D204, NSFOC to try mediation

OMG Talk about your "loaded" blog threads. There is enough here to conjecture on and to cook up all kinds of conspiracy theories to ponder.

Talk about stirrin the hornets nest.... This is not exactly what I had in mind when I requested a blog strand on Air Conditioning for all the primary schools (19 of 21 lack it).

Ok, looks like there are 5 questions in the strand:

1. No: Mediation will not work before the dismissal hearing. It will be litigated in court. Its possible SB (post 5/23 would be more open to mediation.) but your guess is as good as mine.

2. Equitable solution..... you guessed it!! A confirmation vote from the constituents.

3. No: The NSFOC suit will not be dismissed if for no other reason that one of the most sacred rights (voters rights) is involved. A dismissal and an appeal to a higher court (or federal) that would be interested in examining the facts, does not paint the district court (that dismissed it) in the best light.

4. BB will get cost differental of their land value and a partial amt for all the deals that fell through while the SB was yanking their chain and making them jump through hoops. Plus they will get their original legal feels (3 mill ish)

5. It will be enough to make Eola more expensive. SB will have to ask for more money to complete/operate the 3rd HS or threaten to cut the crap out of everything and all extra cirriculars. That will be a fun referendum.

God, I sound like a total Negative Nellie. Now that you have depressed me. Can we at least look at an A/C blog thread? Feel free to say no, I was just curious if you might be able to help us out. I think there might be quite a few bloggers interested in a thread like this.

Thanks
GF

Here's the real answers to the main questions posted.
No - mediation will do little to nothing.
The suit will likely be dismissed.
If by rare chance it does go to court - the district has everything going for them - a very strong case and the majority of the district behind them. Hopefully the owners of the NSFOC will be liable for any costs incurred by the district.

For your reference, the below web site was built for district 204 schools, where you can find detail information for each school, also all schools are displayed at google map.

http://www.latticesoft.com/demo/index.htm

It will be little slow loading first time.

Greg has it right - the very crux of the case is tied to voting rights - which is sacred. I think the suit has merit and for that reason we are seeing all the emotion from the other side.

I don't think mediation will work. It's a long shot.

And to anonymous at 6:11 pm: It's not a popularity contest. I realize the district has positioned it as such - but the judge will rule based on the law.

Anonymous on May 3, 2008 6:11 PM
Here's the real answers to the main questions posted.
No - mediation will do little to nothing.
The suit will likely be dismissed.

********************

I wouldn't be so sure of yourself just yet.

GF I hope you never get one of those leaflets from politicians before you go into a polling booth. You know the one's where they make all the promises to get elected and then once they do they don't deliver. You don’t sue them!

By ONH on May 4, 2008 7:31 AM
GF I hope you never get one of those leaflets from politicians before you go into a polling booth. You know the one's where they make all the promises to get elected and then once they do they don't deliver. You don’t sue them!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ONH--I disagree with GF as much as anyone. BTW, GF thanks for the reply on the other strand. But, he has often said he is not one of the named plaintiffs, he is supporting them financially so I feel he is misguided, but he is not the one actually doing the suing. Also, I haven't researched this, but he may have sued politicians. Not to mention that I think he would argue that politicians have automatic term limits, so we can revote on the "referendum" of their election every 2-6 years--not so with a building.

Like GF, I'm struggling with what this thread is trying to do for us. Everybody has an opinion on what's going to happen, no one has any additional facts to base those opinions on.

So, gang, here are my thoughtfully compiled opinions based on sitting back and looking at this from the viewpoint of a highly objective north-side Waubonsie-loving soon-to-be-MV resident of IPSD 204.

While I too hold voting to be sacred, I don't believe this issue has anything to do with voting rights. Using authoritative language on a blog doesn't suddenly make it so.

The only possible outcome of mediation would be to keep TG at NV and punt somebody else to WV. I can't see the NSFOC leadership selling out then attempting to look their neighbors like GF in the eye the next day -- especially when they are in cahoots with the BB lawyers ;-). I can't see the SB allowing their authority to set boundaries be infringed upon. Mediation will fail.

The SB's motion to dismiss on 5/23 will fail. Just because there is no case law as a precedent doesn't mean the arguments won't be heard. It also doesn't mean the NSFOC arguments have any merit, but Collins will get his day in court. This will provide ample opportunity for NSFOC supporters to keep digging into their wallets.

Unfortunately for the NSFOC, Collins day in court won't happen soon enough to keep IPSD from breaking ground on MV at Eola. Once that happens, the jig is up. At that point, the best Collins can hope to do is win a moral victory. Popejoy will never force the district to tear down a partially built building, unwind the transaction with AME (as the guy at the WE NSFOC meeting who was entertaining the crowd before Collins showed up was saying was a possibility) and purchase BB. The best Popejoy would do in a judgment for the NSFOC is get Collins his money.

If NSFOC loses (which I think they will), no one will have the time, energy, or cashola to pursue an appeal. Those appeals take years and years and at that point the first 2-3 classes will have graduated from MV and we will have beaten NV at football at least once. That will be it for the NSFOC.

Worst case is that BB gets some cashola (which really frosts my rear how the SB handled this entire situation) but it will not be enough to make the BB land less expensive than Eola. How can I make that claim? I use the same data the NSFOC uses to claim it'll cost $25M...I pulled it out of my arse.

Gee, opinionating can be kinda fun, don't you think!

1. The vote passed on Gerrymandered districts which can be changed at any time. The promise is fluid at best.

2. The promise was for a different site BB, this is a clear case of bait and switch. The voters had a fraud run on them.

3. The district did not perform due diligence, nor did the City Council who approved the purchase of Brach Brodie by approving the referendum.

