposures do or do not create health concerns continue to disagree, the Board sees no advantage in constructing a third high school in such a location if there is any possibility of
abandonment for health reasons.
I ASK IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION OF SAFTEY WHY BUILD IT THERE?
Here is the site report-

THE OPTIONS FOR A SITE
The Eola/Molitor parcel
This parcel is presently owned by the St. John’s African Methodist Episcopal Church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

limited interest to the congregation.

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

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

District.

Utilities are all located adjacent to parcel.

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

switching substations. That means relatively high electromagnetic radiation would be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

abandonment for health reasons.

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

improvement costs related to the construction of a high school.

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

to a “damage to the remainder” claim.

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

The land is very flat.

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

- 10 -

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

good working relationships in the past.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wetlands

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

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

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

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

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

of securing alternate wetlands.

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

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

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

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

construction difficulties such a situation can impose.

Overall, the nature and extent of the wetlands drives the cost of the necessary abatement.

To school board sucks:
Springbrook does not go to Waubonsie. They attend Neuqua and have been slated to attend NVHS under every boundary scenerio (current, BB or Eola. Please get your facts straight.

I would like to commend the lady that wrote an apology in today's Letters to the Editor section.

It takes a lot of courage to step up and apologize.

Thank you for recognizing that this is more than just a debate about boundaries. We have serious concerns and you are right, no one knows the true extent of the hazards on the property.

This is a good beginning to rational discussion. We will solve nothing in this district with name calling and dividing everyone into camps that either did or didn't get the boundaries they like on this go-round.

hey sad in 204!

If there are kids foolish enough to drive around crossing gates at the train tracks, I say let natural selection take its course and put them up for the Darwin Awards at the end of the year.

Thin the Heard!

has anybody concerned with the railroad crossing addressed the issue that 2 of the major streets (north aurora and new york street) have an underpass and over pass to avoid the tracks? I doubt if Liberty street will be used for busses and why use Diehl if the busses can use north aurora. Shows how many people are commenting with scare tactics that have never taken the time to actually look at the site and its issues.

Also, the train issue is far from a done deal. Isn't there also a proposal to use that line for the new STAR line that will connect this area with o'hare? I believe that will prevent the merger.

I invite everyone to come down to the Eola site and walk around. Go to the IPSD website and print out the plans for the site so you understand that the school will be centered on the property and not built under the powerlines or over the gas lines. Go to the site, walk around, come back and take as an informed blogger.

In January 2007 this is a portion of a note that was distributed to 204 families..........

The referendum presented to the community was based on the Brach-Brodie land

and boundaries were determined. Those boundaries would no longer be in

effect if the location of the school changed. In our opinion, the location

of the land and boundaries are contributing factors to why people voted as

they did. A promise was made to the community and the community supported

the district by passing the referendum.

Further, when the two parcels of land are compared, we believe Brach-Brodie

is still the best property for the high school. It is easy for someone to

speculate on land value in the newspaper, but ultimately the value has to be

proven in court.

Although the land acquisition is taking longer than the we would like, we

are confident that the district will purchase the Brach-Brodie land for a

fair price as the legal process continues to move forward.

Howard Crouse

Superintendent

Let's fact it, when you have a resident spending $18,000 of his own money to hire lobbyists to stop the district from getting a quick take bill passed and you have residents hiring attornies and suing the district for bait and switch tactics, something is wrong with the way the district operates and communicates with residents.

The problem as I see it is too much of their communication is fabricated to try and achieve a result they have pre-determined.

They did not just present the facts in terms of the last referendum, everything had spin intended to try and get the referendum passed. The district was "promoting" the passage of the referndum by the hiring of the marketing company to scare you into voting YES due to "overcrowding", children sitting on top of each other and threats of split shifts.

That is not the job of the district, they are supposed to be impartial and present factual information, not try to bait voters into a result.

The few actual "facts" they did present on enrollment turned out to be quite wrong and massively inflated. Now we see enrollment is declining at the elementary school level and high school enrollment will start to decline the year after the high school opens.

