To: JAS on March 27, 2008 5:42 PM

JAS must stand for Jack A___ because you only have one thought that you keep posting on every blog.

Get some new material because we're tired of your same old factless rant.

These blogs are interesting and I can see why it can be addicting. Even peoples sarcams makes me laugh.

Anyway, just to set the record straight with all those saying NSFOC is costing the taxpayers money. It hasn't cost the taxpayers a dime. You know why? Because the SB has not responded to the lawsuit.

However, Mark Metzger HAS COST THE TAXPAYERS: $5,000,000.00 BY SUING BB!!

Mark Metzger said they would win the case. I believe he got his head handed to him.

So I ask, why is it okay for Mark Metzger to file lawsuits, tie up peoples property for 2 years and now he is potentially COSTING THE TAXPAYERS ANOTHER: $20,000,000.00!!

Yet, your not saying anything about it? You don't think the school board should be held accountable?

Secondly, as far as the NSFOC saying the land is contaminated. Well, sorry wrong again! They are saying "IT MAYBE CONTAMINATED." They list out what could be wrong with the property. They want to know why did the school board choose this when they could have chosen BB (WHICH THEY PUSHED ON THE VOTERS), or any other property for that matter. Why chose a potential hazard? Walk away and chose another property.

Mark Metzger and the board costs us the taxpayers:5 MILLION DOLLARS ON HIS LAWSUIT!!

NSFOC cost the taxpayers: $0

Dan on March 23, 2008 10:11 PM

"As someone who just moved into 204, I am really disappointed in my decision to buy a house here, instead of 203."

Dan, I too just moved from Chicago and unfortunately picked D204. The SB is just as you describe. I too will not be voting for any of the school board members next year. I am told April 2009! I want fair and competent board members. People who will not try to ram-rod their personal agendas through.

This is one of the most bazaar and laughable situations I have ever witnessed. A SB that apparently can't do anything right lead by a Superintendent that can't lead!

Cook County comes to Naperville!

To Anon on 3/26 at 6:24 PM--Nope, it didn't make me look stupid, either. But the CAPS LOC thing worked well for you.

You're the one who seems to know all about what the SB is doing and why. Talk to the Sun, you can fill in the rest of Naperville . . .
You were a lot more interesting when you were ranting.

To Dollars and sense on March 24, 2008 4:36 PM :

I didn't say it would "make you feel stupid". I said it would make you LOOK stupid. Still having trouble reading, I see.

My points aren't hard to follow if you bother to read them.

I'll put it in simple words for you:

You say you know what the School Board intended. "The SB fully intended to rush the Eola land purchase, not only to break ground ASAP, but to also keep the community from meddling in the process as much as possible"

How do you know the SB's intentions if they were being "silent" as you claimed?

Are you clairvoyant. (Sorry, that's a big word -- you may need to look that one up in a dictionary).

Reply to Anon on 3/24 at 12:14 PM--If you're wondering how much feedback the district got after the property recommendation was posted, ask the SB (and good luck with that). If you want to know how involved the NSFOC was before the lawsuit was filed, ask the NSFOC. I am not a member of the SB or the NSFOC.

To Anon on 3/24 at 12:06 PM--You are too funny! I really got a kick out of your last post. No, the exclamation mark thing didn't make me feel stupid. Since I don't write the NSFOC website, I completely missed that connection. Now that you've explained it, let me check again . . . . . Nope, still not feeling stupid. Sorry.

As far as the points you're making in your post, these are a little hard to follow when you're ranting. C'mon, admit it, you know you got into a rant there. But that's ok, it's a really great rant. There's a lot of similar opinions flying on another Sun blog. Go to "NSFOC: D204 Board deceived us on 2006 referendum" and check those out. And don't forget to bring your CAPS LOCK key!

So why is it not ok for people to fight for what is right for their children? I keep seeing the unhappy Brookdale people, now happy with the new site, bashing those that have the same opinion of unfairness and pain of moving and split schools. Funny when the shoe is on the other foot. I am sooooo tired of the North/South thing. I never realized how much the north hates the south and still after years of Neuqua being built they still have a chip on their shoulders.

No one is going to watch over your children like you do and I don't think it is right or fair for others to call those who are making moves in the district Names. If protecting your children is entitlement then so be it. And by the way where did this entitlement name come from, oh that right straight from our Super mouth.

Was talking to a school bus driver and told him some kids would have up to a 40 min. ride to school. He was shocked by the time. A new HS should be SAFE, EASE the OVERCROWDING without bussing the hell out of the district, and should decrease the commuting times of those who live in the district. NOT create increased times for an increased amount of people. No wonder people are sueing this SB.

To Dollars and sense on March 21, 2008 4:44 PM

"The only info we could get was from the newspapers AFTER they had done something with regards to acquiring the Eola site. THE LAWSUIT WAS FILED BECAUSE THE SB STOPPED COMMUNICATING"

Funny, the LAWSUIT WAS FILED AFTER THE SCHOOL BOARD COMMUNICATED THE NEW BOUNDARIES.

Information about the RECOMMENDATION for the new property was posted on the IPSD website on 01/15 and sent via the IPSD news lists on that date. The boundary process was posted on 01/29 with a period for the community to send proposals to Dr. Birkett. RECOMMENDATIONS were sent home 02/12 with a period of time for the community to comment on those.

