Will D204 be on the hook for $20M to Brach-Brodie?

Hmmmm....wonder if the NSFOC will support a referendum if the IPSD has to ask for more money because they had to fight so hard to aquire the BB land and in the end couldn't afford it but still might have to purchase it. Instead they file a frivolous lawsuit so the IPSD is out more money. You have to start to wonder who's side the NSFOC is on? Doesn't seem like they have the best interests of the whole school district in mind.

To Sun Editors/Moderators:

Could you clarify your above comments for me?

* Did BB ask the SB to buy the land as originally quoted at 31M + legal fees of +3M estimated = 34 Million

OR

* pay legal fees, cost differental reinbursement of the land for tying them up with the condemndation suit + the 2.5M the SB already stibulated = a total estimated amount of 20 million and We (district 204) GET NOTHING (the 20million in taxpayer dollars is effectively flushed down the toilet?)

Is this a correct assessment of your comments above? If so, then purchasing Eola site for 16.5 million + the 20 million we will owe BB trust = 36.5 million

Seems to me we could be "saving" (and I use that term very loosely) around 2.5 million by just buying the BB land as originally quoted. Plus we avoid all the potential "issues" with the Eola site and midigation and avoid potential lawsuits.

If the SB continues with the Eola site BEFORE we know how much we will have to pay, and it ends up being more expensive than the BB site, Then I will have lost the last shread of confidence that our SB is/was trying to do the right thing all along.

Put it up for a vote AFTER we find out how much we will have to pay BB in order to walk away from the original price the jury quoated the SB in the condemn suit!!

At the very least, the district should know how much it's going to cost us to walk away from Brach Brodie before they purchase another site.

Also if they do proceed with the Eola site, it should be cleaned up before we start construction.

Anything less would be irresponsible.

No, the district won't be paying Brach/Brodie $20M. They have the jury agreed upon price, which shoots down their "loss of value" attack. It will be much, much less.

I'm confident they will move forward with Metea at the Eola site, after the environmental reports are released (with no new issues).

With the fees to the Brach Brodie trust and the "value" price of the Eola site land, the district is now looking at a whooping 38.5 million dollar tab. Absolutely incredible!! Would it have been possible for the district to have made any more mistakes?? And that doesn't even take into account any potential problems at the Eola site. If the district doesn't take a second to stand back and evaluate the mess they have gotten the 204 tax payers into.... no surprise...chalk it up to every incredibly misinformed decision this board has and continues to make. High school, no high school, freshman campuses, forget one freshman campus, Brach Brodie, forget Brach Brodie, choosing a previously unfit site..... Nothing should surprise us.

This is exactly why the SB should not have been in such a rush to secure new land. If they had waited, none of the turmoil over the new site and boundaries would have even occurred. I do not want my tax dollars to spent in such a reckless manner. The responsible thing to do is purchase the BB site. If they don't we will be faced with potentially over 20 million in damages along with attorney fees to defend the lawsuit from NSFOC, not to mention any potential future clean up costs at the Eola site. That will definately add up to over 31 million.

Can you imagine if the SB does not buy the land now, but are forced to because of the NSFOC lawsuit.

I would suggest it is time for everyone to stop the B.S. and talk (novel approach).

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

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

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

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

Heather Mills asked for $251 million in her divorce settlement from Paul McCartney, she got $50 million. Just because BB is asking for $20 million or something ridiculous doesn't mean that the Judge will award that much.

I do agree that this whole process has been a mess, and I'm sure the SB wishes it had done a few things differently - however, its time we moved on as a community and focused on what needs to be done to get the 3rd HS built and ready for the 2009 class. These petty lawsuits are only taking away valuable resources from the real task at hand - education of the next generation.

To: anonymous 1 on March 17, 2008 3:52 PM

"Would it have been possible for the district to have made any more mistakes??"

How is it the SB fault that they fought tooth and nail to get the BB property but their (BB) lawyers wanted more money for the land. Please explain that for me. When IPSD fights for something that the district voted on and it doesn't go the way they had hoped they need to find other alternatives. The money had been approved to build the 3rd HS and that is what the referendum was for. I just don't understand how you can blame them for not aquiring the BB land when they did everything within their power and budget to do so?

To: 204 ATM

"Can you imagine if the SB does not buy the land now, but are forced to because of the NSFOC lawsuit."

Yeah I can imagine. No one will ever admit they were part of the NSFOC group and chances are they will be run out of town like Steven Bartman who messed up the CUBS. Hope Mr. Andrews has his real estate company on speed dial.

What I find ironic is those that stand to benefit out of all of this no matter which way it goes. Mr. Collins, NSFOC attorny and the BB lawyers.

