Will be watching as well. It is sad to see now that we did not need a middle school nor a high school, and that WVHS may be closed, totally screwing a large portion of the taxpayers because you will have one crowded school in the south where most of the people live, and one school in the north that you cannot keep filled unless you bus people 8-10 miles from where they live. A total short-sighted stupid decision by the district when it comes. The $50 million or more cost will escalate further when WV closes. It is a shame the people trusted the SB to make a logical decision.

To top it off, the district has made it clear they are desparate buyers and vendors are now taking it to the wood shed on bids - see 50% increase in electrical bid with little cometitive alternatives presented. We are well on our way to a $200 million school before the interest expense, transportation excesses and lawsuit damages. Funny how the Sun headline makes it look like the district is saving money even though the only bid actually discussed was 50% over budget.

Hello there D&S and Lettuce Rejoice

DITTO from me. I have never been active civicly speaking except to vote. I will not be going back to sleep and I will remain "active" :)

Coming out of this assnine 3rd HS process: for good or bad (like it or not) there are now a bunch of newly "active" members of the community who plan to remain engagued regarding local issues (and not all of them are cheerleaders for the current SB!!!!!).

To Lettuce Rejoice on June 25, 2008 6:05 PM--

Without a doubt! The more folks that are involved from the onset, the less chance we have for the kind of community division we just experienced if things go awry. You hold the feet, I'll fan the flames (evil cackle) :)

D&S on June 25, 2008 3:03 PM

Thanks D&S I hoped this was simply a misunderstanding - again I'm not much of a writer (or humorist). I'll stick to my day job! But do look forward to holding our SB's feet to the fire. the only positive in this whole fiasco is that maybe it will get more people (like me) actively involved in civic issues?

To Lettuce Rejoice on June 25, 2008 9:24 AM--

Oh. Nevermind.

I missed that completely, except for the part about hiring off duty bicycle cops, so I'm not totally thick.

It sounded to me like another taunting attack on GF, who has been very vocal on these blogs in his support of the NSFOC, and the south in general. There have been many posts in the past ridiculing southern residents for being "suckered" into supporting a ref that they felt screwed them, so I thought your post was just one more. I, too, would be a card carrying member of the Sucker Bar.

Guess I have become overly sensitive. Apology extended.

Hi guys

Totally!! I am not comfortable taking my kids (all under 9) accross 59 when we are all on bikes. Now that the ped bridge is here!! much much better to get to the other half of the bike trails and also fronteer park!!!

maybe we should try and open up the sports bar!! God knows there is enough empty commerical real estate space floating around on the 59 corredor!!! LOL

D&S on June 24, 2008 3:54 PM
To Lettuce Rejoice on June 24, 2008 8:40 AM--

I heard D204 found some really cheap land for that sports bar in your neck of the woods. They're renaming it "Jerks", and you can be their first customer!

-----

Wow D&S, granted I'm not the best writer and maybe my attempt at humor missed its mark, but your response also is not warranted.

My use (and attempted humor) of this location is because it IS in "my neck of the woods" (I believe yours as well?) and I named it Sucker Bar because that is what I feel the board played me for - a sucker. Notice how I made D204 the owners who promised a location, at a ridiculous low price, and then can switch locations at the last moment?????? Sound familiar??? I threw in the bike cops because of another ongoing thread about Naperville police.

If I hurt your feelings I'm sorry, not my intent. If you fully understood my story and still decided to call me a "jerk" I guess I had it coming, but please see it for what it was - a joke.

And by the way, the bridge will be used by me and my family on a regular basis and is a much needed method to cross 59. Try getting a 5 year old to cross 59 with bikes in tow and everyone will be glad once the bridge is complete.

To Greg Forrest on June 23, 2008 5:48 PM--

Hey, G!! If there was another bar on the east side of 59, we could use the bridge for pub crawls between there and Tommy Nevin's. Now that would be a sight. Not exactly what Naperville had in mind for the bridge, is it?

You're right, the brige will be used for many other purposes than just connecting TG to NV, and it actually might be used for that purpose by the time your kids are ready for HS. In the meantime, keeping local residents off the streets at night is as good a purpose as any. It would be a hoot if someone else sees the pub crawl potential of the bridge and puts one on the other side. Fingers crossed!

To Lettuce Rejoice on June 24, 2008 8:40 AM--

I heard D204 found some really cheap land for that sports bar in your neck of the woods. They're renaming it "Jerks", and you can be their first customer!

Greg Forrest on June 23, 2008 5:48 PM

Hi Greg,

Good news about that Sports Bar! I thought I heard that D204 was going to try a unique approach to raising money. They are opening a sports bar in the SE corner of the mall at 95th and 59.

They will call it "Sucker Bar" (Not sure where they came up with this name). They plan on paying around $15 a square foot (well below what current rates are). They will serve all, and food will be less than half the price of most restaurants while still quite tasty. Big screen TV's and a gaming room. They will hire off duty bicycle cops to man the doors, and the new bridge will serve as the best way to visit.

The only problem, however, is that if they can't obtain the property they have found a similar spot on the SW corner of 75th and 59 and claim to be able to convert that farm house into a bar. I know what you're thinking - this is too good to be true? It must be true because I read it on the internet.

Hi KK
Cool. I figured I must be reading it incorrectly. Enough to go around on both sides of the fence.

You know us NSFOC supporters...we have trouble reading our ballots and get distracted so easily by the shiny beads and colorful goodies that are supposed to be completly unrelated to the written information at hand! LOL :)

PS, did you see the Ped bridge!! man that is going to be awesome (I know selfish of me to say I will be using it alot). MANY THANKS to the Parks district!! you guys ROCK!!!

too bad there is not a kick a** sports bar in that strip mall area. If/when one opens, we meet at my house and use the ped bridge to get there; do our football viewing and invibing of beverages, then stumble back to my house (no driving!!!)

D&S; how are we going to convince someone to put a cool bar over there? Look at what Tommy Nevins generates! there is no competition!!

---------------------------------------------------
By Khazakstan Kid on June 18, 2008 3:57 PM
GF, you read it incorrectly. I was defending what is currently a minority viewpoint (with the absence of MR, Civics, etc.), that being the almighty and righteous NSFOC is not very righteous. Some poor soul challenged the current tenor of recent posts on this blog and subsequently took a pounding. I wanted that person to know their rational and non-inflammatory post wasn't for naught.

TO George P. Burdell on June 22, 2008 3:11 PM
My responses to your responses
a) Not necessarily seeing speculative costs presented as facts by the NSFOC (all estimates from what I see - of course some folks want to say your claim is happening to spin it a specific way. In all honesty, the NSFOC numbers have been below the actuals that we do know today. You specifically were talking about reduced costs in the future - another area all together. Why not deal with the real cost issues we have today? Those are real and staring us in the face. Note the recent article about the yellow buses consuming much of school district budgets. The D204 bus plans are going to kill us...much more than any difference in the land costs, and don't expect help from the state - they have a budget problem now and they see what's going on in some districts treating their transportation costs as free money.

b) Ditto a) above - Houston, we have a problem today. Forget about growth because D204 is on decline, and high schools do not generate growth. What little growth was still coming in the south will not shift north. Developers already own the land and will put something in there. There will however be disruption to many people - both today (most important) and tommorrow when WVHS is closed. By the time D204 is done 'the majority' will be disrupted in my opinion. Many "safe" residents are too blind to see it today unfortunately.

c. Agree - why believe anything D204 says?

d. The lottery has winners. One picks a low probability to show reasonable approach but if the odds are 1 in a billion, do you want to be that 1? One location has a number of risks - the probability placed on the risks was zero by the district. The other location has none of the risks - BB has no 6 pipelines running thru or adjacent, no adjacent RR tracks expecting 3-4 fold train increase, no adjacent proven contamination, no power lines nearby, no peaker power plant nearby, no petroeum tank nearby, very little wetlands. By the way someone mentioned that there were no wetlands on Eola. Not anymore as they were just plowed over - a federal problem for D204.

e. confusing to most readers I say. How about seems logical or seems illogical.

Just saying that most people buy homes based on the proximity to good schools - whether WV or NV, or MS/ES schools. For many years about 1995 to 2003, the district had no plans to build another HS. Many people bought there homes knowing that situation. yes, things cahnge but the more "illogical" the changes, the more damage done to school volunteer time, financial support, district trust/spirit, home values etc. You will see this play out in the next few years. D204 loses - they just don't see it and forgot the two way relationship required. It's sort of an unwritten contract (although much of this is in theie own bylaws/oath. That contract was broken. The damage is done.

To Anonymous on June 23, 2008 2:10 PM--

I can appreciate your feelings on this issue, I've been hearing a lot of it lately. However, I didn't make the "salt into wounds" statement you attribute to me. That was made by another Anon on June 19 at 6:13 PM. It is hard to keep all the Anons straight.

By D&S on June 21, 2008 2:09 PM
Anyone that is rubbing salt into the wound of those that are upset right now should think twice as someday you might need our vote.
---
Salt into the wound is the way most people feel. Not only did the district make snide comments about people who elected them, passed the referendum by a wide margin, but they encouraged others to engage in name calling in the media, on blogs and at school board meetings, then danced in the streets gloating about a narrow opinion from the judge that basically said the exact wording of a referendum carries the day, but even that does not matter because the district and school board can do whatever the hell they want once you approve the money. So open the wounds and break out the salt. Damn the torpedoes.

I don't need your vote to say NO MORE TAXES - PERIOD. Improve your cost structure to free up the $ for AC - best case. Improve cost structure and have a referendum only for the the AC but guarantee year-round school to go with it...say 240 days from 180 - best cahnce for approval! Worst chance for approval, is too general wording, and AC buried with lots of other funding requests.

But I will still vote no right down the line until I am satisfied payback has been rendered.

To What The? on June 20, 2008 8:40 PM

My responses to your responses
a) Yes, all cost values are speculative and my only issue is those speculative costs being presented as if they are fact.

b) Yes, a majority of the population is already in the south, but that doesn't mean it will stay that way. What I am saying here is that putting the school at Eola will likely change the growth pattern and therefore the transportation cost predictions. My statement was completely about future growth, not current houses.

I wasn't implying anything at all about 'disrupting' anyone and it is more hyperbole to say 'the majority' is disrupted. The majority of students are not changing high schools and some of those who are would have changed schools no matter where the school was situated.

c. No real discussion there -- I just find it funny to hear people using the school board's 9% number as if it is was a guaranteed savings if the school was at BB.

d. If probabilities were attached, then why not show them? Then we would be able to debate if there is really an 'x%' probability of BB winning or a 'y%' probability of wetlands cleanup. Instead, NSFOC treated these as a certainty in their calculations and that discounts the results to me automatically. They are obviously not omniscient.

e. Again, my only point was there are 'rational' arguments as the other poster stated. Just because they do not fit someone else's viewpoint does not make them irrational arguments.

I don't quite follow your argument on this point. I am not asking anyone to sacrafice (sic) for anyone else. I've said before on numerous occasions that I bought a home in District 204. My son plays water polo for Waubonsie in the summers but will be going to Neuqua Valley in the fall. I had no idea when I bought my house which school we might be going to if a third high school was built.

Dear,

Noted. Thanks for the correction. Thought you were tipping.

:)

To You are mean spirited

Per my post I was referring to Anonymous on June 18, 2008 9:16 AM, not Anonymous on June 13, 2008 4:54 PM. I agree with you that this particular individual is not stable.

To Anonymous on June 19, 2008 6:13 PM--

Actually, I think there's a good possibility that those unhappy with the current situation won't have too much of an influence on future refs, especially the one that we all know is coming in another two years or so, the operating fund ref for Metea.

Here's why. Those happy at the school of their choice or at least okay with how things turned out will be supportive of the Metea ref. The ones who won't will be those who didn't want another HS to begin with or are the ones who feel they got screwed by passing the last ref. But I think even some of the unhappy folks could get pressured into another 'yes' vote once the district in-fighting resumes and the SB cranks up to have another go at influencing voter resistance.

This is how I see it--the yes voters will begin attacking the no voters again "What selfish SOB's you are!" or using emotional blackmail "You're only hurting the kids", and then the district will step in with threats and doomsday scenarios if the ref isn't passed, like they did with the split shifts threat in 06, but this time telling the no voters that their own children will be made to suffer because the SB will siphon off funds from NV and WV for Metea, and the first things to go will probably be the most popular programs or extracurriculars. I wouldn't be surprised if the SB even went so far as to target these programs specifically to coerce voters into a yes vote.

I do know that if the SB tries to hold public meetings again to "inform" the voters, I will stay home. Since I can not trust the SB to give me an accurate and unbiased assessment of the issue, I plan to decide all future refs on my own and look to other sources for info if I need it. I may still end up voting yes on some future refs, but it will be because I decided it was best, not because I let the district threaten or manipulate me into it.

At any rate, I think it could play out this way. We'll see.
------------------------------------------

By Anonymous on June 19, 2008 6:13 PM--

This statement from D&S is very true: "The dismissal of the lawsuit does not magically erase everything we experienced in 06."

Some, the dismissal makes everything go away. I completely disagree. Just wait til the next request for money from taxpayers. I predict a 65% NO to 35% YES vote simply based on the animosity many residents have towards the district regarding the past two years.

Anyone that is rubbing salt into the wound of those that are upset right now should think twice as someday you might need our vote.

By George P. Burdell on June 20, 2008 7:19 AM

To What The? on June 19, 2008 4:44 PM

a. You are still making the same error of assuming some speculative costs while ignoring others. Your numbers on transportation costs may be true, but they also assume that nothing changes when the school is built at Metea.

b. There is open property near Metea as well as land that could be revitalized for housing. This is more likely with a new school there. It is also likely that some additional sites in the south will not be used for housing now that the new school is further away.

c. It is also funny how people use the School Board's number of 9% as fact while at the same time saying everything else they said in 2006 is a lie. If you don't believe anything else D204 said about BB and Metea, why would you believe there was ever actually going to be a 9% savings?

d. Sorry, "my friend", but I don't know anything about the "full measure of the costs" and neither do you or anyone else. All of the people doing cost analysis for Eola are figuring maybes and possibles and assigning no probability weights to those, which makes it a flawed analysis.

e. And really, this is fine, it's a good source of debate. My problem is when people start passing it off as fact or claiming there is no rational reason to build any where other than Brach-Brodie.
-----
I respond to the lettered statements above.

a. Your comment "Your numbers on transportation costs may be true" was refreshing - but they are not mine, but they do make sense to me - that's all. Regarding "speculative costs" - I believe all cost estimates are always "speculative" no matter what is said. The actual numbers do not happen until the project is finished. The problem is that the district uses zero for many categories of costs when a reasonable estimate would do just fine, or they leave the category out all together so the taxpayers will not see costs they expect to pay. Why? I can only guess it's to engineer a certain result. The more fair action would be to share all the exposures and deal with them directly/openly.

b. I cannot believe what is being said here. The problem is that the homes already exist - the 64% of the population already exists in the south. They also already paid for their housing - the main decision usually being nearness to schools. If you recall the district said they were not going to build another school due to population trends - and that such a school would be a "white elephant". So now you imply that its OK to disrupt the majority of the population, inconvenience and cost them money, so that future development can happen. Do you realize what you are saying? Because those homes are already there and being paid for, the students are going to be there as well - today and tommorrow. It feels like a government social engineering experiment to me - a lot of speculation on the future.

c. You got a point there, however, I don't believe they lie about everything - most things with this SB based on performance however. I am sure you agree that using the SB's own figures is a logical attack point. Otherwise, you would not believe my number or NSFOC's numbers one would surmise.

d. Well, there was probability attached to the NSFOC numbers from my discussions with them at meetings. Again, the district uses zero probability in all cases. But the probabilities can be argued as well I guess. It is all estimates and one has to determine how reasonable those estimates are "my friend".

e. Agree on the debate, but try to see it from the perspective of people who already bought, live and go to school in the south. They did not buy in the north knowing full well that they were traveling to WVHS like those folks in the north did. They bought very rationally near where the schools were (WV or NV)knowing that the building of a third HS was not going to happen. Not knowing where you live, why would anyone ask already existing people to sacrafice for people who bought homes knowing the situation or worse yet, people who do not even exist yet?

Thank you, Anonymous on June 18, 2008 9:16 AM for your sane and rational post....D&S, I now step aside to let the bashing from your side continue unabated.

By Khazakstan Kid on June 18, 2008 3:57 PM
GF, you read it incorrectly. I was defending what is currently a minority viewpoint (with the absence of MR, Civics, etc.), that being the almighty and righteous NSFOC is not very righteous. Some poor soul challenged the current tenor of recent posts on this blog and subsequently took a pounding. I wanted that person to know their rational and non-inflammatory post wasn't for naught.

--------
You mean this anonymous below?:

>>>>>>
By Anonymous on June 13, 2008 4:54 PM
Would we be having this conversation if it weren't for the fact that there are more black students at Waubonsie? I'm sure some of you think it's about being lied to, but it isn't. You would have been fine with district not building on BB if they'd built at Macom. It's about not wanting to go to Waubonsie. You're all sick, disgusting people. I think it's a mortal sin that you've reproduced and passed the filth of your hatred on to another generation.
>>>>

Yeah - real balanced and stable...that person has their head screwed on backwards or was a different personality among many in your head. Maybe it's KK's alter ego.

To What The? on June 19, 2008 4:44 PM

You are still making the same error of assuming some speculative costs while ignoring others. Your numbers on transportation costs may be true, but they also assume that nothing changes when the school is built at Metea.

There is open property near Metea as well as land that could be revitalized for housing. This is more likely with a new school there. It is also likely that some additional sites in the south will not be used for housing now that the new school is further away.

It is also funny how people use the School Board's number of 9% as fact while at the same time saying everything else they said in 2006 is a lie. If you don't believe anything else D204 said about BB and Metea, why would you believe there was ever actually going to be a 9% savings?

Sorry, "my friend", but I don't know anything about the "full measure of the costs" and neither do you or anyone else. All of the people doing cost analysis for Eola are figuring maybes and possibles and assigning no probability weights to those, which makes it a flawed analysis.

And really, this is fine, it's a good source of debate. My problem is when people start passing it off as fact or claiming there is no rational reason to build any where other than Brach-Brodie.

By Anonymous on June 18, 2008 9:16 AM
To What The? on June 14, 2008 4:31 PM

1) It is certainly "a rational argument" to consider distributing the high schools geographically. Rationally does not require that a solution be optimal, only that sound judgment be used in making it. The fact that there is another rational argument for putting the school in the south does not make the argument for putting it in the north irrational. There can be more than one rational argument.(BTW, if you are making a judgment based on personal prejudice, then that is, by definition, an irrational decision).

2) The district did "not [know] the price was going to be around $500,000 per acre before they even started condemnation and were ready to pay over $600,000 per media quotes of officials". And please reread the quotes again from HC. "At the hearing, Crouse said that if the district is required to pay the potential high-end cost for the land, as much as $600,000 per acre, it could result in a smaller high school. And "long term liabilities" is just more NSFOC fear, uncertainty and doubt.

3) NSFOC has been shown, time and time again, to purposely twist the facts to suit their agenda. Leaving out the expedite fees for Brach-Brodie, for example. Not including the gains D204 may see on the sale of the land it owns at BB. (If you are going to include other speculative costs such as the BB lawsuits, you need to also include the speculative gain of selling the parcel at BB). Any claim of rationality based on NSFOC figures is invalid.
---
My 2 cents here on these comments...whatever What The? has to say.
1. Good for you twisting the words - I don't have a clue what you are trying to say, and will not try to understand. Please do not try to explain further either. My comment is simply this - Not if it costs all D204 taxpayers $20-60M over just 20 years. The NSFOC looks to me like it used under $20M when they should be using $60M, particularly when you consider fuel costs going forward. There is rational, and then there is stupid. I don't mean you but the district and SB.

2. Understand the argument about HC saying a smaller school could be built. Well, that decision would have saved the taxpayers a bundle, and is now required to meet the budget at Eola in my opinion. But look at Mark Metzger's comments, they are more direct than HC's and the NSFOC should have used those comments over HC's I think.
**** From Daily Herald article (link attached at end)****
Metzger said he isn't worried about getting locked into whatever price the jury sets. "Even if it's the worst case scenario, we can afford it so it doesn't matter." (worst case scenario was over $600,000). The last statement about LT liabilities is valid I think because there is clearly more risk at Eola than BB site - won't bother to list them because everyone has seen and knows the lists. That is a tough one to argue against in my view. The link:
http://www.studentsfirst.us/news/contentview.asp?c=197819

3. Because you say " Any claim of rationality based on NSFOC figures is invalid" does not make you statement valid. The NSFOC just played back the same game the district played in the media at meetings and in written communications. I looked over the numbers again, and they seem OK to me. BB site has been given an additional cost of $6.4M, and Eola has been given a $6.4M reduction assuming the sale of 25 acres at BB takes place. If AME-Eola has to be sold (for wahtever reason)the sales proceeds should be applied to the next land acquired - it's for the 3rd HS right - so it can be used as such? Where is this information flawed?

That said, why not build a smaller school up north and leave the WV Gold campus open? This would minimize the transportation costs and risks I think. It feels like a logical option under the circumstances related to the economy and SB decision-making. Transportation is biggest problem going forward, and using the districts own numbers - a 7th MS is no longer needed.

This statement from D&S is very true: "The dismissal of the lawsuit does not magically erase everything we experienced in 06."

Some, the dismissal makes everything go away. I completely disagree. Just wait til the next request for money from taxpayers. I predict a 65% NO to 35% YES vote simply based on the animosity many residents have towards the district regarding the past two years.

Anyone that is rubbing salt into the wound of those that are upset right now should think twice as someday you might need our vote.

PLEASE stop with the Cheers thing. Yuck! I've had enough of it already.

By Anonymous on June 18, 2008 9:16 AM
To What The? on June 14, 2008 4:31 PM

You are making the mistake of assuming that just because YOU find the arguments irrational, therefore they are.

You also need to consider the definition of the word rational. If I believe an action implies a result and the result is desirable(to me), then taking the action is 'rational'
-----

You are all wet my friend. The truth is as follows:
1. 9% savings lost by BB not being the location of the new HS - 9% is the D204 number not mine.
2. up to 13% increase in bus miles and likely the costs associated with those miles per the D204's own planned allocation of students to schools, not my allocation.
NSFOC did not take the full measure of the costs - they show only $19.5 million. The truth is likely to be well over that number and you know it.

Cheers

To Metea Either Way on June 19, 2008 8:38 AM--

RE: "Its hubris, plain and simple. The notion that the pro-Eola/SB side victory seemingly invalidated everything the NSFOC/pro-BB stood for . . ."

Of course those opposed to the NSFOC would read it this way. I saw it, too. "See, the judge said there was no dishonesty! You imagined the whole thing! No one promised you anything!" Of course, the judge said nothing of the kind. He ruled that what the SB did in 06 was not illegal, so there's nothing legally we can do to remedy the situation. This was not a moral judgment in favor of the SB, like so many are insisting (remember that blogger with the "strong moral compass" crap? Geez!). I do think they were intentionally dishonest to a degree in 06 to get the ref passed. If they hadn't been, there would not have been a lawsuit in the first place. The dismissal of the lawsuit does not magically erase everything we experienced in 06.

I'm personally going to implement a decision I came to weeks ago. I'm no longer going to entertain discussions about what the SB did and said in 06 with people who weren't there and therefore really have no clue as to what did or didn't occur at those meetings. And I'm not talking about attending one or two of them; I'm talking about staying nearly the whole course like I did, and I'm pretty sure like the founders of the NSFOC did. Unless one personally experienced what we did with the SB, they don't get it and never will, so it's a useless and endless discussion. Now if there's someone out there who attended nearly all the meetings in 06, including getting the sent home flyers, etc., who has a differing opinion, then that's fine. THAT would be interesting. Otherwise, I'm not wasting anymore of my time on this. They can all think what they want.

Gotta run, now. Victoria's Secret is having their big semi-annual sale. Maybe that's too much information for you, but Ken on the Blowing in the Wind thread should be happy to hear about it.

Cheers, MEW!

To Khazakstan Kid on June 18, 2008 12:52 PM--

I submitted a reply to your post late last night, but for some reason it hasn't appeared (no, there was nothing obscene in it ;).
Anyway, I don't have the energy or the interest to re-do it. Let's just agree to disagree again. That seems to work for us.

By George P. Burdell on June 19, 2008 8:36 AM

My apologies, I was the "Anonymous on June 18, 2008 3:02 PM". I thought I'd typed in my handle. I wish this blog would go to log-ins so I wouldn't have to remember every time. I'm getting old.

I wasn't the person who posted the original 3 'rational' arguments but I didn't agree with "What The?" dismissing them as irrational simply because he/she doesn't agree with them.

I did not mean to imply that the NSFOC was the only one twisting the facts. You can add the school board, Brach-Brodie trusts, Midwest Gen, and most everyone on this blog to that list.

All I was saying is I don't accept the 'facts' as NSFOC laid them out or anyone who will say a decision is 'irrational' based on speculation that somewhere down the road there is a change that maybe there could be an issue that might possibly lead to a lawsuit. And leaving out the potential gains from a sale of the parcel D204 owns at BB as a benefit to the Eola property while including possible losses due to court ruling in favor of BB causes me to reject the rest of NSFOC's calculation of cost.

I think I've been clear I do not like the way our school board acted. I tend to believe the school board was not intentionally deceptive but rather extremely short-sighted and very arrogant in their dealings with BB and later AME/MWGEN. If NSFOC had been a more high-minded and stuck to the facts rather than engaging in a lot of hyperbole, I probably would have been a supporter.
------------------------------------
Good to hear from you, GB. It's been awhile!

Thanks for the clarification. Actually, I have to agree. EVERYONE involved in this mess used the same tactics to get what they wanted, so to hold one group accountable while ignoring the other players is absurd.

Yes, the SB was very arrogant (sorry, Civ, but the "A" word applies) in their assessment of the situation from beginning to end. Particularly amusing in retrospect is reading M2's very confident statements made at the time about how "wrong" BB was in their value assessments of the land. Our numbers are better than their numbers, etc. and so forth. It's an embarrassment, but I'm sure M2 is oblivious to it. Such are the pitfalls (or benefits?) of hubris.

But the NSFOC's hysterical interpretations were also an embarrassment at times. I do have to admit that even tho I support the NSFOC in principle and still do, I didn't go to the website much and still don't. There were times when the over the top tenor of their articles made me wince, so I certainly understand your feelings about the hyperbole.

I do agree with your assessment of the SB, with one small exception. I do think they deliberately engaged in some deception by refusing to discuss alternative plans, even when we gave them ample opportunity by asking this question repeatedly at the open meetings. To admit to us that a worse case scenario would make the land unaffordable would have lost them votes, and their purpose in engaging in this public charade in the first place was to convince us that the ref needed to be passed. In fact, isn't M2 on record saying a worse case scenario didn't matter because we could afford it? So if refusing to disclose information that was unfavorable to their agenda is considered by some to be dishonest and underhanded, then I think the shoe fits. Aside from that, they were certainly clueless and arrogant enough to believe their own BS. Let's just hope history doesn't repeat itself with the BB damage suits.

Cheers!

GF: Its hubris, plain and simple. The notion that the pro-Eola/SB side victory seemingly invalidated everything the NSFOC/pro-BB stood for......what I find most humorous is that the pro-Eola/SB faction revels in the fact that Popejoy categorized the NSFOC's actions simply as a "back door" strategy yet when the SB pursued the the Quick Take action this is what happened:
"However, an Illinois House committee overwhelmingly rejected the plan, with members expressing their reluctance to do an "end run" around the court system. The rejection pulls the plug for now on the district's effort to get the state to speed up the land deal."

D&S: Like Anonymous said, its a "Do as I say and not as I do" scenario.

My apologies, I was the "Anonymous on June 18, 2008 3:02 PM". I thought I'd typed in my handle. I wish this blog would go to log-ins so I wouldn't have to remember every time. I'm getting old.

