MIDWEST GEN PULLED OUT OF DEAL TODAY!!

To lily: So say they did make a mistake on the BB site. They were trying to please the very vocal minority of TG residents, which they shouldn't have done. However, all this bashing the SB for past mistakes, is only allowing BB to come in with this law suit and hurting all of us. Why not try and support our school district, not necessarily the board members themselves, and pull together to get out of this mess. We should all be in complete agreement against BB when it comes to the BB suit as they are the ones who delayed and changed the price. Instead of trying to say "I told you so..." You can run for their positions when re-election time comes and give yourself a try at handling the entitlement that runs throughout our district - you might not find it so easy.

Stop worrying about the NSFOC, or BB. Look at the site as you would if Wheaton were building it. What would you think? If this debate were going on in an area you were considering to raise your family would it effect your decision to live there? If you hesitate for a moment, then you know the answer. ANY doubt about the safety of the site is too much. This site should have been eliminated for:
-Wetlands (according to original district site report)
-high voltage power lines (original site report & IL. build smart)
-RR Tracks (IL Build Smart)
-Pipelines(IL Build Smart)
-Not located by the center of student population(Original criteria)
-unanswered questions
If this was not our district and you read this, what would you think?

To BB Trust is Nuts.

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you, however, I also bought hook, line, and sinker, that there was NO WAY (according to personal conversations with Mark Metzger) that the jury would determine the amount they did per acre for the BB land....Mark Metzger stated that the districts comps were much better than the BB comps...blah blah blah. He was absolutely confident and yet look where we are today. In an absolute mess.

I believe the school board have dug us too deep into a whole to take any more chances and gamble on outcomes. The district needs to wait and see the result of the BB damages awards before they proceed with building/purchasing a highschool on ANY other site.

The school board will be responsible for the continued overcrowding that result from the delay of a 3rd high school....not any group or person. Our school board is to blame for everything and yet many are all so busy pointing fingers at each other that we lose site of the real culprit in all of this.

Poor Todd Andrews. He is strong NSFOC supporter but he is not one of the owners of the NSFOC.

I don't like lawsuits but unfortunately sometimes they are necessary.

Did you ever stop to think that just maybe the school board is out of control. They would not be getting sued by numerous people if they didn't think the world revolved around them.

To Anonymous on April 8, 2008 4:13 PM

Did I miss something? Where is the lawsuit with Todd Andrew's name on it?

So now they're owed more than what the land is worth + damages?

What has EVERYONE gone nuts around here?

Rational behavior is has left the building.

As we all know by now - ANYONE can file a law suit. The BB law suit has just about the same level of merit as the law suit filed by Todd Andrews.

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.

The school district did not release all reports last night there are still 7 reports they have not told us about.

Also, the report from last night showed soil contamination was found in NEARLY HALF(46 of 96) of the locations tested.

Ground water testing showed LEAD, CHROMIUM, AND ARSENIC in the water.

No this is not a safe site!

To: "By I give up"

I agree with you. its too bad emotions have gotten the best of everybody and we cant calmly look at the facts and decide for ourselves.

Appreciated your response and our dialogue.

And I will say it again. This allows the courts to separate those nine for the purpose of relief.

Your post works to clarify the purpose of identifying the nine owners. How can the courts award relief to taxpayers, property owners, and residents within the district boundaries without identifying who the members are? How has the NSFOC declared who their members are for the purpose of this lawsuit?

I bet you still can't see my point. Let me try it another way. The NSFOC is a corporate entity owned by these nine individuals. The corporation has not declared itself to have members as per the articles of incorporation. The corproate entity has nine owners and no members. The plaintiffs in this suit is 1 corporation made up of nine individuals.

To your point the plaintiff in the lawsuit is the NSFOC plus nine people but they are one in the same. Or are you trying to tell me that those nine individuals are not owners of the NSFOC?

Anonymous on April 8, 2008 12:38 PM

Evidently you can't read and so I will repost this just for you.

Dollars and Sense on April 7, 2008 5:23 PM

"I looked up the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and read the entire document. There has been some misinformation about the amended complaint posted on this blog. The amended complaint does indeed list 9 individuals as plaintiffs, but IN ADDITION to the NSFOC, not in place of it."

I will put this in big letters so you can read it?

9 INDIVIDUALS AS PLANTIFFS AND THE NSFOC

Got It!!

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.

TO: Anon on 4/7 at 6:24 PM;
Anon on 4/7 at 8:23 PM;
Anon on 4/8 at 9:22 AM;
Anon on 4/8 at 10:08 AM

I don't know if all you Anons are the same person, but I will take a deep breath and say this again:

The amended complaint lists 10 PLAINTIFFS as follows:

Neighborhood Schools for Our Children, -name-, -name-, -name-, -name, -name-, -name-, -name-, -name-, and -name-.

Further, the NSFOC is identified in the complaint as:

"comprised of taxpayers, property owners and voters residing within the Distict's boundaries. The purpose of the NSFOC is to represent the interests of its MEMBERS relating to recent actions the District has taken on a bond referendum proposed by the District and voted upon by, inter alia, its MEMBERS." (capitalization mine)

You know, folks, it can't be any clearer than that. If you are a member of the NSFOC, you are a party to this lawsuit, and all plaintiffs will be awarded relief if it is successful.

And if all you Anons listed above are the same person, a word of advice: You should consider going back for that GED.

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.

Thanks
GF

NEWS ALERT!!!!..............BRODIE TRUST FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST SCHOOL BOARD - APRIL 7, 2008 16:30PM -- $40,000,000.00+ IN DAMAGES.

to:By Anonymous on April 8, 2008 10:08 AM
The NSFOC is a corporation. You have to agree with that. But when was the last time a lawsuit filed by a corporation listed the stockholders? Doesn't that strike you as odd? The warning signs of the intention of the lawsuit are so damn obvious. The entitled nine listed in the lawsuit are asking the judge to grant them relief that benefits just them. There is NO OTHER REASON to list the owners in a lawsuit. I don't understand why you don't get it. The owners of the NSFOC (the entitled nine), are accepting donations from people in order to keep their kids at NVHS. Listing themselves individually allows the judge to grant relief to just those nine since they can now be separated from the balance of the residents/taxpayers/voters of the district.

I agree with you sickofyournamecalling. I'm glad you're finally in agreement with the Eola site. Fence it off and we now have just shy of 87 acres total (when we only needed 80 acres) of which those 15 acres will be fenced off and used for storage. As the TSC experts said this is minor remediation and easily addressed. Plus, that 7 acres on the east side will never be used by one student. All of the other 71.5 acres are clean, including 8 acres on the west side of the peaker plant's 15 acres ARE SAFE. However, I believe they will not use that 8 acres until the IEPA can give it a passing grade.

Good luck to the NSFOC and Mr. Collins overcoming the documentation and studies that have been performed. I'd venture to say their case is now farther from a "long shot".

I LOVE IT. JUST FENCE THAT BABY OFF. That says it all.

To: Anonymous on April 8, 2008 9:35 AM

I don't have to watch and listen to the meeting again I was there. I also encourage you to contact each of the experts that spoke last night and ask them personally. I believe one of the parents that spoke last night referenced that they said they would send their kids to MVHS and they all nodded and said yes. I was in the front row and observed this. But don't take my word for it, contact them yourself.

Here's a repost for those of you who keep saying it is only 9 people.

Dollars and Sense on April 7, 2008 5:23 PM

"I looked up the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and read the entire document. There has been some misinformation about the amended complaint posted on this blog. The amended complaint does indeed list 9 individuals as plaintiffs, but IN ADDITION to the NSFOC, not in place of it."

I will put this in big letters so you can read it?

9 INDIVIDUALS AS PLANTIFFS AND THE NSFOC

Got It!!

To: Scott R. on April 7, 2008 11:12 PM

Get your facts straight. It's a 3 year contract and I'm guessing he'll be around for a long time after that. Some of us in the district think he's doing an outstanding job. I've had the opportunity to talk to him and think he is doing fine for being our superindendent for 10 months and having to jump in and deal with a boundary issue on top of everything else he's in charge of. Take some time and learn what a person in his position does day in and day out and don't judge by your limited exposure to him. What you don't like him because he wasn't nice to you? Why don't you try and get to know Dr. D instead of cast judgements on someone you don't know.

To NSFOC's Ship IS Sinking Fast on April 7, 2008 9:26 PM

"The environmental experts even said they would send their kids to this school. That speaks volumes considering they have been dealing with these types of sites for dozens of years."

The environmental experts NEVER said they would send their kids to this school.

mms://media.ipsd.org/ipsd_ondemand/ipsd_live/board_meeting_080407.wsx

Kevin, one more thing. You said you are a member of the NSFOC "I am a member/donor/supporter of NSFOC". The articles of incorporation require the not-for-profit to disclose if the members are voting or non-voting members. Can you tell us if you are a voting or non-voting member?

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.

Kevin, unless you are one of the nine, you might be a donor and a supporter, but you are not a party of the lawsuit. The amended lawsuit is requesting remedy for the entitled nine.

I am still wondering why the NSFOC has not posted the amended suit to their website so you can see what I am talking about.

Posted by:
By Anonymous on April 7, 2008 6:24 PM
Is it safe...you have absolutely no credibility left. The NSFOC is 9 people. You have no members - zero.
--------
You are absolutely WRONG, I am a member/donor/supporter of NSFOC and I’m not named as a plaintiff in the suit. I can assure you that NSFOC is not made up of only 9 people. Please do a little digging/snooping for more information before you go accusing people of not being creditable, it makes you appear arrogant & uneducated and I’m sure you’re not.

Posted by:
By Anonymous on April 7, 2008 6:24 PM
Is it safe...you have absolutely no credibility left. The NSFOC is 9 people. You have no members - zero.
--------
You are absolutely WRONG, I am a member/donor/supporter of NSFOC and I’m not named as a plaintiff in the suit. I can assure you that NSFOC is not made up of only 9 people. Please do a little digging/snooping for more information before you go accusing people of not be creditable, it makes you appear arrogant & uneducated and I’m sure you’re not.

Dr. D appears to be the SB’s scapegoat for this 3rd HS. He’s being paid very well for a 2 yr contract, and with his bonus for getting the HS completed by ’09 he’ll be laughing all the way to the bank, while D204 may be left behind to clean up his mess. Anyone knows what his bonus would be?

From the meeting tonight, TSC said they only tested for PCB's where spills had been reported. But from reading the law, the electric company only had to report PCB spills after October 11, 1976.

If the plant opened in 1969, as stated at the board meeting, the electric company could have spilled PCB's for 7 years prior to the law being enacted and not had to report anything.

From what I've read, this stuff doesn't go away. It could still be in the soil.

Why didn't they test the whole site???

I think many are forgetting that this Eola site will cost us the taxpayers more money. Have we forgotten that we must sell the 25 acres we own on the BB site to afford this HS. Transportation cost will sky rocket with the increase in gas prices.

I am very happy with my no vote in 06. I knew they would not be able to obtain the BB land. Now the SB has a blankcheck and could care less what the public thinks. They are going to do what they want to do. I sure hope BB does not get 20mil in damages, but I see that they do have a case. Wake up people this site will cost us millions and we have already spent millions in legal and lobbists fees. I sure can't wait to vote in a new SB!!!!!!!

I think many are forgetting that this Eola site will cost us the taxpayers more money. Have we forgotten that we must sell the 25 acres we own on the BB site to afford this HS. Transportation cost will sky rocket with the increase in gas prices.

I am very happy with my no vote in 06. I knew they would not be able to obtain the BB land. Now the SB has a blankcheck and could care less what the public thinks. They are going to do what they want to do. I sure hope BB does not get 20mil in damages, but I see that they do have a case. Wake up people this site will cost us millions and we have already spent millions in legal and lobbists fees. I sure can't wait to vote in a new SB!!!!!!!

For someone to get contamination on the Eola site they would currently have to drill through concrete on the far NE corner of the property then dig up dirt (some as far as 5-6 feet down) and then eat that dirt...then they might get sick. Oh that's also almost 30 acres from where the school will be.

Sorry NSFOC. It was a nice effort. I know how hard you tried to not make it about boundaries and attending WVHS. I know you were so concerned about all the children in IPSD and IL. Well, 4 contaminated areas on 87 acres. Those 4 contaminated areas are on the far NE side of the school district on the 15 acres of the former peaker plant. The west portion of the 15 acres (7 of those acres) is totally safe and passed residential standards.

So now there are thousands of feet between any contamination that never migrated or (at my calculations) about 24 acres. THERE IS NO CONTAMINATION ON 71.5 ACRES OR ANY WHERE NEAR THE SCHOOL!!

The environmental experts even said they would send their kids to this school. That speaks volumes considering they have been dealing with these types of sites for dozens of years.

NSFOC time to go back to the drawing board. Kind of hard to use the environmental scare tactics anymore!!! About the only thing you have left is that there is a gas line running through the property. I should also remind you that gas line is about 300 feet from the school and has automatic shut off valves should there be any type of leak.

NSFOC, now what is Mr. Collings saying. Before the environmental studies he said it was a "long shot at best". Wonder what he's saying now?

You are kind of simple aren't you. Just because only 9 people are on the complaint so far does not mean that the oganization only consists of 9 people.

As you know, complaints are constantly updated. When this is updated, I predict there will be at least 10 (if I get my way).

I went to the SB meeting tonight. Questions were asked about PCP spills prior to 1976. The testers said they tested where there were recorded spills. Tests were limited to the peaker plant area. Appears pretty superficial. Shawn Collins should have a field day.

Looks to be a particularly bad week in store for the SB. Looking forward to the new blogs which will undoubtedly come later this week. Go NSFOC!

the NSFOC is just 9 people. The NSFOC is a corporate entity and listed as the plantiff in the suit. There are 9 owners of the NSFOC. This suit is about 9 people and boundaries.

My earlier blog got cut off...

I'd bet that less than 10% of the people who have signed up to receive NSFOC "news" are actually financial "donors" so to claim that there are 3,000 "supporters" is outright deception on the part of NSFOC.

By Hanging Chad on April 7, 2008 5:24 PM
Dear IS IT SAFE?? on April 7, 2008 4:40 PM

When someone signs up to receive info from the NSFOC website that does not neccesarily mean that they are a "supporter". Many people have signed up to make sure they're privy to what NSFOC is doing.

So to say that the number of "supporters" is 3,000 is outright deception on the part of the NSFOC. Since, as you point out, you are counting them all as "supporters".

I would imagine that something like

______________________________________

Chad M? Is this you posting? For real?

I guess you have a valid point that many signed up for NSFOC updates even though they don't support the NSFOC. Is that kinda like when you asked "how do we get rid of the 204 school board?" at the 3/25 meeting? Remember? It was right before you were busted copying down license plates in the parking lot..

I'm curious, do you really want to get rid of the school board? Were you just trying to "fit in"?

I would have had so much more respect for you, Chad, if you had stood up and stated that you disagreed with NSFOC on the merits of thier argument.