Does the school board suck?

One thing is for sure, I am skeptical of anything they say because the "facts" so often turn out to be wrong. The story is changed to arrive at the pre-determined result they have in mind.

Why are they rushing into something for which, as one school board member put, "I see no need"?

Maybe the lawsuit will shed some light on what is really going.

And that would be a good thing.

By Anonymous on March 12, 2008 10:30 AM
To Sabrina:

You obviously didn't attend the school board meeting 2 years ago or you wouldn't have written such a fictional statement.

Do you not recall that 1 of those school board members who lives in Brookdale recommended that Brookdale attend WV as did the past superintendent.

Get your facts straight.

_________________________________________

I was at that meeting 2 years ago that Sabrina is referring to. From what I recall, Curt Bradshaw broke into tears because he felt the need to sacrifice his own community's wishes (to go the METEA) in order to get the referendum passed. That is my honest take of the events. He did that after Howie Crouse recommendend leaving Brookdale at WVHS.

The result of that boundary decision made those in the Brookdale community so angry they voted overwhelming against the referendum. At the time, I didn't blame them for being angry.

Honestly, I don't place blame on ANY community for being frustrated with the school board/district at this point. I think they started and continue to encourage the finger pointing and neighborhood labeling we are experiencing today. It's so easy to blame others but who first coined the term: "The Haves and the Have Nots?"

Was that really necessary?

0.004% of the population is hit by trains daily, and
roughly 0.0154% are hit annually.

You currently stand roughly a 1:1,920,351,519 chance of being hit by a train (of any kind). Yep...I'm going to lose sleep tonight of trains chasing me!! People that's a 1 in 2 billion chance, give me a break. People going to WVHS for over 20+ years have been crossing these tracks with no issues.

As far as the EMF issue, thanks for your concern in twisting the truth but I'll believe the experts and their findings not Neighborhoods Schools for our Children. Who's children? Not mine!! I don't remember getting a call from your organization. Oh yeah, that's because I don't live in TG or WE and have your elitist and self-serving views.

From the study that I read where the planned MVHS building starts the EMF readings are well below the average EMF reading that one would discover in their own home. Regardless if my kids are in school 7 hours a day they are exposed to higher EMF reading in all of our homes. Do some research on average EMF readings instead of trying to use scare tactics. OMG heaven forbid if they should cook a bag of microwave popcorn, they might contract lukemia right on the spot. Maybe I should sue the microwave company and my home builder and the city because they are putting my children at risk and potentially endangering their future well being and education.

Grow up Neighborhoods Schools for our Children and learn to deal with change and not trying to have everything YOUR way.

Just thought I'd share with all of you a perfect example of what the rest of the IPSD has been saying all along about the TG and WE neighborhoods.

The following 2 points are located on the Neighborhoods Schools for our Children website.

Why not make WVHS an even better facility and even better reputation – rather than abandoning it?

WVHS is a top school in the area, and should be treated fairly with equal or better resources as needed to keep and improve its reputation – doesn’t every person in the district think that is fair?

Reputation? Did you say reputation Neighborhoods Schools for our Children? Thank you for proving my point!! I don't recall anyone current familes saying anything about the reputation about WVHS. Ask any one of those parents and they are proud their children go there. The point you have proven is what we've said all along. YOU TALL GRASS AND WHITE EAGLE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH WVHS AND ITS REPUTATION AS YOU CALL IT. The rest of the district has seen through you for over 2 years now when this all began. You can try to hide behind your lawsuits, bait and switch argument, environmental hazards arguement and travel times arguement. The fact of the matter is you have a problem with WVHS and you finally said it yourself. Thanks for proving us all right!!!

anon says: "On another topic, if the NSFOC bashers on this board are convinced that the boundaries and School location are the best for the district, they should not fear re-vote via a special election. Let’s find out if NSFOC is truly in the minority."