Moderator Jim: The latter of your two scenarios is the one that's right, Greg. Of course, depending on how this all plays out, the district might well get stuck with BB. Just my opinion. At any rate, more on this in tomorrow's paper both online and in print. Today's story might be well worth a read, too. It's in the print paper and on our web site.

I'm glad this group, NSFOC, is trying to slow things down. I would really like to know how much we're going to have to pay Brach-Brodie, before we spend Millions on another questionable piece of land somewhere else.

Metzger said, "We asked early on in October for the fee estimates and we were told they would be as much as $4 million, so we budgeted $5 million". Did that include damages? Did they budget for damages? What happens if the damages come in at $10M? $15M? $20M?

I guess, Metzer and the Board don't really care if they throw away $5-20 Million on damages, it's not their money.

At some point, it would be cheaper to buy Brach-Brodie.

Junk science comes out again in a school fight. This is deja vu to the fight over the new Hubble site in Wheaton. When all else failed by the opponents of a new site on the south side of Wheaton, fear and ignorance were used by claiming it was a dangerous site because it was "only a mile" (a mile!) from the BP research center, where in one building 15 years ago some scientists allegedly were made ill. The same thing is at work in 204. The effect of power lines was studies and debunked years ago when some parents at a school in the NW suburbs thought they were causing leukemia. If I were the judge this case would be thrown out immediately for what it is - a last desperate resort.

I would like to see the SD end up building the new HS on BB land.

Oh, and leave the boundries as they are. Then we will see the true intent of TG/WE and NSFOC

Unreal! Regardless of who, what and where the real issue is this ENTIRE process has become a disaster for the SB. Because of their arrogance and speed to build a school (at any cost) we are now facing a $20,000,000 potential judgment. There is no way Mr. Metzger can avoid hiding behind Eola now...whether it is a good site or bad they have done a terrible job handling this situation. How is it that they can just ignore the BB trust, not negotiate or even realize they are in huge trouble here? Gee, maybe its b/c the SB and our illustrious Super will just ask for a few more million from all of 204. What a train wreck!

KJ,

I think most of D204 parents agree with you. Their (NSFOC) ridiculous case isn't going anywhere....

BB lawyers aren't going to be getting anywhere close to $20M.

To; Sun Editors

Thank you for clarifying for me. Look forward to reading tomorrows articles.

So, we walked away from BB because it was not in the budget at 31 million

We walked into Eola at 16.5 because it was in the budget even after adding in an additional 2.5M in damages we already stipulated to + a budgeted 5M in BB legal fees ISPD will have to pay. Total so far is 24.0M

What if the cost differential damages is over 7 million? Does that mean Eola after taking into account the BB walk away fees is also not in the budget and therefore we have to walk away?

If this comes to pass; since neither of the options is "in the budget, that leaves two choices:

1. Play around with the 91M budget surplus that should not be that high and use it to fund this train wreck

OR

2. Put either BB at 31M or Eola at ?? (price + BB damages)up on the ballet as soon as possible ASKING for MORE Money for the 3rd HS

I dont know about you, but I am going to read my referendum VERY CAREFULLY and IGNORE ANYTHING on the ISPD web site or any flyers that come home in my kids school bag given the issue we had on the 2nd referendum in 2006.

Put either or up for a Vote!! Look on the bright side: Naperville Sun will be getting quite a bit of incremental advertising support in the weeks leading up to a 3rd Ref. I bet turnout comes in at all time highs!!

Before everyone dismisses the $20 million that Brach Brodie is asking for as pie in the sky - remember this.

Before the district filed the condemnation suit, the district made an offer of $257/acre and Brach Brodie said that offer was not suitable - it was worth more like $420/acre, which the district claimed was outrageous.

Brach Brodie ended up convincing a jury to award them $518/acre. Plus damages.

It doesn't matter what we think regarding the $20 million that they are now asking for, it matters what Brach Brodie can convince a jury to award them.

Also, the district is still using the same law firm that got us the $518/acre award (plus damages).

I'm not willing to roll the dice again. We should use some of the $91 million in excess operating funds to build on Brach Brodie and open the school in 2010. According to the district's own financial analysis, we are only short $3.1 million. The first nine bids they approved last week already have us $1 million ahead of budget due to "competitive pressure." If the "competitive pressure" in the building industry continues, we won't even have to touch operating funds to build on Brach Brodie.

By MH on March 17, 2008 7:04 PM
KJ,

I think most of D204 parents agree with you. Their (NSFOC) ridiculous case isn't going anywhere....

BB lawyers aren't going to be getting anywhere close to $20M.
____________________________________________________

MH,

I remember Bruce Glawe stating it would be "ludicrous" to speculate that the jury award in the BB case would be over 500K an acre.