4. It is inconceivable that the District did not purchase an option to buy the land in advance, unless of course, they knew the referendum was a fraud before it was voted on. 204 lied about the purchase price, the sellers must have told them what they wanted before the referendum.

5. Who benefits from the way this has been handled: Teachers Union, Administration, Lawyers Representing the District, sub-contractors who will get the work.

If the voters approved the referendum based on an willful fraud by 204, does the vote trump the right to pursue remedies in court by parents?

omh...hillary is promising 5 million new jobs in alterantive energies. Let's save all the newspaper clippings and have her impeached if she doesn't deliver on that promise. 5 million - only a fool beleives in the pandering.

Maybe NSFOC should rename themselves, Naperville Schools ONLY for our children. I am so glad I live North of 75th. Street in the "Real Naperville". What an arrogant group of people to think that their kids are too deserving to go to Waubonsee. Even though this is not my fight, I have been keeping up on this circus. I have to say that if I was in district 204 I would be irate that a small group of people who think the world owes them something are wasting time and tax dollars of the district. I look forward to reading on the lawsuit being dismissed.

By Watching from Afar on May 4, 2008 8:53 AM

"If the voters approved the referendum based on an willful fraud by 204, does the vote trump the right to pursue remedies in court by parents?"

I believe the SB in no way committed willful fraud. They are quite incompetent and I find one of them in particular to be comprised of a mental makeup that does not provide that individual with enough "game" to play at this level (OK, this person is stupid -- I sometimes use 15 big words when 4 simple ones will do, sorry).

Incompetence and stupidity are not the same as committing willful fraud. I do not believe these board members have enough smarts in their collective DNA to have orchestrated a ruse of the magnitude you are suggesting. I also wish you a lot of luck in proving fraud here when the preponderance of evidence indicates they are just plain dumb.

mediation is time for the nsfoc to show thier hand...I can't wait for the retired judge to hear...we will take anything that keeps our kids out of WVHS.

The school board's argument is probably something like this:

1. The ILSC specifically gives the board the power to approve "budgets, building plans, and the locations of sites."
2. A referendum is only required when new bonds and/or taxes are needed.
3. The referendum was held, and the board did exactly what the referendum required. They raised the money.
4. Then they selected the building plan and site, which was their duty alone under the law.
5. So even if *everything* the complaint alledges is true, there is no voting rights violation.
6. There is nothing to try here. Case dismissed.

There is only a voting rights issue if people were voting on the site location. The argument that the law requires the board to make those decisions (and not the voters) is pretty strong if you read the code. Unless the court wants to read all kinds of things that aren't written there into the law and the referendum, there is an excellent chance that the case will be dismissed.

The fraud thing seems like a big stretch, too. In the case they cite in the complaint one guy ran in the primary knowing full well someone else would replace him in the general election. Unless the board meant all along to switch the sites (and you could prove it), there is no fraud.

The BB case is a lot more complicated, obviously. But the US Supreme Court has said that in eminent domain "depreciation in value of the property by reason of preliminary activity is not chargeable to the government." And the government has the right to walk away at any time. It is hard to imagine a court would force the board to do or pay anything more than legal fees (which they would owe no matter what).

My money says: mediation fails before lunchtime, case dismissed in May, BB gets $5 million legal fees sometime before all of our kids graduate.

But anything can happen. That's what makes opinionating so fun. . . .

Incredulous, from your mouth to the higher power's ear (right now I believe that would be the judge).

One question...who will the Indian Prairie SD "Representatives" be?We already know the 8 nsfoc (Neuqua school for OUR children) names :)

To Greg Forrest: Please do me a favor and find another metaphor to illustrate your last comment. I had to delete it because of that one word. I'm sure you know what it is. If that or similar words have slipped through before, that's not a valid excuse. Thanks.

By I am a mom too on May 4, 2008 8:08 AM

ONH--I disagree with GF as much as anyone. BTW, GF thanks for the reply on the other strand. But, he has often said he is not one of the named plaintiffs, he is supporting them financially so I feel he is misguided, but he is not the one actually doing the suing. Also, I haven't researched this, but he may have sued politicians. Not to mention that I think he would argue that politicians have automatic term limits, so we can revote on the "referendum" of their election every 2-6 years--not so with a building.
----------------------------------------------------

Thanks Mom!!

Yes, I have stated many times that I am not "a leader" in NSFOC. I have never said that I am not a named plaintif.... However you are also correct there as well. I am not nor have I ever been asked to be one.

No, have never sued any politicins before; but again, you correctly pegged me as a pro term limits guy and also recall statute powers.

very astute and perceptive (kudos)!!

Regards
GF

Any of the armchair lawyers out there know if the mediation discussions are sealed or open to all of us?

To GF and I am a mom too:

I never said GF is a one of the nine people in the suit, however, I do know he is a supporter/donor. Anyway my point to him and you, is the next time you believe something that you read make sure is states this on the ballot. Like most politicians promises they are not on the ballot just a name. This was the case on the ballot as well when is asked if you wanted a 3rd HS nothing more nothing less.

PS. I think this a flawed argument that a judge will not make a ruling on because of the ramifications. Could you imagine if we sued every time a politician said something that did not come true? We would still be in court over “read my lips, no new taxes”.

