I feel the info right here in the topic is first class. I've been completing a preliminary research on the issue and your writings actually spelled out many concerns I had. I'm doing an essay and school assignment for my English course and presently reading a great amount of personal blogs to research.

I respect Vickers' view, but I do not see how it is possible to remove 600 students from NVHS and WVHS and attend classes exclusively at the Frontier campus. You may have 600 students taking one or two classes as Frontier, but that's not the same.

Another referundum will never pass. Never. Never again.

I've been in Naperville since 1976. The population surge will continue. It may slow temporarily but it will resume. By 2013, we'll be sorry that we didn't build the 3rd high school.

In the Daily Herald article today, Vickers stated that she believes the SB should not immediately go back to BB to build a 3rd high school because she does not believe one is necessary.

She stated that the 2012/2013 estimated enrollment is 8900 and declining. If we can fit 3500 kids in Waubonsie and Neuqua, 1000 in each freshman campus and 600 at the Frontier campus, that is a total of 9600 seats.

Let's give the money back and have a referendum to improve Waubonsie, build a new gym, etc.

Just another reason my family is leaving South Naperville and moving into town to be in district 203. Move people!!

https://www.nsfoc.org/pdf/dist_204_enviro.pdf

SUN Report:

Midwest Generation has decided not to sell a 37-acre portion of the property Indian Prairie School District has selected as the site of Metea Valley High School.

Midwest Generation spokesman Charley Parnell confirmed Wednesday afternoon that the company is no longer interested in selling the land.

Now maybe we can talk to BB and get the school built where it was supposed to be built.

Hey Arch, here's another crusade for you, fresh off the wires from Crains Chicago Business. Now you can save all of Chicagoland from the horrors of potential gas pipe explosions.

Natural gas pipe could be dream for Chicago

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28921&seenIt=1

the Internet is a great tool if used properly. Unfortunately, the internet has made many people feel like experts because they saw a piece of information about a part of a topic online. The experts have spoken about the safety of the Eola site. I welcome their expertise over someone with too much time on their hands sitting in front of their home computer all day.

The only ones I see as selfish and greedy are those for the Eola site. They obviously do not care about their children going there. I wonder if these selfish greedy people for Eola have any kids attending there?

Your experts said the land was contaminated.

The district plans to build a school and send kids there before there is a NFR letter from the IEPA. THey have no 'get out of jail free' card.

Your experts did an environmental study. They did not certify that no lives or property would be lost in the event of a pipeline accident. The pipeline company itself classified it as a High Consequence Area with the placement of a school there. That definition means the probability is significant for loss of life and property for anything within the PIR (Potential Impact Radius) of the pipeline. One 36" pipeline's PIR is 650-700 feet.

The school and the occupants will be within 220 feet of the pipeline. The entire PIR of the pipeline includes virtually the entire school building. These are old pipes. Their integrity, historically, tends to drop off at the 50 year mark. Some rarely make it to 70 years of operating life. That's only 13 years away for one of them. That may seem like forever and a day from now but it's their 'today' when someone else's family has kids there 13 years from now if they even last that long.

It's supposed to be called pay it forward, not screw it forward.

This is what our district feels our current and future kids deserve with our 150 million dollars?

There will be no parents lining up to sue the tail off the district bc of some weird disease - The environmental reports give the site an ok to move forward and no one will get sick bc of the site. More importantly, there won't be any TG residents slated for Metea,, and they are the only ones that think it's ok to sue when things don't go your way, so we're good to go. Remember, we in the north are peaceful people who don't get sucked into the scare tactics of irrational selfish people - we go with the real experts as they are the ones educated in this area.

so the NSFOC thinks someone is trying to intimidate them? By what? Calling out all the misleading statements on their website? By calling out the inaccuracies of their 1 page ad in the Sun? By suggesting that anyone who donated money should sue to get their money back if when this is over only 9 people benefited by the donations? To suggest that the balance of the taxpayers sue to recover tax dollars spent defending the suit? Is it intimidation to point out that named plantiffs are subject to a counter suit if there are legal grounds for a countersuit? I guess only the NSFOC is entitled to file a suit. I guess it is intimidation to point out that the NSFOC posts the original suit but not the amended lawsuit that is currently before the judge. And the NSFOC trying to scare people from posting because the Naperville Sun has the IP addresses of the posters on this blog. Who is trying to intimidate whom?

Thank you "entitled 9" for your great concern and passion for the safety of children who live 8 miles to your north. I know your concern is sincere and it is greatly appreciated.

Now that the environmental reports have been released, and your concerns have been mitigated, I want to thank you for your efforts ensuring the safety of others' children.

Until the next crisis surfaces that requires your attention, I wanted to let you know that we would all understand it if you took a moment to address a safety issue that is affecting your own children.

I know the high voltage power lines that reside some 300 yards from the soon to be built Metea Valley HS caused you such great concern.

Therefore, now that you have some free time, I am sure you will organize a group (you'll need an acronym for a name) to cease the construction of a bridge being built directly under high voltage power lines near your homes. Apparently this bridge will provide a path for your children to pass over route 59. Unfortunately, the bridge is 20 ft off the ground and will bring your children to within 50 feet of the power lines. Yes only 50 feet.

I am sure you will rally behind this mission to stop this "death bridge" from being constructed. After all, if being within 300 yards of such EMF at Metea Valley is a concern to you, surely you will do everything possible to keep your own children away from EMFs that will be within 50 feet.

I look forward to hearing about your new acronym and will surely make my donation through paypal. I am also pretty sure that if you decide to sue, the case would be right up Mr. Collins alley.

To anon on April 9, 2008 2:40 PM --

What is also expensive are lawsuits from parents lining up to sue the tail off the district when their kid develops a weird disease. What is expensive will be the cost of the building loss and lives lost if those old pipelines have an accident. Their current owner has a horrible safety track record and have in the past neglected to fix lines where corrosion was found and they went on to have ruptures due to continued operation.

What is a kid's life worth to you?

To Anon on 4/9 at 2:36 PM--

Sorry, you are incorrect. A Phase I soil study was done of the BB land during the condemnation process.

Hi Dollars & Sense

Most definately. I am going to block out from 4pm on so I can get to the 4/14 meeting in time to sign up for my 3 minutes. Am also going to clean up one of my blogs (for typo's etc) and send via email to the board in case I cant get it all out in 3 minutes or something unforseen happens that prevents me from going on 4/14.

Yes, I noticed the flurry of discussion after the 2nd speaker regarding build smart. Facing the board; I was in the far right hand side of the room in the 2nd section of seats (3to5 rows or so behind the speaker who was a PHD, so I didnt catch all the quick dialogue/statements between the boardmembers after build smart. There were a lot of confused faces, but not sure of the reason behind the confusion. I am sure they are looking into it as a follow up :) Either way, I dont think they care about the state funding; they have what they need (in their opinion) for the near term goal of starting construction.

I'm glad you attended. I wish all the bloggers would attend some of these meetings.

As for Hazmat person and the guy screaming about Dioxins at the end; I couldn't tell who the hazmat person was cuz of the mask. I have never seen Dioxin guy before (I will not call him Distruptive man since the meeting was technically adjourned when he went into his rant). It is entirely possible he is registered with NSFOC (its no secret that I am an NSFOC supporter) but I have never seen him at any of the meetings. I personally think he should have registered to speak if he wanted a forum and if he was late (like me) then be respectful, and go to the next meeting and sign up (which is what my plan is).

Have a good one D&S
GF

To Arch. I guess we are all stuck in a loop that makes nobody rich except lawyers. Maybe we need to dig more holes at BB since they might have missed something. Maybe it's a native american cemetary. You can never tell. Incidently, since you're obviosuly blind to satire let me spell it out for you. Making a big deal over nothing is stuiped and expensive! Get a grip. The air you breath in Illinos is very dirty. I'm not saying it's toxic but it is dirty. Diesel is spewed out everywhere in this area. Coming here from Wisconsin (no I'm not a Packer fan) I can tell you it is noticable after looking at what was a clean car days earlier. Soil remediation is not difficult and apparently not expensive. Let's put BB to rest and get on with it. What is expensive is useless lawsuits and I hope this one costs you plenty!

For those who say BB did undergo environmental testing - so sorry again you're not speaking facts. The phase 1 study only says is there reason to have actual testing given the history of the use of the land. Since the land was primarily vacant land and not used for any type of previous business - it gave no reason to actually test. The same reason the majority of the land at Eola didn't need further testing bc it was not used as a business. So if we did do actual testing on the BB site - I'm sure you'd find something - just like you'd find spilled anti-freeze on your garage floor - it can be cleaned! The BB site was probably used for dumping of some sort at some point. Let's dig into that - boy won't the BB people be happy if they push this - they'll never get to sell their land.

To: Arch on April 9, 2008 11:40 AM

If you were listening to the SB meeting they did the same tests on the farmland at Eola as they did on BB and neither required a Phase II studies. Let's compare apples to apples shall we? The 15 acres of which 7 acres did show contamination at Eola will never have a student step on them. Furthermore, those areas of concern on the 7 acres did not migrate. Seems to me the Eloa site has received far more testing. I hope a traffic study isn't done on the BB site.

To Arch on April 9, 2008 11:40 AM--

Your post stated:

"Test both and compare them side by side and pick the cleanest land with the fewest hazards. I keep asking them to do that but it falls on deaf ears. Maybe with more voices like yours they will listen. Will you please kindly email the board and request just that; to test all lands equally and pick the cleanest and safest one in the bunch, wherever it may be."

This is falling on deaf ears because it has already been done. It was discussed at Monday night's SB meeting.

The SB had Phase I studies done on the BB land. The results came back with no contaminants, so it was ended at that and no Phase II was needed. The Eola land, on the other hand, showed contaminants from the Phase I, so a Phase II study was indicated. From the Phase II study, 5 "hot spots", or areas of severe contamination, were identified.

Big difference. BB wins.

To: Who was the HazMat man? on April 9, 2008 11:38 AM

"you're right, NSFOC won't play those kind of games. We have a lawsuit that speaks volumes!"

Yes it does speak volumes!! Volumes to everyone in IPSD regarding your selfish agenda and punishing all of us in IPSD.

The Brach Brodie site did have preliminary enviromental testing and yes we, the tax payers of district 204, paid for it! It was done during the condemnation suit. Guess what! It showed no signs of contamination and no additional testing would be needed...clean as a whistle! Food for thought huh? or is just fencing that baby off gonna work for all of you until one of our kids ends up with some illness that the district has to pay for with yet more litigation. If there is any problem it should be addressed up front, taken care of now before we build on it. Safety first PERIOD! and if we loose state funding because of the enviromental study what is this SB thinking???? This site can't be right.

By Anonymous on April 9, 2008 10:54 AM

Silly Stuff. Why is it that you feel the need to twist everything anyone says into something it is not. BB has the right to ask a price for the land. If the buyer does not want to buy the entire plot, why buy part of it and then abandon the effort only after they try to force the seller to sell at your price requested. It does not work that way. Of course the court sent a message to the SB with a $31mill price tag. These SB members disregard everyone including you. You just don't show enough common sense to realize it for yourself.

In your own silly way your now blaming the Court System, NSFOC, TG, WE, BB for all the extra legal costs right? Again no common sense. The SB is not perfect and has made many mistakes. But I do enjoy your "cute" phrase about the "Entitled 9". However, it is childish and lacks intelection capacity. Don't hurt yourself trying to use common sense.

As for your comment about hiring lawyers, you better not use the SB lawyers. They don't have the best track record. Here's a thought, maybe you can muster just one ounce of common sense and openly ask our SB to stop using tax payer dollars (over $5 mill currently) for lawyer fees to fix challenges they create by being such great relationship managers in our community.

Nothing in my statement talked about wanting to sue the SB, yet you jump right on the hate WE, TG, NSFOC, BB, Lawyers, Court System, Bandwagon with no common sense. Just like a bully in HS. Do you and the rest of the SB supports need a good swirly so you can feel yourself living the HS dream again. Ha, Ha, just a joke. Lighten up would you.