Never say never. If we've learned anything in the last couple years in district 204, it's never say never, or in Bruce Glawe's case, never say "ludicrous".

How do you know the BB lawyers aren't going to "get anywhere close to $20m." Would you consider it "ludicrous" to think such a thing?

this debacle is hilarious...SB incompetent, people voting yes for a 3rd hs believing that 'nothing changes' and then the SB having to change venue that they have already condemned and paying for land that they will never use. If I were you, I would cut bait and run to the nearest 'sane' school district and let the losers duke it out.

signed

glad I had the foresight to move instead of trusting 'volunteers' to spend my tax money

WOW! Now BB forces SB to purchase or pay substantial damages. And some of you people laugh off their potential of recovering large damages. You were laughing when the jury awarded them almost twice as much as SB thought it was worth? You crazy people are not done spending yet. Did you all forget once you build this un-needed building you also have to equip and staff it? That could be another $60-$90 million I should rather think. This boondoggle might cost upwards of $200 million. I'm glad I live in 203. We have plenty of money spending fools in this district but you are all fools.

Let me tell you their is nothing wrong with waubansee. I went there and so did some of my kids. Their mothers also think it is an Ok skool. tell this Mr. Andrews to go back to his country club and leave us alone. i got me g.e.d. and am the shift super at gas city. i even have heathcare.

By Cliff Pahl on March 17, 2008 10:56 PM

Here is my take

- The referendum pass because the residences of 204 knew the boundaries and the location of the new high school, and were for the most part were satisfied with the plan.
- Things changed - boundaries and the location of the new high school, because there was a $13.5MM dollar gap ( not because the Brach estate did not want to sell the property to the district ). People feel trust has been broken.
- The Eloa site has short term and long term financial risks and more importantly, potentially health risks to our kids.
- The depending lawsuits can and most likely will cost us more than we thought we would save, residences are clipping at each other, about what, money?? Which high school is better?? WV and NV are both very good schools, and I am sure the new high will be out very good as well.
- Lets do what we agreed to do, what the majority voted for-and get the Brach deal done.

We will be lucky if this new HS comes in under $225,000,000. First bids released are $1M over, b/c of competitive pressure? WOW, I would love to work for one of those companies! This is truly insanity at its finest. Is Todd Stroger running D204? Appears so! If you don’t like what the tax payers tell their elected officials you just scare everyone into doom and gloom, get neighborhoods to start WW3, threaten to cut services and then act like a self serving bigot and walk away from court ordered action. Maybe we can ask the board to move its offices over to the "environmentally safe" Eola property. We could dig a well and have them take a drink (from the public trough)...maybe then, just then we will really see how safe they think the site is! SB, your arrogance is truly remarkable...now, buckle up and get ready for the tab...20,000,000 in damages is just the first step...225,000,000 here we come. Don't thinks its possible, just look at how much Chicago spent on Millenium park. They only missed that "budget" by $450,000,000.

Regardless, doesn't the Board and District have an obligation to resolve the damages (which may not be 20 million, but are certainly going to be more than 10 million dollars) before recklessly entering into its next lawsuit (and buying land that it actually MAY NOT be able to afford after the verdict on the BB damages).

I just moved here a year and a half ago, and I'm trying to digest how school district 204 can be so mismanaged! The 203 school district has decided to give the tax payers a break and not move forward with the 84 million dollars they were going to spend on upgrading all their schools. The 203 schools have better test scores and better paid teachers that the 204 district and they don't have any NEW high schools or super high schools they are just BETTER MANAGED in my opinion! If we move forward with the Eola site and have to pay Broch Brody 20 million in damages it is financial suicide!!!

The rush to complete the third high school for opening in 2009 is creating undue pressure to an already difficult decision. I for one see no crisis, no impending doom to necessitate a hard opening date of 2009. Why the rush?

The school board needs to stop the apparent frenzy and get all the hard facts before moving forward and making any more potentially disasterous decisions. Let's not replay "there's no way the land price will be more than $500/acre" with any other potential fees/prices.

I understand this whole process has been going on for years. It is frustrating, but our children are fine. Let's stop the rush for 2009, and find the best way to make our schools better for all our families with the most fiscal responsibility. Check the label, I see no expiration date.

Amen, Lori L! I moved here a year ago and this is a huge train wreck. I can't believe how the school board has manipulated everyone into blaming each other. It's like the Hatfields and the McCoy's. (sorry about the hillbilly reference Naperville, but it best sums up the rediculous nature of hatred on these blogs)

Why isn't everyone holding the school board accountable for bad decisions?

to anonymous 3/18 8:59am

Yes, I agree chances are it will fall between 7-12 million dollars in damages. With that being true, it would be more affordable to purchase BB and build there.