The vote was taken, it's done and over. There is absolutely no reason for a do-over just because you don't like the results. A school board doesn't need a referendum or any voter approval to draw and approve boundaries, that IS part of the job you elected them to do. The idea of another referendum (and the cost associated with it) just to appease the NSFOC group is sickening. Again, the comments made by this groups and it's supporters are amazingly self-centered and ridiculous.

Welcome to the jungle. You might have to be careful out there so that you don't stub your toe. Oh, and if you do, I'll bet you can somehow figure out how to sue the SB for that too.

NSFOC are a bunch of whining narcissistic losers. I'm so sorry that your Mommy isn't here to help you out you big babies.

Quit 'yer bitchin' people and live with the SB's decision. That's why you elected them in the first place. Too late to back track now.

By Chicken Little on March 12, 2008 5:16 PM
Welcome to the jungle. You might have to be careful out there so that you don't stub your toe. Oh, and if you do, I'll bet you can somehow figure out how to sue the SB for that too.

NSFOC are a bunch of whining narcissistic losers. I'm so sorry that your Mommy isn't here to help you out you big babies.

Quit 'yer bitchin' people and live with the SB's decision. That's why you elected them in the first place. Too late to back track now.
_______________________________________________

Wow, such anger in your words. Again, why when some people disagree on this site (from all sides of the opinion) do they immediately jump to name calling? It mutes the point of your message, in my opinion, and tends to embolden the opinions of others that disagree with you.

My mother taught me many things. One of them was to respect the opinion of others. Therefore, I respect your right to disagree. I just wish you could do so respectfully.

I'm concerned with the safety of the Eola and Molitor site. If you think that makes me a "narcissistic loser" and a baby so be it. Again, we are talking about a site that the very people "we elected" said recently, the site was "somewhere between a probability and a certainty for exposure to
such radiation."

My mother also taught me not to call people nasty names. When you bring yourself to that level, you point gets lost.

I'm so sorry to have offended you and hurt your feelings....NOT!

Grow up and realize that not everyone has to have the same opinions. It's what makes the world tick. Also, its my first amendment right to say whatever I feel.

I could care less if you agree with me or not. Many others probably do.

I can't wait for subdivision swimming and soccer to start. It's going to get pretty ugly when all of the animosity carries over to the sidelines. And it will!

By Chicken Little on March 12, 2008 5:43 PM
I'm so sorry to have offended you and hurt your feelings....NOT!

Grow up and realize that not everyone has to have the same opinions. It's what makes the world tick. Also, its my first amendment right to say whatever I feel.

I could care less if you agree with me or not. Many others probably do.

___________________________________________________

Chicken Little

Your response speaks volumes to me on what kind of person you are. I realize we all have different opinions and that we are all protected within our first amendment rights. What we don't agree on is this- I don't consider my first amendment rights a vehicle to insult those with differing opinions by name calling. I won't use words such as "grow up", "call your Mommy", "narcissitic losers" and "babies" when I express my thoughts on this site. While I agree that using those words is a part of the first amendment right and protection, I think it's unappropriate and won't stoop to that level.

I wish to remain respectful, you obviously don't have the same mentality. That's fine with me. Again, I respect your thoughts.

We agree on one thing, not everyone has to have the same opinion. That is what makes our country a wonderful place to live.

Again, I'm concerned with the safety of the Eola and Molitor site and the future health consequences for those that will attend that school. I will repeat that the very people "we elected" deemed that site a certainty for radiation exposure just a few years ago. What has changed?

If you don't respect that concern, that's fine with me. You can continue to call me names, etc., cite your first amendment rights, etc.. Again, your point might get lost to many when you use vulgar, negative, labeling words to make your point.

Have a nice day!

I don't see any vulgarity in my comments. Just because you don't like my "tone" means you need to get thicker skin.

Just because I (and others) have called out NSFOC for what you/they REALLY are...doesn't make me wrong. I just call it like I see it.

"Quit 'yer bitchin' people and live with the SB's decision. That's why you elected them in the first place. Too late to back track now."

_______________________________________________________

I don't consider that appropriate language. Again, we disagree.