Shame on you, hanging Chad. One other question, Chad. Did you support the 2006 referendum in 2006 when Brookdale got the shaft? Were you a pro third high school supporter regardless of the site at that point?

Just curious.

Anonymous on April 7, 2008 5:04 PM

Counter suit.

Is it safe...you have absolutely no credibility left. The NSFOC is 9 people. You have no members - zero. You/they didn't set up that type of corporation or organization. NSFOC has previously stated 300 donors. Where did you come up with 3000 members/donors/supporters? People who have visited the website or are on the mailing list do not make them supporters - just curious - like me.

On top of that you are now trying to convince people that the district has a long history of suing people including the girl with the anti-gay t-shirt. Sorry but she and another student are suing the district. The district is the defendent and not the plantiff. Nice try. Keep on using misleading information and lies to further your cause.

Dear IS IT SAFE?? on April 7, 2008 4:40 PM

When someone signs up to receive info from the NSFOC website that does not neccesarily mean that they are a "supporter". Many people have signed up to make sure they're privy to what NSFOC is doing.

So to say that the number of "supporters" is 3,000 is outright deception on the part of the NSFOC. Since, as you point out, you are counting them all as "supporters".

I would imagine that something like

To Anonymous on April 7, 2008 1:26 PM--

"Can someone explain to me why nine people are suing for relief that only they would be entitled to? It is my understanding that the owners of the NSFOC are now spelled out as the plantiffs for the purpose of relief."

I looked up the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and read the entire document. There has been some misinformation about the amended complaint posted on this blog. The amended complaint does indeed list 9 individuals as plaintiffs, but IN ADDITION to the NSFOC, not in place of it. The original complaint listed one plaintiff, the NSFOC. Now there are 10 plaintiffs, the NSFOC and 9 other people. The NSFOC is still represented by this lawsuit and is identified in the suit as "comprised of taxpayers, property owners and voters residing within the Distict's boundaries. The purpose of the NSFOC is to represent the interests of its members relating to recent actions the District has taken on a bond referendum proposed by the District and voted upon by, inter alia, its members." The Relief Requested is the same as in the original lawsuit.

The misinformation posted here previously claimed that these 9 individuals, or owners of the NSFOC, had added their names to the lawsuit in order to benefit directly from a judgment in their favor, either financially or through court ordered actions, and that the members/donors of NSFOC had been "misled" into donating money to support a lawsuit that would only benefit these 9 people. That this is blatantly untrue is obvious to anyone who can read and understand the English language.

I don't know why these people added their names later in an amended complaint; maybe an attorney on this blog can answer that. The NSFOC is being accused, again, of being dishonest for not putting this on their website. Aside from the obvious reason, that of not wanting to put their names out there for every nut case to read, the amended complaint does not appear to change anything that was in the original complaint. It does go into greater detail and offer more documentation to support their case, but the complaint remains the same. Again, it would be appreciated if someone with legal expertise could comment on this.

One last point. I will not mention the 9 names listed on the amended complaint here, but I did notice that the much-maligned leader/spokesperson Todd Andrews was not one of them. Interesting?

Is it safe...I thought the parents of the teenager are filing suit against the school board. Isn't the school board the defendent in that case?

to NSFOC - One of Many Lies...don't forget they still have the original suit on their website and are yet to post the amended suit showing that they are seeking relief for just the 9 owners of the NSFOC. They are still trying to collect donations from those who are uninformed.

NSFOC - One of Many LIes on April 7, 2008 4:17 PM

I was at the meeting and I am a supporter. There were a lot of people at the meeting and I don't recall anything being said about boundaries. However, if you have to get down to numbers please don't forget to mention that we have over 3000 members/donors/supporters.

Sorry not every one could make it for your benefit that evening. But please feel free to keep up your constant bashing of people trying to make sure their kid goes to a safe school or that the School board is held accountable for their reckless spending. Those of us who support NSFOC have are own reason as to why we support their efforts.

Also, why don't you look up how many lawsuits the school board has filed against taxpayers. There have been many and it is an eye opener.

Isn't the school board who is suing the teenager over a T-shirt?

PCB Reading Material:

What are the Health Effects?
Short-term: EPA has found PCBs to potentially cause the following health effects when people are exposed to it at levels above the MCL for relatively short periods of time: acne-like eruptions and pigmentation of the skin; hearing and vision problems; spasms.

Long-term: PCBs has the potential to cause the following effects from a lifetime exposure at levels above the MCL: effects similar to acute poisonings; irritation of nose, throat and gastrointestinal tracts; changes in liver function; cancer.

How much PCBs are produced and released to the environment?
Production of PCBs has decreased drastically: from over 86 million lbs. in 1970 to 35 million lbs in 1977. Since EPA banned most uses of PCBs in 1979, current releases are due mainly to the cycling of this persistent contaminant from soil to air to soil again. PCBs are also currently released from landfills, incineration of municipal refuse and sewage sludge, and improper (or illegal) disposal of PCB materials, such as waste transformer fluid, to open areas.

Sorry I don't frequently visit the NSFOC website because I think it is mostly false information or exaggeration of issues from group of parents that didn't get their way and is now filing a lawsuit so they can get a new HS and don't want to attend WVHS. If they can't have a high school none of our children should benefit. Don't believe me look at the people associated with the lawsuit. 9 in TG, and 1 in WE.

On to my point. I just noticed that on the NSFOC web site it says the following:

"The 3/25/08 informational meeting was held by NSFOC at the VFW Hall in Naperville. Thank you VFW for providing the venue and for your service to the USA. The meeting was attended by nearly 200 people - mostly new folks interested in learning more about the organization."

Sorry NSFOC I personally counted all of the people at that meeting and there were 91 of which 15 whom I personally knew are not supporters of the NSFOC. Please quit misleading and lying to the public to satisfy your own personal sefish interests. This is about boundaries and always has been. I'm guessing you'd get a lot more support if you just admitted that and were more truthful.

Quit trying to play this all through the media. If you were so confident about your lawsuit maybe you wouldn't have to resort to "Collins-like" tactics. Then again he is your attorney.

to anonymous at 2:33. Then why wasn't it in the original lawsuit? Why is it important to specify who the owners are if the entity filing the lawsuit was originally just the NSFOC which went on to mention its members?

Anonymous on April 7, 2008 1:26 PM

This is just typical information that is put into every lawsuit. No need to read further into it.

To Greg Forrest on April 6, 2008 11:38 PM--

Yep, the SB won't market the new site to the voters this time because they don't have to. They could have done this right after they walked out on the BB deal, but they felt they needed to break ground for the new school by mid-April to make their self-imposed 09 deadline and there was the possibility that voters would not have approved the Eola site and the subsequent new boundaries. So they just by-passed us altogether. The only time the SB will permit taxpayers meddling in their decision-making is when they need us to fund something. So I'm sure the days of voter input on this issue are over, at least until they need more cash from us. I'll be interested in seeing if the SB has the gaul to come back in two years and ask the voters for operating expenses for Metea. My guess is yes, they will. And they can dip into that 91M surplus when voters decline to fund that referendum. This is definitely what I plan to do. I refuse to further enable the SB by approving any more tax hikes. Hopefully they'll be more responsible if they have less $$.

Really, the only reason I am not backing the lawsuit is because I don't think there was a bait and switch. If the SB had dropped their pursuit of BB right after the referendum passed and gone straight after another site, then yes, that definitely would have constituted a b&s. But they did spend two years trying to get the BB land, tried a quick take that wasn't allowed, etc. I don't approve of anything they've done since the jury verdict, but I do believe they tried their best up to that point.

Howie Crouse said back in 06 that the district could afford to pay BB up to 600/acre, so I don't know what has changed in the last 2 years to make 518/acre beyond the district's means. I wonder if the SB would have bought BB if Howie Crouse was still on the board. Perhaps the difference between what was promised back then and what is happening now is really just the difference in leadership between Crouse and Daeschner. Crouse may have kept his commitments to the voters despite the jury verdict; Daeschner seems more ego driven and in this for himself rather than the district. I'd really like to hear Crouse's take on all this at some point.

Can someone explain to me why nine people are suing for relief that only they would be entitled to? It is my understanding that the owners of the NSFOC are now spelled out as the plantiffs for the purpose of relief.

I am willing to re-vote for the 3rd High School. They should have never "marketed" the school at a particular site even though people on here are claiming otherwise. They marketed BB to get a YES vote.

Chad Folks on April 7, 2008 12:45 PM

I could not have said it any better. The school board is definetly being reckless and running rough shot over the voters. How much money are they going to waste before something is done?

Anonymous on April 7, 2008 10:47 AM

I too am from Stonebridge and have lived here for many years and respectfully would have to disagree with you. There are plenty of us who disagree with you. We do not want to go to Metea we want to stay at WVHS. We are also for a more suitable location. Please do not assume all of us here at Stonebridge are in favor of Metea being built at Eola.

to: Greg Forrest

Thanks for the response.

It is frustrating to see what is happening and especially so if you read these blogs. Even more frustrating when you believe that some of the loudest voices are not being intellectually honest ----- on both sides of the issue.

I think that it is this frustration that creates a lot of the name calling and silly posts full of charges and counter-charges on these blogs.

If nothing else, our exchange of views shows that we are probably not so far apart on issues as it may at first seem. And that may be true for others here if they could only avoid giving in to their basest instincts when posting.

The statement that the SB is doing their job or trying to do their job should be further extended to 'failing at their job'.

The court will decide if a government can publish a position in order to pass a referendum, win a condemnation suit, and then change their mind. I won't debate this, I will let the court decide.

Second issue is whether or not the Eola site, which was originally excluded as be hazardous, should be a site. It was excluded for EMF radiaion. Tonight's presentation should be interesting to see how they tested the radiation, toxins, etc, and what they found. I believe most people did not know that there were three high preassure gas lines running through the property before the NSFOC brought that to light. In addition, building on this site violates the State of Illinois "Build Smart" program which would mean that the building of MVHS on that site make D204 ineligible for state funds. Based upon the cost of building the school, this could approach $30MM of lost funding.

Finally, everyone knows the BB estate is suing the district. The Sun quoted that the Brach family is suing the district for upwards of $20 MM. There is anticipation that the Brodie shoe will soon fall as well. Many people believe the district needs to know how much it is being sued for before it tries to purchase the Eola site.

It comes down to an SB that is acting in a reckless manner by choosing one site, switching to a hazardous site (SB evaluation in 2005, not mine), and being unbelievable fiscally irresponsible manner.

I voted Yes for a referendum for a third HS. Why should I be asked to vote again. My previous vote did not specify a location. Sorry GF but I don't see a need to vote again since I read the original referendum.

To: "By I give up"

Dont get me wrong; I am a firm beleiver in spending whatever is necessary to have top notch education. Problem is (in my view) D204 SB/Admin has not been top notch stweards of the money currently available. I have friends in D203 that pay 1/2 the property taxes and both their HS's are rated higher than both of D204's (our two in D204 are on academic watch from what I understand)

I may not agree with a 3nd HS at the present time; but I am totally fine with the HS on BB even if this requires more money. It may even end up cheaper with less potential future risk (liability) and less bussing costs. Maybe BB would lower their price to 28M and include the 3mill in legal fees we already have to pay regardless of which site is bult upon. I am also equally fine if Eola is marketed to the district and confirmed via a vote this is where we want to build (once safety issues have been accounted for).

If we go with Eola; I would like to see the final damages awarded to BB BEFORE we dive into this so we can incorporate that financial cost into Eola. I cant believe we are going to buy a site without knowing what the final costs will be with the BB variable due in the late spring.

Well said, Hanging Chad. I (and plenty of other exasperated taxpayers) agree with you wholeheartedly. We voted on this thing last year. End of story. We did note vote and then handwrite little "but only if..." clauses on our ballots. We need to put our feelings aside and move forward as a community.

My vote should count.

I voted for a third HS. Originally slated for BB was fine, new site is fine. I choose to leave site selection and safety of said site to the experts. I don't think we have any such experts on this blog. Just lots of people with lots of opinions who like to hear themselves speak - over and over again about the same stuff.

BB is not the perfect oasis that everyone is pretending it is. It is much better suited for retail space than a HS.

There is no "do-over" or "mulligan" just because someone doesn't like the fact that they may have to change schools as a result of the location of the new HS.

I do not appreciate the smoke screen drama that the NSFOC has cast over the community.

The SB did (or is trying to do their job). Step aside and let the wheels of progress proceed so that we can move forward and get the darn thing built.

In response to No Liability Insurance Available on April 7, 2008 9:13 AM

Yes, as a matter of fact there is insurance available for this type of site. There are actually several insurance carriers ( A rated or better) who would gladly provide coverage for a site such as this.

Thanks for listening, and have a great day.

Of course the SB should move forward and begin construction as this law suit won't make a dent in their plans. It is frivolous at best and Collins' should be held accountable for bringing such a case - and maybe he will. Would be nice to see him loose his license bc of filing an ubsubstantiated claim as the law suit claims environmental - when, so obviously it's about boundaries.

I just signed on to this blog for the first time. We have lived in Stonebridge for over 15 years and know most everyone here that will be impacted by Metea. I am shocked by the attempt of the NSFOC (not sure why I'm shocked, but I am) to post bougous blogs claiming there are Stonebridge supporters of the NSFOC here. Without a doubt, Stonebridge residents are overwhelmingly against the tactics of the NSFOC.

Greg Forrest: Thanks for coming clean on your full situation (young kids, voted NO.) I respect that a great deal. Of course I disagree with you, but that is OK.

I am in favor of any site that opens the new HS ASAP. My kids are also young (1st and 5th grade) and so I will also miss the enrollment peak. But my bias is that between the risk of spending too much or too little on education and facilities, spending too little has more negative impacts on kids, property values, and society.

I also disagree that the change in site requires a new vote. And I disagree that the schoolboard believe they are running roughshod over the district. I think the SB are people who probably have thoughts which are more aligned with my own than yours when it comes to how much to spend on education. And though I may and do fault some of their decisions, I do not fault their motives.

They KNEW that the third HS was controversial. And they are trying to be good stewards by choosing an alternative that would appear to offer the least expensive option. But as many have pointed out, only time will tell if they are correct in choosing Eola to meet that objective because of the many uncertainties associated with BB abandonment, and various remediation/litigation costs.

In moving to Eola I think they wanted to avoid exactly the kind of acrimony they are now facing by NOT 'paying up' for the BB site. Unfortunately, I think they mis-judged the level of acrimony that would result by moving some of the district to WVHS.

Most of my argument with the NSFOC people is that they are not being truthful in their arguments. I hate that. They are trying to blind and scare people with a bunch of babble when their real motives are boundaries. They would not be beefing about 'disenfranchisement' if they were not ending up at WVHS.

And it is because of my disgust with their tactics more than anything else that makes me oppose them. I do NOT want to see them "win" as a result because it would seem to reward their dishonesty, and reinforce a belief that if you have enough $$ to hire the right lawyer, you can get what you want.