I wonder how much feedback the District got after the property recommendation was posted...

To Dollars and sense on March 21, 2008 11:51 PM:

I used that many exclamation points to make fun of all the ones you and the NSFOC use. It was to make YOU look STUPID. "AND THE SCHOOL DEMOLISHED!" "IT'S ON THE PROPERTY!" "The Fight is Not Over!" "THEN... they changed the new high school location to a potentially dangerous site with environmental hazards! AND THEN... they changed the boundaries!! AND NOW... we don't know the final cost two years later!!!?"

The NSFOC is NOT the RESULT of the SB their withholding information from the community, not the CAUSE. It is the RESULT of CERTAIN residents of CERTAIN subdivisions NOT being happy with the NEW boundaries that send THEIR CHILDREN to an AURORA school. That's WHY the group was formed. It's in their NAME: "NOT SAFE Schools" or "NON-TOXIC Schools" but "NEIGHBORHOOD Schools".

I'll stick with "ENTITLEMENT". It fits. You are apparently ENTITLED to be involved in every discussion the School Board is having.

Why wouldn't the school board hold public comment on lands they were looking at as alternatives to BB? Because it would drive up the price of the land.

Are there valid reasons for withholding the Phase II studies? Yes. Part of the remediation negotiations could include confidentiality clauses. Since MWGEN does NOT have a contract to sell the land yet, releasing information about any contaminants on the land would negatively impact their ability to sell the land to someone else if the School Board balks. So this is kept confidential until a contract is signed. AND the contract can include stipulations for the School Board to walk away if the land is not properly remediated.

HOW do you know what the School Board INTENDED? This would imply you have KNOWLEDGE of their INTENTIONS. But you said they were in SILENT running mode. If the School Board INTENDED to RUSH the purchase and break ground ASAP to keep the community from MEDDLING, they COULD have never told the community about the change in plans until the DAY before they signed a CONTRACT. They did NOT have to ANNOUNCE the new SITE and the new BOUNDARIES.

There I FOCUSED on your WORDS. HAPPY?

You're WELCOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As someone who just moved into 204, I am really disappointed in my decision to buy a house here, instead of 203. Being new to town, I know incompetence when I see it, and this school board takes the cake. I moved from Chicago to avoid the pitfalls of the city and cook county, and this school board is doing all it can to beat Todd Stroger at making some of the worst decisions in the state. The reality of the situation is this, now we are going to have to wait for the courts to decide what happens. First we have to see if the BB trust is awarded damages, and by the looks of their lawyers and how effective they’ve been, they are going to get something. Maybe not the full $20 million that has floated around, but they’ve had success convincing juries to award them money. I don’t see how the school board thinks they aren’t going to have pay more than just the legal fees? Second we have to see what happens with the environmental studies that are being done at the new site. This has been severely overlooked by our SB, and still confuses me why our SB would open the district up to any potential litigation that could cost tens of millions of dollars down the road? As someone who doesn’t live in Tall Grass or White Eagle, I support the NSFOC, and will be attending their meetings going forward. By the time the dust settles, we’ll see that the new Eola site will be much more expensive than buying the original BB land. If this SB wants to really see how the district feels, put this new high school location to a vote, and let the taxpayers make the decision. On another note, and I hope some of the current SB members are reading this blog, I am a voting resident as well. When their terms expire and these SB members are up for re-election, I will not be voting for this type of incompetence again. We as taxpayers in 204 deserve better than this.

To A 203 parent on 3/21 at 9:28 PM--Thanks for taking the time to weigh in. I don't blame you for not wanting anything to do with 204. If I were you I wouldn't want us, either. I did want to clarify one comment you made, "An elementry school was built, brand new and sat vacant because some subdivision was not built to some capacity that would have generated students for the school." Such an elementary school was built, but our SB did not pay for it. The money for that school was made available to the district by the state; it was a use it or lose it offer that year. The SB knew an elementary school would be needed in this new subdivision eventually, so they built it early to take advantage of the state funding. They thought it would be open in 1, 2 years max. But the homes in that subdivision are very expensive, I've heard close to $1M, so the area has not filled up as quickly as the SB thought it would (go figure). So I actually think building this school at the time the SB did was a reasonable move. I hear it opened this school year, though. Just thought I'd pass this on.

To Anon on 3/21, 7:53--Here you go with the "entitlement" rhetoric again. Please, get a new word of the week.

Yes, public officials have an obligation to communicate with the people they represent. No one wants play-by-play transcripts or confidential information; we just want to be kept informed of the basics. When absolutely no information is forthcoming, mistrust and speculation flourish, and you get organizations like the NSFOC and things like lawsuits. All the community has asked for was an open dialogue with the board on this and instead they have been ignored. You're very wrong, alot is being kept from 204 residents; and I haven't talked to anyone, regardless of their stance, who doesn't think this but you. And don't blame the NSFOC lawsuit for their lack of openness, the SB went into silent running mode right after the BB verdict, long before the lawsuit. The NSFOC is the RESULT of their withholding information from the community, not the CAUSE.

You're wrong about the land contract as well. The SB fully intended to rush the Eola land purchase, not only to break ground ASAP, but to also keep the community from meddling in the process as much as possible. Really, I haven't read or heard anthing that denies this until your post. Have you been asleep for the past 2 months?

