|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 28, 2008 8:03:37 GMT -6
Arch, what do you know about phase II that you're not sharing? I may have access to previously made public materials regarding other former peaker sites around the nation. I could also be full of cr*p too. Make whatever deduction you want from that. |
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on Mar 28, 2008 8:06:36 GMT -6
The IL EPA will only give a NFR (no further remediation) on a site that has voluntarily been in their program. Anything other than this NFR based on these circumstances is a meaningless piece of paper that anyone can construct. If you trust this backwards way to clean up a site then that's fine, but that's not what I want for our 3rd HS, kids, teachers and staff. This is too important an issue to retrofit into a construction schedule. Sorry if I'm fussy.
|
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 28, 2008 8:07:26 GMT -6
Who says the contractor will not enroll in their program?
|
|
|
|
Post by snerdley on Mar 28, 2008 8:17:02 GMT -6
Why would the contractor enroll in their program? He won't own the land. The landowner would be the one with the vested interest and the potential liability.
|
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 28, 2008 8:20:25 GMT -6
It is my understanding that the process will be close, notify IEPA and remediate. I understood it was the contractor. If it is our SD, then they will notify after the close. Whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by snerdley on Mar 28, 2008 8:29:25 GMT -6
Whatever? It's just our money and our kids. Could you whip up some of that Kool-aid and bring it over? I am having trouble swallowing at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 28, 2008 8:33:54 GMT -6
Just a note about the direction this morning and to no one in particular but to all of us collectively (because I don't doubt I had some culpability in it).. Let's not make any of this personal... and keep on the objective tasks/topics at hand, please. Public service announcement...over.  |
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on Mar 28, 2008 8:34:37 GMT -6
A contractor would not enroll in any program, it would be the buyer or the seller. A contractor is a third party.
|
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 28, 2008 8:34:47 GMT -6
Maybe I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed today or something.... I agree. When my kids get like this, I tell them to go take a nap and hope they come back happier later. |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 28, 2008 8:37:12 GMT -6
Thanks for the clarification, SNmom!
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 28, 2008 8:38:53 GMT -6
"But the project’s greatest hurdles have always been political, not environmental." A giant political gaffe that p!sses off a good number of voters can cause problems down the road? Say it ain't so! |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 28, 2008 11:07:08 GMT -6
It would be fiscally irresponsible to buy BB (as much as we'd like it) - there are other voters who voted no who would not share our zeal to spend more $ than voted on. It is no different than some folks' zeal to spend nearly $17 million more than the voters approved on MWGEN. Over budget is over budget. Referedum approval = 124,660,000 MV at MWGEN cost = 141,411,400 |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Mar 28, 2008 11:32:11 GMT -6
It would be fiscally irresponsible to buy BB (as much as we'd like it) - there are other voters who voted no who would not share our zeal to spend more $ than voted on. It is no different than some folks' zeal to spend nearly $17 million more than the voters approved on MWGEN. Over budget is over budget. Referedum approval = 124,660,000 MV at MWGEN cost = 141,411,400 Not to mention the potential for a substantial added cost to Midwest Gen if hit with a big BB damages cost. If they stick with BB, they know the dollar amount and there is no guessing like there seems to be with many aspects of Midwest Gen. |
|
|
|
Post by parentadvocate on Mar 28, 2008 22:57:19 GMT -6
I much prefer to read instead of posting, so this is going out a bit on a limb for me. Thank you to all of you who have helped me to better understand the many aspects and issues on the 3rd high school. This board is the best place I have to get information, and I appreciate your time and efforts.
I have a pretty simple question, but no simple answers. My question is "What do you see as the viable alternatives now available to our citizens to get our district leadership to slow down and to fully examine and fully answer all the valid concerns?"
Thanks in advance for sharing your constructive ideas.
So that you know my perspectives and biases, please let me share the following. The legal complaint is the only option that I can see right now to stop the land purchase and\or halt construction in order to have a chance to get the leadership to respond to those who believe much differently.
I believe we need a 3rd high school, and I voted YES in the 2006 referendum. I abstained in the 2005 referendum when I thought the district did a poor job of presenting the case to the public. Boundaries were not a major concern of mine, but I am now concerned about the long-term transportation issues of time, cost, and safety with the far north location. I don't believe it makes sense to place our children at unnecessary risk to pipeline and other possible environmental issues when we have the financial ability to purchase the BB property at the fair market value decided in court. My family has children with disabilities, and we do not have a very good relationship with the leadership due to our disability advocacy efforts.
Finally, I am dismayed by an apparent lack of transparency and accountability that prevents me and our community from knowing the hows and whys of the decisions and actions of the past several years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 28, 2008 23:19:45 GMT -6
I'll clarify this part of your otherwise excellent post:
" I don't believe it makes sense to place our children at unnecessary risk to pipeline and other possible environmental issues when we have the financial ability to purchase the BB property at the fair market value decided in court."
When the verdict came down and we actually won at the end of Sep 2007, we had 30 days to take possession of the land and pay that amount. We did not. That's the equivalent of running the Boston Marathon and then just stopping 2 feet short of the finish line and contemplating for a while and turning around and saying "Nah.. the hell with it". We 'HAD' the right, but the Administration BLEW IT, BIG TIME.
After we officially abandoned the land, that price went bye bye as did our 'right' to it. It's now private property again and anything from that point forward would have to be a regular private sale at whatever negotiated price comes along and we would need a seller willing to sell.
It's not an impossible thing to overcome but I seriously doubt anyone in the Administration or on the School Board has the negotiating skills to acquire the land because they all seem to lack the one thing needed (IMO) to approach BB again and start constructive talks: Humility and the ability to say they are sorry for what happened in the past.
(typo corrections)
|
|