This is not a logical response. It is an emotional reaction on my part.

I also believe that NSFOC have, either deliberately or unwittingly, allied themselves with people who do not want the third school at all. Or perhaps that is who the founders and the majority are over at NSFOC? But in any event, that is not what their suit requests unless BB cannot be purchased, so I am ready to give up opposing them.

I have seen both sites. Eola is an ugly site on the far edge of the district. I would not want to go to school there. BB is a lovely site. Much prettier and a better environment overall for the kids. So I give up. I wish the school board would simply pony up the cash and buy BB. I think it would remove a great deal of genuine uncertainty, and be in the best interest of the entire district. And at the end of the day, any difference in the purchase price will be a rounding error because of all the uncertainty around Eola.

So, without supporting NSFOC (which I simply cannot do) how can we make that happen?

Because in truth, where the boundaries fall and the outcome (eola or BB) does not impact me one iota because I live in a part of the district which is (at the moment) unaffected by either outcome.

To No Liability Insurance Available on 4/7 at 9:13 AM--

A lot of us recognize this as an obvious potential problem with this site. If any illnesses occur, the site will be blamed regardless. It's just a matter of time before someone takes the opportunity to dig into a deep pocket. Personal injury lawyers will be trawlling the parking lot for years to come.

Does anyone really think there is some magical Liability Insurance you can buy for an industrial site that shows contamination AT ANY LEVEL? Do not kid yourself. What insurance company is going to underwrtie coverage for a polluted site where CHILDREN will be present? If there is any liability cost to be born, you're fooling yourself if you think anyone ELSE other than the taxpayers (YOU and I) will pay for it. And kid you not there will be claims and damages sought. Eola is a foolhardy site - and the SB is playing us like fools.

Only now, the SB has trudged so deep into the muck they can't save face anymore. They've created little choice from themselves but to dig in deeper. And who will sufffer? Us. It is sickening.

My overall thoughts here is that we never needed a THIRD High School. This fighting back and forth between neighborhhods is getting us no-where. The SB should be ashamed of themselves for their lack of respect to the overall D204 community.

SOLUTION? if we are that overcrowded...then why not just build another FRONTIER type campus on the NORTH side. And instead of college bound classes...let's make it vocational bound. Yes...we do have MANY MANY kids in D204 who will not be going to a four year college! Why not help them out.

To "By Options on"

I sure hope you are wrong and we dont get into "construction" on Eola before we know the BB total cost and the NFSOC suit. That would be a catastrofic waste of money. it would make the 3+ mill we owe the BB lawyers (since they won the suit) look like chump change. However, due to the egos involved and past track record of the admin/SB; I fear you may be right.

I also think Eola is an illogical choice for a location for all the reasons that have been hashed/rehashed
1. far away from enrollemnt popoulation density
2. Safety/enfironmental concerns
3. long term financial cost. Unknown BB costs that need to be reflected into eola cost, accretive additional busing costs, final wetlands mitigation etc.
4. Potential for future liability (midwestgen has publically stated they will hold no liability going forward after they pass title to D204.

But if the majority of the district validated this course of action (treat eola exactly as BB) and confirmed this is the route we want to go as a district.... (yes or no) well then, the will of the voters will have been heard. Somehow I think there are alot more of you and I out there than those that want our school board to take another gamble (the eola site) that could backfire on them. Our SB does not have a great trackrecord of taking good risk adjusted gambles.

Only time will tell. have a good one Options

IMO

GF

To: D&S
1. yes I can see your point. I guess it always comes back to "standing up for what you believe in" and I definately respect and agree with that.

2. I am afraid you might be right (SB treating eola as they did for BB). The best time to have done this would have been to schedule an April vote as they announced the new eola site a few months back. They could still do it if they had the collective will (It's hard to beleive at least one member has not silently entertained the notion). I just know if I were on the board during this "crisis" I would be imploring my "COLEAGUES" that we need to INSURE the majority of the district was behind us as we embarked on this divergent path.

2a. The enrollment projections done in 2005 ref do not seem to be coming to fruition these first few years of the estimate; but I cannot speak in good concience of the choice of trailers for a year versus third HS on time in 09. reason for this is two fold: 1. my kids are so young my oldest wont see the doors of a HS until 2015. 2. I was against the 3rd HS as I beleived we didnt need a permanent third HS after the peak enrollment had subsided. I felt expanding our two existing HS was a more feasible and economical option. I know it was proposed before the 05 ref; but the idea of "super HS's probably squashed that. IN ANY CASE, I AM PERFECTLY HAPPY PAYING for a 3rd HS or a 4th HS for that matter; AS LONG AS THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS ARE IN SUPPORT OF IT.

HENCE; my support of the NSFOC:
1. build it on BB as was originally marketed (ask for more money if you have to, or dip into the 91M surpuls sitting in a vault at crouse center)
2. OR treat eola as you did BB amd "market the site" to the district via a confirmation vote (assuming it can be cleaned/remiated and made safe for the kids by opening date). IF the SB actually did this; the bulk of the lawsuit would be moot and they would have far less to worry about (just the BB suit/damages) and would know the majority of the voters are behind them (if eola confirmation vote was sucessful)

I just dont see why they wont do this? It boggles the mind: only reasons I can think of are 1. disrupts the timeline (timeline has already been disrupted and it could have been done while we were all dinging around with phase II testing and BB suit).. 2. they are afraid majority would disapprove of eola and they would have to swallow egos and go back to BB owners/lawyers. 3. Some other nefarious agenda not yet visible (rumor of closing WVHS down at some point in the future. Boy wouldnt that be fun? Sending WV seniors to either MVHS or NVHS with a school closure? I guess that would be another boards problem to deal with.

I am looking forward to next April when 4 of the 7 come up for re-election. Hey! maybe thats another reason!; push this through before they lose the ability to: when some votes will go 4-3 in 2009 and beyond versus the current lock step of 7-0 on just about everything.

To Arch:
WOW, thanks for the very detailed info in your above blogs. VERY informative and I learned alot.

Abandon Eola. This is a lose lose proposition. I can't believe the SB will move forward on this site given the concern from the community when there are other options. My child will never go to this school site if its build. Anyone who would send theirs needs to rethink that decision.

Prediction:
The school board will white-wash the reports tomorrow, close in a few weeks. The NSFOC suit will be heard and won the BB settlement will become public this summer and will be more than $20M now since the shopping center (Walmart etal) has backed out of the deal without the school/property improvements. The EOLA school construction will cease and the school will either move to BB or to another plat of land. What an incredible waste of money by this district. The boards actions and total disregard for the concerns of the community disgusts me.

Clarks kids will remain at WV and Bradshaw's are too young to attend Matea.

Stephens, Glawe, Metzger, and Vickers at WV.

Tyle at NV.

So none of the SB children will be attending Matea in the near future. Only Bradshaws if he remains a Brookdale resisdent.

to anonymous at 5:31

I do not live at Brookdale. I do live in what you would refer as to as the north since I live south of White Eagle. The high school would be WVHS regardless of which boundaries you look at. Sorry to disappoint.

My issue with the NSFOC has been about being honest with the people from whom you are soliciting donations. I have always thought your lawsuit was frivilous and brings the image of a 2 year making a scene in a grocery store when denied candy at the checkout.

But lets look at some of the NSFOC events since the formation of the NSFOC.

NSFOC posts on their website how they want the boundaries and then remove from the website since only TG and WE will support that suit with their donations.

The NSFOC post on their website that the donations will be tax deductible and they will let you know once it becomes official. Now it reads to ask your tax preparer even though all the paperwork has been filed and the NSFOC knows that the donations will not be tax deductible.

The NSFOC website has the original complaint but does not post the amended complaint. The amended complaint finally identifies the owners of the NSFOC and also asks the judge to award Plaintiffs (the nine people specified in the complaint - does not include any donors, supporters, members, etc.) any such other RELIEF as this Court deems just and PROPER.

So the NSFOC is asking the courts to award the limited number of owners of the NSFOC, a judgement but does not include anyone else that has sent their hard earned money. Why isn't this on the NSFOC website? Why would anyone donate to benefit a select few? You must keep in mind that naming the plaintiffs as they did legally excludes anyone but those named as plaintiffs as being able receive any sort of judgement.

Futhermore anonymous at 5:31, you said "You and your neighbors should be embarased by your behavior. You are acting like trash and I pray that my children never ever have to associate with the Brookdale community. This is unfortunately not the first lawsuit that has been filed and there are CIVIL means of resolving disputes when reasonable people disagree (like the legal system). I am amazed that there are people like you that live in towns like Naperville or Aurora---it just truly shocks me that this behavior, language, is tolerated by grown and educated adults (I can not even imagine what you are doing to your kids if you are their role models)." I have not acted like trash. It is the NSFOC that should be embarrassed for taking donations to suppot a cause that benefits 9 families and can't be honest with anybody from whom they have taken money. Some role models the NSFOC are. The NSFOC has proven that the uninformed are the easiest to scam.

This is about boundaries. Always has been and always will be. And now the owners have said they are willing to take a judgement that benefits them and them only. But it costs all taxpayers to defend this frivilous suit (amended to benefit just 9 homeowners).

To G. Forrest on 4/5 at 6:44 PM--

Thanks for the encouraging post. The potshots are to be expected; they come with the territory. I see the value in ignoring many of the outlandish remarks that are made here. But I also believe that silence can, in some cases, imply agreement. When more reasonable voices stay out of the conversation, it creates a situation where the craziest people are running the show because the reasonable ones don't want to deal with them. This lowers the quality of the blog for everyone. Besides, when it comes to potshots, I have been known to give as well as receive.

Unfortunately, I don't think the SB has any intention of treating the Eola site exactly as they did the BB site. They involved us in the location and boundary process in 06 only because they needed one thing--the referendum to pass. Now that they have our consent and our cash, they no longer have to involve us, so they aren't. And they wouldn't take the time to do this even if they wanted to. They are obsessed with having a 3rd school open by fall of 09. The SB says this is when enrollment is expected to peak and both high schools will have to go to split shifts unless the 3rd is ready by then. I would prefer to go to split shifts for a year or two to make sure the site selection and remediation are done correctly, but that's just me. I do a slow burn every time I think about this, so I certainly understand why you're supporting the NSFOC.

I plan to be at the meeting tomorrow also. It should be enlightening, to say the least.

See you there--D&S

Anonymous1,

Thank you for your second post. I appreciate that clarification. To be honest we went into WV with our eyes wide open and fully expected to find disparity. To our surprise, this was not the case.In all fairness, we would have entered after some of the updates occurred so I can't speak to 5-10 years ago. WV is a great facility with all of the amenities most schools would give anything for. The technology media,athletic facilities, and classrooms are well equipped and are comparable to Neuqua albeit an older physical structure. The pool is older and doesn't have some of the NV features, but it is still very nice and seems to serve its purpose well! The halls and common areas are bright and clean and frankly, I love walking past all of the display cases featuring the composites, trophies and banners from thirty some years ago. It has history and was THE first and original district 204 high school.The teaching staff is top notch for the most part(as is the NV staff of course).
I know there was a lot of misinformation floating around about the school's disparities during the 2006 ref. but I can attest to the fact that this was just misinformation. My husband can attest to the fact that I am very picky when it comes to facilities and amenities and if it's good with me it's probably great for everybody else.:)Honestly! We have been in most of the areas in both NV and WV and I personally think the flow and layout is better at WV. That's just my opinion and of course, as I'm probably biased.

Nonetheless, I think Metea will be a welcome addition to the district and regardless of where they build it, it will benefit all of our children whether they attend NV, WV or MV. Please let's not forget this about providing the best opportunities in regards to our children's education. Everything else is just a sideshow.Thanks again for the post.

To anonymous at 4:29

Other than the handful of fraud faithful, you are not convincing anyone (doubt that too many of you have given to the cause anyway).

These are the first 9 families to come forward because they have the courage to fight in what they believe in despite horrible people like yourselves who continue to use hate and threats as your main tool to bring forward your self interests. Keep stating it is about NVHS, but looks like you and your neighbors really don't want to go to WVHS, which is a real shame because it is in fact a great school that you should be proud of (or is it that, if they build on BB, you do not get your brand new school that you are "entitled" to for supporting the South for so long).

The second referendum passed (despite your no votes because you did not want to build another school for the South) ONLY because of the representations made by the District and SB that the school would be built at BB (located at the population center). Sorry that the Board miscalculated the FMV by so much. However, if they do not want to accept the jury verdict (which Daeschner even concedes now that they can afford...but the EOLA land is just cheaper), the referendum should be declared null and void (and I assure you this means that TG and WE will go to WVHS).

If we need a new school so badly because of overcrowding...build it where it was promised...especially in that this is why the referendum passed. Time to get over the egos and do what is right.

You and your neighbors should be embarased by your behavior. You are acting like trash and I pray that my children never ever have to associate with the Brookdale community. This is unfortunately not the first lawsuit that has been filed and there are CIVIL means of resolving disputes when reasonable people disagree (like the legal system). I am amazed that there are people like you that live in towns like Naperville or Aurora---it just truly shocks me that this behavior, language, is tolerated by grown and educated adults (I can not even imagine what you are doing to your kids if you are their role models).

SB and Dr. Daeschner...hope you are proud of what you have done to the District.

there it is. I kept getting blasted for wanting to know who the owners of the NSFOC are and whether or not the "members" are voting members. Thanks to the amended lawsuit, the NSFOC has put into public record what I have been saying all along. Your donations to the NSFOC are used to benefit just 9 individuals. They are asking the judge to award to just the 9 owners of the NSFOC what the judge sees fit. We all know this means allowing these 9 families to keep their kids at NVHS.

So keep on donating money suckers. This is not about anything but keeping those 9 families at NVHS. This is about boundaries for just 9 families. Thank you NSFOC for putting that into the court records.

Not only were your donations going to benefit 9 individuals, now you know why they refused to tell you they were not tax deductable. Truly no one can argue that the NSFOC is a fraud.

Proves that the uninformed are the easiest to scam.

To:Attending WVHS is a Priviledge

I apologize for my omission. I think Stephens and Tyle at NVHS, Clark and Bradshaw at MVHS and Glawe, Vickers and Metzger at WVHS. Also never meant to imply that WVHS is at all inferior. I'm sure the vast majority of the kids there are intelligent great kids, just like the vast majority at NVHS. Also think the teachers are, for the most part, superior educators at both schools. I do think the SB has treated us, the district, shabbily and has really not been all that fair to WVHS. Part of the referendum, to build the freshman centers, was to fix WVHS because it needed quite a bit of improvements and was in a state of disrepair. Most of the attention and $$ have been for NVHS.

I see from the above postings that the NSFOC suit has been continued til 5/30/08. If the school board keeps its schedule, they will have closed on the land and started construction before the case is heard.