Believe me, my skin is quite thick. I'm just not going to get into the mud and sling insults or name call. Sorry, I think you were looking to incite such behavior. I simply won't do it.

How about we leave it at that. I think we could argue all day considering our differences without finding common ground.

My concern is with the safety of the site. Period. You don't appear, based on your posts, to be concerned. I respect that.

Again, I respect your opinion.

What the heck is going on in our district?

First we find out that we indeed do have the money to purchase the Brach Brodie property.

Now the environmental reports can't be released because the board does not have permission to release them? I thought we were paying an independent expert to evaluate the site? Now we find out that we are trusting the polluter to produce reports that say the site is safe? The IEPA will not do any of the testing nor the testing oversight. They will just confirm or deny that the tests were performed adequately based on the paperwork submitted by MWGEN.

This is a snippet from today's article in the Daily Herald:
----------------------------------
Tuesday, District President Mark Metzger reiterated the district's plan to release the information next week but warned that permission still had not been obtained. He couldn't even say who was preventing the information from being released.

"All I can tell you safely is that we have a confidentiality agreement that prevents us from even saying who we have the confidentiality agreement with," Metzger said. "That's all I can say at this point."
----------------------------------

I am tired of the name calling but I won't send my kids to a site with these problems. If people would like to call me names for that, well, fine, but protecting my kids is my job as a parent. At the Monday school board meeting, we were told that a fence would be erected to keep the kids out of the contaminated areas.

Does this make any sense to anyone?

Blah, blah....blah, blah blah blah.

Same old stuff be rehashed over and over again. Ain't nobody listening to you NSFOC. Give it up.

I'm outta here.

By Chicken Little on March 12, 2008 7:30 PM
Blah, blah....blah, blah blah blah.

Same old stuff be rehashed over and over again. Ain't nobody listening to you NSFOC. Give it up.

I'm outta here.

_________________________________________

Chicken little,

Why would you think you need to get "outta here"? I think your opinion is valid. Despite my disagreement on the way in which you presented your opinion, I don't want to to disband your thoughts. I would like to see you be more respectful but I think you've already stated your opinion on posting respectfully. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm correct- NOT (to post your own words) Who knows?

I would however, like to engage with anyone that is willing to engage in dialouge respectfully on the environmental safety of the Eola and Molitor site.

I have some serious concerns. I've emailed my "elected leaders". They have not responded to my emails. In fact one of our "elected leaders" admitted at Monday's school board meeting that he hadn't seen nor visited the site. YIKES!

I will not, regardless of where I live, support the Eola and Molitor site until my concerns over the safety for all 204 kids are answered and addressed and documented in credible reports that are available to the entire district.

Until then, continue the assault on those that think the way I do.

Please spare the labeling and insult throwing. That is getting pretty old.

Pardon me, Mr. (or Ms.) Anonymous at 6:02 pm.

You appear to place a premium on civility. You may "wish to remain respectful" because your mother taught you such good manners. And I agree that name-calling is a mark of incredibly poor manners.

But disrespect comes in both verbal and non-verbal forms, and NSFOC's actions reek of disrespect for their neighbors. I am very sorry, but I just don't buy the safety smokescreen. This lawsuit was filed ONLY after the boundaries were announced; it wasn't contemplated when the Eola site was announced or when BB was abandoned.

When you initiate a lawsuit against your school district simply because you want to have your own way; when your own web site disparages the "reputation" of WVHS; then you show incredible disrespect to the community at large. In my opinion, a self-centered organization that is trying to scare people is the most disrepectful group of all.

By anonymous on March 12, 2008 2:32 PM
has anybody concerned with the railroad crossing addressed the issue that 2 of the major streets (north aurora and new york street) have an underpass and over pass to avoid the tracks? I doubt if Liberty street will be used for busses and why use Diehl if the busses can use north aurora. Shows how many people are commenting with scare tactics that have never taken the time to actually look at the site and its issues...

I invite everyone to come down to the Eola site and walk around. Go to the IPSD website and print out the plans for the site so you understand that the school will be centered on the property and not built under the powerlines or over the gas lines. Go to the site, walk around, come back and take as an informed blogger.