To:

By annon on April 9, 2008 11:32 AM

Hey do you suppose that in all those years the farmland known as BB might have been polluted by diesel and gas from farm equipment? Maybe we should condem this site too.

===============

Test both and compare them side by side and pick the cleanest land with the fewest hazards.

I keep asking them to do that but it falls on deaf ears. Maybe with more voices like yours they will listen. Will you please kindly email the board and request just that; to test all lands equally and pick the cleanest and safest one in the bunch, wherever it may be.

Because I am a NSFOC "main player". I can assure you he wasn't one of ours (at least not that any of us know). I love the idea though and wish there had been many more HazMat men out there. gotta love the creativity.

For what it's worth, you're right, NSFOC won't play those kind of games. We have a lawsuit that speaks volumes!

Re: Dollars and Sense

I also noticed the comment after the second speaker by Ms. Clark, and assumed she was addressing the "talk about possible losing state funds" thus I didn't give it much of a thought. Haz Mat man and final disruption man seemed out of place for this type of meeting, but it is a free country. Glad to see fellow bloggers attending the board meetings.

Hey do you suppose that in all those years the farmland known as BB might have been polluted by diesel and gas from farm equipment? Maybe we should condem this site too. Those of you who are trying to make a federal case out of the new site is NOT because because you are concerned about health issues. It all about the boundaries isn't it? For those who noticed that inane ad in yesterdays Sun, it reminded me that the dot represented those who are sincere about health concerns. The large white space represents those who only care about getting the new school put virtually in their backyards (just like the other 2 are already).

Obviously anon 10:03 has no idea how the legal system works. Can not sue someone for excercising their right to use the judicial branch as a checks and balance against what the SB has done. If the case is frivilous, it will be dismissed in time (although strange that the case was filed 6 weeks ago and the District has not even filed a reply..yet alone asked to dismiss the case because it is friviolous).

If there is no legal basis for the lawsuit, the remedy is against the attorney who filed it not the plaintiffs (they are governed by the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure in regards to verifying that a case has good faith legal and factual grounds).

Good try trying to intimidate the plaintiffs in the case. Just so you know...you should be very careful going forward as your intimidation attempts continue to grow and grow(the IP addresses are kept by the Sun)...

To Sadly it is the NSFOC's style on April 9, 2008 9:30 AM--

Well, then, let's see if we can find out.

Who was the HazMat Man? on April 8, 2008 4:10 PM states:

"Before you go ASSuming things, you should check facts. As much as many of us appreciated the HazMat Man, he wasn't a NSFOC person. Whoever he was, I say bravo (I thought he looked hilarious and brought some needed attention to the issue at hand) but he didn't represent the NSFOC group. Just who is the mystery man? Guess someone that's just simply had enough of the SB's crazy antics - maybe he's signed up as an NSFOC supporter but he's not one of the main players."

To Who Was HazMat Man?:

How do you know HazMat Man wasn't an NSFOC main player? I'm not looking to find out who HazMat Man was, just curious how you know this as a fact. Thanks!

To The Folks Who Were at Monday's SB Meeting:

Does anyone know who Disruption Man was, the guy who was yelling things out after the meeting was adjourned? Again, I don't want a name, just looking for anyone who knows for a fact whether he acted independently or not. Thanks again!

I tend to agree with Who Was HazMat Man? These people could be members of the NSFOC, but I highly doubt that NSFOC sends people out to dress in costume holding signs or to be disruptive, nor would the leaders do this themselves. They don't need to get the SB's attention through these kinds of antics. They already have the lawsuit. But we'll see.

Hopefully no one is really foolish enough to believe that NSFOC is really just an entitled nine. You can bet it's a heck of a lot more than that! It's so easy to place the blame on TG/NSFOC, etc. but guess what? There are hundreds of people that have signed up in support of NSFOC! We have members from all over the District. Hard as it may be for some to understand, there are parents that don't want their kids at MV at Eola and it has to do with safety and cost! Sure there are some that just want the new school but not everyone is drinking the kool-aid.

I'm so tired of the worn-out statement that this is about TG staying at Neuqua. Guess what? No matter what, TG isn't staying at Neuqua. They'll either be at Waubonsie or a Metea built at BB. Both are fine but a new school at a questionable site like Eola? Sorry no one is buying that. I'm glad that the SB is finally being called out, it's only too bad that it took a lawsuit to do so. It's about time that much more of the community gets involved and pays attention to the antics of our SB.

Wake up everyone, no school should be built at Eola. It's not SAFE!!!!

By Earth to SB Supports on April 9, 2008 9:53 AM
By Anonymous on April 8, 2008 10:56 PM
to:By Earth to SB Supports on April 8, 2008 8:39 PM
I think you make a good point to what is wrong with society today. Everybody wants to hire a lawyer to sue. Nobody wnats to work through things. The problem with the BB site was that the BB trust wanted to have their lawyers fight for the highest amount of dollars rather than negotiate a fair value. Now they want their lawyers to sue to get them back to where they would be if they had negotiated a fair price (plus money for the lawyers). The TG residents run out and hire lawyers since they do not want their children attending WVHS and then say its the Brookdale residents behind the division in the district because they are happy with the new MVHS site. Maybe Brookdale residents need to hire a lawyer to make sure nobody posts misleading and inflamitory issues on a website.

We voted the school board to represent us. We voted for a referendum supporting a third high school. The BB figured they had the district by the short hairs and drastically raised their price. I for one hope the BB trust walkout away with nothing because of the greed they displayed. I hope I don't need to hire an attorney to sue if the courts say I voted for a specific location when in fact I did not specify a location with my vote.

But make sure you keep up the notion that lawyers should be called in to do all your talking. Maybe the next time you ground your teenager, his/her attorney will drag you into court.

What do you call 100 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is amusing. I see you liked the comments. BB didn’t raise the price because of greed. The court awarded them the price after the SB took them to court to force them to sell the land for the purpose of building the school. How would you like someone taking your property or forcing you to sell below market value? Thank God lawyers exist to help protect us against people like the SB who think they are entitled because they are using tax dollars and not their own. I see you’re supportive of an incompetent SB and their attorneys but you lack the intestinal fortitude to admit that the SB has made grave errors in judgment. Stand up for something or fall for anything.
I am sure you are a good person with good misguided intentions but at some point you need to wake up and realize that your passion for building a new school has just overrun your pocketbook and common sense. We should not write a check that we cannot cash. By allowing this sham to continue you are signing a blank check. I hope BB wins because we had other options that would cost less, cause less controversy, and would be better located for children and parents throughout the district. Instead the SB strung them along and tried to use lawyers to force them to sell at a discount. I bet the market price is still higher than what the court said it was. Market price is what ever someone will pay.

Just use your head for a minute and ask yourself, “why is everyone picking on the poor SB”. If you can only come up with blaming someone else you’re not using common sense. If there was an ounce of common sense you would see the SB is not doing the right thing for the majority of us.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You really think the SB was trying to buy the land at a discount? The BB trust figured they had the district over a barrel since the referendum had passed. The trust had nothing to lose by forcing the district to buy via eminent domain. Obviously the property is not worth what the jury awarded since the retail developer (paying less then the jury award)walked away and the SB walked away. The land just plain is not worth it. Obviously you haven't read a real newspaper lately, but retailers are shutting stores not opening stores. That is the real reason the developer walked away from the deal. If they can't lease it out, why build it? If you aren't going to build on it, why buy it?

I think the SB made a good judgement by not spending 31 million in tax dollars to buy the land. The 3 cases against the district (not against the board) have no case law to support it. There are no laws on the books forcing the district to buy the land at the jury awarded price. The suit is designed to do nothing more than support the case of the entitled nine (NSFOC) in order to force the district back into negotiations. No one reading these blogs believe the district is bound by law to buy the land. The BB trust are pushing the district to buy the land because they no that no one else will buy the land at anything close to the jury verdict.

But go ahead and hire an attorney. Waste more tax dollars on attorneys instead of students. I hope the NSFOC is countersued when this is all over. I hope the BB trusts walk away with nothing. I hope you find the inner peace that only a lawsuit can provide. I for one hope the lawsuits end and the district builds the third high school for our students.

All 3 lawsuits are to force a settlement. Even the NSFOC suit was amended to try to get a settlement for the entitled nine.

To Anon on 4/8 at 10:56 PM--

"What do you call 100 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?"
_____________________________

A good start?

awesome post..I hope the IPSD, or a not-for-profit group of responsible taxpayers, sue the NSFOC for legal fee reimbursement. Since the amended lawsuit now lists individuals as well as the NSFOC corporation as plaintiffs, bankruptcy of the NSFOC will not protect the nine from the countersuit - unless all 9 file bankruptcy.

We all know the nine owners of the NSFOC incorporated to protect them financially as individuals.

to:By Wrong Denominator on April 9, 2008 9:15 AM
It is not the entire Tall Grass subdivision. It is the "Entitled Nine" (also known as the NSFOC). But if the remainder of the Tall Grass residents want to put an end to the stereotype, they should should ask their selfish neighbors to stop suing themselves (and the rest of us).

By Anonymous on April 8, 2008 10:56 PM
to:By Earth to SB Supports on April 8, 2008 8:39 PM
I think you make a good point to what is wrong with society today. Everybody wants to hire a lawyer to sue. Nobody wnats to work through things. The problem with the BB site was that the BB trust wanted to have their lawyers fight for the highest amount of dollars rather than negotiate a fair value. Now they want their lawyers to sue to get them back to where they would be if they had negotiated a fair price (plus money for the lawyers). The TG residents run out and hire lawyers since they do not want their children attending WVHS and then say its the Brookdale residents behind the division in the district because they are happy with the new MVHS site. Maybe Brookdale residents need to hire a lawyer to make sure nobody posts misleading and inflamitory issues on a website.

We voted the school board to represent us. We voted for a referendum supporting a third high school. The BB figured they had the district by the short hairs and drastically raised their price. I for one hope the BB trust walkout away with nothing because of the greed they displayed. I hope I don't need to hire an attorney to sue if the courts say I voted for a specific location when in fact I did not specify a location with my vote.

But make sure you keep up the notion that lawyers should be called in to do all your talking. Maybe the next time you ground your teenager, his/her attorney will drag you into court.

What do you call 100 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is amusing. I see you liked the comments. BB didn’t raise the price because of greed. The court awarded them the price after the SB took them to court to force them to sell the land for the purpose of building the school. How would you like someone taking your property or forcing you to sell below market value? Thank God lawyers exist to help protect us against people like the SB who think they are entitled because they are using tax dollars and not their own. I see you’re supportive of an incompetent SB and their attorneys but you lack the intestinal fortitude to admit that the SB has made grave errors in judgment. Stand up for something or fall for anything.
I am sure you are a good person with good misguided intentions but at some point you need to wake up and realize that your passion for building a new school has just overrun your pocketbook and common sense. We should not write a check that we cannot cash. By allowing this sham to continue you are signing a blank check. I hope BB wins because we had other options that would cost less, cause less controversy, and would be better located for children and parents throughout the district. Instead the SB strung them along and tried to use lawyers to force them to sell at a discount. I bet the market price is still higher than what the court said it was. Market price is what ever someone will pay.

Just use your head for a minute and ask yourself, “why is everyone picking on the poor SB”. If you can only come up with blaming someone else you’re not using common sense. If there was an ounce of common sense you would see the SB is not doing the right thing for the majority of us.

To: Hillary Loves You Too! on April 9, 2008 8:49 AM

"So, back to my good friend Majorianthrax your post "TG has managed to tear apart the entire area and spread unhappiness and hatred". This nothing more than continued fear mongering and another one of your half hearted attempts to spread doom and gloom"

Hmmmm...interesting, spread unhappiness and hatred? I remember a certain group (starts with a "N") saying the north doesn't derserve a new high school. If we build the high school there kids will die. What if the kids at MVHS die of cancer, what if they die from lukemia, what if they get blown up, what if kids get hit by trains going to WVHS, what if kids at MVHS eat the dirt?

