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 there.

MR

D+S

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

LOL -- in fact -- FOMCL!

Thanks for continuing to update the score!

Can we please have a third category for people like ETSB who dont post Anon but definitely qualify on Creepiness and Venom?

And you KNOW I want a category for "NSFOC all the way!" who insists on posting about that organization as if they were doing nothing more controversial than organizing a charity bake sale!

Perspective

I've done some research as well lately and while I'm certainly no expert, I've come to the conclusion that there is not enough data to either prove or disprove the effect of EMF exposure on children. From what I've learned, I believe there is increased concern over the issue and recently there seems to be a shifting of thought in the scientific community.

Perspective

I've done some research as well lately and while I'm certainly no expert, I've come to the conclusion that there is not enough data to either prove or disprove the effect of EMF exposure on children. From what I've learned, I believe there is increased concern over the issue and recently there seems to be a shifting of thought in the scientific community.

Remember back 30 years ago when the tobacco industry promoted the benefit of smoking? It was okay back then, right?

I don't think any can state unequivocally there is no danger in placing children within close proximity to power lines.

But then again, I'm just a nincompoop

By Civics on May 5, 2008 2:36 PM

"Can we please have a third category for people like ETSB who dont post Anon but definitely qualify on Creepiness and Venom?"

Civics, it is MY job to bait ETSB...

Sorry, I had a GF moment -- the post below was mine . . . .

By Anonymous on May 5, 2008 1:47 PM

I think Zzzzzzzzzz is the only one really awake here.

By Nincompoop2

Your point is well taken. . .there probably is not enough data to say either way; IMHO it just negates this as an issue given what we know today. I do, however, have a hard time with the correlation between the Tobacco Industry and smoking and the research being performed on EMF. The Tobacco Industry was marketing to sell and profit from the product they produced and distributed, I do no think the Utilities are in this same category, but if it works for you. Again, look up the studies that are now being completed on cell phones and possible links to brain cancer (specifically) as well as other potential malignancies. The EMF level that can be emitted by some cell phones is significantly higher than the reading that came from the EMF study. To your Tobacco analogy, I could potential see a warning on every phone similar to a pack if cigarettes -- about the only link I believe the two issues have in common. As all of these studies go, we will only know in time. . . .

Kind regards,

The EMF discussion is a waste of time. Drive by the site. The school building will be located south of where the house is currently sitting. The building will be set back slightly from Eola road.

Some of the better homes on the south side are closer to the powerlines than the school will be built. This is another non-issue. This arguement is best saved for the homes closer to the powerlines at Tall Grass.

Perspective,

Thank you for the link but has/is anyone raising a concern about sewers here in District 204?

By ETSB is my Puppet on May 5, 2008 3:52 PM

Civics, it is MY job to bait ETSB...

-----------------------
I cede to the greater authority.........

;-)

Perspective,

I came across the following correlative comparison between the tobacco industry and the Utility industry.

Take a look if you get a chance.
http://www.powerlinefacts.com/Comparative%20Cancer%20Claims.htm

It was eye opening, to me at least, because we really don't have enough information currently to speak to the dangers of EMF exposure from power lines.

By Anonymous on May 5, 2008 2:28 PM
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
----------------------------------------------------

Hi Anon #???

Risk perception is in the eye of the beholder. I Am Going to paraphraze on one of my previous anologies. SOme parents choose to allow their kids to drive motorcycles. there are pros (more environmentally friendly, use less gas, cheaper) and cons (in crashes, greater chance for inquiry/death, liability higher insurance costs etc). However not all parents allow there kids to ride mootorcycles (some do, some dont). for some, the potential downside risk is too great for the quantifiable benefits.

The folks that live in the houses on top of the pipes chose to do so. Since the SB created the boundaries and we have no choice in where our kids go to public school; SB is making that "risk" choice for all parents in the MV boundary area that would like to attend public HS. Your right, at present (boundaries can change) I am not as concerned since my kids are not slated to attend (that may sound selfish, sorry). However, all taxpayers in the district still have "skin in the game" so to speak because if anything "bad" happened like the 1999 bellingham pipline explosion, there will be financial ramifications in addtion to all the horrible personal tradigies. I dont like talking about this stuff, which is why I rarely blog on it; but I wanted to answer your question/statement.

pertaining to your statment; you have to have MV bound residents named in the suit to qualify for that part of the suit to go forward; I have no clue (I am not a lawyer). My guess is that as long as there are ramifications for all voters/taxpayers in the entire district (the liability ones) any taxpayer will do. I know there are folks concerned about the environmental aspects including the pipes that are supporters/donors to the NSFOC; but I dont know if any are named plaintifs.

Per your last set of questions: Who is the NSFOC? I will leave that one to the directors/leaders to answer. From my persepctive, its a bunch of folks that are concerned about a great many things that have transpired and many feel laws have been violated in the rush of "ends justifies the means" .

The rest of your statements are mostly barking (but no bite): Damages; That is what a TRO would be for (if we delayed the process and eventually lost) the SB would be entitled to costs for any delays while the project was frozen in place by the TRO. Since they (SB) are allowed to continue (at their own decision/peril) there is no damages to be captured (except maybe reasonable legal fees). I doubt the SB will try and sue anyone (they have their hands full right now with NSFOC and BB), but if they did, they would have to show damages. since their arent any, what would they be asking for again besides legal fees?

If it makes you feel any better; I will ask NSFOC if I can be a named plaintif in the case. I would relish the opportunity!! I probably would get alot more input into the process and strategy. of course, i would have to cease my blogging. But it sounds like many of you would jump at that chance. OK, I will go ask and see what happens!!

Thanks
GF

I have to agree with Joe Blow - the site is a horrible eyesore.

First, there are trees. Not one or two, mind you, but at least dozens. And they're green, as if Spring is actually here already. The silver lining is that those trees are coming down. Yeah, baby!

Second, the land dips a little in the middle. You know, kind of like a canker sore. There's no way you could fill it all in, because it's probably a giant sinkhole - you'd just be wasting your time. U-G-L-Y.

Third, Eola is only four lanes wide, and once it gets to be about 4:30pm, travel times from the site to New York leap from 5 minutes to as much as 15 minutes. I can't fathom that. It has to be worse than L.A., which is nuts (though that CHiPs show was kind of cool).

Fourth, the houses to the south of the property are woeful shames. Good grief, 2,000 s.f.? Is that it? Crap, you might as well be living in Myanmar or Ethiopia. It's disgusting. How can you build a school next to that?

Fifth, if you look to the north you see power lines. Big, grotesque, unartistic beams of twisted metal that just scream "I'm going to melt your brain!"

Sixth, they used to grow corn and soybeans there. Yuck. 'Nuff said on that.

Seventh, the sky over the property just isn't as blue. The angles of the sun aren't right for some reason, and the contamination emanating from the ground messes up the refractions. The mascot should be an imp, because every kid who goes there will feel like they've been sent to the underworld.

Now, the Brach-Brodie site, by comparison, is a complete gem. No complaints. Every time I drive by it I feel at peace, and I just want to be a better person.

What a sad mismatch Eola represents - a beautifully-designed school on such an ugly property in a bad neighborhood. Tell me again why we can't just build on Brach-Brodie? Is it too late to go back to the State Senate and get them to pass a (belated) quick-take on the Brach-Brodie property and force the School District to obey the NSFOC? I mean, when you find great leadership, you have to give it lots of rein. Am I right?

(Phew! After spewing so much nonsense, I know how the NSFOC must really feel - tired and under-appreciated. I'm feeling their pain now.)

By Anonymous on May 5, 2008 1:47 PM
GF,

http://www.ancelglink.com/publications/slb2.htm-------------------------------------------------------

LOL Im glad Im not the only one who gets a brain freeze and forgets to load a name :)

Thanks for the info!! I took a peek and it looks like its going to be alot of heavy lifting (lots of environmental/soil data etc).

P, YOU KNOW I am not a sample/beaker/area under curve guy.. :) this stuff looks pretty complicated. At the last meeting (K Kid was there) I snoozed though the first half of the meeting cuz too muuch talk on samples, whats there whats not, yada yada.

However, I will be sure to give it a full read. sounds like at the end you are showing me the "wide latitude for our unsung part time volunteers" usually bestowed by most courts to help protect them from themselves. Its this "tendancy" that puts the most fear into me as a supporter of the suit.

Are u trying to give me bedtime stories that give me nightmares :) LOL

Thanks again! i will give it a good read tonite.
GF

GF

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.

--------------
While there is much about this debate that I have to say escapes me, this whole line of argument mystifies me more than anything else:

1. How exactly is the SB supposed to have violated the Election Interference Act? Are you saying they used public funds to promote the referendum?
2. Where did you get the idea that the EIA has anything to do with "returning to the voters"?

Here is the text of the act: http://user.mc.net/~igloo/eia.htm.

Am I just missing something? Maybe it is those power lines I used to live under in Cambridge Chase. . . .

By MR on May 5, 2008 2:33 PM
GF,

Going tonight?

I'll be there.

MR
---------------------------------------------

Hi MR!!

I think I can make it (have to finish up a few quick things at work. will try and leave by 6ish), I might be a little late, definately cant stay until the end though.

Cheers
GF

By Civics on May 5, 2008 2:36 PM
D+S

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

LOL -- in fact -- FOMCL!

Thanks for continuing to update the score!

Can we please have a third category for people like ETSB who dont post Anon but definitely qualify on Creepiness and Venom?

And you KNOW I want a category for "NSFOC all the way!" who insists on posting about that organization as if they were doing nothing more controversial than organizing a charity bake sale!
________________________________________________

OK, just for you, Civics. I agree that ETSB is in a league of his own, so he can be the only monikered person to join an all Anon listing. How about a "smarta$$" category? I got one of these on a previous thread, which gave me the idea.

I know ETSB has been crude, lewd and vulger, but there have also been times when the sheer outrageousness of his posts cracked me up, especially those that were deleted by Moderator Jim when someone else complained. Therefore, here's his dishonorable mention:

Stalkers: 4
Snipers: 9
Smarta$$es: 1

"NSFOC all the way!" is more problematic. Does kind of sound like a cheer squad, doesn't it? All the same, is it really that bad to be unrelentingly perky all the time? And I happen to love bake sales. I'll give this some thought.

Cheers--D&S

By Anonymous on May 5, 2008 4:24 PM
The EMF discussion is a waste of time. Drive by the site. The school building will be located south of where the house is currently sitting. The building will be set back slightly from Eola road.

Some of the better homes on the south side are closer to the powerlines than the school will be built. This is another non-issue. This arguement is best saved for the homes closer to the powerlines at Tall Grass.
___________________________________

Maybe a "waste of time" for you but not to those of us that are concerned about potential health hazards to children.

Yes, I've been by the site. Honestly, I was more concerned after my "drive by". How far will the children be from the power lines? Will it be at least 600 meters away?

Your last sentence was unnecessary and shows that you are not taking this issue seriously. Some of us, despite where we live (kudos to Perspective) won't result to insulting each other in order to make a point.

Perspective, thanks for the well thought out responses to the EMF issue. Your respectful posts are proof that a respectful dialouge is possible between people that disagree. It's a shame others (such as Anonymous on May 5, 2008 4:24 PM) don't show the same respect.

Is Anonymous on May 5, 2008 4:24 PM a sniper or just incapable of communicating politely?

By Nincompoop2 on May 5, 2008 4:42 PM

Thanks -- I will take a look -- no time tonight, but I will look. BTW -- thanks for being open and contemplative, I truly appreciate it!
Kind regards,

Moderator Jim to Perspective: I'd like to think that many comments on these threads are "contemplative" in nature. I guess I'll just have to keep dreaming.

Incredulous

To answer your question: 1. How exactly is the SB supposed to have violated the Election Interference Act? Are you saying they used public funds to promote the referendum?

Here is the part of the Election Interference Act that I believe the School District violated in using district funds to put out a backpack mailer that stated the referendum request for $124.6 million in funds would be to build a school at BB. They are required to submit FACTUAL data to voters.

1. School officials and employees generally want to support a referendum question which has been
proposed by the school board. How does State law limit their referendum-related activity?
Two laws significantly limit their referendum-related activity: the Election Interference Prohibition Act and the State
Officials and Employees Ethics Act (Ethics Act). The Election Interference Prohibition Act bars the expenditure
of public funds to advocate votes for or against a referendum, but permits use of public funds to disseminate
factual data.2 This means that school district resources may be used for brochures, web-postings, and other
communications describing the proposition, but not for urging a yes or no vote. Communications using district
resources should be factual.

By Naperville Sun editors on May 5, 2008 7:47 PM
Moderator Jim to Perspective: I'd like to think that many comments on these threads are "contemplative" in nature. I guess I'll just have to keep dreaming.

____________________

LOL! I knew two seconds after I hit submit I'd chosen a wrong word. That's what you get for typing quickly. Good call out!

Glad it gave a couple people a good chuckle. It is kinda funny.

But, I'm a self proclaimed nincompoop so I have to be excused!

To perspective on May 5, 2008 7:58 AM

Re: your post to 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.
_________________________________________

If the school board was willing and able to put $33 million in an escrow account to cover the BB purchase at the time of the quick take proceedings, then how can they say a jury determined amount of $31 million later was over budget? This is the crux of the problem, not the failed quick take attempt.

This is what doesn't add up. The SB claims the jury verdict came in $17 million over budget. If $16 million was all we could afford to spend on the land in the first place, then why were they willing to put $33 million in escrow for a quick take attempt? This is why a lot of us believe the SB walking away from BB after the verdict had more to do with bruised egos from losing to the BB lawyers than the actual price of the land. We all know how impossible the BB group was to deal with, how they refused to negotiate with the SB prior to the verdict. But I think the SB could have well afforded the $31 million jury verdict. The amount only became "over budget" once the SB lost.

I really think that if Howie Crouse was still on the board instead of Dr. D, we would have paid the jury verdict and be building on BB right now. I think Howie would have honored his "promise" to the voters and would not have let his personal feelings or his ego eclipse his responsibilities to the residents of 204. Not so with D. I think he took the BB verdict personally; it became all about him, not about the people he represents. And when he couldn't win in court, the only way he could win was to leave BB hanging and find any other site at any cost. It's like this whole district is being held hostage by one man's egomania.

Dr. D is finding out the hard way that Naperville isn't Kentucky. At the very least, the NSFOC and BB lawsuits will have been a learning experience for him.

Just curious.

What is up with ending posts with "cheers" are you all some type of "Player"?

Sounds like a stupid blog, yet.... many of you will understand.

Clearing of trees along the east side of the property continues.
Some additional earthmoving equipment has been mobilized to the site.
No sign of erosion control measures being installed as of 5/5/08.
Some minor grading has taken place along the northwest border of the site - possibly in preparation for a worker's parking area.

By Incredulous on May 5, 2008 5:34 PM

While there is much about this debate that I have to say escapes me, this whole line of argument mystifies me more than anything else:

1. How exactly is the SB supposed to have violated the Election Interference Act? Are you saying they used public funds to promote the referendum?

Greg's Answer/opinion: (they used public funds to print/distribute/collate the flyers. Ink is not free, labor is not free, reinburseable milage is not free going to/from the public meetings to promote the location/boundaries etc. etc.

2. Where did you get the idea that the EIA has anything to do with "returning to the voters"?

Greg's Answer: No where: it is just one possible remidy if the act was actually violated either on the puffery side or the "factual at the time" side

Here is the text of the act: http://user.mc.net/~igloo/eia.htm.

Am I just missing something? Maybe it is those power lines I used to live under in Cambridge Chase. . . .

Greg's reply: LOL no, these are very valid questions.
-----------------------------------------------------

Hi Incredulous

A gave you my opinion/answers to your two question above right after the question you posed. (See above)

Why do I get the feeling you are baiting me? :) are u going to change your name from Incredulous to "Greg Forrest is my puppet" :) LOL. No offense "ETSB is my puppet"

I read my blog replies to all the questions that have been directed to me over the past few days and while I freely admit I am an "arm chair Monday morning quarterback" I probably accidentally touched upon a few key components of actual strategy in a couple of my blog replies. Whether this was pure luck or some sembalance of minor brain function on my part; it still probably does not help "my cause" to be so freely sharing on how I would go about setting up a case structure and action plan. Im sure my little lemon grove fan club out there would say pure luck (greg is the dumbest of the dumb):

So, maybe I should ask you the same general question (I beleive you are asking me) but in reverse: how would you set up your defense to the suit as its listed on the NSFOC site? :) :)

Tell you what, I will do two things while I wait for your defense reply.

1. I will formulate an answer/case plan as to why/how I think the act was violated as it pertains to the EIA language and why its violation nullifies the 2nd referendum results. I will send this on email to myself at my work email address, and a little later on I will send a copy to MR. we can then compare how accurate I was and if my case logic held any water; but more, "after the fact". MR or myself can then post the email (minus my email addresses so I dont get innudated with lemon emails from my little sniper following)

2. If you review some of my prior blog responses, I think you will get a good idea of how I would go about laying the groundwork to prove it. To help get you started; If the flyers (factual at the time and printed/paid for by the district) are determined to be factual; then BB location and boundries are on the 2nd ref language by default. If that is the case, then going a different direction (whether intentional or not) violates the language on the 2rd Referendum we all voted on. If the district did not do what it said it was going to do on the 2nd ref, what happens? do we have to vote again? do they have to build on BB? is the 2nd ref voided? does the district have to return the money? Ok there you go (the generalities) I will give you specifics in my case formulation but well after the fact. you might be able to coax me into posting early if I see what your strategy would be to defend against the lawsuit. :)

Deal?

Have a good one!
GF

To Nincompoop2 on May 5, 2008 7:00 PM--

Re: Anonymous on May 5, 2008 4:24 PM

This Anon is not a sniper. No venom, he's just stating his opinion. Nothing says he has to be polite when doing so.

to pepperment patty and all the other folks worried about the "tallgrass is the devil incarnate" petition.

IT WAS NOT, I REPEAT NOT the petition the mainline pro eola group handed the school board at the SB meeting. MR was kind enough to let me read the language, and it is totally benign and does not in any way mention any sub division, it just lists all the ref language stuff Lisa? (i think that is the name of the lady that spoke?) referenced in her speech.

Rest easy folks. Nothing sinister. Thanks MR for letting me take a quick look!!

Anyone ready to talk a little A/C? for/against? pro/con? yes/no?

Moderator Jim, you are dreaming. People vent a lot of venom here, but I have seen little actual listening to others.

Most "comtempating" seems to be contemplating what "witty" insult to use on those who do not agree with the writer.

D&S,

Teh 33Mil. was a requirement for teh quick take. I do not think the SB ever thought the the actual amount would be any where near the $33Mil. The money was required by the court if teh quick take procedings were enacted because teh SD would have begun construction on the site before the jury valuation and actually owning the site. Just putting the money in escrow does not equal willing to pay the amount.

Kind regards,

RE: Moderator Jim to Perspective:

Contemplative,

1. calm and thoughtful, or inclined to be this way

I'll let you do the math on this one :-)

Kind regards,

I'm ready for teh AC discussion anytime you are GF. I am for it BTW.

Kind regards,

To nincompoop2 on May 5, 2008 9:26 PM

Re your question:

What is up with ending posts with "cheers" are you all some type of "Player"?
_______________________________________

I wasn't aware using "cheers" as a complimentary closing made one sound like a "player", whatever your definition of that is. I've been using it in personal emails for years. Don't know where I got it, it just sounds upbeat and fun. You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

By perspective on May 6, 2008 7:27 AM
D&S,

Teh 33Mil. was a requirement for teh quick take. I do not think the SB ever thought the the actual amount would be any where near the $33Mil. The money was required by the court if teh quick take procedings were enacted because teh SD would have begun construction on the site before the jury valuation and actually owning the site. Just putting the money in escrow does not equal willing to pay the amount.

Kind regards,
____________________________________________________________________

Herein lies the problem(at least in my opinion) created by the SB. I believe that they have demonstrated a clear and direct pattern of behavior/action leading all involved to believe that BB is the one, and only, site for the 3rd HS. Yet, when it came to time to act, the SB changed course in spite of the fact that all results retunred were within scope of the SB's own project guidelines. Among other things, I am concerned with the determination and alacrity demonstrated by the SB in moving on the Eola site as, at least for me, it suggests a a lack of transparency in the entire process.

Unfortunately, this is not simply a "politicians doing what politicians do" issue.

By perspective on May 6, 2008 7:27 AM
D&S,

Teh 33Mil. was a requirement for teh quick take. I do not think the SB ever thought the the actual amount would be any where near the $33Mil. The money was required by the court if teh quick take procedings were enacted because teh SD would have begun construction on the site before the jury valuation and actually owning the site. Just putting the money in escrow does not equal willing to pay the amount.

Kind regards,
________________________________________

Ok, I have on my listening ears. My understanding is the $33 mil escrow amount was to be used to pay the jury verdict, whatever it was. I thought putting the money in escrow under quick take DID equal willing to pay that amount, that if quick take had succeeded, the SB was legally obligated to buy the land at the jury determined price, whatever it was. The reason the SB was able to walk away from BB after the verdict was because quick take did not go through. Not true?

Would someone explain to me which of the below points I do not understand correctly?

1. When the initial referendum was turned down, the SD had an agreement in place to buy BB for something around $17 mil.

2. After that initial referendum failed, that agreement was lost.

3. However,after the initial referendum, the SD did buy part of the BB property pursuant to the original agreement in anticipation of hopefully getting approval for the rest later.

4. The second referendum was passed. Though there was no longer any contractual guarantee on the land cost, there was a belief that the cost would be similar to the price previously agreed upon.

5. At the time the second referendum passed, and up until the time the jury gave the large price for BB, everything the SD did was consistent with its intent to buy and build on BB, including not only proceeding with the eminent domain lawsuit but also extensively lobbying for quick take rights.

6. Because of the unexpected high cost for BB, the SB changed directions on where to build the school.

It seems neither complicated what happened, nor unreasonable to have changed directions after circumstances changed so dramatically, no matter what the previous intent. Things have gotten messed up, but my impression is that was because of special interests either wanting a guarantee on what school their kid would go to (thus the first failed referencum) or not wanting a new school at all (thus the failure to get quick take rights), or being outlawyered or misadvised (thus the unexpected emminent domain result). At last those reasons are my impression of significant causes of how things have evolved to this point.

Anyway, there seems to be a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking, with cavalier allegations of lying. I found this definition of "bait and switch", which is consistent with my understanding of it: "An illegal tactic in which a seller advertises a product with the intention of persuading customers to purchase a more expensive product." To me the key word is INTENTION. I see nothing to indicate that there was that intent here at the time the second referendum was on the ballot. Without such an intent, why the venom? Why not just curse the stars, not the SD, for how fate has evolved?

Anyway, I can't buy any of it if the above 6 points are true. Which are not, and what can you point to as showing that they are not true?

Cheers to Everyone!!!

Can I be a "player" now??!! LOL!!!

OK, well I tried.

Man the crews are in high gear at the Eola site, Popejoy asking for mediation = Popejoy throwing the NSFOC complaint out!!

Yup, you'd think most of the bloggers on these Metea threads would find something productive to do with their time.

They are building the school.

RIGHT NOW. Get as mad as you want, 'tis a done deal.

Cheers!!!!!

FWIW -- From the NSFOC website https: //www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=130:little-has-changed-but-more-money-wasted&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=108

Little Has Changed But More Money Wasted

Really little has changed regarding the Eola/Molitor location chosen by D204 for the new high school. It still is not the cost nor the location voted for in the 2006 Referendum. It is still sitting right on top of three large diameter, high volume gas pipelines including two over 50 years old, with no absolute guarantee that their integrity is not compromised in some way.

The site still fails the Illinois Build Smart Program requirements due to those pipelines running directly through the AME land, three other adjacent energy pipelines, adjacent high voltage power lines that according to Build Smart can come down in high winds or ice storms, and are a "health concern" due to EMF radiation exposure, and adjacent railroad tracks where Build Smart says there is "always a possibility of derailment". CN is still negotiating to acquire the EJ&E Railroad with plans to quadruple the train traffic.

A large portion of the property is still near a contaminated petroleum tank farm, an adjacent peaker power plant with a long list of possible contaminants and seven secret environmental reports still not shared with the public. Nearly half of all soil borings tested positive for contamination. The district had planned to simply fence off the identified contaminated areas.

The district still wants us to believe that contaminants fell within the fences they would put up, when they surely know the truth - that contaminants can show up all over a wider area. That's why industrial plants buy more land than required for their plant, when land is available. The wider footprint minimizes community concerns about pollution.

The land purchased by D204 from AME was preiously owned by Midwest Generation and Com Ed; however, the district never told the public that story, and one school board member, Bruce Glawe, said he did not believe it was owned by a power company. AME purchased the land from the power companies in 2004, then made over 300% profit in the recent land sale to D204 for $18.9 million cash. Good for AME, but not good for taxpayers. It almost seems like D204 is trying to spend as much money as possible to show it would be permanently damaged by having to stop soon.

But that's not all that has not changed much at the Eola/Molitor site. There's still three outstanding lawsuits, incomplete testing for hazardous contamination, no plans to test AME land previously owned by power companies, unknown environmental costs from potential testing/remediation, unreliable wetlands mitigation cost estimates, higher costs for expediting construction towards an unrealistic opening date of August 2009, unknown/un-quantified liability risk for future health/environment-related lawsuits, higher forecast busing costs of at least $1-1.5 miilion per year based on the site's distance far from the D204 population center, enrollment projections declining 1000-2000 students depending on which 2006 projections are used, lack of due diligence, fiscal and fiduciary responsibility of the elected D204 School Board....and on and on.

See more information here about the Eola/Molitor site.

See more nformation here about fully risk adjusted costs of Brach-Brodie v. Eola sites.

D&S -
Everything is open to interpretation, of course, but I can say that "cheers" is a very common exchange/closing between the English. Kind of like saying "thanks" and "see ya later" at the same time. I worked with many people in London and, over time, most emails were signed with "cheers". There was no connotation of being a "player" involved. I think that this closing is something that has simply started to creep into American culture.

Also, more on the subject of the blog, I agree with your post (May 6, 2008 9:50 AM) about the quick take/$33M escrow. In my opinion, if the SB went after Quick Take and was told "You have to pony up $33M in escrow" to pursue it,that says two things: 1. The SB had an indication that the jury verdict might come back with that kind of price tag attached 2. Once they decided they were going to "go for it" they were giving every indication they were willing to pay it, not only to the voters, but also to the courts, the Illinois GA, and the BB parties. If they knew this amount was out of their "budget", they had no business representing to everyone that it was. The nonsense should have stopped then and there because if the Quick Take had gone through, and they started building before the jury verdict came in,(the goal of getting the QT powers) they certainly would have been paying that amount, or more, if that's what the jury found.