I doubt that mediation will be effective, but it's worth a try because anything is better than going to trial. However, I do wonder about how we got to this point, and how will one activist group influence a school board that was elected to represent the interests of the entire district? Will anyone be willing to prevent a trial that will only further divide this community? If I remember correctly, the first referendum failed. Now where I come from, a no vote means a no vote! If everyone had left well enough alone after the first failed referendum, we probably would not be in this quandry with such divisiveness and rancor affecting the educational future of our children.

By ONH on May 4, 2008 7:31 AM
GF I hope you never get one of those leaflets from politicians before you go into a polling booth. You know the one's where they make all the promises to get elected and then once they do they don't deliver. You don’t sue them!

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

To ONH
looks like mod Jim would not allow my analogy in my response to you so I will have to layout the differences. your response on the flyers is not apples to apples and i think you know this. However, I agree that it makes for good scarcasm.

Hillarys flyers (hey 5 mill new jobs, no gas tax for all) are campaign promises. she is not asking the voters for the money to do those programs yet via a referendum. if she is elected, she will hone those programs and go ask congress.

The SB when asking for money is held to a higher standard in their communications. they are not allowed to campaign for referendums to sway voters. they can list factual information and that is all. This is the crux of the case in my opinion

Now if m2 was running for relection and promising a 3rd hs in his flyers and any all other stuff for his next agenda for next 4 years that would be apples to apples and I would agree with your anology.

Sorry Mod Jim, should I have said opinions are like foreheads, everyone has got one? :)

The SD tried to get "quick take" legislation from the state legislature. That would have allowed the SD to get on the land to begin work even before the condemnation suit was tried, but ON THE CONDITION THAT SD would agree to pay whatever that suit decided. They were rebuffed in that effort by some people who presumably did not want the school built at all. In any event, the SB clearly intended to build on BB, and had to take a different direction only when the suit came up with the surprisingly high price. Whatever happened, the referendum was not bait and switch. No one in their right mind could possibly believe that the SB never intended to build on BB when the referendum passed. Events changed after that, causing the SB to change.

But the merits to this will never be heard in court anyway, because it is a political question which the courts have no business being involved in. Even if anyone lied about BB to pass the referendum (and while statements were presumably made which later turned out not to apply because things changed, it is a leap beyond logic to call that a lie), no court is ever going to issue an order that a political body fulfill some campaign promise made by one of its members. If they did that here, every politician in the country would be sued, in most instances involving competing interests which could not possibly be all granted. If someone here were to sue that the SD cannot pay extra for BB because the referendum passed with a dollar amount and promises to watch expenses, then what would a court due - order that the SD buy BB at no more than $17 mil while at the same time ordering them to pay $31 mil?

Calling things a "lie" seems to be the common thing today, even when they know what was said was not a lie. Can't you people get off that? If the Cubs do not win the World Series this year, even though some players said they would, are those players liars?

Give me a break.

By ONH on May 4, 2008 1:05 PM
To GF and I am a mom too:

I never said GF is a one of the nine people in the suit, however, I do know he is a supporter/donor. Anyway my point to him and you, is the next time you believe something that you read make sure is states this on the ballot. Like most politicians promises they are not on the ballot just a name. This was the case on the ballot as well when is asked if you wanted a 3rd HS nothing more nothing less.

PS. I think this a flawed argument that a judge will not make a ruling on because of the ramifications. Could you imagine if we sued every time a politician said something that did not come true? We would still be in court over “read my lips, no new taxes”.

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

To: ONH

I think I covered this with a previous post outlining the differences and mack truck sized holes in your analogy. Hopefully it gets past Mod Jim. Mod Jim, I used "forehead" this time for my metaphor :)

However, let me be equally sacaristic with you as you have been with me. I dont think your "hillary defense" will be first and foremost in the minds of the D204 lawyers. If that is what you would like them to focus on; please by all means; please continue to push this point and see if the board is in agreement and make that your guys' focus point of defense!! I think folks like Civics, Perspective and K Kid would be most uneasy with that being the primary defense. Each has brought up far more salient points for potental use. Many have counter points to return, but thats where the legal eagles take over.

NSFOC coulnt get that lucky could they? "Hillary defense" being the only thing listed in the dismissal case? LOL

Moderator Jim: Foreheads are much better, Greg.

Greg, I would think more than the "Hillary defense" will be used by the school district. But whether it makes you laugh or not, there is a political question doctrine which simply says that there are some issues which the courts have no business getting involved in. I suspect that will be the case with any issues relating to referendum "promises" here.

What do you really expect the court to determine, and on what basis? That promises were made to build only at BB? What if a lot of people come in and testify that they were promised that, and that was the only reason they voted for the referendum? How can we know that they really voted for the referendum and not against it? And even if the court believes everything they say, then what? Do those people who voted for the referendum without having received such a promise, or not relying on such a promise, testify too? And if so, what does that accomplish? What about the people who voted against it? Are they irrelevant at that point? What if some of them voted against it because they did not want it built at BB? And if the judge decides that, yes, it must be built only at BB now despite the much higher cots, then what? Do the voters who only voted to approve a certain lower amount (which, of course, would be all of them, since no one voted to pay more than the $125 mil) have to sue to stop the purchase of BB?

That is all a can of worms that no court has any business getting involved in.

By JE on May 4, 2008 5:06 PM
Greg, I would think more than the "Hillary defense" will be used by the school district. But whether it makes you laugh or not, there is a political question doctrine which simply says that there are some issues which the courts have no business getting involved in. I suspect that will be the case with any issues relating to referendum "promises" here.
-----------------------------------------------------

Hi JE
of course they will use far more than the hillary defense. Yes, it makes me laugh becasue factual information by defination cannot be just mere puffery and campaign promises. SB is held to a higher standard and rightfully so when asking for money.