You may have noticed I put some words in all caps. I did this to help you FOCUS ON THE WORDS instead of insignificant things like exclamation marks. What is your obsession with this, by the way? Do you realize you used as many exclamation marks in your last post as I did in mine? Wow, that must make you feel stupid.

The drink and bubble bath is a great idea, though. Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have been discussing this continued problem with 204 too where I work. A number of us are 203 and work with purportedly "parents" from 204. 204 has always been the little cousin of 203. When Eola and the orginial Granger became a District in as we recall the late 60's, there have always been problems with it. At first they were attributed to "growing pains". Perhaps rightfully so however there was a lot of really bad decision making over the years. Decision making by YOU, the parents of 204. You are the school board. Who can forget the open classroom idea? Build these schools with dividing walls. I remember visiting one and thinking good grief, a giant,loud cafeteria with moveable walls. Throw in some trailers at various locations. TRAILERS, thats putting kids first! An elementry school was built, brand new and sat vacant because some subdivision was not built to some capacity that would have generated students for the school. We read they simply closed an old school and opened the new one after a year or so. The whole concept of kids walking to their neighborhood school was impossible. Now, ONE day a year, its national walk to school day in 204. This doesn't seem like a very good school district to me which is another reason we chose to purchase a home in the Naperville district. Who ever wrote about concerns that the two districts will work something out and hundreds or a thousand 204 kids wind up in 203 is of concern. We don't want what the 203 community wants to be part of the cirriculum to be affected by an influx of 204 students, and by that we mean 204 PARENTS. You have a mess, fix it. But we see in our conversations at work, in letters to the editor and in these blogs why you have a problem. And some wrote they think electing a new school board next time will help? Do you want people who post on these blogs on your school board? Like the person who refers to Brookdale as Suckdale? Maybe not but this is exactly what you have to look forward too. Enjoy yourselfs but stay in 204 please.

>Here is another example of our administrators talking about why we wouldn't change sites.

You may have read in the local newspapers that a Naperville area developer
> proposed a concept to sell Indian Prairie a parcel of land in the
> southwest portion of the district for the construction of Metea Valley
> High School.
>
> The Board of Education reviewed but did not accept the developer's concept
> last October for several reasons. The proposal involved portions of
> property the developer did not own and involved multiple other parties and
> additional hurdles. No financial incentive for the district was offered.
>
> 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
>

To Dollars and sense on March 21, 2008 5:43 PM:

No, you're missing the point! The school board is not required to show you to perform all of their actions in public. You don't perform land negotiations in public. You don't release documents without reviewing them. "Slow down" NSFOC says. No wait "Speed up and get us those documents NOW! We need to know! You're hiding things'

They aren't 'keeping' anything from you and all the exclamation points in the world don't change anything. What's pathetic is the sense of entitlement in your post. Like you 'deserve' to be personally called by Dr. D. daily.

Relax, have a drink, take a bubble bath. No one is going to sign a land contract without you knowing about it. And lay off the exclamation mark key. You're going to wear it out.

To Anon on 3/21 at 7:22 a.m.--You wrote that "Maybe our school board is taking the time to REVIEW the Phase II studies and work with their lawyers to . . . etc, etc. You're missing the point! WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GUESS ABOUT WHAT OUR SCHOOL BOARD IS DOING, WE SHOULD KNOW! We elected them, gave them our taxes, and they're making decisions that will affect our lives! And they're keeping information about their actions from us. The fact that we even have to speculate on what they're doing and why is pathetic, and that's the problem.

In response to Anonymous, March 18th PM, I , too, live in D203, and I'm afraid that somebody might float the idea that we should fill the empty seats in D203 with kids from D204. I don't want that to happen because I don't want your kids mixing with my kids and I don't want you D204 parents changing what we teach in D203 to fit your values. In reading through these I'm amazed at the apparent lack of intelligence and overall pettiness of D204 parents. I really expected more from you than this! Get a life!!!!!!!

To Anon on 3/21 at 9:37 a.m.: You may have liked Lori's post, but it is factually incorrect. The board "disappeared" after the court verdict that ruled in favor of BB. They went full speed on acquiring the Eola site and stopped communicating with the community. The only info we could get was from the newspapers AFTER they had done something with regards to acquiring the Eola site. THE LAWSUIT WAS FILED BECAUSE THE SB STOPPED COMMUNICATING, not the other way around. Of course, now they can't tell us anything because of the lawsuit, but they weren't telling us anything before it anyway. Don't blame NSFOC for the school board keeping the community out of the process.

To "Sick of name calling": I can't post that letter because how do I know that it came from MM. Also you need to spell out who MM is along with authenticating the letter. Thanks.

This is a quote from Bradshaw just about a year ago. I quess power lines are ok now.

Dist. 204 candidates discuss Brach-Brodie, Macom sites
Naperville Sun, The (IL) - April 6, 2007
Author: By Britt Carson

Bradshaw

Incumbent Curt Bradshaw said many problems exist with the Macom site and until those are resolved, the school board needs to stick with the Brach-Brodie site.

"We explored the plan in great detail," Bradshaw said. " The school would sit next to a ComEd substation and that is just one among the long list of negatives. I do not think putting kids next to a substation is in the best interest of our kids."

To Lori. Good post by Well Duh. Not only do they (the Board) have to dissapear on the advice of counsel bc of the suit brought against them but probably on the advice of anyone in their right mind. They are being hounded by a bunch a crazed residents who (truly) can't handle it when things don't go the way they want it to.