How much would it cost us in the end not to build a 3rd high school, but add on to the existing schools? The data for future enrollment has shown a decrease in numbers after 2012.

Taken from NSFOC website:

*Remember that the 2005 Referendum received a big "NO" until they showed us the location and boundaries?

*So, they showed us the location and the boundaries, and we passed the 2006 Referendum.

*We do not accept this. We are fighting back.
______________________________________________

It is sad that the NSFOC or shall I say TG thinks building a 3rd HS is all about them. Looking at the results of the referendum even if your whole neighborhood voted no the referendum would still have passed. Sorry NSFOC/TG this isn't about you it's about IPSD and crowding. However, you would rather force everyone to suffer if you can't have your way. How can you possibly say you aren't acting selfish? Your selfish and entitlement views are hurting your community, but I guess you just don't care until you get your way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its time to buy the BB land or just forget the school altogether.

That certainly would be ironic, wouldn't it? If the cost of buying the Eola land and paying damages on the BB land total more than buying the BB land in the first place? Since none of us has a crystal ball and can see the future, it would be prudent for the SB to delay closing on the Eola land, which is just a couple of weeks at most, until after the damages judgment is in, especially since they've already been burned once by the same process (would George Fox (really?) and MH be willing to bet their OWN money on this?). From what I have read in Sun and Herald articles about the SB's post-judgment behavior (walking out, not returning BB attorney's phone calls), it seems they're so disgusted with the BB people that they refuse to work further with them under any circumstances, even if it costs us more in the long run. That's what happens when egos, and not level heads, run the show. If the SB barrels ahead with the Eola purchase and then gets nailed with outrageous damages to BB, I will never vote yes on another 204 school referendum to raise taxes again. I refuse to continue enabling the school board with my tax money. Maybe they'll learn to be more careful with less money.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rubel Shelly
Preacher, Educator and Author

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

Thanks Anonymous on March 18th at 11:15am

Thanks for your links. The Eola site is not of the following:

* The school is not on being placed onto Toxix or Hazardous Substances. At least it hasn't been proven yet from the studies that have come back.

*MVHS is not too close to railroad tracks as it states in California recommendations.

*MVHS is not over high pressure water lines.

*MVHS is not within the proximity of High Power/High Voltage lines as the state of California recommends.

You tried proving your point and yet didn't. It was a nice try though.

to Anonymous 3/18/08 11:15am

So, which of the NSFOC quotes you pulled off their website are untrue? You flame NSFOC in your post ("NSFOC or shall I say TG", "You would rather force everyone to suffer if you can't have it your way", "How can you possibly say you aren't acting selfish?"), yet you are the one hurling opinions and childish accusations. The NSFOC stuff you quote is completely factual.

Folks, at this point both the NSFOC movement and the Eola/Molitor environmental concerns have taken a back seat to the BB lawsuit in terms of deciding how this situation plays out. That's the fact of the matter. If the SD gets stuck with a $20 million tab to walk away from BB then that tab on top of the Eola/Molitor purchase price will make proceeding with Eola/Molitor more expensive than just going ahead and purchasing BB. If that is how it plays out then in all likelihood Metea Valley is going to get built at BB.

No need to keep yelling at different neighborhoods. The outcome of this rests with the attorneys for the SD and BB. It'll either get decided in the courtroom or at the negotiating table between them, not us.

To Rubel Shelly: "I am concerned about fiscal responsibility"

If you are concerned about fiscal responsibility, you would not be supporting a lawsuit that is going to cost district taxpayers millions of dollars.

NSFOC:

• Use the $204 per household to pay for an independent audit of the land if you are concerned about safety of the site.
  
• Use the $204 per household to pay for independent polling of residents to show whether or not ALL residents support the new site or not.
  
• Use the $204 per household to pay for independent transportation study (not performed by Laidlaw)
  

• Order defendent to purchase the Brach-Brodie property (left unsaid is "NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT COSTS THE TAXPAYERS")
  
• Award Plaintiffs its attorney's fees and costs (left unsaid "NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT COSTS THE TAXPAYERS")
  

So much for "fiscal responsibility".

To Anonymous on March 18, 2008 11:15 AM:

We don't live in California. Our cars would 'basically be illegal' there too. What's your point -- we should follow California law? If you want that, there's an easy solution. Move to California.

Let's face it. Due to the total incompetence and arrogance of the SB and the SD Administration the taxpayers, citizens, residents, and students will all get screwed regardless of what happens from this day forward.

The ability to find a win-win in this mess evaporated a long time ago. Regardless of what happens from this day forward the lawyers have all won and are surely buying each other rounds of drinks and congratulating each other handsomely.

Let's never, ever forget that we were all led down this path by our fearless leader, by our own SB President, who himself is a member of the bar.