When they are campaigning for their spots, they can lie/promise all they want. Not so when they are asking for money for a specific purpose.

NOone knows if/what weight the flyers had on the 2nd ref or what weight a court will put on the election interference act as it pertains to the flyers. One thing is for sure, its not the same thing as a politician campaigning for their political seat. It is not just a political argument that courts have no business being involved in.

Intent (factual at the time, etc) is a far better defensible point to utilize IMHO. then the legal eagles can argue about the factual statements of 33 mill in escrow and why intent was not there if you stated/documented it? etc. etc.

Do I know how this will turn out? No. Do I think it will continue on past dismissal hearing? YES. lower courts dont like getting overturned especially on very key bill of rights issues (if they have any aspirations of moving to higher courts). So, not even hearing the case and having a higher court pick it up looks especially bad. So if for no other reason other than this, the district court will hear the case. THey may rule in favor of the SB (wide latitude is given to our unsung volenteer heros, because well.. their job is a tough one and they are not professionals). Just dont know. Nobody does. flip a coin.

I agree with K Kid. There is at least 1 (I'm sure we are thinking of the same board member) and probably more like 2 or even three; that quite frankly are out of their league in managing a district with 100's of millions in operating budget. We should pay to have professional board members conduct our D204 business IMHO. Too big of a business and too complicated to leave to part time amatuers. Enough of the Amatuer Hour.

Have a good one
GF

This past friday, I FINALLY drove past the proposed new high schools site. I was truly shocked at what a depressing piece of property and area this land is. TTraffic was horrific as well. I am happy to say that my children will attend WV in the future. Does the school board really think that they got a "deal" on this site? I for one think that they got ripped off.

Hi JH

in regarding to the second part with all the follow up questions about who voted for what etc.

Then there should not have been any flyers/factual information to cloud this issue and create all these 85 follow up questions. since that is history, the only way to clean up and answer all your 85 questions would be to load BB and/or EOla up for a confirmation referendum in Nov 2008 to make all these follow up questions moot. A court may decide that would be a really good solution to fix this quagmire all started by the consulting company and the boards emails/meetings and flyers listing out all the details of the location and subsequent boundaries.

I wonder (question to the board): Why not just keep your yap shut and load the same ref from march 05 on the ballot for April 2006 to avoid this mess? I think they answered that for us in their public and court correspondence already. they didnt feel it would pass without additional info. Paraphrasing: "it was the primary reason the 2nd ref passed." (their words not mine)

everone is accountable for their actions. We have a board that messed up (good intentions or not) and this is the result; multiple lawsuits from multiple parties.

"Last month, the district closed on the sale of the 84-acre Eola Road parcel at a cost of $19 million -- more than $10 million less than the cost of the Brach-Brodie parcel."

However the district could have saved $7 million by purchasing the Macom property.

How will the attorneys on either side sort out the voters who voted for a third high school based on the realigning of the bond issue which kept any near term tax increase at bay. Could it be construed that many voted for the third high school not on location but because there would be little impact on ones pocket book in the short term. Seems to me the nsfoc has their hands full regarding many complicated questions. While all this goes thru the courts the land to the north continues to be prepared for the new building.

People should probably stop abusing the Election Interference Act in this debate. In this context, the law makes using public money to present "non-factual" information about an election issue a crime. It is a class A misdemeanor with up to one year in jail. No idea if anyone has ever gone to the slammer for it.

If people believe that the SB abused public funds to wrongly promote the 2006 referendum, they could file a complaint with the Attorney General. Maybe they did. If so, nothing happened.

What it will not do is invalidate the election. It has nothing to do with the election. It has to do with what happened before the election.

The NSFOC suit does not say they violated the EIA. It says the opposite. It says they *must* have been truthfully promising the BB site in 2006 *or else* they were saying something not factual, i.e., violating the election interference act. Make of that what you will, but in any case, the act is not some showstopper civil rights issue that will overturn the referendum. At best, it would send the SB to jail (which, on the other hand, some people on this blog might be perfectly okay with).

Greg:

You are correct that opinions are like foreheads every one has one, but apparently yours is the biggest! Keep on the NSFOC campaign! I will let you have the last word since you always do.

By Anonymous on May 3, 2008 6:11 PM
Here's the real answers to the main questions posted.
No - mediation will do little to nothing.
The suit will likely be dismissed.
If by rare chance it does go to court - the district has everything going for them - a very strong case and the majority of the district behind them. Hopefully the owners of the NSFOC will be liable for any costs incurred by the district.
........................................
Wow! You're right that mediation will do little to nothing, but that’s where I draw the line. Give me some indication that you have actually been on these blogs more than 5 minutes. You have to be kidding that you think the SB has a strong case. The NSFOC has hundreds of documents directly refuting the SB and clearly shows the "Bait and Switch" that has been called our referendum. I would say you must be talking out of your behind to claim that a "Majority of the Dist." is behind them. I am betting you have no clue past your own front door. Wake up and realize that the SB has set precedence beyond stupidity. If you can back up even one comment on your blog I will be astonished. Good luck.

By ONH on May 4, 2008 7:31 AM
GF I hope you never get one of those leaflets from politicians before you go into a polling booth. You know the one's where they make all the promises to get elected and then once they do they don't deliver. You don’t sue them!
..................
To "One Numbskull Here":
Not even close on your example. We had months of threats, Boundary wars, SB flyers, public meetings, etc... all to win over the vote. In MM's own words he said it would be a "Bait and Switch" if they did not go ahead with BB. Get real.