I won't pretend to know the law on the issues raised, although I think that NSFOC's version of the facts is an accurate characterization of the events. ( I know the district tried hard to buy the land and tried for quick take, as well) What if a judge agrees? Are the taxpayers then out the cost of land at Eola and the cost of construction and the damages associated with Brach-Brodie?

Shouldn't the school board delay construction until the case is heard?

Or will having construction underway work in their favor at the hearing?

here it is on April 6, 2008 12:25 AM

Unfortunately, the safety is still in question. 96 borings on the land our children are going to attend is not okay. They should test all of it with more borings PER ACRE. But the School Board won't want to do that because they have a timeline to keep too.

Why not test each acre the school will be on to make sure it is a safe site? Not a safe site in my eyes.

By Arch on April 5, 2008 11:54 PM
Anonymous on April 5, 2008 8:31 PM

The peaking plant at Electric Junction was decommissioned by MWGEN in December 2004 stated in their SEC filings here: http://www.secinfo.com/dVut2.v2rh.htm

It was known at the time that it was not operating. It's last operation according to the Department of Energy was 12/2004.

It had been shut down for 15 months prior to the March 2006 vote.

If you have anything to the contrary that shows it was operating as late as you claimed it was, we're all eyes and ears for it.
***************************

Thank you for this information. This timeline is very important since the document Metzger etal distributed in Dec 05 outlining the potential sites was published after the plant closed. This is yet another lie told to us by Metzger and Daschner. So NOTHING has changed since 05. Has anyone shared this fact with Metzger so he can be called on yet another lie to all of us? He just lied in the papers this week.

It is a shame that this board and district continues to disrespect us so much that they will lie in order to advance their cause. What a pathetic bunch. They need to leave and make room for some real leaders who communicate and respect their constituents.

Uncle's a judge...why didn't you just say so, we could have avoided this whole thing....

Except that I practice law in THIS state and the length of a complaint has nothing to do with the likelihood of prevailing (most complex litigation cases are 2-3 times the length of the NSFOC lawsuit, which contains multiple counts based on multiple statutes and constitutional grounds).

Kinda funny that the orange crush voted no in droves when the new school was not going to be in their backyard. Kinda hypocritical (that means two faced) that these same folks are now so radical about having a new school built in their neighborhood (so they do not have to go to WVHS...hmmmmmm???).

I would suggest that you stop throwing stones when you live in glass houses (that is a metaphor that means I wouldn't be playing the boundary card so hard when you are clearly transferring your prejudices about WVHS onto others).

By anonymous 1 on April 5, 2008 4:53 PM
To: They put us to shame

"Maybe the real difference is in the quality and aptitude of the SB members that Oswego has elected. Their residents thank the SB because they possibly treat the residents with respect, honesty and competence, whereas our SB has failed to do that.
Also, I think Clark and Bradshaw at Metea, Tyle and Stephens at NVHS."

Interesting post above. I see WV is not mentioned. Are you inferring that folks with kids slated for WV were not treated with respect,honesty and competence? That somehow the SB purposely directed their kids toward the other schools? How so?
I happen to think that anyone lucky enough to be going to WV should be excited at that opportunity. I feel extremely fortunate that my children attend there. One is off to Northwestern in the fall and feels very prepared from the education received at WV in District 204.

By To: They put us to shame on April 5, 2008 4:32 PM
Or maybe it depends on how the administration communicates and treats its constituents (not labeling certain neighborhoods as "entitled", and intentionally dividing communities against each other to accomplish their goals????).

I for one did not have any bad feelings toward folks in any particular community until a certain lawsuit was filed against all of us due to boundaries. I feel this was selfish and not community based at all.I also don't have a problem with SB communication. Lawsuits do inhibit people from sharing some information for obvious reasons. nsfoc lawsuit only further complicated the information sharing issue.I do not respect this group at all. Even worse,I suspect most of these folks are transient and don't have long term plans to remain in this area...unlike many long term residents that have supported our district for decades.

For those interested....
Here is the amended complaint link

http://www.savefile.com/files/1484367

It was continued for a hearing on May 30

Basically it names the nsfoc or plaintiffs (about 8 folks from TG one from WE) and gives one additional relief request. Note the last one...it's the new one and a doozy :)Anyone surprised?

a)Order Defendant(us)to purchase the Brach Brodie property for the purpose of developing a high school site thereon;

b)Order Defendant(us) to refrain from doing anything inconsistent with the purchase of the BB property, INCLUDING the purchasing of the Eola Molitor property or the construction of a school theron;

c)In the event Defendant is unable to purchase the Brach Brodie property, order it to return the money it has already collected from the March 21,2006 Bond Referendum and enjoin it from further collecting money from the taxpayers;......("No" voters caveat:)

d) Award plaintiffs their attorney's fees and costs (Collins and Fish);

e) Award Plaintiffs any such other RELIEF as this Court deems just and PROPER..... (the best one yet:)

Go to page 26 of the 26 page document for the named plaintiff's seeking "any other relief the Court deems just and proper". My uncle is a judge in another state. He says 50 plus paragraphs to state the "wrong" is usually a warning sign to judge's that they've thrown whatever they can think of into it and hope something sticks :) This is so disappointing that folks would do this and think it's justified and even patriotic.Ughhhhhh.

I contend: NSFOC exists because a group of parents from TG/WE dont want their kids to go to WVHS.
My Best evidence is: the text of the lawsuit on their website states that they want to permanently prevent the district from building a high school anywhere but BB.
Examples are: Of the posts from NSFOC supporters, most of the REALLY loony and non-sensical rants are from this group.
My Comment is: Valium should help.

I contend: They have been joined in their fight by a group of people who voted against the third high school and would still like to derail it.
My Best evidence is: The lawsuit further states that if the the school is not built at all then the taxes from the referendum should be returned.
Examples are: Greg Forrest, Dollars and Sense.
My Comment is: These are the most intelligent and readable posts around....despite what I believe is their fundamentally disengenous nature.

I contend: There are a few people whose primary motivation is undoubtedly genuine concern about the safety of the Eola site.
My Best Evidence is: It's easy to complain, and the world is full of Cassandras.
My Comment is: I would wager that all the funding for NSFOC comes from the first two groups; not this one.

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

Based the above analysis, I propose separating the debate into three parts. Those parts are:

1) Why dont TG/WE want to go to WVHS ?
2) Do we need a third high school ?
3) What are the environmental/safety concerns and are they valid ?

The only problem with this suggestion is that NSFOC doesnt want to talk about 1 because that looks oh-so-selfish; we already agreed on 2 as a district in 2006 so it should be a fairly pointless debate at this time; and we will soon have results of the testing so there may be very little to legitimately debate about 3.

But of course there can ALWAYS be debate about 3 and so it should be unsurprising that this is where NSFOC and their supporters are spending most of their time and effort on these blogs and their website.

Anonymous on April 5, 2008 8:31 PM

The peaking plant at Electric Junction was decommissioned by MWGEN in December 2004 stated in their SEC filings here: http://www.secinfo.com/dVut2.v2rh.htm

It was known at the time that it was not operating. It's last operation according to the Department of Energy was 12/2004.

It had been shut down for 15 months prior to the March 2006 vote.

If you have anything to the contrary that shows it was operating as late as you claimed it was, we're all eyes and ears for it.

Anonymous:
THanks for the information. Can you provide a timeline? Only for the time when Metzger said it was unsafe. I believe that statement was made after it was known that the peaker plant was being supplanted by the new located just north of 88. I certainly am willing to be corrected, but right now I still believe that nothing has changed related to the site's safety. I understand that it may not have been for sale, but that wasn't the explanation provided by the school board.

Thanks

sam, things have changed at the site. When they first looked at the site, the peaker plant was operating and all indications were that it was going to continue to operate. Now the peaker plant has shut down. The other thing that has changed was that without purchasing the Midwest Gen portion of the property, the district would have needed the entire AME property and that would have taken an eminent domain suit. Since the church was willing to part with a portion of their property, an eminent domain suit was not needed. If the SB was going to go the route of eminent domain, they decided to pursure the BB site. In case all of the NSFOC people weren't paying attention, the SB did pursue the BB property.

Seems like the blogs are as venomous as ever.

To Dollars and Sense: I Respect your posts a great deal. We both have a similiar view on this unbeieveable situation and I respect the fact that you disagree with the lawsuit. I on the other hand support it UNTIL our "all seeing and all knowing" SB treat Matea exactly has they did BB. "Market the site location" with the voters and confirm majority are in favor (assuming everything can be remediated/cleaned and site can be "safe"). This is what was done for BB. I fail to understand why the SB would not treat Matea exactly the same! Unitl the SB does this, I will continue to support NSFOC in spirit and financially.

In regards to the potshots you have taken. Hang in there. SOmetimes it is better to try and "turn the other cheek" so to speak and ignore the unreasonable/illiogical comments from the select few out there. That is what I have been trying to do (oh and spend some quality time this past spring break with my little ones.)

This HS quagmire will not affect my family for 7+ years as my oldest is in 2nd grade. However, what the SB did and is currently doing; is wrong in my opinion and wrongs (just like bullies) sometimes must be confronted when all other avenues have been exhausted.

SInce I am now back in town and am hearing that the SB called a special session for Monday at 6pm (how convienant 1st day after spring break; just like having the boundry meeting after presidents day?) going to try and make this meeting and hopefully pose my question/request above to the SB if I can make it back to Naperville/Aurora area in time to sign up...

Have a good weekend
GF

To: They put us to shame

Maybe the real difference is in the quality and aptitude of the SB members that Oswego has elected. Their residents thank the SB because they possibly treat the residents with respect, honesty and competence, whereas our SB has failed to do that.

Also, I think Clark and Bradshaw at Metea, Tyle and Stephens at NVHS.

no response is the best response on April 5, 2008 9:48 AM
By anonymous on April 5, 2008 9:18 AM
"Dollars and Sense" and "Is it Safe" are the same person.

Sorry we are two different people. Keep trying.

Or maybe it depends on how the administration communicates and treats its constituents (not labeling certain neighborhoods as "entitled", and intentionally dividing communities against each other to accomplish their goals????).

If I recall two years ago, it was Brookdale that were the rebels and misfits (the orange shirts). I doubt that the people in Brookdale, Stonebridge, Tallgrass or WE are inherently bad people. I think the common denominator is a district that refuses to show respect and equal treatment to its constituents. It is not that unpredictable to expect that when you treat people like crap, they are not going toreact well.

I go back to my original post made several weeks ago. When the NSFOC was formed at least their web site. They had a map of what they wanted to district to look like. They have long since taken that down, but what would have happened if they just left it up? My guess three or four weeks of people not yelling at each other. We would have known where they stood and not just hiding behind one excuse after another. At the end of the day the NSFOC better come up with a lot more money because it looks like the SB is not going to back out of the EOLA deal. There next move will be to file injunction to stop the SB from buying the land, based on the fact the SB did not drill 100K holes all over the eola land. Then when that get thrown out they will file another injunction saying they should not build the school for another reason. This could play out for several months, which it probably will, depending if they have enough cash. If they would have just been truthful from the start!!!

Furor and peace: school districts' boundary stories
BY MIKE CETERA

In the Oswego School District, all seems calm over proposed boundary shifts. Not so much in the Indian Prairie School District, where parents are hopping mad.

Boundary changes are often an emotional issue, where an arbitrary line can literally divide neighborhoods, and kids who have gone to school together all their lives suddenly find themselves ripped apart from their classmates.

But if the issue is so contentious in one district, why isn't it in the other?

The difference appears to rest in how the parents in each district think they've been treated.

Here's an example of the reaction to the Indian Prairie plans:

The Ashwood development is slated to have 800 homes, but they have been slow to develop. That meant the first residents, such as (Terri) Wiborg, had to send their children to Kendall and Graham elementary schools for the last several years until Peterson opened in fall 2007.
"We feel like an island and that nobody actually considers our feelings," Wiborg said.

Here's an example of the reaction to the Oswego plans:

Parents mostly praised Behlow's plans, which would affect 685 students in 2008-2009 and 905 in 2009-2010.
"I only have six words for you: Thank you, thank you, thank you," parent Brad Gooch said.

taken from another local paper's blog.....

Funny how people handle the same situation differently.Maybe it depends on one's upbringing and ability to adapt to change?

To Anon on 4/5 9:18 AM and No response is the best response on 4/5 at 9:48 AM--

You both are sadly delusional. It's pathetic how you've stooped to a new low to try to discredit those who disagree with you, and there are more than two of us out there.

You are right that I'm not going anywhere. That would leave people like you to to run amuck with your misinformation and hateful ravings, furthering divisiveness and dissension within an otherwise great school district.

I suppose that is why I continue to defend the NSFOC in principle even though I don't support their lawsuit. On their website, they promote showing respect and consideration for others who don't support their views, which is a far cry from what their opponents are doing. Despite their failings, the NSFOC leaders display more class than the entire NSFOCfraud group put together, and that includes the majority of the anti-NSFOC folks on these blogs as well.

To wvhsparent April 4, 2008 12:57 pm.

I guess I wasn't clear in my original post. I am well aware of many of the circumstances that have changed. My question referred only to the new school site. Nothing there has changed, but th eschool board previously determined it unsafe and unsuitable. Now, it is safe and suitable. Mu point is that the site hasn't changed at all, only the school board's opinion of it. \

They simply play fast and loose with the truth as it suits them.

I, too, hope the site is safe.

Bradshaw would be the only one that has children attending the new HS. If he doesn't move before they are HS age. So as it stands, zero SB members with children at Matea.

"Read up on Mark Metzger's comments, along with the others. He was the first to call it "Bait and Switch". Let the voters vote just on a 3rd High School and not market any location. If it passes fine and if it doesn't fine too."

For the millionth time. BB was the site the SB wanted to obtain. We all knew this property nor any property was owned large enough to build a school on.They did their best to obtain this property. We voted for a third high school and it passed. They are obligated to build a high school within the referendum parameters. The MM statement was in context to the question posed..."would they switch the boundaries after the initial process on BB". MM replied to do that would be somewhat of a 'bait and switch' in reference to the BB boundaries NOT the unforeseen result of needing to look at new properties thus LOGICALLY new boundaries .IF you would like, we could keep the BB boundaries and apply them to MV at the new Eola site. Then it would not be a 'bait and switch' as you would seem to view it even though this is not the case. Somehow, I don't think you would go for that though....

This statement continues to be taken out of context including in the latest revision of the nsfoc lawsuit. Nice they added the six or so people's names(have they no shame?) and that they should receive payment as the the judge deems fit...right after Mr. Collins and their new attorney and compadre Mr. Fish get paid. Disgusting!!!!!

By anonymous on April 5, 2008 9:18 AM
"Dollars and Sense" and "Is it Safe" are the same person.

"It is a shameful thing to make a statement under one name and show overwhelming support of that statement under another name.

I guess that's one way to perpetuate the illusion that someone agrees with you."