____________________________________________________________________

Anonymous 2:32pm,

You are correct - those traveling to MVHS from east of the tracks have options to get there using roads with underpasses or overpasses. Unfortunately, New York Avenue is the southernmost railroad crossing in the district that can make that claim. All of the neighborhoods east of the railway that are going to WVHS do not have access to roads with underpasses or overpasses without traveling substantially further distances north to New York Avenue - and most of these communities will already have the longest commutes in the district under the new boundaries. Perhaps you could plan an outing of your own to see the crossings for yourself...maybe even visit the two white crosses at the Ogden Avenue crossing in memory of the two 16 year olds killed by a train there several years ago (although I don't remember them posthumously being awarded a Darwin award as suggested by another blogger.) I think you will find the crossings along Normantown Road to be particularly school bus averse.

I also agree that everyone should check out the AME site. Perhaps someone could take Board Member Bruce Glawe along, who admitted at Monday night's Board Meeting that he had not yet seen the site. (The video is available on the IPSD website.) Interesting if he approved the purchase of the site without actually seeing it.

Mark and others who have decided to try and tear down the NSFOC for comments on their website that supposedly insult the reputation of WVHS.........

First, you are clearly reading negativity into everything now, and it is truly counter-productive.
All any of the comments pertaining to WV on the NSFOC site are saying is that instead of wasting money to build a school it now seems we won't need in 3 years, why not use the money to make a great school a better one and not consider getting rid of it some day (rumor).

YOUR ANGER IS DISPLACED. The only people who have put the reputation of WV in play are those who keep inferring that people's opinion of WV's reputation trumps REAL CONCERNS of a personal nature (how these decisions affect my every day life) and of a public nature (why will the SB not answer people's questions?)

You should also think about this. The SB/admin. is also indirectly bringing WV's REPUTATION - and MV's, for that matter - into play with their criteria of "maximizing academic strength" among high schools. This means they are busing kids unnecessarily - away from their neighborhoods - in an attempt to average out test scores and make it all look pretty on paper. Why? Because that will improve WV's REPUTATION. And it will improve the SB's and Admin's REPUTATION, without even addressing any real learning needs. How convenient. WV apparently needs some kind of "boost" in the eyes of the SB, but NOT in the eyes of the people you are accusing of harboring ill will. I wish the SB would believe you, believe the rest of us, that WV is a great school and their idiotic social experiment is illogical and certainly not needed.

And just to be crystal clear, because I know someone will try to twist this. I am not insinuating in any way that I think WE/TG kids are better, smarter, superior in any way. The SB made their decision, in part, of where to put kids (both in and out of WV) based on test scores. FACT. Not the people of TG, WE, or the NSFOC. Sadly, the SB is playing us all....most are too distracted questioning other people's motives to be questioning theirs.

To: everyone run and hide on March 12, 2008 4:22 PM

From the study that I read where the planned MVHS building starts the EMF readings are well below the average EMF reading that one would discover in their own home. Regardless if my kids are in school 7 hours a day they are exposed to higher EMF reading in all of our homes. Do some research on average EMF readings instead of trying to use scare tactics. OMG heaven forbid if they should cook a bag of microwave popcorn, they might contract lukemia right on the spot. Maybe I should sue the microwave company and my home builder and the city because they are putting my children at risk and potentially endangering their future well being and education.

_______________________________________________________________

You are exactally right there was an outside independent study done on EMF readings and posted by the school board quite some time ago. Those findings were exactally as you stated. Where the school building would begin the levels were below what one would find in an average home.

It is clear to me that NSFOC has resulted to using scare tactics to try and push their minority views to the rest of the district. I find it hard to believe you REALLY care for those kids that will be attending MVHS especially with the selfish ways in which you've been acting. Heck, your own attorney doesn't even think you have a shot.

*****FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE LAWSUIT DESCRIBES PLEASE READ BELOW (thanks to the person who posted this on Tuesday*****)

Those of you who will be asked to sign the court document/petition please recognize what you are effectively signing...