Sure this will sound like hindsight, but why in the world did the SB ever even begin to negotiate with BB in the first place? Did none of the SB membrs remember how the residents of Aero Estates were sued by BB just a few years ago on the opposite side of Rt 59? Did none of the SB members remember that these were not exactly nice, community oriented people? Did none of the SB members remember that all BB cares about is money?

As Naperville grew over the last several decades we were truly blessed by some of the true fathers of our community. People like Harold Moser who always made sure there were parks, and schools, and churches as the town grew. Sure he made a ton of money, but he also gave a ton of it away too. We don't have to look far around town to see something that we can thank Harold Moser for and he did it up front, from the goodness and graciousness of his heart, and didn't hide behind a trust.

So how about it Naperville Sun? The BB Estate and especially it's lawyers are tearing our community and our school district apart and no one really knows anything factually about BB other than it is a name. Isn't it time for an in-depth investigative report of who really is BB? Who are these people and why are they not helping our community instead of letting it get town apart? What else do they own? Follow the money. And while we are at it how about an in-depth look at their legal team? Who are they? Where do they live? Who else do they represent?

I'm all for transparency and it is time the citizens of Naperville know who is behind all of this.

Thank you to the Naperville Sun for addressing the real issues.

It's time to stop the name calling and focus on being fiscally responsible and move the health and safety of the kids to "top priority."

Being fiscally responsible means not rushing down a path that currently appears cheaper without all of the facts. We need to know how much it will really cost us to walk away from Brach Brodie. We need to know what the true cost of remediation on the Eola site is. We need to know the status of the 25 Brach Brodie acres that we were told would already be in our possession. We need to know the true cost of the wetlands at Eola and what other site is being purchased to replace those wetlands. We need to know that there is a contract in place for those 9 wetland acres that need to be replaced. We need to know the increase in transportation mileage the district is taking on by locating the school far away from the center of student population.

Putting the health and safety of the kids to "top priority" means to stop glossing over serious health and safety concerns. Why do other states outlaw siting a school so close to major pipelines? Why will Midwest Gen not accept any responsibility for remediation going forward? Why are we going to begin construction before the site is remediated? Why did the board declare the site unsafe in 2006?

Until these questions are answered, moving forward with the Eola site is irresponsible.

To Anonymous on March 18, 2008 11:15 AM
"This Eola site would basically be illegal in states like California."

Then move to California. Your car would "basically be illegal" there too. (It's the 'basically' that makes it art -- there is no 'basically' illegal. Illegal is a binary state.)

To Todd Andrews:

Ok, now Naperville Schools For Our Children has two Tall Grass spokespeople. What was the point of posting that on all the blogs?

Oops - correction - my comments were directed to Anonymous 10:25am, not Anonymous 11:15am. Sorry Anonymous 11:15am...whoever you are (ha ha).

By Anonymous on March 18, 2008 11:15 AM
...This Eola site would basically be illegal in states like California...

My comment..then move to California.

If you take a look at half the crap in your house involving chemicals, you will find that most say not legal in California.

Unfortunately, there are a different set of rules. But hey the home prices are falling in Cali, so move there.

The previous blog from Big Mike is exactly right.

This is no longer in any of our hands; it really doesn't matter to me which school my children attend as they are all excellent with the SAME cirriculum!

What we should all be concerned with at this point is fiscal responsibility. The district should not move forward on purchasing ANY property until they know the damages from leaving BB. If those costs make BB less expensive or comprable to Eola, then the district should divert to what the voters were presented with and voted based on in 2006. If the cost at Eola is a substantial savings over BB, then move forward on Eola assuming it is safe to do so. (a whole different can of worms I know).

I think taxpayers deserve to know the costs involved so that the decision by the school board is substantiated. The reason for leaving BB to begin with was due to it being too expensive...if that is no longer the case, then a change of plans may be in order.

We need to stop the name calling and hateful comments I have heard and read. Most people in this district are wonderful caring parents. Can we please stop the name calling as it may end up hurting our kids, no matter which school they attend.

In my opinion, this situation should not be about boundaries and who goes where (and that applies to some of the NSFOC comments as well as the NSFOC-fraud comments; just as bad) ....it should be about FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND SAFETY in the end.

All of our schools are excellent; people need to realize that and stop swaying facts to fit their agenda. It is sooo transparent!

