Environmental Reports

[we4]

The environmental reports will be posted after the school board meeting on Monday 3/10. This information was from a school board member this morning.

From the other board,

WVHSParent posts:

The Enviromental reports (at least Phase 1) is back according to m2.
I asked him if they plan on posting it. He states it is very large, there is nothing to hide in it, and he is unsure of the good it will do to post it.
IMHO. It will do the SD/SB a lot of good in the PR dept in the spirit of openness.
I think we all need to let them know that.

The collective brainpower here and yes, the other board, should be able to decipher the report and hopefully answer several concerns.

[southsidemom]

What other board? I don't get it. Not surprised at Mark's response. Hey, atleast you get one. I have yet to hear back from the SB on several communications I have made in the last several months.

[brooksmom]

southsidemom said:

What other board? I don't get it. Not surprised at Mark's response. Hey, atleast you get one. I have yet to hear back from the SB on several communications I have made in the last several months.

Other board:
www.ip204.proboards92.com/index.cgi?

[JB]

we4 said:

The environmental reports will be posted after the school board meeting on Monday 3/10. This information was from a school board member this morning.

From the other board,

WVHSParent posts:

The Enviromental reports (at least Phase 1) is back according to m2.
I asked him if they plan on posting it. He states it is very large, there is nothing to hide in it, and he is unsure of the good it will do to post it.
IMHO. It will do the SD/SB a lot of good in the PR dept in the spirit of openness.
I think we all need to let them know that.

The collective brainpower here and yes, the other board, should be able to decipher the report and hopefully answer several concerns.

Posting it, in it's entirety, will do a world of good. We've been "asking" to see this for awhile. I know several folks who not only would like to review the data, but to also understand the methodology used.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

I agree that posting it would be good for all. However, now that the law suit has been filed, I"m sure they are going to be gun shy of publishing anything in writing so I would be surprised if it comes out in its entirety.

[brooksmom]

Someone got an email from a board member confirming that they would be posted Monday after the meeting.

[specailneedsmom]

I am a mom of a special needs child and sent the following letter to the school board this morning. I hope they read it.

The purpose of this letter is to plead with you to walk away from the site for the Metea based on what you know and also what you don't know.
Let me explain myself. I am a parent of two children, one with Autism. What I know about my son's autism is that it was caused by at least two or three factors. Two of these factors are genetic and environmental. Hopefully in the next 20 years we will know specifically what those factors are and save countless children from growing up with this disability.
This ties in specifically to your situation with building Metea on the proposed site. What you know is what this land was used for. What you have been told is that it has and can be re mediated. What you don't know is what the long term affects of this clean up will be. Will it work? Will it work beyond a reasonable doubt? You cannot answer these questions. Nobody can.
You are all good people with children and grandchildren. Maybe some of you are even planning on having more children. Let me ask you this: would you buy a house on that site knowing what the history has been? Of course not. Nobody would. There are just too many red flags. Therefore, how in good conscience can you consider building a school there?
None of us can move forward and predict what will happen to us and our families. All we can do as moral and ethical human beings is act responsibly on the information we have in hand. That is precisely what I am asking you to do. Do the right thing. None of you wants to know that twenty years from now the children who ran in the soccer fields on this land don't get sick or have children that are sick. I couldn't live with that and if I were a school board member I would be shouting this out.
Please, please walk away from this site. It is the right thing to do

[WeBe204]

specailneedsmom said:

I am a mom of a special needs child and sent the following letter to the school board this morning. I hope they read it.

The purpose of this letter is to plead with you to walk away from the site for the Metea based on what you know and also what you don't know.
Let me explain myself. I am a parent of two children, one with Autism. What I know about my son's autism is that it was caused by at least two or three factors. Two of these factors are genetic and environmental. Hopefully in the next 20 years we will know specifically what those factors are and save countless children from growing up with this disability.
This ties in specifically to your situation with building Metea on the proposed site. What you know is what this land was used for. What you have been told is that it has and can be re mediated. What you don't know is what the long term affects of this clean up will be. Will it work? Will it work beyond a reasonable doubt? You cannot answer these questions. Nobody can.
You are all good people with children and grandchildren. Maybe some of you are even planning on having more children. Let me ask you this: would you buy a house on that site knowing what the history has been? Of course not. Nobody would. There are just too many red flags. Therefore, how in good conscience can you consider building a school there?
None of us can move forward and predict what will happen to us and our families. All we can do as moral and ethical human beings is act responsibly on the information we have in hand. That is precisely what I am asking you to do. Do the right thing. None of you wants to know that twenty years from now the children who ran in the soccer fields on this land don't get sick or have children that are sick. I couldn't live with that and if I were a school board member I would be shouting this out.
Please, please walk away from this site. It is the right thing to do

This is why the evironment data should not only be posted but IMO a speical meeting should be held to make it consumable for the genral public. A gruff, "It's Fine" I do not think will be acceptable. This transaction should be squeaky clean.

I appreciate you sharing this. (Oh, and welcome!) This is a complex issue that sometimes gets balled into simple generalities.

[Arch]

MM,

It does not matter how 'good' you think it will do to post it. How you feel about it is irrelevant. What matters is how the parents and other taxpayers feel about it. The continued unconcern for their feelings is what got us here in the first place, in case you haven't figured that out yet.

Post it in its entirety.