Anonymous,
You are correct. This guy lives on these blogs and thinks he's fooling somebody. He is absolutely an nsfoc supporter and posts contradictory rants and analogies that don't apply. Ignore him..I guarantee he won't go away because he has nothing else to do ;(.

"Dollars and Sense" and "Is it Safe" are the same person.

It is a shameful thing to make a statement under one name and show overwhelming support of that statement under another name.

I guess that's one way to perpetuate the illusion that someone agrees with you.

IEPA
....so, I took it upon myself to contact the IEPA. I requested any information on the Midwest peaker plant on Eola. They promptly informed me that the right person would be contacting me shortly. One day later I receive a response that I would be receiving test results in the mail. These are NOT the PhaseI or PhaseII results, but previous test results of that property, having NOTHING to do with the current purchase of the land by SD204.
Microfiche and documents were sent to me.
There is a little law called the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, I excercised it instead of sitting here stewing about what if's and the sky is falling mentallity. And it was all free!

I am concerened about the safety of my children as much as the other parent, it not more. I did something about it. What are you willing to do, sit here and blog all day!!!!
NSFOC, you should of done your homework a little more. The money you have raised could of gone to some many more meaningful things in our community. Soup kitchens, shelters...etc. But it's your money and your choice to spend it as you please.

Let's not forget that the School Board marketed to D204 for the BB site. I know you would like to easily forget it but go back and do your research. They hired a firm to tell them how to get the YES vote and they led the voters down the path. Read up on Mark Metzger's comments, along with the others. He was the first to call it "Bait and Switch". Let the voters vote just on a 3rd High School and not market any location. If it passes fine and if it doesn't fine too.

I have a hard time believing anything the school board says these days. I would question who on the board is getting kickbacks.

How many board members will have kids attending the Eola site?

If you take your time and read the amended complaint filed last week, you will see that the envirenmental issues are just a small part of the lawsuit against the District. The major issues are related to the representations made by the District and Board to get the 2nd referendum passed. Nothing that I see that asks for anyone to go to NVHS.

Based on the facts and law, there is a very significant chance that the plaintiffs will prevail (and if the District keeps going forward like a bull in a china shop, the District will own land at BB and at EOLA).

The District is on notice and if it proceeds as planned, it is opening up our District (yes...us) to hundreds of millions of dollars of exposure (and there may even be a question of personal liability for some of the Board members given the fraud allegations).

If I were the Board and District, I would have been in Court weeks ago asking the lawsuit be thrown out...but one month and counting and no response??? (which takes longer...going to court to throw out a "frivilous" lawsuit or releasing a Phase II study???).

I understand that there are a few residents in a community called Brookdale (that want to attend a new high school as opposed to continuing at WVHS) that have been fueling the negativity in our community. I understand that they were formed a couple of years ago to fight previous boundary issues so they are well organized, but are relatively small in numbers. They even have figured out how to disable "cookies" so they can vote multiple times in the various Sun polls. The Board and Dr. Daeschner seem to be fueling on their energy and seem to believe that they represent the majority of the community.

Thus, it is important that everyone who has an interest becomes active in this matter (no more sidelines if you care about fairness, our children and the fiscal health of this community). Perhaps NSFOC is not the voice for everyone, but this group started from the activity of parents from just a few subdivisions and has grown to include thousands of people throughout the District. However, lawsuits are not the only way to get things changed and there is no reason other smaller groups can not come together (from your communities) and voice your concerns about what is going on.

To You Make No Sense on 4/4 9:31 PM--

The lawsuit never says build at BB or not at all; this language is not used anywhere in the lawsuit. As you noted in your post above, it says build at BB or return the taxpayers money. That means void the 06 referendum and give you your tax money back. Why is it worded this way? Simple--as long as the referendum money is not spent on Eola, it can be used to build a school elsewhere. The NSFOC wants the issue returned to the voters so we can vote on another location and boundaries like we did in 06, not have a questionable site forced on us. If you have a speck of interest in this, you can go to the NSFOC website and view the slides used at their last information meeting; this spells it out pretty clearly. But I'm sure you won't bother to go out of your way to confirm something that may challenge your anti-NSFOC belief system.

"So why is it we hear very little about the NSFOC telling the school board to focus only on purchasing the BB property. Why don't we hear that any more?" Because 1) the SB obviously has no intent on reconsidering the BB property, made evident by its pursuit of Eola; and 2) the Eola safety issues have eclipsed everything else at this point. Of course the NSFOC is exploiting the safety angle. They'll use anything that comes their way interfere with the purchase of the Eola site. And the SB has given them a lot of their ammo by how they've been handling this so far.

The anti-NSFOC folks have also "thrown as much fear into the district and propaganda as they can" by spreading the statement that the NSFOC wants the school on BB or not at all. That really gets the pro-Eola folks agitated. "Those selfish so-and-so's want to take our school away!" Same thing.

And you're probably wrong when you say "Their goal is now to get the school board to not build a high school at all because it is the only way that the NSFOC's kids can stay at NVHS." If there is no 3rd high school, TG still won't be at NV. Chances are they'll be sent to WV anyway; they're simply too big and have too many students to stay at NV. I REALLY THINK THAT IF THERE WAS ANY WAY FOR TG TO STAY AT NV, THE SCHOOL BOARD WOULD HAVE LET THEM BY NOW JUST TO SHUT THEM UP. So killing Metea will not get them what them want, as you believe.

I've been very involved in this since 2005 and understand the NSFOC, too. I just don't see them in simple black and white terms as you do. It's more complicated than that, as these things usually are. Some are in it for selfish reasons. Some really believe they were played by the SB and don't want to take it lying down. As I have mentioned before, lawsuits are an effective means for people who feel they have no voice to be heard by organizations who have the power and resources to ignore them, much like our SB is ignoring 204 residents now. I may not support the lawsuit, but I certainly support their right to be heard in this way.

Kudos By Dollars and You Make No Sense on April 4, 2008 9:31 PM

A month's worth of blogging summed up in one blog...just failed to mention they also want the IPSD to pay for their frivilous lawsuit.

There are reasons why most elected officials have term limits.. To get fresh blood and ideas and limit inbreeding.

We need to remove all 4 of the board members who are up for election in 09. Metzger and Clark are the poster children for inbreeding in office. They have lost touch with the community they are to represent.

This team has caused more harm than good and must be replaced. Hopefully Dashner and the rest of the board are so ashamed they leave as well. Thank God we have great teachers and parents in this district who educate our kids. The new board members must be people who are willing to listen to the community. They won't need consultants to pass referrendums if they are trusted. Shame Shame on this board and superintendant for creating such an incredible mess..

To: Dollars and sense on April 4, 2008 5:56 PM

"The original complaint was two-fold and did mention the safety of the Eola site--read the lawsuit. But since then the safety issues have taken on a life of their own, and the NSFOC has spent so much time on them that people are mistaking this for their main platform."
_____________________

So then stop bringing up the safety issue and let the professionals deal with it? Why? I'll tell you why because the safety issue plays much better in the media then what the original complaint says. Let me remind you.

1. Order IPSd to purchase BB property to build a high school and only on that site.

2. Order IPSD to refrain from doing anything inconsistent with the purchase of the BB property.

3. If you can't purchase the BB propery return all the money to the taxpayers.

So why is it we hear very little about telling the school board to focus only on purchasing the BB property. Why don't we hear that any more? Because it is much easier to focus on an emotional issue and throw as much fear into the district and propaganda as they can. When in reality it has always been about purchasing the BB property for those NSFOC founders. However, they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on so let's blow the other issue out of propotion.

Mr. Collins said it himself the complaint is a "long shot at best". On 3/25 he said he will paint as many "what-if's" and "what could happen" with no hard evidence except for a UK study on EMF's. The purpose of this is to derail everything all together. It has been decided by the NSFOC and Mr. Collins that if there can't be a HS at BB then there shouldn't be one at all.

So is it really about safety as I hear so many NSFOC supporters saying? No, it is and always has been that they do not want to attend WVHS and this is their only shot of making sure that doesn't happen. Their goal is now to get the school board to not build a high school at all because it is the only way that the NSFOC's kids can stay at NVHS.

Dollars and Sense - I understand this group perfectly clear I have since 2005!! I just wish more people would expose them for who they really are, and not the savious of the district that so many make them out to be. I'm sorry but I feel they are selfish individuals that are trying to hurt the whole school district because if it can't be at BB it can't be any where.

To: IS IT SAFE?? on April 4, 2008 5:55 PM

Yes, good advice to just let it go..........think I will do just that:) Thanks...........

to: big picture issues on April 4, 2008 6:43 PM

Glad I didn't have a teacher like you. Enjoy your perfect little life and I'll enjoy mine.

By 204 on April 4, 2008 3:09 PM
To: big picture issues on April 4, 2008 1:24 PM

Welcome to the BIG world. Not everyone looks, speaks, believes, pretends or WANTS to act like people from Naperville. Sorry if you're not man enough to have a taste of life outside of your protective dome.

***************
Sorry to disappoint you 204, but my world is not perhaps what you have imagined. I have not always lived in Naperville, nor do I live in a protective dome, as you refer to it. I am a high school teacher at a "diverse" school. I work specifically with language minorty children. I lived in Aurora for nine years, and at one point in my life I worked and lived in other countries. So, while I'm sure it's not as big as some people's, my world is not exactly small.
I don't know exactly what it means to "not want to be like people from Naperville" since there is quite a diverse population here, but if being from Naperville means being respectful of people on the most basic level, then I guess being from Naperville isn't such a bad thing. Sorry to shatter your stereotype, but please understand that my observation about your posts would be the same, no matter what town I was sitting in while typing on my computer. Make your world a little bigger and realize most people in most places hold name calling and mudslinging in very low regard since it requires no thought. Be part of the process, not part of the problem!

Don't these five chicks from Brookdale have anything better to do than to make up moniker after moniker and continue to post the same old crap. At least change up the posts a little so it is not so obvious that the same people are posting 90% of the hate stuff on the site!

Quick...look...Chad is dating Merrisa's mom on The Guiding Light (looks like we have a reprieve from the Brookdale Housewive's club for a few minutes).

Go Orange!

by this time next week the number of "for sale" signs at Tall Grass should double. I hear they are moving to Brookdale.

To 204 on 4/4 at 10:13 AM--

Of course you're threatened by the NSFOC. Why else would you spend so much of your time trying to discredit a group that you admittedly don't understand and have no interest in understanding. The original complaint was two-fold and did mention the safety of the Eola site--read the lawsuit. But since then the safety issues have taken on a life of their own, and the NSFOC has spent so much time on them that people are mistaking this for their main platform. It isn't. It's the abandonment of the BB site promised during the 06 referendum AND the substitution of a site that has obvious safety issues. If you took the time to learn something about the group you're bashing, you'd understand this and not sound like a mental midget in your blogs.

Why don't you contribute something useful to the dialogue for a change? Google, if you have to, the questions asked by jane, you ignorant sl--. Then you'll have something to offer besides rabble rousing and adolescent insults.

big picture issues on April 4, 2008 1:24 PM

I would just ignore 204 posts he/she just has a bad attitude. Troublemaker. Probably got beat up in High School and is making up for lost time on the blogs.:)

anonymous on April 4, 2008 1:45 PM
Great Post, Thanks for the information!

Dollars and sense on April 4, 2008 4:39 PM
To jane, you ingnorant sl-- on 4/4 at 4:11 PM--

PCB's are chlorinated biphenyls, a proven carcinogenic. PCB's were present in the transformer oil that electrical sub-stations used, so if this oil leaked or was dumped onto the ground, it would contaminate the soil. I didn't google this info, my spouse is a chemist and answered this question for me awhile ago. I don't get the prize, tho. I didn't know they are "stored" throughout neighborhoods across the country. Anyone else""

How many transformers are in your neighborhood??
Same for Stonebridge as well as Tall Grass inhabitants.

Been to enough school board meetings for BB. Tall Grass people would say things like "I'd leven let my daughter date someone from WVHS"- isn't that a slam!

I'm laughing now that they will be attending WVHS.....

Same people have set up NSFOC........

Recall MM and fire Daeschner! They have turned our district into a joke. The have recruited 25 people from up North to be their army,which is a joke! If you believe there are more than a few hundred undereducated fools who are supporting goimng forward you have been totally punked by the the whole NSFOCfraud machine.

Nobody in their right mind would support what is goig on. Please use your heads and then use your voice..Midwest Gen is laughing all the way to the bank (who else would pay this much money for this land,,,,,.)

We are educated, Jane. We can see the PCB sign at the peaker site, we know PCBs are baaaaaad, we know we don't want our kids exposed to them, and we're thankful NSFOC is looking out for us and calling the admin on it before they dump $150 million into a bad site.

To jane, you ingnorant sl-- on 4/4 at 4:11 PM--

PCB's are chlorinated biphenyls, a proven carcinogenic. PCB's were present in the transformer oil that electrical sub-stations used, so if this oil leaked or was dumped onto the ground, it would contaminate the soil. I didn't google this info, my spouse is a chemist and answered this question for me awhile ago. I don't get the prize, tho. I didn't know they are "stored" throughout neighborhoods across the country. Anyone else?

To: I Apologize

Bill and Chad are women? That explains alot. :)

Most of us know Brookdale is a fine area, no need to apologize! I think most of us here are adult enough to realize each area has it's "special" people, but it is wrong to malign any area based on the actions of a few.

Monday should be interesting!

to: demographics on April 4, 2008 2:45 PM

I agree with you completely.

If it was about "safety" they would have named themselves SSFOC = Safe Schools for our Children.

But, we all know that their original charter didn't include safety as their top concern. People sure have selective memories around here.

I live in Brookdale and know the 5-6 woman who have spawned the NSFOC.fraud site. I apologize for the horrible things they have said and this IS NOT what the majority of our community believes. We would like to see what the Phase II reports say and see if this land is indeed safe to send our children to. Regardless of the results, wish the Administration would show more respect to the community

I will give a small prize to anyone on these blogs who can tell me WITHOUT GOOGLING

-what are PCBs?
-why it is that they may be present at ANY electrical sub-station? (Possibly including the one right next to TG pool?)
-why it is that they are "stored" throughout countless residential neighborhoods throughout the country?

PCBs are baaaaaad. No doubt. That's why their manufacture in the USA was banned 30 years ago and their used phased out. but please. lets be educated and cut down on the ignorant scaremongering coming from NSFOC.

Save Earth

A prime example of someone who:

"see(s) a slight sliver of an chance to win a fight they lost two years ago?"

I love it when I'm right!

Keep pitchin' man. I admire your stamina!

To: Big Picture Issues

Thanks for reminding folks with short term memories that we had indeed budgeted enough money for BB. The blame lies squarely with MM and the Admin, who's pride and ego could not, and still can not, accept the possibility that they are wrong.

With lower enrollment numbers, we have time to stop and think things through. BB is by far the superior site, and we need to take the time to get it.

save earth is using all his fingers and toes to add again.

