|
|
Post by sushi on Feb 24, 2008 14:02:56 GMT -6
I agree, warriorpride. I heard the same thing. Also, as far a the 5 contaminated samples: it was stated at the meeting there were in the same area and that further, denser samples would be taken to establish the exact area with diesel fuel spill.
|
|
|
|
Post by mandmmom on Feb 24, 2008 14:29:19 GMT -6
Do you know for sure that no one was consulted in any way or is this just a guess? OK you got me it would be a guess on my part.....but based on several factors. #1 - They did not own the land....One cannot just go onto another's property and do tests...even if you are remotely considering it. (remember they had to get the courts to allow them to do testing on BB) #2 - if they were to do tests, they would have had to discuss it at a public meeting..to my knowledge, that discussion never took place ( If it fell uder the guise of an Exec Mtg. There still would have been a mention of paying a testing co.) #3 - at that time they wanted BB. Why spend funds on something you were not pursuing? #4 - That would have meant they actually had a "Plan B" from the get go. How many times were we told there was not plan B. So these are what I based my "guess" on, there are probably a few more I can't think of off the top of my head. But these 4 seem pretty solid. Do you not agree? WVHSparent, are you ok with this new site for the HS? In the welcome section you state that you are against the BB site. Since I am new I am curious are you now for this new site? |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Feb 24, 2008 15:06:30 GMT -6
Do you know for sure that no one was consulted in any way or is this just a guess? OK you got me it would be a guess on my part.....but based on several factors. #1 - They did not own the land....One cannot just go onto another's property and do tests...even if you are remotely considering it. (remember they had to get the courts to allow them to do testing on BB) #2 - if they were to do tests, they would have had to discuss it at a public meeting..to my knowledge, that discussion never took place ( If it fell uder the guise of an Exec Mtg. There still would have been a mention of paying a testing co.) #3 - at that time they wanted BB. Why spend funds on something you were not pursuing? #4 - That would have meant they actually had a "Plan B" from the get go. How many times were we told there was not plan B. So these are what I based my "guess" on, there are probably a few more I can't think of off the top of my head. But these 4 seem pretty solid. Do you not agree? They are solid reasons for forming your opinion, but nothing has changed about what was written except the school is now closer to the electric switching substations. The peaker plant and MWGEN aren't mentioned in the '06 site report. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 24, 2008 15:06:55 GMT -6
Yes, mandmmom, I have always been for this site fom day 1. I have disliked BB since then too.
But if you also read my other postings, I would have supported BB if it had gone through.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 24, 2008 15:08:30 GMT -6
OK you got me it would be a guess on my part.....but based on several factors. #1 - They did not own the land....One cannot just go onto another's property and do tests...even if you are remotely considering it. (remember they had to get the courts to allow them to do testing on BB) #2 - if they were to do tests, they would have had to discuss it at a public meeting..to my knowledge, that discussion never took place ( If it fell uder the guise of an Exec Mtg. There still would have been a mention of paying a testing co.) #3 - at that time they wanted BB. Why spend funds on something you were not pursuing? #4 - That would have meant they actually had a "Plan B" from the get go. How many times were we told there was not plan B. So these are what I based my "guess" on, there are probably a few more I can't think of off the top of my head. But these 4 seem pretty solid. Do you not agree? They are solid reasons for forming your opinion, but nothing has changed about what was written except the school is now closer to the electric switching substations. The peaker plant and MWGEN aren't mentioned in the '06 site report. You are right, Nothing has changed with the site. I was OK with it then and still am now. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Feb 24, 2008 15:10:24 GMT -6
OK you got me it would be a guess on my part.....but based on several factors. #1 - They did not own the land....One cannot just go onto another's property and do tests...even if you are remotely considering it. (remember they had to get the courts to allow them to do testing on BB) #2 - if they were to do tests, they would have had to discuss it at a public meeting..to my knowledge, that discussion never took place ( If it fell uder the guise of an Exec Mtg. There still would have been a mention of paying a testing co.) #3 - at that time they wanted BB. Why spend funds on something you were not pursuing? #4 - That would have meant they actually had a "Plan B" from the get go. How many times were we told there was not plan B. So these are what I based my "guess" on, there are probably a few more I can't think of off the top of my head. But these 4 seem pretty solid. Do you not agree? I think the only reason the current MV location was became possible was AMEs willingness to sell part of their property, along with the adjacent MWGEN property becoming available. The MWGEN property was not being considered back in 05-06, as far as I know - didn't it just become available recently? They were only looking at the AME property. I don't know how far reaching the soil samples should extend off of the MWGEN property, but since AME was an unwilling seller at the time, I don't see how soil samples of AME would ever have been done in 05-06. To be totally honest I am more worried about the EMF than the soil samples. Another problem is that many are confusing the problems - even one of our school board members thought the Phase II would address EMF concerns. These are the people making decisions. Well meaning but not experts by a long shot. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 24, 2008 15:29:11 GMT -6