To those of you who have focused on slamming NSFOC and gloating that the stuck-up and selfish south isn't getting the new school, you might want to take a good look at what you're actually getting. If you really have no hesitation sending your children to a school on a questionably fit site, then you are welcome to it. My child will be attending Waubonsie instead of the new Metea, and I am thankful for that. It's a fine school, and we won't be concerned about environmental issues like you will. I agree that there is a very vocal group of folks in Tall Grass who have a 'give me Neuqua or give me death' mentality and who are extremely obnoxious in defending their property values, but you might want to consider what a school on this site will do to YOUR property values. All it takes is one lawsuit filed by one family with a sick child, and everyone in the Metea attendence area will have a problem. You don't think realtors will use that as an excuse to shuffle buyers over to more expensive areas? Consider this: in the last 10 years, there have been two cases of a rare cancer at the elementary school my daughter attended. Both children are now cancer free and healthy, but when talking about these two incidents with residents, everyone just shook their heads and said 'two cases of the same thing in the same area, and it's so rare. Go figure.' Even though both children attended the same school, the school never came into the equation because it wasn't a risk factor. What do you think will happen if something like this occurs in the Metea population? The Eola site will always be considered a risk factor because of its history, whether it directly causes illness or not. Like some have said in their blogs, it's not my child who will be going to Metea, so I shouldn't care. But if I were you I would.

Nothing wrong with Waubansee

Mr. Andrews-

Exactly what unfairness are you against?

Exactly how does suing the school district go along with fiscal responsibility? Aren't you just costing the taxpayers money?

Divisiveness, you say? Well suing the school district instead of having your group first make an effort to resolve matters out of court, is pretty divisive.

Finally, when did you have this change of heart, where you no longer had the 'self interest' that other groups have?

And in case you didn't know, everyone wasn't satisfied with BB either. They just didn't stomp their feet and sue over it.

I agree 100% with the post by Todd Andrews. We are switching from NV to WV after sending one child through NV. I admit, I would rather have NV, but am fine with WV. I don't care about the age of the school -- look at Bennett -- that isn't a new school, not updated, but it is the kids and teachers that make that school great, right?

The issue is the SB and how negligent they are from a safety and fiscal and trustworthy point of view. There is not one shred of credibility they can cling to right now. It is interesting how silent they are at present with all the questions that need answers, especially now that we are potentially on the hook for 20m for BB. They operate out of pride and arrogance and knee-jerk reactions. They need to stand up and admit their mistakes and do what they can to fix the mess they created, and do it quickly before further damage is done. To pay 20 m in damages is silly when we could own the property and not have any enviromental safety issues, costly transportation issues in an age of soaring fuel costs........etc etc etc

Please wake up school board and Dr.D. and stop destroying what used to be a fine district!

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

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

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

Todd Andrews,

Thanks for your message. I respect your opinion. I just happen to disagree with it. I believe the community spoke with their approval of the second referendum and in the latest SB election. I strongly believe that the lawsuit was the wrong course of action. I've seen no proof that the majority of members of NSFOC aren't limited to Tall Grass. If NSFOC represents a majority of SD 204, I haven't seen it. I have not talked to anyone in my subdivision that supports the lawsuit. I hope, that if you feel so strongly, that you will run for the SB at the next opportunity.

Isn't this blog about the BB potential damages and legal fees? The namecalling is getting old.

According to this morning's article, the Brach trust has not even filed a claim for reimbursement yet and will do so next month. How much more money will this cost the district?

To Dollars and sense on March 18, 2008 12:58 PM:

Now it's our 'property values' that are at risk. Now it's not that the site IS unsafe, it is that it is PERCEIVED to be unsafe we should worry about.

If it's all about health and safety of the Eola site, then why didn't NSFOC wait until the studies were complete before filing their lawsuit? You could file a lawsuit the day before the sale is closed and get an injunction if you really had grounds.

The name of the group says all that has to be said -- this group was formed because they wanted their kids to go to a NEIGHBOORHOOD school (Neuqua in Naperville). All of the environmental concerns are just hyperbole and hysteria.

Has anyone heard from the school board on the BB damages? Oh that's right, they don't comment on anything unless it's good news.

To Dollars and Sense,
That's the difference between us. The very fact that you brought up that a child had cancer and imagine if it happened at MV and they sued.You said we should consider what the recourse could do to our PROPERTY VALUES!This speaks volumes.....

First of all noone in this district will put any child in an unsafe environment. Secondly, I have never once thought about my property values in the two years since the vote passed for the third high school. You obviously have. We all know the ones stupid enough to publicly admit it as well.I think they were from a "GRASS roots" group for NSFOC (nice play on words.) The unfortunate fact is that kids get cancer and they do go to schools all across this Nation. I just have never heard this tied in to property values before. OMG!!!

To 204 ATM: Read the article again. The combined cost of both Brodie and Brach damages is estimated at around $20 M.
And to Democracy at Work: You've seen no proof that the majority of members of NSFOC aren't limited to TG? I have. I attended the first NSFOC meeting regarding the lawsuit and saw many WE people there. I don't live in WE, but I recognized many who do. That's why their clubhouse was used for the first meeting--it was free.