By wvhsparent on April 4, 2008 12:57 PM
sam
while I am also a critic of the SB's handling of issues and lack of PR since 2005.
The report was written to steer those to BB. Like a sales pitch.
==================================================

wvhsparent, you've been a fanboy of the administration ever since they sited Metea in your back yard. You can feign indignation at them all you want, but your posts show your true colors.

By your own apologist logic, the BB report was written to "steer" us to BB. Well guess what, anything they do or say now is only to "steer" us to MWGEN. Unfortunately, they are steering us into a brick wall.

To: big picture issues on April 4, 2008 1:24 PM

Welcome to the BIG world. Not everyone looks, speaks, believes, pretends or WANTS to act like people from Naperville. Sorry if you're not man enough to have a taste of life outside of your protective dome.

Dear Demographics,

Whatever the original reason or the people involved with NSFOC, the situation of high cost exposure is much greater than any other issue. You are looking at nearly $200 million for just the school at Eola site, then add interest expense on the bonds and operating costs on the school and we are looking at over $350 million! That makes any other reasons for NSFOC pale incomparison. 204 taxpayers are being taken for a ride in recessionary times. Add to that untold risk-taking, unshared information and liability exposure not shared (or known). This is getting serious.

I accept that there are a number of Stonebridger's (and other MVHS neighborhood people) who support NSFOC. But....

How many of this group of NSFOC supporters voted no for the third highschool in the first place? And now see a slight sliver of an chance to win a fight they lost two years ago? I have the answer - MOST of them.

None of this changes the fact that NSFOC is PRIMARILY people from TG/WE who dont want to go to WVHS.

READ THE NAME OF THE GROUP -- Neighborhood Schools for OUR Children.

environment my butt......

TO: wvhsparent on April 4, 2008 12:57 PM

The SB repeatedly said (MM, Crouse, specifically) they were confident they could afford the jury verdict. MM is quoted as saying they could afford up to 600,000 per acre, less than the verdict. They have also revealed that they are sitting on a $91 surplus, which is not within the "norm" of the kind of money SBs generally keep on hand, by the way. So, yes, the jury verdict came out much higher than expected. But, seems like the SB had some inkling that this may happen. They should have anyway, given that they and BB were worlds apart in their estimation of the value of the land from the get go. Simple common sense can tell you the truth (and outcome) is probably somewhere in the middle. And let's not forget the SB's attempt at quick take powers. Had they been granted by the State Assembly, the SB would have put shovels in the ground on BB BEFORE knowing the jury verdict. Guess that's proof positive they could afford and were willing to pay whatever amount they were told. Complete open checkbook there! So, was this really a change the SB didn't know about? I think it's more like it was an answer that the school board did not want to hear - which does not mean that they didn't consider it, or that they didn't have some means of covering it financially.

On the subject of change, however, how about those enrollment numbers? Those have changed a lot in the last two years, haven't they? A lot lower than the SB told us they were going to be in terms of "peak enrollments". And even though the numbers have changed, nothing has hugely changed in our community the last two years to explain this anomaly....except how the SB has decided to spin the information, or rather not spin it, now that they are not in need of our votes.

I hope the land is safe as well. Even it is, however, it is certainly no excuse for the lies and misinformation from the SB over the last few years. Makes you wonder how much more they're feeding us now.

Thank you anonymous for the Belmont, CA example of what can go wrong...in thw worst case scenario. However, any element of this is unacceptable to me and my children. Wake Up Stonebridge Neighbors and Metea Parents!

I hear the NSFOC is going to drop Collins and hire Erin Brokovych. I read that in the Enquirer at the check out. You know it's got to be true:)

HISTORY LESSON IN BUYING HAZARDOUS SITES - (Reprinted here...but now available for better formatted at http://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=77 )

Does this story sound familiar? School officials do a site analysis and rule out a site because of its environmental hazards. Later, that site is actually chosen, and officials retract their earlier statements. Is this MWGEN property to be purchased by IPSD 204? No, it is Belmont in LA, California!

Well, how about the rest of the story...After construction has started, new environmental remediation problems surface and because the construction is already in progress, the remediation IS 10 times as expensive and difficult, if not impossible. The school goes way over budget, and it is also referred to as "The most expensive high school ever" at 238 million! After further failures, the board was replaced, the administration fired, the consultants and lawyers sued, AND THE SCHOOL DEMOLISHED!

Here is an activist site which will fill in the details for you, including a 3 minute video on the disastrous chain of events and all the culprits involved:

http://www.fulldisclosure.net/belmont_learning_center_and_LAUSD.htm

These are some information quoted from and related to the incident:

Quote:
Partially (60%) completed LAUSD Belmont Learning Center campus shown below. Costs to date have been estimated by LAUSD to be $174 million and by the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee to be $238 million. That includes purchasing 37 acres formerly known as the Los Angeles oil field from Japanese developer SHIMIZU for $30 million "as is".

Not all, but some, of the newly constructed Belmont buildings that were built on top of an earth quake fault and impacted by methane gas and hydrogen sulfide are to be demolished in the Fall of 2004.

An Additional $110 million has been approved by LAUSD for demolition and construction (Watch our 5.5 min video of demolition) to complete the project. LAUSD and oil and gas experts vary in their projected costs for remediation of the toxic substances, estimates range from $14 million to $107 million. Therefore, it is possible that Belmont High School could cost just under one-half a $BILLION dollars, barring any cost overruns and change orders.

Here is another article talking about the story and the remediation problems encountered:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000605/anderson

including this section quoted from and related to the incident:

Quote:

The scandal generated a centrifugal force felt throughout the city. Three members of the Board of Education known as supporters of Belmont were ousted in elections last year and replaced by members who voted in January to fire the developers and shut down the project. The new board has retained the services of attorney Thomas Girardi--of Hollywood's Erin Brockovich fame--to compile a malpractice lawsuit against the school district's former real estate counsel, O'Melveny and Meyers, arguably the city's most influential law firm. The blue-chip accounting firm Ernst & Young is one of several corporations accused of either overbilling the school district or "breaching" their "professional duty." By the time construction was stopped, more than $123 million had already been spent on the school.

...and these guys are arguing that remediation should be cheaper than the Belmont SD experienced, but look at the numbers:

These guys say they can do it for: 10 million to 15 million for 35 acres!

Belmont SD estimated: 20 million to 60 million for 35 acres!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_45_21/ai_57824417

...and how about this part of the article quoted from and related to the incident:

Quote:

The difference is that most developments done by private industry go through all sorts of testing and due diligence ahead of time, before deciding whether to proceed, Ciasulli said.

The school district's due diligence process apparently broke down -- the extent of the environmental problems was not communicated to the board and some top school officials. And it's more expensive to mitigate problems retroactively, when there's new construction in the way.

"The accidental and sudden arrival of contaminants at a project invariably will cost more than if you knew about it in advance," said Anthony Nelson, national account manager with environmental and engineering firm Arcadis Geraghty & Miller. "If you have to retrofit or alleviate after the fact, you have to spend more money."

Why can't we learn from the misfortunes of others why we shouldn't be building on a site that is a former power generation plant and has 6 pipelines underneath. It would be illegal in California to do what we are doing. Why can't we learn from others' mistakes instead of rolling the dice with our kids lives and our district's welfare and survival?

And we are trying to save a few million dollars from our own situation at BB site for Eola/Molitor? And it is we because we pick up the tab

204 - Wow. It doesn't matter where you live, or what you are supporting, you are an embarassment to the entire community. Please take a moment to read a few small samplings of your comments over the last few days and then think about what value these comments are adding to the discussion (clue: none). If you are a true believer in all of the senseless hate you are spewing, and aren't embarassed by it, please include your name on your next post. It will be much easier for the SB to come by and thank you for being such a great role model to the 204 students who might be reading this. The SB must feel great knowing that they have people of such high intellect giving them unwaivering support! Speaks volumes! Whether you realize it or not, you have become the biggest argument FOR a group like the NSFOC, as ignorance like that you present is truly frightening.

By 204 on April 4, 2008 10:13 AM
PS: I have a hobby - pissing you off by stating things you don't agree with.
*****************
By 204 on April 3, 2008 8:13 AM
Well it appears all you NSFOC freaks who've assumed that D204 was trying to hide something will finally get your answers.
*****************
By 204 on March 31, 2008 9:15 AM
Yo, brain dead people.
Won't the SCHOOL be built on the FARMLAND portion of the site.
*****************
By 204 on April 1, 2008 8:24 AM
To: IS IT SAFE?? on March 31, 2008 9:05 PM
Mooooooooooooooooooo. Herd mentality.
*****************
By 204 on April 1, 2008 4:19 PM
to: IS IT SAFE?? on April 1, 2008 2:22 PM
Right back at 'cha sweetheart.
Taken from Naperville Sun on 3/30. Right from the Horse's (as_) I mean Mouth.
******************
By 204 on April 2, 2008 10:13 AM
to: Anonymous on April 2, 2008 8:48 AM
Remember another proverb. Opinions are like as_holes. Everybody has one. And, you are one.

sam
while I am also a critic of the SB's handling of issues and lack of PR since 2005.
The report was written to steer those to BB. Like a sales pitch.
Nothing has changed since then? Huh? You mean a land price twice of what the SD planned for is not a change?
I also cannot wait to see the Eviron reports to confirm that the site is safe.

We need the school. I support it wherever it get built, as long as they stay within their budget and do not come asking for more money.

I'm anxious to see the test results. I'm more interested in knowing ig they tested for contaminants other than fuel oil, which is easily remediated.

After watching this process unfold since 2005, I will always be highly skeptical of this school board. The relavent issue related to this site is that when it suited the board's purpose, this site was unsafe and unacceptable. Now, it suits the board's purpose to find the site safe, and voila! it's safe and acceptable. Nothing has changed since it was deemed unacceptable, except that the board wants to buy it now.

It may well be safe, but I will always question what really changed.

Oh boy thank you great and powerful SB for delivering part of the information we need. In typical fashion this team never gives us all of the information but only releases the pieces they've scrubbed and spun. What about the other 600lb gorilla in the room (aka the cost to abandon the BB site)? This is a package deal. Same shallow pocket that you continue to pick and spend from without any regret.

I keep looking at that Eola property and shaking my head. Who would put a school on such a suboptimal site? It might be more understandable if that was the only property avail. Have you seen the aerial shot? The school is carefully situated between many hazard: Gas lines, power lines, old peaker plant and who knows what else.

My kids are not going to that site. IF we were assigned to go there I would move. We have a great opportunity to build a third school we can all be proud of. I for one will be ashamed of how the district and board have spent our referrendum monies if this site is finalized.

Anyone else see the article on the recall statute today (I do not think the soap operas are on yet,so probably the same 5 Brookdale housewives who post 70% of the blog content reading the blog right now)....

For the other 30%, please write our representatives and state congressmen TODAY. We need to unseat the current school board asap!

Curt Bradshaw-"If we can't trust some of the nation's premier environmental consultants and the EPA, who can we trust? These firms haven't built their solid reputation on giving bad advice"

Trust? Trust? We trusted the SB. We trusted you would make the best decisions for our children. Now look at the direction the SB has taken this district. At best, questionable land and a plethora of lies. No,we don't trust. We don't trust anything you say or do. How dare he use TRUST when the SB has done nothing but cause it's district to mistrust every word out of their mouths.

To: Dollars and sense on April 3, 2008 11:24 PM

You are right. I don't get the NSFOC. I never will understand them - nor do I care to.

Perhaps I would understand better if the original complaints about the Eola site were about safety. But, it took a roundabout route to get to the "site safety issues". Once NSFOC solidified that as their position, they then set about trying to convince everyone that even a stray piece of trash that blew across the field is now contaiminated with nuclear waste.

I am not at all fearful of the reports, or NSFOC. Quite frankly I really don't care about what you think of my opinions because I don't give any credence to yours.

PS: I have a hobby - pissing you off by stating things you don't agree with.

No Panic at NSFCOC HQ. Seems like the veil of "due dilligence" on the part of the SB / Admin is quickly being pulled away....

Riddle me this - how is it possible that a school board, one who has the IASB VP (M2), no less, not be aware of the Illinois "Build Smart" Program? http://www.cdb.state.il.us/schools/Chapter3.pdf

This rush to get Metea opened by 2009 has caused them to turn a blind eye to safety, puts our financial future in jeopardy, and puts our children at increased risk.

Thanks NSFOC for helping bring light to this improtant matter.

It helps to see both sides. The SB needs to make sure these kids have a safe enviroment. I too do not believe this is the best site for kids to go school.

66-96 borings are not enough to ensure safety as far as I am concerned. I hope they tested for everything guess we will see on Monday.

To Stonebridge for NSFOC:

I highly doubt you are from Stonebridge. If you truly are then you would likely be feeling the same way as the majority of Stonebridge residents. We are downright happy to attend either WVHS or MVHS. We know our kids will receive a great education anywhere in 204 and we aren't concerned about exclusivity and entitlement. What a refreshing attitude in this district and I am so glad and proud to live in this fine neighborhood with great people!

Rock on Stonebridge!

Wow. Just think if NSFOC wasn't around to question things - we may have to accept that the SB wouldn't have anyone checking their movements.

Let's look at facts:

- Never voted on (the land)
_ Only is being pursued due to SB members desires
- Enironmental hazard; prove by the fact of what they are testing for and where they are testing. This is amazing: who does the testing satisfy - the same group that is know to mislead and deceive and change their mind against the public's input
- They skew results to their needs. From enrollment to costs and an abundance of "say one thing, then do another:

Their plan is to release results that only satisfy a handful of people, then they discredit the NSFOC group and insult them.

Why would anyone want anything to do with SB members who care more about a school being built compared to carrying out 'what the vote and marketing to get that vote.'

Horrible joke, once again, played on the community.

If the report was satisfied, it would not have taken this long. Secondly, an independent group that tested fully for the 100 chemical and toxic elements would be very, very satisfying.

C'mon. Get a clue. Lie to me once, OK, lie to me twice, I get it. Lie to me a 3rd time and it's my fault.

The problem is the dreams of the school board, it's the residents who support them.

To What? on 4/3 at 9:56 AM--

"I can tell you I have reviewed the reports and have had the opportunity to discuss the results WITH OUT environmental consultants, and there's nothing that concerns me."

I noticed this, too, and I think it's a typo, since the R and T are next to each other on the keyboard. I'm pretty sure it should read "with our environmental consulants". If it was suppose to be "without", it would be spelled as one word, plus this would have Bradshaw contradicting his own statement. Unless it's a Freudian slip . . . ?
__________________________________________

Note to Moderator Jim: Is this a typo? If so, your folks should proof for meaning, not just content. You can see the problem one wrong letter can cause.

Moderator Jim,
New blog topic.Surprisingly, NSFOC does not accept PHASE 1 and 2 safety results.Do you think the testing was conclusive enough? Do we need to dig to China? Why settle for 100 samples when we could be taking 100,000 samples? Why stop there? The discussion line is now open....:)

To NSFOC is desperate on 4/3 at 6:54 PM--

Where?