Seems to me the spreading of unhappiness and hatred has been started (by a lawsuit filed against the IPSD) and continued by a little group called the NSFOC. See they couldn't just walk away because they felt entitled and promised. So they filed a lawsuit and when they couldn't say it was because they didn't want to go to WVHS they instead started the unhappiness and hatred and fear mongering. You really should be paying more attention. I even heard their attorney say on 3/25 that he would throw as many "what-if's" against the wall to see what stuck!!!

I think it's time the NSFOC and TG should look a themselves in the mirror. How does it feel suing your own school district because you didn't get your way? Huh?

To: Hillary Loves You Too! on April 9, 2008 8:49 AM

Isn't Hillary an attorney?

" I for one really don’t want to give up even more of my property taxes to a bunch of starving lawyers so they can sue the pants off of 204...that include both sides BTW."

Do you also include the NSFOC in your not wanting to pay more property taxes? I DO, and that's part of the reason I'm mad over the NSFOC (yes, it was started in TG by TG residents) who didn't get their way. At least the BB attorney's have an arguement.

Listen, I don't mind paying additional property taxes for a referendum we all voted for. However, I have an issue with paying propery taxes to defend a bunch of selfish parents who decided to sue the IPSD because the referendum didn't satisfy them regardless of what the SB decided to do with the money. They were still trying to build a school, right?

To: Dollars and Sense on April 9, 2008 12:27 AM

"Besides that, loved the HazMat Man (he was a hoot), hated the Disruption Man (he was creepy), but doubt that either of them were affiliated with the NSFOC. This type of thing just isn't their style."

Where have you been? Disruption Man has been the motto of the NSFOC before they were the NSFOC. They just decided to get together and sue all of us instead of walking away and not getting their way. He struck me as every other NSFOC person before they formed their NSFOC organization. As far as HazMat Man just another example of how childish the NSFOC can be at times. We've also seen that since 2005.

Sadly, this alwasy has been and always will be their style. It's a great example of how a child acts when they don't get their way. Now with the formation of the NSFOC, it's the way an adult acts when they don't get their way. Regardless, they are still acting childish, just in grown up clothes.

To: By Anonymous on April 8, 2008 10:56 PM

Awesome Post!!! You summed it all up!!

I think I'm ready to also sue someone. I hear rumors already. Hope the NSFOC has very deep pockets because a group with much deeper pockets might just be coming after them.

To: The common denominator on April 8, 2008 10:30 PM

"The common denominator in all of these lawsuits is not the neighborhoods, subdivisions, high schools or clubhouses it is the SCHOOL BOARD."

You're right it is a common denominator but the common denominator is the Tall Grass Neighborhood.

- The SB does what it can to make TG happy in 2005-2006 they threw a fit because they couldnt' stay at NVHS and then TG finally agreed to go to MVHS at BB.
- They SB fights and spends a million dollars to make the TG neighborhood happy.
- Finally the SB decides they can't make the TG neighborhood happy and walks away from BB.

Seems to me the money the SB spent was to make one neighborhood happy and that is TG. Yep, the same group of people that started the NSFOC and is now suing all of us in IPSD.

Trust me this isn't over!!!
- The TG neighborhood sues the IPSD because the SB didin't do everything they could and more to make TG happy.

I see we finally know the defacto head of the NSFOCfraud group...and surprise, she lives in Brookdale.

The same Brookdale that overwhelmingly voted NO to the new school (when they thought it was going to be built at BB). Now of course(with the school slated to be built in their backyard) they STRONGLY believe that the District needs a new school and are 100% in support of EVERYTING that the Administration and Board are doing to make this happen.

Perhaps the folks behind NSFOC have self interests, but this clearly cuts both ways...For the rest of the 204 community, this should simply come down to whether they believe that the District and Board are using reasonable due diligence to assure that the EOLA land is safe, and using fiscal responsibility in representing the expidenture of OUR TAX DOLLARS.

So far, I would say the grade would not be to high on either account.

To: Majorianthrax on April 8, 2008 4:29 PM

You obviously have some deep, desperate and almost comical physiological issue with Tall Grass. Your postings are nothing more than useless drivel. You are assuming that all 1,000 homes represent what you so desperately despise. Get over it and get over yourself. You need only look in the mirror and really see what you have become.

Yes, this issue overall has gone way out of control and rumors and innuendoes are rampant. The issue is and will always be the SB...comments made, directions given and lawsuits await. While some here have no fear of the BB suit, I for one really don’t want to give up even more of my property taxes to a bunch of starving lawyers so they can sue the pants off of 204...that include both sides BTW.

So, back to my good friend Majorianthrax your post "TG has managed to tear apart the entire area and spread unhappiness and hatred". This nothing more than continued fear mongering and another one of your half hearted attempts to spread doom and gloom...wow, you would almost think your a Hillary supporter. Sounds eerily similar to her on-going hatred of the US.

Still seems an unnecessary waste of time to argue about. If this was a site for your home; would you risk your investment and the health of your family.?? No, you would walk away. Call the realtor to help you look further or do what many have done.....ADD ON; MAKE DO. We are only in this predicament because it isn't a personal investment.

Yet, in district 204, when our mind is made up, we just don't care about being reasonable. We should have walked away from Brach Brodie but NO, we don't let anyone tell us NO. Even when the people spoke and said NO, the district went ahead and purchased a portion of the land knowing that the people said NO. Behavior of a spoiled child. We just can't believe that a jury wouldn't take our side.

Now we are going to make soil samples say what we want. Either way.

Yet in the end, talk to districts that had to clean up other environmental hazards. The direct costs and the indirect will have a huge impact on this district from the moment we purchase the land.

WVHS, NVHS, MVHS.....won't really matter. Yes, we have a wonderful district, great teachers, good scores, good kids, good parents, good and bad neighbors. If you can't sell your home or it doesn't appreciate, or worse depreciates. You can side step it and blame the economy but our reputation out in the world is not remaining the #1 place to live.

People all over the Chicagoland area think of district 204 as people with big pocketbooks, big egos and points to prove.

Where are the creative ideas, thinking outside the box, technological corridor, some of the best and brightest? I know what our answer is....I also have heard quite a number from other districts chatting about us.

I hesitate to think of what the headlines will be 10 years from now.
Do we really want to chance our future on this???

To NSFOC should be run out of town!!! on April 8, 2008 1:38 PM--

Your post stated:

"Here is something for everyone to think of in IPSD 204. If you haven't read the amendment to the NSFOC lawsuit I sugguest you do so. They have added the following:

e) Award Plaintiffs any such other RELIEF as this Court deems just and PROPER".

NEWS FLASH! This was NOT ADDED to the amended complaint--this was in the original complaint. "Award Plaintiffs any such other relief as this court deems just and proper" is in the original complaint and is standard in lawsuits, it's the catch-all phase that allows a judge or jury to award relief above and beyond what the plaintiffs are asking just in case they're so moved. Asking the losing party to pay attorney's fees is also standard.

Before you recommend that other people read the amended lawsuit, I would suggest YOU READ THE ORIGINAL LAWSUIT at nsfoc.org before you get your shorts in a wad and post incorrect statements.

To Anon on 4/8 at 4/44 PM--In regards to your comment:

"Do you all think the BB property is free of any hazardous materials - I think not."

Actually, it was. The SB had Phase I studies done on the BB land. The results came back with no contaminants, so it was ended at that and no Phase II was needed. The Eola land, on the other hand, showed contaminants from the Phase I, so a Phase II study was indicated. From the Phase II study, 5 "hot spots", or areas of severe contamination, were identified.

Big difference.

To Anonymous on April 8, 2008 5:15 PM--

The statement in your post was, verbatim:

"There has been a lot os misinformation with regard to what we all voted on back in 2006. Here is an exact copy of the wording from the ballot:

"PROPOSITION TO ISSUE $124,660,000.00 SCHOOL BUILDING BONDS

Shall the Board of Education of Indian Prairie Community Unit School District
Number 204, DuPage and Will Counties, Illinois, acquire and improve a high school site, build and equip one new high school building and issue the bonds of said School District to the amount of $124,660,000.00 for the purpose of paying the costs thereof?"
___________________________________

Give this a rest! This is NOT a news flash. It has been discussed ad nauseum on these blogs for weeks, and probably even months. Eveyone knows this, and this is precisely what the NSFOC is contesting in their lawsuit. Please read it and get up to speed.

A few observations and a question:
- The P2 report says relative to some borings that "Although organic vapors and diesel odor were observed in soil samples from the borings...BTX and PAH concentrations in the samples from those borings do not exceed any remediation objectives."
- It was reported that "engineered barriers" such as tennis courts or parking lots could be acceptable means of remediating the site.
- Diesel is a flammable liquid.
- I have witnessed personally a diesel storage vessel at a refinery burn out of control as a result of a lightning strike.

So what happens when the SB decides to simply cover the diesel-rich soil, and lightning strikes the site? Will the barrier that would prevent us from "consuming" the soil (as the SB joked about) prevent a conflagration?

To those of you who just thought "yeah, but what are the chances?": please note that you are expressing your own personal assessment of the risk. Is it really fair that the SB would force their own assessment of risk on everybody?

To Greg Forrest on April 8, 2008 7:08 PM--

Unfortunate that you weren't able to sign up to speak. Make a point of it next time!

I agree with your assessment of Vickers. I'm impressed that she took the time to do so much prep work and was able to ask questions that clarified what TSC was presenting. It's disappointing the rest of the board didn't take as much interest, but one well-informed board member is better than none.

I was particularly impressed with one question she asked. Four of the five identified "hot spots" are presently on uncovered land. TSC said there were two ways to handle these spots; either remediate the land by removing the contaminated soil and replacing it with clean soil, or leave the soil as is and construct an engineered barrier, such as a parking lot, tennis court, or building foundation, on top of it. Someone on the board (can't remember who) remarked that this would work out well, because that portion of the land was earmarked for parking lots and tennis courts anyway. But Vickers asked if the school ever wanted to use that land for something else that didn't require a barrier, then would the land have to be remediated before use? TSC said yes, remediation would have to be done then. Hopefully, clarifying this will not allow MWGen to pass on remediating these areas because engineered barriers will be constructed there initially.

Another thing I noticed: Remember when the second speaker, a woman, spoke to the board about the Build Smart program, asking why the board would risk losing millions in future state funding by not abiding by the Build Smart guidelines? Jeanette Clark said to the board, "This is something I've heard going around. Would someone look into it?" I was surprised. I don't know if she meant "look into the Build Smart program" or "look into losing state funding", but still, I expected them to already know. I had always thought they knew about the Build Smart program but were choosing to ignore it because it was more like guidelines, not requirements. But if they had known about the program, they would have known if they were putting state funding at risk. This degree of cluelessness is not reassuring.

And am I the only one who caught this? When TSC recommended that whoever was doing the remediation do so with the Illinois EPA, Daeschner told TSC that the SB had not contacted the IEPA because it was MWGen's responsibility to do that since they were the ones doing the remediation. Again, I was surprised. Hasn't Mark M. already gone on record in interviews saying the SB had already been in contact with the IEPA about this? Talk about being busted!

Besides that, loved the HazMat Man (he was a hoot), hated the Disruption Man (he was creepy), but doubt that either of them were affiliated with the NSFOC. This type of thing just isn't their style.