To me, the decision to walk away when they didn't "like" the verdict is in complete contradiction to their actions and words leading up to it (buying the partial 25 acres, then condeming 80 more, pursuing quick take). It is also a complete misrepresentation of intent not only to the voters, but also to the BB folks. In my opinion, it is also an abuse of the process/legal system that works to protect all parties involved. In the end I don't know if the voters can be protected in this case, but I would think BB certainly could, and for a good sum of money, since they have a physical holding at stake and the SB walked away in the 11th hour after tying up their property in proceedings for years.

Everyone keeps accusing the BB people of greed, but they certainly did not ask for this situation - the SB sued them to get what they wanted, only to say they didn't really want it after all. And, the BB people did not ultimately set the acreage price - a jury did. The SB low balled the offering price in the beginning. BB had competing appraisals that were much higher, which the SB ignored. So, BB said "prove your price is accurate and fair" to the SB. Well, the SB obviously couldn't prove it and the jury came in against them. Why should they get to play with the referendum money and the BB property for "free"? People in all of these lawsuits against the SB are simply asking for some accountability.

D&S on May 6, 2008 9:26 AM
*******************************************
I wasn't aware using "cheers" as a complimentary closing made one sound like a "player", whatever your definition of that is. I've been using it in personal emails for years. Don't know where I got it, it just sounds upbeat and fun. You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

By anonymous on May 6, 2008 12:35 PM

What the heck are we supposed to do with this post? There isn't anything new here...

...and safety and railroad tracks and EMF and boundaries and we deserve it in OUR neighborhood and bait and switch and the North isn't where the growth (or we ) are and due diligence as defined by us and ten more years of analysis paralysis and cost (surely it will go down) and my kids will have to go to Waubonsie and "they're not like us" and drive five miles like OTHER people and global warming and MRSA and , and , and ,and.........

Going back to the $33 million in escrow. I believe the reason that we could afford that a year ago is the expedited building costs would not have been as high, and building materials costs have been sky rocketing (though building is down and thus it would seem the price would go down, the transportation costs have escalated exponentially). The actual cost to build the school has increased since we were unsuccessful in the quick take.

If everyone had voted for the first referendum instead of insisting that the board give every detail before voting for it and it had passed, I am pretty sure it would have been built at BB and would be opening this fall. If wishes were horses...

Point of interest--where exactly did it fail so miserably the first time bcz people refused to vote for it unless they were guaranteed onw of their two preferred schools? So exactly where did this fight begin 3 years ago? Maybe instead of blaming the SB and Dr. D we could all put the blame squarely where it belongs--on those who voted against the first referendum.

To Anon 12:35 posting from the NSFOC website,

There's nothing new in what you took the time to copy over from their website. It's the same old tired data, some factual, most not.

They have nothing new to try and have stick to the wall. Game over.

By D&S on May 6, 2008 9:50 AM
By perspective on May 6, 2008 7:27 AM
D&S,

Teh 33Mil. was a requirement for teh quick take. I do not think the SB ever thought the the actual amount would be any where near the $33Mil. The money was required by the court if teh quick take procedings were enacted because teh SD would have begun construction on the site before the jury valuation and actually owning the site. Just putting the money in escrow does not equal willing to pay the amount.

Kind regards,
________________________________________

Ok, I have on my listening ears. My understanding is the $33 mil escrow amount was to be used to pay the jury verdict, whatever it was. I thought putting the money in escrow under quick take DID equal willing to pay that amount, that if quick take had succeeded, the SB was legally obligated to buy the land at the jury determined price, whatever it was. The reason the SB was able to walk away from BB after the verdict was because quick take did not go through. Not true?

________________________________________
If I understand what you are saying, then yes you are correct. If the Quick Take legislation had passed the SD would be required to put $33 mil. in escrow to cover the jury verdict and then would be obligated to buy the land at the verdict price (not the whole 33 mil if the verdict had been less, which is what the SB believed, IMHO). The purpose of the quick take was to begin building on the land before the trial ended and the SD closed on the land. The $33Mil. amount was set by the court and was based on the BB trusts asking price for the property, not what the SB said it was willing to pay. I believe that the SB thought the price would be set between 350 and 400K per acre.

Since the Quick Take did not go through the SD is not required to purchase the land at the verdict price and was able to walk away from the deal. This was explained to me by a friend of mine whose is in front of the same judge on an Eminent Domain case as well.

Kind regards,

By MH on May 6, 2008 12:23 PM
Yup, you'd think most of the bloggers on these Metea threads would find something productive to do with their time.

They are building the school.

RIGHT NOW. Get as mad as you want, 'tis a done deal.

Cheers!!!!!
____________________________________________________________________

Yet for someone who is so certain they still spend the time to follow/comment on the blog.

By I am a mom too on May 6, 2008 2:19 PM

I agree with your logic in regard to expedite costs and building material. I do think that the SB handled the whole Eminent Domain process poorly. Whether they received bad advice or were just attending the school for the “galatically” stupid, they were off by an order of magnitude on their cost per acre estimates. Their luckiest break may have been the failure of the quick take. Had this action been successful, I am sure that there would have been uproar over the amount of money spent on the land and the impact that would have on the overall budget (cut backs on the building etc. . .).

Before I get assailed by those who are either worried or spewing FUD regarding the BB trusts lawsuits, my interpretation of the Eminent Domain process and the laws associated with it, a government entity is not required to purchase the land at the end of the process. It is my belief that this will limit any damages to the BB trusts to the $3M in legal fees already awarded unless there was net ordinary income lost during the time period of the process -- the land owner would be entitled to rents etc . . . that were not able to be collected. This does not pertain to capital gain from the sake of an asset (either appreciation or depreciation of the land)

By I am a mom too on May 6, 2008 2:19 PM

To your second point, I believe that it failed the first time, in large part at least, because the SB did a poor job of convincing taxpayers that there was a true need for the third HS (that is what drove my no vote in 05). I also think that the SB was a bit over confident that the first referendum would pass because all of the others had passed easily -- D204 IMHO has had a history of being "irrationally exuberant" when it came to anything relating to children and education. I know someone posted here previously that the voter turn out in general was lower for the 05 election -- I do not know if that is true, but if so that may have had an impact. I also think that the SB did a poor job of communicating that this referendum was on the ballet in 05. I had heard about it late in the game and was not sure when it was to be voted on. There were probably district constituents that were concerned about boundaries and wanted to see the SB plan for that before agreeing. One of the bigger contributors to my no vote was also the, IMHO, extremely high budget that at that time did not include the refinance of the bond debt to offset the increase in property tax associated with the capital expenditure. Additionally, there were no ear marked dollars in the first ref for technology upgrades to existing schools and no true operating budget for the new school, I think they intended to offer another ref on that after the school was built.

Again just my summation of what has gone on. . .

Kind regards,

One more thought and I will go away for a while . . .

I have read many posts over the last few weeks blaming the BB trusts’ greed or the SB for getting us into this situation. I believe that both have a significant amount of blame. The SB was either naive, mislead or incompetent or some combination of all three and the BB raised its land prices significantly in one year. I know the amount paid by the SD for the 25 acres was going to be lower than that for the remaining property -- I believe that the SB knew that as well-- however the BB trusts offered the property to the SD for approx. $560K per acre, more than double what was paid for the previous acres. It was this price point that forced the hand of the SB and, IMHO, the Eminent Domain filing. So, I think both are to blame to a significant degree for the situation we as a district are in at the present time. The NSFOC suit is just piling on and while I do not believe that it has merit given some of the thoughts I have previously posted, it will need to be dealt with. All this said, I feel we will need to deal with what is directly in front of us first and then do some forensics to figure out where the process failed and put corrective actions in place to avoid future occurrences.

Kind regards,

To Anonymous on May 6, 2008 2:34 PM--

Perspective, you did another GF! Re: your reply--

If I understand what you are saying, then yes you are correct. If the Quick Take legislation had passed the SD would be required to put $33 mil. in escrow to cover the jury verdict and then would be obligated to buy the land at the verdict price (not the whole 33 mil if the verdict had been less, which is what the SB believed, IMHO). The purpose of the quick take was to begin building on the land before the trial ended and the SD closed on the land. The $33Mil. amount was set by the court and was based on the BB trusts asking price for the property, not what the SB said it was willing to pay. I believe that the SB thought the price would be set between 350 and 400K per acre.

Since the Quick Take did not go through the SD is not required to purchase the land at the verdict price and was able to walk away from the deal. This was explained to me by a friend of mine whose is in front of the same judge on an Eminent Domain case as well.
______________________________________

Then we're on the same page; this has always been my understanding of how it worked as well. What you're saying then is the SB was gambling with the eminent domain suit. They were bluffing when they agreed to put $33 in escrow for a quick take, which indicated to the voters, the court and BB that they could afford to pay this much if necessary, when in fact they really couldn't. If the quick take had gone through, then they would have been screwed having to pay the $31+ million jury verdict. Which means they would have been $17 million in the red on this project before they even broke ground.

This indicates that the SB needs better counsel and/or they were entirely out of their league playing this game in the first place. I would find this easy to believe if it weren't for one catch, and that's Howie Crouse's statements back in 06. When he was pressed for an answer to the question of what the SB would do if they could not get BB for the price they wanted, Howie stated that with the amount of $$ they were asking for in the ref, the SD could afford to go as high as $600K/acre in a worse case scenario. So what has changed that the SD can't afford $519K/acre two years later?

Either the SB under Howie was lying to the voters in 06, or the SB under Daeschner is lying to the voters now. You know I lean towards the latter. In either case, the SB should not be allowed to lie to voters in order to get what they want or do as they please. This is the accountability that the NSFOC thinks all taxpayers are entitled to. For more on this, read Big Picture Issues on May 6, 2008 1:08 PM. I couldn't have said it better.

D&S

You are correct GF is infecting my blogging ability I have a new conspiracy theory about him now, he is trying to get me to change my point of view by making me anon. . .

I am not aware of any statement that Howie had regarding the $600K per acre. I would find that statement alarming as a taxpayer because the original budget I saw did not have a number even close to that. As far as the gambling comment you are spot on in my opinion, they did gamble with our money. I do not however, believe that they lied to voters to get what they wanted -- again not privy to the Howie statement and timing thereof. I think I have made it clear that I am not a fan of the current SB, but it is more based on incompetence and not malfeasance.

Kind regards,

Thanks to "the watcher" for the update on whats happening on the EOla site. I also heard thay are gettin ready to bulldoze down the house at the far corner of the site location. Also heard they are drilling large "holes" around the site. Does anyone know what this is for? Testing drainability? Testing land composition/consistency to ensure grade/land supports weight of the school structure properly? Not sure. ANyone in construction biz?

To Perspective: Met up with MR last night at the SB meeting. We are hoping to attempt to get organized in preparation for when SB resumes talks on the A/C project that got shelved last fall when the 3rd HS mess came to a head. Its possible A/C discussion will get back on the SB's agenda this summer (unless bigger fish to fry remain....out there and need SB's attention)

How about a non scientific Vote from the blogging community (sorry, I know I am off topic here) on the following question:

19 of 21 E schools in our district lack A/C. The recent board agenda item on 4/14 was discussing heat mitigation plans (open windows at night to cool the buildings etc) and setting up temperature limits on when to release class early (1:00pm at the earliest to ensure everyone gets credit for a school day). Would you be in favor of retrofitting all the remaining schools with A/C to ensure all E students have a similiar learning environment and equitable eductional opportunity as other D204 students that enjoy A/C fed buildings?

Yes/No?

Thoughts?

The kicker: how much extra in yearly property taxes would you be willing to invest in this educational opportunity for our kids? $50 a year? or maybe $204 a year? :)

Regards,
GF

By Big Picture Issues on May 6, 2008 1:08 PM
D&S -
Everything is open to interpretation, of course, but I can say that "cheers" is a very common exchange/closing between the English. Kind of like saying "thanks" and "see ya later" at the same time. I worked with many people in London and, over time, most emails were signed with "cheers". There was no connotation of being a "player" involved. I think that this closing is something that has simply started to creep into American culture.
________________________________________________

This is interesting. My husband worked with a group in England several years back. He traveled there a few times, they visited us here. I could have inadvertently picked it up during that time. Good to know I'm not a closet "player", whatever that is.

As to the rest of your post, I could not have said it any better, so I won't try. I've always thought the SB's walking away from BB in the end was in contradiction to everything they had done and said up to that point; that the way they handled the eminent domain process was incompetent at the least and an abuse of the legal process at worst; that during the process they misrepresented their intent to everyone involved--the voters, the court and BB; and that BB has a case for damages far beyond what the SB believes, which concerns me the most at this point.

It does surprise me how folks are so quick to blame everyone else involved, the "selfish" southsiders, the "greedy" BB Trusts, the "stupid" 204 residents who voted down the 05 ref. But the SB is the architect of this mess, it begins and ends with them, no matter who else they involved along the way.

Erosion control measures have been installed - this is the black fabric fencing you see ringing the site (called silt fence).

The large number of wholes that have been drilled around the site are probably test borings - they are used to confirm the depth and composition/characteristics of the soil to allow for proper design of structures placed on those areas.

No info on demolition of existing house on site - but if it was my project, I'd keep the house for as long as possible, utilizing it as temporary office space.

Look in the coming weeks for mobilization of earthwork equipment for top soil removal, and start of excavation for site utilities and foundations.

To mom on May 6, 2008 2:19 PM--

Perpective's post to you is correct. All the voters knew about the 05 ref was what the SB told us, and they didn't tell us much.

I can also add that we moved here right after NV opened. Our neighbors told us that during the campaign for the referendum which built Neuqua, the SB told voters that if NV was built D204 would never need another HS. Anyone else remember this? Then a couple years later, Howie tells voters that if we build the Gold campuses, we won't need another HS. Then in 05, here's a referendum for another HS, with little to no explanation. It's the SB's responsibility to make a case to the voters to pass a ref, and they were complacent and didn't do this in 05. I wasn't surprised when it failed.

So let's stop playing the blame game. As I've already said, the SB was the architect of this mess. It begins and ends with them. 'Nuff said.

To perspective on May 6, 2008 6:38 PM--

I've seen the Howie statement repeated on several old threads over the months. I'll go back in the archives and pull it up. For the most part, I agree with you that the SB's actions are based more on incompetence than malfeasance. I don't believe there was any grand conspiracy to build on Eola, that they planned a bait and switch all along, etc. But Howie and D can't both be telling the truth, unless some ref money disappeared in the last 2 years, and I don't even want to think what adding that possibility to the mix would do. Stick around for awhile, I'll be back in touch.

To GF on May 6, 2008 6:40 PM--

Re: the A/C vote. I know this is a worthy cause, but I'm in no mood right now to give the SB one more dime until the BB damage claim is resolved and we know how much more that is going to cost us. Plus I don't really trust them to handle anything right now, no matter how simple. Who was it that wrote you the post about the fans? I wouldn't put it past D to collect $$ for A/C and buy window units with it. Hey, it's A/C, isn't it? The ref. would have to specifically state "central A/C" before I'd support it.

I think I'd be more open to this after D is gone and there's been some turnover in board positions. I think you should run for a SB position. Then I'd have no problem supporting an A/C ref. because I know it would be done right! Sorry, I hope other responses are more encouraging. Good luck.

Hey gang,

Just catching up on the blogs. Big Boss Man frowns on blogging during "his" time (I sound like Mr. Hand -- anyone know this movie reference?).

Anyway, with regards to $600/acre. My wife works with the spouse of one of the architects who worked on the Metea project. D&S and GF, take the following with a grain of salt. It's third or fourth hand info.

The issue with the $600/acre wasn't as cut and dried as it seems. Yes, they could go forward with purchasing the land at $600/acre. However, you might recall the time when all this was being discussed prior to the judgement the projected land price seemed to fluctuate every couple of weeks. During this time the architects were apparently being asked to "rescope" the school based on the funds available for the building after purchasing the land.

According to the wife of the architect, the pool was first to go. They then resized the auditorium. Then the gym. The then reconfigured some other things. The complaint from the architects was that they were starting to eliminate some of the features that kept MV on par with NV and WV. I lost track of the details about the time the judgment came in.

I don't know how much truth there is to any of this, but this story does fit the fact pattern. SB budgets $33M per the court knowing their contingency is to build a lessor school. Crap hits the fan, they're staring at two options once quick take fails...buy BB and build the lessor building or throw caution to the wind and find a different site. There are definitely holes in this story/theory, but again, the basic tenets fit the fact pattern.

Please don't beat me up over this, I'm just trying to add something that's been missing from the discussion.

l8r

By D&S on May 6, 2008 8:34 PM

Perpective's post to you is correct. All the voters knew about the 05 ref was what the SB told us, and they didn't tell us much.

I can also add that we moved here right after NV opened. Our neighbors told us that during the campaign for the referendum which built Neuqua, the SB told voters that if NV was built D204 would never need another HS. Anyone else remember this? Then a couple years later, Howie tells voters that if we build the Gold campuses, we won't need another HS. Then in 05, here's a referendum for another HS, with little to no explanation.

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

D&S, I remember all this. I've lived in IPSD since 1990. I voted for the referendum to build Neuqua. I voted against the first MV referendum specifically because they told us Neuqua + Golds would be enough. Neuqua wasn't even 7 years old when they came back to us again for the 3rd HS -- with no explanation.

By Greg Forrest on May 6, 2008 6:40 PM
19 of 21 E schools in our district lack A/C. The recent board agenda item on 4/14 was discussing heat mitigation plans (open windows at night to cool the buildings etc) and setting up temperature limits on when to release class early (1:00pm at the earliest to ensure everyone gets credit for a school day). Would you be in favor of retrofitting all the remaining schools with A/C to ensure all E students have a similiar learning environment and equitable eductional opportunity as other D204 students that enjoy A/C fed buildings?

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

Greg,

Suddenly Curt Bradshaw's comments at a recent Fry PTA meeting make more sense. He stated that 19 of 21 elementary schools have a negative opinion of Tall Grass (Fry). He simply got it confused with 19 of 21 elementary schools don't have AC, including Fry. Darn it, all these numbers can be so confusing - enrollment numbers, walkaway costs, transportation costs, travel times, land appreciation, appraisals...oh, that's right, scratch appraisals.

Here is my temporary solution to the AC issue: Until AC is in all 21 elementary schools, turn off the AC at the Crouse Center, with the exception of the pre-school area. If AC is unnecessary for kids under 10, then the same should apply to the Administration residing at the Crouse Center. A few hot days should help them think more clearly about the issue.

D&S

I looked back through the "infamous quotes" section of the NSFOC site and this is the only one I can find that is even close.

" Then Superintendent Howie Crouse - Daily Herald 11/29/2006 (in an article where a $600,000 per acre outcome was discussed)
"We believe that we have sufficient funds available through referendum or other sources to pay fair market value of the [BB] property."

While I believe that the intent of putting this on the NSFOC site was to tie Howie to the $600K, I do not see the number in his statement. I also think he left a bit of wiggle room with the "We believe" caveat in his statement. Again, I truly think the SB thought that the jury decision of the fair market value would not even be remotely close to the final amount.

If you can find the statement where Howie said the SD could afford $600K I may be more skeptical on the final outcome.

Kind regards,

GF - Someone should start a new organization that could be called Healthy Air-Conditioned Schools For All Kids - HACSFAK for short - the organization could hire a local attorney to represent the interests of the children at the 19 schools that don't have air conditioning. Heck - it might even qualify as a class action case.

It wouldn't have to do with boundaries or individual neighborhoods. It would cover almost the entire district, It wouldn't have issues about the ethnicity or socio-economic standing of students. It would seem to me, if you had an organization and a lawyer, you could get a blog started somewhere. Maybe have a few meetings, raise some funds from members - oops - make that supporters or contributors.

All kidding aside - HACSFAK might be a good thing - and I think you would be just the person to get it going.

To D&S:

"Cheers" is a common toast (lifting of the beer mug to drink with friends.) It's also a really good sitcom from the 80's I have no idea what the "player" comments are about.

Did anyone see the following: Board President Elected to National Post
==================================

School Board President Mark Metzger was elected to fill an unexpired term for the central region of the National School Board Association Board of Directors. Metzger will be eligible for re-election to the national post when his National School Board term expires in 2009. In addition to serving as head of District 204's board of education, Metzger was elected in November to serve as president of the Illinois Association of School Boards.
This is a national position. I believe we have a great school district with obviously a well respected board. We have a growing school district and with that comes changes. The only thing we as a community have to be ashamed of is the NSFO - sad but true.

To D&S: I understand your feelings (and have similiar reservations). April 09 is not too far away, and I would expect to see at least some "new blood" make it onto the new board. Addinng any new folks would significantly alter the board landscape and demeanor May 2009 and beyond.

To Flip Floppin: LOL I LOVE IT!! walking a little in others shoes will definately put a tad more urgency on it (so they can get their A/C back) at least from the district admin's point of view!!!

To: Confused and Confounded: Very clever! I dont know, that might be a little extreme/premature dont you think? :) I've always been one to try and give folks the opportunity "to do the right thing" In terms of the current suit, that opportunity in my opinion was in November (confirm ref for march 08) when they decided to go in a direction opposite to their previous communication to their constituents. On the A/C, Maybe we should hold off on the lawyers until the SB has the chance to launch the survey and ressurect this project? Then if they continue to poo poo it or re-bury it, who knows...anything is possible :) LOL (just teasing)

To Khazakstan Kid on May 6, 2008 9:44 PM--

Yep, you're right. This info does fit the fact pattern. Actually, it makes a lot of sense. It could also explain why the SB has not been forthcoming with a lot of details on this mess. They may simply be too embarrassed to admit how wrong their estimates were in addition to not wanting everyone involved to know that they were bluffing in their ability to pay. I ran into this quote from m2 regarding their price per acre estimates for BB on an old thread:

"I don’t believe there’s much risk of it being an out-of-control number in the first place", he said. "Our data is better than their data. Even if it’s the worst case scenario, we can afford it so it doesn’t matter."
Mark Metzger
Daily Herald
July 12, 2007

In retrospect, this one quote illustrates it all: stupidity (or incompetence), hubris, and misrepresenting to the public about the school district's ability to pay any amount for BB. If the BB judgment had favored the SD, the land would have been bought and no one would have been the wiser. But it appears the SB bluffed everyone involved--the voters, BB, the court--and lost. And people wonder why the NSFOC claims the SB lied to them!

Perspective was right when he said the SB's luckiest break was the failure of the quick take. Can you imagine the position the SB would have been in if they had had to pay $31 for the BB land? Their only choice at that point would have been to come clean with the voters. Can you see Mark M. saying, "You know last year when I said we could afford the worse case scenario? That wasn't exactly true. In fact, I lied. You have two choices now: cough up more cash or settle for half a HS." No one would have voted for a referendum under those circumstances to begin with.

This also supports Big Picture Issues opinion: "If the SB went after Quick Take and was told "You have to pony up $33M in escrow" to pursue it,that says two things: 1. The SB had an indication that the jury verdict might come back with that kind of price tag attached 2. Once they decided they were going to "go for it" they were giving every indication they were willing to pay it, not only to the voters, but also to the courts, the Illinois GA, and the BB parties. If they knew this amount was out of their "budget", they had no business representing to everyone that it was(n't). The nonsense should have stopped then and there . . ."

This theory definitely works for me. Kid, you said there were a few holes in this. Care to explain?

GF, what do you think?

OOPS! I misread the headline in the Sun today. Here, I thought that since the district switched the site from BB to Eola, that they were going back to the citizens for a re-vote.

It turns out it was just to the City of Aurora asking for a re-vote on annexation since they switched the location of the site by a few hundred feet.

Am I the only one who sees a bit of irony here? (Switch the site, you need a re-vote...)

To perspective on May 7, 2008 10:30 AM--

I didn't think of going to the NSFOC website. I haven't found the one that I'm picturing in my mind, but I found a bunch others. Some attribute this statement to Crouse, others to MM. Maybe I heard it at the boundary meetings in 06 originally, but I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere later as being quoted by Crouse. Anyway, this is what I have so far:

By NSFOC SUPPORTED!! on March 24, 2008 5:05 PM

Anonymous on March 24, 2008 2:08 PM
From the Herald....
Before the referendum, the district acquired 25 acres for the school--at a cost of $257,500 per acre--from two trusts, including the estate of the late candy heiress Helen Brach.
The district sought the remaining 55 acres from the trusts for the same price and later upped its offer to $260,000 per acre, but the Brach trust contends that the parcel is worth $600,000 per acre........
District officials maintained that even if they obtained the quick take power, they would pay whatever price the jury determined for the property. But a lobbyist representing the land trusts
"We believe that we have sufficient funds available through referendum or other sources to pay fair market value of the property," Crouse told lawmakers.
(This quote is the same one you refer to in your post.)

By big picture issues on April 4, 2008 2:38 PM
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.

Big Picture: Do you remember where you saw this quote from MM?

Another post:

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

Perspective: I even found this one from you!

By perspective on April 14, 2008 7:34 AM
The longer we wait to do so, the price of construction goes up and the cost of Real Estate goes up and who knows what else. It's been 2 years since the referrendum passed, so it's not like the SD is "rushing" things like so many people claim.
-------------
This is not a correct statement. The only reason two years has gone by is because of the actions of the SB. The condemnation suit for quick take resulted in a huge delay. They told their district they have plenty of money to purchase the land even if it came back over $600 per acre. After the verdict came in near this number, they said that's too much we can't afford that . . .

Did you mean $600K per acre? Anyway, it appears a lot of us got this message. We just need to know where it originated. I'll keep looking.

Cheers--D&S

By nosuchthingasneutral on May 7, 2008 11:06 AM

To D&S:

"Cheers" is a common toast (lifting of the beer mug to drink with friends.) It's also a really good sitcom from the 80's I have no idea what the "player" comments are about.
_________________________________________

It was a really great sitcom, especially the originals with Shelley Long, even though Kirstie Alley worked out better than expected when she took over. All together now: NORM!!!

Somebody got their wish.........I just don't know who.

Council: Metea High good to go
Groundbreaking today: Agreement annexes 84 acres

May 7, 2008Recommend

By Dan Campana dcampana@scn1.com
AURORA -- On the eve of Metea Valley High School's groundbreaking, aldermen took care of a logistical measure prior to any construction -- again.

Before the Indian Prairie School District could begin work on the new school on Eola Road, the City Council needed to approve an amended agreement to bring the 84-acre site into Aurora.

Aldermen did just that, by an 11-0 vote, during a special council meeting Tuesday night.

A formal ceremony to kick off construction was slated for today, district officials previously said.

Annexation for the 3,000-student school returned to the City Council after changes in who was selling what to Indian Prairie.

In early April, aldermen approved an agreement and preliminary plans for a campus that included Metea and a new St. John's African Methodist Episcopal Church. That proposal was essentially nullified when Midwest Generation opted not to sell its land to the School District.

Two weeks later, St. John's decided to sell all of its land -- 84 acres -- to Indian Prairie for $19 million. Under the original scenario, the church was to sell 49 acres to the district, with Midwest Generation selling an additional 37 acres for the school. The latter pulled out amid questions about whether the land was safe for a school.