By Incredulous on May 4, 2008 7:58 PM
People should probably stop abusing the Election Interference Act in this debate. In this context, the law makes using public money to present "non-factual" information about an election issue a crime. It is a class A misdemeanor with up to one year in jail. No idea if anyone has ever gone to the slammer for it.
----------------------------------------------------

In this case you outlined, one would have to admit the flyers were puffery and a law was broken. That has not been determined yet. If I were a board member, I (from a personal standpoint) would be saying it was factual at the time, but things changed (therefore avoiding a criminal record, probation and/or possible jail time).

Like I said, it has not been determined yet. Thats what courts and suits are for. I agree, an easy way out would be for the board members to fall on the sword and admit they broke the law. Problem is there is no way to guarentee that a court would not want a revote unless non-negation of the ref vote was part of the plea agreement. The current case is not a criminal case, so again; this is purely conjecture and hypothetical philosophy.

GF

By Glad to be 203!! on May 4, 2008 11:02 AM
Maybe NSFOC should rename themselves, Naperville Schools ONLY for our children. I am so glad I live North of 75th. Street in the "Real Naperville". What an arrogant group of people to think that their kids are too deserving to go to Waubonsee. Even though this is not my fight, I have been keeping up on this circus. I have to say that if I was in district 204 I would be irate that a small group of people who think the world owes them something are wasting time and tax dollars of the district. I look forward to reading on the lawsuit being dismissed.
...........................
I love it when idiots like you join the fight. Crawl back into the hole you call "Real Naperville" and put a cork in it. Nobody cares what you have to say on an issue that you know nothing about.

To Joe Blow: The site you drove by is not the proposed site it IS the actual site for Metea. You should have noticed approx 12 bulldozers on the property and the churning of dirt. By the way, were you the individual sitting in your car on the property that the police asked to leave? Thankfully the site is being closely monitored by the police just a little tid bit for the less stable to know...

have you ever headed southbound from the Eola site to New York Street during the evening rush? It is so unbelievably slow, in my opinion easily 3 times worse than Route 59. What is the traffic like around 3PM, does anyone know? I am concerned about the duration of the bus rides home.

Thx

earth to SB, you need to read the entire email from m metzger before you quote him as saying it would be bait and switch. Do not go by the abbreviated sentence the nsfoc is using. The nsfoc has deleted an important part of the very sentence containing the term bait and switch. again it proves the uninformed are the easiest to scam.

By ONH on May 4, 2008 8:09 PM
Greg:

You are correct that opinions are like foreheads every one has one, but apparently yours is the biggest! Keep on the NSFOC campaign! I will let you have the last word since you always do.
-------------------------------------------------

To ONH:
I'm sorry did I strike a nerve? :)

Its always fun to watch folks that get confounded in an intellectual exchange revert to name calling.

Feel free to play again later (or not)

By Golly on May 4, 2008 9:54 PM

Traffic at 3p on Eola isn't a problem. The afternoon bus from Granger has no trouble heading south at that time.

After reading through this blog and the last one related to Metea Valley I have realized that these blogs have become nothing more than a forum for Greg Forrest to sit back and argue and refute anything anyone has to say that he does not agree with. This might as well be renamed the "Greg Forrest Blog" because he acts like it is his personal domain. Will I be labled a "sniper" or a "stalker" by him now as he has done on previous blogs?

By Anonymous on May 4, 2008 10:12 PM

earth to SB, you need to read the entire email from m metzger before you quote him as saying it would be bait and switch. Do not go by the abbreviated sentence the nsfoc is using. The nsfoc has deleted an important part of the very sentence containing the term bait and switch. again it proves the uninformed are the easiest to scam.

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

Anonymous, you need to cut ETSB some slack. He can only respond emotionally, not intellectually (as demonstrated by his rants over the past month). Thoughts in his head are processed much like a flashbulb going off in a disposable camera.

GF,

If you check the court proceedings and filings the $33 Mil. was to be put into escrow upon the quick take being approved. Once this was shot down the SD was not required to put up the money. This is very similar to the TRO process you are familiar with already. It would be similar to a bond since the quick take would allow the SD to begin building before the eminent domain case was completed and the land would actually be compromised for alternative uses and the SD would then be required to purchase the land.

IMHO, it was the failure to win judgment on the Quick Take Act that is the crux of the problem. If this had been successful, the SD would have been forced to buy the BB land at the exorbitant price placed on it from the jury. This and only this set the stage for the SB to walk away from the deal.

On a side note, I am sure there would have been almost as much discourse had the SD been successful in the Quick Take and was forced to pay more than $17 Mil. over the budget amount. While I have stated and stand by my comments regarding the performance of our SB, they certainly put themselves in a no win situation.

Kind regards,

Greg, I'm killing myself trying to figure out what you replaced with "forehead" -- I've come up with lots of good candidates. Does it have something to do with a body part that gets very little or no sunshine?

Will mediation work? Mediation is the NSFOC's last hope to have any impact, because if their lawsuit isn't dismissed (probable), they surely aren't going to win.

By the way, they are making great progress clearing the land:)

IMHO, the best outcome from the NSFOC stand point is to have the land environmentally tested for all of the 84 acres with the commitment from the SB that if contaminated beyond what standard remediation will cure, they will re-open the site location selection process, then hope it comes back with some contamination. Not that I see this happening, but I do not believe that the NSFOC can get anywhere on the "election interference” front during mediation.