Looking forward to your opinion.

to:By Earth to SB Supports on April 8, 2008 8:39 PM
I think you make a good point to what is wrong with society today. Everybody wants to hire a lawyer to sue. Nobody wnats to work through things. The problem with the BB site was that the BB trust wanted to have their lawyers fight for the highest amount of dollars rather than negotiate a fair value. Now they want their lawyers to sue to get them back to where they would be if they had negotiated a fair price (plus money for the lawyers). The TG residents run out and hire lawyers since they do not want their children attending WVHS and then say its the Brookdale residents behind the division in the district because they are happy with the new MVHS site. Maybe Brookdale residents need to hire a lawyer to make sure nobody posts misleading and inflamitory issues on a website.

We voted the school board to represent us. We voted for a referendum supporting a third high school. The BB figured they had the district by the short hairs and drastically raised their price. I for one hope the BB trust walkout away with nothing because of the greed they displayed. I hope I don't need to hire an attorney to sue if the courts say I voted for a specific location when in fact I did not specify a location with my vote.

But make sure you keep up the notion that lawyers should be called in to do all your talking. Maybe the next time you ground your teenager, his/her attorney will drag you into court.

What do you call 100 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

The common denominator in all of these lawsuits is not the neighborhoods, subdivisions, high schools or clubhouses it is the SCHOOL BOARD.

This entire process has been an eye opener for me. The lack of accountability to anyone for their continual mismanagement and extraordinary wasting of our tax dollars that were intended for the education of our kids is a disgrace.

The word fraud has been used extensively on these blogs and it seems to really fit the actions of this board and district. They lied to us, continue to proceed in their arrogant fashion and the public meetings seem to me to be dog and pony shows. I've attended all but the last meeting and was astounded by how little attention the members and Daschner spent listening to the 2-3 min pleas parents made to them for consideration.

It is really time for a change and I for one will be very involved in the next election and in other referrendums since those seem to be the ONLY opportunities for a meaningful dialogue with these folks. Daschner's tenure here can not pass too fast for me. He is a major disappointment to this district. We deserve a better leader for this fine school district and we will get one as well as a more community focused board. It will take time but it will occur since they are the common denominator in these lawsuits and this fiasco.

This is all now so screwed up I'm starting to believe it will never get sorted, certainly it will never get sorted to everyones pleasure.

No matter which way the SB turns at this point we are going to be paying millions of dollars in legal fees and no matter what the outcome. That is guaranteed.

There is no way this is going to be decided anytime soon. Not even enough bits and pieces to start construction and with the current BB lawsuits that would be on top of another potential peril. Anyone who still believes that a new HS can open on any site in time for the 2009-2010 school year should talk to their doctor about increasing their medications. From a honest, realistic perspective we are closing in fast on the got to start for the 2010-2011 school year. That is assuming of course that we are intending to build a quality school building that will serve this community for 50 or more years. Throw it together in 9 months and don't expect it to last more than 20, maybe 30 years with the right maintenance because we would be buying a disposable building at that point.

If, and I did say IF, we really need these seats and classrooms we better either get prepared to install some temporary classrooms at NV and WV or we better get started with building some additions to both of them. Either is still an option and a solution that can be completed in time for 2009-2010 and both could be done for far less than the cost of a new HS.

Considering the cost of additions to both NV and WV along with all the legal fees we are facing... well we might just break even with the money raised thru the referendum.

No one better than Kenny Rogers could sum up our current SB situation... you've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away and know when to run.

these last two comments from "By eola" and "by $10" are the some of the most worthless, non productive contributions I have seen in awhile. it seems like you can read and write; so I know you have to have an IQ at least over 80 and arent totally braindead. Whats wrong with you two? LAME!!!!

How about we vote as to whether we should vote and then vote and after the results are released vote again to see if we agree with the results and if not vote as to whether we should vote again.

It never ends.

Suck it in NSFOC. This the Eola site is not Chernobyl.

The BB property ain't "all that" either.

Get over your biases, prejudices and self-absorbed lives and realize that your kid is more likely to get brain cancer from his cell phone than blow up from a gas explosion or some other imaginary creature you've conjured up for the next amendment to your worthless lawsuit.

I speak for no group but myself. We can all debate the issues on the blogs and waste time like our SB meeting last night. Fighting amongst friends and neighbors will not getting us where we need to be. Let’s finish what the SB started and pressure them to put this to bed. A clean debate of the issues in an open forum would be nice. Not like the one sided 3 minute comment/grandstanding public comment section of the SB meeting.
As evidence from last night’s meeting, the SB does not care what we say during public comment. That is not the forum to debate. It is the forum to grandstand. One sided discussions are always a waste of time. Like the stunt that one 204 supporter did by having a few people stand up in support of our children’s education and well being only to turn the tables and state it was for support of the SB. Clever but dumb.
I for one did not ask any questions or give comments last night because I don’t like talking to myself or being bullied by little people who don’t realize we are in the real world not HS. Adults and real business fight with attorneys and kids fight with name calling and fists. Think about it. If you want to act like an adult and get in the game you better lawyer up. Another option if you would like, is to go out back behind the wood shed or put the boxing gloves on and settle this the HS way. Either way I think there are many people in our neighborhoods that would enjoy that site. That would be more fun too.
I am betting that the SB is just going to continue to spend millions of our taxpayer dollars trying to fight the will of the people and the people that they have wronged. You don’t get sued by multiple parties by doing the right thing. The SB is counting on us fighting to distract attention from the common place mistakes they have been creating. Some accidents are just that and then there are negligent events that cause bad things to happen to good people. In the end someone always seems to get hurt. Do we need a school with this much controversy or can we band together to force the elected officials to do what is right. Emotion aside.
By the way I do not want my children or tax dollars going to BB, or Eola but I will support BB or any other site that the SB can get that does not have enough pollution to warrant remediation and that is more logically located based on population. I doubt this SB can muster the courage to face the truth and do the right thing here. I am also guessing that they have relationship problems with almost every land owner in the area after the stunts they have been pulling. Let’s just see how all of these lawsuits play out. If the school board keeps playing politics instead of focusing on our children’s education we will all be robbed blind just like any other political machine in IL.
This is not a NSFOC thing. It is about the real world with real consequences. People die every day due to neglect and in some cases stupidity. Let’s not allow any silly mistakes with our children or tax dollars. The School board is the only Government entity with no checks and balance other than an election and good people standing up for what they believe. Hold the SB accountable to do the right thing. We can and we should.

Here is a genuine question to the person asking the genuine question about the peaker plant:

Are you aware that you can look at the Department of Energy's website and download the data which is grouped by year, by plant, by fuel type then broken out by month how much fuel they consumed, the amount of electricity they produced, etc.?

You can find 1970 through 2000 here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906u.html

You can find 2001 through the present here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia767.html

The plant name you want is EL JUNCTION

It ran far more than a couple of times a year and the last time it ran to produce commercial power was 2004.

Don't worry though, our administration and SB president did not know about this data either until I informed them of it to refute some incorrect statements like yours that they said during the January 22, 2008 land presentation. Prior to this (end of January 2008) they were only working off of very limited paper copies that went only as far back as 1991.

While you are looking, check out the 1993 data where their reported Diesel Fuel Oil on hand drops 609 Barrels (42 gallons per barrel for a total of 25,578 gallons of DFO) between January 1993 and February 1993 without consuming any for electrical production. I still wonder what wasn't reported at that location, but we don't have to get into speculation on here. The data speaks for itself.

This information is not about scare tactics. It's about facts. I'll leave the twisting and omissions thereof to the Board and Administration.

Good evening Greg
I concur that Ms. Vickers and other board members were very organized regarding the test results. Since my knowledge in this area is lacking it was beneficial that the terms used were common in nature. Maybe someone on this blog with greater understanding of these testing issues could comment as to the need for phase 2 testing of non industrial areas of the property. I was happy to hear that the fuel had not permeated the ground water, and the fact that the tanks were all above ground. The reading on the website is dry but very thorough and detailed, figure a good hours worth of reading. As for another vote it would seem that is out of reach at this time. I wish I could agree with you on the vote issue but I have little tolerance to revisit that topic.

Here's a genuine question for you all. Are you aware that this is a Peaker Plant - which by definition means that it was only used on few occasions over the summer when air conditioners were running higher than normal. It has not been in use since 2002. There are no concerns here, especially after finding out the extensive testing that has occurred on this site. This is not a nuclear site for heavens sake. Really, if you are trying to convince anyone there's more to it than this, you should get checked for paranoia or you are trying to instill scare tactics to get what you want and that's the bottom line.

To Anonymous April 8th 5:15pm

you may be incorrect: The "propoganda" that you mention (politician words of site location and boundries) breaks the law (in my opinion)since it was paid for by the district. I beleive law breaking would almost certainly nullify the 2nd referendum If it was in fact "factual data printed and paid for by the district" then SB would be required to buy and build on BB by this law. Now there are 2 suits that have a similiar component within it. Only time will tell if the SB actually broke this law or if they will be required to buy BB.

the district is bound by the "Election Interference Act, 10 ILL. Comp. Stat. 5/9-25.1" ; from using public funds (as it did to pay for the ink/print/coping/distribution of the flyers and notices etc.) to encourage or persuade voters to vote FOR or AGAINST the proposition. BY LAW, the District was only allowed to use such funds to disseminate "factual information relative to the proposition". Factual information (site location/boundries) would then be part of the 2nd referendum.

Hi Jim
No problem. I would be very interested to also learn about the other districts/schools you are researching. I will scan the latest blog at the time and keep an eye out!! I will also look more deeply into the tax rate comparisons. YES, Taxes are always too high :)

yes, I was there last night. I thought Ms. Vickers had some great questions and comments and it looked as if she put in alot of prep work and research before the meeting. This is most gratifying and very much appreciated. I know I can be highly critical of actions/decisions that seem illogical to me and/or I disagree with; but I also need to give ample kudos when praise is due. I think Ms. Vickers did a great job and was the most prepared board member last night. (yes, I know they all had the data for weeks, but she took it the extra mile and did research on her own AND THAT IS AWESOME!!)

As for the technical stuff: i am not qualified to really comment too deeply. I have heard on some of the blogs that 7 reports were not released (and if accurate) that concerns me. I will use your link and dig a little deeper over the next few days on the reports from last nite. I would really like to see the "all chemicals tested for list' and compare to the 26 substances commonly found on sites such as this (from the NSFOC suit) and do a little "cross check" Also the 7 year period before reporting "spills" was required scares me a little if not all 26 substances were tested for. Remember, they only tested for chemicals that you would expect to find from the doucmented spills. I was gratified to see they tested the house for asbestos. I was not expecting that; and it was nice to see.

Like I said in my earlier blog: Safety is relative and in the eye of the beholder. What is risk adjusted safe for you and me and our families, may not be for others. I personally think if random samplings are taken from the entire 87 acre site and all substineces "common" for a site such as this are tested for and anything found in addition to the oils is remediated with documentation; D204 should be well insulated from future liability.

Since it doesnt look like we want to spend the time to do this; I will harp back to "put it up for a vote" much less time. Then everyone can give their risk adjusted safety opinion on the proposed site location.

have a good one
GF

I agree 100% with what "3 sides to every story" just stated. Please stop this name calling on ALL sides and grow up a little. Let's look at EVERY angle to this and not accept anything but the TRUTH. Accepting a quote like "let's fence that baby off" is not something any responsible parent should ever accept from their SB leaders. Stop rushing this along, there is too much at stake and unfortunately these SB leaders will be long gone when and if we ever have issues with this property. Why take the chance for the sake of saving money now when we it could potentially cost in the long run? I'm glad that my kids are going to WVHS instead of this location but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned for the other children that will attending this new school. WE ALL WILL BE PAYING for this and we should all be concerned.