District officials still expect classrooms to be ready for freshmen and sophomores by the start of the 2009-10 school year. A new site plan laying out how the school will be placed on the new land configuration is up for discussion tonight by the city's Plan Commission.

Although the five-minute special meeting was a formality, it did bring in two residents from a neighboring subdivision who expressed concern about parking. Alderman Lynda Elmore, whose ward includes the DuPage County site, told the couple the School District intends to hold meetings where residents can air their concerns. Under the original proposal, St. John's would have bordered the nearby Cambridge Chase subdivision.

The new school has generated controversy relating to the safety of the Midwest Generation land and whether the district was required to build on property commonly known as the Broch-Brodie site along 75th Street. Last week, the district announced plans to put the property up for sale.

That decision comes amid an ongoing lawsuit brought by a parent's group which claims Metea Valley cannot be built anywhere but Broch-Brodie.

It's now approximately 4PM - and Greg hasn't posted in almost 21 and 1/2 hours. Greg - please tell us you haven't given up blogging.

By A Board we CAN be proud of on May 7, 2008 11:47 AM
Did anyone see the following: Board President Elected to National Post
==================================

To Anon#????

Yes, we all know M2 has been on the board for a long time and is connected at the state board of Ed. Yes he was APPOINTED to fill a national comitte post that is vacant. I am more interested in seeing the re-election outcome for his local spot in 2011. I guess he got lucky his spot didnt come up for re-election in April 2009......

By D&S on May 7, 2008 12:29 PM
To Khazakstan Kid on May 6, 2008 9:44 PM--
---------------------------------------------

To D&S and K Kid

yes that seems to fit. makes alot of sense. Good stuff.

Aurora City will welcome anything into their city limits these days as long as it's not Planned Parenthood or more low income housing or crack houses.

D&S

RE:By perspective on April 14, 2008 7:34 AM
The longer we wait to do so, the price of construction goes up and the cost of Real Estate goes up and who knows what else. It's been 2 years since the referrendum passed, so it's not like the SD is "rushing" things like so many people claim.
-------------
This is not a correct statement. The only reason two years has gone by is because of the actions of the SB. The condemnation suit for quick take resulted in a huge delay. They told their district they have plenty of money to purchase the land even if it came back over $600 per acre. After the verdict came in near this number, they said that's too much we can't afford that . . .

D&S,

I just went and looked up this post -- sorry to say that was not me -- somebody stole my moniker for that one. In terms of the others, I still do not see the direct quote from someone on the board. I will concede however, that it is clear they were overly confidant they could afford whatever the jury determined. Again, I do not think they had any clue it would be that high. That is the missing link for me, if saw a direct quote from the SB or MM that would convince me that they indeed lied about it to cover it up. I just need that direct quote to get over the hump.

I know it sounds like I am harping on it a bit, but I am a firm believer that people tend to hear what they want and can, especially in an emotionally charged issue, fail to be objective. That is why a direct quote would be the only thing that gets me past the "they were just stupid" rather than it was with malice.

Kind regards,

D&S

RE:By perspective on April 14, 2008 7:34 AM
The longer we wait to do so, the price of construction goes up and the cost of Real Estate goes up and who knows what else. It's been 2 years since the referrendum passed, so it's not like the SD is "rushing" things like so many people claim.
-------------
This is not a correct statement. The only reason two years has gone by is because of the actions of the SB. The condemnation suit for quick take resulted in a huge delay. They told their district they have plenty of money to purchase the land even if it came back over $600 per acre. After the verdict came in near this number, they said that's too much we can't afford that . . .

D&S,

I just went and looked up this post -- sorry to say that was not me -- somebody stole my moniker for that one. In terms of the others, I still do not see the direct quote from someone on the board. I will concede however, that it is clear they were overly confidant they could afford whatever the jury determined. Again, I do not think they had any clue it would be that high. That is the missing link for me, if saw a direct quote from the SB or MM that would convince me that they indeed lied about it to cover it up. I just need that direct quote to get over the hump.

I know it sounds like I am harping on it a bit, but I am a firm believer that people tend to hear what they want and can, especially in an emotionally charged issue, fail to be objective. That is why a direct quote would be the only thing that gets me past the "they were just stupid" rather than it was with malice.

Kind regards,

By Where in the World is Greg Forrest on May 7, 2008 3:56 PM
It's now approximately 4PM - and Greg hasn't posted in almost 21 and 1/2 hours. Greg - please tell us you haven't given up blogging
------------------------------------------------

PERISH THE THOUGHT!!! :) LOL just got alot of stuff on my plate right now. weather is bad, might as well work long and hard during the crappy weather :)

Watch out though; when I travel for work, I will have lots of time at night to Blogg AWAY!!!!!!

By A Board we CAN be proud of on May 7, 2008 11:47 AM

Did anyone see the following: Board President Elected to National Post

------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very interesting how many critical comments/accusations/opinions are directed towards our board. While our board president is being elected to a national post. If the board is guilty of anything it is the fact that they don't put out press releases about what a great district we have. Maybe they are waiting for the grateful parents to step forward, by the looks of this blog they will be waiting for an eternity. I always thought our supt. made a boo-boo when he started out a speech with the word "entitled", but maybe his speech was dead on.
Think before you write!

By Anonymous on May 7, 2008 4:18 PM
Aurora City will welcome anything into their city limits these days as long as it's not Planned Parenthood or more low income housing or crack houses.
------------------------------------------------------

(BOO HISS). I know D&S was keeping score of creepy stalker as well as snipers against specific bloggers, sub divisions etc. Unfortunatly most have either been directed at me, or tallgrass, or D&S. However, this one looks like a ANON from my team firing off a sniper attack. Too bad it targeted a City and not one of the other teams Anon Snipers LOL.

D&S; do Cities qualify for sniper target status rankings?

To perspective on May 7, 2008 4:23 PM--

I see you caught your GF this time around!

Good to know that other perspective wasn't you. I thought that seemed strange . . . At any rate, you're correct that in issues such as this people interpret things differently. Maybe the $600K reference I heard or read second hand and just thought was a direct quote. So I'll see if I can find some time over the next few days to look into this further. I'll post it if I can find it, otherwise, let's just go with the idea that it wasn't a direct quote, just something I assumed from a combo of information we got at the time. I think that would pass the "reasonable person" test.

Besides, K. Kid's information from his recent post really has a ring of truth to it, even tho the scenario is scary. It's amazing to me that the SB would even consider building a 3rd HS that wasn't on par with the other two currently in the district, what GF previously referred to as "high school lite". Wouldn't THAT have been a surprise to the taxpayers. But I'm sure supporters would have pointed out that the ref stated a HS; it didn't say anything about a pool, auditorium, stadium, etc. That would have been a whole other lawsuit.

By A Board we CAN be proud of on May 7, 2008 11:47 AM
Did anyone see the following: Board President Elected to National Post
==================================

School Board President Mark Metzger was elected to fill an unexpired term for the central region of the National School Board Association Board of Directors. Metzger will be eligible for re-election to the national post when his National School Board term expires in 2009. In addition to serving as head of District 204's board of education, Metzger was elected in November to serve as president of the Illinois Association of School Boards.
This is a national position. I believe we have a great school district with obviously a well respected board. We have a growing school district and with that comes changes. The only thing we as a community have to be ashamed of is the NSFO - sad but true.

..........

I agree

Ye swe can thank Linda Holmes for the Planned Parenthood here - ironic that Planned Parenthood is her campaign donor - boy the positive impact she's had...

To the Anonymous poster at 4:18:

Yes - Aurora has problems - just like many cities. You just provided ample proof of what others have said here - that at least some of the Anti-Eola folks are simply elitist and prejudiced. If nothing else you proved you are a condescending jerk. Quite a few of we terrible Aurorans go to Dist 204 schools, teach your children, build your homes, fix your teeth, work in your hospitals, perform heart surgery and more. Aurora does have issues. The city does have a crime and drug problem. We are working to make it a better place. Please don't defame my home again.

Work has begun on the temporary electric service for use during the construction.

By south side s/maker on May 7, 2008 5:23 PM

By A Board we CAN be proud of on May 7, 2008 11:47 AM

Did anyone see the following: Board President Elected to National Post

------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very interesting how many critical comments/accusations/opinions are directed towards our board. While our board president is being elected to a national post. If the board is guilty of anything it is the fact that they don't put out press releases about what a great district we have. Maybe they are waiting for the grateful parents to step forward, by the looks of this blog they will be waiting for an eternity. I always thought our supt. made a boo-boo when he started out a speech with the word "entitled", but maybe his speech was dead on.
Think before you write!
----------------------------------------------------

This sounds like Jim Jandick. Is this you JJ?

I do think before I write. yes we all know M2 has been on the board since before dirt was invented and he has SB connections at the state board and now it appears that they have tapped him for a vacant unexpired term/open seat on the central region national school board association. You may beleive he can do no wrong and is the cats meow, but I certainly do not. Like I said, I would be more interested in seeing how he fairs when his local spot comes up for election before we annoint him the second comming.

If you think no dissenting opinions are allowed (and if they do surface, then those folks should be negatively "labeled" in some fashion) then you are a gravely misguided individual in my opinion. Blind unquestioning faith is a dangerouus thing JJ. Maybe you should heed your own advice and think before you write (especially the last part of your post) >>> ("I always thought our supt. made a boo-boo when he started out a speech with the word "entitled", but maybe his speech was dead on.)"

To D&S
I'm not surprised your "quoting" the school board without actually having the quotes - something the NSFOC has been guilty of all along.
Another point I have to make is I'm not sure why anyone would say the 3rd HS on par with the other 2 - the other 2 are not on the same par themselves as far as amenities go - Neuqua is far more outlandish than Waubonsie as far as the building and features (not as far as the students). I believe Metea will be much more appropriate as far as scale.

By Greg Forrest on May 7, 2008 5:36 PM
By Anonymous on May 7, 2008 4:18 PM
Aurora City will welcome anything into their city limits these days as long as it's not Planned Parenthood or more low income housing or crack houses.
------------------------------------------------------

(BOO HISS). I know D&S was keeping score of creepy stalker as well as snipers against specific bloggers, sub divisions etc. Unfortunatly most have either been directed at me, or tallgrass, or D&S. However, this one looks like a ANON from my team firing off a sniper attack. Too bad it targeted a City and not one of the other teams Anon Snipers LOL.

D&S; do Cities qualify for sniper target status rankings?
_______________________________________

Sure they do. Inclusion has more to do with the degree of venom or creepiness in a post rather than who/what it's directed at. I wasn't sure if this was venomous enough to qualify. It's definitely snide and below the belt. I'm on the fence. If you think it should be included, fine with me.

Stalkers: 4
Snipers: 10
Smarta$$es: 1

I really wanted to include MH in the stalker category, but he has a moniker. Bummer.

I haven't been shy about my support for the third HS wherever it goes. Nor have I been shy about sharing my belief that WVHS needs to be brought up to par with NVHS (and my surprise that it hasn't). I support the building of a third HS that matches the amenities of the other two. Had the SB tried to build a HS that did not meet the standards of the other two I would be on the side of fighting for three equal schools.

I believe that I voted for a 3rd high school. If it were materially different than the other two I would support the fight to bring it up to snuff as that would be discriminatory. But I did not vote for where it would be placed. Please don't believe that because we state that we voted for a 3rd high school, not a location, that we would have accepted a high school with fewer opportunities for the kids who attend than for ours. But then again isn't that the difference between those of us who support the third high school built on time and the NSFOC? We believe that all the kids should have access to the advantages 204 has to offer and the NSFOC only believes their kids deserve those things (Neighborhood Schools For Our Children, not yours).

Every kid in our district should have equal access to things such as gyms, auditoria, pools, but where the building that houses those things is within the district is immaterial. Note that I do believe that it should be within the district.

This district is great. Both schools are great. I believe all three schools will be great. What isn't great is the way some parents are behaving (GF, I'm not talking about you unless you are now named and one of the people suing me). When I first moved here there had been a rash of bank robberies committed by kids from NVHS. I expected my kids to be going there one day. Talk about gangs at WVHS all you want, I was ready to turn around and leave the house I had started to love because of my view of the school, and by extension the neighborhood. On the heels of that came a series of deaths of Naperville teens on ecstasy. Think what you want about better and lesser schools. Bottom line is that they all have the same problems and ours all have the same advantages.

TO: D&S on May 7, 2008 12:54 PM
Big Picture: Do you remember where you saw this quote from MM?

D&S - I am still looking for the MM quote/inference. Awhile back someone posted a link to another blog that had "infamous quotes" - it was not the NSFOC site. Someone also had posted a long thread of emails from MM. I think I saw it on one of those. There have been so many quotes on so many blogs, in addition to those referenced in the law suits, I have honestly lost track! But, I'll search as I have time. I think the point is is that there are many, many quotes and answers to FAQs pin pointing BB as THE SITE - it being the best option, it being the only option, the confidence they can get it, the sufficient funds, etc. that I don't know now how any reasonable person of intelligence can deny that the SB misled, and ultimately lied, to all parties involved. In addition to what you posted by Crouse, the following came from him in a message sent via the listserve in Jan. 07. In was sent out in reference to a newspaper article on the Macom offering.

"The referendum presented to the community was based on the Brach-Brodie land and boundaries were determined....."

**Now isn't this pretty much admitting that the SB/Admin. promoted the site prior to the referendum? Doesn't the law say that they can only present/propagate factual information to the community if they use flyers, distribution lists, etc. paid for by taxpayers?**

Now here are the last two paragraphs from the same article pertaining to the price of BB:

"Further, when the two parcels of land (reference to BB and Macom) are compared, we believe BB is still the best property for the high school. It is easy for someone to speculate on land value in the newspaper, but ultimately the value has to be proven in court.
Although the land acquisition is taking longer than we would like, we are confident that the district will purchase the BB land for a fair price as the legal process continues to move forward."

So again, once the SB walked away from BB negotiations and put this in the hands of a jury through the trial process, who are they to say what was determined was not "fair"? They did not appeal it trying to prove otherwise - they just washed their hands of it. IMHO, the SB broke the law with its propagation of information to the voting public. Do I think they did it with malicious intent? No. But it is irrelevant, because they did it, and I honestly don't think they ever believed anyone would try to call them on it, short of what has become the benign ritual of chirping at them for 3 min. in front of a microphone. And, while no judge may ultimately order them to purchase the BB property, I truly find it hard to believe that the SB will walk away with paying nothing more than lawyer fees. If they do, it's kind of scary, as I don't know what would stop govt. entities from then doing this to people "at will" until better offers come along. I ultimately don't understand why people are so wiling to let the SB off the hook on this from a financial accountability standpoint until the outcome is known.
I guess apathy and/or blind enthusiasm rules until people are told they have to again open their wallets to "fix the problem" or put their kids on a bus to back fill a school away from the heart of the student population.

Anyway, for good measure, here are few more quotes from that same '07 article:

In reference to BB: "This is the only property that gave us green lights on all of those" (15 criteria), member Curt Bradshaw said. "This is the only option."

"Should the voters approve a tax increase request this spring, he (Metzger) said the district could begin constructing a high school this fall on the acreage it currently owns................the footprint of a third high school is less than 20 acres, he said."

Accountability, anyone?

By Anonymous on May 7, 2008 8:07 PM
To D&S
I'm not surprised your "quoting" the school board without actually having the quotes - something the NSFOC has been guilty of all along.
Another point I have to make is I'm not sure why anyone would say the 3rd HS on par with the other 2 - the other 2 are not on the same par themselves as far as amenities go - Neuqua is far more outlandish than Waubonsie as far as the building and features (not as far as the students). I believe Metea will be much more appropriate as far as scale.
______________________________________

At first I thought this was a sniper attack, but now it sounds more like an "I'm new to this blog and just read the last few entries so I'm not really up to speed" post, so I'll give you a pass.

I'm not saying the quote I was looking for doesn't exist; I'm saying I can't find it on the blogs so far. It could very well exist, but I'm just not willing to rack up a lot of hours or expense trying to locate it through the Sun or Herald archives, which, since it was said two years ago, is where it might be. I would instead just let it go and stop using the quote altogether, which sounds pretty reasonable to me. But it could still turn up, so stay tuned.

And as far as your comment about Metea, it was kind of off topic since this wasn't really what I was talking about, but all the same you have a point. Metea does look like it may be more appropriate in scale, but we'll have to wait and see. We can't judge a book by a mock-up of its cover.

Anonymous on May 7, 2008 8:07 PM

Please do not accuse D&S (or the NSFOC for that matter) for using quotes that do not exist until you do a little looking on your own. I believe everything on the NSFOC website is well documented as far as sources go, whether it be newspaper articles or emails sent via the listserve. There is even one statement that appeared in a publication in 11/06 included on an NSFOC handout. The statement could not be attributed to anyone in particular, and it is duly noted as such. So, whether or not you choose to believe the information is one thing, but there is no conspiracy to put words in people's mouths.

Whatever is presented in trial, should it get that far, is certainly documented and authenticated. There are hundreds of documents of factual evidence quoting the SB/Admin. in hand. Be assured people are not stupid enough to file a lawsuit based on pulling things out of the air. In regard to the $600,000 per acre outcome, while I do not find any direct quote, there is a response from Howard Crouse to a question posed to him by the Daily Herald that I think has been posted on the blogs several times now. It is a legitimate question from the reporter, based on the fact that the district was asked/expected to put 33M in escrow when it attempted Quick Take powers for the BB land. The quote reads: "We believe that we have sufficient funds available through referendum or other sources to pay fair market value of the (BB) property." - then Superintendent Howie Crouse - Daily Herald 11/29/2006 (in an article where a $600,000 per acre outcome was discussed)

**********************************************
Anonymous on May 7, 2008 8:07 PM
To D&S
I'm not surprised your "quoting" the school board without actually having the quotes - something the NSFOC has been guilty of all along.
Another point I have to make is I'm not sure why anyone would say the 3rd HS on par with the other 2 - the other 2 are not on the same par themselves as far as amenities go - Neuqua is far more outlandish than Waubonsie as far as the building and features (not as far as the students). I believe Metea will be much more appropriate as far as scale.

To I am a mom too on May 7, 2008 8:25 PM--

I don't think there are too many folks who would disagree with your post. All the schools in 204 have to be equal in the sense of offering all district kids the same educational experience and opportunities. I may not agree with putting Metea on Eola, but it definitely needs to be on par with the other two existing schools wherever it goes. To do anything less would be discriminatory to the kids districted there and would be failing 204 as a whole.

But this is a separate issue from the one the NSFOC is fighting, so I wholeheartedly disagree when you say ". . . isn't that the difference between those of us who support the third high school built on time and the NSFOC? We believe that all the kids should have access to the advantages 204 has to offer and the NSFOC only believes their kids deserve those things (Neighborhood Schools For Our Children, not yours)." This comment was really uncalled for.

Keeping the schools equal in academic opportunites and extracurriculars has nothing to do with the location, it goes to educational consistency and quality within our district. If the SB announced tomorrow that Metea would not be getting, say, a pool or tennis courts because of budget constraints, this would be totally unacceptable not only to me but I'm sure many members of the NSFOC and all parents throughout the district as well. We're paying taxes for a fully equipped HS, regardless of its location.

Also, I never heard of a "rash" of bank robberies by NV students. There was one that I know of, and that happened right after we moved here about 10 years ago. It involved an adult manager at a TCF bank in Jewel Osco getting two other employees to help him commit a "heist". These two employees were NV students. And parents have been acting badly on both sides of the fence, not just one.

D&S and Perspective
Here is more info on the $600,000/acre issue...........

In the amended NSFOC suit, point #49 it says:
The District had earlier represented publicly - to the Illinois General Assembly and others - that it was willing and able to pay as much as $600,000 per acre for the property

Now, the complaint does not include all of the exhibits of evidence, so I still do not have my hands on a direct quote. However, it would seem counterproductive to make such a claim in a legal complaint if it could not be substantiated. So, maybe this point speaks to the quote from Crouse (which I posted earlier) and/or is tied to the fact that the SB agreed to put 33M in escrow (even though it apparently never did) when it decided to pursue Quick Take. Perhaps there is yet more to it, which there probably is, but we haven't yet been able to retrace back far enough to find it.

Perspective, not sure if this is enough to "get you over the hump", but for now it's the best I can do. I've already spent much more time than I should have trying to root this stuff out! But, I think it is a worthy endeavor.

Perspective and D&S
One last thing re: 600,000 per acre........this time I mean it:)
There is reference to the district's representations as to what it could pay in the amended Brodie suit as well. As you stated before Perspective, this is not one in the same as what the district WANTED to pay or was WILLING to pay, but it at least it seems clear that it made numerous representations that it COULD. If it could not, then it lied to the courts, BB, to the Illinois GA. If it could, then it lied to the tax payers and is using this stance as the motivation to move off of BB and onto Eola. I believe there are ample quotes from MM clearly stating "We can't afford it", in reference to BB. The lies are going one way or the other - the district can't have it both ways. At this point, I guess it is better (?!) that it is the tax payers being lied to because if it goes the other way, there are potentially big time financial consequences with the BB suit. They seem to have been able to make plenty of references to previous case law (difference from the NSFOC suit) to bolster their very lengthy complaint. Anway, here is the info from paragraphs 60&61 of the Brodie suit:

60. The District made representations to the State Legislatures and to the public that it had sufficient funds from the 2006 Referendum to pay up to at least 33M for land acquisition for the remaining 55 acres.

61. The jury's verdict on just compensation was returned in the amount of 31,003,750. Said verdict provided missing material purchase price needed to make the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT specifically enforceable.

Paragraphs 69-72 also touch on the above points.

By Anonymous on May 7, 2008 6:10 PM
Ye swe can thank Linda Holmes for the Planned Parenthood here - ironic that Planned Parenthood is her campaign donor - boy the positive impact she's had...

.....

I am betting the planned parenthood location is out of her district. Linda Holmes really looks out for Linda Holmes and meddles quite a bit outside of her district.

To GF

My last post did not pertain to you gf. It just seems to me that a lot of critical thinkers both in this blog and in the editorial section of our paper of late. Does anyone have an angle on all the positive things going on in the district. Gf it was a pleasure to meet you in person at the board meeting. Your position has been straight forward from the start,one that I may not agree w/ but one that I respect.

D&S, what I wrote was in direct response to what you wrote:

"By D&S on May 7, 2008 5:42 PM
To perspective on May 7, 2008 4:23 PM--

I see you caught your GF this time around!

Good to know that other perspective wasn't you. I thought that seemed strange . . . At any rate, you're correct that in issues such as this people interpret things differently. Maybe the $600K reference I heard or read second hand and just thought was a direct quote. So I'll see if I can find some time over the next few days to look into this further. I'll post it if I can find it, otherwise, let's just go with the idea that it wasn't a direct quote, just something I assumed from a combo of information we got at the time. I think that would pass the "reasonable person" test.

Besides, K. Kid's information from his recent post really has a ring of truth to it, even tho the scenario is scary. It's amazing to me that the SB would even consider building a 3rd HS that wasn't on par with the other two currently in the district, what GF previously referred to as "high school lite". Wouldn't THAT have been a surprise to the taxpayers. But I'm sure supporters would have pointed out that the ref stated a HS; it didn't say anything about a pool, auditorium, stadium, etc. That would have been a whole other lawsuit."

My point was that while we support the school board's decision to build a HS as we voted for them to do, it would be wrong for it to be lacking what the other two have. You're the one who said those of us saying we voted for a 3rd high school would have accepted anything that had four walls, with or without the "extras" we've come to expect. That was wrong, unfair and meant to be hurtful and to quote you "uncalled for". I never joined any group that said I only care about my kids and everyone else can go hang--I left that to the NSFOC! And yes, I do stand by my words! The group is not NSFTC (the children) or NSF204C--words have meaning unless you're the character in Alice in Wonderland who says they
-------------------
mean what you say they mean and nothing else.

"By D&S on May 8, 2008 12:32 AM
To I am a mom too on May 7, 2008 8:25 PM--

I don't think there are too many folks who would disagree with your post. All the schools in 204 have to be equal in the sense of offering all district kids the same educational experience and opportunities. I may not agree with putting Metea on Eola, but it definitely needs to be on par with the other two existing schools wherever it goes. To do anything less would be discriminatory to the kids districted there and would be failing 204 as a whole.

But this is a separate issue from the one the NSFOC is fighting, so I wholeheartedly disagree when you say ". . . isn't that the difference between those of us who support the third high school built on time and the NSFOC? We believe that all the kids should have access to the advantages 204 has to offer and the NSFOC only believes their kids deserve those things (Neighborhood Schools For Our Children, not yours)." This comment was really uncalled for.

Keeping the schools equal in academic opportunites and extracurriculars has nothing to do with the location, it goes to educational consistency and quality within our district. If the SB announced tomorrow that Metea would not be getting, say, a pool or tennis courts because of budget constraints, this would be totally unacceptable not only to me but I'm sure many members of the NSFOC and all parents throughout the district as well. We're paying taxes for a fully equipped HS, regardless of its location.

Also, I never heard of a "rash" of bank robberies by NV students. There was one that I know of, and that happened right after we moved here about 10 years ago. It involved an adult manager at a TCF bank in Jewel Osco getting two other employees to help him commit a "heist". These two employees were NV students. And parents have been acting badly on both sides of the fence, not just one.

To D&S, big picture issues,

Thank you for responding and doing all of the research. I have also researched quite extensively and at this point do not believe that the direct quote we have been discussing from anyone representing the SB exists (D&S, I am in NO way accusing you of manipulating data -- I know we do not agree, but I do not think you would "pull data from mid-air", I think you see things from your side of the fence and I respect that -- same for you big picture issues). Here are my thoughts. .

As I stated before I will concede that the SB made plenty of statements that they were either confident or believed that they could pay fair market price for the BB property -- in itself a bold statement considering the value of the property was in a jury’s hands. I also think that the SB, for the many reasons stated in my previous posts had no idea that the verdict would come in at the $516K per acre price.

As far as the statements of from the complaints (both NSFOC and BB Trusts)IMHO they are basing their claims on the quick take requirement for depositing $33M (55 AcresX$600,000=$33,000,000) into an escrow account to prevent the BB from suffering irreparable harm had the quick take legislation been enacted, building on the site began and then something happened which prevented the deal from closing -- this is nothing more than the SD proving that they had the cash (BTW this could have also been put up in the form of an indemnity bond)to pay BB. While I have stated clearly before this was a huge gamble by the SB, it is not a representation of what they were willing to pay for the land -- it was merely proof to the General Assembly and the court they there was enough cash and they would not declare bankruptcy in the event of a default after the quick take had been enacted. It would not be prudent for the court or the GA to put a land owner at great risk, so they set up a safety net for them through the escrowed money. Also, the amount $33M, was not set by the SB, it was set by the court and GA as a perquisite for the quick take legislation and was based on the BB asking price of $560K per acre plus legal fees, the SB agreed to put the money in escrow IF the quick take was successful. I honestly believe that the SB truly thought that the verdict would come in significantly lower (350K range) than it did and the rest of the $33M would be returned to them.