I wasn't the person who posted the original 3 'rational' arguments but I didn't agree with "What The?" dismissing them as irrational simply because he/she doesn't agree with them.

I did not mean to imply that the NSFOC was the only one twisting the facts. You can add the school board, Brach-Brodie trusts, Midwest Gen, and most everyone on this blog to that list.

All I was saying is I don't accept the 'facts' as NSFOC laid them out or anyone who will say a decision is 'irrational' based on speculation that somewhere down the road there is a change that maybe there could be an issue that might possibly lead to a lawsuit. And leaving out the potential gains from a sale of the parcel D204 owns at BB as a benefit to the Eola property while including possible losses due to court ruling in favor of BB causes me to reject the rest of NSFOC's calculation of cost.

I think I've been clear I do not like the way our school board acted. I tend to believe the school board was not intentionally deceptive but rather extremely short-sighted and very arrogant in their dealings with BB and later AME/MWGEN. If NSFOC had been a more high-minded and stuck to the facts rather than engaging in a lot of hyperbole, I probably would have been a supporter.

By Anonymous on June 18, 2008 3:02 PM

Yeah, D&S do as I say, not as I do.
---------------------------
What?

This sounds like an "I know you are but what am I?" comment.

GF, you read it incorrectly. I was defending what is currently a minority viewpoint (with the absence of MR, Civics, etc.), that being the almighty and righteous NSFOC is not very righteous. Some poor soul challenged the current tenor of recent posts on this blog and subsequently took a pounding. I wanted that person to know their rational and non-inflammatory post wasn't for naught.

You know from my many posts what my thoughts and positions on our current SB.

KK

you have got to be kidding me. Am I reading your post correctly? are you saying only the NSFOC twisted the facts during this ordeal and that the SB did not and never "omitted any facts" as well (which is just another form of a lie?)

If that is your position; excuse me while I go outside to expel my lunch.

GF

---------------------------------------------------
By Khazakstan Kid on June 18, 2008 12:52 PM
By D&S on June 18, 2008 10:54 AM

To Anonymous on June 18, 2008 9:16 AM--

Re this statement to What The?:

"NSFOC has been shown, time and time again, to purposely twist the facts to suit their agenda."

I think we can all agree at this point that both the school board and the NSFOC were playing the same game. See my post to GK from the North above. The NSFOC may have twisted some facts, but the SB left facts out entirely when they didn't suit their agenda. The SB selectively released "facts" that only supported getting the ref passed, then did the same thing to justify the move to the Eola site. The NSFOC simply took a page from the SB's rule book and ran with it.

Give up on the NSFOC bashing. You can't "rationally" demonize the actions of one group without implicating the other.

Actually, D&S, I think Anonymous successfully just that, without demonizing or "bashing" anything or anyone. Given the one-sided amount of anti-MV/SB vitriol spewed forth these past few days (D&S, you have to admit that's a factual statement I just made, count the posts...I did...) I found Anonymous' thoughtful, non-hateful post to be quite refreshing. And the NSFOC did indeed twist facts as witnessed by me personally at two NSFOC meetings.

Thank you, Anonymous on June 18, 2008 9:16 AM for your sane and rational post....D&S, I now step aside to let the bashing from your side continue unabated.

By Khazakstan Kid on June 18, 2008 12:52 PM
By D&S on June 18, 2008 10:54 AM

To Anonymous on June 18, 2008 9:16 AM--

Re this statement to What The?:

"NSFOC has been shown, time and time again, to purposely twist the facts to suit their agenda."

I think we can all agree at this point that both the school board and the NSFOC were playing the same game. See my post to GK from the North above. The NSFOC may have twisted some facts, but the SB left facts out entirely when they didn't suit their agenda. The SB selectively released "facts" that only supported getting the ref passed, then did the same thing to justify the move to the Eola site. The NSFOC simply took a page from the SB's rule book and ran with it.

Give up on the NSFOC bashing. You can't "rationally" demonize the actions of one group without implicating the other.

Actually, D&S, I think Anonymous successfully just that, without demonizing or "bashing" anything or anyone. Given the one-sided amount of anti-MV/SB vitriol spewed forth these past few days (D&S, you have to admit that's a factual statement I just made, count the posts...I did...) I found Anonymous' thoughtful, non-hateful post to be quite refreshing. And the NSFOC did indeed twist facts as witnessed by me personally at two NSFOC meetings.

Thank you, Anonymous on June 18, 2008 9:16 AM for your sane and rational post....D&S, I now step aside to let the bashing from your side continue unabated.

****

Yeah, D&S do as I say, not as I do.

By D&S on June 18, 2008 10:54 AM

To Anonymous on June 18, 2008 9:16 AM--

Re this statement to What The?:

"NSFOC has been shown, time and time again, to purposely twist the facts to suit their agenda."

I think we can all agree at this point that both the school board and the NSFOC were playing the same game. See my post to GK from the North above. The NSFOC may have twisted some facts, but the SB left facts out entirely when they didn't suit their agenda. The SB selectively released "facts" that only supported getting the ref passed, then did the same thing to justify the move to the Eola site. The NSFOC simply took a page from the SB's rule book and ran with it.

Give up on the NSFOC bashing. You can't "rationally" demonize the actions of one group without implicating the other.

Actually, D&S, I think Anonymous successfully just that, without demonizing or "bashing" anything or anyone. Given the one-sided amount of anti-MV/SB vitriol spewed forth these past few days (D&S, you have to admit that's a factual statement I just made, count the posts...I did...) I found Anonymous' thoughtful, non-hateful post to be quite refreshing. And the NSFOC did indeed twist facts as witnessed by me personally at two NSFOC meetings.

Thank you, Anonymous on June 18, 2008 9:16 AM for your sane and rational post....D&S, I now step aside to let the bashing from your side continue unabated.

Response to MEW
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you masked stranger......

To Anonymous on June 18, 2008 9:16 AM--

Re this statement to What The?:

"NSFOC has been shown, time and time again, to purposely twist the facts to suit their agenda."

I think we can all agree at this point that both the school board and the NSFOC were playing the same game. See my post to GK from the North above. The NSFOC may have twisted some facts, but the SB left facts out entirely when they didn't suit their agenda. The SB selectively released "facts" that only supported getting the ref passed, then did the same thing to justify the move to the Eola site. The NSFOC simply took a page from the SB's rule book and ran with it.

Give up on the NSFOC bashing. You can't "rationally" demonize the actions of one group without implicating the other.

Intro to Is city in for another fight blog:
Naperville's City Council Tuesday night decided to join a consortium that opposes Canadian National's acquisition of the EJ&E Railway. Opponents say increased freight traffic at grade-level crossings would hinder the ability of emergency vehicles to get around town, slow school buses and cause delays for commuters. Yet officials concede that federal officials appear likely to approve CN's acquisition of the EJ&E. If and when that happens, opponents--like Naperville--might wage a legal battle as a next step. This could end up being a costly move. Do you agree with Naperville's decision to join other towns and counties fighting the sale? What will the impact be to you if the acquisition goes through?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: Given that Aurora annexed the land for Metea @ Eola, will they be joining the fight as well?

Response to MEW:

Aurora already has joined. From today's story:

The council unanimously approved the measure that will cost the city $10,000 to join the Regional Answer to Canadian National. The group - which consists of several government entities in the region, including Barrington, Downers Grove, Aurora, DuPage County and Will County - aims to raise awareness about the negative effects of the potential acquisition and to pay possible legal fees.

To What The? on June 14, 2008 4:31 PM

You are making the mistake of assuming that just because YOU find the arguments irrational, therefore they are.

You also need to consider the definition of the word rational. If I believe an action implies a result and the result is desirable(to me), then taking the action is 'rational'

1) It is certainly "a rational argument" to consider distributing the high schools geographically. Rationally does not require that a solution be optimal, only that sound judgment be used in making it. The fact that there is another rational argument for putting the school in the south does not make the argument for putting it in the north irrational. There can be more than one rational argument.(BTW, if you are making a judgment based on personal prejudice, then that is, by definition, an irrational decision).

2) The district did "not [know] the price was going to be around $500,000 per acre before they even started condemnation and were ready to pay over $600,000 per media quotes of officials". And please reread the quotes again from HC. "At the hearing, Crouse said that if the district is required to pay the potential high-end cost for the land, as much as $600,000 per acre, it could result in a smaller high school. District officials have offered $260,000 per acre" and "We believe that we have sufficient funds available through referendum or other sources to pay fair market value of the property," Crouse told lawmakers. That is much different than "ready to pay over $600K". That is HC saying "we could pay $600K but we'd have to build a bigger school" and "we have the funds available" but NOT "we're willing to spend them all".

And "long term liabilities" is just more NSFOC fear, uncertainty and doubt.

3) NSFOC has been shown, time and time again, to purposely twist the facts to suit their agenda. Leaving out the expedite fees for Brach-Brodie, for example. Not including the gains D204 may see on the sale of the land it owns at BB. (If you are going to include other speculative costs such as the BB lawsuits, you need to also include the speculative gain of selling the parcel at BB). Any claim of rationality based on NSFOC figures is invalid.

from the sound of it a 2,000 or even a 2,500 scaled down school for less cost at bb with the proper amenities would have still been more than enough for the peak enrollment and could have been started on back in october of 2007 which would have saved us expedite costs the construction cost increases not to mention the site hazard fiasco.

To GK from the North on June 16, 2008 10:05 PM--

Excellent work, GK!! I'm impressed! I have already copied your entire post into a file to keep for posterity.

I really appreciate you going the extra distance to dig this up. I remember reading about the Springfield session in the Tribune, but I've seen the Howie quote so many times since that I couldn't remember where it originated and wasn't willing to spend mega time and $$ trying to locate the source. So I just quit bringing it up and referred to it instead as the Howie non-quote of '06. Actually, these articles confirm that it is a non-quote, but given the context in which HC said this, it's easy to see where we all got the impression, and I think this WAS the impression he was meaning to give, that the SD could afford to pay up to $600/K acre for BB, even if it resulted in having to build a "smaller" school, not a "lesser" one. The word "smaller" did not set off alarms when I read it again. The word "lesser", which is what we were referring to in terms of a Metea lite, would have. Big time.

Looking at the Herald article, I get the impression that the writers, Patterson and Hooker, were not very friendly towards our SB, printing the "end run" and "sneaky" comments made by other House members. Ouch. All the same, this was how those legislators saw it.

Also interesting was Morphew's concerns that the school district wouldn't want to or be able to pay the price if the jury sided with the owners and deemed the land worth nearly $600,000 an acre. "If the school district had unlimited funds, we would have no problem with them taking the property," Morphew said.

The BB attorney's were certainly right about that, weren't they?

The Tribune article really gets down to specifics, tho. Re-reading the following:

At the hearing, Crouse said that if the district is required to pay the potential high-end cost for the land, as much as $600,000 per acre, it could result in a smaller high school. "Then we would have to come up with $15 million of a reduction, approximately, in the project itself, reducing the size of the high school and displacing more students," Crouse said on paying the higher price.

He's talking here about size, not quality. He's talking about less seats being available, "displacing more students." What the SB talked about AFTER the BB verdict came in was building Metea at BB without amenities like a stadium or pool to make up for the shortfall. That's high school lite. That would have been completely unacceptable on more levels than I care to get into right now.

Why we feel lied to is because these possibilities were never disclosed to us by the SB, even when we directly asked the question and pressed them for details. All we were told at those open meetings were variations on the same thing HC said to the lawmakers at Springfield, "We believe that we have sufficient funds available through referendum or other sources to pay fair market value of the property." We trusted our SB, so we bought it. Obviously no one else did.

I also love Morphew's comments in this article:

"Our only concern is whether they're going to have the money to pay the award when that time comes," lobbyist James Morphew said. "It's our position, when you have such a wide disparity between the governmental unit and the property owner, the prudent thing to do would be to wait and see where the jury comes down in terms of compensation."

Right again. To bad our SD couldn't afford BB's level of counsel.

At any rate, it appears that the quick take not going through saved the SB from negotiating themselves into a disastrous situation. Given the choice, a full HS at Eola is better for all students and the district as a whole than half a HS at BB. It's the process the SB used to get there that many folks will have difficulty forgiving. Look at it this way. If the SB had told us at those public meetings that they were confident they would get the land for around $260/K acre, but there was a slight possibility that the jury would side with BB and if that happened, the amenities at Metea would have to be scaled back in order to make it affordable, i.e., no pool, no stadium, smaller auditorium and/or unable to accommodate all students, would I have voted for the ref anyway? Hell, no! That's why the SB would never discuss this, even when we asked them point blank what the options were if the land could not be had for the price the SB wanted. The SB would only discuss the best case scenario. We were not informed of the risks, and we should have been. That's the trust issue that not only this school board, but all future ones, are going to have to contend with from now on.

By help on June 16, 2008 9:37 AM
Here's another quote I stumbled upon that clearly shows the extent of the lying the district is willing to do to get what they want. They can never be trusted again in my view...not with 1 dime of additional money. That will be the payback, and I do not care what the damage is going to be. Hopefully they will be able to survive with the meager $260 million per year they already get from taxpayers. Gosh, I hope it's enough!

School Board President Mark Metzger - 4/15/08
[there] "will soon be thousands more middle school students than we have space for" [in reference to the need for the seventh middle school building via turning WV Gold Campus into a middle school] (in reality, the district showed the following projections for grades 6 - 8 from the school district 204 March 4, 2008 financial meeting:
2008 - 7026 - have trailers only at Scullen MS, so this peak is managed, and there is still unused space in other MSs
2009 - 6935 - this drops 91 kids
2010 - 6879
2011 - 6961
2012 - 7113 - no guarantee number will be hit, but only 87 more than 2008, so manageable via unused MS space
2013 - 6987
All the above brings into question why we needed a 7th MS building, when the peak is essentially today and is being managed - although by moving some students to other Middle Schools, even the trailers would not be needed. So we ask Mr. Metzger to please retract his statement and for the district to share their detailed analysis supporting Mr. Metzger's quotes.)
-----------------
So no 7th middle school needed. What can we believe in already? To me it appears now that the so-called "need" for a 7th MS seems manufactured to reduce high school capacity so the already pumped enrollment figures would show a surplus of student seats and thus help justify voting yes for the 3rd HS back in the 2006 referendum. Add another lie to the pile of you know what from the district. No limits to what their actions I guess.

Some information on fuel costs and other transportation costs. Looks like over $60M before safety risks and family fuel/transport costs are added. Seems reasonable to me.

https://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137:bus-fuel-costs-a-major-expense-going-forward&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=108

Please see further Mark Metzger comments below re Brach-Brodie site (BB) appraisals in July 2007 made to media:

"Their experts began with the objective in mind of coming up with the highest number possible and coming up with justification for the number instead of starting at the other end and determining what the land is worth," he said.

But Helm [BB attorney] contends his experts have many years of experience and because many of them are usually hired by government entities, if they had any bias it would be in favor of the district.

He says Crouse initially set the price without independent advice from real estate appraisers, then hired two appraisers who agreed with him.

Metzger adamantly denies the claim.

"They're just dead wrong about that," he said. "They always have been. There are a number of things they've made up about the case as it's gone along."

http://www.studentsfirst.us/news/contentview.asp?c=197819

----
Well I guess the BB attorneys were right all along. And using the D204 supporters typical spin on all things, I guess we could say that because a legal decision was made aginst the D204 arguments, so that automatically means the district did make decisions without experts, then did hire 2 appraisers because they simply agreed with them. Sounds like the typical D204 MO - decide then find/hire someone to agree with your findings. Examples include:

1. decide to build HS - hire Ehlers Bond Brokers/NIU to pump up enrollment figures, and hire referendum consultant to find levers like "split shifts" to scare taxpayers into submission.

2. decide to pursue condemnation at BB - hire "experts" who agree with you.

3. decide to change location to Eola location - hire "experts" who tell you the a) no environmental risks exist, b) make your bus vendor say "transportation costs are neutral", then later "transportation costs go down by 11%".

To: Roger Waters

Thanks for providing the link. I will reread this the next time the school district tries to pass a referendum. It is so frustrating that this totally incompetent school board has had the ability to completely mismanage and waste our tax dollars.

I think plan A was always Eola/AME. That's why Metzger said "we don't need a plan B". Regardless of the fact that a judge ruled only the language on the ballot (the words) count, that does not mean we were not sold a bill of goods in more than 25 public meetings and thousands of emails, fliers and quotes in the media. The poor decision-making will go down as the highest cost mistake in our district for all time.

Arguments like "we can't have 2 HSs in the south" further show the lack of logic and practicality. The fact is when you build where the people ain't, then more people have to ride buses farther distances, parents and student drivers have to negotiate rush hour traffic (in our case because the new school will be in the north and rush hour traffic moves north in the AM and south in the PM). And all that costs money people.

The NSFOC did a good job on the bus costs, showing both the NPV cost in one article, then based on feedback showed the actual numbers later. In fact, the NSFOC numbers relatively match the NPV costs ranging from $19M to $31M. However, the base case that NSFOC used shows only $19.5M in increased bus transportation. This excludes the impact of the 13% increase in bus miles, and the increase in fuel costs in the next 20 years. That could be another $10M to $20M. Thus, we could be looking at over $60M fiscal failure if you count the lost savings at BB site, the additional bus miles for Eola/AME and fuel costs. So, the impact is much greater than NSFOC is showing.

My solution, vote out every incumbent except Vickers, fire the Superintendent, do not approve a single referendum for 20 years to bring some discipline back into mix, and cut the size of the school down to 2000 students to minimize the ludicrous transportation situation these leaders have put the taxpayers in. One other thing - don't forget the safety risk parents, bus riders and student drivers are faced with. There is a cost for that risk.

These solutions may appear to be overly strong actions, but these are now the only levers for the taxpayers to pull. And please do not blame the writer because this is a result of the District 204 leadership's actions, not the taxpayers. The taxpayers decided to build a new school in a place relatively close to the population, not entirely upstream in rush hour, which minimized bus miles, health and safety risks, based on the enrollment figures provided. We now have to take actions which sacrafice teacher/admin salaries and pensions in lieu of buildings. Some building cost has to be cut to pay for teachers and programs because no one will vote for another referendum.

So D204, make the cuts by building a 2000 seat school in the north before the other shoe drops and you realize there is no further funding coming...and are forced to cut education programs, teachers and God help us -- administrators (we have over 100 admin people making nearly $100,000 per year).

http://www.studentsfirst.us/news/contentview.asp?c=197819

Metzger said he isn't worried about getting locked into whatever price the jury sets.

"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."

By D&S on June 15, 2008 12:38 PM
By gk from the north on June 15, 2008 12:44 AM--

I wish you had been around weeks ago. Another blogger and I were trying to find where the Howie Crouse quote saying the district could pay up to $600K/acre for BB originated. Can you please direct me to where you got this quote?

I remember reading it back in 06, but I wasn't willing to rack up fees trying to find it in the newspaper Sun or Herald archives, so at the time I just let it go. I also remember HC saying the district could afford to pay $600K/acre in a worse case scenario, but I don't remember him saying Metea would have had to have been a lesser school (in GF's words, HS lite) if this happened. I was very involved in 06, and since my child would have attended Metea at BB, I think a statement such as this would have caught my eye if I had read it.

The first time I heard the SB complain about $518K/acre being unaffordable and having to scale back on amenities such as a pool, stadium, etc. if they had to pay it was AFTER the BB verdict came in; I don't remember hearing or reading anything about this before the '06 vote. I'm sure it wouldn't have been beyond the SB to consider building a "Metea lite" at BB, but this would not have been acceptable to those attending and probably would have resulted in a whole different lawsuit altogether.

Anyway, please direct me to this quote, or better yet, if you can just cut and paste it here, that would be great.

Thanks so much-- D&S

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

D&S actually I wasn't ignorring you but just wanted to quote correctly. (I did rack up $10 for the cause with the Herald archives to no avail)

I had read it on the green board but felt that I should see what the Harold article actually said. Of course when I went to the Hearld archives I couldn't get the exact quote and the writer Rick Pearson was not even a reporter for the Herald.

So I sent an Email to a Herald editor asked for her verification as to the accuracy of the article, And sure enough she got back to me with the fact that Rick Pearson has never reporter for the Herald.

With that I looked a bit deeper and turned up a Rick Pearson at the Chicago Tribune. With an Email to him he verified that he was indeed the author of the appropriate article and he has never worked for the Herald.

Sooo, I have copied both articles to this entry with the intent that you can read for yourself the different take by the 3 reporters listening to the same hearing. Clearly the Herald reporters listened to the session and either didn't pickup on the lesser school "Metae Lite" statement or discounted it in that $600K/acre was not anything that they thought would be the final outcome.

gk

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Accession: 888623
Publication: Daily Herald
Issue Date: 20061129
Zone: DuPage,Lake
Section: News
Page Number: 4
Headline: Dist. 204 denied quick-take powers
Byline: John Patterson and Sara Hooker Daily Herald Staff Writers

SPRINGFIELD - State lawmakers refused Tuesday to get involved in a land dispute over the proposed site of Indian Prairie Unit District 204's new high school, a setback school officials said threatens the timing of the $124.7 million project.

School leaders claim they are being "held hostage" by the landowners and if construction doesn't start in April, costs will soar, the 3,000-student building won't be done by 2009 and thousands of students will be displaced.

"We have to acquire that property to build a school," Superintendent Howard Crouse told lawmakers.

But an April groundbreaking appears increasingly unlikely in the district that includes portions of Naperville, Aurora, Bolingbrook and Plainfield.

District officials say the new building is needed to ease crowding at Neuqua Valley and Waubonsie Valley high schools.

The district is locked in a condemnation court battle over the price of the 55-acre tract of the Brach-Brodie property off Route 59 near 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora. The difference over the purchase price is nearly $300,000 an acre, and a jury decision may not come until late spring, well after district officials had hoped to start work.

And that's why they turned to state lawmakers, asking for what's known as "quick-take" powers so they could start construction while jury proceedings continue over how much the land is worth.

However, an Illinois House committee overwhelmingly rejected the plan, with members expressing their reluctance to do an "end run" around the court system. The rejection pulls the plug for now on the district's effort to get the state to speed up the land deal.

"This is dead for the 94th General Assembly," said state Rep. Joe Dunn, a Naperville Republican who pushed for the quick-take authority. "If the school district chooses to come back next year, we'll be able to better address those concerns."

State lawmakers are scheduled to conclude their brief fall session Thursday. Newly elected lawmakers are to be sworn in Jan. 10, and the legislative process will begin anew.

Jim Morphew , an attorney representing the estate of Helen Brach, one of the landowners, said the concern is the school district won't want to or be able to pay the price if the jury sides with the owners and deems the land worth nearly $600,000 an acre. The district has offered upward of $260,000 an acre.
"If the school district had unlimited funds, we would have no problem with them taking the property," Morphew said.

He disputed the contention that the landowners are holding the school district hostage in order to get more money, all to the detriment of the surrounding community.

"If you look at what the Brach estate and Brach foundation have done for education, you will see they are all for the kids," Morphew said. "But they also believe they should get fairly compensated and paid in a timely manner for their property, just like any other property."

Board member Mark Metzger said he doesn't consider the executive committee's decision final. Three lawmakers voted "yes," while nine voted present, which counts as a "no" vote. Among those not supporting the plan was influential House Speaker Michael Madigan, a Chicago Democrat.

Metzger said there's a chance they could amend a Senate plan, which wouldn't need the full legislative process for approval - a move Dunn rejected and called "sneaky" before sponsoring the fresh legislation that lawmakers rejected.

"I'm not willing to concede," Metzger said. "We're still discussing things with people. Is it a setback? Yes. Is it over? No."

jopatterson@dailyherald.com

shooker@dailyherald.com

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is the article from the "Daily Herald"...Chicago Tribune

11/29/2006
By Rick Pearson
"Daily Herald" really Chicago Tribune

SPRINGFIELD -- An Illinois House panel Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a bid by Aurora-based Indian Prairie School District 204 to gain control of 55 acres of private property to begin construction of a third high school in April.

The move by the House Executive Committee prompted warnings from school district officials that its projected August 2009 opening of the planned Metea Valley High School near the intersections of Illinois Highway 59 and 75th Street could be delayed.

"I've got 2,000 high school kids I have to have a seat for in 2009," District Supt. Howard Crouse said.

At the hearing, Crouse said that if the district is required to pay the potential high-end cost for the land, as much as $600,000 per acre, it could result in a smaller high school. District officials have offered $260,000 per acre.

"Then we would have to come up with $15 million of a reduction, approximately, in the project itself, reducing the size of the high school and displacing more students," Crouse said on paying the higher price.

The district, which has been one of the most rapidly growing in the state, serves students in Naperville, Aurora and Plainfield. Metea Valley would be the third high school, joining Waubonsie Valley in Aurora and Neuqua Valley in Naperville.

The creation of Metea Valley has not been smooth. In March, voters in the district approved a $124.7 million bond issue to finance land acquisition and construction of the school at 75th Street and Commons Drive. That vote followed weeks of bickering about school capacity, population projections and proposed boundary changes. Ultimately, the district chose a boundary plan that would displace the fewest number of families, but opposition remained.

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.

At issue in the legislature was an attempt by the district to secure so-called quick take power for the 55 acres. Earlier this month, a DuPage County judge ruled for the district in a condemnation case to obtain the land.

Although satisfied, district officials also sought the quick take powers from the legislature, contending that its construction plans would be delayed if it was forced to await the outcome of a jury trial expected next year to determine the fair market value of the property.

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 questioned the district's ability and willingness to pay a high-end price for the land and whether school district taxpayers would be satisfied by such an outcome.

"Our only concern is whether they're going to have the money to pay the award when that time comes," lobbyist James Morphew said. "It's our position, when you have such a wide disparity between the governmental unit and the property owner, the prudent thing to do would be to wait and see where the jury comes down in terms of compensation."

Crouse countered Morphew's assertion.

"We believe that we have sufficient funds available through referendum or other sources to pay fair market value of the property," Crouse told lawmakers.

Only three members of the House panel, including sponsoring Rep. Joseph Dunn (R-Naperville), supported the measure while nine members cast a "present" vote. The vote effectively killed the measure for the short fall veto session, but Dunn said that if the district wants to pursue it, he would try to bring the bill back in the new General Assembly that begins Jan. 10.

By Anonymous on June 13, 2008 4:54 PM
Would we be having this conversation if it weren't for the fact that there are more black students at Waubonsie? I'm sure some of you think it's about being lied to, but it isn't. You would have been fine with district not building on BB if they'd built at Macom. It's about not wanting to go to Waubonsie.

You're all sick, disgusting people. I think it's a mortal sin that you've reproduced and passed the filth of your hatred on to another generation.
----
Please remember that TG and WE are the most diverse of the NVHS neighborhoods, and more diverse than Brookdale for another example. Do we say Italians, Indians - I think it's time to be called Americans, and to recognize that among the so-called non-whites there are diverse opinions, diverse politics (meaning staunch conservatives to liberals), diverse economics (rich to poor). In fact, the same applies to whites as to non-whites. Do you realize that the group with the most pure numbers below the poverty line, commiting crimes, etc. are whites? Let's just back off the rhetoric of trying to classify neighborhoods, especially those with successful non-whites who did not inherit their weath, but earned it through hard workand rising up to and above the competition. These are the poeple we should be celebrating not disparaging. Look in your mirror.

By Anonymous on June 13, 2008 4:54 PM
Would we be having this conversation if it weren't for the fact that there are more black students at Waubonsie? I'm sure some of you think it's about being lied to, but it isn't. You would have been fine with district not building on BB if they'd built at Macom. It's about not wanting to go to Waubonsie.

You're all sick, disgusting people. I think it's a mortal sin that you've reproduced and passed the filth of your hatred on to another generation.
-------------------------------

Dear Anonymous "blind faith leader of the D204 Eola/AME Koolaid drinking supporters and hater of all opposition to the site, the school district, the school board". Your comments reflect your need for professional help. Get a life.

