|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 27, 2008 7:23:29 GMT -6
That's why the SB will avoid dealing with the IEPA at all costs, regardless of the implications of their decision. Why do you say the SB will avoid dealing with IEPA? I imagine you are right, it will be MWGen dealing with the IEPA, until the NFR is issued. Here is proof of the process. Obviously, there is a legal clause that protects the SD after the close up to the NFR. Why would they close otherwise. Why am I the only one who gets this? we get it - we just don't believe anyone at MWGEN will sign that - what you call legal- what stockholders will call finiancial liability - away. I'd call for our CEO's job if he did that - and I don't believe he will, In the scheme of things this sale nets them $5M -- for them this is not worth the PR headaches let alone signing away responsibility that is even realtively minor future problems are found could cost them millions to remediate. Why would they do it ? Haven't you heard them say - we did not pursue selling this land -- their backpeddling began a while ago and its why there is no deal today. |
|
|
|
Post by sd204taxpayer on Mar 27, 2008 7:53:00 GMT -6
I hate rumors but always state as a rumor if I don't have evidence to back up. I have heard a rumor that the SD does not have a contract to buy the Amgen site as of yet but some other type of agreement (forgive me for forgetting the actual term). Has anyone else heard this?
If this is true I wouldn't put it past the SD to blame the group sueing if the SD can't get to a contract with Amgen because of remediation issues.
Just an opinion and trying to clarify.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 27, 2008 10:01:00 GMT -6
Why do you say the SB will avoid dealing with IEPA? I imagine you are right, it will be MWGen dealing with the IEPA, until the NFR is issued. Here is proof of the process. Obviously, there is a legal clause that protects the SD after the close up to the NFR. Why would they close otherwise. Why am I the only one who gets this? we get it - we just don't believe anyone at MWGEN will sign that - what you call legal- what stockholders will call finiancial liability - away. I'd call for our CEO's job if he did that - and I don't believe he will, In the scheme of things this sale nets them $5M -- for them this is not worth the PR headaches let alone signing away responsibility that is even realtively minor future problems are found could cost them millions to remediate. Why would they do it ? Haven't you heard them say - we did not pursue selling this land -- their backpeddling began a while ago and its why there is no deal today. Here is the other question I've never gotten a straight answer to: How much is MWGEN getting per acre and how much is AME getting per acre? We only see the combo price of 191. I think MWGEN is getting closer to $100/acre and AME is getting closer to $300/acre. How did you come up with $5M? Just curious if you have the numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 27, 2008 10:02:55 GMT -6
we get it - we just don't believe anyone at MWGEN will sign that - what you call legal- what stockholders will call finiancial liability - away. I'd call for our CEO's job if he did that - and I don't believe he will, In the scheme of things this sale nets them $5M -- for them this is not worth the PR headaches let alone signing away responsibility that is even realtively minor future problems are found could cost them millions to remediate. Why would they do it ? Haven't you heard them say - we did not pursue selling this land -- their backpeddling began a while ago and its why there is no deal today. Here is the other question I've never gotten a straight answer to: How much is MWGEN getting per acre and how much is AME getting per acre? We only see the combo price of 191. I think MWGEN is getting closer to $100/acre and AME is getting closer to $300/acre. How did you come up with $5M? Just curious if you have the numbers. a number that has been passed along - I cannot support if it is higher or lower. I welcome anyone with a real number |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Mar 27, 2008 10:06:36 GMT -6
Here we go again - more scare tactics. If everything is that umbearable, where has the SD been the last two years to ease overcrowding?
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 27, 2008 10:25:37 GMT -6
If this is true I wouldn't put it past the SD to blame the group sueing if the SD can't get to a contract with Amgen because of remediation issues. Don't worry, the blame list is quite long... and everyone forgets about the old scapegoat once a new one gets added to the list. WE CARE 2 2005 NO voters CFO Brach Brodie attorneys & lobbyists Judge Kilander the jury Linda Homes Tom Cross Randy Hultgren for not sponsoring quick take Illionois legislature PREIT Mr. 18K-hire-a-lobbyist Mr. Bridge And I'm sure I'm even forgetting someone. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Mar 27, 2008 10:36:17 GMT -6
If this is true I wouldn't put it past the SD to blame the group sueing if the SD can't get to a contract with Amgen because of remediation issues. This is how our school board operates. The list of excuses for their incompetence is quite long... and everyone forgets about the old scapegoat once a new one gets added to the list WE CARE 2 2005 NO voters CFO Brach Brodie attorneys & lobbyists Judge Kilander the jury Linda Homes Tom Cross Randy Hultgren for not sponsoring quick take Illionois legislature PREIT Mr. 18K-hire-a-lobbyist Mr. Bridge And I'm sure I'm even forgetting someone. Paul White George Vickers Michelle Davis Steve Calcaterra Kevin Knight Paul Lehman Christine Vickers Anonymous Cowards (that prompted the infamous M2 email) and my personal favorite those d*@m folk in the Fry community. You know, the Frybabies or as our 2006-2007 School Board Liason called us the "hostiles." |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Mar 27, 2008 10:43:59 GMT -6
Don't forget their new favorite - NSFOC!