That is why it was important, at least to me, to hear from an SB representative that they were willing to pay $600K per acre. All of this does go toward intent. I do not think that the SB lied to the voters, taxpayers or the GA and courts because to lie one must have intent. I do not believe that people lie by accident; I think a lie must always have intent. After reviewing the actions (as poorly executed as there were) by the SB and others directly involved on their behalf I believe that the intent had always been to build on the BB land. I think they were completely surprised by the BB 150% increase in price since the initial 25 acre purchase and were confident that the courts would see it the SB’s way too.

I do not think that they broke any laws in this process. I think they made significant errors in judgment and painted themselves into a corner, but it is hard for me, at least, to see where laws were broken.

Sometime things just do not end up the way they were planned.

Just my perspective . . .

Kind regards,

Yes I am still around and looking through the blogs, in case anyone was wondering where I've been since Monday. Met GF again on Monday night at the SB meeting and find even though we disagree on some things we agree on a lot of things that are best for IPSD. What I find sad is that the majority of people in IPSD don't know all the issues that the SB faces and discusses on a regular basis. I say this because of the low turnout at every SB meeting that doesn't discuss the 3rd HS. I personally plan on doing my part and become as knowledgeable on all the issues in IPSD and start to ask questions at the meetings and offline to the SB members. If we want to hold them acoountable and make sure they are doing the "right things" we need to act like it and get involved. What I see instead are Monday Morning Quarterbacks that place blame after things are decided instead of being vocal when the issues are taking place. I challenge everyone to learn about all the issues regarding IPSD and not just the ones that you're personally interested in and effect you. You might learn something in the process.

I have also entertained thoughts of running for SB but feel my professional background (in regards to public schools) needs to be built up before I can make a successful run for IPSD SB. If I were to run I'd sure like to have people like GF on SB because of our open dialog with each other. I feel this has been lacking on our SB for quite some time.

In the meantime I will keep blogging and add to the conversation when I feel I have something valuable to add to the discussion.

Best Regards,
MR

By big picture issues on May 8, 2008 1:26 AM

Regarding your statement,

"They seem to have been able to make plenty of references to previous case law (difference from the NSFOC suit) to bolster their very lengthy complaint."

Both the BB Trusts and the SD have stated that there is no previous case law for this suit (I believe that it was in the SUN when the complaint was first filed -- I'll see if I can get it. I also confirmed this with my friend, who is also my attorney, who is trying an Eminent Domain case in front of Popejoy.

Kind regards,

I'm back, to address this mediation issue.

Mediation is a tool to smooth the progress of litigation. It educates the parties and the court as to what the plaintiffs really want and what they are most likely to get.

I'm sure the SB has limited the issues open to discussion, so that boundaries aren't going to be mediated. I'm also sure that Collins will spin anything said by the SB negotiator or the mediator in a press release, if he is allowed to do so. The press relies on lawyers for a lot of today's "news," so we'll be hearing more before the motion is heard later this month.

At the very least, it could afford NSFOC a graceful exit, and maybe some personal concessions, like new carpet or tennis court nets for WV, or a gold-plated pedestrian bridge. They could also be assauged by some "safety" concessions, like additional soil and traffic testing.

Let's try something different here:

In keeping with the theme, what do you propose to be an acceptable compromise betwwen the two sides?

60. The District made representations to the State Legislatures and to the public that it had sufficient funds from the 2006 Referendum to pay up to at least 33M for land acquisition for the remaining 55 acres.

61. The jury's verdict on just compensation was returned in the amount of 31,003,750. Said verdict provided missing material purchase price needed to make the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT specifically enforceable.

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

The whole BB suit is hard to make sense of, too. If you read the Settlement Agreement (it is in the Brodie Exhibits I) it was specifically contingent on the 2005 referendum (see sections 11 and onward). Had it passed, they agreed to sell the land for $19 million. But it didn't, so they didn't. Now they want to come back and say they were not bound by that agreement then, but the SB *is* bound to it now, but for $31 million instead (plus the $6.4 million they have already paid.)

Talk about trying to have it both ways. Sheesh.

The total BB cost was almost $20 million more than we paid for Eola. As in double. That's a lot of pools and tennis courts.

I ultimately don't understand why people are so wiling to let the SB off the hook on this from a financial accountability standpoint until the outcome is known.
----------------
Here is another way to think about it:

The BB suit(s) will take years to resolve. In the meantime, the costs of land, construction, etc. will go up. Money will be spent to accomodate more students at the current schools. Borrowing costs could be higher. Etc. How much all that will cost is not known. We do know that the BB site doubled in price in two years, the AME site quadrulped in four.

The BB damages are also unknown, but will not be more than the cost to buy the whole site. If so, we will be out the difference between the two sites (since even if forced to buy BB, we would not keep both). That's the worst case, so they will likely be less than that.

So if you believe that the likely costs of waiting for a judgment are higher than the likely damages, the responsible thing to do is build now. The true worst case is you wait and then pay *both* higher costs and damages. That would be incredibly reckless to me.

Fun thought: if we were forced to buy the BB site at the jury price some years from now (not likely), maybe we could sell it at a profit. That would be kind of fun.

Wow, if Linda did mess in the planned parenthood thing, I may yet have to forgive her for messing with MWG

D&S, what I wrote was in direct response to what you wrote:

"By D&S on May 7, 2008 5:42 PM
To perspective on May 7, 2008 4:23 PM--

Besides, K. Kid's information from his recent post really has a ring of truth to it, even tho the scenario is scary. It's amazing to me that the SB would even consider building a 3rd HS that wasn't on par with the other two currently in the district, what GF previously referred to as "high school lite". Wouldn't THAT have been a surprise to the taxpayers. But I'm sure supporters would have pointed out that the ref stated a HS; it didn't say anything about a pool, auditorium, stadium, etc. That would have been a whole other lawsuit."

My point was that while we support the school board's decision to build a HS as we voted for them to do, it would be wrong for it to be lacking what the other two have. You're the one who said those of us saying we voted for a 3rd high school would have accepted anything that had four walls, with or without the "extras" we've come to expect. That was wrong, unfair and meant to be hurtful and to quote you "uncalled for". I never joined any group that said I only care about my kids and everyone else can go hang--I left that to the NSFOC! And yes, I do stand by my words! The group is not NSFTC (the children) or NSF204C--words have meaning unless you're Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, who says
-------------------------
in chapter six:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.

We moved here eight years ago and maybe it seemed like a rash because of the amount of press it was getting right then (maybe the trial?). Still didn't seem like what we expected to find in 204.

"By D&S on May 8, 2008 12:32 AM
To I am a mom too on May 7, 2008 8:25 PM--

I don't think there are too many folks who would disagree with your post. All the schools in 204 have to be equal in the sense of offering all district kids the same educational experience and opportunities. I may not agree with putting Metea on Eola, but it definitely needs to be on par with the other two existing schools wherever it goes. To do anything less would be discriminatory to the kids districted there and would be failing 204 as a whole.

But this is a separate issue from the one the NSFOC is fighting, so I wholeheartedly disagree when you say ". . . isn't that the difference between those of us who support the third high school built on time and the NSFOC? We believe that all the kids should have access to the advantages 204 has to offer and the NSFOC only believes their kids deserve those things (Neighborhood Schools For Our Children, not yours)." This comment was really uncalled for.

Keeping the schools equal in academic opportunites and extracurriculars has nothing to do with the location, it goes to educational consistency and quality within our district. If the SB announced tomorrow that Metea would not be getting, say, a pool or tennis courts because of budget constraints, this would be totally unacceptable not only to me but I'm sure many members of the NSFOC and all parents throughout the district as well. We're paying taxes for a fully equipped HS, regardless of its location.

Also, I never heard of a "rash" of bank robberies by NV students. There was one that I know of, and that happened right after we moved here about 10 years ago. It involved an adult manager at a TCF bank in Jewel Osco getting two other employees to help him commit a "heist". These two employees were NV students. And parents have been acting badly on both sides of the fence, not just one.

To Gf
OK maybe the very last sentence could have been omitted.
Good seeing you at the meeting. My point is there is very little in the way of compliments regarding our school board in this blog or in the media at large. Though I think the Sun does explain both sides of the news making issues in our district very effectively-Thanks Moderator Jim.
Gf as you well know we stand at opposite ends of the spectrum with regards to the role the nsfoc has taken on. I don't agree with you on only this issue, your postings have been informative even when you have chosen to spar with some of the above jack a-s statements. As to blindly following our boards actions, there are very few, myself included that would advocate that. My feeling gf is to research, watch,& listen to what is being said and then draw ones own conclusions. Conclusions that I have drawn are as follows.

The running of a school district is a very large task indeed. The third high school situation is important but just a small part of the responsibilities of what goes on at the district level.

Let me ask you a question gf. What info would you like to have published about our district with regard to the "a/c in the grade schools ". Take a good look at some of the entries in this blog and tell me that when the 50-75 year old group (with no kids in the school district) are going to think of the a/c idea. More importantly how do you think they are going to vote?
Fast forward to a real issue of a referendum in the next 3 years for ongoing operations in our district, with the very vocal minority still getting headline coverage, how will this impact us in the future.

On a different note (a positive one) real estate taxes arrived the other day and as usual the tax rate charged by the district has dropped. This year I have the good fortune of seeing an almost 4% drop in the rate going to the district (2007 rate 4.4875- 2006 rate 4.6620 = 0.17465 Saving which is then divided by the 2007 rate of 4.4875 which equals a savings of 3.9%. Just a footnote the district has gone over this almost exact info at one of the board meetings.

In conclusion to all and especially gf this is a great district with an excellent board and adm. My kids are well educated, my tax rate is going down and up until now my house has enjoyed nice appreciation.
Maybe its time to let the board, administration, and our newspaper man Jim Lynch know of our good fortune. And by the way thank you to all those in our district that are helping send my kids to great schools (ie District tax payers that have no children in schools). Last time I checked it cost approx. $26000/yr for my three kids, rest assured it will take 30 plus years to repay that cost at my current tax rate. But then again my family has no plans to move from the district for a very long time.
JJ

To Big Picture Issues--

Thanks so much for picking up the ball on this. You've added some great info and points to the discussion.

I think the Howie Crouse comment in the Daily Herald, 11/06 "we are confident that the district will purchase the BB land for a fair price as the legal process continues to move forward" is probably the quote I'm thinking about, since this was his reply to questions about the $600K/acre estimation. This was more of a "duck and dodge" response, a political nonanswer, really, because fair market value for them was what they wanted to pay, not what a jury decided was appropriate. But the implication to everyone involved was that the SB was a serious buyer and had the resources to see this through to the end, which we now know was never the case to begin with. And I further think they're trying to "bluff" us again into believing the Brodie lawsuit really poses no threat to the district.

You and I are very like-minded on this issue. I've always believed that many folks who are willing to give the SB a pass without question, aside from those who are so happy about the change in plans that they don't care, are doing so because they haven't kept up with this over the years. They only know bits and pieces as it pertained to their situation, so the contradictions in the words and behavior of the SB over time isn't that apparent to them. I'm not referring to you, Perspective, or others on this blog who are very well voiced in this issue but just happen to have a different opinion. I'm referring to the folks who viciously blast the NSFOC for calling the SB on this and wanting to hold them accountable. It is frustrating to deal with, but like you, I believe it is worth doing.

Something I saw on NSFOC. Note as well, that some people on blogs, and in newspapers are implying that the entire world has changed...particularly in the Beacon News where one blogger said the pipelines were no longer an issue now that the AME land was purchased. Well what kind of a lie is that? -- A bad one to deliberately mislead the taxpayers and public. I would think this person knows that nothing has changed regarding the pipelines that still run through AME just as they did before and after Midwest Gen was in the mix. Anyway - here is full article:

Parent Raises Concern About Pipeline Safety

You can make a difference if you live in San Juan Capistrano, CA. Due to concerns of just one parent, the State of California investigated the Unified Capistrano School District about inaccuracies of a risk-analysis report about a 16-inch high pressure gas pipeline running near the school. In D204, there was no risk analysis report done and our federal, state and local officials seem to not care about 3 high pressure gas lines running directly through the middle of the Eola/AME land planned for the new Metea High School, even though it does not pass Illinois' own Build Smart Program. Do they care about children's safety or not?

At the Eola site, the pipe diameters are 36-inch, 36-inch and 20-inch - totalling over 6 times the diameter of the Capistrano pipeline. These pipelines are also 50, 57 and about 40 years old, respectively, and under pressure 20 times greater than the average car tire. All D204 taxpayers are taking on the risk and cost of liabilities in this matter, whether your kids will attend the school or not. There are another 3 energy pipelines running adjacent to the site near the RR tracks.

While the probability of an incident is low, the consequences of an incident are catastrophic meaning potential loss of the entire high school and many deaths, especially if there were an incident during the school day or during a sporting event. The tragedy would be startling, but the cost could run well over $500 million for the loss of the first school, the building of another school and lawsuit settlements. The age of the pipelines and the planned construction activity may increase the probability of an integrity problem. Just a pin hole in one pipeline may result in a massive explosion of all 3 pipelines.

That is why there is a California law preventing the building of a new school near high pressure gas pipelines. Making the risk adjusted cost significant for the D204 taxpayers. In other words, if you think this is all about creating fear, then look at the potential cost of an incident. California law makers were wise enough to realize that you cannot always trust school districts to make the right decisions in such potentially volatile situations involving pipelines. Why are Illinois officials not being wise?

California had very good examples of reckless behavior by local officials and acted to prevent the problem from spreading in the future. All we hear from our own officials and the remaining supporters of the new high school location, is that there are many other schools near pipelines, power lines, RR tracks, contaminated sites, etc. What kind of argument is that?

Our district deliberately misleads us about the law, dismisses the Illinois Build Smart Program, and does not even test for contaminants typically found at power plant sites, even though the AME land they bought was previously owned by power companies. And our own Illinois EPA never had any involvement in the Eola site testing even though our district told us they did. Just what is going on here?

See the full article as it appears in the Capistrano Dispatch on April 24, 2008 By Jonathan Volzke here.

See the previous NSFOC article on our school board's misleading comments about gas pipeline law here.

See the potential safety and incident risks from pipelines here.

See National Pipeline Mapping System map of the pipelines running through the Eola site here.

See a VIDEO showing the power and force of an actual gas pipeline explosion of just one 36-inch diameter line here.

See The Pipeline Safety Trust website that promotes fuel transportation safety here.

https://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=131:parent-raises-concern-about-pipeline-safety&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=108

Most people posting here seem to have some "facts" a little wrong, change what they say occassionally, or are swayed a little as they learn more. A lot of you even seem to feel that you were misled into voting for the referendum by statements you first heard only years AFTER you voted.

By the standards you all apply here, that makes you all a bunch of liars and I wonder why you bother communicating with each other at all.

I hope we get to hear what was said in mediation after next weeks mediation. I have to wonder what all the bloggers who said this was not about boundaries will be saying if the mediation is made public. The founders of the NSFOC said they formed their little club because of the boundaries in 2 different public statements before the school board at the boundaries meeting.

I would actually sympathize with thier cause if they would just show some honesty. Quit misleading people in order to secure donations. Quit twisting facts to scare people. Just be honest and people will respect that. More people might even support the cause. I am insulted when reading their website. I feel like they are trying to say I am stupid for believing their BS.

I look forward to hearing the truth about their motivations.

metea either way...i am betting the nsfoc will settle for staying at NVHS and to h*ll with the so called members/supporters/donors.

Hi JJ and MR

It was great seeing you guys at the SB meeting.

JJ, I agree with you on the macro, we do have a great district educational opportunity for all. This is a big draw to our area (Aurora/Naperville) and helps keep our property values in good shape (or a least not dropping like a stone as it is in other areas accross the country). I guess you are right, most of the time you only year the negative and very little of the positive. How many times at work do people come up and say, WOW great job on xyz etc. etc. Most of the time, you just get handed more problems/complaints/work as payment for your successful efforts! LOL.

Yeah, I worry about the A/C thing. Before I even had kids, I voted for almost every referendum on technology, capital projects etc. etc. I did this because I knew I wanted to keep the district where I lived in the top Ed providers in the metro area. I did this for two reasons. One it is vitally important for our next generation (and is the right thing to do) and #2 (selfish motive) it keeps my property values appreciating at a higher rate than other areas on the metro area because my district is desireable and folks want to move there. The power of leveraging works wonderfully or hideously in both directions.

I hope folks consider that when they review future referendums. I also hope folks that no longer (or never had) have kids in school realize this as well.

To MR: we may not agree on the 3rd HS thing; but you have my vote if/when you run for SB!!! Just remember, Technology and AC are both worthy upcoming projects to at least entertain for D204!!! :)

Best
GF

TO: Incredulous on May 8, 2008 11:14 AM

Maybe I'm wrong since I have not read the first Brodie complaint cover to cover, but my general understanding with the first settlement agreement was that it was more of an agreement to protect the SB, ie. they were not bound to buy the land if the 05 referendum did not pass. So yes, when the referendum didn't pass, that agreement was effectively "settled". BB was no longer bound to the sale price and the SB was no longer bound to try and come up with some other way to pay for it. I think that the major difference between that and the latter agreement, connected to the 06 referendum, is the SB decision to walk away from negotiations in condemnation and let it go to a jury. At that point, neither party was driving the bus so to speak in terms of setting the price - and the SB represented that it would pay the "fair market price" set by the jury. Then it didn't do that, even though the referendum passed and they had the money in hand.
It certainly could have all been avoided if the 05 referendum had passed, but when it didn't and the district decided to forge ahead with pursuit of this land, in my opinion, the BB people now have every right to protect their business interests....after all, they were sued by the SB, which got the whole ugly ball rolling.

On paper, right now, yes I agree that the land cost alone for Eola is cheaper than BB. But, as for the total cost of Eola, I think that remains to be seen. Wetlands mitigation costs have not been verified/fully disclosed, BB litigation settlement is an unknown, judgment may come down that further land testing is needed (unknown), and transporation costs/savings to the district are in debate, at a minimum. So, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
I respect your take/your opinion on this matter but, I find it personally hard to throw praise at the SB for purportedly saving us so much money when it hasn't borne out yet that it actually has. The BB property was NEVER the cheapest available, yet the SB pursued it and said it was the best place for the school, based on their stated criteria. That says to me that cost savings on land was not the main objective. Now it seems to be the only objective -that and getting the building open by Aug.09 at any cost (another questionalbe decision in my opinion). All of this is especially hard to accept given that the land they decided to buy was ironically land they had previously rejected for reasons not at all related to cost.
-------------------
The whole BB suit is hard to make sense of, too. If you read the Settlement Agreement (it is in the Brodie Exhibits I) it was specifically contingent on the 2005 referendum (see sections 11 and onward). Had it passed, they agreed to sell the land for $19 million. But it didn't, so they didn't. Now they want to come back and say they were not bound by that agreement then, but the SB *is* bound to it now, but for $31 million instead (plus the $6.4 million they have already paid.)

Talk about trying to have it both ways. Sheesh.

The total BB cost was almost $20 million more than we paid for Eola. As in double. That's a lot of pools and tennis courts.

By A Taxpaying Lawyer on May 8, 2008 10:08 AM
I'm back, to address this mediation issue.

By Metea Either Way on May 8, 2008 10:21 AM
Let's try something different here:

In keeping with the theme, what do you propose to be an acceptable compromise betwwen the two sides?
-----------------------------------------------------

Thats a tough one. I'm usually pretty good at negotiating and finding at least some common ground and trying to find win/win situations (or at least avoid lose/lose situations)

Unfortunately, I dont see much wiggle room for mediation here. I hope I am wrong; but I just dont see it.

I think this thing is going to go to trial.

ARCH, is Baaaaack (or someone with a similiar amount of knowledge as the original ARCH.

I just wanted to point out 2 quick things.

1. IF the worst ever happened; then both D204 and the pipeline company would get sued (multiple times by multiple plaintifs). D204 would most likely not shoulder the entire liability burden. We would however be very open to lawsuit liability due to knowlingly putting a school inside a PIR blast radius when it could have been avoided (not grandfathered).

2. Depending on the severity of the "incident" I think your 500M in costs might be low. D204 would have to build a new school (150M to 200M depending on how far in future) + own a portion of the liability burden. The pipe company would most likely just own its portion of the suit liability $'s. In 1999 the Bellingham pipleine explosion (16 inch pipe) blew. Three kids died (two 10 year olds and an 18 year old). A HORRIBLE TRAGEDY. One of the suits settled at 75 million. The other I think was around 25 million. 100 mill+ So again, depending on severity, in addition to the horrific personal tradegies; the financial liability in a very bad incident would bankrupt D204. The state would have to step in or something. There would be a mad dash out of D204 (if there were any buyers to be had) with astitute folks knowing it might take a few years for all the suits to come home to roost.

-------------------------------------------
By anonymous on May 8, 2008 12:52 PM
Something I saw on NSFOC. Note as well, that some people on blogs, and in newspapers are implying that the entire world has changed...particularly in the Beacon News where one blogger said the pipelines were no longer an issue now that the AME land was purchased. Well what kind of a lie is that? -- A bad one to deliberately mislead the taxpayers and public. I would think this person knows that nothing has changed regarding the pipelines that still run through AME just as they did before and after Midwest Gen was in the mix. Anyway - here is full article:

Parent Raises Concern About Pipeline Safety

You can make a difference if you live in San Juan Capistrano, CA. Due to concerns of just one parent, the State of California investigated the Unified Capistrano School District about inaccuracies of a risk-analysis report about a 16-inch high pressure gas pipeline running near the school. In D204, there was no risk analysis report done and our federal, state and local officials seem to not care about 3 high pressure gas lines running directly through the middle of the Eola/AME land planned for the new Metea High School, even though it does not pass Illinois' own Build Smart Program. Do they care about children's safety or not?

At the Eola site, the pipe diameters are 36-inch, 36-inch and 20-inch - totalling over 6 times the diameter of the Capistrano pipeline. These pipelines are also 50, 57 and about 40 years old, respectively, and under pressure 20 times greater than the average car tire. All D204 taxpayers are taking on the risk and cost of liabilities in this matter, whether your kids will attend the school or not. There are another 3 energy pipelines running adjacent to the site near the RR tracks.

While the probability of an incident is low, the consequences of an incident are catastrophic meaning potential loss of the entire high school and many deaths, especially if there were an incident during the school day or during a sporting event. The tragedy would be startling, but the cost could run well over $500 million for the loss of the first school, the building of another school and lawsuit settlements. The age of the pipelines and the planned construction activity may increase the probability of an integrity problem. Just a pin hole in one pipeline may result in a massive explosion of all 3 pipelines.

That is why there is a California law preventing the building of a new school near high pressure gas pipelines. Making the risk adjusted cost significant for the D204 taxpayers. In other words, if you think this is all about creating fear, then look at the potential cost of an incident. California law makers were wise enough to realize that you cannot always trust school districts to make the right decisions in such potentially volatile situations involving pipelines. Why are Illinois officials not being wise?

California had very good examples of reckless behavior by local officials and acted to prevent the problem from spreading in the future. All we hear from our own officials and the remaining supporters of the new high school location, is that there are many other schools near pipelines, power lines, RR tracks, contaminated sites, etc. What kind of argument is that?

Our district deliberately misleads us about the law, dismisses the Illinois Build Smart Program, and does not even test for contaminants typically found at power plant sites, even though the AME land they bought was previously owned by power companies. And our own Illinois EPA never had any involvement in the Eola site testing even though our district told us they did. Just what is going on here?

See the full article as it appears in the Capistrano Dispatch on April 24, 2008 By Jonathan Volzke here.

See the previous NSFOC article on our school board's misleading comments about gas pipeline law here.

See the potential safety and incident risks from pipelines here.

See National Pipeline Mapping System map of the pipelines running through the Eola site here.

See a VIDEO showing the power and force of an actual gas pipeline explosion of just one 36-inch diameter line here.

See The Pipeline Safety Trust website that promotes fuel transportation safety here.

https://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=131:parent-raises-concern-about-pipeline-safety&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=108

By Incredulous on May 8, 2008 11:35 AM

Incredulous - Your points are well taken. At this point it not realistic, practical or feasible to sit back and "do nothing" until the BB situation plays out in court. I am not advocating that. But, I am saying that I don't think the SB did a good job at all in evaluating or disclosing all of the options or the risks (financial or otherwise) to the public before moving forward with the Eola/Molitor purchase - and I think they need to be held more accountable for this as public servants, volunteers or not. Individual people and groups like the NSFOC have had to work way to hard "to get the bottom of things". Even people who are pro-Eola supporters. I honestly think if more disclosure and discussion was promoted by or demanded from the SB, and if more people were actually following this and thinking about more than where their children are going to go to school, they might not be so willing to give the SB the "free pass" to be doing what they are doing now. The SB pretty much summarily dismissed the environmental concerns (fence that baby off), though they themselves pointed them out when they rejected Eola two years ago. They have also pretty much summarily dismissed any sizable judgment against them in the BB suits (no precedent). I guess some people are willing to give them more credit but, at this point, very little of what they have said has played out as they assured, estimated, planned, guessed, hoped, whatever. So, in my opinion, they have a huge credibility issue. I think instead of running out and buying the first piece of land they could "easily" get their hands on in obvious panic mode, if they would have had an honest disscussion about things - the "pros and cons" about where we are today, regardless of how we got here, they may have been surprised to find that people might have supported something other than a mad dash to build a 3000 seat high school that, even by their own numbers, will be under utilized. (please note I said "under utilized" and I did not say "not needed").

Much time has passed since the referendum passed - the BB land is out of reach, they could not deliver on what they promoted, everything is more expensive, the enrollment projections did not pan out. What is the harm in being honest and engaging the public (again) to evaluate reality before hitting panic mode and taking all of these riduculous risks? I just cannot look past the poor decisions, evaluations, and handling and say "Oh well, good thing we can start building now."

As for your fun thought, maybe it would be better to be told we have to buy the BB land. Don't know where we'd get the money (and therein lies the problem if we lose!) but at least we'd have something to turn around and sell someday....that goes over better with me than paying millions in damages and walking away with nothing....which is unfortunately more likely to be the outcome. Only time will tell.

Cheers!
----------------
Here is another way to think about it:

The BB suit(s) will take years to resolve. In the meantime, the costs of land, construction, etc. will go up. Money will be spent to accomodate more students at the current schools. Borrowing costs could be higher. Etc. How much all that will cost is not known. We do know that the BB site doubled in price in two years, the AME site quadrulped in four.

The BB damages are also unknown, but will not be more than the cost to buy the whole site. If so, we will be out the difference between the two sites (since even if forced to buy BB, we would not keep both). That's the worst case, so they will likely be less than that.

So if you believe that the likely costs of waiting for a judgment are higher than the likely damages, the responsible thing to do is build now. The true worst case is you wait and then pay *both* higher costs and damages. That would be incredibly reckless to me.