That's right. The site will be perceived by some people as being unsafe regardless of what the studies show. And to say that perception doesn't matter is ignoring the current problem with Waubonsie right now. WV is a great school, but it's perception is that it's inferior to NV, because it's in Aurora, because the population is a little different, because it's older, because of an alleged rape that occurred there during school hours a few years back--you name it, it's out there. That's exactly why some residents are fighting so hard to stay within NVs attendence area--they're convinced their property values will suffer if they are redistricted to WV. But these people felt the same way about going to Metea when it was suppose to be at the BB site for a variety of other reasons. So yes, I think Metea at Eola will have a perception problem, but that perception will probably diminish with time IF no one sues the SB because of illness. Again, it only takes one . . . As to the timing of the NSFOC lawsuit, you'll have to ask them, but I do know the reason they wanted to act soon was to stop the SB from purchasing Eola prematurely. They had to address the community, collect funds, ask for volunteers, etc., and the SB announced they were hoping to close on the Eola property in March. They had a small window of time in which to act, so they did. I'm not a lawyer (and I don't think you are, either) and so I know nothing about lawsuit and injunction timing, especially at it relates to this case, so I can't judge the timeliness of their actions. But the NSFOC attorney does, and they're following his advice. I do agree that the NSFOC website is beginning to sound a little hysterical (come on, people, get a grip) but that doesn't mean they don't have a valid case. If my child was going to the Eola site, I'd be following everything that's going on right now very closely, rather than dismissing dissenting voices as just sour grapes.

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

Ok, so BB wants damages because there has been loss of value to the property since the market is slow now???? Shouldn't the school board get a lower price now since the "market is slow"? What a bunch of greedy sleezy people BB is trying to snake even more money out of taxpayers. How do they sleep at night?

To : Janet Thomson

Your last sentence said: "Not everyone was 100% satisfied with BB either, but they didn't go ahead and sue..."

They didn't sue because BB was presented and VOTED on; they had the ability to 'speak' at the voting booth.

I think the folks filing the lawsuit felt that was the only way to make their concerns heard. I doubt very much that the lawsuit would have been filed if Eola had been decided on and affirmed with a district wide vote. Or at least it wouldn't have the support it has now; I think most citizens respect democracy.

Janet, I know you are a caring parent; I met you via tennis many years ago. I think we all need to accept that whatever school our children attend ; NV, WV, or MV they will get an excellent education. What we should concentrate our efforts on is making sure our kids go to a safe location which is most cost effective taking into account total costs for each property.

I have seen some excellent points that do not point fingers within our community. Bravo!

Will you also take the time to email your comments to our school board on www.ipsd.org? Click on school board tab and you will see a box stating contact whole school board. It won't take long and will be more effective than just this blog. Thank you.

To If you wait long enough . . . I don't know where you live, but it sounds like La La Land . . . I don't believe the SB would put any child deliberately at risk just to get a school built, that is insane. But perceptions are tied to neighborhoods, and like it or not this is the perception you could have in yours. Illnesses are attributed to not only schools but work and living environments, any place where people spend a lot of time, and lawsuits are sometimes brought against these places when someone gets sick and there's a possibility of cause and effect. The Eola site leaves District 204 vulnerable to these kinds of lawsuits, whether justified or not. This is why the SB initially rejected Eola as a school site, because it was problematic and left the school district open to liablity. If you haven't heard these kinds of things tied to property values before, then you need to pay more attention.

Lily, Brach Brodie wasn't voted on. In case you didn't read the the ballot correctly (or possibly didn't vote at all) it was a 3rd HS and that is what we voted on. If you voted on boundaries please please don't vote in another election. It's quite clear you do not know how to read a ballot.

Let's take it to the Supreme court! It should only take 10-20 years before they have to pay out a dime! By the way, if BB was so valuable (and is somehow worthless now) why didn't they sell it back in the day? And if it is worhtless now, how come some idiots figured it is worth so much? Sounds like they want their cake and be able to eat it too!

By 204 ATM on March 18, 2008 2:12 PM
Isn't this blog about the BB potential damages and legal fees? The namecalling is getting old.

According to this morning's article, the Brach trust has not even filed a claim for reimbursement yet and will do so next month. How much more money will this cost the district?
_________________________________________

204 ATM,

I keep pulling up this blog expecting to find a reasonable discussion about BB potential damages and legal fees and being completely disgusted with the childlike namecalling as well.

Please folks, stop the mud slinging.

I'm wondering as well how much more money this will cost the district and taxpayers of 204. I'm perplexed as to why BB attorneys want to delay 28 days. Does anyone really believe there is hope for negotiation now as Helm stated?

