Post by Avenging Eagle on Mar 12, 2008 1:25:13 GMT -6
Does this story sound famliar:
1. School officials do a site analysis and rule out a site because of its environmental hazards.
2. Later, that site is actually chosen, and officials retract their earlier statements.
Is this MWGEN? No, it is Belmont in LA, California!
Well, how about part 3, 4, and 5 of the story.
3. After construction has started, new environmental remediation problems surface and because the construction is already in progress, the remediation IS 10 times as expensive and difficult, if not impossible.
4. The school goes way over budget, and it is also referred to as "The most expensive high school ever" at 238 million!
5. After further failures, the board was replaced, the administration fired, the consultants and lawyers sued, AND THE SCHOOL DEMOLISHED!
Here is an activist site which will fill in the details for you, inclusing a 3 minute video on the disastrous chain of events and all the culprits involved:
www.fulldisclosure.net/belmont_learning_center_and_LAUSD.htm
Including this section:
Partially (60%) completed LAUSD Belmont Learning Center campus shown below. Costs to date have been estimated by LAUSD to be $174 million and by the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee to be $238 million. That includes purchasing 37 acres formerly known as the Los Angeles oil field from Japanese developer SHIMIZU for $30 million "as is".
Not all, but some, of the newly constructed Belmont buildings that were built on top of an earth quake fault and impacted by methane gas and hydrogen sulfide are to be demolished in the Fall of 2004.
An Additional $110 million has been approved by LAUSD for demolition and construction (Watch our 5.5 min video of demolition) to complete the project. LAUSD and oil and gas experts vary in their projected costs for remediation of the toxic substances, estimates range from $14 million to $107 million. Therefore, it is possible that Belmont High School could cost just under one-half a $BILLION dollars, barring any cost overruns and change orders.
Here is another article talking about the story and the remediation problems encountered:
www.thenation.com/doc/20000605/anderson
including this section:
The scandal generated a centrifugal force felt throughout the city. Three members of the Board of Education known as supporters of Belmont were ousted in elections last year and replaced by members who voted in January to fire the developers and shut down the project. The new board has retained the services of attorney Thomas Girardi--of Hollywood's Erin Brockovich fame--to compile a malpractice lawsuit against the school district's former real estate counsel, O'Melveny and Meyers, arguably the city's most influential law firm. The blue-chip accounting firm Ernst & Young is one of several corporations accused of either overbilling the school district or "breaching" their "professional duty." By the time construction was stopped, more than $123 million had already been spent on the school.
and these guys are arguing that remediation should be cheaper than the Belmont SD experienced, but look at the numbers:
These guys say they can do it for: 10 million to 15 million for 35 acres
Belmont SD estimated: 20 million to 60 million for 35 acres
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_45_21/ai_57824417
and how about this part of the article?:
The difference is that most developments done by private industry go through all sorts of testing and due diligence ahead of time, before deciding whether to proceed, Ciasulli said.
The school district's due diligence process apparently broke down -- the extent of the environmental problems was not communicated to the board and some top school officials. And it's more expensive to mitigate problems retroactively, when there's new construction in the way.
"The accidental and sudden arrival of contaminants at a project invariably will cost more than if you knew about it in advance," said Anthony Nelson, national account manager with environmental and engineering firm Arcadis Geraghty & Miller. "If you have to retrofit or alleviate after the fact, you have to spend more money."
Why can't we learn from the misfortunes of others why we shouldn't be building on a site that is a former power generation plant and has 6 pipelines underneath. It would be illegal in California to do what we are doing? Whey can't we learn from others' mistakes instead of rolling the dice with our kids lives and our district's welfare and survival?
And we are trying to save 3 million dollars for all this?
Again, I am saddened by reading these articles and realizing that our SB will not do a d*mn thing about this.
1. School officials do a site analysis and rule out a site because of its environmental hazards.
2. Later, that site is actually chosen, and officials retract their earlier statements.
Is this MWGEN? No, it is Belmont in LA, California!
Well, how about part 3, 4, and 5 of the story.
3. After construction has started, new environmental remediation problems surface and because the construction is already in progress, the remediation IS 10 times as expensive and difficult, if not impossible.
4. The school goes way over budget, and it is also referred to as "The most expensive high school ever" at 238 million!
5. After further failures, the board was replaced, the administration fired, the consultants and lawyers sued, AND THE SCHOOL DEMOLISHED!
Here is an activist site which will fill in the details for you, inclusing a 3 minute video on the disastrous chain of events and all the culprits involved:
www.fulldisclosure.net/belmont_learning_center_and_LAUSD.htm
Including this section:
Partially (60%) completed LAUSD Belmont Learning Center campus shown below. Costs to date have been estimated by LAUSD to be $174 million and by the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee to be $238 million. That includes purchasing 37 acres formerly known as the Los Angeles oil field from Japanese developer SHIMIZU for $30 million "as is".
Not all, but some, of the newly constructed Belmont buildings that were built on top of an earth quake fault and impacted by methane gas and hydrogen sulfide are to be demolished in the Fall of 2004.
An Additional $110 million has been approved by LAUSD for demolition and construction (Watch our 5.5 min video of demolition) to complete the project. LAUSD and oil and gas experts vary in their projected costs for remediation of the toxic substances, estimates range from $14 million to $107 million. Therefore, it is possible that Belmont High School could cost just under one-half a $BILLION dollars, barring any cost overruns and change orders.
Here is another article talking about the story and the remediation problems encountered:
www.thenation.com/doc/20000605/anderson
including this section:
The scandal generated a centrifugal force felt throughout the city. Three members of the Board of Education known as supporters of Belmont were ousted in elections last year and replaced by members who voted in January to fire the developers and shut down the project. The new board has retained the services of attorney Thomas Girardi--of Hollywood's Erin Brockovich fame--to compile a malpractice lawsuit against the school district's former real estate counsel, O'Melveny and Meyers, arguably the city's most influential law firm. The blue-chip accounting firm Ernst & Young is one of several corporations accused of either overbilling the school district or "breaching" their "professional duty." By the time construction was stopped, more than $123 million had already been spent on the school.
and these guys are arguing that remediation should be cheaper than the Belmont SD experienced, but look at the numbers:
These guys say they can do it for: 10 million to 15 million for 35 acres
Belmont SD estimated: 20 million to 60 million for 35 acres
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_45_21/ai_57824417
and how about this part of the article?:
The difference is that most developments done by private industry go through all sorts of testing and due diligence ahead of time, before deciding whether to proceed, Ciasulli said.
The school district's due diligence process apparently broke down -- the extent of the environmental problems was not communicated to the board and some top school officials. And it's more expensive to mitigate problems retroactively, when there's new construction in the way.
"The accidental and sudden arrival of contaminants at a project invariably will cost more than if you knew about it in advance," said Anthony Nelson, national account manager with environmental and engineering firm Arcadis Geraghty & Miller. "If you have to retrofit or alleviate after the fact, you have to spend more money."
Why can't we learn from the misfortunes of others why we shouldn't be building on a site that is a former power generation plant and has 6 pipelines underneath. It would be illegal in California to do what we are doing? Whey can't we learn from others' mistakes instead of rolling the dice with our kids lives and our district's welfare and survival?
And we are trying to save 3 million dollars for all this?
Again, I am saddened by reading these articles and realizing that our SB will not do a d*mn thing about this.
(they have BB too? omg!)