To lori lathrop on March 20, 2008 5:30 PM :

Maybe our school board is taking the time to REVIEW the Phase II studies and work with their lawyers to draw up a contract with MWGEN that will address any issues in the report? You don't do this in public as it weakens your negotiating stance with MWGEN.

So we have the NSFOC running around saying 'slow down, slow down' and then people posting in blogs 'WHERE ARE THEY'? Which do you want? For them to rush through the Phase II studies?

To Well Duh on 3/20: The school board stopped talking to the public right after the BB verdict and have been running amuck on their own autocratic course since. That's why the lawsuit was filed by NSFOC. The board would not talk to the public or answer inquiries, and the lawsuit was the only recourse. The board disappeared BEFORE the lawsuit, not after. Know what you're talking about before you post. Geez!

to Well Duh...

You are one condenscending induhvidual....

So by your logic, if they are sued they don't need to take public comment? Prehaps you are MM's PR Rep. Repeat after me, "We don't have to do this!" Well, as our elected officials, they are accountable to us, so they do. Dash's 5 minutes to sign up for comment is BS, and you know it. Shutting out the community is BS, and you know it.

....and if they didn't release the Phase II reports yet, you know darn well there's something very wrong.

"I have SO MANY QUESTIONS and the school board has disappeared!!! "

Lori, of course they've disappeared, probably on the advice of counsel. They're being sued. You may have read about it in the Sun.

Can we THINK before we post people? Geez!

To lori lathrop on 3/20: I'll tell you where the school board is. Between 6-7:30 PM tonight they were at the H.C. Center on Shoreline in a "secret" executive session. They came out for 3 minutes to hear 2 people make comments, then adjourned. The 25 or so parents in the room weren't acknowledged or spoken to. No information was shared with them. There were several more people there who had wanted to speak, but there was no sign-up sheet out when they arrived. Dr. D. was asked about the sign-up sheet, and he put one out at 5:50. It was picked up at 5:55. People who arrived after 5:55 weren't allowed to sign-up for comments.
To Just trying to stay neutral on 3/20: All who attended tonight had their listening ears tuned in, but the Board would not talk to us.

To Anonymous on March 20, 2008 4:03 PM

"AND to edify you all, the Board President has already put into writing, acting as the Board President, that bait and switch would be recognized as changing locations and/or boundaries.
Facts and documentation are both pesky things! "

No, half-truths from NSFOC are pesky things that need to be swatted like flies. The Board President said, in an e-mail, "To change the boundaries after the vote smacks of a bait and switch and is just simply unfair ..."

For all we know, MM still has this opinion. He may still think it is unfair. I think if you asked him right now he'd say he wishes we had already broken ground on Metea at Brach Brodie.

What he said is far different from what YOU have said. Why can't NSFOC use real FACTS instead of distortions and lies?

No contracts have been signed by the board, prepared yes but not signed! There are contingencies for the prepared contracts based on phase 1 & 2 studies being completed and free of any pollution problems. The board is not hiding they are in fact having a meeting as I write. The minutes for the next Monday school board meeting are on the school website and they do outline the stipulations. Maybe there will be a good turn-out with the patrons attending having their listening ears tuned in.

There sure are a lot of uncertainties right now. Will MV get built? If so, where? Will BB win their lawsuit? Will FSFOC win their lawsuit? ya ya yo

Sure is a good thing Dr D has a short term contract. From the looks of it his tenure in 204 will be real short any he only needs to take a good look in his own mirror to figure out why.

Sure is a good thing we have school board elections coming up to. Without any doubt that will be the true defining factor of where voters really are on all these issues regardless of what gets posted here or in letters to the editor.

It is going to be really interesting to see what platform and promises the incumbents will stand on as well as what we will see from the challengers.

If nothing else we've got to love our democratic process! Thanks to a whole bunch of factors we are all getting to see it at it's very best and at it's very worst! I sure hope everyone is getting all of their children involved in this one because this is truly a golden opportunity for them to learn a lot about how our government really operates.

I can't understand why the headlines in the papers aren't reading that the Eola site is SAFE... proven SAFE - here is the PROOF. I can assure you if there was truly nothing wrong with that site our lovely and competent school board would be plastering it on every store front and newspapers in Naperville.

Instead my biggest question is WHERE ARE THEY??? Why haven't we heard from them? WHAT ARE THEY DOING??? If you read the minutes from the last school board meeting they were discussing which construction company to spend millions of dollars with and which contract to sign. How can they be thinking about signing any contracts on the Eola site??? Are they going to sign a construction contract that they have to back out of and then get sued because they backed out???

I have SO MANY QUESTIONS and the school board has disappeared!!! We deserve some answers, it is after all our taxes....

to hmmmmmmmm posted on March 20, 2008 1:02 PM:

Unfortunately, your view of bait and switch is legally incorrect AND to edify you all, the Board President has already put into writing, acting as the Board President, that bait and switch would be recognized as changing locations and/or boundaries.

Facts and documentation are both pesky things!

To "Anonymous on March 19, 2008 5:20 PM ":

The difference is that the NSFOC has NO HISTORY, good or bad, while your 204 School Board has a detailed and documented history of untruths, incorrect data, hubris, and misleading the public

Thus, when at an impasse between two such groups, I only recommend you wait for the courts to decide before you berate your fellow citizens and neighbors and call them liars. Until then, I would NOT side with the group that has the dubious past.