Fun thought: if we were forced to buy the BB site at the jury price some years from now (not likely), maybe we could sell it at a profit. That would be kind of fun.

TO: perspective on May 8, 2008 9:52 AM

Perspective,
I do recall your post about your chat with your lawyer friend - thanks for putting out a sounding board on that one for us. I also recall the statements in The Sun by the district lawyers, though I can't quote them without going back to check. I think they definitely said that there was no precedent by which the court would require the SB to actually buy the property. They probably also said something about the non-precedent for substantial damages as well - must have since the SB thinks this is a complete non-issue. At any rate, maybe I didn't use the exact correct words to express what I was trying to say............
In looking over the Brodie complaint I simply noted that there were many instances in which they would make a point for their case and then include a reference to what I assume to be a previously tried case that somehow supports that point, ie. Smith vs. City ABC. Perhaps it was incorrect to call that case law, but I thought that's what it was. I did not, and probably honestly will not, have the time to dealve into researching what all of those case references were about, but again, I figured that they had to be there for a reason, even if they are not EXACT scenarios of case law for what has transpired here. Check it out when you have a moment...maybe that is better than me trying to explain. Let me know what you think.

Best Regards
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regarding your statement,

"They seem to have been able to make plenty of references to previous case law (difference from the NSFOC suit) to bolster their very lengthy complaint."

Both the BB Trusts and the SD have stated that there is no previous case law for this suit (I believe that it was in the SUN when the complaint was first filed -- I'll see if I can get it. I also confirmed this with my friend, who is also my attorney, who is trying an Eminent Domain case in front of Popejoy.

Kind regards,

To Greg Forrest,

No, the post By anonymous on May 8, 2008 12:52 PM was not me, though it is partial info of a case I brought up in another forum.

I put my name to my posts and really don't prefer this blog space due to the delay in the time between submitting a post and it actually getting posted to be seen. It's difficult to have back and forth conversations.

(Cheap plug alert)

There are 2 real-time message boards that I am aware of that deal with D204 topics, one is found here -- http://ipsd204.proboards76.com/ the other -- http://www.ip204.proboards92.com

I basically live on the first link. Many people frequent both and others find themselves gravitating more towards one or the other depending on their outlook on things. Both are filled w/ parents from around the district who obviously like to be actively involved in its future.

School Board President Mark Metzger was elected to fill an unexpired term for the central region of the National School Board Association Board of Directors.

A Great example of the Peter Principle in action

To: "I'm A Mom too"

Hi Mom! Happy Mothers Day!!

just wanted to comment on two portions of your below post.

1. I rarely try to speak for anyone other than myself, but I am almost postive the entire district would agree with you on ensuring the new HS has similiiar amenities as the other two. I have also stated this several times on several strands. Location is immaterial to this necessity. The reason I blogged on it (way back in the day, and called it a "High School Lite" situation) was when a few Pro Eola supporters were pondering building on just the 49 acres without the 37 acres from midwestgen and cutting the tennis courts, practice facilities, soccer fields etc, etc,). This is unacceptable in my opinion and I stated that no matter where the 3rd HS goes it needs all the goodies. Luckily, this is not a concern at present. However, if something does happen in the future that could jeopardize similiar amenities (moving location, or BB damages eating into the ref funds to complete all the goodies post opening in 2010-2011 at current site), something will need to be done (additional ref needed to raise necessary funds to ensure all three schools are on par). This last part concerns me, because if either one happens (given all the anamosity currently in the air) I feel another ref for more money to finish the project (no matter what location) would be a tall order in the current environment (I agree with D&S on this and it may even bleed over to other future refs like A/C, allthough being the eternal optimist that I am; I hope not!!)).

2. In regards to my named plaintif status; It remains unchanged at present. I do not have a direct line to all the leaders of the NSFOC and the named plaintifs (unfortunatly, no Bat phone for GF). I will either have to send an email (like everyone else) or ask/request at some future meeting. However, if they needed my help in that regard, I am sure they would have contacted me (I have all my contact info logged into the NSFOC member sign in section. They have it if they want to contact me for anything). Also, I am pretty sure some of the leaders of the NSFOC read the blogs from time to time.

Have a good one Mom!
Best
GF

---------------------------------------------------
By I am a mom too on May 7, 2008 8:25 PM

"Please don't believe that because we state that we voted for a 3rd high school, not a location, that we would have accepted a high school with fewer opportunities for the kids who attend than for ours. But then again isn't that the difference between those of us who support the third high school built on time and the NSFOC? We believe that all the kids should have access to the advantages 204 has to offer and the NSFOC only believes their kids deserve those things (Neighborhood Schools For Our Children, not yours).

This district is great. Both schools are great. I believe all three schools will be great. What isn't great is the way some parents are behaving (GF, I'm not talking about you unless you are now named and one of the people suing me).

Hello Arch!!

Thanks for the links. The "Real time" sounds very intriguing and would definately be a good benefit. I will check it out. problem is I can only handle one Blog at a time (limited amount of time to allocate to the blogging fun)

I always wanted to ask you if you have ever looked up/researched the Bellingham Pipeline explosion. Curious to get your take on it. If I remember correctly, a school was across the street (outside the PIR?) and the pipe blew close to a Park (Park built/annexed/set aside long ago when pipes were not a concern?) I remember our U.S. Senator (Sen. Murry) was all worked up over it and was hammering at state law makers as well as the pipeline company in terms of criminal charges and monetary fines. Not sure if a state law banning new public schools/buildings being built inside PIR's was ever passed in the state of Washington? (I left in 2001). I remember them talking about it, just not sure where it went or if anything actually came out of it.

Best
GF

----------------------------------------------------
By Arch on May 8, 2008 11:42 PM
To Greg Forrest,

No, the post By anonymous on May 8, 2008 12:52 PM was not me, though it is partial info of a case I brought up in another forum.

I put my name to my posts and really don't prefer this blog space due to the delay in the time between submitting a post and it actually getting posted to be seen. It's difficult to have back and forth conversations.

(Cheap plug alert)

There are 2 real-time message boards that I am aware of that deal with D204 topics, one is found here -- http://ipsd204.proboards76.com/ the other -- http://www.ip204.proboards92.com

I basically live on the first link. Many people frequent both and others find themselves gravitating more towards one or the other depending on their outlook on things. Both are filled w/ parents from around the district who obviously like to be actively involved in its future.

By SaveEarth on May 8, 2008 12:05 PM
By Incredulous on May 6, 2008 4:24 PM
I already responded to the lowball calculations (and am still awaiting even one real price that backs them up. The "add ons" are on the NSFOC site but they are so far fetched you can't take them seriously. For example:
1. Damages of $22 million. (Out of thin air. No damage values are specified.)
2. Wetland mitigation of $1.2 million. (The actual estimate is $500K for five total acres.)
3. Expedite costs of $14 million. (The real estimate is $5.3 million and will be incurred no matter where the school goes).
4. Environmental costs of $5 million. (Actually zero. No remediation is required).
5. Transportation costs of $31 million. (The vendor's estimate is cost neutral. Some say we will actually *save* that much. That's probably wrong, too.)
6. Liability costs of $5 million (My favorite. Out of thin air to account for the highly likely bus accidents and gas line explosions in the future.)

And then they neglect to add back the revenue from the sale of the 25 acres we can now sell at BB (minimum $6.4 million, would be as high as $14 million at the jury price).

Net out all of the silliness and exaggeration and the "all in" cost per acre is more like $290K in the base case and $200K if the BB plot sells for top dollar.

Sure, some of these costs will be higher than the estimates. Some may be lower. Same would be true wherever you buy. But the only way the Eola cost is higher than BB is if the bus vendor low bid their own contract by over $30 million. I find that hard to believe.
-------------------
These are the high end numbers (worst case scenario) you commented on:
1. As I understand it, the low estimate is midway pt. between $5M already budgeted for and $17M for Brodie claims for damages. Thats 11M. The worst case is assuming that Brach Estate - who has not filed a complaint yet - files similar claim as Brodie did, so double the 11M to 22M. I think it seems reasonable for a worst case. And nothing is added for the supposed $40M related to the PREIT pulling out at BB.
2. Wetlands - who knows..I dont believe anyone's estimates here. Its a very complicated area of environmental. WHen it was close to 9 acres, the D204 estimate was $900k, so if 5 acres, then I can see where the $500k comes from, but I think that is has little basis, just like the NSFOC number...on the low side ($700k). However the worst case in this area could be twice the amount or more...so I would think D204's worst case would be at lest $1M and NSFOC $1.4M...these seem reasonable from layman perspective. I again would not bet the ranch on any numbers.
3. $5.3 or half the original estimate by D204 seems wrong as a low estimate. There have been more not less delays. And Eola has to put in roads, has much larger wetlands problem, may have to do some additional testing, needs utilities (because it is getting annexed), etc. That would surely take more time. I would think the cost goes up. The only reason that some epedite costs may be spent at BB is because the district did not close the deal at BB in a timely manner. So the entire expedite is wasted money due to Eola, not BB - but one could argue that issue forever. The longer the delays, yes, more gets spent in both places. However, due to the revelations on enrollment and high cost of materials, waiting a year seems to be prudent - not fiscally irresponsible - but thats just my view. No good arguments have been shown to continue on this reckless path. If anything, D204 would save much higher expedite costs at both sites, and worst case, risk some inflation exposure of roughly the same number. But, interest on bonds is a sure offset. And inflation could come under control in another year.
4. It wont be zero. And why is the district not testing AME - previously owned by a power plant? I would bet they will have to test, will find some things to remediate...so not zero. The low estimate from NSFOC I think was $1M...the high worst case is $5m. Seems reasonable worst case. That's not much difference in the environmental cleanup game.
5. The vendor's estimate of cost neutral - this is the biggest concern - how can anyone rely on such a number from the very company that benefits from more buses moving more students? I do not get it. Sure the vendor is going to say no problem..no matter the question. This is so ludicrous, that it shows how D204 operates. Everyone sees right through the ploy, but the district continues to promote this as a valid way to estimate costs? Anyway, as I understand it, the low figure was about $20M using Bruce Glawe's own presentation for the BB site (9% savings per year - about $1M per year times say 20 years = $20m; 40 years = $40M but who knows what the world will be in 40 years). The high number I thought was a 13% increase in bus miles based on the actual D204 school assignments given the new location/boundary assignment. That number comes from D204 data. Not sure how one can argue its neutral or - as Curt Bradshaw is now saying - an 11% savings for the district via Eola location - in an area with like 18% of D204 population when well over 60% live in the south.
6. $5M for liability risk - worst case? I dont know how that gets arrived at, but to me the bus safety risk is a higher probability than the pipeline explosion. The problem is (see recent NSFOC article) that while a low probability, the gas pipeline explosion consequences are so costly that even a tiny probability gets multiplied by a huge consequence $ number. With the bus transport its easier...just one accident of serious nature (deaths) over a 20 year period would have a $20M price tag. The safety risk probability is higher with more traffic (parents, buses, student drivers and 4x the trains) and more bus miles with Eola vs BB. That figure can be arrived at with many small accidents....especialy when Fry Babies are involved.

Using the $6.4 M as a cost at BB and a benefit at Eola is an ongoing ploy. Like the NSFOC analysis says " its incremental analysis" so looking forward only from whenever those numbers were used. Let's switch it around. Why not use $19M just paid for AME land as a benefit to BB site? Surely the district can get back what they need for BB by selling AME land for what they paid. OK you win. So add another $19M discount to BB. Using your approach and the NSFOC numbers would be adjusted as follows:

NSFOC estimate of BB savings vs Eola site...
Current base case $25M - $50M better than Eola:
Add 25 acres buy BB (cost) -6M
Apply BB sale to Eola (beni) -6M
Apply $19M Eola sale at BB +19M
----------------------------------
New est. BB savings vs Eola $32M - ??? +$7M

BB savings estimate is $0.387M - ??? per acre!

OK. Done deal.
-----
Transferring from dead thread...but seems to fit here now.
From SaveEarth. I launched before I could get my name on it...so it showed up as Anonymous.

To: By Yikes, the Metzger plague is spreading on May 9, 2008 12:14 AM
School Board President Mark Metzger was elected to fill an unexpired term for the central region of the National School Board Association Board of Directors.

A Great example of the Peter Principle in action
_______________________________________________________

So in your reference to the Peter Principle that means that MM has wildly succeeded in his previous position on the SB. Definition - A person is successful in their position and competent until they get promoted to a level of incompetency.

Regardless of how you feel about MM and what he has done good or bad for IPSD this is a person who has served and dedicated 17+ years on the IPSD SB.

This is not only a wonderful honor for MM but for all of us in IPSD. Keep your personal feelings to yourself and realize what a great accomplishment it is for IPSD and the positive light it shines on D204. I really wish some of you parents would realize it isn't all about you and your kids it's about all the families and kids in D204.

I'm not the biggest fan of MM either but I give him credit for his 17+ years on the IPSD SB and realize his accomplishments benefit all of us in IPSD.

To MR on May 8, 2008 9:47 AM

I have also entertained thoughts of running for SB but feel my professional background (in regards to public schools) needs to be built up before I can make a successful run for IPSD SB. If I were to run I'd sure like to have people like GF on SB because of our open dialog with each other. I feel this has been lacking on our SB for quite some time.
___________________________________

Go, MR! To have both you and GF on the ballot would be a great combination. Talk about the yin and yang of school board politics! You'll have to work on GF, tho. He seems reluctant to make the jump at this time. Good to hear you're considering a run!

To Greg Forrest--

Yes, that pipeline accident was a gasoline leak (16 inch) that went into a creek/waterway and subsequently ignited. 2 kids were burnt (2nd and 3rd degree burns over 80-90% of their bodies) and a 3rd individual, an 18 yr old male died from asphyxiation from breathing in burning hydrocarbon fumes and passed out into the water. If the lack of oxygen from the fumes didn't get him, passing out and drowning in the water did.

Sad incident. It continues to boggle my mind that people cast safety to the side and have no respect for the amount of life-taking potential these things have. No one expects an accident. That's why they are not called 'On purposes'. The sad reality is that they do happen and you can not predict when or where it does. Probability calculations sound great until you're that 1 in whatever chance.

Personally, I think it borders on child endangerment to locate a school in a location that will cause them to sustain certain death and severe injury in the event of an accident. It's not like no one doesn't know there are pipelines down there and it's not like no one doesn't know what they carry or what the 'danger zone' is. This is all known, yet 6 out of 7 voted AYE to build it there after an Administration recommendation to locate a school that close to those things.

Luckily, it's all on video and printed record of who gave their word, nod and wink of approval to this project and it's also on record that they were informed multiple times by myself and others about the potential dangers and certainty of loss of life in the event of an accident. Hopefully no family in the future will need that information, but if they do there's plenty of documentation as to who owns the culpability and exactly who is to blame.

Believe me, I would like nothing more than to be wrong about this, but I don't find it worth risking anyone's life to test that theory one way or the other.

As I said at the School Board meeting, this is a long term decision, think of the long term consequences... not the short-term benefits.

I'll sit back now and let the personal ridiculing from others begin.

By I am a mom too on May 8, 2008 11:48 AM

D&S, what I wrote was in direct response to what you wrote:

"By D&S on May 7, 2008 5:42 PM
To perspective on May 7, 2008 4:23 PM--

Besides, K. Kid's information from his recent post really has a ring of truth to it, even tho the scenario is scary. It's amazing to me that the SB would even consider building a 3rd HS that wasn't on par with the other two currently in the district, what GF previously referred to as "high school lite". Wouldn't THAT have been a surprise to the taxpayers. But I'm sure supporters would have pointed out that the ref stated a HS; it didn't say anything about a pool, auditorium, stadium, etc. That would have been a whole other lawsuit."

My point was that while we support the school board's decision to build a HS as we voted for them to do, it would be wrong for it to be lacking what the other two have. You're the one who said those of us saying we voted for a 3rd high school would have accepted anything that had four walls, with or without the "extras" we've come to expect. That was wrong, unfair and meant to be hurtful and to quote you "uncalled for". I never joined any group that said I only care about my kids and everyone else can go hang--I left that to the NSFOC! And yes, I do stand by my words! The group is not NSFTC (the children) or NSF204C--words have meaning unless you're Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, who says in chapter six:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.

We moved here eight years ago and maybe it seemed like a rash because of the amount of press it was getting right then (maybe the trial?). Still didn't seem like what we expected to find in 204.
_________________________________________

The comment I made "But I'm sure supporters would have pointed out that the ref stated a HS; it didn't say anything about a pool, auditorium, stadium, etc." was a sarcastic reference to the pro-Eola supporters favorite refrain "The referendum did not state a location." If you want to strictly abide by the referendum language, it didn't state that the 3rd HS would be on par with the previous 2. Voters just assumed it would be. If the SB did, in fact, have different Metea plans drawn omitting amenities like a pool, stadium, etc., depending on the cost of the BB land, as K. Kid's post said may have happened, then what could we have done to stop them if they had decided to do this? You can see that adhering to the letter of the ref language cuts both ways.

After submitting my previous post to you, however, it did occur to me that you didn't pick up on my comment as sarcasm, in which case it would appear that I lured you in with this comment. This was not my intent. In any case, I does appear we are in agreement on this issue. A Metea sans all the extras that we have come to expect in 204 schools would not be acceptable to us, and I hope the majority of 204 taxpayers as well, NSFOC member or not. I would protest this happening to Metea at the Eola location just as strongly as I would if Metea were at BB site. Like I said, this involves the bigger issue of maintaining the quality and integrity of all our schools in the district, which affects all taxpayers, just not the ones whose kids will be attending Metea.

And I'm not going to debate the semantics of NSFOC vs. NSFTC (the children) or NSF204C. The NSFOC can only speak for themselves, not the entire district. And I'm sure if they had tried, there would have been an uproar from people all over protesting that they did not feel the SB lied to them so they do not want them or their children represented in the lawsuit. The problem with this is obvious and no-win, so let's just drop it.

I prefer the words of Horton in Dr. Suess' "Horton Hatches the Egg":

I meant what I said and I said what I meant.
(An elephant's faithful, 100 percent.)

D&S

P.S. I think the bank heist at Jewel Osco was not what ANYONE expected to find in 204, which is why it made such good press.

Arch how dare you interject logic and foresight into this blog.......highly inappropriate.

THINK BEFORE YOU BLOG!

TO: perspective on May 8, 2008 9:46 AM
.....I do not think that the SB lied to the voters, taxpayers or the GA and courts because to lie one must have intent. I do not believe that people lie by accident; I think a lie must always have intent. After reviewing the actions (as poorly executed as there were) by the SB and others directly involved on their behalf I believe that the intent had always been to build on the BB land....

Perspective - I concede that we may never agree on the points of whether or not the SB actually broke any laws or if they lied in their endeavors to get a third high school built. That's ok. I certainly can see and respect your views. In response to your attached post and the issue of lying - maybe being misleading or dishonest are the more appropriate and accurate terms, as they do not have the malicious connotations that lying does - I just wanted to clarify my view of the situation. While I do not think the initial intent was to lie, mislead, etc., in the end, because of deliberate choices and decisions further into the process (not accidents), this is what the SB ultimately did. The crux of this issue for me begins with their first clearly identified intent: to pass the referendum.

After failure of the 05 referendum the SB chose to consult with a company for advice on how to "flip the vote" in a very short time period. They paid people to help them attain this goal. After learning from the consultant as to what they needed to do to succeed, they did it: they acknowledged that people wanted more information, specifically where the school was going to be and what the boundaries were going to be, before the referendum vote. They figured out those details, and presented them to the voters - a million times over. Though I understand it is an arguable point, I personally believe that is the ultimate reason the referendum passed, based on my amateur interpretation of the demographics of the vote outcome, and the simple fact that the SB did what it was "told" it needed to do by the voters - tell them what they were getting and where, otherwise it would be "no" again. They did, and their actions got the desired result.

Their second intent, which was to build on BB, was totally and completely tied to their first intent of passing the referendum. Without it, the referendum doesn't pass. Though the SB did not control everything, (ie the initial price offered by BB, the ultimate jury outcome) they did pretty much control the process surrounding it (condemnation, going to trial for a price, quick take attempt). Though poorly handled at almost every turn, I believe they were trying to make good on this intent, and and were not plotting to build elsewhere all along. However, when it came down to it, building on BB was abandoned. Whatever the reasons, they could not/would not/did not follow through on their stated intent.

It is from this point where things start to go off the track for me philosophically in regard to intent as it concerns the SB. 1st intent - pass the referendum. This remains. 2nd intent - build on BB. This falls through. Because the premise of BB underlied the first intent of passing the referendum, when it did not work out, I believe the deliberate (as you said, not accidental) actions and decisions of the SB regarding BB and Eola rendered this situation as one of a misleading or dishonest nature. The SB chose to abandon BB, but then did not return to the tenet that allowed them to build anything, anywhere - the fact that they told people the location and the boundaries before the referendum vote, as they knew they were "required" to do if they wanted it to pass. They deliberately chose not to carry on in the spirit in which they knew this referendum was proposed and passed, and consequently did not remain true to their research, their stated criteria, their process - in essence, their word. Once they couldn't deliver on BB, they did not go back to the voters. They forged ahead, focusing only on the idea of having a 3rd high school, disregarding how and why it became authorized. Again, I will give them the benefit of the doubt that the intent did not start out this way, but it is how they chose to end it.

I guess this is a very long winded way to say I support what Greg Forrest has been saying, as well as the NSFOC. If you knowingly say one thing (BB) to get what you want (a passed referendum) and when what you said (BB) doesn't work out, IF you believe in the integrity of the underlying process you set forth, promoted and asked others to believe in to get what you want (a passed referendum) and if you are honest, when you can't get what you said you would (BB), you are obligated to go back to your initial process. Otherwise you've made a mockery of it and the people who supported your intentions (the voters) - and you ultimately have misled them, though you did not intially plan to do so. We have the common expression "He is a man of his word". Just as you said, things do not always go as planned. In everyday life they rarely do. But it's how intentions are handled in light of this reality that allows some people to be bestowed with such words, while others never are.

Thanks for continually being open to other opinions.........Best regards......

To: MR

You wrote:
"This is not only a wonderful honor for MM but for all of us in IPSD. Keep your personal feelings to yourself and realize what a great accomplishment it is for IPSD and the positive light it shines on D204. I really wish some of you parents would realize it isn't all about you and your kids it's about all the families and kids in D204."

I think blogging is all about expressing your personal feelings. If you don't want to read somebody's personal feelings, I think you should refrain from reading Pot Luck. If MM were a corporate executive he would be fired by now. His term on the school board has been filled with poor decision making. Do we need to go over the examples? Freshman centers, pursuing BB, quick take, and the current decision to plow ahead at all costs. So, while it may be nice that somebody gave him an award, we don't have to pretend that he deserves it. And, I am thinking about all of the families in D204 when I say, I hope he doesn't leave this district in a financial quagmire.

To: By D&S on May 9, 2008 12:26 PM
To MR on May 8, 2008 9:47 AM

I have also entertained thoughts of running for SB but feel my professional background (in regards to public schools) needs to be built up before I can make a successful run for IPSD SB. If I were to run I'd sure like to have people like GF on SB because of our open dialog with each other. I feel this has been lacking on our SB for quite some time.
___________________________________

Go, MR! To have both you and GF on the ballot would be a great combination. Talk about the yin and yang of school board politics! You'll have to work on GF, tho. He seems reluctant to make the jump at this time. Good to hear you're considering a run!
___________________________________________

Thanks D&S!!

Likewise, even though you and I don't always agree it appreciate your encouragement. I don't know how ready I am but I'm trying to drag GF along with me.

Thanks again and have a great Mother's Day!!!

MR

D&S, I am a pro 3rd HS wherever person, and I do believe that is what I voted for.

That having been said, I am probably a bit oversensitive and took the comment personally because I have often said I voted for a HS not a site.

I have a question, do we have the environmental testing results from BB and are there rr tracks, pipelines or high tension wires near that property? I thought I read that the environmental testing was not done there bcz it was farmland same as Eola.

To perspective on May 8, 2008 9:46 AM--

Excellent post, Perspective, especially the statement:

"While I have stated clearly before this was a huge gamble by the SB, it is not a representation of what they were willing to pay for the land -- it was merely proof to the General Assembly and the court they there was enough cash and they would not declare bankruptcy in the event of a default after the quick take had been enacted. It would not be prudent for the court or the GA to put a land owner at great risk, so they set up a safety net for them through the escrowed money."

From my viewpoint, the SB's willingness to put up $33 million = the ability to pay up to $33 million, whether they wanted to or not. That combined with the MM quote that insisted the SD could afford to pay the "worst case scenario" for BB and the Howie nonquote in 06 set the stage for the assumption that they could have bought BB but chose not to when things didn't go their way. So it appears the SB was gambling, and the only thing that saved them from disaster was the quick take not going through as planned. There must be some truth in the adage "God looks after fools and children." Maybe they weren't directly lying, but they sure were shining us on.

I can see where a $600/acre quote would go towards intent. But as I've already acknowleged, Howie didn't directly say this. He implied it through his political nonanswer to the question; we assumed the rest. MM's quote also implied an ability to pay any amount for the BB land, but he didn't commit to a dollar figure either. Damn politicians. I'll try to take some time this weekend to look further into this, but I have a feeling what bpi and I have already found is as good as it gets.

Thanks for your time on this!

D&S

To perspective on May 8, 2008 9:46 AM--

Excellent post, Perspective, especially the statement:

"While I have stated clearly before this was a huge gamble by the SB, it is not a representation of what they were willing to pay for the land -- it was merely proof to the General Assembly and the court they there was enough cash and they would not declare bankruptcy in the event of a default after the quick take had been enacted. It would not be prudent for the court or the GA to put a land owner at great risk, so they set up a safety net for them through the escrowed money."

From my viewpoint, the SB's willingness to put up $33 million = the ability to pay up to $33 million, whether they wanted to or not. That combined with the MM quote that insisted the SD could afford to pay the "worst case scenario" for BB and the Howie nonquote in 06 set the stage for the assumption that they could have bought BB but chose not to when things didn't go their way. So it appears the SB was gambling, and the only thing that saved them from disaster was the quick take not going through as planned. There must be some truth in the adage "God looks after fools and children." Maybe they weren't directly lying, but they sure were shining us on.

I can see where a $600/acre quote would go towards intent. But as I've already acknowleged, Howie didn't directly say this. He implied it through his political nonanswer to the question; we assumed the rest. MM's quote also implied an ability to pay any amount for the BB land, but he didn't commit to a dollar figure either. Damn politicians. I'll try to take some time this weekend to look further into this, but I have a feeling what bpi and I have already found is as good as it gets.

Thanks for your time on this!