By Anonymous on June 14, 2008 7:49 PM
To What The? on June 14, 2008 3:31 PM

Under the circumstance of D204's own presentation of the data - YES I beliee the numbers. That accounting is only reflecting what D204 is doing. For example, D204 says the $6.4 million spent for other purposes than the third HS at BB site is bnoth a cost at the BB site and a benefit for the Eola/AME site (when the $6.4 million is gained back from the sale of the 25 acres owned near the BB site). I think the NSFOC just took the page out of the D204 playbook and presented the AME land in the same way. Thus if AME is sold, then that value can apply to the BB site.

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

Dear What the?

I think I hear the essence of what you are saying - that the NSFOC website numbers are a parody of what they believed the District presented, i.e. the $6.4M is a cost to BB but a benefit to AME, and tried to reverse that logic. It seems that you do agree with me that the logic is faulty, but that was done on purpose by NSFOC to expose the SB's tactics. I can see that you believe in the appropriateness of NSFOC presenting the facts in this manner, and I respect your right to that belief.

Frankly, when I read this first, thats the impression I had - that this was a tounge-in-cheek analysis and a slick, sophisticated dig at the District. Being an irreverent geek myself, and being no great fan of the some of the SB's past actions, I got a few good chuckles out of that, and the whole idea behind the parody, and was happy to let it slide.

But then, I saw those numbers being used as fact! Writer after writer went on claiming that BB land is cheaper than AME land, and touted that as gospel truth because of the NSFOC calculation. I like a good laugh just as much as anyone else, but this was beginning to border on delusional!

The parody breaks down because the $6.4 is indeed a cost for BB (as the 80 acres needs the 25 acres) as opposed to AME, where the 25 acres are not needed as the AME pourchase was for the full 80+ acres. So the logic is not valid, and this is not the true cost of BB land. That is the notion I set out to dispel by pointing out the flaws in the accounting logic.

I think I have beaten this horse to death - the laws of logic and the principles of accounting, fortunately, transcend the contributors to this debate, and are quite well grounded without our opinions. I trust that the intelligent reader will see this exchange and have enough data to draw their own conclusions. The NSFOC logic is fatally flawed, and I think others and myself have forcefully argued this stance till there is really no more to be said.

So with that, I'll let the matter rest.

Cheers.

------
Anonymous, you were doing fine until the "NSFOC logic is fatally flawed" comment. I reviewed the NSFOC numbers, and it appears they have accounted for the "land" figures as the district had accounted for the land figures - giving 6.4M hit to BB site and 6.4M benefit to Eola/AME land. Perfectly fine from an "accounting" perspective. Since monies related to land purchase can be used to purchase other land when sold, then the $18.9 M spent at AME can also be applied to another site if AME is sold (including BB site). So the cost comparison is perfectly fine for accountting purposes.

However, when talking Economic analysis, then the 6.4 M would be considered a sunk cost unless the 25 acres already owned at BB site is already sold for $6.4 M. The NSFOC and other citizens pointed that out in previous articles, and at meetings, but the district continued take the benefit at Eola/AME.

Thus, to be fair the 18.9M should then be accounted for in a similar manner...because that would be proper accounting. Meaning the $18.9M received from a subsequent sale of AME could be applied to BB site.

However, Economic Analysis is an entirely different approach, but the district has never shown any interest in that approach even though economic analysis is the crux of any capital project. The district looks like it chose mixing in accounting and finance to show the numbers in the most favorable light to readers. Something you never do in economic analysis of projects.

As of today, the Eola/AME site IS more expensive to taxpayers than the BB site. If a judge rules "no damages or legal fees", a smaller school is built at Eola/AME and the WV Gold campus remains open (no conversion to 7th MS), then the "3rd HS project" economics will improve - though likely to never be as good as the BB site.

On a pure economics basis, the 3rd HS project is well over $300 million spent for a few hundred students of space - money that is forever lost as a source of teachers' salaries, operating costs for existing facilities, new education programs, etc. Bricks and mortar instead of top teachers and education programs - I think.

By Greg Forrest on June 16, 2008 8:54 AM
Agreed... However, I liked your analogy so much I just had to run with it on the "other factors"
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Then to put things in their proper context you'd have to say that the Granny Smith rep showed up with your delivery only to find yourself left with a bag of naval oranges........ ( ;), smiley-winky character for context)

Here's another quote I stumbled upon that clearly shows the extent of the lying the district is willing to do to get what they want. They can never be trusted again in my view...not with 1 dime of additional money. That will be the payback, and I do not care what the damage is going to be. Hopefully they will be able to survive with the meager $260 million per year they already get from taxpayers. Gosh, I hope it's enough!

School Board President Mark Metzger - 4/15/08
[there] "will soon be thousands more middle school students than we have space for" [in reference to the need for the seventh middle school building via turning WV Gold Campus into a middle school] (in reality, the district showed the following projections for grades 6 - 8 from the school district 204 March 4, 2008 financial meeting:
2008 - 7026 - have trailers only at Scullen MS, so this peak is managed, and there is still unused space in other MSs
2009 - 6935 - this drops 91 kids
2010 - 6879
2011 - 6961
2012 - 7113 - no guarantee number will be hit, but only 87 more than 2008, so manageable via unused MS space
2013 - 6987
All the above brings into question why we needed a 7th MS building, when the peak is essentially today and is being managed - although by moving some students to other Middle Schools, even the trailers would not be needed. So we ask Mr. Metzger to please retract his statement and for the district to share their detailed analysis supporting Mr. Metzger's quotes.)

To D&S who was looking for where the 600k came up. I cut and paste here 2 quotes here...

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."

Then Superintendent Howard Crouse - email to Residents on January 11, 2007
"The referendum presented to the community was based on the Brach-Brodie land and boundaries were determined. Those boundaries would no longer be in effect if the location of the school changed. In our opinion, the location of the land and boundaries are contributing factors to why people voted as they did. A promise was made to the community and the community supported the district by passing the referendum."

Agreed... However, I liked your analogy so much I just had to run with it on the "other factors"

------------------------------------------------
By Civics on June 13, 2008 12:52 PM
Greg,

Agree, the situation in TOTAL is more complicated than just the cost of the apples.

but since we have to have a place to start discussions of the 'intangibles' or 'unknowns', we need to get the 'knowns' agreed. It shouldnt be difficult, and yet for some people it seems to be. I was just trying to clarify what the simple economics of the purchase were, ignoring all other factors.

You are bringing in the OTHER factors which go into the TOTAL economics. And that is a separate discussion.

By Anonymous on June 13, 2008 4:54 PM
Would we be having this conversation if it weren't for the fact that there are more black students at Waubonsie? I'm sure some of you think it's about being lied to, but it isn't. You would have been fine with district not building on BB if they'd built at Macom. It's about not wanting to go to Waubonsie.

You're all sick, disgusting people. I think it's a mortal sin that you've reproduced and passed the filth of your hatred on to another generation.
-------------------------------

Wow. "Filth of your hatred"? You sound pretty hate-filled yourself.

More intelligent-sounding bloggers than you have tried making this into a racial issue for months, with no success. All you've succeeded at is confirming the scope of your ignorance on this issue.

I think it's a sin YOU'VE reproduced and passed on your colossal stupidity to another generation.

By gk from the north on June 15, 2008 12:44 AM--

Re your statement:

"This is just one example of blogers pointing out one sentence in HC's words and leaving off the more relevant aside. HC followed the "... ready (and able) to pay over $600,000/acre per media quotes of officials." with the statement in efect that if they had to pay $600k per acre THEN they would have to build a lesser school."

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

I wish you had been around weeks ago. Another blogger and I were trying to find where the Howie Crouse quote saying the district could pay up to $600K/acre for BB originated. Can you please direct me to where you got this quote?

I remember reading it back in 06, but I wasn't willing to rack up fees trying to find it in the newspaper Sun or Herald archives, so at the time I just let it go. I also remember HC saying the district could afford to pay $600K/acre in a worse case scenario, but I don't remember him saying Metea would have had to have been a lesser school (in GF's words, HS lite) if this happened. I was very involved in 06, and since my child would have attended Metea at BB, I think a statement such as this would have caught my eye if I had read it.

The first time I heard the SB complain about $518K/acre being unaffordable and having to scale back on amenities such as a pool, stadium, etc. if they had to pay it was AFTER the BB verdict came in; I don't remember hearing or reading anything about this before the '06 vote. I'm sure it wouldn't have been beyond the SB to consider building a "Metea lite" at BB, but this would not have been acceptable to those attending and probably would have resulted in a whole different lawsuit altogether.

Anyway, please direct me to this quote, or better yet, if you can just cut and paste it here, that would be great.

Thanks so much-- D&S

Did anyone ever find out what level of earth quake Naperville schools are designed to handle?

Watching the parents digging their kids out in China looks depressing.

What is the new school designed to handle?

Host Ted?

By What The? on June 14, 2008 4:31 PM
...
...
#2 - Who is "they" and buyer in the comment - "they" found a "buyer" who was willing to work with them. Well, not sure what is being saifd here, but if "they" was the district and the buyer was actually a seller, then please note that the BB lawyers may still get to gouge the district on top of the district spending way over the BB site in total costs for the EOla/AME site. And that is before you count the risks of further long term liabilities. The district knew the price was going to be around $500,000 per acre before they even started condemnation and were ready to pay over $600,000 per media quotes of officials. Sorry, this is imple business negotiation turned personal at taxpayer expense. Irrational.
..
..
********************************

This is just one example of blogers pointing out one sentence in HC's words and leaving off the more relevant aside. HC followed the "... ready (and able) to pay over $600,000/acre per media quotes of officials." with the statement in efect that if they had to pay $600k per acre THEN they would have to build a lesser school.

I think that his statements are fact and iF they had got the QUICK TAKE that they were asking Springfield for, they would have had to LEAGLY pay the $600K but then build a lesser school.

I think that in the end not getting quick take ment that building a lesser school was deemed not a choice that they wanted to put on their heads, because now it was their choice to pay $600K/acre and build a lesser school, and started looking for cheeper property.

To What The? on June 14, 2008 3:31 PM

Under the circumstance of D204's own presentation of the data - YES I beliee the numbers. That accounting is only reflecting what D204 is doing. For example, D204 says the $6.4 million spent for other purposes than the third HS at BB site is bnoth a cost at the BB site and a benefit for the Eola/AME site (when the $6.4 million is gained back from the sale of the 25 acres owned near the BB site). I think the NSFOC just took the page out of the D204 playbook and presented the AME land in the same way. Thus if AME is sold, then that value can apply to the BB site.

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

Dear What the?

I think I hear the essence of what you are saying - that the NSFOC website numbers are a parody of what they believed the District presented, i.e. the $6.4M is a cost to BB but a benefit to AME, and tried to reverse that logic. It seems that you do agree with me that the logic is faulty, but that was done on purpose by NSFOC to expose the SB's tactics. I can see that you believe in the appropriateness of NSFOC presenting the facts in this manner, and I respect your right to that belief.

Frankly, when I read this first, thats the impression I had - that this was a tounge-in-cheek analysis and a slick, sophisticated dig at the District. Being an irreverent geek myself, and being no great fan of the some of the SB's past actions, I got a few good chuckles out of that, and the whole idea behind the parody, and was happy to let it slide.

But then, I saw those numbers being used as fact! Writer after writer went on claiming that BB land is cheaper than AME land, and touted that as gospel truth because of the NSFOC calculation. I like a good laugh just as much as anyone else, but this was beginning to border on delusional!

The parody breaks down because the $6.4 is indeed a cost for BB (as the 80 acres needs the 25 acres) as opposed to AME, where the 25 acres are not needed as the AME pourchase was for the full 80+ acres. So the logic is not valid, and this is not the true cost of BB land. That is the notion I set out to dispel by pointing out the flaws in the accounting logic.

I think I have beaten this horse to death - the laws of logic and the principles of accounting, fortunately, transcend the contributors to this debate, and are quite well grounded without our opinions. I trust that the intelligent reader will see this exchange and have enough data to draw their own conclusions. The NSFOC logic is fatally flawed, and I think others and myself have forcefully argued this stance till there is really no more to be said.

So with that, I'll let the matter rest.

Cheers.

By Transportation Gone Wild on June 13, 2008 2:37 AM
You are implying here that the NSFOC analysis did not use NPV values because people would be confused? Hmmm. I wish my mortgage bank used the same reasoning and am thankful my investment funds do not! Seriously, the reason the NSFOC used the simple sum was that it was the higher of the two values and showed a more dramatic effect, clearly an effort to deceive readers since the calculation is wrong and the NSFOC knows it. The (IMHO exaggerated) projected $1M - $2.5M annual transportation cost increase translates correctly into a range of $12M - 19M (at a 5% cost of money).
----
I would disagree. Your mortgage company uses the exact figures, not NPV. Look at any mortgage analysis over 30 years. The range is not $12 to 19M but $12M NPV for not being at BB site anymore, plus $19M for now being at EOla/AME...so $31M. I think the NSFOC people show $19.5M to $31M. Your numbers are higher.

But I am just one of 14,000 YES voters and 10,000 NO voters. Maybe I do not represent the majority of these voters, but I can surely have the opinion that many of the YES voters voted as such because the site, the boundaries and the cost was promoted before the vote. Many are unhappy with their money now being spent on a site far from the population center that will only become farther over time as the growth continues south of 95th street.

Many are unhappy about the cost of the new high school likely to exceed $350 million in total for debt, interest operating costs, transportation increases, etc. Oh, and the NO voters, I bet they are still unhappy too. So where is the majority of the supporters for D204. I bet it's maybe hundreds today, but I will give you half the YES votes.

You cannot claim any of the NO votes because if you do, then you will be admitting that some people in the north voted NO in the north based on the promoted location, cost and boundaries. Hummm - but would that not be similar to the NSFOC claims? Surely you would not claim those figures. So I bet the score in a new vote based on Eola/AME location would be about 17,000 NO and 7000 YES - a crushing defeat.

By Anonymous on June 12, 2008 4:34 PM
To What The? on June 12, 2008 1:47 PM

"Either way there is no rational argument for Eola/AME over BB. Thus our SB and Admin was not being very smart at a minimum and I will not speculate on the maximum."

Rational Argument #1: Putting a high school north of 75th street rather than concentrating them all in the south.

Rational Argument #2: Brach-Brodie lawyers were only out to gouge the district and they found a buyer who was willing to work with them to get the school built in 2009.

Rational Argument #3: NSFOC uses speculative numbers to attempt to make their point and just like their worthless lawsuit, they aren't worth the paper they were printed on.
------
#1 - Rational argument had already been made to locate the school before the vote in a location that best served the entire district - not a small subset of the district. To say now - after the vote - that the best solution is to build where the minority of students are living, would look strange and irrationale to any outside party viewing your argument.

#2 - Who is "they" and buyer in the comment - "they" found a "buyer" who was willing to work with them. Well, not sure what is being saifd here, but if "they" was the district and the buyer was actually a seller, then please note that the BB lawyers may still get to gouge the district on top of the district spending way over the BB site in total costs for the EOla/AME site. And that is before you count the risks of further long term liabilities. The district knew the price was going to be around $500,000 per acre before they even started condemnation and were ready to pay over $600,000 per media quotes of officials. Sorry, this is imple business negotiation turned personal at taxpayer expense. Irrational.

#3 - NSFOC numbers I saw seem reasonable. In fact, as the facts come in their estimates end up being low every time. Example, NSFOC originally had $17.5 million as the estimated cost of AME land - final number was $18.9 million. The NPV numbers talked about in another post by a D204 supporter add up to $31 million, but NSFOC shows $19.5 million in its analysis. Their numbers are below the estimates of the district supporters from what I can see. Thus I claim this argument is irrational as well.

By player on June 12, 2008 5:33 PM
To What The? on June 12, 2008 1:47 PM
It is apparent that you sincerely believe the accounting presented in the NSFOC analysis. However, this is not something up for debate or speculation and more that debating if the sky is blue or red.

I tried to demonstrate how one would get absurd results by using this method of accounting, by showing how we would apparently get BB for free if we bought any $34M property (not just AME) and sold it, if the NSFOC logic held. Let me try one more time.

If I have $100, spend $20 at a store, and get back $20 for returning the item, do I have $120 now, or do I have the original $100?

---

Dear Player,

Under the circumstance of D204's own presentation of the data - YES I beliee the numbers. That accounting is only reflecting what D204 is doing. For example, D204 says the $6.4 million spent for other purposes than the third HS at BB site is bnoth a cost at the BB site and a benefit for the Eola/AME site (when the $6.4 million is gained back from the sale of the 25 acres owned near the BB site). I think the NSFOC just took the page out of the D204 playbook and presented the AME land in the same way. Thus if AME is sold, then that value can apply to the BB site.

If D204 is now trying to discredit the opposition by reverting to the methos that the NSFOC recommended in the beginning, then I suppose the NSFOC would rework their numbers accordingly. However, the results would be the same. Eola/AME is a waste of taxpayer money versus BB.

Anyway you slice it, the bottom line shows that BB is less expensive and risky than Eola/AME. The D204 officials and their supporters are grasping at straws to defend their reckless behavior in the last 2 years. They will not be allowed to get away with it however. The taxpayers will let them know full well - on the next voting opportunity - no matter what it's for.

By More lies on June 12, 2008 4:28 PM
To Is Eola Unsafe on June 12, 2008 2:02 PM
3. We have wetest spring in recent history bringing lots of rain and thus runoff at the Eola site into the wetlands.
>> So now it's a certainty. From could to did in one sentence. More fear and hysteria from NSFOC and its ilk. Now apparently the sky is literally falling.
----

I have not seen anything regarding "the runoff at Eola site into wetlands" on the NSFOC website. You say "more fear and hysteria from NSFOC". I do not understand where you are coming from. I am not NSFOC. Your claims seem more hysterical than anything on NSFOC site.

By More lies on June 12, 2008 4:28 PM
To Is Eola Unsafe on June 12, 2008 2:02 PM

Where is your proof of 'district lies'. Name one thing that has been proven about that land that D204 'lied' about. The only lie is your statement that D204 'gave up' on the MWGEN land. MWGEN pulled their offer.
----
One thing: well, where to start - how about the fact that D204 never told the public that there were 7 secret environmental reports until they ere confronted in the media by NSFOC? How about D204 claiming to media, their own staff and the public that the Illinois EPA was involved when they were not involved? How about D204 telling the public they were not buying the Eola land because it was a health concern and too far from the population center, then after the vote for the BB site, buying Eola anyway? (do you need more?)

You wrote>> Could. Big word and one NSFOC is so very fond of. Everything is a could, might or maybe for them.
---
My response: that I believe is the proper context for the NSFOC if the facts are not yet known. The only way to confirm the facts is by testing, and the district has no intention of testing. The bigger problem is as follows: the first helicopter mom who sues D204 because little johnny cannot learn because he is mysteriously sick, that D204 cannot defend because it has no data, will prove how reckless officials have been. They of course don't think this will happen - very short sighted leaders.

You wrote: 3. We have wetest spring in recent history bringing lots of rain and thus runoff at the Eola site into the wetlands.
>> So now it's a certainty. From could to did in one sentence. More fear and hysteria from NSFOC and its ilk. Now apparently the sky is literally falling.

My response: Fact=wetest spring per weather people on TV. Fact=gravity works. See no problem here. Would those NSFOC people say "we COULD have wetest spring in recent history, COULD bring lots of rain, thus COULD runoff at EOla site into wetlands". WOuld anyone say that? I am sorry, but I don't get it. What you seem to imply is that we HAVE NOT had the wetest spring in recent history (even though Meteorologists say so), that wetest DOES NOT mean rain, that runoff DOES NOT move from high to low ground, that gravity DOES NOT work. I guess that D204 officials would say Meteorologists are NOT scientists who study the atmosphere to see how it affects the environment and to predict the weather and climate trends.

All par for the course with D204 officials and THEIR ilk I would say. They say COULD is a bad word because the statement is not said as a fact. Then when facts are used they say COULD should be used. They imply facts are lies, even when its their own data and words. All twisted in anyway possible to assure a certain outcome - to defend whatever poor decision has been made, regardless of the risks, costs and I dare say - the facts. ...for the children of D204. Nice to know our future is in such capable hands.

By The Snide Sniper on June 12, 2008 3:58 PM
To: IS Eola Unsafe

Try this on for size.

1.All is well, the site is safe and clean
---
My response: how can you prove that. The MW Gen was only tested where reported spills had occured previously and had been cleaned up previously. Only specific chemicals were tested for - not all contaminants typically found at power plants and petroelum tanks. No testing was done on the AME land and there are no plans to test AME land. SO HOW CAN YOU SAY "ALL IS WELL"? Why are there still 7 secret environmental reports? Are they secret because they say "all is well"? Doubt it.

You said: 2. SB did not give up on site; political pressure caused MWG to pull out of a sale negotiation
---
My response: even more troubling that they wanted to move ahead with plans to purchase contaminated land with 7 secret environmental reports. Glad someone - whoever it may have been - stopped them. I was relieved for my family and all taxpayers.

You said: 3. Study up on hydrology and geology before discussing the possible cross contamination of the wet lands. Could it happen? Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe Jimmy Hoffa is buried there.
---
My response: better yet ..how about something more simply like liquids flow from higher elevations to lower elevations - its no more complicated than that. Did you ever study gravity? No way to know for sure without testing. Remeber - 7 secret environmental reports. Jimmy Hoffa is your now warn out attempt to discredit participants that do not just roll over to comments like "all is well"...and say lets go off to school children.

you said: 4. What contaminants are going to wash off the SB owned site into the wetlands?
my response: How do you know if there is no testing done by independent third party consultants monitored by citizens. What's there to hide by not testing?

you wrote: 5. What wetlands are being destroyed? If you have documentation of this, report it to the authorities. if you do not, then stop throwing innuendo to the wind about it.
my response: over 4 acres of wetlands are already destroyed at the site - just look at it. No innuendo - just take a picture today versus a few months ago. WHy is the district looking to buy wetlands in Kane county - just for fun or are they trying to negotiate with the feds?

There are more black people at WV??? How about we first address them as African Americans and honey come over to the southside. Maybe you are the prejudice one. Do you think African Americans can't reside on the Southside, because they are here and they are a lot of them. Check your facts before you name call.

It is this simple, people move into their houses to be close to their schools. No one wants to move from a school that is 1 mile from their house. They also don't want to be moved and then called hostiles, racists, snobs and live in ritzy homes.

Would we be having this conversation if it weren't for the fact that there are more black students at Waubonsie? I'm sure some of you think it's about being lied to, but it isn't. You would have been fine with district not building on BB if they'd built at Macom. It's about not wanting to go to Waubonsie.

You're all sick, disgusting people. I think it's a mortal sin that you've reproduced and passed the filth of your hatred on to another generation.

Greg,

Agree, the situation in TOTAL is more complicated than just the cost of the apples.

but since we have to have a place to start discussions of the 'intangibles' or 'unknowns', we need to get the 'knowns' agreed. It shouldnt be difficult, and yet for some people it seems to be. I was just trying to clarify what the simple economics of the purchase were, ignoring all other factors.

You are bringing in the OTHER factors which go into the TOTAL economics. And that is a separate discussion.

To: Is Eola Unsafe on June 12, 2008 2:02 PM
A lot of discussion around costs, but what about the health and safety costs at Eola/AME?

1. District 204 gives up on hazardous contaminated site only after NSFOC brings out series of district lies about power plant contamination, testing, cleanup, a dump site, liability to public, but adjacent site remains contaminated with 7 secret environmental reports, and district plans no testing of AME site.
___________________________________

I seem to recall a study done by an outside testing company that only found spilled petroleum and it was contained within the MidwestGen property and remediated. I also don't recall this land being used as a "dump site" as you claim. It was a Peaker Plant and only occasionaly used. Yes there were petroleum spills but those were found to be localized and did not spread outside of the MWGEN property and were remediated. I also recall the testing company saying that you would have to dig down about 6 feet and physically eat the dirt and you might get sick.

I further recall the current Eola/AME property having Phase I testing done (and quite a bit of it, more then IL EPA requires) and no contamination was found. Therefore, no Phase II studies are needed per the IL EPA. This would have been the same proceedure done at the BB property.

Therefore, I will not buy into your constant propaganda and scare tactics and I believe this property is safe for all our children. Is it the perfect site, probably not, but then again flaws could be pointed out as well with any property including BB.

NSFOC said:

"Also, NPV Transportation costs was originally used by NSFOC but people were confused by the concept."

"The transportation costs in the analysis are from under $20 million in the most likely case (or base case) to $31 million (worst case) - we believe it is clearly in the NPV range you/others have discussed that totals $31 million."

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

You are implying here that the NSFOC analysis did not use NPV values because people would be confused? Hmmm. I wish my mortgage bank used the same reasoning and am thankful my investment funds do not! Seriously, the reason the NSFOC used the simple sum was that it was the higher of the two values and showed a more dramatic effect, clearly an effort to deceive readers since the calculation is wrong and the NSFOC knows it. The (IMHO exaggerated) projected $1M - $2.5M annual transportation cost increase translates correctly into a range of $12M - 19M (at a 5% cost of money).

Even this lower (but correctly calculated) NPV range is nothing that I would agree with. As I stated in a previous post, I don't buy for one minute that moving the HIGH SCHOOL location from BB to AME would result in a 22% (9% + 13%) cost increase for the ENTIRE district (implying 22% increases for ALL elementary school and middle school routes as well as ALL high school routes).

Furthermore, you have to remember the context in which the 9% value came from. Yes, it did come from the "District" but note that is was Bruce Glawe trying to promote his particular boundary plan and the entire SB and Howie were doing (and saying) anything they could to get the referendum passed.

Reiterating what I said in a earlier post, the 9% - 22% transportation cost increase for AME vs BB is equivalent to a 13 - 32 mile increase for every high school bus trip each day. Not likely or reasonable.

BTW I do agree with the NSFOC's assertion that even though the district pays by route and not the mile that it will still have to bear cost increases caused by longer routers or higher fuel costs. Where the NSFOC differential analysis loses credibility, however, is that it does not apply the higher costs proportionally to just those routes that are newer or further because the school is at AME instead of BB. Higher fuel costs and additional students will be born by ALL district routes, not just those that are changed because of the new school location. You cannot apply the total of all those increases into the AME site alone.

Civics on June 12, 2008 4:47 PM
Player -- if this doesnt work, I suggest we both give up.....

LOL! I've posted a response too. I agree. We both should give up on arguing this if our responses fail. The truth is self-evident so hopefully the other readers on this blog will get it.

Cheers.

By Khazakstan Kid on June 12, 2008 5:27 PM

D&S, By Anonymous on June 10, 2008 6:09 PM was me. I've been traveling this week and just notice my screw up.
________________________-

Thought so. Sounded like you. ;-)

By Khazakstan Kid on June 12, 2008 5:27 PM

D&S, By Anonymous on June 10, 2008 6:09 PM was me. I've been traveling this week and just notice my screw up.
________________________-

Thought so. Sounded like you. ;-)

Love the analogy, but the problem is (IMO) twofold:,

From my perspective (my opinion):

One: the Granny Smith apples dont taste as good as the Red Delicous. So now, we have inferior ingredients for the upcoming pie. Granny smith works, but has more flaws than the red delicious!!!

Two; what about the lawsuits from the red delicious salesfolks (BB)? we tied their entire crop up for two years and when a price was finally set by the Apple commission; we took our bat and ball and walked away pouting. Now, the red delicious salesfolks have a batch of rotting red delicious apples in the field and they are wanting some P-A-Y-B-A-C-K!!

Maybe we should have gone a totally different direction and made blueberry pie given our needs/tastes have changed somewhat during the two years we were dinging around with the Red Delicious farmers/sales folks and the Grannny Smith farmers/sales folks?

---------------------------------------------------
By Civics on June 12, 2008 4:47 PM
Anonymous 1:26
what the?

Let us suppose you are going to make an apply pie.