I hope so. Let's hope that Brach and Brodie have decided they want to negotiate a reasonable settlement with district 204. I would love to see district 204 and BB attorneys reach an agreement and END this nightmare for all of us.

Any amount of damages payed to BB as a result of this never ending fiasco will be money taken away from the education of ALL kids in 204. I sure hope we don't spend 10 million plus on NOTHING!

I also hope that the 204 leaders agree to sit down and have a discussion. It's time to put Ego aside and talk.

I can't remember which of the many anonymous post referred to California, referencing the legality of the Eola property and I'm just too lazy to scroll back through all the BS but in regards to California when you replace all of your standard lighting in your house with flourescent lighting per the permit department in the state of CA let me know! Maybe you're neighbors will be kind enough to let you (or your wife) use their bathroom in the morning when putting on make-up so you don't look like bozo the clown. The state of CA has more asinine laws than any in the union and one of the worst public school systems around I don't think we want to look there for a model, but nice try!

Todd Andrews,

With all the concern about environmental issues and EMFs at the Eola site, can you please explain your satisfaction with your subdivision pool being within 50 feet from an electrical substation on one side, and large power lines on the other side. Much less many homes are close to these large power lines. MUCH closer than the Metea school will be on the Eola property to the power lines.

Love to hear your answer on that!

To unbelievable on March 18, 2008 4:56 PM

60% of my lights have been converted to CFLs. The rest will be done by the end of the year.

Please explain why everyone in this District is worried about the MV site. About a mile from there is Granger MS. Granger is probably closer to the EOLA RR yard than MV not to mention the Ferrell Gas Company. How come NSFOC isn't all over that. Maybe you didn't know about it but now you do so I expect you to have the school condemned and rebuilt somewhere else. Isn't that whay your all about. Safe school settings for our children.

Please let me know when you start looking at the safety of every school in this district and tell the taxpayer of IPSD 204 that they are ALL SAFE. Then and maybe then you will get my $204 because then I know you are in it for all kids of IPSD 204.

To MH on March 18, 2008 5:27 PM

"With all the concern about environmental issues and EMFs at the Eola site, can you please explain your satisfaction with your subdivision pool being within 50 feet from an electrical substation on one side"

Tall Grass people have the option to go to the pool or not, correct? Do people have the option NOT to attend MVHS because of the same concerns?

To By Anonymous on March 18, 2008 5:36 PM

"Tall Grass people have the option to go to the pool or not, correct? Do people have the option NOT to attend MVHS because of the same concerns?"

Are you kidding? That post was a joke, right?

Dollars and "Sense",
I'm not buying your distorted rationale as to why you would say such ignorant comments. I'm also not buying the "perceptions" argument ....it's old. A little passive /aggressive I would say.Love the back door comments on WV perceptions. You aren't fooling anyone.Move on.

To George Fox,

I agree that it is time to try to negotiate a resonable settlement with BB. In last week's paper it was stated the the district was contacted to see if they were still in the mix for the property. However, the district did not respond and MM stated they he ASSUMED the price was still 31 million. He ASSUMED?

BB has a right to be upset. The land was tied up for two years and the jury decided a price, and then the SB said "Oh never mind". For those of you that think BB is being greedy, remember the jury decided the price. After all, would you sell your house for less than its value? I sure wouldn't.

I also do not want to see millions of dollars thrown away in legal fees and damages.

The SB or somebody needs to reach out and do some damage control. The silence is deafening.

P.S. George - I too love your blog name. Good humor!

To DK on 3/18--BB did not sell their land back in the day because it has only become available for sale recently. The Brach part of BB was owned by Helen Brach, the candy heiress who went missing, and her heirs had to wait years until she was declared legally dead before they could sell the land. As to your other statement, I noticed this contradiction too when reading the article this morning. A jury decided the land had increased in value so much that it is worth over twice as much now than it was in 05, yet now BB is suing for damages based on the premise that they have suffered a loss because the land is worth less now than previously because of a change in the market. Am I reading this correctly? Anyone?

To yet another anonymous,

Wow 60% CFL's what next? A large basin to catch rain water for bathing. Have you done away with your microwave and toaster too? Let me guess you hair dryer is also on the soon to be banned list. Do you have solar panels nestled in the sod on your roof and goats that you ship in for the summer months to keep it looking trimmed? Did you move here from CA recently or have you just been watching too much Access Hollywood ... Go Al Gore!

By MH on March 18, 2008 5:27 PM
Todd Andrews,

With all the concern about environmental issues and EMFs at the Eola site, can you please explain your satisfaction with your subdivision pool being within 50 feet from an electrical substation on one side, and large power lines on the other side. Much less many homes are close to these large power lines. MUCH closer than the Metea school will be on the Eola property to