It is amazing to me that everyone is still pitting neighborhood against neighborhood. Who cares if the three lawyers know each other? District 204 is in deep trouble people! The three lawsuits represent different individuals. Three unique groups that feel they have legal grounds against our school board. And unfortunately, they all have merit to their suits. The school board has not been nor is it today being forth coming about all the pertinent information to the public. There are alot of enviromental issues to the Eola site, sorry look at the reports and 7 still haven't been released to the public for fear if the contract goes south the value of the land would be in jeopardy. HUH? Doesn't that say right there things aren't good? Who is paying for all the mediation to the land? The seller will, but only those known at the time of closing. So already this district owes the group that delayed the March closing a great deal of thanks! Step back from your own my way or the highway attitudes and realize that there are three sides to every story - yours, mine and the TRUTH! No side of this mess can say they have handled things correctly 100% of the time - we're all human. Time to stop fighting, step back and make sure our kids are safe and our board members are honest - then build the high school.

There has been a lot os misinformation with regard to what we all voted on back in 2006. Here is an exact copy of the wording from the ballot:

"PROPOSITION TO ISSUE $124,660,000.00 SCHOOL BUILDING BONDS

Shall the Board of Education of Indian Prairie Community Unit School District
Number 204, DuPage and Will Counties, Illinois, acquire and improve a high school site, build and equip one new high school building and issue the bonds of said School District to the amount of $124,660,000.00 for the purpose of paying the costs thereof?"

What you voted for or against is actually only what was printed on the ballot. SB members are just another form of politicians and they will tell you anything to get your vote. However, we all need to recognize that they have no honor and their words mean nothing. All that really counts is the legal wording of the ballot.

The ballot did not identify a specific site. They pulled the wool over your eyes and you fell for it. Take it as a lesson learned.

NSFOC

Please R.I.P

Do you all think the BB property is free of any hazardous materials - I think not. The school board is doing exactly what they should be doing and that is moving forward with what's best for the community as a whole - maybe TG should be annexed into another district all together - really.

If anyone wants the environmental info regarding the eola site it is avail. at http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/Land/MvhsLand.aspx
The reading is rather dry but thorough.

Here is another article regarding PCB's: Vanity Fair May 2008

Refer to Monsato Harvest of Fear and their dumping of PCB's.
Paid out $550,000,000.00 to those exposed to PCB's.

I agree with Greedy Selfish. This was a great district until TG went up. 204 was a district where everyone worked together and we all supported each other. TG has managed to tear apart the entire area and spread unhappiness and hatred. I hope this summer the housing crisis hits TG hard. Maybe some of the NSFOC supporters will have no other choice but to relocate. Good riddance!

The Greedy Selfish NSFOC on April 8, 2008 4:06 PM

This has nothing to do with the NSFOC but again if you have to blame someone blame the SCHOOL BOARD.

They have been reckless and arrogant and now it is coming back to bite them.

Take a look at the Lawsuit and it will open your eyes.

FYI: The SBs rush to complete this mess by 2009 is because that's when most of the current board members terms expire!!

To: Coincidental? on April 8, 2008 4:02 PM

"Any chance Collins (nsfoc),S. Helm (Brach) and J. Simon(Brodie) know each other? They all seem to have the same agenda.....I wonder if there's more incentive than meets the eye."

GOOD POINT. I HOPE SOMEONE DIGS INTO THIS. I ALSO THINK IT'S QUIT IRONIC!!

I wonder how soon the countersuit will come against the NSFOC, Brach Trust and Brodie Trust from the residents in the IPSD who have much deeper pockets then the NSFOC. I'll be the first to donate my paycheck!!

After voter approval of said 2006 School Referendum, the District Superintendent issued the following statement:

"The referendum presented to the community was based on the Brach-Brodie land and boundaries [that]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 the 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."

The district was suppose to Escrow $33,000,000.00 but failed to do so. Jury returned verdict in the amount of $28,503.70 for the 55 acres taken and $2,500,000.00 for damages to the remainder, for a total just compensation of $31,003,750.

STOP THE RUNAWAY SCHOOL BOARD!

Before you go ASSuming things, you should check facts. As much as many of us appreciated the HazMat Man, he wasn't a NSFOC person. Whoever he was, I say bravo (I thought he looked hilarious and brought some needed attention to the issue at hand) but he didn't represent the NSFOC group. Just who is the mystery man? Guess someone that's just simply had enough of the SB's crazy antics - maybe he's signed up as an NSFOC supporter but he's not one of the main players.

Hopefully others realize that by choosing the Eola site we could as a School District be losing a potential $20-30M in construction grant money from the state. Look at the Build Smart plan from the State and you'll realize that we are taking a serious financial gamble - very simply, we won't qualify for state construction money. Now why would our SB be dumb enough to pass up that?

At what point will the SB realize that there are way too many negatives at the Eola site? Location, environmental issues including pipelines, trains, and remediation costs , lawsuit costs, loss of construction grant money,transportation/transit issues, etc. The Eola site is wrong and it's built on a house of cards waiting to tumble. I personally think that the Eola site will fail and we'll be back at BB. From what I know, I don't think that we'll end up at Eola at all.

Congrats NSFOC!! You might just get your way if the IPSD loses in court. The SB fought hard for you and you still sue them and now we're facing even more money. Congrats TG and WE will then be known to have the most expensive HS in the history of the US at over 300 million. If that does happy I hope your happy with yourselves. Then you'll never have to go to WVHS. I can't get over how you've treated everyone in this district with your selfish entitlement attitude. I wish I could tell you where to go on this blog. I can't wait for your next NSFOC meeting!!!

Re: Greg Forrest
Greg thanks for the info at Illinois board of Education. You are correct, thus I stand corrected. Both 204 high schools are on watch status for the most current testing period. I was commenting on 2005-2006 results that were more favorable. I am in the process of researching other districts because it is my understanding that many districts tested poorly with regard to the most current testing. When that becomes more complete I will post it. Sorry about the comment about moving to district 203, sometimes I take it personally when folks find fault with the our district. As for taxes they are too damn high everywhere. Glad to hear that you were at the meeting last night let me know what you thought.

I find it interesting that our school district is being sued by three or more different attorneys all trying to stiff arm us into purchasing the Brach Brodie property. Any chance Collins (nsfoc),S. Helm (Brach) and J. Simon(Brodie) know each other? They all seem to have the same agenda.....I wonder if there's more incentive than meets the eye.

THIS IS OUR RECKLESS SCHOOL BOARD!

In January 2006, in the District's website entitled "March 21 Referendum, FAQ" the District stated:

"The March 21 Referendum will solve the middle and high school problem by asking the voters to approve building a new high school at the southeast corner of 75th Street and Commons Drive [i.e. Brach-Brodie property]".

Thereafter, and prior to the March 21, 2006 election, the District publicized on its website the PRECISE BOUNDARIES for the three high schools, including the third high school to be built on the Brach-Brodie property.

By Long time resident on April 8, 2008 2:25 PM
As I recall, BB was available and under contract to be bought at a reasonable price. However, the original referendum to proceed with the purchase failed. In my opinion, that occurred because some people (prominently WE and TG) vowed to vote against it until they could be sure their kids would not have to go to WV. Soooo, we had the boundary process, with WE and TG getting what they wanted by a 4-3 vote, and then the next referendum passed easily. Unfortunately, in the time delay caused by that process, the contract to buy BB at a reasonable price expired, forcing the SB to try the emminent domain process to get the property, and that had a surprisingly bad outcome.

So I have to say I find it somewhat ironic that people who delayed the process and thereby forced the costs up so much now complain about the SB wasting their money. I also find it amusingly ironic that those people caused a delay in order to ensure that they get what they selfishly wanted, and during that delay circumstances changed in a way which means they cannot get what they selfishly demanded.

Obviously, this is all the fault of the SB, right?

Also, I'd be willing to bet that the polluter will have to pay for the remediation, not 204. But why find out the truth on that before complaining, right? Because the point on all of these complaints is not that money is being wasted, or that the MV site is unsafe ... the point is that some people do not want their kids to go to WV because they think it is not good enough for their kids.

_________________________________________________

Long term resident,

You must have been here so long that you are not paying attention anymore. The Tall Grass subdivision was the ONLY large subdivision to pass the 2005 referendum prior. Get your facts straight before you post garbage.

To: big picture issues on April 8, 2008 12:19 PM

"Knowing all you know about Eola today, would you personally consider buying the Eola property for your own use, whether it was to build a home or to make a financial investment? Honestly, objectively, would you really do it - especially if you knew you had other options?"

Let's see, I know that 71.5 acres are safe and 8 of the 15 acres of the former peaker plant are safe. I also know that the EMF levels are very low in the 2.1 range. I also know that when the leaves bloom on those trees on the north side of the property it is quite lovely. So I guess, yes, I would personally buy that property. Heck a church is building there. To be honest I think it is the best site compared to BB (too dangerous with traffic) and Macom (just plain ugly area). I look forward to a HS on that property.

All I have to say is FENCE THAT BABY OFF!!! That just says it all. We will cement over it with tennis courts.. I am so glad my kids will not be going to MV. This is such a joke.

The report states that soil contamination was found in NEARLY HALF (46 of 96) of the locations tested. Huge quantities of chemicals - more than 12,000 gallons were found to have been spilled.

District did not release all reports!

Did they test the groundwater for TCE? Isn't that the chemical Collins won in a suit against Lockformer in Lisle years ago?

NSFOC should be run out of town!!! on April 8, 2008 1:38 PM

Please reread: It states 9 named plantiffs and The NSFOC

But of course, troublemakers always make things up.

By Jim Jandick on April 8, 2008 9:25 AM
Re: Greg Forrest
Greg you may want to check your info. in 2 areas. 1) taxes for portions of 203 district may be slightly less in the 203 district(but not 50% less). To compare apples to apples check the tax factor regarding the school district area of your property tax bill, seems to me 204 is only a few percentage pts higher. 2) Academic performance of the high schools in 204 district are not under academic watch, you may want to check for yourself.
Greg your input would suggest you may find the 203 district more suited to your needs as that area is built out thus not in need of any additional schools.
I hope you were able to attend last nights school board meeting, for there was much info available
______________________________________________________

Hi Jim
Good to hear from you:

Go to Illinois State Board of Education. I looked at the ereport card public site for both Neuqua and Waubonsie. BOTH ARE ON ACADEMIC WATCH STATUS (page 4 at bottom of each of their efile reports) for 2007-2008. That is my understanding from that data. They are on academic watch (but not yet in AYP program as you have to fail for 2 years in a row) before that happens). Not sure what data you are looking at, but would love to verify with you. I can email copies of the reports I pulled off the site if you would like. Moderator Jim; I approve you to give me email address to Jim Jandick.

As for the property taxes. my friend at work told me how much he is paying and I told him how much I was. There is some variance in housing price; but I will ask to get his actual tax bill from LY and compare to mine for the calcs. I pay 50% more than he does, but you are probably right (its not a true apples to apples).

As for happier in D203. You might be right, but since I live in D204, I have every right to voice my concerns and my thoughts just as everyonne else has that same right. I know you agree with that based on some of your very thoughtful posts I have seen.

Wow, I am having real trouble posting lately. Moderator Jim; I approve you to give Jim Jandick my email address if he requests it for me to send the PDF's of the academic watch for our two HS's I pulled from the Illnois State Board of Education ereport public site.

The Sun doesn't have an article on it yet, but the Brodie trust filed a new suit yesterday. The new suit asks a judge to force the district to buy the Brach-Brodie site, just like the NSFOC suit. Like the NSFOC suit, this suit presumably also has a 'proceed at your peril' letter associated with it. That means that if IPSD loses the suit, it will have to purchase the Brach-Brodie land for $31mn no matter what. In addition, this suit asks for unspecified damages because the district's condemnation suit on the school portion of the land caused the buyer of the other portion (rumored to be a company wanting to build a strip mall including a Wal Mart) to walk away in frustration because the district wouldn't give them an easement on the property that the district ended up walking away from. Here's a link:

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=168490

If the district doesn't purchase the Brach-Brodie land, it will realistically have to wait a year or so to know what the final damages are that it owes and whether the district's change of site in fact constitutes a 'bait and switch'. It would also take about a year for MidWest to get its portion of the Eola site through the IEPA remediation process.