Let us further suppose a pie requires a bag full of apples. It doesnt matter what color they are, just that they are apples.

Now lets us imagine that you already own 25 Red Delicious apples. They are worth $6.40. Someone comes along and says to you "I will fill up the rest of your bag with Red Delicious apples for $28.50."

Clearly, you will have to spend $34.90 for enough Red Delicious apples to make your pie. (They are either very nice apples, or it is a very big pie.)

But suppose that before you purchase the rest of the Red Delicious apples to fill the bag, someone else comes along and says "I will sell you an entire bag full of Granny Smith apples for only $18.90."

"But," you say "I already own 25 Red Delicious apples. What am I to do with them?"

"Well" the salesman says "Why dont you sell those apples. Then you can use the $6.40 that you recieve to pay for part of MY apples. Then the net cost to you of purchasing enough apples to bake your pie is only $12.50!"

But you are a smart person. So you say "Wait a minute. If I buy your Granny Smith apples, and I still have 25 Red Delicious apples for which I paid $6.40, then I have spent $25.30 and have more apples than I need. Even if I sell the Red Delicious apples I already own, then I have STILL spent $18.90 on apples for my pie!"

The apple salesman draws a few figures on the back of his hand, scratches his head and responds "Your are right, of course. But still.....if you buy enough Granny Smith apples from me to bake a pie, AND sell the Red Delicious apples you already have, you will STILL have saved $16.00."

Realizing how clever you have been, you smile, shake the mans hand, and buy his apples. But then you think some more, worry a little....and you start to wonder who in the world you are going to sell your Red Delicious apples to because you dont get any of that $6.40 back until you do.

Civics on June 12, 2008 4:47 PM
Player -- if this doesnt work, I suggest we both give up.....

LOL! I've posted a response too. I agree. We both should give up on arguing this if our responses fail. The truth is self-evident so hopefully the other readers on this blog will get it.

Cheers.

To What The? on June 12, 2008 1:47 PM

It is apparent that you sincerely believe the accounting presented in the NSFOC analysis. However, this is not something up for debate or speculation and more that debating if the sky is blue or red.

I tried to demonstrate how one would get absurd results by using this method of accounting, by showing how we would apparently get BB for free if we bought any $34M property (not just AME) and sold it, if the NSFOC logic held. Let me try one more time.

If I have $100, spend $20 at a store, and get back $20 for returning the item, do I have $120 now, or do I have the original $100?

Now I spend $40 on another item - did that cost me only $20 because I got $20 back for the first item I returned? Would that item have cost me $0 if I had paid $40 for the first item I returned? Would I still have my $100 intact after that?

Returning the first item gets me back to what I started with, and then I still have to spend the $40 to get the second item, and I only have $60 left.

The NSFOC calculation says I have $120, and that the second item only cost $20 because I got back $20 from the first return. So now do I have $80 or $60 left in my pocket? Sorry. I wish money worked that way - then I'd have some hope of paying for my kids' college!

This should set off some serious alarms about whether this makes sense or not. If you still believe that is valid, I have a bridge to sell you in San Francisco ;^)

The SB's logic is however sound, as they say they have $110 now, because their grandfather (the 25-acres) gave they the extra $10 from outside the referendum money, which is true. They just presented this in a misleading way as defraying the cost of AME, what it really did was to increase to total pool of funds available for MVHS. AME still cost $18.9. Its just that now the SB starts with a $133M budget instead of $126M.

I also tried a much simpler way to calculate costs for BB and AME from ground up, without any backing out transactions. This is simple enough that my second grader can follow it, and very simply yields the true cost without any artifacts.

In the end, this is not a matter of opinion that we can agree to disagree on. The calculation is wrong. I urge you to contact a CPA or someone with an accounting background to explain to you why this is competely incorrect, as it seems I have failed to communicate this to you succintly.

The SB's books are independently audited by CPA's and no games can be played there, even more so as this is a matter of public record. The NSFOC calculation is not subject to any oversight or verification. Have any CPA look at the spreadsheet on the NSFOC's web page and they will tell you why the calculation is wrong. Have a CPA certify it and put their name on it if you believe so strongly that it is correct. And I'd like to meet that CPA who does certify it as correct.

Cheers.

D&S, By Anonymous on June 10, 2008 6:09 PM was me. I've been traveling this week and just notice my screw up.

Anonymous 1:26
what the?

Let us suppose you are going to make an apply pie.

Let us further suppose a pie requires a bag full of apples. It doesnt matter what color they are, just that they are apples.

Now lets us imagine that you already own 25 Red Delicious apples. They are worth $6.40. Someone comes along and says to you "I will fill up the rest of your bag with Red Delicious apples for $28.50."

Clearly, you will have to spend $34.90 for enough Red Delicious apples to make your pie. (They are either very nice apples, or it is a very big pie.)

But suppose that before you purchase the rest of the Red Delicious apples to fill the bag, someone else comes along and says "I will sell you an entire bag full of Granny Smith apples for only $18.90."

"But," you say "I already own 25 Red Delicious apples. What am I to do with them?"

"Well" the salesman says "Why dont you sell those apples. Then you can use the $6.40 that you recieve to pay for part of MY apples. Then the net cost to you of purchasing enough apples to bake your pie is only $12.50!"

But you are a smart person. So you say "Wait a minute. If I buy your Granny Smith apples, and I still have 25 Red Delicious apples for which I paid $6.40, then I have spent $25.30 and have more apples than I need. Even if I sell the Red Delicious apples I already own, then I have STILL spent $18.90 on apples for my pie!"

The apple salesman draws a few figures on the back of his hand, scratches his head and responds "Your are right, of course. But still.....if you buy enough Granny Smith apples from me to bake a pie, AND sell the Red Delicious apples you already have, you will STILL have saved $16.00."

Realizing how clever you have been, you smile, shake the mans hand, and buy his apples. But then you think some more, worry a little....and you start to wonder who in the world you are going to sell your Red Delicious apples to because you dont get any of that $6.40 back until you do.

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

Player -- if this doesnt work, I suggest we both give up.....

To Fuzzy math on June 10, 2008 12:14 PM

"I do not know what the times were with BB, but I assume it would be closer to the minimum 1/3 reduction you would expect by adding a third school."

This is where the people who are arguing transportation costs lose me. Why would you expect a 1/3rd reduction in busing time by adding a third high school. That would assume you could put the high school in the perfect geographic location and perfectly distribute the student body (to the extreme of having next door neighbors potentially go to different schools).

Take two quarters and place them on a table. Drop 10 pennies around them. Now place a third quarter so that the total distance from each of pennies to one of the quarters drops by 1/3. You can do it, but you have to place the third quarter in just the right place.

There aren't that many parcels of land to put a school in. Building on BB would not have reduced total commuting time by 1/3. Wasn't the best proposal for BB only a 9% reduction?

To What The? on June 12, 2008 1:47 PM

"Either way there is no rational argument for Eola/AME over BB. Thus our SB and Admin was not being very smart at a minimum and I will not speculate on the maximum."

Rational Argument #1: Putting a high school north of 75th street rather than concentrating them all in the south.

Rational Argument #2: Brach-Brodie lawyers were only out to gouge the district and they found a buyer who was willing to work with them to get the school built in 2009.

Rational Argument #3: NSFOC uses speculative numbers to attempt to make their point and just like their worthless lawsuit, they aren't worth the paper they were printed on.

To Is Eola Unsafe on June 12, 2008 2:02 PM

1. District 204 gives up on hazardous contaminated site only after NSFOC brings out series of district lies about power plant contamination, testing, cleanup, a dump site, liability to public, but adjacent site remains contaminated with 7 secret environmental reports, and district plans no testing of AME site.
>> No, more like NSFOC got a grandstanding legislator to pressure a private business. Where is your proof of 'district lies'. Name one thing that has been proven about that land that D204 'lied' about. The only lie is your statement that D204 'gave up' on the MWGEN land. MWGEN pulled their offer.

2. The wetlands are lower than the contaminated power plant site, petroleum tank site, and dump site, so all contamination could run downhill into the wetlands.
>> Could. Big word and one NSFOC is so very fond of. Everything is a could, might or maybe for them.

3. We have wetest spring in recent history bringing lots of rain and thus runoff at the Eola site into the wetlands.
>> So now it's a certainty. From could to did in one sentence. More fear and hysteria from NSFOC and its ilk. Now apparently the sky is literally falling.

To: IS Eola Unsafe

Try this on for size.

1.All is well, the site is safe and clean

2. SB did not give up on site; political pressure caused MWG to pull out of a sale negotiation

3. Study up on hydrology and geology before discussing the possible cross contamination of the wet lands. Could it happen? Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe Jimmy Hoffa is buried there.

4. What contaminants are going to wash off the SB owned site into the wetlands?

5. What wetlands are being destroyed? If you have documentation of this, report it to the authorities. if you do not, then stop throwing innuendo to the wind about it.

A lot of discussion around costs, but what about the health and safety costs at Eola/AME?

Try this on for size:

1. District 204 gives up on hazardous contaminated site only after NSFOC brings out series of district lies about power plant contamination, testing, cleanup, a dump site, liability to public, but adjacent site remains contaminated with 7 secret environmental reports, and district plans no testing of AME site.

2. The wetlands are lower than the contaminated power plant site, petroleum tank site, and dump site, so all contamination could run downhill into the wetlands.

3. We have wetest spring in recent history bringing lots of rain and thus runoff at the Eola site into the wetlands.

4. The MVHS contruction begins with the destroying of the wetlands (another story all together that may result in taxpayers footing the bill to buy offsetting wetlands in another county to make environmental peace with the feds - dont ask!)

5. The construction includes spreading the wetlands all over the AME site to dry out the grounds to a certain percentage to allow for the best compaction for building. However, by doing so the "so called" contamination may have been spread all over AME land.

Is this possible and how do we know if the land is contaminated or not? The district has no plans for testing AME.

By player on June 10, 2008 10:51 PM
NSFOC:
What was the 9% savings compared to? No 3'rd HS or AME? Thats not clear to me from the quotation. That analysis was done before the 2006 referendum was put to vote, where the very question of whether a 3'rd high school was needed was put to vote. So I'd expect that 3'rd HS at BB vs. no 3'rd highschool was the context for comparison, and Option 5A would yield a 9% savings, probably the best amongst the options. What using this number for lost savings implies that AME had 0% savings compared to no 3'rd high school, which I find hard to believe.

I also looked at the overall financial analysis that you pointed me to see if BB or AME cost more. With all due respect, that analysis is extraordinarily flawed.

Just the logic for the real estate transactions lead to impossible results. According to the article, BB costs are $28.5M+$6.4M-$18.9M=$16M, which is absurd. By extending that logic, if AME had been purchased to $34M, BB would have cost $0! Free land!

The simplest way to find out which costs more is to start with the same amount of money, purchase 80+ acres of land, and see how much is left.

The district started with $126M+$6.4M=$133M

BB: $28.5M+$6.4M=$35M leaving $98.1M
AME: $18.9M leaving $114.1M

Result: BB costs $16M more that AME.

The District confused people by including the $6.4M as a convertible asset, with respect to the referendum budget, which is the right thing to do as the $6.4M came from funds outside the referendum.

The AME purchase price cannot be subtracted from the BB price in that fashion, as it came from the SAME referendum pool. The $6.4M is also NOT a convertible asset for BB, as it is needed to reach the 80 acres for the school.

The damages and transportation costs are speculation at best. One could as easily speculate that damages are $0 (given that BB doesnt have statute or case law to support it) and that the transportation costs are neutral to BB, as Laidlaw is on public record saying this. So I don't buy it.

Cheers.
________
I looked over the numbers and they make sense to me. NSFOC originally did it the other way, without the $6.4 million cost applied to BB site and $6.4 million benefit applied to Eola site. But they switched to the district's approach and hung them with their own data - well done I say.

If you reverse all that back out again, then you take out $6.4M cost at BB site and $6.4 million credit at Eola/AME ($12.8M swing in costs against Eola/AME) and take out the credit of $18.9 M at BB site, then you have a net about 7M credit to Eola/AME - which now makes the benefit for ataying put at BB only $25M better than Eola/AME - vs the $33M benefit currently shown for BB vs Eola/AME.

Either way there is no rational argument for Eola/AME over BB. Thus our SB and Admin was not being very smart at a minimum and I will not speculate on the maximum.

By player on June 11, 2008 10:54 AM
By Metea Either Way on June 11, 2008 8:30 AM

BB: $28.5M+$6.4M +$5.0M**=$40.0M leaving $93.1M
AME: $18.9M +$5.0M** + $XXX (for BB settlement) leaving $YYY M

Result: Costs yet to be determined

-------------------------------------------------------------------
MEW: I was looking at purely the land, not legal/damages/misc, and pointing out that the logic on the land cost is terribly flawed, so regardless of what the unknowns were, the calculation in that analysis are flat out wrong.

The rest, I agree, is TBD and in Popejoy's hands. BB is claiming the $5M you have shown - likely they will get a good bit of it, but that should be the same for both BB and AME. I have already posted why I do not believe in the forgiveness theory for BB legal costs if BB were the site.

We shall see.
Cheers.

-----
Yes the $6.4 million paid supposedly for a middle school at BB site can be applied to Eola as a stretch. But then, I believe the $18.9 million paid for AME/Eola plus improvements can be recouped in a sale of the Eola land as well...so tit for tat is fair. Thus, BB site cost can be reduced by the sale of Eola/AME -- say $18.9 million plus improvements.

In addition, I disagree that there is not a chance of foregiveness at BB for legal fees, etc. If D204 agreed to come back to BB, there would be some if not all foregiveness. The RE market has created a need to negotiate fully.

Therefore, BB site is still $20 million + lower cost than Eola/AME. So how can Eola/AME be justified...especially all the risk taking on safety/health/BB damages, etc.?????

player, got it. I think the NSFOC faction played on the SB's rhetoric when stating that the $6.4M for the intial 25 acres could be recouped and used toward the Eola site.

I agree they both missed on the convertible asset concept.

player, got it. I think the NSFOC faction played on the SB's rhetoric when stating that the $6.4M for the intial 25 acres could be recouped and used toward the Eola site.

I agree they both missed on the convertible asset concept.

player, got it. I think the NSFOC faction payed on the SB's rhetoric when stating that the $6.4M for the intial 25 acres could be recouped and used toward the Eola site.

I agree they both missed on the convertible asset concept.

By Metea Either Way on June 11, 2008 8:30 AM

BB: $28.5M+$6.4M +$5.0M**=$40.0M leaving $93.1M
AME: $18.9M +$5.0M** + $XXX (for BB settlement) leaving $YYY M

Result: Costs yet to be determined

-------------------------------------------------------------------
MEW: I was looking at purely the land, not legal/damages/misc, and pointing out that the logic on the land cost is terribly flawed, so regardless of what the unknowns were, the calculation in that analysis are flat out wrong.

The rest, I agree, is TBD and in Popejoy's hands. BB is claiming the $5M you have shown - likely they will get a good bit of it, but that should be the same for both BB and AME. I have already posted why I do not believe in the forgiveness theory for BB legal costs if BB were the site.

We shall see.
Cheers.

player: We now know that the judge will be, but it seems that the jury is still out on this........

The district started with $126M+$6.4M=$133M

BB: $28.5M+$6.4M +$5.0M**=$40.0M leaving $93.1M
AME: $18.9M +$5.0M** + $XXX (for BB settlement) leaving $YYY M

Result: Costs yet to be determined

**$5.0M {estimated} to be paid to BB for legal costs as a result of the eminent domain proceedings regardless of the placement of the 3rd HS.

NSFOC:
What was the 9% savings compared to? No 3'rd HS or AME? Thats not clear to me from the quotation. That analysis was done before the 2006 referendum was put to vote, where the very question of whether a 3'rd high school was needed was put to vote. So I'd expect that 3'rd HS at BB vs. no 3'rd highschool was the context for comparison, and Option 5A would yield a 9% savings, probably the best amongst the options. What using this number for lost savings implies that AME had 0% savings compared to no 3'rd high school, which I find hard to believe.

I also looked at the overall financial analysis that you pointed me to see if BB or AME cost more. With all due respect, that analysis is extraordinarily flawed.

Just the logic for the real estate transactions lead to impossible results. According to the article, BB costs are $28.5M+$6.4M-$18.9M=$16M, which is absurd. By extending that logic, if AME had been purchased to $34M, BB would have cost $0! Free land!

The simplest way to find out which costs more is to start with the same amount of money, purchase 80+ acres of land, and see how much is left.

The district started with $126M+$6.4M=$133M

BB: $28.5M+$6.4M=$35M leaving $98.1M
AME: $18.9M leaving $114.1M

Result: BB costs $16M more that AME.

The District confused people by including the $6.4M as a convertible asset, with respect to the referendum budget, which is the right thing to do as the $6.4M came from funds outside the referendum.

The AME purchase price cannot be subtracted from the BB price in that fashion, as it came from the SAME referendum pool. The $6.4M is also NOT a convertible asset for BB, as it is needed to reach the 80 acres for the school.

The damages and transportation costs are speculation at best. One could as easily speculate that damages are $0 (given that BB doesnt have statute or case law to support it) and that the transportation costs are neutral to BB, as Laidlaw is on public record saying this. So I don't buy it.

Cheers.

By NSFOC on June 10, 2008 11:36 AM

· Option 5A will significantly lower the total commuting miles traveled each day from the current 38,282 miles to approximately 34,828 miles for a decrease of 9%. This will result in time and fuel savings for both the district and for families. The weighted average commute in miles for the district will be 2.7 miles from each elementary school to its high school.

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

Clearly this isn't literal ie. bus miles because as I understand it the district has 116 bus routes morning and evening. 38,282 / 232 = 165 miles per trip. Maybe it 1/50th og that like 50 students per load. Maybe its an estamate of bus and car miles?? How do you know??

To Anonymous on June 10, 2008 6:09 PM

Re:

Sorry D&S and Anonymous, but I'm a "Nope" on this one. Reread the judgement. Feel free to respond, but you and I will simply have to agree to disagree on this one. I stand by my statements. And Popejoy's ruling.
_______________________________

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree on this. And I'm okay with that. :)

I am a mom too:
Rumor has it start times will change in 2009, elementary will take the early shift and HS will take the elementary shift.
This was going to take place this year but did not becaus eof all the other change going on. The start times migh tvary but the rumor is true that HS will change start times.

D&S--Forgot to mention--I don't even "tinkle" in public restrooms, much less in nature--I think women should be excused from peeing in public. Then at least if the boys get into a literal p-s---g contest there will be two judges! ;)

Lord I've been gone a long time!

I don't drink and drive and I've got a minivan waiting to be the designated carpool vehicle. I prefer Tommy Nevins, and I'll even give GF a ride home, it's embarassing to get lost in your own neighborhood--had a friend do that in college.

I actually did think SB was going to end up at MV. That would have left us as a total island. People going to NV on 2 sides, forest preserve on one side and 203 on the last side. Truly an island separated from the rest of our MS as well. I still counted on being a "yes" because I did and do believe we need the third school.

Also, everyone I know in Spring Brook had vote yes signs and/or did vote "yes". Then there was the day that all--every one of them--the "vote yes" signs were stolen out of our yards. We all had new ones within 24 hours. Sorry Civics, maybe we go to two different Spring Brooks? ;)

The other thing I knew though was that NVHS would be over max the day MV opened and Fry was the greatest source of growth in the district at the time. Fry wasn't going to be stayng there long because the crowding would have become untenable. Just pure numbers at that time made it such that we would end up back at NVHS relatively quickly, so it is not fair for me to really answer. Spring Brook was and is a non-growth land-locked community (unless Kinloch is still growing).

My biggest concern was that Laidlaw was telling us that our commute to either WVHS or MVHS would be over an hour because of the laws regarding crossing and driving on 59. That would put our kids at a massive disadvantage scholastically since there is tons of evidence to show that teens are chronically sleep deprived anyway.

Now that I have gotten on my A-one soapbox, what does everybody think of keeping the grade schools start times at 9:05, moving MS to 9:35 and HS to 10:05. I am linking to the reason I feel this is as important as a/c.

http://cehd.umn.edu/Pubs/Researchworks/sleep.html

It is interesting reading and if GF gets his soapbox, I get mine.

Let the flaming arrows fly!

By D&S on June 10, 2008 12:47 PM

To Anonymous on June 10, 2008 10:42 AM

Re your post:

"Translation - the judge ruled that it is OK for a district to say and write anything they wish, then not to stick to their commitment . . ."

Yeah, pretty much.

________________________

Sorry D&S and Anonymous, but I'm a "Nope" on this one. Reread the judgement. Feel free to respond, but you and I will simply have to agree to disagree on this one. I stand by my statements. And Popejoy's ruling.

To Greg Forrest on June 10, 2008 3:07 PM

. . . giant heat reflecting statues of M2 and Dr. D for every E building roof"!!!!! You knew that would crack me up. I think Metea should get a complimentary set!

You "took the kids" to see the latest Indy flick? Riiiight . . . We opted for Kung Fu Panda.

Hope you're enjoying the summer so far!

Cheers!

D&S

By help on June 10, 2008 10:57 AM

What am I smoking? A very fine Cuban, thank you. Contraband, for sure -- I know someone who knows someone. But I'm sure that wasn't what you were referring to.

Roger made a sweeping statement. I challenged one part of it. The people moving from WV to MV, IMHO (based on looking at a map and doing Google Map distances from each WV elementary school targeted to MV) have, in total, a shorter commute to MV as a total community. I did not challenge his statement about the southern part of the district (in fact, I called this out in my post). If you think the district is full of you-know-what on the busing as it relates to the southern part, fine -- no argument from me. Just don't state that it's a train wreck (get the pun?) up here when it's not the case.

So, am I 100% FU'd about claiming Roger is incorrect in stating that the MV community faces shorter bus rides than if they went to WV? No? Ah...thanks.

Hi MEW

sure we will. It is buried deep in the vault below Crousse Center. The file is right next to the Roswell file and the JFK file and the 7 secret environmental midwestgen reports. From my understanding (full disclosure, I could be wrong on this) There are only 3 ways to access the vault:

1. you need to be Indiana Jones (to break in)
2. you need to have a Crystal Skull key to unlock the door to get at these most coveted records.
3. you need to have a thumb print and retinal eye image of M2 or Dr. D which also (in addition to the all powerful crystal skull) unlocks the vault.

Can u tell, I recently took the kids to see the latest Indy Jones flick?

--------------------------------------------------
By Metea Either Way on June 10, 2008 12:31 PM
Queueing ominous music

So what was the real reason?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

We'll never know............

I Like the M2 statues better as the "alternate different route needed" example. let me see if I can work it into your train of thought on all future refs being written language only and everything else that is said or written down is meaningless in the eyes of the law/courts.

Ok; a propsed ref says:

Approve the Allocation of 33 million in funds for use in the District's "Approval of High Temperatures in Elementary Building Plan" Quote is right out of the 4-14-08 School board meeting agenda.

No mention of central AC in the proposed ref?. Check.

Let's see; the most probable use of the money would be AC, but let me check my "worst case scenario" BS detector as my faith was recently shaken in my confidence of my elected SB leaders and I just learned that ref lang is the only info that counts...... does not matter what they say or email or snail/backpack mail me regarding the proposals.

What else could be done with the money?......Could use the 33M for kid safe window screens, fans, portable mist spraying machines that the HS kids could also use on the sidelines at sporting events, giant sponges, slip and slides, sprinklers to cool the building, resurfacing all the roofs with heat reflecting materials; or my favorite: giant heat reflecting statues of M2 and Dr. D for every E building roof. They can sit on the roofs (or their images embedded into the new roofs) and guard over all our schools and reflect the sun's heat. All these "ideas" could assist in reducing the High temps in the E schools and are consistent with the vaugue ref wording. However,none are Central Air; which many of us really want to see at some point in our lifetimes.

Good to hear from you D&S!! Hope all is well
GF

--------------------------------------------------
By D&S on June 10, 2008 12:47 PM

For instance, if there is a ref someday to retrofit our elementary schools with air conditioning, unless the ref specifically states "central" air, I will not vote for it. For all I know, we could end up with window units in all 19 schools if something happens that makes central air more expensive than originally thought. This is something I would not have even considered before now, but I certainly will from now on.

The school board asked for my money to build a high school at Brach Brodie. They decided to take my money and build a high school at Eola instead. They told a court it was OK to lie to me in order to get my money to build a school. When they come to me to ask for any more money, I will say no.

To Anonymous on June 10, 2008 10:42 AM

Re your post:

"Translation - the judge ruled that it is OK for a district to say and write anything they wish, then not to stick to their commitment . . ."

Yeah, pretty much. The judge chose to stick to the wording on the referendum when making his decision, making everything else written and spoken by the SB during that time superfluous. Even tho this makes a lot of us who were swayed by the SB's "promises" angry, I can understand why the judge did this. Taking into account all the entraneous BS the SB had to do to get the ref passed would have opened a Pandora's box of possible litigation for all future referendums here and elsewhere that would have never ended. I won't address the projected costs of breaking the committment, because this is speculation at this time and I see no point in getting bent out of shape over something that hasn't been determined yet.

I really think it's time to end the fuming over the "real" reasons the SB dropped BB. I haven't seen any indications of conspiracies or self-serving motives like the ones I've seen mentioned here, e.g., they planned Eola all along, Dr. D lives in the Eola area so will benefit personally, yada yada yada. Besides, all this sounds too simplistic. I do think the egos of some SB members got too wrapped up in the process and when BB "won" the jury verdict they just couldn't handle losing. I think this had something to do with their determination to find any land, anywhere, and make it work. But this is just an impression I got from their actions and quotes from newpaper articles I read at the time, in addition to the now "extraneous" comments I heard them make during the 06 ref. I think for awhile they forgot that it was all about the taxpayers and residents of 204, not about their ability to win against BB, and this is where they went astray.

The lesson we can all learn from this, even those who are happy with the outcome, is that we need to vote more defensively in the future. We can no longer just assume anything. Unless it is specifically mentioned in the ref, it is not a given, regardless of how much we are saturated with claims to the contrary. For instance, if there is a ref someday to retrofit our elementary schools with air conditioning, unless the ref specifically states "central" air, I will not vote for it. For all I know, we could end up with window units in all 19 schools if something happens that makes central air more expensive than originally thought. This is something I would not have even considered before now, but I certainly will from now on.

Queueing ominous music

So what was the real reason?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

We'll never know............

Taxpayers, students, parents and staff of D204,

Regardless of the legal decisions made, there remain serious issues at Eola vs. BB and other sites.

For all those taxpayers who don't pay attention, staff/students who trust their district, helicopter parents who are happy to put their kids at the Eola site, watch this video....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6331547081686095138&q=cell%20phone%20popcorn&hl=en

Of course, the crack consultant for D204 (who never did an EMF test and admitted he was not qualified being a mold expert) said the EMF exposure at Eola from high voltage power lines surrounding 50% of the property was no more than you would get from normal daily life in and around a typical household...from hair dryers, closed microwave ovens, TV, computer and cell phones.

Seriously, we should be concerned that our own state advised not to build new schools near power lines because of the health hazard, that studies support the dangers, and even power company employees know there is danger to human cells even though they do not know exactly what causes the danger. When you throw in the higher costs for Eola versus BB, the gas lines on site, and the adjacent rail road tracks and hazardous contamination, you have risks to all taxpayers of costly lawsuits. Why was the district so blind to the risks?

If you want to compare fuel costs and increased transportation costs, you need to look at the EOLA location versus the BB location.

The SB declared back in February that, even with the addition of a third school at the EOLA site, the average transportation times would only go down three minutes (about 12%) from the current situation with only two school (26 minutes to 23 minutes). I think this alone speaks volumes to the logic (or illogic) of building the school in an area where only about 15% of the population resides (and is fully built up in contrast to the South).

I do not know what the times were with BB, but I assume it would be closer to the minimum 1/3 reduction you would expect by adding a third school. My simple math indicates that you should expect at least 20% more in fuel costs due to the irrational geographical location of MV (compared to the centralized BB location and continued expected growth to only occur in the South).