|
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 27, 2008 11:08:18 GMT -6
That's why the SB will avoid dealing with the IEPA at all costs, regardless of the implications of their decision. Why do you say the SB will avoid dealing with IEPA? I imagine you are right, it will be MWGen dealing with the IEPA, until the NFR is issued. Here is proof of the process. Obviously, there is a legal clause that protects the SD after the close up to the NFR. Why would they close otherwise. Why am I the only one who gets this? It is my understanding that to close and then remediate is not unusual. Sometimes money is held in escrow until the remediation process is complete. |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 27, 2008 11:09:58 GMT -6
They want to avoid the IL EPA because dealing with the IL EPA will take lots of time and time is a limited commodity. It is my understanding that the IEPA will be notified before remediation begins and after closing. They will be involved. |
|
|
|
Post by yeson321 on Mar 27, 2008 11:56:17 GMT -6
They want to avoid the IL EPA because dealing with the IL EPA will take lots of time and time is a limited commodity. It is my understanding that the IEPA will be notified before remediation begins and after closing. They will be involved. I was talking to a co-worker who has a child in District 200 and the land that the new Hubble is going to be built on never needed remediation. The school board wanted to make sure it was safe and had it cleared prior to the referendum – they even contacted Homeland Security. He couldn’t believe that District 204 would purchase the MidWest Generation land, knowing that it needs remediation and that the IEPA did not provide a NFR yet. He just couldn’t get over how backwards it seemed – have the referendum, finalize the land and then remediate. cusd200.org/headlines/2007/IEPA-All-Clear-for-New-Hubble-Sitehtm.htmlThe IEPA Says "All Clear" for the New Hubble Site On September 10, 2007, Wheaton Warrenville District 200, received official notification from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) that the site for the proposed new Hubble Middle School, “does not constitute a threat to human health and the environment and does not require further remediation…” The document, often referred to as the NFR (no further remediation) letter, goes on to indicate that the site is approved for “residential land use” which is the highest standard with the most stringent requirements the IEPA has for land use. The evaluation by the IEPA was done on the site in its current condition without any remediation. “The Board always believed that the Herrick and Galusha site was clean and suitable to build on; now the IEPA has confirmed that. We finally have everything we need to move ahead with the referendum for the new Hubble Middle School”, said School Board President, Andy Johnson. Dr. Richard Drury, Superintendent of District 200, commented “We are very excited about this welcome and very positive news. This project will provide wonderful benefits, first and foremost for our students, as well as for the communities of Wheaton and Warrenville. We are delighted that we can now move ahead with the referendum question. This assessment by the IEPA confirms that the proposed new Hubble Middle School site meets or exceeds all environmental safety standards and would not have any negative impact on students or staff. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 27, 2008 12:21:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 27, 2008 12:24:58 GMT -6
Why do you say the SB will avoid dealing with IEPA? I imagine you are right, it will be MWGen dealing with the IEPA, until the NFR is issued. Here is proof of the process. Obviously, there is a legal clause that protects the SD after the close up to the NFR. Why would they close otherwise. Why am I the only one who gets this? I actually get it now. To be honest when I sat through the land selection meeting and the boundary meeting I walked away thinking the plant would be disassembled and the land would be remediated before we took ownership. This is one of the many reasons I thought the 2009 date was a total joke. Now, I get it. We buy the land put of fencing and do it at a later date. The level of MidWest Gens responsibility I believe is the real sticking point in the negotiations. Remember the wording was changed by the board at the end of the land meeting. I wonder if that wording is causing a problem? Hmmmm... Not some wacked tin foil theory being put out by NSFOCFraud. So, now kids will be in a construction zone and a remediation zone for at least the first year. Regardless of the location 2009 seems foolish. It sounds foolish because it is foolish and it is double-foolish for this location. The remediation process makes airborne that which one is trying to clean up. Think of it like trying to dust in your house. Also construction around pipelines is introducing one of the 2 largest contributors to their breaches and subsequent ignition of contents; construction (the other being corrosion). This 'plan' is going to be the poster child for the 20?? Darwin Award. |
|
|
|
Post by cornholio on Mar 27, 2008 12:29:49 GMT -6
Dist 200 did it the right way. They did the testing before they passed the referendum.
IPSD 204 is doing it the wrong way. They chose a safe site, then changed it once voters gave them the money.
|
|
|
|
Post by momof156graders on Mar 27, 2008 13:29:58 GMT -6
I actually get it now. To be honest when I sat through the land selection meeting and the boundary meeting I walked away thinking the plant would be disassembled and the land would be remediated before we took ownership. This is one of the many reasons I thought the 2009 date was a total joke. Now, I get it. We buy the land put of fencing and do it at a later date. The level of MidWest Gens responsibility I believe is the real sticking point in the negotiations. Remember the wording was changed by the board at the end of the land meeting. I wonder if that wording is causing a problem? Hmmmm... Not some wacked tin foil theory being put out by NSFOCFraud. So, now kids will be in a construction zone and a remediation zone for at least the first year. Regardless of the location 2009 seems foolish. yeah that 1st year is quite the HS experience isn't it: 1/ construction 2/ remediation area 3/ no gym 4/ no pool 5/ no auditorium 6/ no sports venues 7/ no varsity sports 8/ triple the bus time for some to get to this place 9/ and a vista like none other 10/ who knows what chemically/ emf wise I'd add, likely no parking for parents - but what the hell would we be going there to see ? Yep - I'd love to see the poster for this FULL high school experience - what a load of horse manure this is. Yep 2009 sure looks like the right choice Don't forget no freshman center! I also learned that AME has a 3 phase construction plan 1. Build worship center right away 2. In 2-3 years build a lifestyle/fitness center 3. within 5 years build a community center (not clear on what that will exactly mean) The church and school will share entrance and exit areas, so for at least 5 YEARS that school will be a construction zone! Another thought to add to the perfect high school experience! |
|