To 204 on 4/3 at 6:14 PM--

What IS your problem? Of course the NSFOC has nothing to do with the Phase II studies being released at this time. The SB couldn't hold on to them forever, they had to be shared eventually. I'm sure no one in the NSFOC is gloating about how they "forced" the SB to come forward with the results FOUR WEEKS LATE.

You, on the other hand, seem to be fearful that maybe the NSFOC did have something to do with this. Why else would you take the time to write such a strong statement trying to convince them, and perhaps yourself, that they didn't? You really protest too much.

The NSFOC totally gets it. It's you who doesn't get the NSFOC. So do yourself a favor and stop obsessing about them. Get a hobby. Or get a life. Just get over it.

D203 Resident and TG Resident

I doubt you are either..this is funny. The "other" side minds the blogs, and just says "NSFOC I am laughing...keep it coming", and those "TG/WE people just want this or that".

How about some real insightful information. On the fly efforts like..."they have someone from the north and 203, so hey..lets get someone from the south and 203 ...yeah that will show them".

The constant playback of the same theme is not working. Normal people see right through it.

Enjoy, I am going to read some real information on www.nsfoc.com

To D203 on 4/3 at 5/28PM--

The SB is not doing any testing as per IEPA requirements. The IEPA is not involved at this point because by law the SB doesn't have to involve them. They plan to fence off the area that is suspected to have the highest levels of contamination, the peaker plant area, and get the IEPA involved in remediating that area later, which they say could take anywhere from 6 mos. to 2 years. In the meantime, they plan to begin construction of the school building on the remaining area without IEPA approval, relying on their own independent test results that will probably show this area as 'good enough', with acceptable levels of contamination.

Also, we have laws prohibiting citizens from suing the President. Good thing, too, or they'd probably spend all their time in courts defending themselves against such statements as "Read my lips, no new taxes."

You're right about one thing; you're an outsider and don't have all the facts. We have enough people within 204 causing dissension; we don't need 203 folks going out of their way to add to it. Butt out.

Its Officially out of hand.

The NSFOC is taking a victory lap for tests done prior to the formation of the NSFOC.

Not a single post from anyone in south blasting the residents of Brookdale but a brand new population of Stonebridge speaking out against the SB.

Another NSFOC post stating that just because someone files suit asking the judge to award them something, they will get it. Collins is not going to get a judge to award him money for a lawsuit with no case law to support it.

The writing is on the wall. Time to panic NSFOC. Out of money and out of their collective minds.

Now I have to get back to my poker game before Bigfoot peaks at my cards.

Must be some major panic at the NSFOC headquarters. They are now resorting to fictious blog posts to make it appear that they have more support then they actually do. Quite Pathetic.

D203 Resident on April 3, 2008 5:28 PM

Clearly, you are have not been reading what I have been. NSFOC was asking the School Board to slow down and make sure the site is safe. The question should be asked as to why you wouldn't want to make sure your child would go to a school which is located on a safe site. I support NSFOC for standing up to a school board and telling them to test, test, test. My child will be at that school and I would like to know this site is safe.

Unfotunately, the way this school board has been I may always have a question in the back of my mind.

To Math 204

Ever stop to read the complaint? See the part about legal fees? THATs where Collins is getting paid. That and a high profile case to attach his name to.

Use your well-honed math skills to figure out how much 900$/hr times the hours his team has worked on defending D204 citizens from the quagmire that is MWGEN. Add the BB case losses. Pretty big number, which amazingly still is less than the ego of Metzger and Dash.

I guess the NSFOC supporters just don't get it. Despite the last month or so of whining, screaming, complaining, changing tactics, changing their angle, hiring an attorney etc. The SD is moving ahead anyway with Eola.

At what point do you think you will spare yourselves the embarrassment and your fellow taxpayers potential cost for this no-shot lawsuit.

NSFOC has been screaming for the release of the Phase II studies. Well, at long last they're coming. But do you REALLY think that had ANYTHING to do with NSFOC? You're kidding right? I mean like the SD wouldn't have shared that info anyway?

Don't fool yourselves into thinking NSFOC had one bit to do with timing or the release of the studies. You just aren't THAT important in the scheme of things.

The SD will proceed with ensuring that Metea is just as safe a location as any other school in the district. Many of which, likely have areas of "concern" in close proximity to them.

Seems to me that the NSFOC is looking more desperate by the minute. As an outsider I don't have all the facts but it seems to me like they are taking out as many ads as possible and trying to throw as much as they can out there. When I see something like this it usually means they have no court case. I also think they are getting nervous because the test results will be released soon and all they will be able to ask for is more results which will only cost all of the residents of the IPSD more money. How many tests do you want your own school board to do above and beyond what the IEPA requires?

I have to also say that regardless of who the NSFOC's members are it is making Naperville and specifically TG look worse by the minute. I don't care how it makes their own neighborhood look but I care about how it is making our city appear. Seriously, who takes their school board to court because they didn't get their way? Broken promises will never win you a court case. That's like me trying to take our President to court because he said one thing and did another.

Since we're all being honest. I'm a TG resident and I'm disguested by how my neighbors are acting. Just so that all of you in the north know not all TG residents support what the NSFOC is doing with their lawsuit. I'm happy for my kids to attend WVHS and I know for a fact that the NSFOC was started so TG kids didn't have to go to WVHS. I've shared much of this information with the SB and the IPSD, so they know what the real underlying motives are. Sure they are painting themselves a different color now, but it sure didn't start that way. Let's be honest...my neighbors are concerned about their taxes and getting a new high school for TG because they felt they were promised it. Soon to be an ex-TG resident!!!

To Anonymous for posts at 1:45 and 2:46

Who talks about me not living in the district on April 3, 2008 2:46 PM, then about SB members going to jail on April 3, 2008 1:45 PM, and Elvis/Jimmy Hoffa/et al elsewhere, you need to learn how to read. I believe Anonymous10 lived outside the district and made some predictions on jail time. The Elvis/Jimmy Hoffa/et al talk sounds like a used car salesman I once jetisoned because he was trying to confuse me with crazy talk to make me buy a car I did not want for a price I did not want (an old tactic from the 50's). That did not work then (got the guy fired), and won't work here either. Your just so alarmed that Stonebridge people have similar concerns as NSFOC you failed to read well. Panicking? Too bad this is not Anchorage or Louisville where you can say anything and get away with it. Good night!

To SaveEarth

WELL SAID. I agree and thanks. I suspect there are many in Stonebridge who agree as well from a safety standpoint especially.

WVHS will be stronger for it. Those parents would rather stay at WV with good teachers/pricipal that will not be moved to MVHS. WV is located on a safe site. And the academics would not be hurt by diluting high achievers into 2 schools from one. WV is a strong academic HS with loyal alumni and students, and must never be closed!

Number of paying NFSOC members?
probably about 100-150 but let's give it a little more and say, ummm... 204. So the correct answer is 204.

How much their lawyer get's paid per hour?
with the kind of caliber he has shown so far, he can't be a very well paid lawyer. I know that good attorneys can easily make $900+ per hour but he is more in the league of 200 range. Let's pick a number ... 204. Yes, that's the correct answer.

How many hours of this attorney can nsfoc afford?
no guess work here, just simple math. 204.

How many hours he has already spent on this case?
in the past 4 weeks or so, let's say he spends about 20 hours per week on this case. About 80.

How many hours left?
Simple math. 124.

How long nsfoc will be in business?
at current rate about 6 weeks, unless it gets more money. It's ability to scare it going down by the minute so let's say it will survive for another week or so.

What will happen to nsfoc then?
Mr. attorney will try to settle will SB out of the court for an undisclosed ($204,000) amount.

How many laughs I will get?
No points for answering that. 204 is the right answer.

I did not realize that the tax payers in District 204 who live outside of Naperville were freeloaders who were not to be allowed to theiropinions and right to free speech. This may come as a suprize to many of you but more than a few of the homeowners who will be paying for the new school, no matter where it is finally located, do not live in Naperville. They do, howver, live in District 204. This is not a Naperville issue - this is a district issue.

I'm from Milwaukee, WI and I'm pro NSFOC. So simple to make stuff up here. This is why these blogs are bogus......

For those who want to use the shooting to give the south a bad rap, then take a look at who was involved in the shootings!!! Four out the five are Aurora residents. Get over yourselves!!!

Those in Stonebridge should be just as worried as their kids going to Granger or Brooks. But of course the NSFOC won't do anything about Granger or Brooks. Granger MS is a stones throw from the RR tracks and the BNSF yard. My dear Stonebridge neighbors why aren't you getting the NSFOC all over the location of our MS and ES. Our kids are in just as much danger there as the HS. Possbily even worse. Please NSFOC if you really are worried about all kids please look into the site of Gwendolyn Brook and Granger MS. You will be shocked where they sit and how, according to you, are putting my kids at risk.

Thank you for looking into this for me.

To the "Anonymous" person who seemed to think Stonebridge is in Naperville or outside 204.

You're wrong, we're in Aurora and very much a part of district 204. Our children currently attend WVHS and in the school board's new scheme would attend Metea on that horrific location!

Good lord! What will they do next - pick a site with mudslides, forrest fires, earthquakes. Too bad there isn't a site like that around here or I am sure this school board would have gone for it.

Count me as another Stonebridge resident who doesn't want to pull my children out of WVHS and send them to Metea.

Why would I pull them out of a school with great, experienced teachers and send them to a school built on a potentially polluted site built within the blast radius of a potential pipeline explosion by a railroad and high voltage lines. That's insane!

I can't think of a worse location for the school than the site picked by this School Board. What are they thinking?

I've donated to the NSFOC and am urging several of my neighbors to do the same.

to Anonymous April 3 at 2:46.

Elvis is not playing poker with Jimmy Hoffa. He is playing poker with Amelia Earhart. Goes to show you can't believe everything you read online.

Sorry but most Stonebridge residents want the school at Eola once it is remediated. The only neighbors I am aware of that oppose it are afraid they might have to leave 2 minutes earlier to make up for additional Eola traffic. I also commend my neighbors for not getting drawn into the North vs South pettiness.

I applaud those people from Stonebridge who have been brave (and honest)enough to come forward and speak the truth about their concern for the safety of the Eola site!

Save Earth what do you care what happens in 204 and why would you waste your time posting on this blog. If Napervillians don't want to hear from outsiders as to whether or not we think Naperville is safe in regards to the shooting on 87th then why do we want to hear from you on our issue

I'm perfectly content with what MY SB is doing. They are the ones in the know and have all the facts from all parties involved. Not these bloggers who call themselves experts because they get all their info. from websites. Remember you can't trust everything you read or see on line. They are probably the same folks that buy those silly magazines at the checkout counter too and really believe that Elvis is still alive and playing poker with Jimmy Hoffa.

I think Kill Metea is a little upset that he can't afford his mortgage with the property tax attached. He feels he is supporting the entire district. Thank you for your generousity Kill Metea but we don't need it. We all pay our own property taxes.

Save Earth, the girl behind the counter at the BP station says she works in the energy industry...do you two work together?

For everyone who is preparing to jump on how the results are obtained for the Phase I & II testing, the company that does the testing does this nationwide. I would have to doubt that they would be willing to do less than 100% objective testing for a single school district. The ramifications of such work would kill their reputation and the well-being of their company. Regardless of the results released, we need to respect the results...regardless of which side of the issue we stand.

To SaveEarth,

Nice post. Just know you're not alone in Stonebridge there are others here too that support the efforts of NSFOC.

SaveEarth:

So you believe that school board members will go to jail. This is a fairly shocking statement. I think you should elaborate further on how you came to this conclusion. Exactly what illegal activity have they engaged in that will result in their incarceration?? You must know something the rest of us don't. If so, please enlighten us...

As a supporter of the NSFOC, let me say that I will be thrilled if it turns out that the site is NOT contaminated. To be clear, the position of the NSFOC hasn't been that the site IS contaminated, it is that there was reasonable RISK that it could be contaminated due to the location of the peaker plant on the site. And therefore, it was appropriate that responsible and thorough testing be completed to ensure that the RISK wasn't in fact an ISSUE.

To those who are already prognosticating that the NSFOC won't be happy with the P2 Report: I guarantee that if it turns out that the P2 Report attracts criticism, it won't be based on the results - it will be based on the methodology of the testing and how the SB chooses to react to the results of the study.

Where were the test borings taken from? At what depth? What are the characteristics of the local aquifer and how did this influence the boring profile? Did they confirm the signature chemical make-up of the specific PCBs on-site and then test specifically for that ("antifreeze" is a very broad category of chemicals after all)? What method of remediation is planned? When will the remediation be completed relative to previous promises made by the SB?

Are these really unreasonable questions? Are these suggestions "going overboard?" Over-reacting?

If the SB was smart, they would have gone to the nsfoc website, taken note of all of the excellent questions posed there, and used them in questioning the environmental firm responsible for the testing.

To those of you who just rolled your eyes at this suggestion, I challenge you to criticize the content of the group, not the group itself. Demanding that our elected SB act responsibly relative to the safety of our children sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

To Kill Metea on 4/3 at 9:48--

You must be insane. The northern residents are not "freeloaders". They pay the same school taxes as everyone else in 204, including the ones that paid for Neuqua Valley, a school that didn't benefit them in any way.

Thanks NSFOC I haven't had this many laughs reading posts in a long time. Keep it coming.

To new angle by the NSFOC who said

Ahhhhhh, yes, and there is the new angle that the NSFOC will be
taking. Are you kidding me? You're now going to doubt the IEPA and
raise as many lies and assumptions about them as you have about our
school board? What's next NSFOC going to sue the IEPA because you
haven't got your way? It's clear you'll never be satisfied until you get your way and your school at the BB property or no school at all for anyone. It's really sad you're putting yourself ahead of the children of the IPSD. If you say you're concerned about the children then let's ask the parents who's children will be attending MVHS. I'm sure they will also take the experts findings over the BS of the NSFOC. I seriously doubt they would risk their own childrens health over a new high school. Doubt everyone, so that's your plan? FYI...the peaker plant was barely run and only in the summer and only at peak times. Hence the name peaker plant. Furthermore, it is hundreds of yards from the school or close to 30 acres from the school. When the school is finally built it will have been gone for 2 years, not to mention when the last time it was actually used. Show me the data on the Eola site and not taking MidwastGen as a whole and then I'll pay attention. PCB's occur if there was dumping. I don't see a dump there. If you're so concerned ask MidwestGen how often that Peaker Plant was used I doubt very often.
----------
First, the Illinois EPA is a joke...one of the worst state EPAs in the country, and being in the energy industry I have benefited. They IEPA is very friendly to polluters. That may be fine when industrial sites are involved unless those sites are near homes or near SCHOOLS. Think about it - burn a couple synapses on this. IEPA is not even involved yet - something alone that should raise concerns. However, Metzger lied that the IEPA were involved, but the IEPA confirmed they were not involved. See the link at http://www.nsfoc.org/pdf/NSFOC_IEPA.pdf . They were also not involved with MW Gen as per the Tribune article (see the link at https://www.nsfoc.org/pdf/NSFOC_3-31-08.pdf )

Secondly, while NSFOC may have been started down south, their goals
are aligned with mine - Keep promises and stop Eola site because Eola was not in the promise. In fact, I am exploring with my neighbors a new lawsuit or joining NSFOC for the very reasons stated above. I would be happy to send my kids anywhere but Eola, and I live in STONEBRIDGE - YES DID YOU READ THAT? ...I would like to call you a name right now for being so blind that all NSFOC is coming from tg/we, but will not stoop to your level. Fools are trying to rule the day, to distract people from the truth. You are either easily distracted, a SB/SD Admin member, or a SB supporter (though any of those left at this point should get counseling).