Of course, Dr. D and most of the other Board members' homes probably increases in value by 20%, so I guess it is a wash.

By player on June 8, 2008 8:18 AM
Could someone please point me to the source of the 9% savings
...
In contrast, the IPSD website claims that Laidlaw said the costs for BB and Eola are the same (from their Jan 2008 FAQ).

So I am confused...

The 9% seems to come from some other source from a time when Eola was not in the picture far as I can tell, and there is much contradiction as to what this is and how to translate this to cost.

BTW, Transportation Gone Wild, I agree that NPV is what matters

--------
Here is the exact document text (unaltered) promoted by D204 School Member Bruce Glawe regarding the Brach-Brodie site and the 9% savings.
++++
Summary of High School Boundary Option 5A
· This option was created by applying the criteria used by the School Board to look at the merits of various boundary options.
· Based upon feedback received from the community, geography was given a higher weight in applying those criteria but it was coupled with an effort to balance academic achievement.
· This option balances enrollment appropriately based upon the capacity of the three high schools.
· All existing walkers remain walkers
· Option 5A does the best job of minimizing the number of schools and children moved.
· Option 5A moves 7 schools – the lowest of any options that were considered.
· Only 1 school is split – the 60 children in Chesapeake Landings from McCarty will walk to the new school and not attend Waubonsie.
· Option 5A moves 3,407 children (34% of the total)
· For Option 5A, 4 schools will cross railroad tracks to get to and from their schools – Brookdale, Peterson, Gombert, and McCarty.
· The geographic map for Option 5A is understandable and straightforward with most elementary schools being contiguous with other elementary schools that feed each high school except for Peterson and Brookdale.
· Using ISAT scores, the academic achievement gap, which is currently 7.4%, is narrowed to 5.0%.
· Using All-State scores, the academic achievement gap, which is currently 8.0%, is narrowed to 5.3%.
· Option 5A will significantly lower the total commuting miles traveled each day from the current 38,282 miles to approximately 34,828 miles for a decrease of 9%. This will result in time and fuel savings for both the district and for families. The weighted average commute in miles for the district will be 2.7 miles from each elementary school to its high school.
· Waubonsie will have 5 Aurora elementary schools and 2 Naperville schools assigned to it.
The new high school will have 2 Aurora schools and 5 Naperville schools assigned to it.
Neuqua will have 7 Naperville schools and 1 Bolingbrook school assigned to it
++++

Also, NPV Transportation costs was originally used by NSFOC but people were confused by the concept. If you would please note for the future - the NSFOC reviewed an analysis and provided it on the website. That analysis seemed logical to us from the many works done. The transportation costs in the analysis are from under $20 million in the most likely case (or base case) to $31 million (worst case) - we believe it is clearly in the NPV range you/others have discussed that totals $31 million. Here is the link to the cost comparison that we feel respresents the best estimates available:
https://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=120:updated-costs-are-worse-for-eola-than-we-thought&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=108

Please also note that actual numbers finally shared so far by D204 have matched or been higher than this referenced analysis. (example - AME purchase price matched the worst case and was about $1.5 million higher than the original base case).

And here is a link to an article on fuel costs:
https://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137:bus-fuel-costs-a-major-expense-going-forward&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=108

Thank you for your comments.

By Khazakstan Kid on June 9, 2008 12:40 PM
By Roger Waters on June 8, 2008 10:11 PM

"several elementary schools also got moved from wv to mv and increased all of their mileage."

Not sure where you're going with this Rog, but the only WV to MV moves that are longer are Owen West, Watts and Cowlishaw and that's only by a couple of miles for each. Young is neutral (they are equidistant between WV and MV) and all the rest are shorter distances, in Longwood and Brookdale's cases it's significantly shorter. Not speaking for the southern part of the district, but MV appears to me to be a net decrease in miles traveled for its attendance area (and to stave off a major argument over a net of 2 miles, I'm willing to concede that at worst it's neutral).

------
KK and others implying good transportation analysis was done by D204,

What are you smoking? Most logical thinking people laughed when the new bus distances were shared. The entire analysis was a sham, the "detailed" analysis was even funnier (hand scribbled notes of no rhime or reason just as one example). I believe the final school location and boundary decision was made, then Laidlaw (now First Student due to the acquisition of Laidlaw by First Student, a UK firm that actually moves students via public transportation in the UK by the way) was asked to rubber stamp the decision as "transportation neutral", and the bus vendor did what was asked (or implied) so they could keep their contract. To say there was any real work done is a joke on the rational thinking taxpayers who saw through the chirade. This is why we have third party "independent" consultants - to assure the taxpayers that a thorough job was done and nothing fishy was done.

By D&S on June 6, 2008 1:47 AM
To Khazakstan Kid on June 5, 2008 8:19 AM

You mentioned the judge ruled that "It should be noted that there is no evidence that the District ever intended to induce reliance on information that was false." Popejoy did indeed rule that there was no deceitfulness, no broken promises.
_____________________________

Just as a note, I don't think Popejoy was saying there were no broken promises. The District DID induce reliance on the information they gave to some of us, but Popejoy is saying it was not intentional, meaning the SB believed their own hype at the time they were doing it. I tend to agree with this, I don't think the SB had a plan to switch to Eola all along, that they had any personal stake in building there because some of them live in that area, and so forth and so on. But promises were broken nonetheless. Just because there was no case legally doesn't mean there was nothing wrong with what they did in 06 to ensure the refs passage. I see these as two different issues.
----------
Translation - the judge ruled that it is OK for a district to say and write anything they wish, then not to stick to their commitment, no matter the cost. When you consider that the cost of breaking the commitment could run up to $50 million in D204, then there are serious consequences to school ditricts everywhere because the breaking off of negotiations was not justifued in any way, shape or form. The financial justification for leaving BB land is simply not there. So what was the real reason?

make sure you add on the bus miles of those moving from nv to wv as part of this benefit

the district should post the before total miles and the after total miles and show us how much money we are saving

Will Oakhurst get bussed to the new MS, if so that is a much closer commute than it currently is so we are saving their as well. Bigger savings if they don't get bussed at all. Also, that many fewer busses on Eola north of Liberty. Which seems to be such a concern to those that didn't even live around here.

OK, let's add a new twist to the discussion. D204 announced today that they have a name for Waubonsie Gold--Fischer Middle School. Now, has anyone asked what the cost of retrofitting the building back to a middle school will be? I am not talking about the waste when the building was rebuilt to high school levels and is now overbuilt. I am talking about the cost of having it serve 6th to 8th graders. The district put a lot of money into the school to make it a part of Waubonsie--murals, seals inlaid into the floor, signage, etc. Will the district remove all of that? At what cost? What else has to be done to make the building accessible to smaller students? What has to be done to make sure it fits the middle school curriculum?

By Roger Waters on June 8, 2008 10:11 PM

"several elementary schools also got moved from wv to mv and increased all of their mileage."

Not sure where you're going with this Rog, but the only WV to MV moves that are longer are Owen West, Watts and Cowlishaw and that's only by a couple of miles for each. Young is neutral (they are equidistant between WV and MV) and all the rest are shorter distances, in Longwood and Brookdale's cases it's significantly shorter. Not speaking for the southern part of the district, but MV appears to me to be a net decrease in miles traveled for its attendance area (and to stave off a major argument over a net of 2 miles, I'm willing to concede that at worst it's neutral).

MEW: I (and millions of others!) use Wikipedia, but the secret sauce here is not to take the information at face value, but triangulate it. Wikipedia is actually amazingly accurate, in my experience, as long as one isn't using it irresponsibly.

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

Sorry didn't meant to strike a nerve.......thought the winky thing ;) was an indication that I was joking.

BTW, millions of people can be wrong many times over................. ;0

several elementary schools also got moved from wv to mv and increased all of their mileage.

some got moved from nv to wv and increased all of their mileage.

Hey people! The pedestrian bridge goes in Monday night. It will be a nice addition giving access from various neighborhoods to the commercial stores, library, park sports fields, and NVHS areas east of Rt. 59. In the "green" future this is a major victory because it will encourage parents and young people to ride bikes, walk, use scooters - all environmentally sound ways to save energy and be healthy.

Unfortunately D204 never really considered the environmental damage nor transportation costs in their decision-making - a sloppy fiscal irresponsible position. The officials can only be discribed as "pigs" when it comes to the environment in direct conflict with their education of the kids. How can they be so hypocritical?

Little analysis has been done around environmental damage brought on by D204 officials, but you can bet it will be significant. In addition, little has been discussed about future fuel costs that will be high and perhaps increasing the overall transportation costs by another 10-20% from the numbers thrown around. I did see that those NSFOC people had an article about fuel cost impacts, however, did not use the figures in their transportation cost analysis...so I bet it's a lot higher cost than discussed anywhere to date.

I continue to read people saying the new high school increases miles, however, i have never seen any proof. If NSFOC ever had any proof, wouldn't we have seen an Excel spreadsheet showing the impact for each school?

Two thirds of the schools elem schools feed into the same HS they are at today (no change in distance). Brooks, Longwood, Brookdale and Young all have significant decreases in miles traveled.

Could someone please point me to the source of the 9% savings and 13% increase in miles numbers being used here to show that Eola transportation costs are very different from the BB costs?

The NSFOC web site claims that after detailed analysis, they conclude that there could be a 13% increase in miles.

In contrast, the IPSD website claims that Laidlaw said the costs for BB and Eola are the same (from their Jan 2008 FAQ).

So I am confused...

The 9% seems to come from some other source from a time when Eola was not in the picture far as I can tell, and there is much contradiction as to what this is and how to translate this to cost.

BTW, Transportation Gone Wild, I agree that NPV is what matters for savings not incurred, not the raw numbers. I also agree that whatever the lost savings or increased costs are, they apply to the MVHS portion of the transportation budget, not the Total budget. This may be offset by the fact that kids now being bussed to WVHS may see a decrease in their costs as MVHS is closer.

MEW: I (and millions of others!) use Wikipedia, but the secret sauce here is not to take the information at face value, but triangulate it. Wikipedia is actually amazingly accurate, in my experience, as long as one isn't using it irresponsibly.

Cheers.

Transportation Gone Wild

I believe the NSFOC showed under $20M most likely and 31M worst case - well within your ranges. Yes, it is transportation gone wild, but unfortunately, our SB never considered that in the calculations. One should consider $20M to $30 million mistakes a serious matter. Many school district operate on an entire budget equal to just the mistakes made by D204. It smells like our US goverment and their 55 trillion debt obligations. What's a couple billion here and there? D204 says what's $10 million here or there? It's a disgusting displace of wasteful spending and D204 does not deserve another dime for the next ten years - AC or no AC. I imagine they will build the next referendum around AC rather than separate AC out as a separate vote. That will assure the defeat of the referendum because the taxpayers have figured out the game in D204. I am staying here just to make sure no revenues other than those needed to run a good school district are taken. $260 million is close to a quarter billion if people have been too blind to see that. And that's enough in my book. I got my tax bill recently and wonder where the reduction is that was promised by D204. It turned out to be a huge increase of over 11%.

By Transportation Gone Wild on June 6, 2008 12:58 AM

In response to comments from What The!
“Transportation costs (both the lost savings from BB - the 9% Bruce Glawe talked about - $20M over 20 years...and the additional 13% I hear for increased bus miles and costs - $30M over 20 years?). “

And SaveEarth's comments:

“-finally, I do not see where Eola is lower costs than BB when you add the $20-30 million of additional transportation costs and up to $20 million in damages from wlking away at BB site. It does not make sense at all. However supporters and the media only discuss cost per acre of the land only. I think I am living in Stupidworld. “
-------
You may not be living in Stupidworld , but you may be visiting bamboozle territory. The transportation numbers being thrown around (no matter where they arose from including the ones from the infamous Bruce Glawe analysis) are in some cases just outright wrong and in my estimation exaggerated to the point of failing a reasonableness test. Let me 'splain....

The $20M and $30M figures come from taking the percentages (a lost 9% improvement and a 13% increase in cost) incurred by not building at BB and applying them to the TOTAL district transportation budget of $11M . This is roughly $1M and $1.5M respectively. They are then added up over 20 years to result in the above mentioned $20M and $30M.

First and foremost, you cannot just simply add up savings you incur over time and use that simple sum as a “present value” in calculations. As we know, money has time value so a dollar saved 20 years from now is not worth a dollar now. It must be discounted. This has significant effect on the actual value that should be used in the comparison. For example, $1M saved over 20 years when discounted using 5% is only worth about $12M in todays dollars (not the $20M figure being used) . $1.5M over the same 20 years is worth about $19M (not the $30M being used). The NSFOC site (where these numbers seem to be coming from) correctly points out the discounting factor but then proceeds to use the (incorrect) simple sum in its comparison tables.

Secondly, the lost savings percentage and the cost increase percentage are applied to the total district transportation budget. Is that correct? Shouldn't they be applied to just the high school-related costs? And furthermore, just to that portion of the high school costs where there will be change? There are many students whose transportation will not change at all (e.g. those still attending NV).

Finally, the $2.5M (=$1.0 + $1.5M) per year in cost difference between BB and Eola just seems like a lot. There are 232 high school bus routes (the morning trip and afternoon trip are considered separate routes). If we spread this projected cost increase across all routes (and like I said above, not all will change, and some will decrease) this equates to about $11,000 per bus route per year or $64 per route per day (there are 172 school attendance days per year). At a cost of $2 per mile (the going rate for school bus costs which includes fuel, labor, maintenance, etc.) the result is that these cost increases equate to each route increasing by a whopping 32 miles per day. The total distance from one end of the district to the other is only about 12 miles and the distance between each school and its nearest neighbor is only 5 miles. Cost figures that translate into an increase of 32 miles for EVERY high school bus route do not seem reasonable.

Coming at it the other way, assuming that every high school bus route increases by 5 miles per day translates into an increase of $400,000 per year (using the same assumptions as above). The present value of these extra costs is about $5M. Am I missing something or just stuck in “Stupidworld.”?
-----------
OK, so in NPV terms its $31 million. That's a big number. Secondly, this idea about applying percentages to the entire district's bus costs makes some sense to me because the whole boundary issue was brought on by the building of the third HS, and all the chain reactions from that decision. If Plan A (BB site) showed a 9% savings and Plan B (Eola) has 13% increase in bus miles, then yes, it's all eminating from the new HS and the costs are valid. NPV or no NPV, it's a waste of taxpayer money.

Player, perhaps you are right. The first purchase of the 25 acres could be construed as intent towards the purchase of the remaining 55. I don't know if the deal with PREIT could come into play.

Again, its a blog and I'm just blovating.

PS If you are reliant on Wikipedia I'll have my 7 year old contact you as he's a pretty reliable source too. ;)

To Eric:

I believe that the statute you are referring to gives exemption to governmental agencies performing work - for example the city's water department working at night to repair leaks, etc. As the school is being constructed by Turner Construction, a private entity, they are likely not exempt. I could be wrong, but that's my take on things.

"One last thought. Even if you don't support the school board and/or administration, why not embrace the school at this point? It's going to be a very nice school, assuming all goes as planned. Are you willing to accept it, now that construction has started?"

What an absolutely precious comment! Let's use the same logic with District 203..."OK, even though they lied to the taxpayer resulting in an overcollection of tens of millions of dollars, the fact is they have the money know. Are you willing to accept it and just embrace the dishonesty?"

I think that the construction noise prohibition might not apply to the school:

CODE OF ORDINANCES
City of
AURORA, ILLINOIS

Codified through
Ord. No. 007-69, enacted June 12, 2007.
(Supplement No. 42)

Sec. 29-205. Noises prohibited.
The following acts are declared to be per se violations of this article. This list does not constitute an exclusive list.

* * *

(9) Construction or repair of buildings, excavation of streets and highways: The construction, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or the excavation of streets and highways other than between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekends. Local, state, and federal governments are exempt from this prohibition.

To: Greg Forrest on June 6, 2008 3:39 PM

Actually, the contractor can not work nights under lights as they do on the highway. Local ordinance prohibits work before 7AM and after 7PM with out special permit

By Peoples is the Craziest Animals on June 6, 2008 3:00 PM
to Greg Forest, Civics, D&S and all of the other sane bloggers here:

Your participation is urgently needed on another Sun blog - if you think you had fun here, you have got to check out the "Blowing in the Wind" blog about people hanging out their laundry. I look forward to seeing you there - if you dare!
____________________________

Hey, guys. Peoples is right! Check it out--it's like porta potty wars all over again, only better (or worse, depending on your frame of mind)!

To: Metea Either Way on June 6, 2008 9:15 AM

>This is not all together accurate. Keep in mind that BB is not, to >my knowledge, a benevolent, for the community organization. The >trust's handling of this parcel is in line with maximizing the >return on an asset. Short of building something that is harmful to >the community (insert joke here) I beleive they are absolutely >indifferent to what is built on this parcel after they dispose of >it. Please don't mistake fighting a bullied effort with opposition >to building a 3rd HS as they are not one in the same.

Agreed. Their resistance was passive, and they don't really care about if or where a HS is built. I am not faulting them for maximizing the value of their asset -thats business. The definitely did not do anything malicious to my knowledge. My beef was that extrapolating forgiveness of attorneys fees is not consistent with their behavior to date. Their lawyers were charged with getting the best deal for the BB transaction, and they did. Now I am sure they expect to get paid for that, and they will, as the law allows. I have no reason to expect it will go away if we bought BB vs AME - BB's motives are commercial.

>...they are scrambling to try to make the best of it by claiming >damages with no law or legal precedent to support it
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Again, this is not accurate. The recent Popejoy ruling established >ONLY that the NSFOC had no standing to pursue their case, the BB >Trust may. While the venue does not change the coure of law does as >the suit(s) will be viewed in the light of a real estate >transaction and not a voter rights issue. The court could, although >it may be unlikely, rule that IPSD 204 must perform to the contract.

Not so. This is an Eminent Domain issue, and will be subject to that statute. I was not claiming that they did not have standing to sue (frankly, I don't know, I'm assuming they do have standing), like the NSFOC. The statute (do a google search on Eminent Search Illinois, or I can post it) does not say anything about damage claims. In fact the Brodie filing explicitly calls this out in a footnote. So the law does not say they are entitled to damages to their property value, but it doesn't say they are not either.

You're right, this is not a Voters Rights issue.

But the real deficiency in their case is lack of precedent. I did not see the Brodie lawsuit pull out any precedent where a public body abandoned a condemnation, and had to pay damages due to the value of the property changing. So no case law and no affirmative support from Eminent Domain statute - which is why this judgement will be precedent setting one way or the other.

And, I too am not a lawyer, and do not play one on TV :^)
I did learn to read in my younger days, and recently learned to Google and Wikipedia too!

Cheers.

To: Naperville Sun editors on June 6, 2008 4:41 PM

Moderator Jim to Peoples etc.: If you guys do head over to the "Blowing in the Wind" thread please be just sure to note that a certain reference (two words) have been banned from the thread. They were originally mentioned by someone named Brenda, but when someone else picked up on it - even though I let it go twice - I brought the moderator hammer down. So, please observe the rule. Thanks in advance.
______________________________

Is the first initial B and the second initial J? Those crazy "Blowing in the Wind" bloggers!!! LOL!!!

To Moderator Jim:

Understood - no references to marks left by tires

By Khazakstan Kid on June 5, 2008 9:06 PM

Did someone just invite me to a beer bash?

MR and I can carpool. We should meet at the bar closest to MV (Paulie's, corner of NY and Eola). We can get all liquored up, drive drunk to the site, and the NSFOC folks can pee on the new school.
_______________________________________

I'll have to leave the public peeing to MEW and GF. Trust me, D&S peeing at Eola is not an image you want in your head for the rest of your life.

Cheers!

I think the lack of port-o-potties struck a nerve with the main contractors. They are scrambling around getting more on site to avoid the wrath!! Look at all the construction folks on I-88, they have adequate facilities.... why dont "we" Eola/Metea workers? The bloggers are saying we work under unequal conditions with our counterparts and should be very upset with this treatment!! LOL LOL.

Seriously, I think the weather is playing a major factor this week. thunder/lightening and tornado warninngs are all very bad. Nothing a little weekend work couldnt solve though. Probably cant bring in lights and work at night (like they do on freeway projects) since its so close to residential areas.

GF

---------------------------------------------------
By MR on June 6, 2008 2:39 PM
BEER!!! I'm in!!!

Can we not invite Earth To School Board? I know he hasn't been around in a while but he scares me.
________________

On a seperate note something strange I've noticed. Since the NSFOC dismissal last week and the ground breaking this week it seems to me that the construction has actually slowed down at Metea almost to a stand still. Anyone have any idea why? Construction contract issues? Are they waiting for more Porta Potty's on order?

I've been driving by there every day and no new action. I wonder why? I thought construction was supposed to be on the fast track?

MR

MR,

The work they are doing now is below grade getting ready for the foundations. Not only is that work less obvious, the rain slows it down...note all the pumps on the property. Maybe we should check ebay for the porta potty...raising funds for lawyers to fight for some cause.

I've been driving by there every day and no new action. I wonder why? I thought construction was supposed to be on the fast track?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that what the SB told you? Hmmmm........... ;)

Part of the reason for the slow down has been the extremely wet conditions. Trying to operate in that wet clay just churns up a sea of mud and makes productivity drop off considerably.

Will the beer hall have Air conditioning?

to Greg Forest, Civics, D&S and all of the other sane bloggers here:

Your participation is urgently needed on another Sun blog - if you think you had fun here, you have got to check out the "Blowing in the Wind" blog about people hanging out their laundry. I look forward to seeing you there - if you dare!

BEER!!! I'm in!!!

Can we not invite Earth To School Board? I know he hasn't been around in a while but he scares me.
________________

On a seperate note something strange I've noticed. Since the NSFOC dismissal last week and the ground breaking this week it seems to me that the construction has actually slowed down at Metea almost to a stand still. Anyone have any idea why? Construction contract issues? Are they waiting for more Porta Potty's on order?

I've been driving by there every day and no new action. I wonder why? I thought construction was supposed to be on the fast track?

MR

To Civics and the gang count me in for the beer, lets invite Moderator Jim as I still owe him a beer.

By Naperville Sun editors on June 5, 2008 8:18 PM
Moderator Jim to For the kids: About your AC comment, aren't the kids out of school for the summer. If so, what is your point?

First of all my point is you don’t need the kids to realize it is insanely humid and HOT in the elementary buildings. I encourage you to take a walk through today, it will be very Hot and humid and you will be shocked to believe that teachers teach in that environment and children are expected to learn. You can bring 25 kids along for the fun to get a “TRUE” feeling but I am sure even w/out them you will get the point.
The heat remains in the buildings well into October. Ask anyone about some of the Halloween parties that they have been at.
In my first post I was showing frustration to those who will never vote yes again to a referendum. Because that means we will never get air in the elementary buildings. Only the children will lose in that case.

Nosuch....etc

"So no, I don't think you are as neutral as I am."

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

OK. You win. I cede the title of "Most Neutral of All" to you.

Greg,

BOTH further HS and split from middle school.....that is a tricky one.

i am now getting fuzzy on all the options (it was my wife who tracked most of this 2 years ago) but I think I recall that some of the options included springbrook being the only school from Gregory to go to Metea...or something like that. I seem to recall other options that had Builta in the same situation. I dont recall the disposition of WE and TG. (please DO NOT post a bunch of stuff with the info. I think it is water under the bridge now....but I am trying to remember enough to answer GFs question.)

Not surprisingly, I did not favor these options for myself or for Builta. And it was more the issue of being "an island" over here in the southeast that was most distastefull about them rather than the 'split' from other ES at Gregory per se.

But honestly Greg, I viewed the 3rd HS issue as separate from the boundary issue. I felt that the boundaries were subject to change up to the opening of the school. And even more change was possible up until the time my kids actually go to HS.

So....would I have voted for the 3rd HS even with a boundary proposal I didnt like? I am almost positive I would have.

Would I have voted for that boundary proposal if IT were put up for a vote? Of course not.

And would I have been asking for review of the boundary plans up to the school opening to ensure fairness and equity if I did not understand the logic of the board? Probably.

---------------------------------------------------
On another note and as for the rest of the Springbrook community....it seems as though most of the people I knew at the time (Cub Scouts, Soccer Team etc etc) were vote NO people anyway. So I have a hard time estimating on behalf of the rest of the Springbrook population. I guess the people I knew would have been even MORE vote no....if such a thing is even possible.

NoSuch

"I have not seen compassion for those who lost"

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

Then you have either not read all my posts, or have chosen to ignore certain parts.

I don't see my response to your question about what was the point for the AC comment!

By Naperville Sun editors on June 5, 2008 8:18 PM
Moderator Jim to For the kids: About your AC comment, aren't the kids out of school for the summer. If so, what is your point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Easy Jim.....kids start school the 3rd week of August and it is still pretty hot at this time and into Septemeber.

player
The fact is, to date, every single action from BB for years has been to impede the building of a third high school at the BB site. --------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not all together accurate. Keep in mind that BB is not, to my knowledge, a benevolent, for the community organization. The trust's handling of this parcel is in line with maximizing the return on an asset. Short of building something that is harmful to the community (insert joke here) I beleive they are absolutely indifferent to what is built on this parcel after they dispose of it. Please don't mistake fighting a bullied effort with opposition to building a 3rd HS as they are not one in the same.

...they are scrambling to try to make the best of it by claiming damages with no law or legal precedent to support it
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this is not accurate. The recent Popejoy ruling established ONLY that the NSFOC had no standing to pursue their case, the BB Trust may. While the venue does not change the coure of law does as the suit(s) will be viewed in the light of a real estate transaction and not a voter rights issue. The court could, although it may be unlikely, rule that IPSD 204 must perform to the contract.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV

Player

Nice post. Thanks.

Here's a little something to add to the mix from a former Referendum (2005 Referendum) Committee member. BB thought that it had the SB by the "..." regarding the land purchase at 75th Street. What other group was interested in that piece of property? They probably thought (now remember, I'm just a high school teacher, not a psychologist) that they could set whatever price that they wanted for the land; and that the SB would have to pony up the money, especially after the 2006 Referendum. BB probably overplayed its hand and is now fuming that they have a piece of property that looks like it will sit there undeveloped for quite a while. Isn't there a practically empty shopping center right across the street? I for one, would like to see the little man win this battle, and aren't we (the residents of 204) considered the "little man" now?

To Khazakstan Kid on June 5, 2008 8:19 AM

You mentioned the judge ruled that "It should be noted that there is no evidence that the District ever intended to induce reliance on information that was false." Popejoy did indeed rule that there was no deceitfulness, no broken promises.
_____________________________

Just as a note, I don't think Popejoy was saying there were no broken promises. The District DID induce reliance on the information they gave to some of us, but Popejoy is saying it was not intentional, meaning the SB believed their own hype at the time they were doing it. I tend to agree with this, I don't think the SB had a plan to switch to Eola all along, that they had any personal stake in building there because some of them live in that area, and so forth and so on. But promises were broken nonetheless. Just because there was no case legally doesn't mean there was nothing wrong with what they did in 06 to ensure the refs passage. I see these as two different issues.

In response to comments from What The!

“Transportation costs (both the lost savings from BB - the 9% Bruce Glawe talked about - $20M over 20 years...and the additional 13% I hear for increased bus miles and costs - $30M over 20 years?). “

And SaveEarth's comments:

“-finally, I do not see where Eola is lower costs than BB when you add the $20-30 million of additional transportation costs and up to $20 million in damages from wlking away at BB site. It does not make sense at all. However supporters and the media only discuss cost per acre of the land only. I think I am living in Stupidworld. “
-------
You may not be living in Stupidworld , but you may be visiting bamboozle territory. The transportation numbers being thrown around (no matter where they arose from including the ones from the infamous Bruce Glawe analysis) are in some cases just outright wrong and in my estimation exaggerated to the point of failing a reasonableness test. Let me 'splain....