This new HS is a 50-year decision. For the life of me, I don't understand why the district doesn't do the responsible thing and take a year to resolve those two concerns before moving forward. What makes 2009 so important?

Just so everyone is clear. The site is safe! All environmental testing has been exhausted and shows the site where the school will be built is clean! The kids can roll around in the dirt, breathe clean air, know that they will be exposed to less electricity than when they are next to their lamps at home. The only thing they can't do is leave school property and walk over 30 acres to the storage area where trucks will be stored and with very sophisticated equipment, drill down through concrete, then dig 5-6 feet more to get to a little dirt that may have anti freeze in it from 6 years ago and EAT it and they might get a tummy ache. Oh, I forgot, they won't even be able to do that - because that dirt will be gone with the thorough job that is being conducted here! Much unlike the floors in most garages that have more chemicals spilt on them. I will feel safer here that I would on any other property bc of the extensive testing and work being done here to ensure this land is safe!

As I recall, BB was available and under contract to be bought at a reasonable price. However, the original referendum to proceed with the purchase failed. In my opinion, that occurred because some people (prominently WE and TG) vowed to vote against it until they could be sure their kids would not have to go to WV. Soooo, we had the boundary process, with WE and TG getting what they wanted by a 4-3 vote, and then the next referendum passed easily. Unfortunately, in the time delay caused by that process, the contract to buy BB at a reasonable price expired, forcing the SB to try the emminent domain process to get the property, and that had a surprisingly bad outcome.

So I have to say I find it somewhat ironic that people who delayed the process and thereby forced the costs up so much now complain about the SB wasting their money. I also find it amusingly ironic that those people caused a delay in order to ensure that they get what they selfishly wanted, and during that delay circumstances changed in a way which means they cannot get what they selfishly demanded.

Obviously, this is all the fault of the SB, right?

Also, I'd be willing to bet that the polluter will have to pay for the remediation, not 204. But why find out the truth on that before complaining, right? Because the point on all of these complaints is not that money is being wasted, or that the MV site is unsafe ... the point is that some people do not want their kids to go to WV because they think it is not good enough for their kids.

NSFOC new angle on April 8, 2008 12:05 PM

Who is the blind one?

If you looked closely at the reports instead of being blinded by what you were being told, you would have notice that the ground water test had Lead, Chromium, and Arsenic.

They did not test for PCB's.

Hi Jim
Good to hear from you (from the other blog)

Go to Illinois State Board of Education. I looked at the ereport card public site for both Neuqua and Waubonsie. BOTH ARE ON ACADEMIC WATCH STATUS (page 4 at bottom of each of their efile reports) for 2007-2008. That is my understanding from that data; They are on academic watch (but not yet in AYP program as you have to fail for 2 years in a row before that happens). Not sure what data you are looking at, but would love to verify with you. I can email copies of the reports I pulled off the site if you would like. Moderator Jim; I approve you to give my email address to Jim Jandick.

As for the property taxes. my friend at work told me how much he is paying and I told him how much I was. There is some variance in housing price; but I will ask to get his actual tax bill from LY and compare to mine for the calcs. I pay 50% more than he does, but you are probably right (its not a true apples to apples).

As for happier in D203. You might be right, but since I live in D204, I have every right to voice my concerns and my thoughts just as everyonne else has that same right. I know you agree with that based on some of your very thoughtful posts I have seen.

GF

WIthout a doubt, NSFOC - you really dug your own grave last night. Beginning with your charade of the man dressed as a ghost (white hood and all) to try and intimidate/scare people going into the meeting. I haven't resorted to name calling at all - but here is the truth - you really looked crazy. Then after the meeting was adjourned, the irrational ranting of the man at the end. Really, not a good representation - if we only had it on film, we could put those pictures in the paper and maybe you could take a good look at yourself - which any healthy adult would not like what they saw.

Violation of School Code:

Section 5/19-3 of Illinois School Code (105 ILCS 5/19-3) provides that school districts:

may borrow money for the purpose of... buildings or purchasing of improving school sites, bu no such bonds shall be issued unliess proposition to issue them is submitted to the voters of the district at a referendum held at a regularly scheduled election after the the board has certified the proposition to the proper election authoirities in accordance with the general election law and a majority of all the votes cas on the proposition is in favor of the propositions, and notices of such bond referendum has been given....

In that the approved referendum was intended to provide funds for the purchase of the Brach-Brodie parcel and for constructing the third high school of the District threreon, the District's conduct in changing the location of high school violates Section 5/19-3 of the Illinois School Code.

Please check the Herald website for today's full story. There is a considerable question mark out there regarding what the district is going to have to pay for walking away from BB. For those who think it they are being "funny" by suggesting that the SB can use check, cash or money order to pay millions of dollars for nothing, then you should be first in line to offer your personal account numbers for the SB to draw from.

Both the Brach and Brodie trusts have their calculators out, and the list of damages in growing. Greedy attorneys, maybe, but I don't think any of us would honestly allow our assets to be tied up for so long, only to have them thrown back at us with a "no thanks, we don't want them" attitude without expectation of some compensation. Also, remember, this land is part of a charitable trust. The SB really needs to let the dust settle on this from a fiduciary standpoint before writing checks on Eola. How can they afford not to?
*****************
Trust wants original Metea site bought
By Melissa Jenco | Daily Herald StaffContact writer

The Brodie trust already said last month it will be asking to be reimbursed about $13 million in legal fees and damages to the remaining property. The Brach estate plans to file for its own fees.

But Helm said Monday the attorney fees and expenses are "insufficient to cover the loss." His new complaint seeks additional damages if a judge does not force the district to purchase the property, though it does not specify a dollar amount.

In the new filing, the Brodie trust says it should be compensated for the reduction in value of the 55-acre parcel and the loss of the $2.5 million in damages to the adjacent land a jury had ordered the district to pay if it purchased the property.

In addition, the trust is asking for damages due to the loss of a $40.2 million contract it had with the Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.

That group planned to purchase 71 additional acres at the site with the understanding it would work out issues such as shared storm water detention and sewer and water facilities with District 204, according to Helm.

But due to delays in learning the fate of the adjacent land, he said the Pennsylvania trust has since backed out of the contract.

NEWS ALERT!!

BRODIE TRUST FILES NEW LAWSUIT AGAINST SCHOOL BOARD APRIL 7TH 2008 16:30PM!!!

QUOTE FROM LAWSUIT:

The district disseminated the following e-mail in response to a concerned resident's suggestion that the district might change the location after the referendum was passed:

"Beyond the practical reality lies the idea of simple fairness. We did the boundaries two years earlier than normal because the voters told us that they needed to know the bousndaries in order to evaluate their votes. To change the boundaries after the vote smacks of bait and switch and is just simply unfair."

This is our school board! Oh and there is a lot more here that our reckless school board NEVER shared with the voters.

Here is something for everyone to think of in IPSD 204. If you haven't read the amendment to the NSFOC lawsuit I sugguest you do so. They have added the following:

e) Award Plaintiffs any such other RELIEF as this Court deems just and PROPER

What they are saying is that the court shuold award those named members of the NSFOC money. You heard me right. Parents in our own district are trying to profit from all of us in IPSD. This is more disgusting then hiding behind your smoke screen of environmental concerns and even your not wanting to attend WVHS. You're actually trying to take money from all of us!!!

You try to run the SB out of town and yet these SB members don't receive any money. Yet, the NSFOC wants to be awarded money from all of us in the IPSD.

You should be ashamed of yourselves and run out of town when this frivolous lawsuit is thrown out. I hope you are all exposed for what you're doing to this district. There are many of us that will never forget your selfish actions!!!

I was a supporter of the NSFOC because I was concerne about the safety of the site. I will have a child attend Metea in a couple of years and of course safety is a very big issue. After reviewing the test results, I am convinced there will be no danger for my son. I will have to withdraw my support for the NSFOC if they continue to push the safety issue further. I beleived them when they stated how dangerous the site might have been and was happy to hear the SB was going to extra lengths to assure it was safe. Now that the results are public, and I see the exposure to any toxins is negligible, I am in full support of the SB to begin building on this site.

All of the land and real estate developers in the western suburbs who have made so many hundreds of millions of dollars by developing and building all of our homes from bare land sites are just so stupid, blind, and naive. They just don't know a fantastic land deal when it is staring them right in the face. It makes you wonder; each and every one of them ignored all of the possibilities of this very site for any kind of development... commercial, residential, industrial, etc.

Thank goodness we have our brilliant school board to steal it right out from under them.

Priceless!

Like I posted in these blogs over a month ago, we will be breaking ground in the spring.

Bye Bye NSFOC! Your 15 minutes are up!

The Naperville Sun states..."old peaker plant that stands in the shadow of the soon-to-be constructed high school"

I've never seen shadows that extend over 23 acres from the closest point of the high school to the effected area on the former peaker plant? Words say a lot Naperville Sun, chose carefully how you use them.

I went to the meeting last night. Unfortunately, I couldnt make it in time to sign up for my 3 minutes (my fault, I should have skipped an end of day meeting and left work at 4:30 instead of 5...). I will get another chance April 14th at the regular 7pm meeting.

In terms of the testing... I have not had a chance to review the data on IPSD web site (it was very difficult to follow on the projection screen). I would like to see ALL the chemicals that were tested for. Ms. Vickers had a lot of good questions (I commend her for all the research she did in advance of her questions). I got the feeling TSC did not test for everything on their list (again I want to see the chemical list) at all boring locations. Unfortunatly, I am not even remotely close to an expert in this field, so i will leave it to others to comment on the substiences that should be tested for (and where) versus what TSC listed that they did test for (and where). I look forward to reading some of this data on the blogs (Arch... I like your educational posts on this stuff! look forward to seeing some of your posts!)

What I will comment on (in my Looong Blog) is my opinion: that safetey is relative and in the eye of the beholder. Some parents feel it is ok for their kids to ride motorcycles (less gas, more environmentally friendly, cheaper transportation and recrecration aspects etc.) and some parents feel that the risk is too great to take for the percieved benefits and hence do not allow it for "safety reasons".

Problem is: The safety of the Eola site IS EVERYBODIES CONCERN for two reasons: 1. Most of the district is genuenly concerned for ALL kids safety. Even if some of you out there think that this statement is disenginnuous; then comes #2 and the reality of; ALL TAXPAYERS have a stake in their perception of the risk adjusted safety of the site due to any potential liability in the future. WE WOULD ALL be paying for anything "bad" that happened on this site in terms of a lawsuit loss or a settlement. Given #2; we all have a right to be VERY interested in the safety of the site even if we dont have kids attending, or scheduled at this time to attend MVHS at Eola). That could all change in the future with new boundries etc.etc. Boundries can change, but its very difficult to relocate a school that is already built to a new site.

Since (in my opinion) we all have a right to be concerned about the safety for the 2 very important reasons above; We should put this site up for a vote. Treat Eola exactly as we treated BB site. This way, we will know for sure what the majority wants to do regarding the 3rd HS.

Some say we already voted. That is true. The first ref failed. Then the SB marketing the site and paid for flyers with info on site selection and location. With this data, we voted again and with a 33pt durn around ref passed. Therefore we build a new school. Question is where?

I have read the lawsuit. In one of the counts is lists the district is bound by the "Election Interference Act, 10 ILL. Comp. Stat. 5/9-25.1" ; from using public funds (as it did to pay for the ink/print/coping/distribution of the flyers and notices etc.) to encourage or persuade voters to vote FOR or AGAINST the proposition. BY LAW, the District was only allowed to use such funds to disseminate "factual information relative to the proposition". Factual information (site location/boundries) would then be part of the 2nd referendum.

SO (in my opinion), either the district broke this law and their notices that they paid for were "just advertising/campaigning for a yes vote" or they really were factual which would require them to follow through on the BB site/boundries for the 2nd ref in 2006. Obviously a court will decide this at some point in the future; so for now this is only my opinion.