You are signing your name that you agree to ALL of the Relief points. You are NOT signing something stating you "don't like the school board or its decisions".

You are NOT signing that you don't like the EMF site due to location or potential safety concerns.

You are agreeing to the following....

The "Relief Requested" indicating the resolutions that the group wants are as filed on page 18 ...

1.Order the Defendant(US) to purchase Brach-Brodie

2. Order the Defendant(US) to refrain from purchasing land other than BB

3. IF Defendant is unable to purchase Brach Brodie, return money collected from the 2006 referendum to the people.

4.AWARD PLAINTIFFS ITS ATTORNEY'S(aka Mr. Collins and staff) our FEES AND COSTS !!!!

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

..."If you were to stand on Molitor road and face due east, you would be facing the center of the main building."...

Posted by: anonymous | March 11, 2008 11:53 PM

--------------
accdg to the Environ EMF readings map in their packet- the last page (p 12)- if you stand on molitor, and face east... you are looking at the bus parking lot at the very SOUTHERN END of the school building-- is their report wrong??

http://www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_18004_1.pdf

and the 3 natural gas pipelines run north and south between the school building and the baseball diamonds; and between the stadium and the tennis courts accdg to this map.

To Mark:

I don't believe that the NSFOC's website disparages WVHS.

But I do believe our school board has - when the SB president refers to it as an "ugly Albatross". Then they tell us they need to bring in new kids to make a "new WVHS". Why?

What was wrong with the old one? And how can you blame others who will be moved miles from their current location for the purpose of "fixing" whatever is wrong. That should be insulting to all of us.

I think what is happening here is that some areas currently in the WVHS attendance area have a ticket "out"- if you will. The lawsuit threatens what some of them want - to attend the new school. We all saw the way Brookdale behaved last time. It was clear they no longer wanted to attend WVHS.

But my question for you is do you really want to send your child (and thousands of others) to a site that may not be safe? It's important that the district proves to us (all of us - whether we will have chilren attending or not because we are ALL paying for it) that the site is safe. Why have they not released the Phase II reports? Didn't they say they would on Monday?

Why say that they can't afford WVHS but then pay millions to expedite construction at Eola? And what are the legal walk away costs for BB? Is the Eola site really a savings? Is that "savings" worth endangering someone's life?

The NSFOC is asking that the SB slow down and make careful decisions. Is that too much to ask? Why the hostility? It speaks volumes.

Amen to Mark on March 12 at 9:38 PM

Sabrina, Sabrina, Sabrina...

I wish I could believe the NSFOC crowd when it insists that it is concerned solely with safety of our children. But the timing just doesn't wash. Let's take a trip down Memory Lane:

October 2007: Brach-Brodie is abandonded due to cost. Yet there is no outcry from NSFOC insisting that MVHS be built on this specific parcel of land. Heck, at this point there is no NSFOC.

January 21, 2008: Eola is announced as the new site for MVHS. Yet there is no outcry from NSFOC insisting that this location is unsafe. Heck, at this point there is no NSFOC.

February 13: Boundaries for MVHS are announced. And, lo and behold, a few weeks later NSFOC is formed, a rally is organized, an attorney is hired, frenzied parents are stuffing cookie jars full of their neighbors' money.

The timing makes it clear. You and your friends created NSFOC solely in response to the boundaries. So, please, don't try to tell anyone that NSFOC is concerned about student safety. The way you tell it, it sounds as if our children will have to dodge bullet trains carrying spent plutonium just to get to school, and then and spend gym class going through an obstacle course made up of barrels of toxic waste.

And please don't carry on with the absurd argument that the NSFOC crowd cares so very, very much about WVHS. That's just insulting, and no one is buying it. If you cared, you wouldn't be doing this.