D&S

To perspective on May 8, 2008 9:46 AM--

Excellent post, Perspective, especially the statement:

"While I have stated clearly before this was a huge gamble by the SB, it is not a representation of what they were willing to pay for the land -- it was merely proof to the General Assembly and the court they there was enough cash and they would not declare bankruptcy in the event of a default after the quick take had been enacted. It would not be prudent for the court or the GA to put a land owner at great risk, so they set up a safety net for them through the escrowed money."

From my viewpoint, the SB's willingness to put up $33 million = the ability to pay up to $33 million, whether they wanted to or not. That combined with the MM quote that insisted the SD could afford to pay the "worst case scenario" for BB and the Howie nonquote in 06 set the stage for the assumption that they could have bought BB but chose not to when things didn't go their way. So it appears the SB was gambling, and the only thing that saved them from disaster was the quick take not going through as planned. There must be some truth in the adage "God looks after fools and children." Maybe they weren't directly lying, but they sure were shining us on.

I can see where a $600/acre quote would go towards intent. But as I've already acknowleged, Howie didn't directly say this. He implied it through his political nonanswer to the question; we assumed the rest. MM's quote also implied an ability to pay any amount for the BB land, but he didn't commit to a dollar figure either. Damn politicians. I'll try to take some time this weekend to look further into this, but I have a feeling what bpi and I have already found is as good as it gets.

Thanks for your time on this!

D&S

By Arch on May 9, 2008 1:41 PM

"I'll sit back now and let the personal ridiculing from others begin."

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

Buck up, Arch...the tone and tenor of the posters on the Sun blog has improved drastically over the past week. You can see for yourself that an honest give-and-take has been going on this week. I'm pretty proud of that.

I've followed all your posts and am quite impressed with the quality of the research you've done. A lot of it is still over my head. I've read "players" analysis as posted on the blue and green boards and feel s/he's done a nice job of mathematically stating what I've felt all along -- that while there is risk with the pipelines, it's so small (qualify that with IMHO!) that it's IMHO not worth worrying about. I know you and I part ways on this one.

I would like to add one risk formula to the discussion of the pipelines. It comes from a guy by the name of Peter Sandman who states that Risk = Hazard + Outrage. Note that Outrage carries a higher weight than Hazard. When Hazard is high and Outrage is low, people perceive risk to be low. Swimming pools are a good example of this. Lots of people drown in pools each year, but no one runs around campaigning that we should fill in every pool and save 400 lives a year. High Hazard, low Outrage -- relatively high Risk. Now picture your kid being fried like a Colonel Sanders breast from a gas pipeline explosion. VERY high Outrage. But the hazard is extremely low. These things simply do not blow up on a regular basis. In fact, more people will die drowning in high school swimming pools this year than have died from gas pipeline explosions in the previous 10 years. I know this, I looked it up using some of the sources you've quoted on prior posts ;-)

Anyway, you have educated me about PIR's and that MV as it's currently sited sits within the PIR of the pipelines. I just don't believe it's a risk worth worrying about.

Lastly, in my mind there is a huge difference between the pipeline discussion and whether or not the members of the school board are competent. You and I probably are much closer in agreement on the latter.

Good to see you poke your head here on the Sun blogs again!

Re: GF
Thats a tough one. I'm usually pretty good at negotiating and finding at least some common ground and trying to find win/win situations (or at least avoid lose/lose situations)

Unfortunately, I dont see much wiggle room for mediation here. I hope I am wrong; but I just dont see it.

I think this thing is going to go to trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg what a shame that you feel this will continue to a trial. I wonder what good will come to the district at large when trial info is on the front page of our Sun Paper. All that much harder for the district taxpayers to focus on the real important info regarding the district. Well at least our board president had a short article regarding his nomination in the Sun today.
Greg since you seem active in nsfoc maybe you could bring up the benefits of mediation. From your insightful articles about the idea of "win-win" it may be time to bring that positive attitude to this groups attention. I mean this in only a positive "move forward" light.
JJ

To JE on May 8, 2008 3:37 PM--

Re your comment:

"Most people posting here seem to have some "facts" a little wrong, change what they say occassionally, or are swayed a little as they learn more."

Yes, that's what happens during the learning process. Otherwise, we'd all sound like you.

To Big Picture issues:

THANK YOU!! you just synopised excactly where I have been coming from and why I have been so extremely frustrated and dismayed regarding this whole process. To maintain integrity in the process, once BB fell through (the loc the SB felt was necessary to divuldge in order to get ref passed) THEN AT THAT POINT, you confirm ref vote an alternate site. SInce this does not look it will ever happen, the process will be forever tainted and cast a cloud over the SB in terms of integrity for some time to come (from my perspective anyway).

Best GF
-----------------------------------------------------
By big picture issues on May 9, 2008 2:27 PM
TO: perspective on May 8, 2008 9:46 AM
.....I do not think that the SB lied to the voters, taxpayers or the GA and courts because to lie one must have intent. I do not believe that people lie by accident; I think a lie must always have intent. After reviewing the actions (as poorly executed as there were) by the SB and others directly involved on their behalf I believe that the intent had always been to build on the BB land....

Perspective - I concede that we may never agree on the points of whether or not the SB actually broke any laws or if they lied in their endeavors to get a third high school built. That's ok. I certainly can see and respect your views. In response to your attached post and the issue of lying - maybe being misleading or dishonest are the more appropriate and accurate terms, as they do not have the malicious connotations that lying does - I just wanted to clarify my view of the situation. While I do not think the initial intent was to lie, mislead, etc., in the end, because of deliberate choices and decisions further into the process (not accidents), this is what the SB ultimately did. The crux of this issue for me begins with their first clearly identified intent: to pass the referendum.

After failure of the 05 referendum the SB chose to consult with a company for advice on how to "flip the vote" in a very short time period. They paid people to help them attain this goal. After learning from the consultant as to what they needed to do to succeed, they did it: they acknowledged that people wanted more information, specifically where the school was going to be and what the boundaries were going to be, before the referendum vote. They figured out those details, and presented them to the voters - a million times over. Though I understand it is an arguable point, I personally believe that is the ultimate reason the referendum passed, based on my amateur interpretation of the demographics of the vote outcome, and the simple fact that the SB did what it was "told" it needed to do by the voters - tell them what they were getting and where, otherwise it would be "no" again. They did, and their actions got the desired result.

Their second intent, which was to build on BB, was totally and completely tied to their first intent of passing the referendum. Without it, the referendum doesn't pass. Though the SB did not control everything, (ie the initial price offered by BB, the ultimate jury outcome) they did pretty much control the process surrounding it (condemnation, going to trial for a price, quick take attempt). Though poorly handled at almost every turn, I believe they were trying to make good on this intent, and and were not plotting to build elsewhere all along. However, when it came down to it, building on BB was abandoned. Whatever the reasons, they could not/would not/did not follow through on their stated intent.

It is from this point where things start to go off the track for me philosophically in regard to intent as it concerns the SB. 1st intent - pass the referendum. This remains. 2nd intent - build on BB. This falls through. Because the premise of BB underlied the first intent of passing the referendum, when it did not work out, I believe the deliberate (as you said, not accidental) actions and decisions of the SB regarding BB and Eola rendered this situation as one of a misleading or dishonest nature. The SB chose to abandon BB, but then did not return to the tenet that allowed them to build anything, anywhere - the fact that they told people the location and the boundaries before the referendum vote, as they knew they were "required" to do if they wanted it to pass. They deliberately chose not to carry on in the spirit in which they knew this referendum was proposed and passed, and consequently did not remain true to their research, their stated criteria, their process - in essence, their word. Once they couldn't deliver on BB, they did not go back to the voters. They forged ahead, focusing only on the idea of having a 3rd high school, disregarding how and why it became authorized. Again, I will give them the benefit of the doubt that the intent did not start out this way, but it is how they chose to end it.

I guess this is a very long winded way to say I support what Greg Forrest has been saying, as well as the NSFOC. If you knowingly say one thing (BB) to get what you want (a passed referendum) and when what you said (BB) doesn't work out, IF you believe in the integrity of the underlying process you set forth, promoted and asked others to believe in to get what you want (a passed referendum) and if you are honest, when you can't get what you said you would (BB), you are obligated to go back to your initial process. Otherwise you've made a mockery of it and the people who supported your intentions (the voters) - and you ultimately have misled them, though you did not intially plan to do so. We have the common expression "He is a man of his word". Just as you said, things do not always go as planned. In everyday life they rarely do. But it's how intentions are handled in light of this reality that allows some people to be bestowed with such words, while others never are.

Thanks for continually being open to other opinions.........Best regards......

The odds say any one person will never win the lottery, but there are always winners and they certainly don't know ahead of time.

Hi JJ

I agree with you. A lawsuit and actual trial should always be a very last resort in any "conflict". Airing our "dirty laundry" so publicly does not instill a mad rush of new neighbors wanting to move to our district for the excellent educational opportunities. Unfortunately; this is not the only lawsuit on the radar screen (there are 2 others I believe).

That said, I was just replying to another poster; that was asking an open question to the group; what are the chances of mediation and what might the 2 sides we willing to negotiate on? Unfortunately, this one has me stumped.

On the plus side; I did see a couple good mediation ideas on the pro board that might have some legs: Possible proposal: NSFOC drops the suit and allow HS to go on EOla site unchallenged with exising boundaries intact as selected by the SB in Feb (ie no meddling in boundary powers/slippery slope) in exchange for xyz. Even if it was offered up; I think the board is too arrogant to go for it. The xyz would bust too many egos and would not be very pallatable for certain members of the board. I will try and ensure, the idea is at least given some consideration.

JJ, for mediation to work; both sides must be willing to give up something and move closer to the middle. Problem in this case is twofold: The HS location is a zero sum game given the percieved need for speed and the fact that SB is now fully committed to EOla (purchased land and pre construction work has commenced).

Also and more importantly, both sides have to have a certain level of FEAR that they might end up losing (and hence losing it all). My perception of the SB based on historical risk adjusted analysises they have made; is that they feel there is no risk that they will lose any of the current lawsuits. THerefore if there is no way they can lose, why give up ANYTHING in mediation? SB has no incentive to actively participate in mediation. If one party is just going through the motions and is not interested in negotiating in good faith, it cannot be successful.

Sorry, I wish I was more positive on the outlook for mediation.

Best
GF

------------------------------------------------------
By south side s/maker on May 9, 2008 8:37 PM
Re: GF
Thats a tough one. I'm usually pretty good at negotiating and finding at least some common ground and trying to find win/win situations (or at least avoid lose/lose situations)

Unfortunately, I dont see much wiggle room for mediation here. I hope I am wrong; but I just dont see it.

I think this thing is going to go to trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg what a shame that you feel this will continue to a trial. I wonder what good will come to the district at large when trial info is on the front page of our Sun Paper. All that much harder for the district taxpayers to focus on the real important info regarding the district. Well at least our board president had a short article regarding his nomination in the Sun today.
Greg since you seem active in nsfoc maybe you could bring up the benefits of mediation. From your insightful articles about the idea of "win-win" it may be time to bring that positive attitude to this groups attention. I mean this in only a positive "move forward" light.
JJ

By Greg Forrest on May 10, 2008 12:10 PM

Re: your response to JJ:

"On the plus side; I did see a couple good mediation ideas on the pro board that might have some legs: Possible proposal: NSFOC drops the suit and allow HS to go on EOla site unchallenged with exising boundaries intact as selected by the SB in Feb (ie no meddling in boundary powers/slippery slope) in exchange for xyz."

What would xyz be?

Like you, I would be very surprised if mediation produced any sort of resolution. The school board is too arrogant to acknowlege they might lose any of the lawsuits, just like they were too arrogant to consider they might not get the BB land for the price they wanted. After the surprise BB jury verdict, most reasonable people would realize that when decisions are being made by a third party, whether it be a judge or jury, one can never predict the outcome with 100% certainty. Not so our SB. It appears they are incapable of learning from past mistakes. That's why I fear we may be in for the worst of it when these cases go to trial.

The grading of the eola site has started this morning, there are 7 heavy graders working today. Also a lot of old power eqipment was removed from the MG lot over the last week, i would say that lot is also going to get "cleaned" and sold. Can't stop progress !!

Greg Forrest
D+S

I see I am going to have to step in again and keep you two clowns honest! ;-)

You both predict mediation will fail. You then both go on to say that the SBs inability to look past their own position and consider other options will be the cause of that failure.

Come on guys....get real! I can't believe that you are both so blinded by your support of NSFOC and hatred of the SB that you cannot see (or will not admit) that any failure will at LEAST be created equally by BOTH sides.

Greg, you say the school board believes they will NOT lose and so will not negotiate. But can't you also see that NSFOC has nothing TO lose, so they also have no incentive to negotiate? Since they have no other goal but to build on BB or stop the construction altogether, why would they stop at anything short of achieving that? They have put up the money to pay their attorney this far. They must have money in the bank for some amount of expected future costs. And they can chose to drop the suit any time the costs get too great. They have no future liability whatsoever, regardless of the outcome, so why not keep going until they get what they want or run out of money?

Whereas the schoolboard has quite a bit to lose if the case goes against them. Namely, opening the school on time and not spending millions on wasted construction activity plus unwinding the Eola site. If there is some sort of compromise to be had, isnt it the SB who has most of the incentive to reach it? Regardless of how strongly they believe in their own case? (And by compromise I DO NOT, by definition, include building on BB or stopping the project. That is not compromise -- it is capitulation.)

So lets think about what a compromise might look like.

You both predict the schoolboard would never accept 'xyz' and blame them for not negotiating in good faith. D+S calls them 'arrogant.' But neither of you even begin to suggest what 'xyz' would entail. I believe you do not address 'xyz' because there IS no fall-back position for NSFOC. They are a single issue constituency, and there is only one right answer for them (ok...two if you include 'dont build at all'). Nothing else will do.

GF, 99.something percent of the time I am completely with Civics. I am almost there, but have we heard what the demands of the NSFOC are that could be negotiated? If their only goal is to move the school to BB, then I assume that there is no room for negotiation as it will be "my way or the highway". If they named plaintiffs would be willing to have the school built at Eola, but just their kids grandfathered into NVHS would that work? At most, over time that is probably no more than 30 kids, probably doable, with a caveat that it is not precedent setting and will not be repeated for others like the supreme court did in Bush v. Gore. That might satisfy those plaintiffs and their lawyer, would that be aceptable to others? I will get on the phone to every board member today if that will make this go away.

To Civics,

You are exactly correct when you say there is no fall back position for the nsfoc. With that thought alone I can see that mediation will be a tough road. But if there is going to be a win win situation is there really any alternatives. Ideas anyone?

Civics, I also beleive mediation will fail because if the NSFOC owners and the 8 named plaintiffs are, for example, allowed to stay at NVHS, then it sets a precidence in the district to sue over any thing that doesn't go your way. The district needs to avoid this slippery slope. I hope the district doesn't go for the short term fix and allow a few frustrated homeowners to stay at NVHS, possibly move others out of NVHS to make room, and basically take out a full page - front page ad advertising that if little Jimmy doesn't make the varsity team, just sue and the district will let join the team. The district needs to make sure that the district operates in the best interests of the residents of the district as a whole and sometimes that means some people have to make sacrifices.

To Civics on May 11, 2008 1:16 AM--

Hey, Civ, relax! GF and I never professed to "hating" the SB. It's just that neither of us has too much faith in them getting our district through the current gauntlet of lawsuits unscathed. If the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, we should all be concerned.

I don't see what mediation would accomplish not only because I don't see the SB as having any reason to mediate, but because I don't have a clue what "xyz" could be for the NSFOC. Which was why I was asking GF.

Building on BB isn't going to happen. Selecting out the NSFOC leaders or members and giving them a special exemption from being redistricted to WV isn't going to happen, even tho I've seen it proposed a lot on this blog (really, people, think about it before you insist again that this is what the NSFOC wants. How could the SB possibly do this without inviting more lawsuits?) Redistricting TG and WE back to NV isn't going to happen, for reasons that GF has previously mentioned, plus there simply isn't room for them at NV. Giving the NSFOC their tax money back? Again, not going to happen without setting a precedent that would invite more litigation. So what could possibly be given to the NSFOC through mediation that would satisfy them?

And you have to admit, Civics, that the behavior of our SB, right or wrong, is arrogant. The school board may indeed have quite a bit to lose if the case goes against them, but they don't even acknowlege this possibility. That's arrogance. Like they didn't acknowlege this possbility during the eminent domain trial, and losing that one put us in this mess to begin with. The SB would only have an incentive to negotiate if they felt there was a chance they would lose, and they always deny this will happen. So I think it's unrealistic to have unwavering faith in the judgement of our SB.

What's more, I don't even care about the NSFOC suit; that's small potatoes compared to the Brodie suit. Unlike the NSFOC suit, the Brodie suit is asking for money damages, lots of it. And the SB in characteristic style is insisting there's no way they will lose so not to worry. Since the SB was so out-lawyered by BB the first time around, you'd think they'd at least consider the possibility that this could happen again. Wouldn't you?

Anyway, enough of this. It's Mother's Day, so we're all going to pile into the little clown car and go out to lunch.

Cheers!
D&S

I went over to the boards Arch suggested and I can see exactly why he hangs there. Fewer people to disagree with him. He may talk about Alka being a yes man lackey, but those boards seem to be Arch love fests.

All of that having been said, his suggestion about the vents or valves on the gas lines seems to have nothing but upsides (Not an engineer and I don't understand it, other than it seems like a cutoff valve sort of like a GFI outlet in a kitchen or bathroom but for gas). Why isn't this being done as a matter of course? I may disagree with him on almost everything, but on this point he is right. It seems like a no brainer. Why aren't we reading about this in our papers as an option for avoiding that 1999 explosion thing?

Hi Everyone!
Happy mothers day! ok, have brunch food coma going...

Civ, you are exactly right. It is a zero sum game. SB is already building on Eola (they will not budge there unless a court orders them to stop) and goal of NSFOC is do not build on Eola since that is not what they originaly told the constituents and/or build at BB because that is what you did tell constituents.

In order for mediation to be sucessful, someone will have to dramatically alter their stated goals. In my opinion it will not be the SB for the reasons I previously stated. Again, you are correct that NSFOC has less to lose and therefore could be less willing to comprimise. However, NSFOC is is a much better position to dramatically alter their stated goals and to perhaps settle for far less than their original goal. Whether they are willing to do this remains to be seen.

I am leery of laying out the "xyz" settlement option as I beleive JJ and a few others would stoke out and label it vindictive. Also, it was not my idea; just something I saw on another blog that really intrigued me and played into some old discussions that happened on earlier sun blogs regarding board composition and makeup. Also, there are a couple of board members that would totally dismiss this idea (especially since they feel they cannot lose the case anyway, so why give up anything at this point?)

OK, here it is (I am paraphrasing): something to the effect of: NSFOC drops the suit and allows HS to be built on Eola unchallenged along with board keeping control of boundries (Feb boundry remains unchanged) In exchange for a full public disclosure of ALL private Executive meeting minute notes and film in addition to all 7 board members stepping down and representives from each of the middle schools take over board duties in the interim. Then in APril 2009 if any current boardmembers that were removed in the settlement want to run for a seat on the new board in April 2009; they are free to do so. Benefits of this would be full public disclosure of what has transpired over the last few years and how we got to this point and how we can try to avoid it in the future. Also, the interim board would be geographically diverse (not all stacked in the north and central with little/no deep south representation).

Somehow I do not see several members of the current board being too keen on this settlement idea even though it does not in anyway affect the 3rd HS location, timing, or boundaries. Civ, do you honestly feel M2 would be man enough to step up for this and have to re-run for his spot in APril 2009? Also, not sure if NSFOC would be too keen on this either, but its definately something that intrigued me in any case.

OK, let the flaming posts debunking this idea commence. Just remember, I did not dream this up (I was not smart enough to see this as a possibility), so if some of you begin to personally attack me (instead of attacking the idea itself), be ready for equal treatment in return. Sorry, just fair warning: the blogs have become much more civil, and I dont want to be the cause for the return of full venom by posting this potential mediation idea.

By I am a mom too on May 11, 2008 10:54 AM
GF, 99.something percent of the time I am completely with Civics. I am almost there, but have we heard what the demands of the NSFOC are that could be negotiated? If their only goal is to move the school to BB, then I assume that there is no room for negotiation as it will be "my way or the highway". If they named plaintiffs would be willing to have the school built at Eola, but just their kids grandfathered into NVHS would that work? At most, over time that is probably no more than 30 kids, probably doable, with a caveat that it is not precedent setting and will not be repeated for others like the supreme court did in Bush v. Gore. That might satisfy those plaintiffs and their lawyer, would that be aceptable to others? I will get on the phone to every board member today if that will make this go away.
----------------------------------------------------

Hi Mom Happy Mothers day

I wish it were that simple. I do not agree with any attempt to meddle in the SB's boundry powers. While it would be good for me personally (I would much rather go to NV less than a mile from my house than WV or MV which are farther away, a settlement like that would not be good for the long term health of the district.)

Any slippage of SB boundry authority is a dangerous slipperly slope and would be disastrous long term to/for all future boards that follow. Talk about leaving massive baggage and problems for future leaders... yikes.

From a more objective perspective; I could probably live with a full accounting, full disclosure of all exec/private meetings to get a full picture of what has transpired and for use to avoid this mess in the future. We won't learn from our mistakes unless they are documented and are brought out in the open. Also, we might get more info on why Aug 2009 is so damn important. Given the big miss in enrollment actuals vs original projections (I think we peek at 9000 kids and the two schools can hold at capacity 8400) I fail to see why the need for speed is trumping every other concern including no time for appraisal etc. etc. I get the feeling something deeper is behind the next layer of the onion.

As you know I believe ELA was violated/laws broken (that is up for debate and would be the crux of the suit at this point IMO). However, to get the above info in a settlement, it might be worth it to overlook the illegal act for the greater good (ie we will be plugging money into EOla like drunken sailors on shore leave at a bar...starting in a few weeks around mid/late june with foundation work.) So, assuming we are sucessful in stopping this, we could end up with alot of money flushed down the tubes depending on the timing of the court order. If court rules in NSFOC's favor in the early summer, it might not be the end of the world. However, if a successful ruling comes in September.... lots of money has just been lost forever (or at least for many years depending on appeals)

If we are still dinging around with this in early/mid July, my internal struggles get more and more intense. For now, I can sleep just fine with my convictions regarding this issue. Going forward; for me, alot will depend on what I hear the SB's demeanor is like during mediation proceedings next week. If they continue in what I believe to be their existing arrogant, uncomprimising, posture; then maybe we do deserve everything that follows. We would reap the whirlwind from our leaders decisons and we would only have ourselves to blame as we elected them in the first place as so many bloggers have pointed out (including Civics) in the recent past. We have to live with the downside as well as the upside of their decisions since we elected them and as Civics points out; this is not a democracy; it is a republic and our elected leaders are making the decisions on our behalf (except when they need money... that is the the only time the SB is required to engage their constituents except when their terms comes up for election that is)

Hi Mom

VERY GOOD QUESTION. I am not sure. The only thing I can think of is that it would take time and may throw off the schedule some and/or might be a cost thing? I look at it kinda like insurance (auto/life/disability etc. etc). We all pay for the coverage/safety it provides; hoping we never have to use it. This is just one of many questions I have a hard time rationalizing through any reasonable means of logic.

PS, the 1999 Bellingham pipeline explosion is a very rare thing, but there are many other examples Arch has pointed out. I agree with K Kid, that the risk is very very low and pools and cars are far more dangerous in terms of overall deaths. HOWEVER, in K Kids risk assessment; there is one big factor that nobody has really discussed. Since the school is in the PIR, an event (while extremely low probabality) could produce unimaginable downside. Its kinda like an asteroid hitting the earth. probablity is low, but its all but a guarentee a biggie will hit someday (maybe next week or maybe in 500 years). Nothing really to worry about EXCEPT FOR the worst case results. Which is what insurance is for. If a really big one does hit, the consequences are so dire that it demands we invest a few resources before hand. This is why NASA has the earth crossing project to find and track all the extincion level event projectiles as well as initial projects on options we could execute on to remove the threat if one is ever found.

if the pipe does burst during school or a school event; we are talking almost 4000 people. If Kinder Morgan (Pipe company) can install the valves (paid for by D204 since we chose to build on top of the potential risk) to help mitigate the risk since it seems we must build in the blast zone, WHY DONT WE DO IT?

I know we cant wrap up everybody in a bubble and protect everyone from everything; but the worst case scenario here is pretty grim, and if we can mitigate some of the potential downside, I want to know why we arent bucking up as a district to get this accomplished?

--------------------------------------------------
By I am a mom too on May 11, 2008 3:30 PM
I went over to the boards Arch suggested and I can see exactly why he hangs there. Fewer people to disagree with him. He may talk about Alka being a yes man lackey, but those boards seem to be Arch love fests.

All of that having been said, his suggestion about the vents or valves on the gas lines seems to have nothing but upsides (Not an engineer and I don't understand it, other than it seems like a cutoff valve sort of like a GFI outlet in a kitchen or bathroom but for gas). Why isn't this being done as a matter of course? I may disagree with him on almost everything, but on this point he is right. It seems like a no brainer. Why aren't we reading about this in our papers as an option for avoiding that 1999 explosion thing?

GF

Don't know who you cribbed that one from, but I really like it.

I dont think it is realistic to think that the entire SB will step down. But there is more than a germ of an idea in a 'full and free' disclosure as well as some sort of accelerated voting for new members. Then add to that a new composition for the board, some sort of regional representation rather than 'at large' (both ideas you mention or have mentioned in the past) and this starts to get pretty interesting.

I gonna noodle on this for next little while and see if i cant add something to it.
-----------------------
D+S

OK...'hate' was little strong. And as for arrogance -- I find that really difficult to judge without seeing the action in person and interacting with the board members. Add to that the way people on this blog toss around that particular word, and I have pretty visceral reaction to it.

I find it hard to judge arrogance based simply on the actions and outcomes of the SB to date. I can just as easily come up with other adjectives - like cautious, coached (as in by legal council), confident (or trying to appear so), etc. And some that are a bit more -- oh -- say -- unflattering. Like INcautious, badly-advised, unimaginative, embittered.

And now I will admit a dirty little secret. I have never been to an SB meeting. Thought of going a week or so ago when MR and GF were meeting up, but it simply slipped my mind that night. Maybe if I watch them interact amongst themselves and will the public, I might have other thoughts. But for now, I simply react to it as just another form of name-calling.

D+S

By the way....LOL on piling into the 'clown car'!!!

happy mothers day!

To I am a mom too on May 9, 2008 6:58 PM

D&S, I am a pro 3rd HS wherever person, and I do believe that is what I voted for.

That having been said, I am probably a bit oversensitive and took the comment personally because I have often said I voted for a HS not a site.