Kind regards,

By Anonymous on May 5, 2008 7:38 AM
After reading through this blog and the last one related to Metea Valley I have realized that these blogs have become nothing more than a forum for Greg Forrest to sit back and argue and refute anything anyone has to say that he does not agree with. This might as well be renamed the "Greg Forrest Blog" because he acts like it is his personal domain. Will I be labled a "sniper" or a "stalker" by him now as he has done on previous blogs?
__________________________________________

I disagree with your statement. I enjoy reading GF's posts and commend him for disclosing his name and being dedicated to the issue. He's consistenly been respectful of other opinions as well. That's certainly not something that could be applied to many of the "anonymous" bloggers on these boards. Maybe you are worried about the information provided in his posts and are trying to silence him? That's the impression I got after reading your "anonymous" post.

How many times have you posted "anonymous" one? For all we know it could be as many, if not more times than GF.

GF,

With respect to your points both here and other blogs, I would ask you to consider the following:

Regarding election interference -- the pamphlets and flyers and statements by members of the board -- NSFOC will need to prove that all of this was mere fluffery in order to secure a yes on the ref. You would also need to prove that the dramatic turn around between '05 and '06 was almost solely based on this marketing material, and not as significantly as other election issues, a 7 year decrease on the district portion of real-estate taxes, new constituency moving into the district, a better case for the new school based on population numbers, etc. A question; How would you interpret the actions of the SB (regardless of competency) over the last three years,

1. Purchasing 25 Acres on BB in advance of the 06 ref. (no vote taken on that BTW)

2. Pursuing eminent domain and condemnation of the BB property after negotiation with the BB trust do not go well -- predetermined and agreed to by the BB trust as part of the original 25 acre deal

3. Attempting quick take legislation in order to start construction of the third HS at the BB location with a contingent commitment to put $33 mil. in escrow prior to construction starting thus committing to buy the land at the price the jury would award (up to $600K per acre)-- this failed in the state senate.

4. Investigating alternative sites once the eminent domain verdict on land value was materially higher and would have a material negative impact on the overall budget (or for the others who believe that the SB was afraid of the backlash and bait and switch on setting an unrealistic budget for the BB land acquisition solely to obtain a yes on the 06 ref. – I have not seen this theory crop up yet.)

Can you honestly answer to yourself that from the very beginning all of those "promises" on flyers and pamphlets were never intended to be honored?, That, given the above actions taken by the SB over the past three years, the SB lied and willfully mislead all of the district with the plan to build a HS in any location but BB?

For me, at least, the answer is clear – the actions of the SB post ref approval back up their intent on the pre-approval literature.

Regarding environmental issues – Can we all at least consider for the moment that even though the current site land was previously owned by MG, as stated on every NSFOC reference to 84 acre Eola property ( I am relatively confident that is on the advice of Mr. Collins), the 84 acres in question was used for the purposes of farming over the last one hundred years and never in that time frame was the direct site or operations associated with (other than ownership name) the MG peaker power plant. I believe that most people in the district would be willing to stipulate that the land was indeed owned by MG prior to the AME purchase; if the NSFOC would concede that the 84 acres currently owned by D204 did not directly house or was the site of operation for the MG peaker plant itself.

As for the Gas lines – they are all over this area including many of the subdivisions in south as well as the north side of our district. We live in the mid-west almost everything that travels through this country crosses through our “territory” at one point or another. I am not sure that there is a site contianing the amount of land required for the HS that would not have some proximity to some under round portage of gas, sewage, oil, etc. .

As for the EMF – I thought this issue was dead but it keeps coming back – for all those concerned about this issue, please remove your cell phone from you ear, your cell generates a much higher amount of EMF (consult the AMJ articles on cell phone emission and cancer) than the readings taken the original site and the new site is even further away.

As usual just some food for thought.

Kind regards,

Perspective,

What's the worry with sewage lines that you mention? I can understand the concern for transit pipelines due to the volume of contents and their age.... but sewage lines....???

"A major new study found that children whose birth address was within 200 meters of an overhead power line had a 70% increased risk of leukemia. Children living 200 to 600 meters away from power lines had a 20% increased risk. This indicates the danger from power lines is appreciably further from the lines than had been identified in previous studies. The study, which was partially funded by the power-line industry, mapped how far each child lived from a high voltage overhead power line. It compared the children who had cancer with a control group of 29,000 children without cancer, but who lived in comparable districts. Appearing in the June 2005 British Medical Journal, the study concludes there is a statistical link between EMF from power lines and leukemia. The study, a collaboration between the Childhood Cancer Research Group at the University of Oxford and National Grid owners, Transco looked at cancer data or children aged up to 15 years old in England and Wales between 1962 and 1995."

Maybe the information above is one of the reasons the EMF discussion continues.

Thanks Perspective, you always seem to say what I am thinking but can't seem to verbalize appropriately (then I get frustrated and snarky and Greg F calls me on it--rightfully so)

To Anonymous on May 5, 2008 7:38 AM

RE your post:

After reading through this blog and the last one related to Metea Valley I have realized that these blogs have become nothing more than a forum for Greg Forrest to sit back and argue and refute anything anyone has to say that he does not agree with. This might as well be renamed the "Greg Forrest Blog" because he acts like it is his personal domain. Will I be labled a "sniper" or a "stalker" by him now as he has done on previous blogs?
_________________________________________

Just so you understand the difference, the prerequisite for either of these labels is to post under Anon, which you have done. Then it depends on the degree of creepiness or venom in the post as to which label applies. Since yours has the necessary degree of venom to qualify, congratulations! You are a sniper. As such, your opinion on this blog will be taken with a grain of salt, except by others of your kind.