To Sabrina at 6:38 am

The school board will not pick a site "that may not be safe" as you suggest they are doing in your post. Why the rush to sue the school district(all of us) when it hasn't been proven that the site is unsafe? If your argument is that the site is unsafe, something only postulated after the boundaries were announced, why not wait until the studies all come in so that your case is bolstered by supporting data? The SB will not close on the site until it is deemed safe by independent experts. Once the results are released, I'm sure there will still be time for NSFOC to find something useful to use as a scare tactic even after the site is deemed safe.

The NSFOC got their name from another group of parents that sued the school district out in California which called themselves NSFOK. The difference here is that the parents sued over the school board admittedly factoring in race when redrawing high school lines prior to the opening of San Juan Hills High. The school board was trying to mix up the schools racially – much like the old “bussing” that happened back in the 60’s when it was necessary. This is illegal to do today and is exactly opposite of what the south Naperville group (NSFOC) is trying to do today – they are trying to incorporate a false reason for the property selection only to get what they want and that's to realign the boundaries so that their children won’t have to go to the more racially diverse Waubonsie. Another difference between the California group and the SOUTH Naperville group is that the California residents were united – the district #204 parents are NOT united in the least bit - as a matter of statistics we are overwhelmingly in support of the School Board’s decision to save tax payers $13 million with the Eola purchase.

http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/newsblog/2008/03/its-official-d204-parents-sue.html#comments

I am amazed that the whole RR crossing is an issue all the sudden and is dangerous for the kids. Pleas explain to me why when I would take my preK to school I would see the PreK bus (yes we do have buses, as many as 20 in each session) cross the RR tracks. Why all the sudden is it scary for older kids but not for Prek.

Just curious.

NSFOC...........

C'mon people -- Look at the name!!!

Neighborhood Schools.

But my website and my arguments are all about the safety of a site my kids wont even go to. Why ? Because I am so darned civic minded? Consider these other posibilities:

Point 1: Because I want to scare the poor saps who might otherwise be happy to be assigned to a brand new school and bring them to support my cause against their own self interest.

Point 2: Because my real motivations are too obviously self-serving to be acceptable to the vast majority of the district. Including many decent folks in my own subdivision!

Point 3: Because my original acceptable solution (as posted on my own HOA website) was to be satisfied with the new site, but make some other subdivision move to WVHS. See also: Point 2.

Point 4: Because there are a large group of people (but not a majority) who do not want the new school built on ANY piece of land. And this provides them with a nice bandwagon to jump on. Delay is good.

The real story is that NSFOC is a few people who desperately want to avoid going to WVHS. For WHATEVER reason. But they are trying to broaden their appeal because using that as part of their mission statement would be repugnant to most people in the district.

Dont get played for a sucker.

The concern regarding railroad crossing has been a concern for many. The south end of the district has the most neglected roads & r.r.crossings of any area I have seen, considering the population served. If you take any east-west roads that are located south of New York st. it is as if you are entering a time warp back to when John Deere equipment worked the land,(a I'm not talking about John Deere lawn mowers). Ogden,83rd/Montgomery Rd.,87th St.,& Wolfs Crossing are the 4 main routes for our new WVHS students to access across the railroad. The north end of the district has excellent access across the railroad and also much better roads going East to West. I assume this is because development came much earlier for this area of our district. It is now time to find out when the south end of Aurora/Naper. can expect better access when going or arriving from the West. Maybe some of the funds earmarked for the bridge over the Dupage river at 95th st. could be reallocated to a bridge over the railroad track at Wolfs Crossing. Bridges seem to be a specialty for Will county,(111th st.& Naperville Plainfield). Anyone have an idea who to call?

I'm baaaaaaaack!

Finally some more sensible people have joined my tirade. Thanks "I'm rubber, your glue", "Anonymous at 11:09", "Anonymous at 10:04", "Anonymous at 9:58" and "Mark".

The NSFOC guys can't take my tone. I "offend then and hurt their feelings". Boo Hoo to them!

"I also agree that everyone should check out the AME site. Perhaps someone could take Board Member Bruce Glawe along, who admitted at Monday night's Board Meeting that he had not yet seen the site. (The video is available on the IPSD website.) Interesting if he approved the purchase of the site without actually seeing it."