The $20M and $30M figures come from taking the percentages (a lost 9% improvement and a 13% increase in cost) incurred by not building at BB and applying them to the TOTAL district transportation budget of $11M . This is roughly $1M and $1.5M respectively. They are then added up over 20 years to result in the above mentioned $20M and $30M.

First and foremost, you cannot just simply add up savings you incur over time and use that simple sum as a “present value” in calculations. As we know, money has time value so a dollar saved 20 years from now is not worth a dollar now. It must be discounted. This has significant effect on the actual value that should be used in the comparison. For example, $1M saved over 20 years when discounted using 5% is only worth about $12M in todays dollars (not the $20M figure being used) . $1.5M over the same 20 years is worth about $19M (not the $30M being used). The NSFOC site (where these numbers seem to be coming from) correctly points out the discounting factor but then proceeds to use the (incorrect) simple sum in its comparison tables.

Secondly, the lost savings percentage and the cost increase percentage are applied to the total district transportation budget. Is that correct? Shouldn't they be applied to just the high school-related costs? And furthermore, just to that portion of the high school costs where there will be change? There are many students whose transportation will not change at all (e.g. those still attending NV).

Finally, the $2.5M (=$1.0 + $1.5M) per year in cost difference between BB and Eola just seems like a lot. There are 232 high school bus routes (the morning trip and afternoon trip are considered separate routes). If we spread this projected cost increase across all routes (and like I said above, not all will change, and some will decrease) this equates to about $11,000 per bus route per year or $64 per route per day (there are 172 school attendance days per year). At a cost of $2 per mile (the going rate for school bus costs which includes fuel, labor, maintenance, etc.) the result is that these cost increases equate to each route increasing by a whopping 32 miles per day. The total distance from one end of the district to the other is only about 12 miles and the distance between each school and its nearest neighbor is only 5 miles. Cost figures that translate into an increase of 32 miles for EVERY high school bus route do not seem reasonable.

Coming at it the other way, assuming that every high school bus route increases by 5 miles per day translates into an increase of $400,000 per year (using the same assumptions as above). The present value of these extra costs is about $5M. Am I missing something or just stuck in “Stupidworld.”?

To Civics: I guess I was bringing in your numerous postings on other blogs over the weeks to form my opinion that you are from the "get over it" mind set. I have not seen compassion for those who lost , but alot of keep pushin' on. There have been many but most recently:

By Civics on May 30, 2008 8:44 AM
...... There is still a tight construction timeline to meet, lawsuits to fight, and more 'complications' around the next turn. So I will, with others on this board, be happy to erect a 'big tent' from which to fight the next battles.

By Civics on May 30, 2008 4:27 PM

.....Tell me you are not staying allied with these loonies? Are you trying to talk some sense into them? More lawsuits? Is this the 'bridge building' so many of us from both sides have spoken about?

By Civics on June 1, 2008 11:19 PM
...Also, KK, loved your big summary post. It sums up my feelings so well, I think I am without words! How odd!!

And these are from KK’s summary post that you said summed up your feelings

….We're fine going to WV. We're fine going to MV. We will miss WV. We're glad to have stolen Jim Schmid. Sorry TG/WE, you lose again on this one ;”

…….If that means voting them off, so be it. ... makes some good points that they're doing good work on other, less contentious issues, but people should vote however they choose. At some point folks, you're going to have to let go of your anger and move on

…..MV will open. Teachers, administrators, and janitors will be paid. Electric bills will be paid. If an operating referendum doesn't pass to cover these costs, the district will cannibalize NV, WV, the middle schools, and the elementary schools. YOU WILL PAY in one way or another. Let the anger go people...

I propose that the 204 administrative offices as well as the admin offices within schools without AC turn off the AC until the kids and teachers get it in all schools. It sickens me that the superintendant and principals sit in airconditioned offices and claim its not that big of a deal to have temps in classrooms >90 degrees. Maybe if the school district officials perspired for a week or so for 8hrs/day they would find some funding for this necessary cost. They are sitting on a $90M surplus afterall.

Officers in the military live in the same climate as the troops. Sp should our leaders along with the kids and teachers!!

Well, now I can see the motivation and bias of Civics "in Springbrook". Springbrook was originally the neighborhood in the some of the first published boundary options (1-6) to leave NVHS and go to Meteta at BB. Glawe traded them out with TG, stating it was a close decision based on distance from their grade schools to the NVHS versus distance to Metea at BB. Fry is closer to Neuqua, but Springbrook was further from BB and then it became political with his own neighborhoood. To pacify WE, he kept TG with their middle school friends of WE. Springbrook was also a suggested trade out for TG in some boundary options proposed by the community for Metea at Eola. So no, I don't think you are as neutral as I am.

sorry moderator Jim. I meant Jim. Ted has jumped in as well. my bad.

LOL
I beleive you Civ. Tommy Nevins!! I can stumble home from there with no need to worry about driving :)

Agree with you that folks vote due to multiple factors (altruistic and selfish).

.....you f o r g o t about the middle school lone gunman split.... I said folks could probably take one for the team, but didnt think two. I think tallgrass voted yes for the further HS thing...just as you said you would do (just barely though at 57 to 43 or something like that). I think the fry lone gunman split would have turned it into a major no.

How about for you in springbrook? would you have still voted yes given the second painful pill to swallow for the good of the overall district? Full disclosure; even if I thought we really, really needed a 3rd HS, I dont think I could have voted yes when you add the lone gunman split on top of the farther HS. In my view; better more people take just one for the team, than concentrating most/all the pain in one or two areas (whether that area is brookdale, tallgrass, etc, etc,) spread the burden and share the wealth!!! (ok not too much sharing of the wealth or we will end up in a socialist democracy or worse a communist economic system...but I do agree with you on the safety net (question is/always will be where do we, as a society, set it?).

GF

---------------------------------------------------
By Civics on June 5, 2008 6:31 PM
Greg -- as for being open about my location......happy to meet you for a beer someplace and show you my drivers license with my address!

I actually think we should have a 'rational,sensible and decent' party for those on this blog who are.

MEW, you, D+S, MR, KK, SSSmaker, SBmom, maybe a few others i forget.

By Civics on June 5, 2008 6:36 PM
"and you are trying to blame them (cynical and disgusting from your post) for voting out of selfishness?"

Greg,

I am not trying to blame anyone. Nor am I calling them cynical and disgusting. People vote for many different reasons. And the one thing I have been consistent on in these threads is that this is most definitely their choice, their opinion, their reasons.

My objection with nosuch is that he makes the assumption that people ONLY vote for selfish reasons. I reject that. and it is that claim that I find cynical and disgusting.

Did someone just invite me to a beer bash?

TOGA!

As they say at the World Series of Poker, "I'm all in!"

MR and I can carpool. We should meet at the bar closest to MV (Paulie's, corner of NY and Eola). We can get all liquored up, drive drunk to the site, and the NSFOC folks can pee on the new school.

I'm sorry for that last one, but the thought of a beer bash gets me going.

Moderator Ted

last day of school for elementary school kids was today (granted i dont think it was too long today, maybe an hr or two?). So no, they are not "out for the summer" (tomorrow is the first day of summer break).

I beleive "for the kids" was trying to make the point that 19 of 21 elementary school kids LACK AC. two lucky schools have it along with the rest of the schools in the district. I will let "for the kids" speak for him/herself, but I believe the point is; what if a ref comes along that has AC on it? we have inequality in learning environments depending on which school you attend. The SB is developing a heat tolerance index or something to that effect, to release class early when the inside building temps get too hot where kids/teachers could run into health issues. I believe the SD is also developing a heat mitigation plan that DOES NOT INCLUDE AC to help lower the temps during hot humid days (open windows/vents at night to circulate cool night air into the buildings)

Granted, there are usually only a few weeks in the fall and spring where this is a big concern, but if you have ever sat in the gym of an E school (or in an un0airconditioned classroom when it's 90+ degrees outside and inside its over 100 due to heat retention, you will understand the where the poster is coming from.

I beleive it is a well documented fact that the least tolerant during heat waves are the very old, the very sick and the very young. Therefore, NOT having AC in 19 of the 21 elementary schools (but having it everywhere else in D204) is tougher on our little guys and gals and our older (forgive me) educators than it would be on our hearty administrationn staff at crouse center and our hearty older tweens and teens in Middle/High schools.

AC FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------
By Naperville Sun editors on June 5, 2008 8:18 PM
Moderator Jim to For the kids: About your AC comment, aren't the kids out of school for the summer. If so, what is your point?

For the kids:

Summer is here time for the pool. No worries at the nice and cool pool.

The AC Comment is that this week we are experiencing the temps we do at the end of the year and the first month or two of school. This week as been extremely humid and the humidity in the buildings have been awful. I would have opened the invite up earlier but I was busy and missed the blog. It doesn’t matter if you go in today or in August this is what the teachers deal with. The LMC directors are still packing up, I am sure you could get a taste of the humidity minus the children and see what the children and educators go through. I guess that is my point. If you don’t want to pass another referendum for air maybe you should go and see what it is like in the buildings or better yet turn yours off at home.

By Civics on June 5, 2008 9:48 AM
Player and others,

The point here is pretty clear -- and has been since the begining of the debates on these boards. Even if the Eola site does end up less expensive than BB, your hard-core bitter types will STILL be complaining. And they will never ever stop. Some of them because it is their nature to be bitter. And some because the situation simply did not play out the way they believed or hoped that it would.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
I agree - well said. Even if the BB damages were $0 and Eola/AME came in $20M less that BB, there will still be people who claim Eola is more expensive than BB. I have to admit, I was quite taken aback and astounded by suggestions that somehow BB would have forgiven the $5M in attorney fees - meaning that BB would have settled for $100K/acre less ($100K~=$5M/55 acres)than the jury award!

If so, why didn't BB come to the table with a $400K/acre price if they are allegedly so eager to forgo the $5M in the name of good business? The SB might have bought BB at $400K/acre!!!! And probably gained some serious brownie points with district residents as well. [guess I can speculate wildly too ;^)]. The fact is, to date, every single action from BB for years has been to impede the building of a third high school at the BB site.

The whole premise is so ludicrous it doesn't even make sense to try to debate - the only answer I expect is that it could happen and therefore BB is might have been cheaper, regardless of how unlikely it is. Even selling at $518K is something they are forced to do by the Eminent Domain action by the District, so even their willingness to sell is is not from their desire, but by law. To be fair, I do support their recieving legal fees as per the law, but I have no illusions of any altruistic motives from them. Fighting windmills is a waste of time....

BB held out ruthlessly with the hope of forcing the District to buy the property at the full jury verdict, and now that it won't happen, they are scrambling to try to make the best of it by claiming damages with no law or legal precedent to support it. And there are actually people cheering BB on!

But, Civics, I see your point - people will believe what they believe to justify their stance. Popejoy will ultimately set this to rest, so I will quit debating legal fees and damages. I have made the points I wanted to make. Let the readers of this blog reach their own conclusions on whose arguments are more sound.

Cheers.

I feel so bad for our kids of 204 when I hear that people will say NO to another referendum. For those of you who say NO I challenge you to go and spend the afternoon in one of the UN AIR CONDITIONED building, this week is a great time to go and bring 24-29 children with you! Stand upfront and teach while the children sit still, in the HEAT!

"and you are trying to blame them (cynical and disgusting from your post) for voting out of selfishness?"

Greg,

I am not trying to blame anyone. Nor am I calling them cynical and disgusting. People vote for many different reasons. And the one thing I have been consistent on in these threads is that this is most definitely their choice, their opinion, their reasons.

My objection with nosuch is that he makes the assumption that people ONLY vote for selfish reasons. I reject that. and it is that claim that I find cynical and disgusting.

Greg -- as for being open about my location......happy to meet you for a beer someplace and show you my drivers license with my address!

I actually think we should have a 'rational,sensible and decent' party for those on this blog who are.

MEW, you, D+S, MR, KK, SSSmaker, SBmom, maybe a few others i forget.

Greg,

I am not so pollyanna-ish to believe that people always act for altruistic reasons. That includes me. Nor do I expect them to.

However, what I am saying is that Nosuch seems to imply that people ONLY act for selfish reasons. And that is what I reject so strongly. then he wants to lump me (and anyone else who supports Eola) in with his view of how selfishly people behave. and I simply will not have it.

I act according to what I believe is 'enlightened self interest.' Example - God willing, I do not ever expect to recieve welfare benefits. However, I believe we live in a better society for having such a safety net. living in a better society is a net benefit to me (lower crime, chance for the next generation to get out of poverty etc) so I support candidates who favor SOME degree of a 'social safety net' even though I pay the taxes for it and receive no direct benefit.

Similarly for the school situation. Under the current plan, my kids go to NVHS. Somehow, some way, building MVHS is going to cost me money. My kids arent going there. but i will benefit in two ways. one, my kids will go to a less crowded school. two, my property values will be higher because i will have a better school district.

as for your question, nosuch will not believe me, but i am willing to accept any school. as long as there is equity in the decision making -- or at least no bias. example -- I would rather go to NVHS because it is closer to my house, less bus time, etc. I am willing to go to wvhs along with TG and WE if that is what is needed for the district. however i will not go INSTEAD of WE or TG because they are closer to WVHS. (please dont start up on the walking thing....)

How would I have voted KNOWING I would have to move to MVHS on BB or WVHS? Oddly, this is a discussion that I had in my house during the boundary wars prior to the referendum because there was so much uncertainty and because we knew the boundaries could change. And believe it or not, my wife and I still would have voted YES. I have never said so on this board because i assume people like nosuch will not believe it. but because you asked.....

By MR on June 5, 2008 11:44 AM
I agree that things could have been done differently and I'm not overly happy with some members of our SB, but I also believe that this 3rd HS issue is only 10% of what they have done in 2007-2008. To judge them on one issue means you have no clue what they do. You know what? Regardless of how you feel about the 3rd HS issue and the SB I think we should all look at the education our kids are getting and how good our schools are overall and give some thanks to the SB who pass all of these programs. THAT IS WHAT THEY DO FOR ALL OUR KIDS ON A MONTHLY BASIS. How do I know? Because I have attended every SB meeting and see what they do every month. APATHETIC? Depends on how you are using that word. If you are saying they show little emotion or feeling, I'd agree. If you are saying they have little or no interest or concern, I'd disagree. This SB, if you like them or not cares a lot about IPSD, and I am willing to bet this SB put in more hours and dealt with more issues outisde of the 3rd HS issue then any other SB in many years.
--------
No doubt the SB cares, but I think the more credit should go to the teachers, the kids themselves and the parents of the kids. D204 is lucky to have parents who care and good students to begin with. What people are unhappy about, is the total screw up of the most expensive project ever ($300 million plus counting debt, interst exp and operating costs over a project life), the botched negotiations, held personal grudges, calculated bus costs on their kitchen tables - calculations that dramatically impacted the lives of parents/kids who are already busy and hire a SB and well-paid admin to manage these things professionally. They would all be fired if they worked for a company with a $260 million budget, and they will be in the end. The performance review is summarized as follows - poor leadership in leadership roles.

To all who claim all of the North is in it for the big $$$!!!

Just for the record, I live north of Liberty Street and voted yes for the new high school - regardless of location. It wasn't to gain any increase in property value - I doubt it will make that much of a difference anyway. I don't even have children who will go to any of the schools, regardless of location. I voted yes because, in my opinion ( as misguided, ill-conceived or erroneous as it may be - it's mine to have and to decide on, the children of the district would benefit from a 3rd high school. That's all of the children - the rich ones, the not so rich ones, the White, the Black, the Hispanic, all of the other ethnic groups are out there ( please don't take offense that I didn't list you as well, the ones from south and west of 75th street and Rt 59, the ones from east of Rt 59 and north of 75th St; all the district's children will benefit.

How you ask? (Or was that "How can he think he knows what the heck he is talking about"?) Here are just some of the things I see for them.

Smaller class sizes!

Increased opportunities to participate in extra curricular activities! More sports teams for the kids, more choirs and orchestras and dram groups to be a part of.

Increased diversification between people from different socio-economic levels (yes it's not all bad - don't worry - not all rich people are rabidly prejudiced and ethno-phobic!)

I don't think the SB promised me, as a voter, anything but a new high school. I know they talked about BB as the site they wanted to build on but the referendum didn't say "build on BB". I don't feel invalidated. I don't feel lied to. I don't feel cheated. And if I did have a kid to send to school - I'd have to issue with sending them to the Eola site. I've read the studies. I've read then reports. I know about the pipelines and transmission lines and the railroads. I just don't see them as a strong enough issue to make this site unusable as a school site. I'm not a cruel and uncaring monster, I am not unmindful of possible risks. In fact, I am extremely conservative in most things and tend to look for the reasons why things wont or shouldn't work. I just don't see them here.

For the NSFOC folks and their supporters. I'm sorry you feel "cheated" or "lied to" or "disenfranchised". I don't understand why you do but all the same, it isn't any fun to feel that way. I don't agree with you but that doesn't make your outrage and disappointment any less real or important to you. Please just try to understand that many of the people you are angry with or at just don't understand your anger. We aren't evil, we aren't hateful and we certainly love our children and families just as much as you love yours.

To the Anti-NSFOC folks - let it go - the NSFOC didn't get what they wanted - I know many of you are outraged and angry about things. But keeping after them; continuing to fuel the anger (yours and theirs) is not going to help.

I'm actually very surprised, based on the level of hate and anger here, that there hasn't been an incident of violence because of this issue. I hope that never comes to be. But it sure seems like it's coming that way.

OK Snipers - here I am - fire away

I dont know. This is pretty interesting, assuming you both have been "open" about your locations (Civ springbrook and Nosuchthing in Welch). Two fairly opposing viewpoints from two unaffected areas (for the most part anyways. yes splits work both ways and affect those that remain as well)

Civics, I think its a matter of degrees. It depends upon how much personal "pain" folks are willing to endure for the greater good. Brookdale voted no due to the major hardships the location at BB would entail for that area. I cant say I blame them. I have a feeling tallgrass would also resoundingly vote no knowing that they would quintuple their HS commutte, fry kids would be lone gunman split to a different HS than the rest of scullen, then hindsight 20/20; that the HS numbers dropped 1500 kids from the prior estimate. Pretty similar to brookdale in 2006?

Maybe folks could take one for the team...but two? and you are trying to blame them (cynical and disgusting from your post) for voting out of selfishness? Civics, would you vote yes, if your E school kids were split out from the rest of the middle school you attend and sent to a farther HS (in your case it would be WV as well)? would the majority of springbrook? how about you "springbrook mom too"?

This is exactly why no location or boundaries should be disclosed prior to a referendum (unless you need to sell something to get it passed LOL). If major pain has to be concentrated in areas of historically higher than average voter turnout (and you tell them so before they vote) the odds of getting your ref passed drop significantly. Better to say nothing and focus on the objective needs for the 3rd HS just like what was done in the first ref try in 2005.

just curious if you (civics and springbook mom) care to answer the question of how you would vote given the above info prior to the ref (like brookdale had, but tallgrass did not). obviously you dont have to answer if its too uncomfortable. juust curious.
GF

-----------------------------------------------------
By Civics on June 5, 2008 3:26 PM
Nosuchthing etc etc.

There is another important point here. Your fundamental premise is that people will always vote and behave according to their own narrow self interest. Therefore, happy people are in the north. Unhappy people are in the south. Because that matches their self-interest. And the school board acts to improve their own property values.

I have read a lot of junk and accusations on these boards but nothing as unredeemingly cynical and disgusting as that. I do not even accuse all members of NSFOC of that. And i categorically and absolutely reject it for myself.

Not everybody acts only for self interest. You dont believe that. I cant convince you.

By MR on June 5, 2008 11:44 AM
The arguement is made that 10,000 are still unhappy and the majority of the 15,000 are unhappy. How are they assuming this? Even the NSFOC doesn't have that many members to swing more then 5,000 votes. The majority of those 15,000 yes votes were on the basis that D204 needed a 3rd HS as per the referendum language. To assume that the majority of the 15,000 votes voted yes because of location of the HS would be just that assuming.
------------
The 2005 referendum was about the need for a new HS and no promotion around location or boundaries. It was defeated 8996 NO vs 6773 YES.

The 2006 referendum was about promoting the things the consultant hired with our taxpayer money - namely a location and boundaries. It was approved 14,375 YES vs 10,376 NO.

So I believe that there were about 7600 swing voters who voted NO in 2005 and YES in 2006 based on location and boundaries they were sold by the district officials. So any way one slices here there will be a lot of voters who were unhappy after they voted YES to the location and boundaries (and the need for a school), but then all that changed after the vote. Also in 2006 another 3600 NO voters surfaced vs 2005.

To think a large percentage of the 10,000 NO votes are not still NO today is ludicrous. Maybe the 14,000 YES voters can be swayed but about half of those folks cannot be too happy today. When you add the reckless decision-making, risk taking and higher cost of not only the new HS building, but the added bus costs - I think many additional NOs remain NOs and YESs become NOs.

It's a slaughter if there was a revote. Unfortunately that will not occur, but as a result the voters will speak the first opportunity they get. I pity the referendum that comes first.

By MR on June 5, 2008 11:44 AM
Overcrowding was the always the main issue facing all of our students. Therefore, this decision was not done out of arrogance it was done out of the needs and promises of a 3rd HS to D204. If you don't believe me ask Popejoy.
------------------
Popejoy made his decision based on the wording of the referendum and the right of school boards to decide location/boundaries. If he had any opinion on the other issues you mentioned, then he would be out of line and an appeal would be successful. Based on the strength of his ruling against NSFOC and their Plaintiffs, many think there was a predetermined result. Some say the judge did not destroy his Memorial Day weekend afterall, and did not read as much as he said - that those were for show. Example - Judge says NFSOC filed the suit after the AME land purchase when it was actually filed more than a month before it. How could any judge miss that unless he was not reading anything. It's a total disgrace of the legal system. Those NSFOC people should appeal.

GK from the north:

What?

nosuchthingasneutral:

It is very transparent that the biggest proponents of Metea at Eola are the neighborhoods who stand to gain with a closer school and a new school. And potentially better selling homes (aka higher property values) than they had when they bought their homes due to these two things. It was not just "about the district #204" kids for the Eola support group. It was about making their personal situations better.
----------------------
Even if true, how is that any different than the transparent motives of the NSFOC people who stood to gain with a new and closer school? Isn't that exactly what so many people called the NSFOC out on all along? So how is it that now that they lost it is not they but their opponents who were simply being self-serving? Kind of rich, don't you think?

At least entertain the thought that the pro-Eola crowd (1) actually believe that a 3rd HS is needed and Eola is an acceptable site (2) think the NSFOC campaign was cynical and obnoxious and (3) resented it enough to vocally oppose it. Truth be told, their motives are no doubt as varied as the "anti-Eola" people. But even bad motives do not necessarily make for bad arguments. And the arguments against Eola just do not hold up. Not even in court.

By MR on June 5, 2008 11:44 AM
...had the decision in the eminent domain case came back at a lower price they always had intentions to purchase the BB property and they would have looked like hero's. However, at $518,000/acre it didn't make financial sense, and to the NSFOC it looked like a conspiracy and they lied and made broken promises.
----
the price was always around $500,000 per acre and the SB knew it even before they filed for condemnation, plus they had the $ per their own statements, written and verbal, and in escrow before the decision.

nosuch....etc

.....and another thing, you miserable misanthrope, nowhere did I tell anybody to 'get over' anything. You read that into my message based on your own biases.

In fact, I think a more logical and supportable reading of my note is that I believe that there are some people who will NEVER get over it. So to expect them to simply drop off these boards or to stop stirring the pot is unrealistic.

I cant think of anything not 'objective' about that.

To: nosuchthingasneutral on June 5, 2008 1:54 PM

Now they take away already what TG/WE were willing to settle for, and had voted (in some cases) reluctantly "yes" for, and expect them to be happy and get over it and healed? I at least have empathy for my SW neighbors and also can see through the melodrama of the certain North neighborhoods who are technically looking out for themselves and always were.
______________________________

Nosuchthingasneutral,

Here is where your arguement is wrong. TG/WE were willing to settle? So then based on your reasoning it means that they were expecting MVHS at BB, correct? Here in lies their problem. I understand their frustration and I'd be mad as hell as well. However, I don't see how the majority of the North as you claim was always and only looking out for themselves when they voted yes as well(except for Brookdale)?

The North was under the assumption they would always be going to WVHS and many are still unhappy they won't be. But to claim that the North was "technically only looking out for themselves" is just untrue. They wanted a 3rd HS for everyone in D204. Those in the North never expected a new HS nor asked for one, but alas they voted "yes" for one. As far as this benefiting everyone in the North, I'm not sure, how can you prove and/or quantify that? You'd have to ask everyone in the North individually, I'm sure everyone has a different take on MVHS at Eola/AME. To say that the North was always looking out for themselves is insulting. It is that attitude and assumption of the North on your part that has caused a large portion of the divide in D204. Just like those in the South are falsely and unfairly labled "entitled".

I have empathy for my SW neighbors as well but I don't see how constantly pitting one area of the district against the other or against our SB helps matters? You have become part of the problem not the solution.

MR

Nosuchthing etc etc.

There is another important point here. Your fundamental premise is that people will always vote and behave according to their own narrow self interest. Therefore, happy people are in the north. Unhappy people are in the south. Because that matches their self-interest. And the school board acts to improve their own property values.

I have read a lot of junk and accusations on these boards but nothing as unredeemingly cynical and disgusting as that. I do not even accuse all members of NSFOC of that. And i categorically and absolutely reject it for myself.

Not everybody acts only for self interest. You dont believe that. I cant convince you.

Nosuchthing....etc

"Objective, right. Where do you live again MR? and Civics?"

Springbrook.

Now what'cha got?

Let me be clear, I have disagreed with many of the SB decisions as associated with the original school sitting. As with MR, I think they get some things right and some wrong. But, I don’t think that they are corrupt and I also think that they work many more hours than most would think.

I would like to get a thought out their and see what others think. As to the cost of the two competing properties, I look at it as what will 80’ish acres cost to build the HS. In the case of BB the cost was ~$6mil for 25 acres + ~$28.5mil for 55 acres + XX for the lawyer fees (ours theirs who cares - in the end it is a cost of obtaining the 80’ish acres of BB that would support a 3rd HS.) + YY for damages (probably $0 if we would have paid the condemnation price). In the end you can’t sell the 84 acre AME land to cheapen up your land cost. (One caveat, if it sells for more or less than you originally paid, then this could be added or subtracted from your land cost. To first order this is a non issue.)

As far as AME is concerned, land cost ~$19mil for 84 acres + XX for the lawyer fees (ours theirs who cares - in the end it is a cost of obtaining the 80’ish acres of AME that would support a 3rd HS.) + YY for damages. Like BB I can’t sell the 25 acres at BB to cheapen up AME. My thoughts are that these 25 acres disappears when BB is required to abandon first claim to the property or repurchase it at the condemnation price. In any case the 204 tax payer will get the original $6mil for the treasury or more perhaps more if BB doesn’t want it.

So as I look at it unless XX + YY is ~$15.5mil 204 tax payers come out ahead financially. So lets jump to the conclusion that XX + YY is $10mil and the BB trust sells the land for $19mil. This means BB got $29mil for their 55 acres (they are happy) and 204 tax payers paid $29mil for their 84 acre AME sight. The bottom line is that this $29mil is less than the $6mil + $29.5mil +$XX for the BB 80’ish acres needed for the 3rd HS.

to nosuchthingasneutral, thank you from one tallgrass resident, while we have accepted wv as our new high school I cant help but being still angry about the situation, we built here years ago with the anticipation of having close schools for our kids, I quess it just never occured to us (being from the south suburbs were are school boundaries have been the same for forty years) that boundaries would change. our fault , yes , but thank you for acknowledging all the changes our kids will go through. best regards, tallgrass

to nosuchthingasneutral, thank you from one tallgrass resident, while we have accepted wv as our new high school I cant help but being still angry about the situation, we built here years ago with the anticipation of having close schools for our kids, I quess it just never occured to us (being from the south suburbs were are school boundaries have been the same for forty years) that boundaries would change. our fault , yes , but thank you for acknowledging all the changes our kids will go through. best regards, tallgrass

TO MR (and Civics)

I don't find Civics posting objective at all. It is very biased towards pro-Eola. It just re-states that those "who lost in their personal sitiaution" should get over it which is something that "those who won in their personal situations" would like so they can stop being stop worrying that someone might change it again.