To hmmmm on 3/20: You're thinking too much. Please stop.

So I got to thinking. If the NSFOC is successful in their lawsuit (that's a BIG IF) and say the SB is forced to purchase the BB land. Wouldn't that mean that there is a true "bait and switch"? Because after all the definition of bait and switch is: A sales tactic in which a bargain-priced item (we thought BB) is used to attract customers who are then encouraged to purchase a more expensive similar item (BB now).

I think if that is the case then we have a real lawsuit, anyone in? I'll ask you to donate $204 but I really will make you donate $402.

Here's the interesting part of my arguement. Notice how the NSFOC is now trying to spin things so as it looks like the district will be paying more for the Eola site then they will for the BB site. I'm onto you Shawn Colling, Mr. Andrews and the 200 or so members of the NSFOC.

Nice spin tactic on the bait and switch, but I doubt it will work. It might though if the SB does purchase the remaining 55 acres of BB. However, I doubt the NSFOC will sue the SB then!!!

By Suzie on March 19, 2008 9:54 PM
Wow,

"I had no idea that I lived in a neighborhood with no minorities and that everyone was a millionaire. ..... "

Suzie,
You don't.It's just SOME people THINK they do :)

To Do not trust the SB on March 19, 2008 5:54 PM

You (meaning all of us) elected them. And re-elected them. Now NSFOC is whining because a politician lied to them. Where do we line up for the lawsuit against President Bush? He's lied to us quite a few times too?

Wow,

I had no idea that I lived in a neighborhood with no minorities and that everyone was a millionaire. Wow, I guess I am one lucky gal! I also did not know that our homeowners association was in charge of a law suit. After all I am seeing over and over in these blogs that Tall Grass is sueing the district. Mabey someone needs to inform the association because I don't think they are aware of this. Off to the spa.

To Abe F.: Thanks for your input. This is what worries me. I don't know where the SB is getting their information. Even after the BB verdict, they still talk as if they're competely confident about what will happen in future rulings. You'd think that common sense would indicate some caution here. Thanks for the insight, you've been following this closer than I have, but this is depressing (*sigh*). You know those numbskulls are going to go ahead and close on the Eola property ASAP no matter what.

Doesn't anyone remember MM stating the we could afford BB and will get the land? Do you remember how the SB told us any extra funds were added into the ref? They were so confident about getting the land. Look how that turned out. Now they are sooo confident about how much we owe BB for damages. I don't trust them and if we buy the Eola site tomorrow this district is sunk. I don't care where you live this will effect all children in district 204!!!

Does anyone have actual PROOF that the NSFOC numbers in the Sun are correct?

By "proof" I mean something besides NSFOC saying otherwise.

So, does anyone have any hard proof that the advertised numbers are right?

To Abe Froman: Thanks for the explanation. That does make sense. I thought the valuation was based on the jury's verdict, not the date the district filed suit. So it sounds like they do have a case. Maybe you could enlighten us further--do think the SB's estimate of 3-5M to walk away is realistic, or do you think there is a likelihood that we'll get stuck for much more? Does BB have a case for close to 20M? Since the SBs predictions have been wrong in the past, do you think they are being reckless rushing to buy the Eola property before the BB damage judgment is in? I'd appreciate your thoughts!

///////////////////////////////////

I'm not an expert, I've just been following this thing for a while now. In my explaination, I meant to say January 2008, not January 2007 is when the district abandoned.

Back during the condemnation trial, the judge allowed the jury to award a 2.5 million dollar damage to remainder to Brach Brodie due to their claim that the district damaged their remaining property under contract with PREIT (can't remember the contract price - as I recall it was nearly $600K/acre). I never thought that would stick but it did. They successfully convinced a jury that the PREIT offer for the frontage property was less than it would have been had the district not condemed the adjacent property.

Here is a snippet from a May 3, 2007 Naperville Sun article:
......................................
Attorneys for Brach Brodie have said previously they would seek "damages" or financial compensation from the school district for the 71 acres because that land value would have been affected by putting a high school on the adjacent 80-acre site.

However, with the land now sold, that issue appears to be off the table.
........................................

So the Brach Brodie attorneys convinced a jury to award an additional 2.5 million which everyone predicted they had absolutely no shot of winning.

I think they have a decent shot at significant damages here. If the land is worth less than $518/acre now due to the bad real estate market, multiply that times 55 acres and those seem to be reasonable damages. Plus you could probably pile on some extra damages for lost use of the land (for example, they could have sold it in January 2006 and had the money sitting in the bank earning interest income for 2+ years).

I personally agree that it is reckless and irresponsible to pursue the Eola property before the Brach Brodie walk away costs are known and the sale of the 25 acres is agreed upon.

Does anyone have actual PROOF that the NSFOC numbers in the Sun are incorrect?

By "proof" I mean something besides the 204 Board saying otherwise.

The 204 Board has proven again and again that they have little grasp on numbers. The proof is in the absolutely dismal demographic numbers they used to push the referendum, the embarassing surpluses they are building, their statements & arrogance in believing they could condemn the B&B land and get it for a "song", etc., etc., etc.