HOWEVER, I think there is a way for the SB to "make moot" the bulk of the NSFOC lawsuit; put Eola site/boundries up for a vote. We voted for BB site. Put eola site up for a vote (print the flyers etc) and link Eola to the 2nd ref money. Then we will all know for sure if the majority of the district wants to move forward with Eola or doesnt. There are pros and cons on both sides. Let the voters decide what they think is best and then lests MOVE ON.

Maybe i should clean this up (typos etc) and forward to the SB? I dont think I can squeexe this in under 3minutes.

Thanks
GF

School board meeting last night was very in depth. Could have done without the "Decontamination Man" out front & the great finish by disruption man. I found the gentleman with a doctorate in chemistry rather interesting maybe he can offer his services / suggestions to the district free of charge. I wonder how many folks communicating on this blog have attended more than 1 school board meeting in the last year. Overall a great educational meeting, environmental folks even checked an older home on the property for asbestos. I am going to assume that home would be slated for the wrecking ball. Seems the board is covering every possible angle. The time line is tight lets hope for outstanding weather.

It is mind boggling that a school district would even consider building a school at this location. Completely irresponsbile to students, faculty and taxpayers.

"IF" any child were to become sick on this schol site I hope you all are willing to pay BIG!!! I can't understand why a SB would be willing to take any risk be it big or small. I'm sure there will be someone out there who will keep every document, article, interview,blogs, or public statements for future use.

To the SB I hope you never hear the words I TOLD YOU SO.

I have been reading, researching, watching, and listening for the last several months now. I do not feel that I learned anything new at last night's meeting, other than there seems to be a confirmed willingness on the part of the SB and on some in the community to accept incredibly low standards for a future school site in our district. So low, in fact, that we may not be eligible for state funding to help with building costs. It was almost surreal to be sitting in a meeting discussing a new school hand in hand with a parcel of land that operated unchecked for many years as a PCB-producing industrial site, that has EMFs at disputed levels, and several ageing, extremely big high pressure gas lines running through the center of it.

While I completely understand that the expert conclusion is that the land contamination can be "mitigated", I also understand what this word means: "to make a situation or the effects of something less bad, harmful, or serious". It does not mean to "go away completely with no further reason for concern". Furthermore, the EMFs and the pipelines cannot truly be mitigated, other than to stay as far away as possible from the power lines and tread lightly directly over the gas lines. Is building a school in these circumstances really exercising good judgment? Is this what we are willing to accept for the district's children? It is scary and disappointing to think so.

It is concerning to me that, as elected officials of the community, the SB would further consider such a sub-standard parcel for a future high school in District 204, especially since they themselves dismissed it in the past for the very reasons we are discussing today. It is even more disturbing that people in any corner of the community would support it. Nothing about the site has changed - it was contaminated two years ago, it still is contaminated today. The SB has just decided to "take on" the issues, risks, and clean up costs and pass them on to the district to meet an artificial deadline for future enrollments that have played out to be totally inflated/incorrect. Since each parcel up for consideration before and after the referendum vote did not seem to be held up consistently against the same criteria, at least not by any documentation that has been provided to the public to date, I suggest this simple litmus test to the community:

Knowing all you know about Eola today, would you personally consider buying the Eola property for your own use, whether it was to build a home or to make a financial investment? Honestly, objectively, would you really do it - especially if you knew you had other options?

If one takes a step back and looks honestly and objectively at this situtation, I don't understand how anyone could or would support such circumstances for their own, or any of the district's children.

I think it is time for the entitled nine (NSFOC)to drop their suit and save the rest of district taxpayers the cost of defending the suit. If the entitled nine (NSFOC) actually care about the district, it is time to quit requiring the district to put out even more money than it already spent trying to get them their HS where they wanted it. Its time for this frivilous fight to get off the pages of the local papers so our property values have a chance to recover during the spring selling season.

This fight is hurting the image of the quality of education of the district. It is costing all of us tax dollars. It is costing us money in property value. Do these nine people understand they are costing all of us when they pursue this frivilous and selfish suit?

Has either the School board or Midwest Generation entered IEPA’s voluntary Site Remediation program for the contamination problems discovered? When did it occur or when will it occur?

Looks like things are safe for the Eola site, but that won't stop the NSFOC. The way I see it, feeding your kids fast food will probably cause them more harm than sending them to MV.

They did test for all chemicals if there was a need to test for all chemicals. If a site proved to be above residential standards why should they then test it again. You obviously don't know how environmental studies are conducted or haven't done your research. What TSC has done is by the book and they even went above and beyond for a site that will never have one student walk on it.

I'm sorry, you must not have been at the meeting when they stated that the same studies that were done on the BB property were done on the Eola property. I also encourage you to look at the environmental studies. Better yet look at Slide 13 of the presentation where is states "NO RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WERE IDENTIFIEDIN ANY PORTIONS OF THE SITE OTHER THAN THE PEAKER STATION".

I know that is hard for you to believe or understand through your NSFOC blindness, however, those are TSC's findings and the IPEA will agree with them as will the courts. I really think it is pointless arguing with you on this issue. I understand that the NSFOC doesn't want the school there because they want it on BB but that is just not a possibility any more. I also understand the NSFOC doesn't want their kids going to WVHS but let me assure you that it is an amazing school and if they have boys, boys actually have higher test scores at WVHS then boys at NVHS.

Sorry NSFOC the school will be built at Eola and all is safe except for if you eat dirt on 7 acres of property on the NE corner after you climb a fence and drill through concrete. You can stop worrying about the safety of kids that aren't yours. Instead you might want to start preparing them for the wonderful experience and education they will receive at WVHS.

WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THE (POTENTIALLY ONGOING) REMEDIATION THAT THE BOARD SPEAKS OF? YOU AND ME BABY! WAKE UP PEOPLE, THIS SITE IS WRONG AND THE SB IS TOO ARROGANT TO ADMIT IT'S MADE ANOTHER MISTAKE AT OUR EXPENSE!

By Anonymous on April 8, 2008 10:27 AM
Has anyone ever thought about what may be under the concrete? Companies have gone to greater lengths to conceal things than a few inches of concrete.

I know I posted this on another blog. There should be a sign out that says, "Don't eat the dirt" at MV.

I would like to amend that to, "Don't eat the concrete"

How about I sum up this blog.

One view....see, I told you.

The other view...what if, what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if.....you get the gist.

NSFOC new angle on April 8, 2008 10:06 AM

First of all, I have stated in many blogs that I am a supporter of the NSFOC.

Secondly, Your wrong they did not test for all chemicals and they did not test for any chemicals on the 71.5 Acres.

I guess because the school board said so it must be true!

What about the pipelines? I am sure you have an answer for that too.

To: Anonymous on April 8, 2008 10:27 AM

"Has anyone ever thought about what may be under the concrete? Companies have gone to greater lengths to conceal things than a few inches of concrete."

You obviously were not at the meeting last night and/or are just paying attention to what the NSFOC is telling you to say and believe.

They drilled through the concrete and even further down to 5-6 feet and sometimes down to the water table. All water was safe and only 5 areas need remediation because of diesel fuel and/or coolant. In the 5 areas of concern in order for someone to become sick they would have to drill down through the concrete and then eat the dirt under the concrete. However, they plan on digging up that concrete and then relpacing the dirt then replacing the concrete again. That by the way in case you haven't been paying attention is on the 7 East Acres of the former peaker plant. Which is thousands of feek or more then 23 acres from the school. Judging by that calculation 79.5 ACRES THAT ARE SAFE, and 7 acres need remediation and will never see student use but instead house maintenance vehicles.

WOW! What a shock...build it at any cost and at any price! Maybe if Dr. D as in "disaster" is so convinced along with the SB that the site is safe they wont be opposed to making a motion at the next board meeting to move the school districts offices there. Hell, we can just "fence em in". May not be a bad idea?

Whether you support the site or not and I for one do not (yet), the REAL ISSUE IS AND CONTINUES TO BE...BRACH BRODIE...once the legal issues (monetary liability) are determined then the SB should move forward. Not one day, one hour, one minute sooner. But again, they will just come back to us foolish taxpayers in 204 and ask for another $10-20,000,000 to cover the suit. Cant wait for that blog!

If the legal liability ends up being zero and the land is proven safe, fine. "Build it and they shall come"!

I'm wondering. How many of the people who are complaining about the safety of the land would have their kids going to Metea. I would think they could identify themselves without fear - no one would question their right in that regard. I always presume that the anonymous complainers will have their kids going to Waubonsie instead of Neuqua, and their "concern" for the safety of the Metea land is nothing more than crododile tears.

I understand the feeling of not getting what you want, and doing anything to get it. I admire that. Just yesterday my mommy would not buy me a toy I wanted in a store, so I screamed and then held my breath until she got it for me. She only had enough money for one toy, but I convinced her that the stuffed animal she was getting my sister for her birthday would be too dangerous, so I got my toy instead!! I think someday my sister will learn that what I want is more important.

Keep reaching for you what you and you alone deserve, White Eagle people. I'm with you - do whatever it takes, and add me to your membership list!

I have to go - my diaper needs changing.

When did ComEd purchase the property? 1969
When was ComEd required to report PCB spills? AFTER 1976
How many years could spills have occurred without being reported? 7 Years!!
Was the whole site tested for PBC's? NO
Is it safe? Who really knows!!

Has anyone ever thought about what may be under the concrete? Companies have gone to greater lengths to conceal things than a few inches of concrete.

The perceived distance may or may not be sufficient to declare the site safe. One only needs to look at the Lockformer site in Lisle or Kerr McGee in West Chicago to see how far ground contaminants can spread.

From the lack of credibility and honesty demonstrated by the SB in the last few years there is absolutely no compelling reason why anyone should blindly believe anything the SB tells us at this point. It would make a lot more sense if we were all reading a report written by an independent consulting firm hired by the IEPA instead of this SB.

Some sites are safe. Some are not. Some sites can be remediated easily. Others can not. If this site can be remediated safely and easily then two simple questions remain. How long will it take? Who will be responsible for paying for the cost?

Unfortunately it seems like a lot of the tough decisions may be made in a period where the SB lacks trust and confidence from a sizeable section of our community. If these decisions are made now and prior to the next SB election when half of the SB members will be shown the door and we later find out that we have been misled and that the truth has been spin doctored what does that leave us and our children with?

The SB needs to find a way to convince everyone that it is open, honest, and transparent. It needs to stop meeting behind closed doors and hiding from public view. It needs involve citizen groups and committees in every aspect of the new school process. And it needs to go to the IEPA for a second, independent environmental review of this site.

If we needed major surgery for cancer most of us would be prudent enough to get a second medical opinion before going under the knife. So that our kids don't get cancer from this site it is not unreasonable to demand that a second study be performed before we start sticking shovels in the ground.

If you have read the report you will have noticed that it was "prepared for" Indian Prairie School District 204. No where does the report indicate the actual client paying for the report so it may be the SD or it may be the property owner. We should know who paid for this report.

The scope of work for Phase II was limited to areas identified in Phase I and Phase I relied on documented spill reports. There do not seem to be any documented spill reports from 1970 to 1996. That means TSC did not have anyone telling them to go sample here... there may be a problem and the report is blindly ignoring any other potential or unknown sites.

As one way to gain trust and credibility the SB should produce a copy of the initial contract with TSC which will let us all know true scope of the contracted work as well as who actually payed for this report.

If the SB can't or won't be open and transparent with something as sensitive as this topic and produce these documents then we should all be very, very concerned about what is going on.

By BigMike on April 8, 2008 7:56 AM
So, what happens if the Brach Brodie judgement comes back to be sizeable and the District owes, for example, $20 million? How does that get paid for?

I think they except cash, money order, or credit card.

Okay, I've supported holding the schoolboard accountable. I now would like to hold NSFOC responsible. I would like a detailed listing of how my $204 donated money was spent. Perhaps in a full page ad style in the sun.