Our district is being taken for a ride by huge egos and arrogance within the district and by a polished power company knowing the game of sliding off risks to motivated, ignorant buyers. The buyer, D204, is actually aligned in this case - a gift to MW Gen. D204 does not want to have anything found because they will not meet their schedule then and may be embarassed into doing the right thing. How sick is that? I am sick too that my neighbors are blinded by wanting a school nearby that has many indisputable risks for their own children. Just read the Illinois "Build Smart" program for yourself. We are on the "Built Stupid" program... http://www.cdb.state.il.us/schools/Chapter3.pdf . NSFOC is on top of that as well, having an article about the "Build Smart" violations about to occur.

Third, if the school never gets built, while not my goal, it would be the best for WVHS. Any new school hurts WVHS. The sooner people realize that in Warrior land the better. D204 has treated us like dirt and worse lately because it helps cast the NSFOC as anti-diversity, entitlement people. Most people do not realize that tg/we are very diverse. In fact, D204 may have slipped into a defacto segregation error at all 3 high schools in trying to social engineer their way out of No Child Left Behind Act failures. The next shoe to drop I hear. So D204 is turning its back on WV, then will close it as soon as the financial situation turns south - sooner than you think. New Boundaries will be drawn again and many new people will be pissed at their SB.

Finally, their IS a dumping site directly adjacent to AME and south of the peaker plant. Look at the NEW PICTURES OF ELOA SITE in the RESOURCES menu in the left hand column. There was a mound likely built up over many years into 2007. Then it was trucked away and so were the dumping roads. See the elevation of a mound in prior photo and then a more recent photo showing lower elevations. Tell me that is not a dumping site.

Looks like the NSFOC is holding the School Board accountable.

Remember, the School Board was first to say the Eola site was not safe. Then they thought it was okay to buy it?

Thanks to the NSFOC, who started asking the hard questions about the site to make sure the site was safe even though they don't think this is the best site for our kids. So now the school board is claiming it is safe.

If it wasn't for the NSFOC the school board would have plowed ahead without doing any testing at all. Now we need to see what they tested and if it is sufficient.

Hmmmmmmmmm..................the way I see it. NSFOC is making the School Board accountable.

Good Job NSFOC!!

To: Kill Metea, sorry but those of in Aurora are NOT "free loaders". I doubled checked my tax bill and yes I do pay taxes to IPSD 204 and have been for close to 20 years. Just thought you should know that. I probably have paid more than you have and will continue too. Trust me I paid my fair share for just about every school in the District. So please do not call me a free loader or any other resident in Aurora.

Maybe you need to go and talk to a professional about the anger you have over a placement of a building. Trust me their is more to be upset about like maybe a child of yours serving over in Iraq right now.

Those who have read my previous posts here know that I am against the lawsuit. The announcement by the board to release the Phase II environmental studies is welcome news. This is the first step to finally begin to put this insanity behind us. The amount of poison this process has injected into the community is incredible. We will all need to eventually heal from it and move on. I just wish the SB had handled their communication in a better manner - something tells me they wish they had too!
For all the misinformation and fear-mongering spread by the NSFOC, I have to say that some good did come out of it - the SB was forced to perform additional testing on the Eola site. I highly doubt they would have gone as far as they appear to have if it were not for the threat of the lawsuit. Once remediation steps are detailed out and the IEPA gets involved, I will feel a lot better. My kids are slated to go to the new HS, so I have a personal desire to see that the site is given a clean bill of health.
Knowing this blog site, I'm sure there will tons of rhetoric from both sides, but I urge everyone to hold off making inflammatory remarks until AFTER when the test results are released. There will be ample opportunity (and several other blog threads started by the fine Sun editors) to post your dislike for the other group!
Peace!

I still don't believe it is safe. I think the school board is just upset that the NSFOC keeps finding things the school board has messed up on and is trying to save face.

A Peaker Plant spews lots of contaminants out of it even when it only operates as those say once in a while. By the way, how do you know it only operated once in awhile? As you say, so me the facts.

How Many contaminates did they test for?

What about the Pipes running through the property?

What about the rest of the powerlines?

Who did they talk to at IEPA?

Yeah, thought so. Go ahead keep believing the school board.

To Anonymous10 who wrote:

By Anonymous10 on April 3, 2008 12:14 AM

Dear all folks blogging on this thread,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

------
Good points on the environmental issues regarding a) future lawsuits, and b) PCBs may not be found even though it's on the sign to the peaker power plant. In the future, if a parent has a sick kid, and there is any evidence of exposure whatssoever to hazardous materials or environment(perceived or otherwise), and D204 have a weak basis for defending itself (example, less than thorough testing and using companies that make their money on finding little contamination for all parties involved), then you get lawsuits and settlements. This can add up over time. There are a lot of examples out there.

Thus, you should expect a relatively clean bill of health from the well-heeled players in the environmental risk game (the testing companies and the polluters). There will be a few things found like diesel - expected since it was in tanks (of course they will only have tested for diesel and a couple safe other chemicals that are easily cleaned up).

There will be a cleanup and MW Gen will pay up to $1 million or so for that cleanup (of course that $ will be added to the purchase price for the MW Gen that has not been shared yet - huumm ..wonder why). Also note there were only 66 boring samples taken. Now there are over 90 ...wonder why (is this to show more thorough coverage - of course it is because they did not cover anything the first time around).

And you can expect the not-well-heeled D204 to pick up ALL future liability and ALL future costs of the cleanup. The D204 taxpayers pick up the tab again.

The other environmental tragedy is the pollution from all the new busing required to backfill students into the north. All this because the north location is far from the student population - a fact acknowledged by the district in its own site approval report for the 2006 referendum. How sad the decision-making we are faced with in D204.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry for my children.

Anonymous on April 3, 2008 9:54 AM

So you still can't give the moderator a professional thank you. It shows your maturity.

Here is latest alert from NSFOC:

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

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

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

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

See the latest and most recent NEWS articles:
- D204 Set To Violate State's "Build Smart" Program
- Special Meeting Monday 4/7/08 - Phase I and II Testing Review
- Why Won't D204 Put Safety First?
- D204 May Squander Up To $46 M Even Without MW Gen Deal
- D204 Breaks Another Promise: This Time At Eola Site
- Thank You From NSFOC
- Opposition Launches Effort to Convert Gov't Officials and MW Gen
- Accelerating Transportation Costs of Eola Site Not Shared by D204
- NSFOC Concerned About IEPA's Own Policy and D204 Plans
- NSFOC Informational Meeting Expands Interest

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

Sincerely,
NSFOC
www.nsfoc.org

Did someone explain the delay in the release of information? Were they busy erasing parts of it?

To: Anonymous on April 3, 2008 9:44 AM

"The NSFOC's lawsuit was never about contaminated land it has always been about Broken Promises. The SB marketed BB and then went after the Eola property."
____________________

If that's the case then the NSFOC is sure to lose. If I recall they want after the BB property for 2 years.

To: anonymous3 on April 3, 2008 8:44 AM

"Can we trust the IEPA who remained silent while MW Gen. committed over 7000 admitted environmental violations?"
___________________

Ahhhhhh, yes, and there is the new angle that the NSFOC will be taking. Are you kidding me? You're now going to doubt the IEPA and raise as many lies and assumptions about them as you have about our school board? What's next NSFOC going to sue the IEPA because you haven't got your way? It's clear you'll never be satisfied until you get your way and your school at the BB property or no school at all for anyone. It's really sad you're putting yourself ahead of the children of the IPSD. If you say you're concerned about the children then let's ask the parents who's children will be attending MVHS. I'm sure they will also take the experts findings over the BS of the NSFOC. I seriously doubt they would risk their own childrens health over a new high school. Doubt everyone, so that's your plan?

FYI...the peaker plant was barely run and only in the summer and only at peak times. Hence the name peaker plant. Furthermore, it is hundreds of yards from the school or close to 30 acres from the school. When the school is finally built it will have been gone for 2 years, not to mention when the last time it was actually used.

Show me the data on the Eola site and not taking MidwastGen as a whole and then I'll pay attention. PCB's occur if there was dumping. I don't see a dump there. If you're so concerned ask MidwestGen how often that Peaker Plant was used I doubt very often.

The NSFOC Rocks!

Thank god for the NSFOC - now the parents of District 204 have a voice.

Before that the SB ran roughshod over everyone, spending our money willy nilly, trying to build a school on a toxic waste dump/pipelines/railroad....etc etc....Now we have someone who is standing up to these arrogant fools on the SB and trying to hold them accountable!

Parents of district 204 - you should be thankful for everything the NSFOC is doing.

NSFOC - thank you for you excellent work! Keep it up!

Let see, so if we take the Tranubul Nuclear Plant and move it everything will be fine?

Bradshaw said once community members hear the details of these reports, they'll have a great sense of comfort moving forward."

"I can tell you I have reviewed the reports and have had the opportunity to discuss the results with out environmental consultants, and there's nothing there that concerns me," he said.

So Bradshaw had the opportunity to discuss the results "WITH OUT" enviromental consultants. Who did he discuss it with and when did he become an enviromental expert?

The article about the release of the environmental data seemed to be well balanced. Good job Tim. This time it did not read like a NSFOC press release.

Kill Metea! We don't need a third high school. We definitely don't need it in the Northern part of the district.

Bradshaw is lying because the IEPA has come out and publicly stated that they haven't been contacted - unless that has changed. So the question of trusting the IEPA does not even come up.

This is a desperate move by a desperate Northern (and Aurora) part of the school district and their stooges on the SB to get a new school.

One way or another this school will be killed - there is no way it should go forward.

Perhaps in the interim the people who will attend Metea, if it is built (until it is shut down), should pay for the construction and liability insurance. Ofcourse - they won't because these freeloaders want others to pay for their school. Losers!

The NSFOC's lawsuit was never about contaminated land it has always been about Broken Promises. The SB marketed BB and then went after the Eola property.

The school board would like everyone to be fighting but it is not about the north vs the south. It is about a school board who is ignorant and arrogant and doesn't listen to the people.

The ref would have never passed it they did what they did in 2005.

Moderator Jim,

Unlike those who attacked you and Tim for not reporting on both sides, I would like to say Thank you for another fair article.

Even though I am opposed to having a school built on this land for many reasons land contamination, broken promises, etc.

It will be interesting to see what they actually tested for. In my opinion 96 borings are not nearly enough since this has been operating for over 30 years.

Also, I still contend that they marketed to have a high school built on BB to get their YES vote and then negated my vote by switching to the Eola site; which I still beleive is contaminated no matter how they spin it.

Just because a Peaker Plant is removed doesn't mean the problems went a way with it. I too called the IEPA and was told the School board never contacted them on this land and was told that the site would need to go into a 6 - 12 month remediation program and depending on the chemicals that contaminate the site it could take much longer. Mark Metzger is measuring EMF's the IEPA will be measuring alot more than that.

I do trust the IEPA but they have not been contacted. Yet, Mark Metzger eludes that they have. Interesting.

Also, the paper said that they had considered another condemnation suit against St. John AME church. Did Mark Metzger not learn from the first time he did this?

Sorry not buying any of it School Board!

When will the insanity of the NSFOC end? Anyone? Mr. Andrews? When the Phase II studies are released and remediation plans, will you end your insanity? Doubtful.

At some point you have to look at yourself in the mirror and realize you're doing this for selfish reasons. You're really starting to look like fools and it is having an effect on all of us in the district. Especially if those studies come back with the seal of approval from environmental experts with remediation plans. Walk away!!!

Just to clear it up before I am attacked. I live in the south and my kids will continue to attend NVHS. I just can't get over how the NSFOC is acting. Did the SB make some mistakes yes, but you have gone overboard NSFOC.

"Bradshaw said once community members hear the details of these reports, they'll have a great sense of comfort moving forward."

"I can tell you I have reviewed the reports and have had the opportunity to discuss the results with out environmental consultants, and there's nothing there that concerns me," he said. "If we can't trust some of the nation's premier environmental consultants and the EPA, who can we trust? These firms haven't built their solid reputation on giving bad advice."

___________________________

Unfortunately, the NSFOC will not end it here, because it isn't about what the environmental experts say or the IEPA says. It's not about safety is it NSFOC? If it is about safety then you will stop everything as of April 8th, right? Wrong!!! They will keep throwing out assumptions and "what-if's" and the sky could fall. You made that clear at your 3/25 meeting in which Mr. Collins siad it doesn't matter what the Phase II studies show. Now that everyone is an underlying agenda and shows you it's not about safety!!! It's really about TG and the NSFOC wanting a new high school for themselves on the BB property. Well, that is not an option any more.

On the flip side, Mr. Collins has built his reputatio on giving bad advice. Walk away Mr. Collins I've heard and have seen the basis of your case. "Long Shot at Best" is certainly right!!!

District 204 taxpayers should be getting answers to some critically important questions that, if not answered sufficiently in exacting detail, could cost taxpayers for years to come:

1) was testing done for ALL possible hazardous chemicals at typical peaker power plants, petroleum tank farms, and dumping sites (if area south of peaker plant was dumping site at any time)?

2) assuming that pollution does not simply fall within the fences of industrial sites, was testing done at ALL spots at both AME and MW Gen.?

3) Who is going to cleanup ALL the potential contamination and when?

4) Are taxpayers taking on liabilities if MW Gen. is not?

5) Who is going to pay for ALL the environmental remediation costs?

6) Is the district simply fencing off contaminated areas before construction?

7) Why did D204 say the Illinois EPA was involved in the cleanup oversight when IEPA has confirmed it was not?

8) Do we trust D204 knows what it is doing having engaged a seller with over 7000 environmental violations, who surely knows the game?

9) Can we trust the IEPA who remained silent while MW Gen. committed over 7000 admitted environmental violations?

10) Do you trust any players in the game - the testing companies, D204 or MW Gen.?

Well it appears all you NSFOC freaks who've assumed that D204 was trying to hide something will finally get your answers.

Unfortunately I don't think any answer will satisfy you. That is, unless the answer is IPSD is building Metea on BB and TG can continue going to NVHS.