So, does anyone have any hard proof that the advertised numbers are wrong? If not, why not wait for the courts to provide said proof?

stop the school board:

I am totally ashamed for you and your children. Do you honestly think by posting false information in the paper that it is going to make a difference? The NSOFC doesnt realize that no matter what, WE AND TG WILL ATTEND WVHS IN 2009. Even if you manage to slow down the process, the district will have no choice but to send you anyway to help the overcrowding at Neuqua Valley. They WILL NOT have a school with over 5000 students, and WILL NOT put mobile classrooms in front of the Taj Mahal. Your two subdivisions are first on the trading block. WELCOME TO WARRIOR LAND!

By Stop the School Board on March 19, 2008 2:03 AM
So...what did you think of the full page ad in today's Sun? If you didn't see it, you can find it on NSFOC website under "Big Bills" on the left hand side. Check it out. The numbers don't lie...

Numbers don't lie?? Every heard of Enron, Worldcom, Qwest. However, if you insist then here are my number:
Cost to Build on BB = $47mil
Cost to build on Eola = $19.8 mil
Specifically to "stop the school board": I made up the number. I think most others are savy enought to know i made up the numbers.

By Stop the School Board on March 19, 2008 2:03 AM
So...what did you think of the full page ad in today's Sun? If you didn't see it, you can find it on NSFOC website under "Big Bills" on the left hand side. Check it out. The numbers don't lie...

ACTUALLY THEY DO . NSFOC you are making fools of yourselves and enemies along the way. I am embarrassed for you.

To Anon on 3/18 at 9:44: Sounds like you're setting an excellent example for your children. It's good that you found the comments about WV offensive, you should. It's unfortunate that many others don't. We moved here almost 9 years ago, shortly after NV opened, and I heard them then. Since the building boom on the south end it's only gotten worse. If you didn't hear any of this before the lawsuit, then you weren't at any boundary meetings in 05 when board member Jeanette Clark pleaded with the board to move TG, WE, Tamarac(sp?), into the WV boundary area to diversify it's socioeconomic population and so that WV could benefit by tapping into these subdivision's volunteer base, among other things. I remember these words exactly "What has broken my heart is what WV has become [in public perception] since Neuqua was built". 'In public perception' was added by me, as this was what she was referring to when she made this comment. So I started asking around what those perceptions were, and these were some of the things I heard. Ms. Clark definitely had a point. So you can shoot the messenger if you like, but this is nothing new to people who have been in the loop for years.

To: Stop the School Board on March 19, 2008 2:03 AM
"what did you think of the full page ad in today's Sun? Check it out. The numbers don't lie..."

But liars use numbers.

To unbelievable on March 19, 2008 10:52 AM:

Excellent points. That's one of the most troubling points about the NSFOC lawsuit -- it is based on the premise that voters believed what POLITICIANS (our school board) said before the referendum.

Haven't we been around the block enough times to know that politicians will say whatever they want to get your vote? None of their words are ever binding. Did anyone sue George Bush I over 'read my lips, no new taxes' after he raised their taxes? If so, did they win?

Personally, I didn't believe a word they said. That's why I voted 'no'. You could put a parking deck and a mighty large HS wing on both Waubonsie and Neuqua parking lots for far less than this referendum amount. Or work with the park district to build a nice football stadium on the acreage we own at Brach-Brodie and replace Neuqua and Waubonsie stadiums with new buildings.

To Abe Froman: Thanks for the explanation. That does make sense. I thought the valuation was based on the jury's verdict, not the date the district filed suit. So it sounds like they do have a case. Maybe you could enlighten us further--do think the SB's estimate of 3-5M to walk away is realistic, or do you think there is a likelihood that we'll get stuck for much more? Does BB have a case for close to 20M? Since the SBs predictions have been wrong in the past, do you think they are being reckless rushing to buy the Eola property before the BB damage judgment is in? I'd appreciate your thoughts!

Hey lilly,

Where was all of your dilligent research regarding the history of school board comments before the last ref? How about the one when we gave them the money for NV and they said they needed 80 acres rather than the 40 that WV has so that they could expand the school to accomodate future growth do you remember that one?

Oooh Oooh! Here's another do you remember when they then told us that they could convert two middle schools to freshmen centers for $54 million dollars and that way we wouldn't even need a third high school? Oh and who can forget the fact that they also said that it wouldn't cost a thing to convert the same freshmen centers back to middle schools, just the changing of a few signs! Huh???? I guess it was their buy one conversion get the second free:)

Anyhow what I'm getting at is all of you who are crying foul and screaming about the poor track record of the SB the've always had a poor track record but it didn't stop you from giving them 125 million. The writing was always on the wall and there were plenty of sources of info other than the District 204 website. I voted no but I'll still be paying my fair share of the 125 million plus the millions that it's going to cost the district to defend against NSFOC. Thanks guys, thanks for suing me but it's for the kids right!

To anonymous, March 18, PM

You have just proven the point that many of the NSFOC supporters(including D203 taxpayers now?!?!) have absolutely no concern about the supposed environmental hazards at the Eola site and simply don't want to see a new high school built on that land or any other. There is no concern for the kids, only concern for yourself. But one must question why anyone who does not live in D204 and professes no concern about environmental issues would waste their time posting on a blog that has nothing to do with them. I sense much resentment on your part and can only say - get a life! and leave this dicussion to people who have a vested interest in this district. Surely you can find something better to do with your time then waste it on us non Naperville people in 204.

