That's the gist of the story in today's Sun (Sun.3.30), according to the group of 204 residents called "Neighborhood Schools for Our Children" or NSFOC. The group is suing the school board over the new site of the third high school at Eola/Molitor Rd. Here it is in a nutshell: Thirty-seven acres of the 87-acre site of the new school are owned by Midwest Generation which, until a year ago, operated a peaker power plant on 17 of those acres. The school board commissioned a consultants' report regarding environmental issues associated with the site, but those reports have been under wraps for the past three weeks. Now, the district is planning to go ahead and start construction in mid-April to ensure an August 2009 opening of the school. The district will seek IEPA approval on the site - a process that NSFOC attorney Shawn Collins says could take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. The district, meanwhile, will not build on the 37 Midwest Generation acres (that portion of the site was slated for tennis courts) but will start work on the remaining acres so that the school can be built simultaneous to the examination of the suspect acres by the IEPA.But that's not good enough for the
School District 204: March 2008 Archives
Yesterday, three members of the activist group "Neighborhood Schools For Our Children" (NSFOC) and their lawyer met with a Sun editor and reporter. In a wide-ranging interview in today's paper (Fri., 3.21) the group members cite a pattern of deception by the 204 school board leading up to the 2006 referendum. They contend the board got the referendum passed by specifically - and repeatedly - saying the third high school would be built on the Brach-Brodie land. They also expressed their concerns that the board had lowered its safety standards for the new high school since the Eola/Molitor site had been previously rejected for environmental reasons. They also questioned whether the sanctity of the whole democratic process had been violated by their own elected officials. The comment lines are now open.
The hits just keep coming. In the latest wrinkle over the District 204 high school controversy, attorneys for the Brach-Brodie trust - owners of the original proposed site of the third high school - say they will seek upwards of $20 million in damages resulting from the condemnation lawsuit. They want the district to either buy the property at the jury-determined price of $31 million, or reimburse the trust for attorneys fees, the difference between what the land was worth in 2005 and now, and the already stipulated $2.5M in jury-determined damages. All told, that could result in $20M or more. A court hearing was scheduled on this matter today (Mon. 3.17) but was continued for 28 days after a request by the Brach-Brodie trust. With environmental concerns over the Eola/Molitor site, this new development which could cost millions and millions of dollars, and residents' rancor over the whole situation, what is the school board and District 204 to do? Ideas, anybody?
In today's Sun (Sun. 3.16) we outline and put the new site for the proposed third high school for District 204 in full context. In a detailed front-page graphic, using satellite imagery, we show the exact location of where the school stands to be located at Eola and Molitor Rd.The precise locations of the power lines, gas pipelines and the peaker plant are shown where they are in relation to where the high school will be. In our comprehensive coverage we also examine statements regarding the environmental concerns as put forth by the school board and the supporters of the lawsuit against the board. Not surprisingly - although the commissioned consultants' report is yet to be released - the environmental issues as addressed by these two parties stand in stark contrast to each other. Depending on who you believe, the environmental concerns are "minimal" and easily remedied, or, they present serious health hazards which call into question why this site would be used for a new high school at all. The comment lines are now open.
We've got an online poll up that states: "Do you agree with the lawsuit against the District 204 school board." The answers are a simple yes or no. The poll is admittedly unscientific, but it's interesting to note the trend over the last couple of days. When the poll first went up - around the beginning of the week - the votes mounted up quickly, siding with those who agree with the lawsuit. But that trend has reversed itself and, currently, it's 55% for the lawsuit and 44% against it. So have the pro-lawsuit people had their say and are the anti-lawsuit people mobilizing? Only time will tell. The poll will stay up on our home page until the end of next week. Again, it's unscientific but we've also seen how accurate the "scientific" polls have been thus far in the presidential race. Anyway, any thoughts on who will come out on top?
The other shoe has dropped in the contentious debate over the location of the new high school for District 204. An activist group of parents called Neighborhood Schools for Our Children has sued the 204 School Board in DuPage County court. The suit, filed on behalf of the group by Naperville attorney Shawn Collins, calls for injunctive relief for violations of the Illinois and Federal Constitutions. Among the salient points in the 19-page lawsuit are: The board, after holding many meetings with 204 parents, had stipulated that the Brach-Brodie location and the resultant boundary configurations would be the site of the new school. The referendum, according to the suit, passed on the basis of this information after an initial referendum had been voted down. Secondly, the new site of the third school (Eola/Molitor) had previously been considered by the board and had been rejected due to environmental concerns. The suit seeks for the court to order the board to purchase the Brach-Brodie land for the construction of the new high school; cease in its attempts to buy the Eola/Molitor location; in the event a deal is not struck with Brach-Brodie, return all money collected in the 2006 referendum and enjoin it from collecting any future money from the taxpayers and, lastly, have the board pay attorney and court fees. It looks like the beginning of a nasty battle. The comment lines are now open.