I have a question, do we have the environmental testing results from BB and are there rr tracks, pipelines or high tension wires near that property? I thought I read that the environmental testing was not done there bcz it was farmland same as Eola.
______________________________________

There was Phase I soil testing done on the BB site during the eminent domain proceedings. These came back with no contaminants, so no further testing was warranted. I haven't heard of any pipelines on or near the BB site like those at Eola; if there were, I'm sure we would know about it by now. There are the RR tracks, the same line that runs past the Eola site, but they are much further west of the BB site and do not run right next to the school like at Eola. And as for high tension wires, I don't think there are any at BB, but I'll make a point of looking for this tomorrow as I'll be going past on my way to The Growing Place on Montgomery (my favorite place to buy plants).

I know you are a pro-3rd HS wherever person and understood this to be the case when you voted. When I voted "Yes" in 05, I didn't know where the 3rd HS would go or how it would effect my neighborhood. But when I voted "Yes" in 06, I specifically understood it to mean that I was voting for a 3rd HS on the BB site due to what I had been guaranteed, sold, promised, whatever, by the SB. That's why I sympathize with the NSFOC and understand why they are suing. That's probably the biggest difference in our outlooks on this. I think we just had different experiences during the 06 referendum process.

Hope you had a good Mother's Day, despite the blustery weather.

D&S

GF, thanks for the info about a possible outcome of mediation. As you know, I don't believe any laws were broken either in the letter or intent. I do, however, feel that negating my vote and that of many others by removing the current school board is at best disenfranchisement of those of us who voted.

To the NSFOC: I truly think the majority of us voted for those on the board, and we voted for them to build a 3rd school that has the amenities of the others. To ask for or insist on the resignation of the board puts the desires of the NSFOC members, leaders, and plaintiffs ahead of the stated desires of the majority who voted for those very board members.

The reason I say "the majority" is that the largest number of members/supporters of the NSFOC I have heard is 400 (perfectly willing to amend that if the NSFOC publishes numbers of supporters/members--maybe if they were as transparent as they ask the board to be, they would have more credibility). My precinct alone has approximately 1200 registered voters. I know ours is a relatively large precinct, but I bet there are over 100 precincts in our attendance area. So we can say approx 600 voters per precinct. Let's be conservative and say 50 precincts. 600*50=30,000, that is a pretty conservative estimate of the number of registered voters in District 204. So 400 vs. 29,600,not terribly impressive.

If someone doesn't vote, that is generally considered a vote for the status quo which is the current board. If voters wanted a change there were plenty of candidates they could have voted for last year. Changing three of seven members would have potentially made huge changes in the direction of decisions, but the majority of those interested enough to vote voted to keep this board.

The NSFOC can claim that the board is not representative, but of those who care enough to vote, the majority of us chose to keep the same members of the board. So if any members/supporters can explain why their choices, voices and votes should count for more than those of the rest of us, I'd be interested to hear that.

To Civics on May 11, 2008 8:10 PM--

Re your post:

OK...'hate' was little strong. And as for arrogance -- I find that really difficult to judge without seeing the action in person and interacting with the board members. Add to that the way people on this blog toss around that particular word, and I have pretty visceral reaction to it.

I find it hard to judge arrogance based simply on the actions and outcomes of the SB to date. I can just as easily come up with other adjectives - like cautious, coached (as in by legal council), confident (or trying to appear so), etc. And some that are a bit more -- oh -- say -- unflattering. Like INcautious, badly-advised, unimaginative, embittered.

And now I will admit a dirty little secret. I have never been to an SB meeting. Thought of going a week or so ago when MR and GF were meeting up, but it simply slipped my mind that night. Maybe if I watch them interact amongst themselves and will the public, I might have other thoughts. But for now, I simply react to it as just another form of name-calling.
_______________________________________

Gasp!! Never been to a SB meeting? You should make a point of it. It's great entertainment when something contentious is on the agenda and a lot of people show up. You'll see the "A" word in full display then. But you can also catch it at public meetings when the SB has them, and I've even seen it come across in print when D and M2 give newspaper interviews.

You could also call it "extreme over-confidence to the degree where it's believed one can do no wrong even in the face of evidence to the contrary", but arrogance just sums it up best. Not all of them come across this way, but there are a couple who do pretty regularly. I don't consider it name-calling if this is truly how they're behaving.

To: GF on May 11, 2008 3:40 PM

"OK, here it is (I am paraphrasing): something to the effect of: NSFOC drops the suit and allows HS to be built on Eola unchallenged along with board keeping control of boundries (Feb boundry remains unchanged) In exchange for a full public disclosure of ALL private Executive meeting minute notes and film in addition to all 7 board members stepping down and representives from each of the middle schools take over board duties in the interim. Then in APril 2009 if any current boardmembers that were removed in the settlement want to run for a seat on the new board in April 2009; they are free to do so. Benefits of this would be full public disclosure of what has transpired over the last few years and how we got to this point and how we can try to avoid it in the future. Also, the interim board would be geographically diverse (not all stacked in the north and central with little/no deep south representation)."

Unbelievable. I don't see some members of the SB stepping down for anyone. The full disclosure request shouldn't be a problem if there was no funny business involved, but I think the "A" word will get in the way here. The NSFOC would have to have some pretty damning evidence against the SB in order for this to happen.

By I am a mom too on May 11, 2008 10:26 PM
To the NSFOC: I truly think the majority of us voted for those on the board, and we voted for them to build a 3rd school that has the amenities of the others.

To ask for or insist on the resignation of the board puts the desires of the NSFOC members, leaders, and plaintiffs ahead of the stated desires of the majority who voted for those very board members.

The reason I say "the majority" is that the largest number of members/supporters of the NSFOC I have heard is 400 (perfectly willing to amend that if the NSFOC publishes numbers of supporters/members--maybe if they were as transparent as they ask the board to be, they would have more credibility).

My precinct alone has approximately 1200 registered voters. I know ours is a relatively large precinct, but I bet there are over 100 precincts in our attendance area. So we can say approx 600 voters per precinct. Let's be conservative and say 50 precincts. 600*50=30,000, that is a pretty conservative estimate of the number of registered voters in District 204. So 400 vs. 29,600,not terribly impressive.
-------
Agree to disagree. There were only 16,000 voters for the 2005 referendum, and about 9000 voted NO. There were about 25,000 voters in 2006 referendum and over 10,000 voted NO even though you had a massive YES campaign. So it is safe to say those same 10,000 voters are not happy today, and another maybe half the YES voters from 2006 are now unhappy for various reasons.

Given that the 2006 referendum was approved by a nearly 5 to 1 margin in the south, where about 65% of the population lives...it's quite possible that of the YES voters in 2006, nearly 13,000 of the yes votes may have been from the south district. So even if half these people are unhappy (and I would suspect that more like 80% are unhappy) that's about another 6,500 unhappy, plus the 10,000 unhappy already (NO voters in 2006), you would have at least 2/3 of voters unhappy today..even with another massive marketing campaign.

Therefore, voters who actually show up are a good measure of support for various groups. While NSFOC is not a NO High School group, they are unhappy with the direction of the school district and right in line with the key issue - voters voted for A and got B, and a new fiscal issue - high risk taking on safety and bus costs - a long term financial hit for all D204 taxpayers. (and other issues, that unhappy voters can support).

So to say there are only 400 supporters is silly. Back in March they already had 3000 users. I hear that number is much higher today. They also had a couple of petitions signed by nearly 2000 people in total, and have secured funding to cover a complex, expensive legal effort to date.

I see no information about NSFOC demanding resignations. Let me know where that exists and I will stand corrected. But I also note that those current members were elected based on support from the backers and users of NSFOC. Any group has every right to demand to be heardand ask for resignations if they feel that is appropriate.

To say the NSFOC is putting their agenda ahead of the voters is wrong - especially when you note the above potential supporters. I suspect however, the SB members will get their just punishments if they chose to run again. They will not (other than Vickers) because they will be crushed in defeat and they know it. I challenge them to run, so the unhappy voters can deliver another message. It seems that the SB does not get it, so many messages must be needed. That's why the most arrogant SB members may run again...because they will still not be getting it.

Have another referendum and SB election today and see what happens. Bring it on. I hope that NSFOC group continues to get the support they need to keep the district in line - for once.

By Greg Forrest on May 10, 2008 11:15 AM
To Big Picture issues:

GREAT post and valid points. Thank you too for being open and honest. As a good friend told me once "I would argue with you if I thought you were wrong" on most of your points.

I do not think any of us has enough data points to say that the vote ref. passed purely on a site and boundaries platform in '06. To GF's point we will probably never know because there will not be a vote on the Eola site (IMHO), because a court order do over would set a really bad precedent and the SB would never do that at this point. I think that is why the ref. language reads as it does. To allow for the unforeseen possibilities that existed at the time the ref. was put up for a vote. I know I'll get blasted by some for being pro-Eola, not my intent.

I understand that many feel that they got shafted, I see there points clearly. I also believe that we all live two lives, the one we learn with and the one we live with afterward (I'm paraphrasing something I heard a long time ago, but can not remember where, but the I liked the philosophy). Not that we shouldn't hold our elected officials to a higher standard, we should. We should continue to measure ourselves and them to the ideal and not the norm.

As I have stated before, I admire the people that have this in mind when supporting organizations such as the NSFOC, unfortunately, I do not believe that this is the true motivation of this organization and that is what bothers me most. I could be proven wrong, but I think the Genie’s out of the bottle on this and it will soon be over for the NSFOC lawsuit. We may never know what really happened beyond what we can see and speculate, but I hope we can all come together to find lasting solutions to all of the proximate causes of these types of issues.

If I try to find some positives out of this mess it would be the level of passion around the district for the children and educational possibilities represented by attending the D204 schools. I think the level of public debate (it has certainly open my eyes to new thinking and new ideas) can be intellectual and thought provoking (not the name calling and other condescension that inevitably takes place).

We will all have to wait and see how tomorrow unfolds, then possible the 23rd.

Kind regards,

Here's a link to an NSFOC presentation on the website, even though a much shorter version was presented at the VFW meeting in March. Maybe this will help you with numbers and history of the group:

https://www.nsfoc.org/pdf/NSFOC_3-25-08_final.pdf

A.K.A. I am a voter too......

Mom too....were it that simple I could say that my unscientific polling tells me that 27,000 of the 30,0000 voters are against the Eola site however I don't think this statemnt has much merit beyond my immediate circle.

I voted these SB members because their actions, at that time, were consistent with my hopes for this body, i.e. seeking, obtaining and incorporating district input around the 3rd HS decision. What I did not provide, or so I had thought, was tacit approval to play on ambiguity to unilaterally change course at the expense of the district.

My hope for the outcome of mediatation is that both BB & Eola are put up to a district vote, an outcome that I will gladly accept. The hope is that this confirmation vote will compel both sides to work, either together or separately, to provide full disclosure (costs, risks, etc.) on both sites.

To DS.

RE: your comment, "There was Phase I soil testing done on the BB site during the eminent domain proceedings. These came back with no contaminants, so no further testing was warranted."

Just a clarification, Phase I environmental testing only looks at the history of the land use to determine if soil testing is required.

According to ASTM in Standard E1527-05 " Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is a report prepared for a real estate holding which identifies potential or existing environmental contamination liabilities. The analysis, often called a Phase I ESA, typically addresses both the underlying land as well as physical improvements to the property; however, techniques applied in a Phase I ESA never include actual collection of physical samples or chemical analyses of any kind." So the no contamination statement is based on the same criteria as the AME plot.

kind regards,

Hi Mom

yes its probably unrealistic. you make a good point on that we elected these folks so asking them to step down (even if its only for 10 months until April 2009 elections) is probably not going to fly.

What intrigued me about this idea, is a full public accounting of all exec/private meeting notes, data and film. During the 10 months, the middle school representatives could work on reviewing this data and getting it public PRIOR to April 2009 elections. Somehow, I do not trust several members of the current board to edit this data for the public. We would need a fresh set of eyes in order to ensure "no funny business" As the idea states, all board members could run again once we have a full accounting of the history. If you want to vote for the incumbents, that is your right.

Either way, we will get to speak again on who is on the board next APril. 4 of 7 come up for relection in April 2009 and the other 3 come up in 2011. Mom, I think you greatly overestimate the level of confidence "the majority" CURRENTLY has with our SB. you are correct, most folks do not vote and do not care, but they dont affect the totals in anyway. Only time will tell which one of us is correct.

In the interim, this was just one idea and as of right now; I am perfectly fine with reaping with whirlwind our elected officials have weaved for us by their decisions they have made on our behalf. Maybe there wont be a whirlwind...then again maybe there will be.... There are alot of lawsuits out there and at least one more to come (from one of the B's; Brodie I think). If mediation fails this week (which I beleive it will) there might be another opportunity if this particular suit continues on after May 23.

Mom, to your point on possible outcomes of mediation; I am sure there are other options/possibilities out there including your boundry one time exception. From an objective standpoint, I cannot agree with this option and am totally opposed to it for the reasons I previously mentioned in previous posts (from a personal standpoint I sure wish I could agree with it). From a reality standpoint, if a guy who supports NSFOC disagrees with boundry meddling; then obviously the SB would be even more opposed to it than I am (and they would be 100% correct to oppose it to rule this option out and not open for discussion).

have a good one!
GF

-------------------------------------------------
By I am a mom too on May 11, 2008 10:26 PM
GF, thanks for the info about a possible outcome of mediation. As you know, I don't believe any laws were broken either in the letter or intent. I do, however, feel that negating my vote and that of many others by removing the current school board is at best disenfranchisement of those of us who voted.

I went to brunch at the Bolingbrook golf course on Sunday. I went rt 59 to 111th and on 111th I drove right past that big new HS Plainfield is building. Thing is dang close to D204 boundraries. Gets me to thinking (down the road).... maybe D204 could annex out more of the south (plainfields' north) and utilize that as a 4th D204 HS? Most of the growth will be coming south of 95th.... seems to be in a good location for where all the growth will be coming from. At least someone got the location "correct" in terms of placing it where the growth is and will be in future.

To ALL: The full discolure and SB members step down until April 2009 was an idea i heard from another blog and I stole it and brought it over here. I have no clue if NSFOC is interested in any thread of this and it is NOT a stated goal of NSFOC. NSFOC IS NOT TRYING TO REMOVE OR ASK FOR RESIGNATIONS. I knew I was going to get into trouble bringing this over and having people think its from the NSFOC.

To Metea either way; I AM RIGHT THERE WITH YOU!! I just have no faith that this is a possibility at this point. Project timelines supercede everything from SB perspective and pre construction has commenced. I do not see the SB freezing the project until Nov 2008 for a confirmation vote. A Court would have to order them to do this (which means mediaton failed and NSFOC won the case). Still, its a future possibility!! Case is done by July and court orders confirm ref for November and TRO's/freezes the site as is until the vote.

PS, I briefly read the SB's dismissal case. i need to read it more carefully. One thing that struck me. they only refuted/nullified the verbal communication of the SB prior to the ref. They didnt touch the money spent on the written documentation nor the written statements at all. Not sure if something else covers this from a larger perspective and hence NSFOC is correct but who cares etc?

Curious, It was the only major point left without a specific response that I could find. Its not like it wont get brought up LOL, so I wonder why there was no response to it in the dismissal document? I will take a deeper read when I get more time.

---------------------------------------------------
By Metea Either Way on May 12, 2008 9:57 AM
A.K.A. I am a voter too......

My hope for the outcome of mediatation is that both BB & Eola are put up to a district vote, an outcome that I will gladly accept. The hope is that this confirmation vote will compel both sides to work, either together or separately, to provide full disclosure (costs, risks, etc.) on both sites.

Has anyone else heard the rumor about a fourth lawsuit to be filed against the District related to Eola(and not from Brach, Brody or NSFOC)? I discounted it until I heard it three more times over the weekend).

First of all D&S--hope you had a great Mother's Day! I just wish we had had today's weather yesteday.

My guess is the referendum would pass again, just in some different areas. It is all fine and dandy to say those in the south wouldn't vote for it, but my guess is Clow, Spring Brook, Graham, Kendall, Patterson, Builta, and Welch still will. And though Patterson, Fry, and White Eagle might not, my guess is that there are areas of the North that were close or voted "No" that would now vote "Yes". Those voters are just quieter.

By I am a mom too on May 11, 2008 10:26 PM
To the NSFOC: I truly think the majority of us voted for those on the board, and we voted for them to build a 3rd school that has the amenities of the others.

To ask for or insist on the resignation of the board puts the desires of the NSFOC members, leaders, and plaintiffs ahead of the stated desires of the majority who voted for those very board members.

The reason I say "the majority" is that the largest number of members/supporters of the NSFOC I have heard is 400 (perfectly willing to amend that if the NSFOC publishes numbers of supporters/members--maybe if they were as transparent as they ask the board to be, they would have more credibility).

My precinct alone has approximately 1200 registered voters. I know ours is a relatively large precinct, but I bet there are over 100 precincts in our attendance area. So we can say approx 600 voters per precinct. Let's be conservative and say 50 precincts. 600*50=30,000, that is a pretty conservative estimate of the number of registered voters in District 204. So 400 vs. 29,600,not terribly impressive.
-------

I think the SB and pro-Eola supporters are under massive denial regarding the amount of opposition there is to the Eola site. Not everyone who is against building on Eola is an NSFOC supporter; in fact, most people who are against Eola are NOT NSFOC supporters. Obviously, people who voted 'NO' are not NSFOC supporters as they don't support building a 3rd HS. Also, most people who are against Eola are against it for a specific reason, which may or may not mesh with the NSFOC goals.

Without a confirmation vote or survey of the district, we will never know what the true breakout is between supporters of Eola vs. opposition, but I think a strong majority of the 'south' is against Eola and if they make up 65% to 70% of the district, it doesn't take a stats major to realize that a majority of the district does NOT support building a HS on the Eola/AME site.

I think we know why the SB doesn't want a confirmation vote (even a non-binding one) for the Eola site; they know that most of the district is against it. So, they have undergone a propaganda campaign to try and make Eola supporters think that the opposition is limited to a small number of families in TG and/or WE...nothing could be farther from the truth. Tens of thousands of D204 residents do not support building on Eola; I think its important to know the extent of the true opposition so that we'll know the probability of future referendums to pass. We're going down a path of building Metea on AME, but it will never be able to open without the passing of an operations referendum, which may very well fail if two-thirds of the district is against Eola.

I think it is important for pro-Eola supporters to push for a non-binding confirmation vote, just so that is understood to all what the entire district thinks. If a vote shows that a majority of the district supports Eola, I think most of the opposition will yield to the will of the majority. But I think that is why NSFOC and other people opposed to Eola are being so vocal...they know the majority of the district is against what the SB is doing by building on Eola/AME and want to know why the prevailing opinion is being disregarded.

To perspective on May 12, 2008 10:04 AM--

Just a clarification, Phase I environmental testing only looks at the history of the land use to determine if soil testing is required.

According to ASTM in Standard E1527-05 " Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is a report prepared for a real estate holding which identifies potential or existing environmental contamination liabilities. The analysis, often called a Phase I ESA, typically addresses both the underlying land as well as physical improvements to the property; however, techniques applied in a Phase I ESA never include actual collection of physical samples or chemical analyses of any kind." So the no contamination statement is based on the same criteria as the AME plot.

kind regards,
_________________________________________

I took this from the Brodie Complaint I:

26. During the pendency of the 2005 condemnation case through September 2007, the District . . . sought a Court Order in Case No. 2005 ED 79 to enable it and its engineers to enter upon the Brach-Brodie property in order to conduct for its construction purposes MULTIPLE INTRUSIVE SOIL BORINGS thereon and to conduct other invasive engineering work concerning drainage testing and related land use issues.

I don't have time right now to get into it, call it phase 1, 2 or whatever, I heard at a SB meeting and read here that soil tests had been done on BB. Anybody know if these soil borings were tested for contaminants?
GF?

Later!

D&S

To I am a mom too on May 9, 2008 6:58 PM--

The only wires I passed, don't know if they qualify as high tension or not, run right along the rr tracks about 3/4 of a mile west of 75th and Commons Dr., the original Metea site. Didn't check east of the site, tho. Hope this answers your question.

D&S

Hi D&S

No, SOrry I dont know if actual borings were taken at BB site. In terms of safety issues; I am more of a pipeline concern guy and all the beakers and testing stuff lulled me to sleep. I know it is critically important to many, but for me...I just kind of glaze over and tune out when the biology class kicks into high gear. I totally tuned out at the SB meeting where they released the results of midwestgen land. I had to go back and review the data on the web site and got through maybe half before I declared the land on par with virgin northwest rain forrest land. LOL

sorry i couldnt be of more help!
GF

To D&S Perspective is absolutely correct when referencing phase 1 testing - it only goes to prior USE of the land an no actual environmental soil testing. Your quote is specific for drainage testing and "land use" issues not for phase 2 testing which would involve actual soil samples and testing " concerning drainage testing and related land use issues."
Exactly the reason the Eola property needed only a phase 1 testing - because the prior use was ONLY farm land thereby rendering it unnecessary to go into phase 2 testing - which would be soil testing.

To Greg and D&S, the fact that the district had permission to take soil borings does not mean they took the borings. This may have been requested in case phase I required phase 2 testing to be done.

Happy Mediation Day. Don't forget to stop and pick up flowers. I am sure the florists have funeral style arrangements perfect for the occasion. Let's hope that today's mediation eats up the remaining nsfoc funds. Only affordable option remaining would be if they threw themselves under the bulldozers.

By Anonymous on May 13, 2008 8:58 AM

Happy Mediation Day. Don't forget to stop and pick up flowers. I am sure the florists have funeral style arrangements perfect for the occasion. Let's hope that today's mediation eats up the remaining nsfoc funds. Only affordable option remaining would be if they threw themselves under the bulldozers.
________________________________________

Ow, direct hit! Snipers: 12. Where did all the stalkers go?

You know, something you all should consider before you get too far into your celebration plans. Regardless of what happens with the NSFOC suit, there are a lot more people in this district than just the NSFOC who are disgusted with how Metea was and continues to be handled and all the associated lawsuits. None of these folks are associated with the NSFOC or live in TG, but they do reside in the south and are so fed up with the whole mess that they do not plan to pass any further referendums for Metea, specifically the operations fund that the SB plans to ask for later to keep Metea up and running.

So before you manage to alienate most of the southern district, you might want to realize that the SB can build Metea now, but it's up to the voters to keep it going, and you may end up needing the votes of the very people you're taking pot shots at now. Wouldn't that be ironic?

OMG. I haven't checked this blog in a couple of weeks. It's the SAME people saying the SAME things! Turn off the computer and step outside. It's beautiful out! Do it for your mental health and for those that love you :) Seriously.

By Anonymous on May 13, 2008 8:50 AM

To Greg and D&S, the fact that the district had permission to take soil borings does not mean they took the borings. This may have been requested in case phase I required phase 2 testing to be done.
______________________________________

True, but the lawsuit states the borings were done. This is one of the things that Brodie is complaining about in its suit. They claim that the SD going onto the land and conducting "multiple intrusive soil borings" during the proceedings constituted a "taking" of the property and therefore obligated the SD to purchase it.

By Anonymous on May 13, 2008 7:31 AM

To D&S Perspective is absolutely correct when referencing phase 1 testing - it only goes to prior USE of the land an no actual environmental soil testing. Your quote is specific for drainage testing and "land use" issues not for phase 2 testing which would involve actual soil samples and testing " concerning drainage testing and related land use issues."
Exactly the reason the Eola property needed only a phase 1 testing -because the prior use was ONLY farm land thereby rendering it unnecessary to go into phase 2 testing - which would be soil testing.
____________________________________

Ok. I stated "There was Phase I soil testing done on the BB site during the eminent domain proceedings. These came back with no contaminants, so no further testing was warranted." So Phase I was done, but it didn't include any of the borings that were mentioned in the lawsuit. Something the testing co. said at the SB meeting when presenting the results of the MWGen land gave me the impression that soil analysis had been done on the BB land, as this was discussed then, too. Oh well, I'll just chalk this up under the same category as the "Howie Crouse nonquote of 06".

Thanks, all!

To Anon #????

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a day of mediation is not going to break the piggy bank. NSFOC may not have the millions necessary to fund a bond for a TRO, but they have enough to see this through to a judgement in Popejoy's courtroom. Think of it this way from a static snapshot in time; 400+ financial donors at $204 = 81K in available funds. Some folks donated less and some donated more (and maybe multiple times). I know this to be a fact because I personally donated more than $204 bucks.

So, save your funeral flowers for a later date. If nothing else happens, my money was well spent in terms of getting more info/disclosure, drawing attention to this "issue" and we ended up with a better piece of land with Midwestgen getting cold feet during the "attention". Everything from here on out (more required disclosure of info, possible revote, possible suit win, possible requirement to install ACV's on the pipes running through the school property to help mitigate pipe dangers) would be the cherries on top of my ice cream sundae.

Cheers
GF

---------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on May 13, 2008 8:58 AM
Happy Mediation Day. Don't forget to stop and pick up flowers. I am sure the florists have funeral style arrangements perfect for the occasion. Let's hope that today's mediation eats up the remaining nsfoc funds. Only affordable option remaining would be if they threw themselves under the bulldozers

By Chimay on May 12, 2008 3:52 PM

What is the point of a non-binding vote? The only incentive for anyone to turn out and vote is to vote against it -- I would guess to prove a point, but still would have no impact.

By D&S on May 13, 2008 1:02 PM

Regarding;

"So before you manage to alienate most of the southern district, you might want to realize that the SB can build Metea now, but it's up to the voters to keep it going, and you may end up needing the votes of the very people you're taking pot shots at now. Wouldn't that be ironic?"

D&S, I know your upset by the ridiculous post of anon, but you are getting too defensive, not like you from what I have seen. Please consider the above statement you made and the ramifications to the whole district. Not approving additional funds for operations only forces the SB hand to redistribute the operational budgets to keep all three schools going. So a "no" vote on the ops funding would result in significant cut backs in all schools. I do not think that was your intention.

Kind regards,

By D&S on May 13, 2008 11:57 AM

"None of these folks are associated with the NSFOC or live in TG, but they do reside in the south and are so fed up with the whole mess that they do not plan to pass any further referendums for Metea, specifically the operations fund that the SB plans to ask for later to keep Metea up and running."

D&S, I agree with your comment on not antagonizing people, but there's one fatal flaw with the logic your sharing above. If the operating referendum for Metea doesn't pass, the district will be forced to cannibalize resources from elsewhere in the district -- NV included. MV will be built and it will open and teachers, janitors, insurance companies, administrators, etc. WILL be paid. If the money doesn't come from a new referendum, it'll come from existing sources. That will be VERY bad for the people you claim are refusing to pass further Metea referendums. Talk about torpedoing your own property values. At some point I would expect people to realize what's truly in their best interests and get past the nuttiness that's been going on.

What happens when WVHS is closed in the next few years - expedited due to the higher operating costs at Eola from bus costs, construction costs, teacher contract negotiations, lawsuit damages, legal costs, etc.

Who goes on the bus to MVHS then?

This is no longer a rumor.