Just a few interesting facts regarding our SB. In 2001 when the SB said we didn't need a 3rd HS, we voted on a referendum to renovate the 2 freshman campuses at a cost to tax payers of $57M. After the next referendum for the 3rd HS was rejected, the SB hired a consulting firm to help get the referendum passed. After questionnaires were sent out to identify what residents found most objectionable for their children, and split shifts were identified to be that issue, the SB sent out fliers threatening all of us with....split shifts(sent home in our children's backpacks). I have in my hand a flier from the group which opposed this past referendum (from 2005) and it clearly states that recent estimates for the BB site are over $5M/acre. If this grassroots group knew this, then surely the SB also knew. To claim that the SB has not manipulated us, lied to us and threatened us is just a misstatement. I wasn't for the referendum and voted against it. I won't have a child at either WVHS or MVHS, and in 2 years when my youngest graduates from NVHS we will look for greener pastures elsewhere. The vitriol from this community is amazing. You should be looking at your SB for all their incompetence. Everyone in this community just wants what is best for their kids(as we should!!!)

I can't help but notice that supporters of the Eola site are confident that a large damage award to BB will NOT be granted....I find this troubling.

I would like to say that the school board (specifically MM) repeatedly assured residents that the jury verdict would favor the district regarding the condemnation of BB. I feel that the district's history in predicting rulings should cause us to pause and wait to see what the damages are on BB BEFORE moving forward on ANY purchase.

Let history be our lesson and lets not make the same mistake again of relying on the judgement of our school board/their attorneys.

The decision to wait is prudent regardless of which site anyone is in favor of. I could care less where the school is built; all of our schools are excellent! What I do care about is not allowing our school board to continue to make reckless decisions!

To Anonymous on March 18, 2008 7:54 PM

"I saw an ad in today's Sun that estimated $100,000 for the NSFOC lawsuit. "

An ad from NSFOC, right? An objective source. Shawn Collins didn't take this case for chump change. It will cost millions to defend this suit (and all of the appeals NSFOC will follow on with if they lose and the School Board will follow on with if they lose).

So...what did you think of the full page ad in today's Sun? If you didn't see it, you can find it on NSFOC website under "Big Bills" on the left hand side. Check it out. The numbers don't lie...

The Phase II studies will be released this week and will be clean and what isn't will be cleaned by MidwestGen.

The IL EPA will approve the Eola site for a school.

The school board will close on the land.

The IPSD will start digging in April. They will not wait for the May 19th date with BB and the court as they have no control over that.

Time to start moving on people.

This is another Blog which has been hosting analysis of the situation over the last few weeks. I thought the analysis they posted there yesterday was excellent:

http://www.elemental-learning.com/OurBlog/tabid/90/EntryID/17/Default.aspx

We'll be paying more for Eola in the long run. Due to the northern location, transportation distances have risen, which will result in higher transportation costs. Add to this the danger of larger commute miles and double the number of school crossing tracks, and you'll quickly see the MWGEN site is financially unattractive compared to BB

My kids attend a Title 1 elementary school so we're obviously poor (strike 1). My kids also attend Granger which, I just learned, has the potential to blow up from either a train wreck in the Eola yard or from a propane explosion (strike 2). We'll attend Metea (strike 3). 204 trifecta!

I don't know if there are environmental problems with the MV site or not, I'll wait for the IEPA report. If THEY say it's clean, well then, folks, it's clean. Suing over this issue before the report is made public is stupid. The gas line to my house could explode tomorrow. So could my hot water heater. So could my temper. I will not live in fear of the boogie man or what could or could not possibly happen some time in the future. NSFOC folks, feel free to continue using these pointless arguments to justify in your own minds your actions for suing the rest of us -- it's a free country. However, I'm not buying it. Neither are a lot of other people.

The BB situation hanging over our heads has me more concerned than any fears the NSFOC people may have on my behalf regarding my kids growing extra heads as a result of attending MV (pun intended). Too bad the NSFOC has screwed up the chance to make a valid point about the BB suit with all the other crap they've been throwing on the wall.

I live in 203 but joined NSFOC. My elderly mother in law has lived in Naperville (the crazy 204 part of town known as Indian Prairie) before most of you in 204 were even born, somewhere else, most in other states. She is becoming tax strapped. You move here and increase taxes (park district, schools etc.) year after year. You build an elementary school that sits vacant for a year or two; "projected enrollment" did not materialize. So you close Wheatland and still have an extra school. Now you want to build a new high school that "projections" show may not be needed after 2012 because enrollment has peaked and will decline. Then you will have an extra high school you cannot afford to operate and will have to close around 2015 or so. (that will be WV) The problem of course is the incredible waste of money. MV could cost in the neighborhood of $200 million + (none of you know) and many of you want to just spend money and build it at any cost. So don't blame the SB, TG or WE people. You are running your own racket. The majority of you vote to waste your own money then act like little children on these blog sites. You are dreadfully NOT Naperville people and those of us in Naperville 203 are amused at your childish and unitelligent bickering. So keep putting Nequa license plate brackets and decals on your gas guzzlers so the rest of us can easily identify the idiots among us.

To everyone wondering what the Brach Brodie damages are for.

The valuation that the jury awarded Brach Brodie was $518/acre. The valuation date is the date the district filed suit - December, 2005. So they have a judge and jury agreed valuation of $518/acre in Dec. 2005.