Updated score: stalkers--4, snipers--9

By Anonymous on May 5, 2008 7:38 AM
After reading through this blog and the last one related to Metea Valley I have realized that these blogs have become nothing more than a forum for Greg Forrest to sit back and argue and refute anything anyone has to say that he does not agree with. This might as well be renamed the "Greg Forrest Blog" because he acts like it is his personal domain. Will I be labled a "sniper" or a "stalker" by him now as he has done on previous blogs?
---------------------------------------------------

To ANon #?? regarding your post above

Fair question and here is my reply:

I made one original post answering the blog strand questions Mod Jim proposed to the group. Just about every one of my following blogs was a reply to a question directed at me. ONH, JE, Incredulous etc. etc. If you dont want me to reply, then please ask your fellow bloggers to refrain from directing questons/posts to me. Post them in the general sense and not directed specifically to me. Then you can complain when I jump in on a general blog post.

Almost all have been very civil with the exception of one or two. On those one or two scarastic and/or sniper like posts that someone directs specifically to me; I simply picked up the gauntlet they tossed down at my feet. I cant help it when they get frustrated and revert to name calling, but yes I intentionally wanted to intellectually back ONH into a corner since the scarasm was dripping off his/her post with the "Hillary flyers". Maybe thats my fault and I should have left a mental/intellectual escape route for ONH to take. If I was trying to "sell" my position or something (product/service) to ONH, I would have done just that and taken a little off the fastball. Its not good to totally back buyers into corners (you dont make many sales doing that). Another sniper on another strand accused me of that as well (selling my opinion to get more donors or something to that effect)

However, I am not selling anything, just stating my opinion just like everyone else is doing. When people direct questions my way, I try to answer them. That is all.

The blog is for everyone. It is not mine. If it is anyone's: It is Moderator Jims

Cheers
GF

By Khazakstan Kid on May 5, 2008 8:28 AM
Greg, I'm killing myself trying to figure out what you replaced with "forehead" -- I've come up with lots of good candidates. Does it have something to do with a body part that gets very little or no sunshine?
------------------------------------------------------
Hi K Kid

:) LOL yes, got my hand slapped by moderator Jim for that metaphor. LOL :)

have a good one!
GF

Did anybody read the 2nd amended complaint on the NSFOC site. Either I am reading it wrong -- enrirely possible -- Point F under teh Introduction section page 4 of teh filed complaint. I would like someone else to look at it and tell me what their read is.

Kind regards,

Same old $%&# just a different blog.

I am amazed how some of you can spend day and night hashing it out over and over and over and over...... It's spring time go out and enjoy the weather and do something postive for yourself and your family. I bet they miss you since you spend so much time communicating with complete strangers more than them.

To Perspective
replying to your posts.

Geez P you are going to get me in trouble again from my Anon lemon grove fan club. Apparently I am replying/posting too much and its affecting other bloggers blog experience.

Post#1
First your first post: yes, agree. I did not like the idea of the attempted quick take and Im sure there would have been alot of opposition to getting "stuck" paying an unknown price at the time from the jury. I guess I just dont like the idea of continually backing oneself into a corner with little to no flexibility unless it is absolutely necessary. Totally agree with you the whole process (right or wrong), was handled badly)

As this 33 mill relates to the lawsuit; I was thining more along the lines of a counter point to the intent defense (if you assume the flyers are factual and thats a big if). You state publically and in court that you can pay up to 33M and are willing to put it in escrow. The price comes back at 28.5M, but now you say its too expensive and you decide to talk away without re-engauaging your constituents due to the factual flyer mess. More detailed explaination please etc. etc.

Your #2 Post:
I respectfully disagree (no need to prove puffery): You could go at it from either side of the election interference act. YOu dont need to prove that the flyers were "puffery" (you could, but that would not be what I would choose to do). If you prove puffery, SB broke the law on that side of the election interference act and maybe its enough to get a revote or maybe not. That leaves you with a law broken and no one wants to villify/prosecute part time volunteers attempting to do what they feel is right (but are just not fully up to speed and maybe are being given "bad" advice/direction from Dr. D and team).

If I were running the show (and I'm not!!): I would prove that the flyers were indeed factual (which has a vast amount of supporting documentation behind it and would be far easier to do). Then if its factual, its part of the 2nd ref (ie BB is on the ballot by default). Then I would hammer away at the intent defense and continually ask "why did you not go back to the voters when a site selection became necessary in your minds?????" The 64,000 question.

So IMHO you can win from either side of the coin. Just depends on how you want to set up your attack plan based on what you feel will be the defensive strategies of the Defendants.

Yes, I agree with you. the intent was to build on BB UNTIL Dr. D arrived on the scene. After that, I am not so sure. The SB would never knowingly lay out the case for BB while all the while, nefarously planning another direction. WARNING My conspirarcy theory: Now when Dash arrived, he is not beholden to Crousee's direction and may have wanted to go a different route (hey got to break away from the old direction and establish his new rein etc. etc.). Problem was, the ref was over. Maybe the BB verdict offered the perfect excuse and he wasnt banking on the stiff resistence he encountered from the various parties. This is not Kentucky....

Also agree with you that BB was handled poorly; but no conspiracy was preplanned prior to Dash arriving. This doesnt matter IMHO as it pertains to the suit. Doesnt matter if it was a decision that was made 30 seconds after the BB verdict. The info was factual and that would necessatite returning to the connstituents (IMO).

I do not beleive Intent has to be proven (bait and switch all along) in order to be successful. Only that for one reason or another the election interference act was violated and this should have required returning to the constituents regardless of intent or timing of the decision to go another route. As soon as you deviate and break "the act" you return to the voters.