To: By D&S on May 13, 2008 11:57 AM
By Anonymous on May 13, 2008 8:58 AM

Happy Mediation Day. Don't forget to stop and pick up flowers. I am sure the florists have funeral style arrangements perfect for the occasion. Let's hope that today's mediation eats up the remaining nsfoc funds. Only affordable option remaining would be if they threw themselves under the bulldozers.
________________________________________

Ow, direct hit! Snipers: 12. Where did all the stalkers go?

You know, something you all should consider before you get too far into your celebration plans. Regardless of what happens with the NSFOC suit, there are a lot more people in this district than just the NSFOC who are disgusted with how Metea was and continues to be handled and all the associated lawsuits. None of these folks are associated with the NSFOC or live in TG, but they do reside in the south and are so fed up with the whole mess that they do not plan to pass any further referendums for Metea, specifically the operations fund that the SB plans to ask for later to keep Metea up and running.

So before you manage to alienate most of the southern district, you might want to realize that the SB can build Metea now, but it's up to the voters to keep it going, and you may end up needing the votes of the very people you're taking pot shots at now. Wouldn't that be ironic?
______________________________________________

Hi D&S and everyone else,

I take issue with your comment that south are fed up and will not pass any further referendums for Metea for operations.

The school board will find this money regardless if it is in a referendum or if they have to take it out of the operating budget. Not passing a referendum will hurt everyone (see article regarding Rockford HS's that was posted about a month ago). If they can't pass a referendum to run our schools then things start getting cut usually art and music first. Then it's other activities then sports.

I'm sorry to say this but regardless who you are and how the 3rd HS issue is affecting you if would hurt all of us not to pass a referendum, so long as it is reasonable. To not do so would not only hurt the kids at MVHS but also the kids at NVHS and WVHS.

Remember close to 60% of voters voted for a 3rd HS referendume when that HS only benefited 1/3 of IPSD. I proud to say that I will always vote "yes" for a referendum if it benefits our schools because it benefits all of our kids and all of our property values.

Being in the north (as I am) I voted for the 3rd HS and it didn't benefit me, except to lighten crowding in our schools. If MV were to still be built on BB I would also vote for the operating budget. So I don't understand your comment D&S? Are people saying this because they are bitter and mad and this is their way of "getting IPSD back"? It would be like me saying, I'm sorry I won't vote for a referendum to make improvements and update things at WVHS. However, I would never do that!!! I would vote "yes" no questions asked because it benefits us all!!!

Have a great day!!

MR

Greggy:

You are really staring to sound more like a spokesperson for the NSFOC rather than just a contributor. Has something changed? How can you know how much money they have when the rest of us are left in the dark?

To By What The on May 13, 2008 4:24 PM

Please enlighten us as to your new insights, if it is no longer a rumor you should be able to prove this as fact? I invite you to do so.

ONHeeee

I do not know. it was an estimate based on puublic information I thought it was perfectly clear in my post that I was using the data NSFOC shared with the newspapers about a month ago that 400plus folks had actually kicked in money at that time. Since we all know (from NSFOC web site) that the "recommended" donation is $204 for District D204 Accountability, I just did simple math assuming the 400 donors from one month ago each kicked in the recommended donation. I then prefaced this with the assumption that many folks donated less then $204 and there were folks that donated more (such as myself). I further prefaced that some folks have probably donated a second time (just as I did two weeks ago). Therefore a rough estimate from when NSFOC communicated their 400+ financial donors might be around 81K. Then I merely pointed out that it would be tough to burn through $80,000 bucks in a single day of mediation. Therefore Hold the flowers :)

Sorry you were not able to follow that train of though and assumptions. I will try and slow down on my assumptions of things that may seem to me as being obvious and estimates; since they may not always so clear to others or speficically, for you.

Sincerely

Greggy.... (ps nice touch ONH. I am glad you and I are not/were not in school together. If you were sitting behind me in class, I think Hair pulling would be the next logical step if I remember correctly back to 4th/5th grade). Reminds me of a classmate that went to E school, JR High, and HS with me. Allison Franks. She also called me Greggy in 3rd/4th grade and liked to pull my hair as she sat behind me in class. As we got older, I think we even went to a few dances together. She grew up. Hopefully you will too. If my assumptionns are incorrect and you are NOT female but rather you are a guy (and a Guy using the term Greggy to address another Guy), then things are FAR WORSE than I thought and you need some SERIOUS HELP with your personal attacks LOL. I can help with good rhymes and name calling ideas for you to use, but many wouldnt get past the Mod Jim censor :)

have a good one
GF

To: Everyone responding to D&S regarding not supporting an operating referendum.

You people are grossly underestimating the number of people who no longer trust the SB because of broken promises and wasted taxdollars. There are thousands of taxpayers in this district who don't have kids and could care less what programs the district might have to cut back to fund the new school. I would anticipate large numbers of vote NO people from the areas around Watts, Cowlishaw, WE, TG, and Owen East. Many people in these neighborhoods without kids in the system supported the referendum only because of the location of the HS. IMO, many of these people will be NO voters in any future referendums. They no longer trust the SB and if property values (and property taxes) take a dip, so be it.

To:D&S

We all have bad days/moments, Allmost all of your posts have been held in high regard. I am going to chalk up your ops.ref. comment to having a bad day and a need to vent. Continue with your informative posts as many of us enjoy them.

To K Kid and MR

guys I agree with your logic. Time heals all non fatal wounds, but unfortunatly scars always remain.

I hear alot of talk on other boards I have visited about voting no for any future refs. From the dismissal case the SB laid out, it gives a permanent silver bullet to point to for the vote no crowd. Ie there is no accountability required once you authorize the funds; you have to hope things dont change (whether purposely planned or not) and you have absolutely no recourse if SB decides to buy fans and statues of M2 for Crousee center versus built in AC for E schools because that is more important now than it was 6 months ago at the referendum time.... (final outcome TBD from the lawsuit).

This is the concern I believe many folks have (including myself). It is directly linked with our confidence in the current board. Hopefully the operating ref wont be needed for a few years and this allows all the folks so riled up over this (including me) a chance to "speak" with our votes in April 2009 before any operating ref is put to the voters.

So, Objectively I totally agree with you guys and I will be voting yes on the future operating fund (as long as there is a good case and district divuldges the granular of where the money is projected to go etc. etc.). Lets just hope that BB damages are not "sliped" into the operating referendum here in a few years.....Can you imagine the uproar then with hindsight being 20/20? I will have to pull this from the acrhives if that comes to pass.

I just wanted you guys to understand the emotional part of it. When these Anon's do their sniper attacks and purposly provoke folks; Hell it makes me want to vote no and just go into Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)mode as well just to torpedo my tormentors and then put my kids in private school so they dont feel the pain of my impulsiveness. Maybe take some time off work and hit the "vote no" campaign volenteer trail for good measure. THEN, I ALWAYS COME TO MY SENSES, and know not to let my emotions get the best of me. Everyone has an Ego, but I know when to but mine in the closet to do what is right. And that means a yes vote for a future operating ref (as long as the qualifiers above are adhered too)

Best Regards
Greggy (with a nod to ONH... and a very special nod to funeral flower Anon #????)

Does the note on the IPSD site mean that, as GF predicted, the mediation stalled or failed?

To MR on May 13, 2008 4:35 PM
To perspective on May 13, 2008 3:45 PM
To Khazakstan Kid on May 13, 2008 4:01 PM

Hi, guys! That last post really brought you all out of the woodwork.
I wanted to give our smug Anon blogger something to chew on.

I went to a get-together this past weekend and heard it there. My guess is alot of it was beer- and wine-fueled venting, but all the same, the general feeling was that many folks in this neck of the woods are disgusted with the whole thing. It started with talk of the "bait and switch". I threw in my two cents worth about it not really being a b&s, IMO, and it went from there. If a ref was held tomorrow, I think there would be a lot of "No" votes. It seems most were angry at the SB. No one brought up any animosity towards, or were aware of any animosity from, the northern part of the district, so I doubt any of them visit this blog!

I'm not worried about it, I don't think any of you should be, either. That ref is around 2 years away, a lot can change in that time. Voters tend to have very selective short-term memories. If all works out between now and then, no one will care anymore.

Besides, I'm sure the SB, whoever they may be by then, will hold plenty of public meetings, like they always do when they want our $$, and scare the bejebbers out of everyone by saying if we don't pass the Metea operating expenses ref, the first thing to go will be NV and WV programs. Do any of you doubt this? And if by some fluke it does get defeated, as has been known to happen, there's always that 91 million surplus the SB has been sitting on. I highly doubt the district will allow Metea to stand empty under any circumstances.

You have to admit the irony in this at least. My message to Anon was not to act like such a butt. The tables could turn at any time.

D&S

PS Did any of you notice that Brach has finally come forward with their damage claim, 2.2 million in fees plus the lost value of the land, however much that is. All parties will convene in court on June 10. Mark your calendars!

To D&S My My - such a mean spirited person you are:

None of these folks are associated with the NSFOC or live in TG, but they do reside in the south and are so fed up with the whole mess that they do not plan to pass any further referendums for Metea, specifically the operations fund that the SB plans to ask for later to keep Metea up and running."

I'm pretty sure the only ones who've alienated themselves are the NSFOC - the rest of the district would not starve other children merely to let their own children take everything for themselves.

D&S your comments only show how the NSFOC is only looking out for their kids at thier school. I didn't realize that there would be a fund for the southern kids and a different fund for everyone else. Thanks for showing your true colors.

looks like G "Greggy" F is a little testie today too. 81K is nothing my friend. Obviously you didn't donate much more or you would have estimated larger numbers. I don't consider the support behind the NSFOC to be all that strong if they can only muster that kind of a cash from a subdivision like Tall Grass. Either support is waning or maybe some people are upside down on their homes.

Today, and preparation for today, certainly ate up quite a bit of cash to the lawyers. Next week should be even more expensive. I love watching the NSFOC waste thier precious money.

For months now, greggy, all we hear from you is let's have another vote, let's have another vote, blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc.

Do you have a garage full of vote no signs you are trying to unload?

Mediation between legal representatives from Indian Prairie School District 204 and Neighborhood Schools For Our Children took place as planned on Tuesday, May 13. The motion to dismiss will be heard as scheduled at the DuPage County Courthouse on Friday, May 23. Construction of Metea Valley High School continues with an anticipated opening in August 2009.

Looks like the mediation went well :-) As expected . . . .

Oh Greg it is so easy to make you mad……

Please note you never answered my question about being the NSFOC spokesperson.

Anyway, follow this logic when it comes to fees and billable hours. Now let’s say the NSFOC raised $100K for their “fund” just for fun. Then their atty bills them lest say $450 per hour, which this figure my be high or low. This means they have 222 hours worth of funding in the bank. So if MR Collins works for 40 hours for an entire week, the money is gone. Better write another check!

However, I personally don’t think will be necessary. Even though they say mediation has failed I look for some 11th hour deal to be worked out.

Ok now you can rip me like you always do.

By Anonymous on May 13, 2008 7:12 PM
To D&S My My - such a mean spirited person you are:

I'm pretty sure the only ones who've alienated themselves are the NSFOC - the rest of the district would not starve other children merely to let their own children take everything for themselves.
________________________________________

Wow, that's an extreme comment. But it does go to the tenor of my post. You know, this kind of ugliness doesn't win over others. The district may need the support of these very people later; you may want to work on a different approach. FYI--The NSFOC is far from alienated. They're doing very well, thank you.

By No Fan of NSFOC on May 13, 2008 8:44 PM
By onh on May 13, 2008 9:29 PM
==============================================

LOL ok ONH, maybe I was too abrasive. But just look what you started? :) you have all the snipers calling me "Greggy" now. LOL thats cool. It takes me back a ways, but cool nontheless.

To answer your question: no, I am not a NSFOC spokesperson. I think they have one already and as you probably guessed, I am not in public relations nor do I care to be.

I like your train of thought on the billable hours, however, there are three other variables to consider.

1. There is an "in court" rate and a "regular billable hour rate. Usually the in court rate is the highest.

2.secondly, its a pretty straightforward case. There is not a lot of contested points and hence should be relatively cheap to litigate as compared to cases that have tons of expert witnesses and crazy complicated subject matter.

3. Mr. Collins is not charging his full rate (THANK YOU Mr. Collins for helping us to stand up to the all powerful government entities :)

Below post is a reply to No Fan of the NSFOC
-------------------------------------------------
To Fan of the NSFOC:

I totally understand that 81K is a relatively small amount (allthough, it would fully fund one of my kids college educations, so I wouldnt sneeze and turn my nose on it). I truely have no idea how much money was raised and is being raised. The statement of 400+ donors was quite a while ago. I do not know what amt was the average donation. If you want to know what I donated and use that as an average, so be it. I donated $204 for each of my 5 family members (inlcuding myself) with most of it I sent in after the last 2 meetings. It all came from a single source (me - 1 donor) and almost all of it came in AFTER NSFOC announced they had 400+ donors. OK, So far I have donated a little more than $1,000 bucks. Looks like my annual budget for goodwill/charity has been decimated and is now being put to good use by the NSFOC. sorry, American Heart Assocation and March of Dimes... looks like its going to be a slim year this year....

Anyways, If you want to use that as the average (I am sure there were larger donations, but most are probably closer to the $204): then 400+ donors x 1,000 bucks = $400,000 in funds. That is probably not realistic, which is why I just used the "recommended" donation. It doesnt really matter one way or the other. Either the NSFOC has the funds to continue or they dont. The only point I was trying to make to "funeral flower" is that it wont all be spent on one day of mediation.

To your babbling about support waning and upside down homes... yeah whatever; not sure where you are going on these points.

To your statment about my garage full of vote no signs:

If you are asking me would I vote no to a confirmation referendum on the EOla site? Answer is yes, I would vote no. geographically it makes sense, but population center is too far away from the EOla site plus I dont like the pipelines running through the property. for me to even entertain a notion about voting yes, the SB would have to put in ACV's on the pipes as well as replace the sections of the pipes on the 36 inchers that run through the property. Wont happen though without a court ordering it as it would take time (and we all know time is the most critical factor for the SB at present) and also would take money. I dont know, maybe SB is right; its cheaper to take out an additional liability insurace policy rider after its built if the district can get one? saves time and money (but does nothing to mitigate the potential risk no matter how remote). A worst case scenario would kill close to 4000 people and bankrupt the district. Maybe we can go to Loyds of London for a special insurance policy

If you are asking me if I would vote no to a referendum to operate the HS at Eola, then the answer is no, you are incorrect. I would vote yes to fund/operate the HS as long as certain reasonable criteria were met.

That about cover it Fan?

I think that is pretty far out in the future unless enrollment drops from 8943 kids (new projected peak?) to something like 7500 kids on a consistent basis with downward trends. yeah I saw the email from M2 that entertained the possibility of shutting WVHS down as a back up plan if enrollments dropped and the surge of new students did not materialize for the 3rd HS. It sounded like he was musing at his crystal ball 15 years in the future.

As for MVHS at EOla at that point, then the far north location begins to make alot of sense. Both HS's are at the opposite ends of the district and we just have a reverse commutte than what we have going on right now. instead of everyone commutting into the center to WV, the center will do the commutting and either go to MV or NV.

WHo knows? If the south is still backloaded with all the students and new developments, TG at 103rd to 95th might still go to MV at Eola and Springbrook and WHite Eagle as well and Tamarack too. At the very least all the areas that currently feed into WV as the boundries stand today would all go to MV. Just not sure how far south and East SB would have to go to fill MV at Eola site.

---------------------------------------------------
By What The on May 13, 2008 4:24 PM
What happens when WVHS is closed in the next few years - expedited due to the higher operating costs at Eola from bus costs, construction costs, teacher contract negotiations, lawsuit damages, legal costs, etc.

Who goes on the bus to MVHS then?

This is no longer a rumor

Hello there ONH

I already pointed out 3 variables which you did not take into account in your walk through below; but I also wanted to clarify the math calculation you ran.

Given your example of 450/hr and 100K fund. If Collins works 40 hr week at 450 an hr this is 18K for a full weeks work. The entire fund would not be gone in a week as you inferred below, but rather it would take almost 6 straight weeks (222 working billable hours) of 40hr work weeks to exhaust at 100k kitty.

so, todays mediation 450/hr times 8hrs consumed 3600 bucks by your assumptions below. To "funeral flowers" ONE donor (me) covered 28% of todays mediation.
------------------------------------------------
By onh on May 13, 2008 9:29 PM
Oh Greg it is so easy to make you mad……

Please note you never answered my question about being the NSFOC spokesperson.

Anyway, follow this logic when it comes to fees and billable hours. Now let’s say the NSFOC raised $100K for their “fund” just for fun. Then their atty bills them lest say $450 per hour, which this figure my be high or low. This means they have 222 hours worth of funding in the bank. So if MR Collins works for 40 hours for an entire week, the money is gone. Better write another check!

However, I personally don’t think will be necessary. Even though they say mediation has failed I look for some 11th hour deal to be worked out.

Ok now you can rip me like you always do.

By sniping with the truth. on May 13, 2008 8:13 PM
D&S your comments only show how the NSFOC is only looking out for their kids at thier school. I didn't realize that there would be a fund for the southern kids and a different fund for everyone else. Thanks for showing your true colors.
_____________________________________

Are you functionally illiterate? Revisit the post, focus on the words. The people expressing these sentiments are in no way affiliated with the NSFOC, they just live in southern 204 and are so disillusioned by the Metea mess that they are not inclined to put one more cent towards it, at least not at this time.

And what is "A fund for the southern kids and a different fund for everyone else"? I have no idea what this means. Don't care to know.

By south side s/maker on May 13, 2008 7:01 PM
To:D&S

We all have bad days/moments, Allmost all of your posts have been held in high regard. I am going to chalk up your ops.ref. comment to having a bad day and a need to vent. Continue with your informative posts as many of us enjoy them
__________________________________________

Thanks, JJ. I didn't expect this strong a reaction! However, this weekend was the first time I heard folks say outright that they would not support any future refs., and this is circulating independent of the NSFOC. The folks I heard it from feel used and abused by the SB and just don't trust them at all. They probably aren't seeing the bigger picture when it comes to the ops. ref., if they're even considering this at all, so it's good the SB has no plans for any refs. in the VERY NEAR future. It seems some people would be happier if my "informative posts" were less informative!

By D&S on May 14, 2008 1:46 AM

"The folks I heard it from feel used and abused by the SB and just don't trust them at all. They probably aren't seeing the bigger picture when it comes to the ops. ref., if they're even considering this at all, so it's good the SB has no plans for any refs. in the VERY NEAR future."
______________________________________

I can't disagree with any of that. I'd mistaken the info you shared regarding other's thoughts as being your thoughts. My bad.

As Greggy said, time heals all wounds. I'm think I'm gonna stick with "Greggy" -- it seems to roll off my keyboard.

By big picture issues on May 8, 2008 11:08 PM

I realize that I am backtracking several days, but I did say I would look into the acknowledgement from both sides that there was no case law or legislation regarding the land damages sought. Below is directly from the Brodie filing and it states that the "The Act is silent on the issue of consequential damages that occur as a result of the condemnation process, including the abandonment that occasionally occurs." I read this to say that there is nothing in the act to rule either way. I believe, IMHO, that a judge at this level would not set precedence that would alter all eminent domain proceedings in the future.

Sorry for the late response, I have been too busy to research.

Kind regards,

"(footnote 5) The Brodie Trust informs the court that an order of abandonment has been entered in related case 2005 ED 79, and that the Eminent Domain Act provides for the abandoning condemnor to pay attorneys fees and custs incurred as a result of an abandonment. The Act is silent on the issue of consequential damages that occur as a result of the condemnation process, including the abandonment that occasionally occurs. The Brodie Trust will file its claim for fees and costs within the condemnation case which has been referred to as 2005 ED 79, but asserts that it is entitled to damages based upon the claims made in Counts III, V, VI and VII herein."

By onh on May 13, 2008 9:29 PM
Oh Greg it is so easy to make you mad……

Please note you never answered my question about being the NSFOC spokesperson.

Anyway, follow this logic when it comes to fees and billable hours. Now let’s say the NSFOC raised $100K for their “fund” just for fun. Then their atty bills them lest say $450 per hour, which this figure my be high or low. This means they have 222 hours worth of funding in the bank. So if MR Collins works for 40 hours for an entire week, the money is gone. Better write another check!

However, I personally don’t think will be necessary. Even though they say mediation has failed I look for some 11th hour deal to be worked out.

Ok now you can rip me like you always do.
..........................
Looks like you are already ripped! Your math lacks reality and this is just another BS post.

To D&S my post was hardly extreme - yours, however, was extreme.

To all debating about future referendum:

If I understand it correctly the referendum will be for operating expenses for the SD204 and NOT just Metea Valley. So all schools will be affected equally (unless MFFOC-More Funds For Our Children, sues SD for that;)

greg forrest. It is disappointing that you are sending money to the nsfoc instead of charities that truly need the donations. I also find it interesting that you choose a non-charity over charities for donations. The nsfoc is in no way a charitable organization. I also wonder if you still beleive that your donations will be tax deductible (they will not be - activist not for profit donations are not tax deductable - the organization you support cannot even be honest about that).

I just have to say shame on you for your priorities in your choice of "goodwill/charity" donations. I have said from the beginning that I felt the NSFOC is looking after only their children and not the children of the entire district. It appears as if you would rather blow your goodwill/charity budget on a cause that benefits the select few children of tall grass & white eagle than support true charitable causes that benefit people all over the country/world.

To No Fan of NSFOC

Because Greg's contributions to the NSFOC may benefit my children, I'll pick up his end towards the charitable organizations, hell I'll even let you pick the charity.

To GF:

Looks like your little lemon group has gotten themselves some monikers and are back in true form. How nice for all of us.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that your "rebuttal posts" are cracking me up. Fans and statues of M2! ONH a guy?! Ewww. Maybe your lemons are too dim to appreciate it, but I think it's a hoot.

Keep up the good work!

By Where's Democracy? on May 14, 2008 10:07 AM
To all debating about future referendum:

If I understand it correctly the referendum will be for operating expenses for the SD204 and NOT just Metea Valley. So all schools will be affected equally (unless MFFOC-More Funds For Our Children, sues SD for that;)
____________________________________

Yeah, yeah. I'm sure the school district will market it that way to ensure it's passage. But we all know that more operating funds would not be necessary if not for the 3rd HS.

Hello there No fan:

Let me see, where do I start:

For one, I really dont care if you are disappointed or not. It is my money and my decision on where/how to spend it or give it away. You have the same right with your own disposable income decisions. My priority this year is this quagmire we are currently in and the potential reprocussions down the road from bad (and potentially illegal) actions and decision making coming from our leaders. The Charities that I/we normally like to support can live without the Forrest household 2008 charitable donation budget for this year. Like I said, I think this is a much more important issue in the short term and deserves my support and a slot at the top of my "priority list"

I disagree with your assessment of the NSFOC and it is NOT about a select few. They are focusing on many district wide issues that will/could effect us all either now or in the near future. I guess we see things from two very different sets of glasses.

In terms of tax write off, I really dont care. AMT for some might not allow it anyways. I am assuming it is not tax deductable and that any left over money will be donated or a charitable fund would be set up for our local D204 kids (NOT CONTROLLED by the SB or ADMIN however...). Maybe a scholarship fund could be set up for D204 kids? If not this, then maybe it should be utilized for future activist causes or to support the campaigns of candidates (ANY CANDIDATES) that choose to run for seats in April 2009. Not sure how that plays out with PAC rules etc. Either way if there is leftover money, I am confident it will be put to good use.

Like I said a lot of good things have already come out of this divisive issue (better piece of land, disclosure of info, focus on the pipelines, focus on the district etc. etc.) You may not like the manner in which these benefits came to the voters/taxpayers (by way of conflict), but they are good nonetheless. I plan on staying VERY involved from here on out (I didnt even know what was going on and paid very little attention back in 2005 and 2006 and into the first half of 2007). Same with many of my neighbors. So, we are here to stay. DEAL WITH IT. If nothing else comes out the suit, the D204 admin just picked up quite a few VERY Interested voters/taxpayers that will be very active in all things related to our district from here on out. It may not be the kind of "blind faith interest and ra ra support" they are accustomed too, but its interest nontheless.

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

By No Fan of NSFOC on May 14, 2008 10:54 AM
greg forrest. It is disappointing that you are sending money to the nsfoc instead of charities that truly need the donations. I also find it interesting that you choose a non-charity over charities for donations. The nsfoc is in no way a charitable organization. I also wonder if you still beleive that your donations will be tax deductible (they will not be - activist not for profit donations are not tax deductable - the organization you support cannot even be honest about that).

I just have to say shame on you for your priorities in your choice of "goodwill/charity" donations. I have said from the beginning that I felt the NSFOC is looking after only their children and not the children of the entire district. It appears as if you would rather blow your goodwill/charity budget on a cause that benefits the select few children of tall grass & white eagle than support true charitable causes that benefit people all over the country/world.

K Kid,

only my lemon grove sniper group are allowed to call me Greggy :) LOL. I suggest a duel at noon with one shot paint ball pistols filled with dirt from midestgen land. Location; on the floooded plains of the freshly graded AME/Eola site. MR can officiate. We can use the pipeline stakes and roped off markers as our back to back walking line. 20 paces, turn and fire). if you win, I have to crash the bround breaking ceremony wearing a mustang/horse constume and drop off a check for $204 to the PTSA for MVHS. If you lose, you have to wear hazmat guy uniform and donate $204 to NSFOC. :) MR? you up for officiating the duel on the plains of AME? lol

On a serious note; its nice to see they have good construction safety action plans around the pipes and have built a crossing zone of 4 feet of clay for the heavier machines to use to reduce the amt of compaction around the pipes. Think a Kinder Morgan representative is supervising any future construction near the pipeline easement). Where is the Watcher with the latest reports? I had to get this off anohter blog site...

-------------------------------------------------
By Khazakstan Kid on May 14, 2008 8:26 AM
By D&S on May 14, 2008 1:46 AM

"The folks I heard it from feel used and abused by the SB and just don't trust them at all. They probably aren't seeing the bigger picture when it comes to the ops. ref., if they're even considering this at all, so it's good the SB has no plans for any refs. in the VERY NEAR future."
______________________________________

I can't disagree with any of that. I'd mistaken the info you shared regarding other's thoughts as being your thoughts. My bad.

As Greggy said, time heals all wounds. I'm think I'm gonna stick with "Greggy" -- it seems to roll off my keyboard.

Thanks Metea either way!! There you go fan, what is your favorite charity? Metea is offering to help pick up the slack since my priorities are all fouled up (in your opinion) and my blew my piggy bank destinated to charities on the nefarious mysterious NSFOC.
-------------------------------------------------
By Metea Either Way on May 14, 2008 11:31 AM
To No Fan of NSFOC

Because Greg's contributions to the NSFOC may benefit my children, I'll pick up his end towards the charitable organizations, hell I'll even let you pick the charity