All Brach Brodie needs to do is have their same real estate appraisers do an appraisal as of January '07 - when the district abandoned the property. If the January '07 appraisal is less than $518/acre - there's your damage claim.

Brach Brodie was not allowed to sell their property from December, 2005 until January '07 due to the D204's condemnation suit. Actually I agree with them on this point - they probably could have sold that property (given it's residential) during the real estate boom and now they are stuck with it during a bust. And it's D204's fault for forcefully tying up their property in a lawsuit and then walking away from the purchase.

To Dollars and Sense. The only bad perceptions on Waubonsie are from people like you. Truth be told, my kids aren't in High School yet, but I would send them to Waubonsie before I'd send them to Neuqua (if I had a choice). We've been blessed with good fortune in our lives and I would not want my kids to learn the sense of entitlement that seems to be plaguing the TG area (I have not been exposed to this opinoin until this lawsuit). Rather, I want to preserve what my husband and I have instilled in them by modeling for them and that's the value of good work ethic and the importance of diversification - not only by race but socioeconomic standings as well. I have had several friends move from Naperville south to avoid this as well.

I think White Eagle and Tallgrass should form their own school district down there in Napertucky. No need for another high school and y'all can only complain, complain, complain to each other about how things went so wrong. Y'all do know you are a suburb of Oswego? By the way, who was that crack-pot who ranted in the Sun last week? The one who said her husband worked from 5am and got home at 8pm so they could have such a great life? What a privileged life y'all lead in Plainfield-North. Load up on those SUVs but make sure you save for that GIANT tax bill you have. Bashing Pro-choice people while condemning Hanson to death? Is that water from the Calvary Temple leeching into White Eagle/Tallgrass drinking supply? Holy Hypocrites. I'm a Yankee up here in Naperville. Ever been downtown Naperville? You should see it. Maybe if you could sell your 6,000 square ft. boxes for half of what you paid, you could buy a nice one bedroom condo off of Diehl Road and bring you back to reality. Y'all need to lighten up down south in NaperDixie.

To Anon on 3/18 at 6:30 PM--Such vitriol! Sorry you didn't like the perceptions of WV, but anyone who hasn't been under a rock for the past several years has already heard this. It is ugly and unfair, but perceptions don't have to be truth based to have an impact, and this is what would concern me about the Eola site if I lived in that area. Even the school board acknowledged this as a problem with the site, at least right up until the moment they decided to purchase it. So you don't have to worry about me trying to fool you, you're already doing a good job fooling yourself.

A note to the SB. We all (the majority) applauds you for your professionalism in moving forward with the Eola site in spite of the frivolous attempts to derail your efforts. We also applaud you for closing the door on the BB site in their gross attempts to rape the taxpayers in the exorbinate price they were trying to force. This site (BB) is suitable for retail, not for an educational facility.

In what world would BB have a right to request $20 in damages. There was no bottom lined agreement for the property, thereby no legalleg to stand on.

Nice try on the angle that the district would be responsible if anyone ever got sick. I imagine the city would be responsible for kids getting sick in neighborhood pools or homes built near high voltage lines like TG - any suits to date?? THere are homes subdivisions and places of work surrounding the Eola site for decades - NO lawsuits to date...EVERY angle you attempt is so very obvious - yo udon't have a leg to stand on.

To: READYOURBALLOTS

If it is true that no one voted based on boundaries, then why did 80% of the north vote NO when it was obvious from previous boundary meetings they were upset with the boundary choice selected by the sb?

Lets face it, right or wrong people voted based on what was PRESENTED by the school board. At that time, it was BB, so people voted based on their feelings about BB.

Moot point now I know, but lets be real.

I, too, would like to hear a response to TG residents purchasing their homes and swimming in a pool with high voltage lines running through - Hypocrisy at its best...

To Anonymous on March 18, 2008 12:13 PM

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

I doubt the NSFOC lawsuit is going to cost the district a lot of money compared to the Millions wasted by the BB/Eola site debacle. As a matter of fact, I saw an ad in today's Sun that estimated $100,000 for the NSFOC lawsuit. Peanuts compared BB/Eola site. And if the lawsuit stops the district from making even MORE stupid mistakes, it was money well spent.

To anonymous on March 18, 2008 6:44 PM

I could send my kids to a private school, but as a taxpayer, I (and every other 204 taxpayer) still would be liable for someone getting sick at the Eola site.

If I send my kids to private school, can I get a rebate on my school taxes I pay to District 204?

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

OF COURSE THEY DO, ever heard of private school. I guess Tall Grass has the option of paying their homeowners dues too.

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 the power lines.

Love to hear your answer on that
____________________________________________

My answer is MH to ask you how you feel about the possibility of damages on the BB site? Do you have an opinion? I'd be interested in hearing what it is.

After all, this blog is related to that question. It is not a blog directed at the environmental concerns for those that live in Tall Grass. Nor is it related to the negative feelings between neighborhoods in 204.

The discussion relating to the BB damages is very important and relative to ALL of us in 204 regardless of high school assignment.

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!

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 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!

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 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?

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?

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 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.

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!

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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 : 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.

"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?

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.

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.

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!!!

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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!

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.

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

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?

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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: 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!!!

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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!!

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.

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!

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

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'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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

This is 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.

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.

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).

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.

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!!

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.