I assume you also expect that when the SB approves purchasing a new lawn mower, Bruce should ride it? Or a new school bus? Or a new air conditioning system for the elementary schools? Or before approving all-day kindergarten, Bruce should sit through an all-day kindergarten class?

Why does the fact he hasn't seen the site mean anything? He's not an expert on power lines or pipelines or EMF or toxic waste any more than the NSFOC people are. He can look at the photos -- ones taken that show the whole site, not powerlines on the upper corner.

Amen to Mark in response to anonymous March 12 @ 5:35! I'm guessing by the lack of substance in the "Chicken Little" comments - the comments by "chicken little" were actually written by "annonymous March 12 @ 5:35 - only in a pathetic attempt to make him (annonymous March 12 @ 5:35) look reasonable. Given the behavior of the TG and WE people - I wouldn't doubt it. Your property values in TG and WE are most definitely going to go south not because of the schools but bc of your behavior. Please don't move up north - we are peaceful people who have had enough of your behavior. Evidenced 2 years ago by your kicking and screaming to get into Neuqua - you can't keep doing this - it'll hurt you in the end.

@ Soccer Mom: "I can't wait for subdivision swimming and soccer to start. It's going to get pretty ugly when all of the animosity carries over to the sidelines. And it will!"

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Whine Eagle is on the schedule to face Waubonsie in swimming this summer.

For all those who say that nobody was complaining about the safety of the site until the boundaries were drawn need to be more understanding. People were not aware of the safety issues at first. I first became aware of concerns by reading this and the proboards blogs. I am very concerned about the safety. I feel that I can be relatively neutral in this as my kids will not be affected by any school moves and I am not a member of either of the newly formed N Groups. I have friends in many neighborhoods in district 204 and there are many valid concerns no matter what neighborhood you live in.

The site selection happened so fast, the next thing you know the Sun has an article stating the Board has received many positive responses to the new site. I didn't hear anything positive. All I heard around the district was that will not be a good location as it is not near the growth. I am sure the positive responses came from the north portion of the district, which is very understandable. Who wouldn't want a new school near their neighborhood. People also have a right to be upset when they purchased their home very close to a high school, felt they did their homework (Per Howie Crouse, if we build Gold Campuses, we won't need a new HS) and will now be bussed so we can balance enrollment. Nobody wants to be used as a pawn to balance enrollment. To add insult to injury, there are too many split schools and the price of gas is skyrocketing. In an age of everyone going "Green", shouldn't the District try to do its part. For those who say the State picks up some of the tranportation tab; who do you think the State is? It is the taxpayers!

The two N Groups should form one group. SSFOC (Safe Schools for our Children) and stop fighting. It is human nature to lash out when you feel threatened. Part of the district is happy with the current boundaries and part of the district is not, but we should ALL be concerned about the safety of the new site. Stop wasting so much energy writing hateful blogs and make sure our tax money is being used wisely.

Both NSFOC and NON-NSFOC supporting people,

Think..... what you will do if you were on other side of situation?.
(don't say I am saint and I will do only this :):))

Leave the fight to court and let our legal system decide what is right. Stop fighting/name calling each other.

Let both NSFOC/SB prove their points to court.

Thanks to all of the posts exposing NSFOC for what it is...Narcissists suing friends outrage community!
The lawsuit is absurd, and is not indicative of the 70% "majority support" as they post on their website. Heck they don't even have 70% support within their own ranks. Folks are ratting them out.
Nice "retraction" statement on the false pictures.Noticed they didn't delete them though.
DO NOT be diverted or railroaded from the issue. These folks are trying to play on public vulnerabilities to promote their own hidden agenda. Hey, isn't this the very thing they claim the school board did to them? The only diference is that there about 200 people (that may be generous)in this little group. There are thousands that voted yes for thousands of personal reasons ...I know my yes vote certainly was not based on a school location. It wasn't a choice on my ballot.

Show your support against this frivolous and insulting lawsuit
http://nsfocfraud.com/showyoursupport.html or www.nsfocfraud.com