It is also an excuse to blame all future bumbles by the School Board to be only perceptions of those who were "unhappy" about Metea.

Objective, right. Where do you live again MR? and Civics?

To Anon 12:13 a.m

I am not bitter. Disgusted more like it. I am in Welch (south) and remain at NVHS. However, without being personally affected in the way the boundaries came out (except to see some of my kids friends and their families be split away from the NVHS community), I did see the the SB bumbling and SB waffling and SB favoritism for their own neighborhoods unfold. I can't believe the things I heard and read as their "quotes". I saw the SB not listen or react when people had better suggestions to balance the SB's own established critieria. With disbelief, I watched them ignore their own criteria to jam personal agendas through, discount opposing facts or divert from the issue. I saw them and their supporters find a scapegoat in some of the other neighborhoods, like WE/TG/ Penncross Knolls who basically became the sacrificial lambs. Entitled? We all are entitled to fair treatment.

The majority of TG did not want BB - for most it was a "sacrifice" they took to ensure uncrowded schools (sold to them as needed and now it is not) to ensure them going to MIDDLE and high school with at least a couple of contiguous neighborhoods, and the opportunity (as a trade-off) to start something new where they could be less bitter about being the only ones who were "kicked" out of NVHS, even when it was very close to their homes and was their high school when they bought their homes and when many decided to buy their homes based on that fact.

But then I saw the bumbling of the BB deal, secret meetings and emails, and the rush-hush-rush of the suspect Eola site, - suspect geographically, economically, and environmentally. Now they take away already what TG/WE were willing to settle for, and had voted (in some cases) reluctantly "yes" for, and expect them to be happy and get over it and healed? I at least have empathy for my SW neighbors and also can see through the melodrama of the certain North neighborhoods who are technically looking out for themselves and always were.

The referendum was not a landslide, it was barely a majority. Many didn't vote and a lot voted no. People on these blogs have to stop "speaking" as if "anti Metea at Eola" group are a minority who need to get over it. It is very transparent that the biggest proponents of Metea at Eola are the neighborhoods who stand to gain with a closer school and a new school. And potentially better selling homes (aka higher property values) than they had when they bought their homes due to these two things. It was not just "about the district #204" kids for the Eola support group. It was about making their personal situations better and that made them have rose-colored glasses on everytime the SB said something or did something outlandish.

In closing, I am have much empathy for those who "lost" (they got to change high schools, got the oldest facility, had their commutes tripled, and an isolated split in their middle school.) That's not me being bitter, that is understanding that while I get to keep my "known' commodity - that there are others who gave up BIG, and I am wondering for what? So Brookdale,Stonebridge and Oakhurst can go to a closer new school because they have not had that for years? So what, you bought your house knowing that and you still bought it.

For the record I voted "NO" but due to the location change would glady change my no vote to a yes vote. Just so we are clear, I am not affected by the change in location.

Also, I am behind the SB and administration as they are finally running the SD like a business not on emotion.

By Civics on June 5, 2008 9:48 AM

I couldn't agree more, Civics.

To: Civics on June 5, 2008 9:48 AM
Player and others,

The point here is pretty clear -- and has been since the begining of the debates on these boards. Even if the Eola site does end up less expensive than BB, your hard-core bitter types will STILL be complaining. And they will never ever stop. Some of them because it is their nature to be bitter. And some because the situation simply did not play out the way they believed or hoped that it would.

And even if Eola does end up being cheaper by most objective measures, there are always other ways they will claim poor decision making - things like transportation costs, power lines, contamination, pipelines, price paid for Eola vs their view of its worth, etc etc, take your pick. And expect some new items to crop up as well.

Some people simply have a difficult time accepting that there is not always someone to 'blame' when things dont work out the way they think they should.
_________________________________

Objective, non-attacking and well said Civics!!

It was clear to me from the begining that no matter what the outcome of the NSFOC complaint those "hardcore" NSFOC supporters would never be happy. There are many others who have supported the NSFOC like D&S, GF and MEW that are willing to move forward but unfortunately there are those that Civics refers to that will always be a cancer in IPSD no matter who is on the SB. That is the attitude and outcome that upsets me the most through this whole issue and long process.

To: Rx for Self healing on June 4, 2008 8:27 PM
It is crystal clear that our board president and superintendant will not be the catalysts in this healing process since they don't realize that it was their arrogance and actions that created this malignant disease in our district.

The first step in the healing process is realizing you/we have a problem. The administration and board do not see themselves as any part of the problem so we must heal without them. I advocate for a surgical approach to this leadership issue (remove the malignancy) when seats/positions open.

I believe that future referrendums will be shot down unless the community trusts the board and superintendant. Trust is built over time and is based on actions and experiences. The last 2 years have destroyed the communities trust in the board and administration.

Despite the apothetic school board and superintendant I do advocate for the community to heal and stop fighting with eachother when we are all victims of this team and their decisions. Our kids will succeed irregardless of the school they attend because of us (Parents, teachers and great kids).
____________________________________________

IMO I disagree with you. The SB did feel they were doing what was right for the district. I have spoken directly with many SB members in person and one-on-one. Their opinion on this matter was that they could have looked like "hero's" or "heels" to those that now make up the NSFOC. Had the decision in the eminent domain case
came back at a lower price they always had intentions to purchase the BB property and they would have looked like hero's. However, at $518,000/acre it didn't make financial sense, and to the NSFOC it looked like a conspiracy and they lied and made broken promises. But, if they would have bought the land you'd be signing their praises. If you choose to believe the NSFOC numbers that is your right but I believe those numbers are very inflated, however, none of us will know that for some time. The SB's decision was to look to a diffeent site at a lower cost then $518,000/acre. They knew this would make certain "yes" voters not happy, however the plans were for a 3rd HS, and they had to deliver on this promise. This was a promise made to all residents as it related to overcrowding NOT boundaries or school location. Overcrowding was the always the main issue facing all of our students. Therefore, this decision was not done out of arrogance it was done out of the needs and promises of a 3rd HS to D204. If you don't believe me ask Popejoy.

I also see a lot of people using the numbers that 15,000 voted yes and 10,000 voted no. The arguement is made that 10,000 are still unhappy and the majority of the 15,000 are unhappy. How are they assuming this? Even the NSFOC doesn't have that many members to swing more then 5,000 votes. The majority of those 15,000 yes votes were on the basis that D204 needed a 3rd HS as per the referendum language. To assume that the majority of the 15,000 votes voted yes because of location of the HS would be just that assuming. IMO to have a revote (as much as it might be the right thing to do) also wouldn't give us a true indication of people's desires. IMO I think only about 40% of D204 is even still paying attention to this issue, and that's being generous. Let's really look at the numbers...many have already written the 3rd HS issue off because they are not effected by the decision, boundaries or location of the HS or don't care one way or the other. Therefore, the largest group that would vote are the supporters of the NSFOC because they are the most unhappy about the outcome. Most of the district doesn't care one way or the other where the HS is including the North. Let's take Brookdale out of the equation because it's too hard to discuss their issues. Remember the North voted yes (except Brookdale) and the majority of those voters just figured they would still attend WVHS. Therefore location and boundaries were never important to them but a 3rd HS is because of overcrowding, and it is what they believed they were voting for. Truth be told the vocal supporters of the Pro Eola/AME site are as vocal as they are mainly because of the creation and actions of the NSFOC. I know it's hard to believe but it is not about a new HS for those in the North. Those in the North never thought they were going to get a new HS. So, for them not get MVHS at Eola/AME wouldn't be a loss to them because they still love WVHS.

As many have said (even those that support the NSFOC) to shoot down future referrendums would be suicide for all of our kids no matter where they go to school in IPSD. No matter who is on the SB they will find a way to get the money and unfortunately this will be accomplished by cutting other programs throughout the District.

I agree that things could have been done differently and I'm not overly happy with some members of our SB, but I also believe that this 3rd HS issue is only 10% of what they have done in 2007-2008. To judge them on one issue means you have no clue what they do. You know what? Regardless of how you feel about the 3rd HS issue and the SB I think we should all look at the education our kids are getting and how good our schools are overall and give some thanks to the SB who pass all of these programs. THAT IS WHAT THEY DO FOR ALL OUR KIDS ON A MONTHLY BASIS. How do I know? Because I have attended every SB meeting and see what they do every month. APATHETIC? Depends on how you are using that word. If you are saying they show little emotion or feeling, I'd agree. If you are saying they have little or no interest or concern, I'd disagree. This SB, if you like them or not cares a lot about IPSD, and I am willing to bet this SB put in more hours and dealt with more issues outisde of the 3rd HS issue then any other SB in many years.

Now let the attacks be thrown at me. We all need to forgive and forget a little for all of us to heel. I'm just tired of all the doom and gloom people who say they will never forget and willl always keep holding grudges. That is no way to live your life.

MR

Well Popejoy is the guy to have for dismissals. Chances are good one would think for minimal damages. So, say he only allows about $10M to get stuck to D204, then the other major cost remaining is in the form of delays and expedite costs as a result of D204 officials not negotiating/closing at BB site (say $15 M for that); Transportation costs (both the lost savings from BB - the 9% Bruce Glawe talked about - $20M over 20 years...and the additional 13% I hear for increased bus miles and costs - $30M over 20 years?).

My recommended solution for that situation would be to not close WV Gold campus, and build a smaller HS at Eola. This would minimize travel for students/parents, save a lot of bus costs and maybe even rationally solve some school assignment issues. There is going to be a budget constraint very soon, so such a solution might ease a lot of tension. However, it sounds to logical for this district to consider.

There are also the risks and liabilities for Eola location that are real, but difficult to quantify - poor risk management by our leaders.

I can appreciate that you are a businessman, so am I. However, the BB trusts are just that - trusts. Trusts are usually run by bankers and lawyers. They are most probably just exploring thier options via the lawsuits until they get an offer for the land. Unfortunately they are sitting on land that is valued more for retail than anything else in a market where retailers are looking to decrease their doors rather then open more doors. I wonder if the SB attorney's can use the bird in the hand vs 2 in a bush defense to dismiss the BB damage claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
...and if said Bankers and Lawyers are worth their salt, they will obtain $$$ for damages AND sell the land as this is in the trusts' best interest. You point out that retailers are closing doors rather than opening them thus selling the BB parcel may take more time than expected. Your "bird in the hand" defense only works to the SB's advantage if they can prolong the legal process enough that an offer does, in fact, come in otherwise my concern is that the BB case vs. IPSD 204 will be settled, damages will be paid (how much is uncertain) and then the land will be sold. Keep in mind that there is little urgency in moving this land (at least from what I understand) so it is plausible to think that the trusts may employ this strategy.

By Anonymous on June 5, 2008 9:17 AM
By player on June 5, 2008 4:46 AM
By Anonymous on June 4, 2008 11:26 PM

But there is the chance that legal fees would be forgiven if BB is purchased - more than a chance I believe today. However, there is no chance of forgiveness at Eola/AME, so I strongly disagree that the $5M gets paid either way.

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

Anonymous: I disagree. Why would BB want to forgo something they are entitled to by law? They are in the business to make money, not to be nice. This is a legal, commercial transaction.
---
I am a businessman, so to me all transactions are open to negotiation. In this market if BB could sell the land, then they would consider forgiving any and all claims on the table in exchange for selling the land. Nothing of course will be forgiven if D204 continues on at Eola site. BB of course cannot do anything if they are never asked about current options. To me it is sad that personalities or other issues got in the way of a multi-million dollar deal. D204 had the money to buy BB, but chose to spend even more money and take more risks at Eola. Is that prudent fiscal practice?

----------

I can appreciate that you are a businessman, so am I. However, the BB trusts are just that - trusts. Trusts are usually run by bankers and lawyers. They are most probably just exploring thier options via the lawsuits until they get an offer for the land. Unfortunately they are sitting on land that is valued more for retail than anything else in a market where retailers are looking to decrease their doors rather then open more doors. I wonder if the SB attorney's can use the bird in the hand vs 2 in a bush defense to dismiss the BB damage claims.

MajorianThrax

NSFOC lost and lost big time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, I think that sad truth is that we all lost with this outcome its only that it hasn't been realized (in the form of BB settlements/judgements & operating/transportation costs both translating to our Tax dollars and new boundaries ) by the entire district just yet.

For the record and to refresh, I do not agree with the Eola site but have accepted it as fait accompli, my efforts and support are fully behind Metea.

Looks like the NSFOC is never going to be happy. They are slamming the Naperville Sun for reporting only verifiable information instead of NSFOC inflated, unverified, and biased numbers. They are slamming the same newspaper that gave them an unbeleiveable amount of free publicity that lead to raising a great deal of money from uninformed readers. The nsfoc will never be happy.

Player:

They strenuously objected to Eminent Domain

No legal background except watching the recent A Few Good Men marathon on TBS. ;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

To Anonymous on June 4, 2008 5:12 PM

Re-read my posts and if you still feel this way then its not my fault that you don't understand.

Player and others,

The point here is pretty clear -- and has been since the begining of the debates on these boards. Even if the Eola site does end up less expensive than BB, your hard-core bitter types will STILL be complaining. And they will never ever stop. Some of them because it is their nature to be bitter. And some because the situation simply did not play out the way they believed or hoped that it would.

And even if Eola does end up being cheaper by most objective measures, there are always other ways they will claim poor decision making - things like transportation costs, power lines, contamination, pipelines, price paid for Eola vs their view of its worth, etc etc, take your pick. And expect some new items to crop up as well.

Some people simply have a difficult time accepting that there is not always someone to 'blame' when things dont work out the way they think they should.

By player on June 5, 2008 4:46 AM
By Anonymous on June 4, 2008 11:26 PM

But there is the chance that legal fees would be forgiven if BB is purchased - more than a chance I believe today. However, there is no chance of forgiveness at Eola/AME, so I strongly disagree that the $5M gets paid either way.

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

Anonymous: I disagree. Why would BB want to forgo something they are entitled to by law? They are in the business to make money, not to be nice. This is a legal, commercial transaction.
---
I am a businessman, so to me all transactions are open to negotiation. In this market if BB could sell the land, then they would consider forgiving any and all claims on the table in exchange for selling the land. Nothing of course will be forgiven if D204 continues on at Eola site. BB of course cannot do anything if they are never asked about current options. To me it is sad that personalities or other issues got in the way of a multi-million dollar deal. D204 had the money to buy BB, but chose to spend even more money and take more risks at Eola. Is that prudent fiscal practice?

Another update from NSFOC...

D204 May Be Liable For $5M To BB Trust Excluding Damages June 4, 2008 Updated 6/5/08

While NSFOC weighs the options on whether or not to appeal Judge Popejoy's decision to honor D204's request to dismiss the NSFOC and Plaintiffs' complaint about broken promises, taxpayers should note that the legal fees now claimed by the Brach-Brodie lawyers, for walking away from the Brach-Brodie land promoted during the 2006 Referendum process, are estimated at $5 million.

According to the Naperville Sun article today (See the link at end of this article), the Brach-Brodie attorneys are seeking $5 million in legal fees - not to be confused with legal damages.

While we consider the future role of the NSFOC based on guidance from our members, plaintiffs and our supporters, we are being asked to explain this latest claim. We will try to do our best to help the taxpayers gain more knowledge in this specific matter while we are still active.

D204 may owe $5 million in legal fees per the Brach-Brodie condemnation proceedings. Based on this latest claim regarding legal expenses, another cost has been confirmed by the Naperville Sun article. The $5 million in legal fees are a cost of Eola/AME land versus Brach-Brodie land. There are other costs to consider as well - like damages. (See NSFOC cost comparison between Eola/AME and Brach-Brodie - Table 1 here). https://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=120:updated-costs-are-worse-for-eola-than-we-thought&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=108

Damages that are estimated at around $20+ million from both Brach and Brodie. Brach has not filed their damages lawsuit yet, but it is expected to be somewhere between $5 million and $17 million - just like Brodie. So splitting the difference, you get roughly $11 million for Brach and $11 million for Brodie - $22 million in total possible damages estimated.

However, the legal fees and damages may not be incurred in the event that D204 returned to Brach-Brodie land - even today. All legal fees and damages can be reduced to zero if D204 were to return to the negotiation table with Brach-Brodie. However, if D204 buys any other land or remains at Eola/AME, then the full legal fees and damages could be picked up by the taxpayers.

D204 has no intention of building anywhere but at Eola/AME as we all know at this point, so why bother explaining these things? Because our followers want answers. As long as we are still in existence, we will continue to do our best to keep up with the costs and other matters. We cannot do it without monetary support however, so any help is appreciated.

In addition, the Naperville Sun article (see link at end of this article) continues to report that the land cost at Brach-Brodie was twice the budgeted amount. In reality, the district knew the rough cost within thousands of dollars of the final verdict before they filed their condemnation lawsuit, said they had the money all through the proceedings (even when specifically responding to a $600,000 per acre possible outcome), and finally, they put about $611,000 or $33 million in escrow prior to the Brach-Brodie condemnation verdict. The final verdict was $518,000 per acre at Brach-Brodie - well within expectations. This is the third time the Sun has reported this incorrect information and the third time we have pointed out the error.

The media continue to report that Eola/AME land is a $10 million savings versus Brach-Brodie, when the Eola-AME land will be a much higher cost than Brach-Brodie most likely. The total all-in cost for Eola/AME land is now estimated at least $25 million higher than Brach-Brodie land including increased transportation, legal expenses, damages, and small adjustments for future risks and lliabilities. (See NSFOC cost comparison of Eola/AME versus Brach-Brodie - Table 1 here.)
https://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=120:updated-costs-are-worse-for-eola-than-we-thought&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=108

Why did D204 think they were doing the right thing by paying more for Eola/AME than Brach-Brodie land? Maybe we will learn the final answer some day we hope. If there was no financial justification for the action, then what was the justification? Taxpayers want and deserve better answers. We welcome feedback, tips and information on this issue.

Most of the 15,000 YES voters for the 2006 referendum and most of the 10,000 NO voters, are not happy today. Many will move on, but they are not happy with the performance of D204 over the last two years especially. Hopefully, we can put this financial mess behind us very soon.

Finally, you may want to set up a Google alert for media coverage. Here's one search for you that seems to work well for letting you know D204 news developments.
Google News Alert for: indian+prairie+school+district+204

Brach-Brodie trusts say D204 owes $5M
Naperville Sun - naperville,IL,USA
By Jennifer Golz, jgolz@scn1.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it WHEATON – Indian Prairie School District 204 could be ordered to pay $5 million to the owners of the land it chose not to ...

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/987031,na05_d204_s1.article

Give it a rest everyone. BB is dead except for the legal fight which now has nothing to do with building the new HS. And the 'Bait and Switch' accusation NSFOC was trumpeting was a load as well. What actually happened was the SB made some Major League screwups and Judge Popejoy agreed. It is over and done with. NSFOC lost and lost big time. If people want to move out over losing BB that is their business. They didn't get their way and are taking their ball and going home. It is just two bad they can't join the rest of us in keeping #204 great. If this is the way people feel then it would be better for the rest of us that they do leave.
It is over! GAME, SET, MATCH!

By SaveEarth on June 5, 2008 12:29 AM

"Perspective, what does the judge have to do with any of the things I mentioned? Nothing. He ruled on a narrow legal view that the referendum language rules - so what. He did not rule on deceitfulness, broken promises made (and you know they were made), cost overruns, slanderous comments by the school board and admin. This is not about law - this is about making commitments to taxpayers, then breaking those commitments at a high cost $25 million or more. If you had a re-vote, then you would have your answer I believe...any request would be crushed I think. That may be the case in the future as well. People will not forget what happened. They won't be fooled again."

SaveEarth, you clearly did not read the ruling. The judge stated "...defendants had every intention of using Brach-Brodie for the site of the new high school, but ultimately were unable to do so due to facts and circumstances that arose after the vote on the referendum." The opinion also states "It should be noted that there is no evidence that the District ever intended to induce reliance on information that was false." Popejoy did indeed rule that there was no deceitfulness, no broken promises. You are free to feel any way your heart desires, so if it makes you feel good to accuse the SB of something that they clearly didn't do, so be it.

If slanderous comments were made by the SB, sue them. I think a number of very dumb comments were made, but do what you gotta do.

I think you need to move on.

To Anonymous on June 5, 2008 12:13 AM

Help me understand what part about what I posted claimed it was going to change the ruling?

Just for the record, I never referred to the case you did. I don't care about the case, merely referring to the initial vote based on what the SB presented to the voters. If I was wanting to fight the ruling, I would be fighting it instead of taking this matter into our hands and moving where we believe it's best for us. How does moving mean I care about the courts' ruling? It's a fair option.

I made my point, you don't have to agree with it, that's fine with me. However be fair when responding specifically to what I wrote. Making things up is not fair, let alone lumping me in with others.

You're happy with the way things turned out and trust the SB, good for you. I however, am not trusting them after the way they botched this up.

Meanwhile I sincerely wish all the best for Metea, their children, parents, teachers, and the family that one day prior their opening moves into our home and goes there.

By Anonymous on June 4, 2008 11:26 PM

But there is the chance that legal fees would be forgiven if BB is purchased - more than a chance I believe today. However, there is no chance of forgiveness at Eola/AME, so I strongly disagree that the $5M gets paid either way.

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

Anonymous: I disagree. Why would BB want to forgo something they are entitled to by law? They are in the business to make money, not to be nice. This is a legal, commercial transaction. They strenuously objected to Eminent Domain from the beginning, as do most sellers, and now, they get to keep their land and get legal fees paid.

I have not seen any evidence of altruism from Brach-Brodie - if anything, they are upset because in their opinion PREIT pulled out in part due to lack of action from the District. Holding out hope that they would have forgiven the legal debt is a fantasy.

GF: I do not have a legal background. I do research and am not intimidated by learning about something I have not encountered before. My younger days were spend in academic research, guess its a legacy from that era. The Brodie filing does not seem to have any case law cited on prececents in or out of Illinios supporting their claim to damages. The law isn't explicit about damages. Which is my clue that this is virgin territory.

Cheers.

Cheers.

By perspective\ on June 4, 2008 5:58 PM
By SaveEarth on June 4, 2008 4:56 PM
I have tried very hard to not post negatively, but save earth, you may not like the verdict but the judge ruled and the case was dismissed. It was obvious to the court that they did not agree with the case arguments and yet you still post them as though they will make a difference. It may be hard to accept, but it is over. You can continue to post the same arguments, but the ruling is not going to change. . . .
-----
Perspective, what does the judge have to do with any of the things I mentioned? Nothing. He ruled on a narrow legal view that the referendum language rules - so what. He did not rule on deceitfulness, broken promises made (and you know they were made), cost overruns, slanderous comments by the school board and admin. This is not about law - this is about making commitments to taxpayers, then breaking those commitments at a high cost $25 million or more. If you had a re-vote, then you would have your answer I believe...any request would be crushed I think. That may be the case in the future as well. People will not forget what happened. They won't be fooled again.

To: Switch-a-roo on June 4, 2008 8:07 PM

Do us a favor, take nosuchthingasnuetral and SaveEarth with you. They sound like very very bitter individuals who will never be happy and will keep complaining about things 5 years from now. Let it go your case was dismissed and the school is being built.

SaveEarth - you made an interesting comment. "I hope the NSFOC never goes away, because there seems to be a lack of honesty and no trust left in D204."

Kind of like the NSFOC was never honest or trustworthy as per their tactic by their own attorney? I'm sorry but I'll trust SB members that have upwards of 20 years experience in this District to look out for what's best in D204 then a small group of unhappy residents and parents that are unhappy that things didn't turn out the way THEY wanted them to.

Enough already.

Player, you seem to have either some legal background or you have done some research on the topic.

Do you know of any cases where the government entity walked away from a condemenation suit they "won" (as the SD did by getting the jury set price)?

If so (cases of gov entity walking away): did any of the parties sue? I would think most of the time (since property values normally rise over time), most owners would not feel the need to go after anything except legal fees, unless a sweet commerical deal was disrupted by the condem proceedings and hence there were damages to go after.

I am thinking the only time in recent history (where property values fell dramatically in a short period of time) would be in the early 80's and again in early nineties. Also, that was more regionalized in CA, TX etc. and am not sure state rulings outside of IL would be relevant in this case (if any walk away lawsuit examples exist)?

Bottom line, Gov entities rarely (if ever?) walk away from land they want. There Seems to be alot of "firsts" and/or rare events happening in D204. Very disconcerting....

Just curious.

Cheers
GF

----------------------------------------------------
By player on June 4, 2008 10:05 PM
Are you kidding me?: The legal bill is due by Eminent Domain statute to BB regardless of where the new HS is built. Even if it were built at the Brach-Brodie property, the District is on the hook for Brach-Brodie's legal bills, because the District condemned the property.

The legal bill is not Eola/AME specific. The Eminent Domain statute also limits the amount that can be claimed as legal expenses, and that amount is closer to $3.3M (20% of the increase in price from the jury trial to the last firm offer from the District, which is roughly $257K/acre for 55-acres, and the jury came back with $518K). So just because BB submits a bill for $5M doesn't mean they necessarily get it as per the law and its 20% limit. Popejoy's ruling will be the final answer, of course.

So one can question why we condemned the Brach-Brodie property in the first place, but having done that, we owed BB the legal fees by statute regardless of Eola/AME being the present site.

What is AME/Eola site specific are the "damages" BB are claiming to their property values as the District abandoned the condemnation when the jury came back with their verdict, and switched sites.

That, however, appears to have neither statutory support nor legal precedent far as I can tell(the Brodie lawsuit explicitly calls out the lack of statutory support), so it will be very interesting to see how Popejoy rules. He will set precedent for all Eminent Domain cases, and interpret the law where it is "silent" if he rules in favor of damages for BB.

Cheers.

By player on June 4, 2008 10:05 PM
Are you kidding me?: The legal bill is due by Eminent Domain statute to BB regardless of where the new HS is built. Even if it were built at the Brach-Brodie property, the District is on the hook for Brach-Brodie's legal bills, because the District condemned the property.
----------
But there is the chance that legal fees would be forgiven if BB is purchased - more than a chance I believe today. However, there is no chance of forgiveness at Eola/AME, so I strongly disagree that the $5M gets paid either way.

See Ya Switch-a-roo! We will miss you. xoxoxo

Please note this is updated as of 11:08 PM 6/4/08. The article was inadvertedly published before finished and picked up on another blog. The major correction is that the $5M is legal fees estimated and claimed by Brach-Brodie attorneys and represents a cost to Eola/AME not Brach-Brodie. What was or was not budgeted for is meaningless - the number is now getting confirmed and needs to be viewed as another cost of Eola/AME when compared to BB site.

D204 May Be Liable For $5M To BB Trust Excluding Damages

June 4, 2008

While NSFOC weighs the options on whether or not to appeal Judge Popejoy's decision to honor D204's request to dismiss the NSFOC and Plaintiffs' complaint about broken promises, taxpayers should note that the legal fees now claimed by the Brach-Brodie lawyers, for walking away from the Brach-Brodie land promoted during the 2006 Referendum process, are estimated at $5 million.

According to the Naperville Sun article today (See the link at end of this article), the Brach-Brodie attorneys are seeking $5 million in legal fees - not to be confused with legal damages.

While we consider the future role of the NSFOC based on guidance from our members, plaintiffs and our supporters, we are being asked to explain this latest claim. We will try to do our best to help the taxpayers gain more knowledge in this specific matter while we are still active.