As for the environmental, EMF, Pipes: that has never really been my hot point (except maybe the Pipes cuz I saw one go off in Bellingham). so, I wasnt planning on conjucturing on that portion of the suit. Ok I will comment on the Pipes: i dont know about other tracks of land. Those pipes are HUGE main feeders. your right; every land has some stuff underneath it, but you dont want important stuff sitting right on top (in the killzone) of MAIN FEEEDER 36 inch Pipes. if you have to have schools near gas pipes, the smaller they are the better (how about a small branch off the main feeder pipes?) and avoid the main feeder pipes that feed the western suburbs? Thats not too much to ask is it? Avoid the Mondo Pipes if at all possible (and it looks like it is possible on several other tracts of land)?

By Nincompoop2 on May 5, 2008 11:02 AM

"A major new study found that children whose birth address was within 200 meters of an overhead power line had a 70% increased risk of leukemia. Children living 200 to 600 meters away from power lines had a 20% increased risk. This indicates the danger from power lines is appreciably further from the lines than had been identified in previous studies.

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

Nincompoop,

This may be a plus for the location.

The science building can be located under the power lines, on top of the gas pipes and next to the old generation grounds.

This should be an excellent environment for studying the effects of the environment on multiple generations of fruit flies, rats, mice, plants and students. The 204 board can use the enhanced scientific environment as part of the justification for the switch from BB.

Afar

PS NHS or WVHS can run control studies for comparative purposes.

By Nincompoop2 on May 5, 2008 11:02 AM

I understand your point and I have looked at that particular study. I just do not think it carries a statistical integrity to reach a casual relationship between the two phenomena as per below. The research was also limited to children at birth and did not consider child exposure beyond the infant years.

Taken directly from the BJM June 2005 regarding your post on the study;

“Conclusions There is an association between childhood leukaemia and proximity of home address at birth to high voltage power lines, and the apparent risk extends to a greater distance than would have been expected from previous studies. About 4% of children in England and Wales live within 600 m of high voltage lines at birth. If the association is causal, about 1% of childhood leukaemia in England and Wales would be attributable to these lines, though this estimate has considerable statistical uncertainty. There is no accepted biological mechanism to explain the epidemiological results; indeed, the relation may be due to chance or confounding.”

1st, they are talking about children "at birth" not once they are in their teens. Second, the last caveat in the statically analysis "If the association is causal, about 1% of childhood leukaemia in England and Wales would be attributable to these lines, though this estimate has considerable statistical uncertainty. There is no accepted biological mechanism to explain the epidemiological results; indeed, the relation may be due to chance or confounding"

“considerable statistical uncertainty, . . .the relation may be due to chance or confounding.” Now it is just my opinion, however, as an economist (specifically econometrics -- statical study of economics), I think the impact of the casual effect is relatively low. Confounding results from contributions to a condition and other factors not considered in the study (i.e., life style, socioeconomic status, ethnicity etc -- I do not know if these are specific to this study, I only illustrate them as examples.

Note: Leukaemia is the UK spelling for Leukemia (US)

by Joe on May 5, 2008 10:54 AM

Please see below link for additional information on swere lines. Please understand I do not think any of these are issues for any school site. I am simply stating that there will always be something underfoot . . .

PETITIONED PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/callery/ccc_p2.html

GF,

Sorry for getting you into trouble again . ..I know you do enough of it on your own, you do not need me to contribute (unless your looking for $204):-) Sorry bad taste . ..

Have a look at this link, it points toward the courts bias in SD authority rulings.

Kind regards,

http://www.ancelglink.com/publications/slb2.html

1. Those living in White Eagle and Tall Grass represent less than 2% of the school district.

2. If the aforementioned communities are forced into attending WVHS they will always have issue with the School Board — irrespective of where a 3rd high school is located.

3. Living in a school district does not carry with it a deed to a particular school.

GF,

The environmental issue regarding the pipes is really a non-factor. Ask those 20+ houses in Cambridge Chase and Concord(the subdivisions built on the same farm land to the south of Metea), who have the pipes running through their back yards on an easement. There have been residents living there (within a hundred yards of the pipes) for over 10+ years with no issues. I would think the same goes for any other "made-up" environmental issues the lawsuit is alleging. I don't know why anyone has not brought up the fact that there are two neighborhoods that touch the property right now. Also, across Eola there are subdivisions (Harris Farm is one that I can think of), that are just as close the the power lines as the school will be built.

Also, won't this lawsuit be thrown out (or at least need to have the environmental issue dropped from the lawsuit) due to the fact that none of the plaintiffs will actually attend Metea? (If there are members of the NSFOC that would be attending I think they would need to be identified and file a separate lawsuit for the environmental issues.) I would think you need to be able to prove personal damamges in a lawsuit. For example, I don't think I could sue a district in say...Texas because I thought they were building on environmentally unsafe land, since it has no effect on me.

One last note, who are the members of the NSFOC? These people (along with the other eight plaintiffs) could be responsible for any damages a delay in construction may cause the district. For example if lawsuit delays contruction, but the case is then thrown out for being frivolous, or even just loses in court, the eight plaintiffs and the NSFOC members (I think anonymous donors may be saved) could be personally responsible for making the district whole. For some that could mean selling personal assets (think houses and cars). I am not sure what type of organization the NSFOC is; I heard they were denied from organizing as a not-for-profit because they would have to disclose all information about who donates, who is the board, who are members, etc. (but lately there are many rumors.) However, a person or persons must actually be the owner and can be held personally responsible (just like partnerships and sole-proprietorships can hold the owners personally accountable.)

GF,

Going tonight?

I'll be