[JB]

brad204 said:

specailneedsmom said:

I am a mom of a special needs child and sent the following letter to the school board this morning. I hope they read it.

The purpose of this letter is to plead with you to walk away from the site for the Metea based on what you know and also what you don't know.
Let me explain myself. I am a parent of two children, one with Autism. What I know about my son's autism is that it was caused by at least two or three factors. Two of these factors are genetic and environmental. Hopefully in the next 20 years we will know specifically what those factors are and save countless children from growing up with this disability.
This ties in specifically to your situation with building Metea on the proposed site. What you know is what this land was used for. What you have been told is that it has and can be re mediated. What you don't know is what the long term affects of this clean up will be. Will it work? Will it work beyond a reasonable doubt? You cannot answer these questions. Nobody can.
You are all good people with children and grandchildren. Maybe some of you are even planning on having more children. Let me ask you this: would you buy a house on that site knowing what the history has been? Of course not. Nobody would. There are just too many red flags. Therefore, how in good conscience can you consider building a school there?
None of us can move forward and predict what will happen to us and our families. All we can do as moral and ethical human beings is act responsibly on the information we have in hand. That is precisely what I am asking you to do. Do the right thing. None of you wants to know that twenty years from now the children who ran in the soccer fields on this land don't get sick or have children that are sick. I couldn't live with that and if I were a school board member I would be shouting this out.
Please, please walk away from this site. It is the right thing to do

This is why the evironment data should not only be posted but IMO a speical meeting should be held to make it consumable for the genral public. A gruff, "It's Fine" I do not think will be acceptable. This transaction should be squeaky clean.

I appreciate you sharing this. (Oh, and welcome!) This is a complex issue that sometimes gets balled into simple generalities.

I inquired about a Citizens Advisory Group being formed to review - no direct response to the question. I think independant verification is necessary. What's the saying, "Trust, but Verify".

SNM - Welcome! That was a very touching post. I think D204 has a good track record here, I wish you the best with your son's education.

[rural]

Wasn't there a motion at the land selection board meeting from AT to post all the information on the district website as soon as it was available. I'm sure we'll get the abridged version, but they should be posting it.

[Arch]

jb said:

I inquired about a Citizens Advisory Group being formed to review - no direct response to the question. I think independant verification is necessary. What's the saying, "Trust, but Verify".

I have a professional lined up to verify. If they say it's good, I trust them. They have no dog in this race and their mantra is to get the job done, whatever it takes, and get it done right. This is for my own piece of mind so I raised the bar and asked someone who I know is clever and resourceful at working around and through otherwise show-stopping issues that he's talked about on certain job sites in the past. Their goal is to ensure the job can and does get done. Goes against conventional thinking that someone w/ safety concerns would choose the opposite end of the spectrum for verification, but I need it to be able to stand up to scrutiny and criticism and picking someone who I hope will tell me what I want to hear doesn't solve anything.

<ETA> Brought to my attention that the last sentence may not be clear. Let me put it another way... If I want someone to say the site is not safe, I don't want to go to someone who's forte is backfilling that conclusion. I want to pick someone who's job it normally is is to find every which way to make it workable. I prefer to enlist polar opposites because I know I can be polar in my opinion. If a conclusion and agreement between those polar opposites can agree on something (yes, there has to be an element of trust there too) then I feel personally more comfortable with a conclusion arrived in that manner rather than one done by a group of YES people who just agree and nod their heads to what they were told to believe.

[sushi]

Thanks, Arch. We all need peace of mind....

[researching]

archwinsome said:

jb said:

I inquired about a Citizens Advisory Group being formed to review - no direct response to the question. I think independant verification is necessary. What's the saying, "Trust, but Verify".

I have a professional lined up to verify. If they say it's good, I trust them. They have no dog in this race and their mantra is to get the job done, whatever it takes, and get it done right. This is for my own piece of mind so I raised the bar and asked someone who I know is clever and resourceful at working around and through otherwise show-stopping issues that he's talked about on certain job sites in the past. Their goal is to ensure the job can and does get done. Goes against conventional thinking that someone w/ safety concerns would choose the opposite end of the spectrum for verification, but I need it to be able to stand up to scrutiny and criticism and picking someone who I hope will tell me what I want to hear doesn't solve anything.

Completely agreed and well said Arch! Choosing "YES" people to check the safety of the site accomplishes nothing. Thanks again for all of your hard work on this!

[Arch]

researching said:

archwinsome said:

I have a professional lined up to verify. If they say it's good, I trust them. They have no dog in this race and their mantra is to get the job done, whatever it takes, and get it done right. This is for my own piece of mind so I raised the bar and asked someone who I know is clever and resourceful at working around and through otherwise show-stopping issues that he's talked about on certain job sites in the past. Their goal is to ensure the job can and does get done. Goes against conventional thinking that someone w/ safety concerns would choose the opposite end of the spectrum for verification, but I need it to be able to stand up to scrutiny and criticism and picking someone who I hope will tell me what I want to hear doesn't solve anything.

Completely agreed and well said Arch! Choosing "YES" people to check the safety of the site accomplishes nothing. Thanks again for all of your hard work on this!

The B* is I will be out of town next week for a week. I'll be remote, but in some areas the broadband may not be there, other times it will. One way or another I'll get a copy of the report and send it along (assuming it actually gets posted).