Should we investigate this matter or begin the healing process by not investigating costs? Our supporters say we should investigate because they feel the trust has been broken. We would like to think otherwise going forward, but here are the results of our investigation into these new costs.

D204 may now owe $5 million in legal fees per the Brach-Brodie condemnation proceedings. Based on this latest claim regarding legal expenses, another cost has been confirmed by the Naperville Sun article. The $5 million in legal fees are a cost of Eola/AME land versus Brach-Brodie land. (See NSFOC cost comparison between Eola/AME and Brach-Brodie - Table 1). https://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=120:updated-costs-are-worse-for-eola-than-we-thought&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=108

This does not include the damages that are estimated at around $20+ million from both Brach and Brodie. Brach has not filed their damages lawsuit yet, but it is expected to be somewhere between $5 million and $17 million - just like Brodie. So splitting the difference, you get roughly $11 million for Brach and $11 million for Brodie - $22 million in total possible damages estimated.

However, the legal fees and damages may not be incurred in the event that D204 returned to Brach-Brodie land - even today. D204 has no intention of building anywhere but at Eola/AME as we all know, so why bother explaining these things? Because our followers want answers. As long as we are still in existence, we will continue to do our best to keep up with the cost increases, and other matters. We cannot do it without monetary support however.

The Naperville Sun continues to report that the land cost at Brach-Brodie was twice the budgeted amount. In reality, the district knew the rough cost within thousands of dollars of the final verdict before they filed their condemnation lawsuit, said they had the money all through the proceedings (even when specifically responding to a $600,000 per acre possible outcome), and finally, they put about $611,000 or $33 million in escrow prior to the Brach-Brodie condemnation verdict. The final verdict was $518,000 per acre at Brach-Brodie - well within expectations. This is the third time the Sun has reported this incorrect information and the third time we have pointed out the error.

In addition, the media continue to report that Eola/AME land is a $10 million savings versus Brach-Brodie, when the Eola-AME land will be a much higher cost than Brach-Brodie most likely. The total all-in cost for Eola/AME land is now estimated at least $25 million higher than Brach-Brodie land including increased transportation, legal expenses, damages, and small adjustments for future risks and lliabilities. (See NSFOC cost comparison of Eola/AME versus Brach-Brodie - Table 1 here.)
https://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=120:updated-costs-are-worse-for-eola-than-we-thought&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=108

Why did D204 think they were doing the right thing by paying more for Eola/AME than Brach-Brodie land? Maybe we will learn the final answer some day we hope. If there was no financial justification for the action, then what was the justification? Taxpayers want and deserve better answers. We welcome feedback, tips and information on this issue.

Most of the 15,000 YES voters for the 2006 referendum and most of the 10,000 NO voters, are not happy today. Many will move on, but they are not happy with the performance of D204 over the last two years especially. Hopefully, we can put this financial mess behind us very soon.

The SUN article:
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/987031,na05_d204_s1.article

Are you kidding me?: The legal bill is due by Eminent Domain statute to BB regardless of where the new HS is built. Even if it were built at the Brach-Brodie property, the District is on the hook for Brach-Brodie's legal bills, because the District condemned the property.

The legal bill is not Eola/AME specific. The Eminent Domain statute also limits the amount that can be claimed as legal expenses, and that amount is closer to $3.3M (20% of the increase in price from the jury trial to the last firm offer from the District, which is roughly $257K/acre for 55-acres, and the jury came back with $518K). So just because BB submits a bill for $5M doesn't mean they necessarily get it as per the law and its 20% limit. Popejoy's ruling will be the final answer, of course.

So one can question why we condemned the Brach-Brodie property in the first place, but having done that, we owed BB the legal fees by statute regardless of Eola/AME being the present site.

What is AME/Eola site specific are the "damages" BB are claiming to their property values as the District abandoned the condemnation when the jury came back with their verdict, and switched sites.

That, however, appears to have neither statutory support nor legal precedent far as I can tell(the Brodie lawsuit explicitly calls out the lack of statutory support), so it will be very interesting to see how Popejoy rules. He will set precedent for all Eminent Domain cases, and interpret the law where it is "silent" if he rules in favor of damages for BB.

Cheers.

I am all for healing among parents in this district. We have great schools, kids and teachers. It is crystal clear that our board president and superintendant will not be the catalysts in this healing process since they don't realize that it was their arrogance and actions that created this malignant disease in our district.

The first step in the healing process is realizing you/we have a problem. The administration and board do not see themselves as any part of the problem so we must heal without them. I advocate for a surgical approach to this leadership issue (remove the malignancy) when seats/positions open.

I believe that future referrendums will be shot down unless the community trusts the board and superintendant. Trust is built over time and is based on actions and experiences. The last 2 years have destroyed the communities trust in the board and administration.

Despite the apothetic school board and superintendant I do advocate for the community to heal and stop fighting with eachother when we are all victims of this team and their decisions. Our kids will succeed irregardless of the school they attend because of us (Parents, teachers and great kids).

Is it time to accept Metea? Hello??? That time came when the community voted to bring it into the fold. Perhaps you meant to ask can't we just all get along?

Our family is choosing to move since the SB pulled one of the oldest tricks in the books, the ol' switch-a-roo. Page 1, trick 2. Who wants to drive past one HS to get to another? Duh? Then again if we move just prior to the Metea grand opening in 2009, the SB may fool us again with another switch-a-roo doing some gerrymandering. They are so cute that way. We'll probably move and then the SB will do a Baltimore Colts and move Metea to BB overnight. ;-)

I know moving isn't feasible for many, but everyone has to do what's best for their family. Meanwhile the next time their is a topic or two up for vote in the community, the SB's switch-a-roo will have many thinking...but what if they don't do what they say they will...again???

By Anonymous on June 4, 2008 9:01 AM

This is my first post in many weeks - I don't like to waste my energies on this negativity. I just wanted to say, the community has accepted Metea at Eola - a long time ago. The only residents that probably won't accept are the obvious: Todd Andrews, Greg Forrest, Metea Either Way, Earth to SB, D&S, Save Earth and a few anonymous - other than that we are all excited to see the new school. Glad to say, NSFOC, you haven't taken the excitement out of it for us as I'm sure you hoped - we are probably more excited given the bonding we all did to pull together as a district against the NSFOC.
____________________________________

This post makes you sound like a ninny, for heaven's sake. You are not qualified to speak for the community or anyone on this blog. The fact that you mention Todd Andrews shows how out-of-date your opinions are. He dropped out of sight 2 1/2 months ago; there have been many much more visible NSFOC folks since then.

I am glad to hear you had some good bonding experiences, tho. What did you guys do--group hugs? Evenings around the campfire? Sleep overs to share your feelings? Geesh!

By Are You Kidding Me? on June 4, 2008 5:07 PM

I understand what you are saying, but the sad fact is that the SD would have incurred that cost even if they purchased the BB land. Since the SD initiated the eminent domain case the defendant is entitled to legal fees either way. The $5M would need to be added to the cost of the land at BB even if the SD purchased it.

By SaveEarth on June 4, 2008 4:56 PM

I have tried very hard to not post negatively, but save earth, you may not like the verdict but the judge ruled and the case was dismissed. It was obvious to the court that they did not agree with the case arguments and yet you still post them as though they will make a difference. It may be hard to accept, but it is over. You can continue to post the same arguments, but the ruling is not going to change. . . .

To Are You Kidding Me? on June 4, 2008 5:07 PM--

RE: the 5M

The SB always knew they would have to pay this, and so did we. They thought the tab would be around $3M, but said they budgeted $5M, which is good because they underestimated as usual. The BIG money will be spent if BB is successful in any of their damage claims against the district; these won't be known for awhile yet. Yes, it is odd to hear them throwing around $5M like it was $5, but we did give them about $124M through the ref, so they definitely have it to throw around.

To: By Anonymous on June 4, 2008 9:01 AM

This is my first post in many weeks - I don't like to waste my energies on this negativity. I just wanted to say, the community has accepted Metea at Eola - a long time ago. The only residents that probably won't accept are the obvious: Todd Andrews, Greg Forrest, Metea Either Way, Earth to SB, D&S, Save Earth and a few anonymous - other than that we are all excited to see the new school. Glad to say, NSFOC, you haven't taken the excitement out of it for us as I'm sure you hoped - we are probably more excited given the bonding we all did to pull together as a district against the NSFOC.

I have not really commented on this before but the news I just read really fries me up! I personally don’t care where the third HS is built or if we really need it. The referendum was passed and the money is being taken either way. But now I read that I (and you all in 204) will have to pay an additional 5 MILLION DOLLARS for absolutely nothing??!! 5 MILLION DOLLARS! I know to some that may not be so much but to me it is much more than I will ever make in my whole life time. And to think we will just be throwing that money down a dirty hole! For what?? Even if we nickel and dime this amount around (the $50K as mentioned, oh boy!) it is still going to be a huge amount!

I can’t tell from reading everything but if we had spent $5 Million more than we have for the Eola road site could we have built on the BB land and avoided this entire meltdown of the communities in D204? And I’m sure we paid to re-do the plans to fit the new site. And is this the last of the “for nothing” costs we will see? I hope so but I think not.

I don’t know much about the board either but I cannot believe that they are all so stupid and careless. How could this have happened?? I guess I am re-hashing a lot of ground that has been covered over and over already but this really got my goat this time.

It’s all just a big shame and no one will ever accept responsibility for this or be held accountable. I know that if I had caused something like this at work I would have been fired immediately and probably sued AND thrown in jail. The best we can do is make sure we never vote for these people again.

Thank you for listening.

FROM nosuchthingasneutral on June 4, 2008 3:20 PM-

..."Also -Watch out TG as someone will figure out that pulling you out of Scullen makes sense too."

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

that would really be a kick in the head!

the SD/SB boundary criteria would have to be:

'take students who WALK to Scullen* , and put them on a BUS to school!that would be logical! the next closest middle school is Crone.. about 4 miles away!

*tall grass, penncross knoll, signature crossing, tall grass remington townhomes, mandalay bay(no houses yet).

nosuchthingasnuetral:

I could not agree with you more. As the South continues to grow over the next few years with one of the only areas with new developments, I also forsee TG being moved out of Scullen and joined with WE (despite the fact that Scullen is physically in TG).

Thus, there will be homes .5 miles from NV and literally 100 feet from Scullen that will be going to WVHS and the new middle school at the current WVHS Freshman Center.

In response to 2 posts:

1)By Metea (Still Lighting Candles) Either Way on June 4, 2008 9:04 AM
After the recent Metzger quote, "Metzger also addressed the controversy that has surrounded the construction of this school, saying he hopes this beginning "is also the end to all of the acrimony, back biting and infighting."

AND

2) By Anonymous on June 4, 2008 9:05 AM
I think the first 3 posts here underline what is going on here. It is obvious that a small number of the taxpayers of D204 are unhappy at the outcome of the location of Metea.
...
At first I was sympathetic with the residents of Tall Grass and White Eagle. That changed when they filed the lawsuit (against me as a taxpayer)
...
and really turned me against them when they started harrassing a corporation via full page ads
...
and asking for donations from uninformed people based on "what-if" logic (let's not start that the the donations were never tax deductible and they knew it from day one.).
...
I think that the divide that is still there is based on concern that the history of the nsfoc shows that there is no limit to what they will try to do to get what they want and the residents of the district will always live under the premise that we better do exactly what tall grass wants or there will be hell to pay.
--------------
With such comments from MM and you Anonymous, how can you expect any heeling to begin? Where does one start:

- MM started all the trouble along with Dr. D going out of their way to talk about certain residents feeling "entitled", etc. He hopes it will end? That is total BS because every time he is quoted or his supporters put anything out there on posts they talk about the same things - a small group of "entitled" people. This is a total lie to diminish a large group of concerned taxpayers...to make it appear like a tiny problem.

- Over 25 public meetings and thousands of communications drove home the promise made by D204 to the taxpayers to build at BB, so the majority of voters would approve $124.66 million in financing. I believe most of the 15,000 YES votes understood that they were voting for a 3rd HS at BB with certain boundaries based on the location.

- Most of that majority would say today that they are unhappy with D204's actions after the vote. Most of the 10,000 NO voters are still unhappy. So, while a group of mostly YES people put together an effort and legal complaint, they have a lot of followers and support from the rest.

- And they (NSFOC) looks to me like they were mainly about a very important issue - most people voted for one thing and something else was delivered. This is indisputable. To build some other story around it today is not really a faair representation.

- The NSFOC also sued themselves. The judge ruled narrowly that a district can basically do whatever they want, no matter what they say or promise ...as long as they water down the language in the referendum. People will remeber this and may not approve a single referendum in the future - at least they should not.

- If the NSFOC did not enlighten the power company to the risks of their actions, then you may be faced with a large cleanup bill and future liabilities (NSFOC may have save you $10-20 million. Did you want a school on a contaminated land site for your children? I would love to see your arguments in favor of that.

- any organization does not know the deductibility until the feds make the ruling. Anyone who thinks they know the answer risks being surprised by our government. I felt the NSFOC was clear that the deductibility was not there and when the feds ruled, an answer would be given...and not to assume deductibility of any donation as a result. How you can say they knew in advance and were tricking the public is unfair.

-exactly what "tall grass wants or there will be hell to pay" ???? How heeling is that? That is an insult to me and I live in Stonebridge.

-finally, I do not see where Eola is lower costs than BB when you add the $20-30 million of additional transportation costs and up to $20 million in damages from wlking away at BB site. It does not make sense at all. However supporters and the media only discuss cost per acre of the land only. I think I am living in Stupidworld.

I hope the NSFOC never goes away, because there seems to be a lack of honesty and no trust left in D204. I want someone to stand watch as the lies continue...and this is coming from a former loyal taxpayer and school board supporter.

Those who are predicting unending gloom (nosuchthingasneutral) are the ones still tearing us apart. Let's remember that a portion of the community will leave in the next year and a half, new homes will be built, new residents will move in who have had no part in this nastiness, and over time there will be healing unless people keep poisoning the well (not you Moderator Ted--members of the community).

To Ted:

Regarding your response to MH:

I strongly disagree. In fact, I'm trying to do the opposite. Read my entry again. I'm saying it's time for the NSFOC/anti Eola crowd to accept that Metea is being built at the Eola location.
__________________________

I've read your entry several times, and I don't see this. What I read is your're ASKING the NSFOC/anti-Eola crowd if they are willing to accept Metea now that construction has started or if they're going to continue the fight, and if so, to what end? I didn't get the impression at all that you were suggesting the opposition give it up, you were just posing the question. Sorry.

Response from Ted:

MH,

I strongly disagree. In fact, I'm trying to do the opposite. Read my entry again. I'm saying it's time for the NSFOC/anti Eola crowd to accept that Metea is being built at the Eola location.

Ted,

I know. But...they will do it anyway! I think reality has truly set in for them. As I've said for the last 3 months, the school will be built, whether they like it or not. And we will make it a great school.

Wake Up Apathetic Safe at the School of My Choice residents. So, it will be built at at bad geographical location for an exaggerated enrollment for a cost way over what was promised and a continued hit in operating expenses, especially in transport costs. The wounds in the community will not heal and will be an annual constant reminder to all in the district in the form of taxes. And not even successfully balancing socio-economics or test scores as they left Neuqua untouched and replaced the exiting-to Metea more affluent North with WE, TG and Ashwood Park at WVHS.

WVHS will be closed in a few years and the boundaries will change!

Also -Watch out TG as someone will figure out that pulling you out of Scullen makes sense too.

Hey MH, what camp is ANON @ 9:04 am in?

By MH on June 4, 2008 2:32 PM
Ted's just providing another receptacle for the NSFOC/anti Eola crowd to discharge into.
--------------------------------------------------

and what about you MH? you only mention NSFOC & Anti Eola groups (two groups opposed to Metea location). I think you are forgetting yourself and others that are pro Eola, Anti NSOFC. I take your quote above to mean that you dont use the receptacle and are not discharging anything into it? I love your unbridaled bias.... If the NSFOC said the grass is green, I am sure you would not believe it (unless someone forced you to look) and/or you would pour gasoline on the grass to kill it brown just due to the source the statment of fact was coming from.

Ted's just providing another receptacle for the NSFOC/anti Eola crowd to discharge into.

Response from Ted:

MH,

I strongly disagree. In fact, I'm trying to do the opposite. Read my entry again. I'm saying it's time for the NSFOC/anti Eola crowd to accept that Metea is being built at the Eola location.

So if the cost is $5.0MM over legal fees it would seem that another fear has not been realized, I am hopeful that this is the case.

Strike this.....I mistook for the damage claims.

By anonymous on June 4, 2008 11:22 AM
move on from the debate about Metea. It is being built and the Sun should not encourage any more debate about the matter. Like it or not everyone will be forced to "accept it."
----------------------------------------------------

Yup: agree with it or not; and like it or not, the HS will be built on Eola AMES site. Not sure what power is going to force everyone to "accept it" but it will be built and we need to support it as a community and as a district.

MEW

Is the 2.2M and 2.8M only the reinbursable legal fees for defending themselves from the condemenation suit (which the SD has to pay)?

If this is the case; then 5 mill for legal fees is right on to what the SD budgeted. It sounds like they are going to dispute portions of the BB legal/defend fees.

My big concern is the damages (BB couldnt sell their land for over 2 years to all the developers drooling to buy it, now the land has taken a big clip in value due to recession/credit crunch/housing woes). Looks like there will be a compilation of all recent comparable sales (like Eola 84 acres at 19 million) as well as appraisals of comparable tracts of land available somewhere down the road.

Brach-Brodie trusts say D204 owes $5M

June 4, 2008Recommend

By Jennifer Golz, jgolz@scn1.com
WHEATON – Indian Prairie School District 204 could be ordered to pay $5 million to the owners of the land it chose not to build its third high school on.

Totals are in for the Brach and Brodie trusts – Brach at $2.2 million and Brodie at $2.8 million – for what each says are reimbursable costs to defend the eminent domain suit the district brought against the 55-acre parcel, at 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora.

The district dropped the eminent domain case for the land, which is contiguous to a 25-acre parcel it already owns, after a jury priced the Brach-Brodie land at $31 million – more than twice what the district had budgeted.

Rick Petesch, attorney for the school district, said he intends to file objections to specific costs for each trust, such as the combined $49,500 paid to a Springfield lobbying firm hired to oppose the district’s quick-take bill.

All sides will reconvene June 10 in DuPage County Circuit Court in Wheaton when a hearing date to determine the reimbursable expenses will be set.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the cost is $5.0MM over legal fees it would seem that another fear has not been realized, I am hopeful that this is the case.

Host Ted:
The district dropped the eminent domain case for the land, which is contiguous to a 25-acre parcel it already owns, after a jury priced the Brach-Brodie land at $31 million – more than twice what the district had budgeted.

Perhaps my sensitivities are not yet numbed but I not comfortable with the Sun making this statement as it represents (to me) a position possibly held but not disclosed by the SB during the proceedings. It appears not aas a statement of fact but rather as support of a position..........again, it could just be me.

I know you are not the author but figure you may bump into Jennifer at the water cooler before I will.

Damage has been done at D204 for what happened in the past several months; particularly when both south and north fight each other all for their own selfish interest. Only Time can heal the wound, the question is how long it will take? The same for Democratic Party, divide is there. Now it is the tough call for Obama, will he pick Hillary as VP ticket? Possibly he will not, and then he is not going to win the general election, Period.

People in TG/WE will move on, some of them will move out the D204, they can always find good school district for their kids, actually they are losing nothing, but D204 is losing some very supportive parents and losing trust among their own residents. What’s the most important thing to build a good community? You may ask. It is trust, Stupid! NSFOC will fight on; I don’t believe NSFOC will give up themselves and their supporters.

It took years or even decades to build a good school district and it can be destroyed in just several months, how sad! Politic is good for nobody. Politicians are rich, high-educated and smart, they know what’s right thing and what’s wrong thing, but most of them at most time of their life just decide to do the wrong thing any way.

Anyone who thinks that healing could occur has about the same chance as Metea not being built on Eola. I suppose that it will be fun to watch the "creativity" of future SB to get any referendun passed.

move on from the debate about Metea. It is being built and the Sun should not encourage any more debate about the matter. Like it or not everyone will be forced to "accept it."

To Anonymous on June 4, 2008 9:05 AM--

I think YOUR post underlines what is going on here. By the way you devote three paragraphs to rehashing this history, it's obvious you are still very bitter about the NSFOC lawsuit and have resentments towards the TG subdivision, even though the lawsuit was brought by only 8 people in an area that consists of hundreds of households. You're casting a pretty big net in order to justify your anger over a lawsuit that was ultimately dismissed and whose "harrassment of a corporation" did have the positive consequence of getting Metea off the PCB infested MWGen land. If the SB had been allowed to proceed unchallenged, Dr. D would have been wearing protective gloves during that "dirt tossing" ceremony.

And I'm so tired of hearing you folks complain that YOU were sued. I didn't see Anon on June 4 at 9:05 AM listed as a defendent. You personally weren't sued. Your tax money, and mine, was used by the school district to defend itself, but I consider that money well spent. If you don't like the SD spending your tax money in this way, then I suggest you quit kvetching about TG and vote in a new SB that doesn't invite so much litigation.

Aside to Moderator Ted:

The problem, IMO, is in how your entry is worded. It does come across as inflammatory. You rub salt into wounds by reminding us all that the SB promised another site, then in the very next sentence announce that "Metea is moving forward. It's inevitable. Game over." I had a mental image of you stepping out of the ring so the fight could begin. It would help to tone that down.

To anon at 9:05am

Perhaps page 7 of 7 of the February Boundary recomendation, a clearly unecessary, inaccurate and deliberate misrepresentation by the District in regards to the Route 59 Bridge (these inaccuracies later were proactively rebutted in writing from the City of Naperville and the Park District) contributed to the feeling of alientation by many in the TG community (many of whom joined NSFOC to voice this feeling of alientation)??

I find it funny that MM made a comment about the back biting and infighting at yesterday's speech (I will note that I must have missed my invitation and looks like Dr. D must have handed them out door to door only to his neighbors up North) when this clearly was the District's real Plan B.

The ground break ceremony location was a ruse...just like the District’s protracted witch hunt for property, stirring the snob-mob’s pot with re-districting, and the eventual disposal of the property adjacent to the Broch-Brodie land. What an embarrassment for all. By the way, has Dist. 204 ever come clean on its legal bill to pursue and then get out of the Broch-Brodie contract?

Ted

Thanks for starting a new thread. The battle over Metea did create an open wound in this district.

I for one am very interested to see how the district put's itself back together.

I think the first 3 posts here underline what is going on here. It is obvious that a small number of the taxpayers of D204 are unhappy at the outcome of the location of Metea. They feel that this a scam from day one to get them to approve a high school with the intention of switching it later. I don't beleive that was the case. I think the school board tried long and hard to get it built at BB. I think the school board was looking out for the district in changing the location.

At first I was sympathetic with the residents of Tall Grass and White Eagle. That changed when they filed the lawsuit (against me as a taxpayer) and really turned me against them when they started harrassing a corporation via full page ads and asking for donations from uninformed people based on "what-if" logic (let's not start that the the donations were never tax deductible and they knew it from day one.).

I think that the divide that is still there is based on concern that the history of the nsfoc shows that there is no limit to what they will try to do to get what they want and the residents of the district will always live under the premise that we better do exactly what tall grass wants or there will be hell to pay. Does anybody in any district want to feel that the demands of 1 subdivision need to be satisfied in order to move forward with anything for the entire district? I would think not. The lawsuit and propaganda campaign not only hurt the image of tall grass but changed how all issues will be presented/pursued in the future. The upcoming school board elections will be decided by where a candidate lives since I beleive that the public will vote with the intention of adding a tall grass (nsfoc) resident or to prevent a tall grass (nsfoc) member from being on the board. I would be curious to see if the "Vote For" signs will show if the person is an NSFOC candidate.

Let the healing begin? That is a great idea but not very realistic.

Should everybody support Metea? Absolutley. A strong third high school is best for everyone in the district regardless of subdivision.

After the recent Metzger quote, "Metzger also addressed the controversy that has surrounded the construction of this school, saying he hopes this beginning "is also the end to all of the acrimony, back biting and infighting." I still have my reservations. While I am willing to accept the pro-SB position that these folks did the best job possible given the circumstance and their limitations, the above quote (at least to me) still suggests the lack of accountability and acceptance of contra-opinion that has concerned me throughout.

That being said, my future efforts and support will be dedicated towards the development up Metea @ Eola. That is until they change the boundaries and my kids go to either WV or NV and then you clowns are on your own..... ;)

Full Disclosure: Personally (and perhaps selfishly) I have a few years to decide so I will continue to weigh my options.

Ted...I actually thought your summary was pretty interesting and insightful (and forward thinking).

As someone who was very active from the very beginning in fighting the conduct of the SB and administration, I agree with your conclusion in regards to the building of Metea....clearly this school is going to be built and it is going to be built on the Ames site.

I strongly believe that the SB and District's actions were reprehensible and a violation of many of our voting rights...inducing a "yes" vote by whatever means necessary including making specific representations to induce the vote, and then moving forward on a different site that clearly favors the self interests of Dr. D (who coincidentally bought a house next to the new site just before he personally negotiated for the Eola site), as well as the self interests of a majority of the Board members and their neighbors.

However, I also believe that it is in fact time to embrace the school and make sure its students feel just as part of the community as all of our other students. So to answer your question, yes, willing to accept the new school and its location now that there has been an opportunity to have a day in court.

It is not only ironic that the groundbreaking (or throwing dirt in the air an area in the general vicinity of the site) was the same day that Obama clinched the nomination...it is also appropriate that it rained (perhaps divine intervention as well?). Although it is hard for many to celebrate now because of the ends justifying the means mentality and the intentional pitting of community against community that got us here... I hope that by the time that the school opens, some of these wounds would have healed.

To: Moderator Ted,
I may not agree with you on the editorial location the paper chooses, but your question and opinion is right on here at the blog. There is still much healing to be done within the district at large. The strong raw emotions on all sides will probably "bubble to the surface" from time to time as we all follow the conclusion of the bb lawsuits.

It seems with the low profile of the ground breaking event the board and adm. is very attune to the situation, and I commend them for their attention to this situation.

The decision to build mvhs at the north location will take much more time for some to justify, I think a ground breaking event may drive home the fact that the school is indeed being built, as for acceptance by some that will only heal with the passage of time.

Response from Ted:

I really don't get where this is coming from. The community breaks ground on a high school, we cover the story, I post an entry expressing my opinion. That makes me an instigator of trouble?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Not an instigator of trouble just an instigator (at least in this case), but hey that is your job.

". . . over the abandoned site where district officials PROMISED to build the school . . ."

Thanks for the acknowledgment, so far after the fact. I think Enough is Enough has a point. We should give the Metea location issue a rest.

And of course we should all "accept" Metea. What are we going to do, pretend it's not there?

Personally, I would like to see more coverage on the BB lawsuits as they progress through the courts. These are the biggest threats to our district right now, not Dr. D slinging dirt (or in this case, mud) down on Eola.

Why wouldn't "we" be willing to "accept" Metea Valley High School? I really don't understand why that question was posted to the community. There are so many groups throughout the history of our civilization that have not had things go their way; but we are still here, and the earth continues to revolve around the sun. What else can "we" do?

I agree time to move on Ted. Definately stuck in the mud.

Response from Ted:

I think the entry is forward-looking. Forgive me for wanting to start a new thread, I was tired of the potty talk on the other one.

Host Ted,

Everyone is fine and moving forward.

You appear to be the only guy whose tires are stuck in the mud and can't move forward.

By continuing to focus on this issue day after day, you have caused the divisiveness in our community.

Enough is Enough, Host Ted! You are no longer just a messenger...you have become an instigator of trouble!

Please call Naperville Towing....to help you get out of the mud!

Response from Ted:

I really don't get where this is coming from. The community breaks ground on a high school, we cover the story, I post an entry expressing my opinion. That makes me an instigator of trouble?