Has anyone seen the test results used to determine the site was unsafe in '06? There were no test results from before. It was the percerption that there might be problems that led them from going further at that time. Also remember AME was not a willing seller either then, and MWGen was not even on the radar. There existed a Phase 1 and Phase 2 that were done in 1999 for the same from ComEd to MissionElectric/Midwest Gen. Whether or not the district decided to use those as a guide is something only they can answer. |
|
|
|
Post by mandmmom on Feb 24, 2008 15:49:04 GMT -6
Yes, mandmmom, I have always been for this site fom day 1. I have disliked BB since then too. But if you also read my other postings, I would have supported BB if it had gone through. Thanks for getting back to me on this....I am not sure why you were opposed to BB, but I will go back and look in the archives....no need to rehash everything here....are you in support of a long Remediation process? I guess my question is to anyone, what is Plan B if we find out the Remediation process is going to be a lengthy one? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 24, 2008 16:11:21 GMT -6
Yes, mandmmom, I have always been for this site fom day 1. I have disliked BB since then too. But if you also read my other postings, I would have supported BB if it had gone through. Thanks for getting back to me on this....I am not sure why you were opposed to BB, but I will go back and look in the archives....no need to rehash everything here....are you in support of a long Remediation process? I guess my question is to anyone, what is Plan B if we find out the Remediation process is going to be a lengthy one? IMO, Plan B was already started in motion by assuring the public that there are no problems and the site is safe.....before they know for sure... |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 24, 2008 16:15:13 GMT -6
Yes, mandmmom, I have always been for this site fom day 1. I have disliked BB since then too. But if you also read my other postings, I would have supported BB if it had gone through. Thanks for getting back to me on this....I am not sure why you were opposed to BB, but I will go back and look in the archives....no need to rehash everything here....are you in support of a long Remediation process? I guess my question is to anyone, what is Plan B if we find out the Remediation process is going to be a lengthy one? I don't think it will be a long remediation, based on my own personal experience. Unfortunate as it sounds, the SD/SB's track record on "plan B's" is dismal. |
|
|
|
Post by mandmmom on Feb 24, 2008 19:32:47 GMT -6
Thanks for getting back to me on this....I am not sure why you were opposed to BB, but I will go back and look in the archives....no need to rehash everything here....are you in support of a long Remediation process? I guess my question is to anyone, what is Plan B if we find out the Remediation process is going to be a lengthy one? IMO, Plan B was already started in motion by assuring the public that there are no problems and the site is safe.....before they know for sure... Why do they make promises that they might not be able to keep...didn't they learn anything from the BB debacle? |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Feb 24, 2008 20:03:26 GMT -6
IMO, Plan B was already started in motion by assuring the public that there are no problems and the site is safe.....before they know for sure... Why do they make promises that they might not be able to keep...didn't they learn anything from the BB debacle? What promise? |
|
|
|
Post by mandmmom on Feb 24, 2008 20:17:52 GMT -6
Why do they make promises that they might not be able to keep...didn't they learn anything from the BB debacle? What promise? Promise is the wrong word....I guess I should have used statements....my apologies… |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 24, 2008 20:18:33 GMT -6
There were no test results from before. It was the percerption that there might be problems that led them from going further at that time. Also remember AME was not a willing seller either then, and MWGen was not even on the radar. There existed a Phase 1 and Phase 2 that were done in 1999 for the same from ComEd to MissionElectric/Midwest Gen. Whether or not the district decided to use those as a guide is something only they can answer. Are those reports available anywhere arch? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 24, 2008 22:04:40 GMT -6
There existed a Phase 1 and Phase 2 that were done in 1999 for the same from ComEd to MissionElectric/Midwest Gen. Whether or not the district decided to use those as a guide is something only they can answer. Are those reports available anywhere arch? "Stone & Webster reviewed the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments and the environmental reports prepared by Environmental Strategies Consulting LLC and found the information to be consistent with the EME Form 10K disclosure." You'd have to get it from them, I would imagine. |
|