Anybody?

To: IS IT SAFE??? on April 8, 2008 9:31 AM

How did I know you would never give up, nothing will make you happy will it?

"It is contaminated. You keep saying the land was safe but now the school board says it is contaminated and you still want to send kids there? Are you that desparate that you want to put kids at risk?"

Try and pay attention. 71.5 acres of the land IS safe it was farm land. They did Phase I testing and that 71.5 acres of land did not require Phase II testing. Did you see the requirements of environmental testing?

The 15 acres of the former peaker plant only 7 of those acres are areas of concern with leaks of diesel fuel and coolant. Those will not be used and remediated. Those areas are also under concrete and you'd have to eat the dirt to even possibly get sick.

How do you know my kids will attend MVHS or are you just assuming? I guess then I should assume that you are a TG resident and are listed in the NSFOC amended lawsuit? Why do I have to be a parent of MVHS to believe the school board, the TSC and the IEPA for 7 acres of land that is close to 25 acres away from the school?

"Do a real test and test for ALL checmicals."

Again, they tested for all chemicals on the 15 acres of the former peaker plant. It was not required for the remaining 71.5 acres because of Phase I tests. Why are you not understanding this? I know...because you think I'm a future parent of MVHS you must be one of those NSFOC parents that are afraid to send your little angels to WVHS. Sorry "IS IT SAFE", everyone is seeing through you now.

So you think it is okay to keep making those mistakes? Please, why didn't you stand up before and say something?

Just because it happened before doesn't make it right. It should have been stopped.

I think we all know the answer to your question, you were too lazy to standup and make a difference. These people are standing up and I for one applaud their efforts.

The Entitled Nine must be ready to give up by now. Money must be getting tight and the earth moving equipment should be on site shortly. Bye Bye Entitled Nine!

I am a proud NSFOC supporter who was at the meeting last night. I unfortunately arrived too late to sign up to speak. Apparently It Is Safe wasn't looking around when about 30 other people didn't stand up to support the D204 Board. I would say both sides were equally represented. So, where does that leave us? No where? Hardly! NSFOC is still strong and growing. If you were listening last night the New High School site is not safe. Remediation is required and dangerous pipelines that are 40+ years old and getting older will always be present. Why does the Board want to open up this pandora's box???? I say, "Choose a site that is safe for our kids!" This is not a hard decision just a potentially embarrasing one because the Board will have to admit that they made some mistakes and wasted some of our money. They might also lose more of their credibility, not that they have much left. But I can forget all about that. Pick a site anywhere you want. Just make it a safe one that won't endanger kids and I think you will satisify both sides of this controversy. A school will be build and kids will be safe. The Board might even gain some crediblity.

I keep hearing the Board is making the decisions it has in the interest of our children. What parent would put his child in harms way when the chance could be "probable" that that child could be hurt as the Board stated not so long ago when they rejected this site the first time? The situation has not changed on that site only the minds of the Board Members. Why? Weren't they elected to represent the whole district in a morally responsible manner? I've yet to see it. So until I do, I will continue to support the NSFOC and Shawn Collins!!!!!!

OMG!!! on April 8, 2008 9:28 AM

"Nice try. Were you not paying attention the areas of concern were in the farthest 7 acres of the NE corner of the property."

Are you truly that stupid or just trying to make justification for a reckless and arrogant school board?

Any land that is contaminated from a Peaker Plant is too much land for my child to be near.

I wonder of those 8 TG and 1 WE parents and residents are suing every major company or threat that happends in their kids life? Oh wait, I forgot it's about everyones safety, right?

How come I didn't see this same group of people before 2 months ago looking at the other elementary and middle schools in IPSD pointing out how they were too close to powerlines, pipelines or railroad tracks? Why now? I think we all know the answer to that question!!

I don't understand NSFOC. How is it safer for our kids to be in overcroweded schools where pushing and shoving can't help but exist between classes? How is it better for our children to only go to school five hours a day, so they can meet state requirements for graduation, but not take the necessary courses to get into college (U of I for example requires 4 years of language--can't get it in and meet the state requirements in only 20 classes over a four year period). If we add portable buildings, where will all those extra kids take p.e. (state requirement all 4 years) and eat lunch (I think the state mandates that as well)? My guess is that the NSFOC parents not only don't want their kids to go to WVHS, they also have kids old enough not to have to worry about split shifts and mobile classrooms. I wonder how many of them have kids graduating in the next four years before the overcrowding gets bad enough to necessitate the most Draconian of measures. Want to see house values fall--just you wait!

NSFOC new angle on April 8, 2008 9:17 AM
I should also remind you that 71.5 acres are clean!!

It is contaminated. You keep saying the land was safe but now the school board says it is contaminated and you still want to send kids there? Are you that desparate that you want to put kids at risk? There are other options and we need to consider them.

Besides you have no idea that the 71.5 Acres are clean. Do a real test and test for ALL checmicals.

Don't put a child on contaminated land for your own selfish reasons.

To: Anonymous on April 8, 2008 8:14 AM

You are seriously delusional....

"Do we want our children attending school all day every day on a site that is environmentally flawed?"

A site that is over 20 acres away from the school itself, yes I feel safe. The spills were diesel fuel and coolant and surface spills that are easily remediated. Furthermore, they said that they tested down 5-6 feet and in some areas down to the water table and no migration or additional contamination.

You want contamination go over north of 95th street west of 59 and there were 4 under ground storage tank leaks in the past 10 years. Now that's some scary stuff. Who lives in that areas again?

"Do we want our children running and sitting and falling and rolling around on athletic fields that are or were contaminated by God knows what?"

Nice try. Were you not paying attention the areas of concern were in the farthest 7 acres of the NE corner of the property. Those areas are now concrete and will be concrete. They will also be fenced off and be used for maintenance vehicles. Geez, I hope my kids are rolling around on concrete in a fenced off area!!!

Try to understand this, I know it's hard for you NSFOC people because you just can't come to terms with it. 71.5 acres are safe and were previously used as farmland have been tested and required no Phase II studies because they are SAFE.

So now I see the NSFOC is trying to claim that they only tested where there were recorded spills. THAT'S WRONG!!!

They tested every where on that 15 acres of land. If tests showed there was no contamination they wouldn't do any further tests in that immediate area. If the test showed concerns then they would do fruther tests. Spin it any way you want but the areas of concern are for the far EAST 7 acres of the 15 acres. Those spills contain diesel fuel and coolant and did not migrate any further then the spills. Plus a kid would have to drill through concrete and eat the dirt to possibly get sick.

Let' face it the NSFOC won't be happy no matter what the SB or TSC or the IEPA says. Because it's not really about safety is it NSFOC?

I should also remind you that 71.5 acres are clean!!

Awwww...no more emotional scare tactics for the NSFOC to use in the media. They can try, but no one will be listening to your babble now!! I think people will choose to trust TSC and the IEPA over a small group of unhappy parents who didn't get their way.

It only took 5 posts before the testing company was added to the conspiracy against Tall Grass. There's a shocker.

Na na na na.
Na na na na.
Hey Hey Hey.
Goodbye.

To: Concerned on April 8, 2008 8:04 AM (more like confused)

"there has been a real surge to prove to the taxpayers that a select few can jam the high school through the district."

A select few? More like 58% of the district that voted for a referendum and don't kid yourself if anything that 58% number went up from the 2006 referendum.

Secondly, the SB hasn't tried to prove anything to the taxpayers except for that the land is safe. The did tests that are required for residential areas and found only 5 sites that need minor remediation. For an area that won't even be used for school purposes but for storage. Plus, it is over 20 acres from the school.

Let's be honest the NSFOC won't be happy with anything the SB does at the Eola property. Because it isn't about that is it NSFOC? It's about you getting the new high school at the BB property like your lawsuit says and because you don't want your little angels to go to WVHS. If that is the case then I say move out of this district because there are plent of parents that are proud of WVHS and the education our kids get there. Bye bye!!

Wow, where was the big turn out from the NSFOC last night?? They seemed to be missing last night or they knew they would have no arguements. Heck, the SB even would have given you 3 minutes to talk. I expected more from your (claimed) huge membership. Hope those donations are still coming in, you'll need them.

Let's see, power lines about 300 yards away (3 football fields), and 5 areas of concern that they will remediate. Which are on the eastern side of the 15 acres so even farther from the school in the NE corner of the property. This areas is close to 25 acres from the school.

The EMF readings on average are consistent with what you would find in every household. The areas of concern that are on the former peaker plant site are on the east side and in order for one to become sick they would have to drill down through 2-3 inches of concrete and then in some cases dig down an additional 2-3 feet of dirt then eat that dirt and they may become sick. Furthermore, they tested all the way down to the water table and no contamination of the water or the well on the site of the peaker plant. They also found that there was no migration of any of the areas of concern. Do I feel safe? Damn right I do with TSC one of the top environmental testing agencies in the country who also said they would send their kids to this school no questions asked!!

So now to the NSFOC who we knew wouldn't be happy no matter what the test results showed. This was discussed in their 3/25 meeting even before they knew what the test results would be. Anyone surprised? Can't really say you're concerned about the kids any more when it will pass IEPA remediation requirements and it is close to 25 acres from the school and the 71.5 acres of the school is safe. I'm sure the NSFOC will still play up the fact they are concerned about the kids of IPSD 204 because if they let go of this they let go of their propaganda campaign through the media. Well NSFOC time to let go!! As Mr. Collins said "long shot at best", well I think that just became no shot at best. Time to focus on your bait and switch arguement, which will also get shot down. However, I wish you luck 8 parents from TG and 1 parent from WE on your lawsuit.

Anyone even remotely familiar with environmental regulations knows that there have been a lot of changes in the last twenty years.

It comes as no surprise that all of the reported spills at this site were reported since the mid-90's. All of the spills that occurred in the years prior simply were not reported is why there is no record of them, not that there were not any spills.

And what exactly were those "other transformer oils" that were found? PCB's? The type of large transformers used on a site like this back in the 70's most likely would have contained PCB's so I hope this consulting firm specifically sampled for PCB's.

And D204 thinks this is all no big deal and can be cleaned up in a few months? Go drive down Jefferson Avenue and look at the environmental remediation site that has been operating behind the Kraft plant where the old rail yard used to be. This environmental remediation has been going on for several years and from the looks of it isn't going to be done any time soon.

Do we trust a report from a consultant hand picked by the SD204 board or should we demand a second review of these samples by an independent, out-of-state testing laboratory?

Do we want our children attending school all day every day on a site that is environmentally flawed?

Do we want our children running and sitting and falling and rolling around on athletic fields that are or were contaminated by God knows what?

Are we the taxpayers willing to pay "whatever it costs" to clean up this site so that a school can be built or should we demand that the purchase price include all such costs?

I cannot believe that we are even thinking of taking on the task of cleaning up an area to build a school. Outside of the health issues that may or may not surface many years from now. This will become another one of the endless streams of money to be spent in OUR district.

I think that we ought to get creative and find other ways to deal with the very short term overcrowding issue. There is a building next door to Neuqua for sale. This would be a good start. Better than temporary trailers (portables) but those may also have to be utilized. Life is not perfect not even for those who live in 204.

It has seemed since the 1st time the taxpayers told the district NO...there has been a real surge to prove to the taxpayers that a select few can jam the high school through the district.

We have wasted enough time and energy on this proposal. Let's get back to making do with what we have and educating the kids. Way too much time is being spent on this issue.

Our new superintendent will also probably retire in a very few short years.......and walk away with a lot of taxpayers money....during a difficult time.

If they have 5 "HOT SPOTS" with only 96 borings they need to do more testing. Test all the land I am sure there are more HOT SPOTS.

So, what happens if the Brach Brodie judgement comes back to be sizeable and the District owes, for example, $20 million? How does that get paid for?

I am glad the reports were finally released, and am satisfied with what was communicated at the meeting last night.

Looking forward to the new school!