Environmental Letter from Shawn Collins

[doctorwho]

avengingeagle said:

sushi said:

From a poster on the other board:




OK - well, Pandora Collins has indeed started to lead us down the slippery slope. The potential environmental safety of BB has now been questioned. I'm sure nobody, especially those who are fighting so vigorously against AME, want to hear anything like this.

Macom isn't even worth talking about, as it's clearly as "bad" as AME. And Hamman, being our of the 204 boundaries, and next to landfill and a concrete plant isn't even worth a second look. So, now that BB's safety has been questioned, where do we go from here?

People have been quoting MM from 2 years ago, as having "ruled out" AME due to safety concerns (BTW, a false statement that he ruled it out), but that was without ANY testing. How can people continuously quote his statement 2 years ago about the perception of the AME site safety, while, present day, any statement that he, or professionals charged with ensuring with the safety of the site, are questioned; brought under a microscope; and tossed aside a being either deceitful, or, at minimum, insufficient to "prove" the safety of the site. Which is it: do we believe things that MM says or don't we? You can't say that you believe something that he said 2 years ago (based on no actual testing) and now you don't believe him (after a number of different tests have actually been performed).

Why the scrutiny only for the MV site? What about all of the other schools - I didn't want to bring this up, but what about Peterson? It seems close enough to the same RR tracks, pipelines, and power lines that that some allege are unsafe for MV. Where's the outrage and the website and the lawsuit?

How does anyone propose that we "prove" the safety of any site? I now have a perception that BB may have environmental safety issues. That wasn't listed on the Ref - I want the Ref voided & a re-vote! Where's the flaw in this thinking? It's the same path the nsfoc is leading us down.

I'm starting to think that the nsfoc may really just want 2 HSs in 204 forever. I wonder how close they are with CFO types. I mean, just read what's on their site regarding the questioning of enrollment projections and the questioning of schools capacities. That's straight from the CFO site. Scary.

I am very optimistic about the chances for the district now, because of this statement.

The desparate attempt to start claiming that BB is unsafe bodes well for the acknowledgement and admission by the naysayers that MWGEN IS DEFINITELY NOT SAFE. Instead of focusing on the futile attempts to defend the undefensible site, the clan of the cave bear is now focusing on trying to use the Ghostbuster EVP gun to try to discredit the relatively pristine location of the BB property.

This is an excellent start to a new week in D204!

Even more desparate is the attempt to paint everyone else CFO -- hint: it won't work this time guys - that is NOT who this org is

In fact -to the poster - take a close look around and a few Stonebridge CFO people - suddenly don't think the 3rd hs is such a bad idea. Who he lives in glass houses ought not.........

If anyone was at the session they would then know that there were impassioned remarks by more than one person to make sure Shawn Collins understood that we still needed a 3rd high school- just not there.


I was on the other side of the CFO finger pointing group the last go around and it held water because the Vote No group did contain a fair number of CFO people ( although not as many as those who voted NO in many of the same northern areas now finger pointing at NSFOC )
CFO is not in existance - and if somewhere it is - it is not the driving force behind NSFOC -- but hey, mantra's don't have to be true to be effective.

I expect to see the CFO nonsense on the anti site soon ( if it's not already there )-

[d204mom]

archwinsome said:

hillmom said:

The peaker plant was still in operation in 2006 - that is the reason that site wasn't an option. That parcel was not available for sale. I didn't have a preference on site and did not take EMF readings as I disclosed until January 21st which for some reason Macy finds to be suspect - of what I don't know. that was the first time EMF's ever came up and again not worried about EMF's - I'm sure how collecting data to show EMF's are everywhere is suspect. It was not to show one was worse than the other just simply that we are fighting a losing battle on EMF's if you use power - end of sentence. It actually doesn't argue either point - just nullifies it as arch pointed out.

Your data is incorrect on the peaker plant operation. In Sep 2004 MWGEN began to study the future feasibility to operate it (and its other 'peaking' locations around the Chicagoland area) competitively and subsequently officially decommissioned it in Dec 2004.

Google for their SEC filings. You'll find it.

Thanks Arch, I was looking for that info.

More mis-information from the SB. The paper also states that the peaker plant ceased operations last year - when it's actually been 3 years - and was not in operation when the site selection report was written. Which is probably why the site selection report does not mention the peaker plant.

[d204mom]

One other thing I was thinking about.

If the new claim is that BB is not safe (and I am all for running the same tests there as at MWGEN) and walking away from BB makes building a 3rd high school too expensive, then it seems to me that the only thing that can be done is to pay BB their $13 million and start over.

Am I missing something?

[rural]

d204mom said:

archwinsome said:

Your data is incorrect on the peaker plant operation. In Sep 2004 MWGEN began to study the future feasibility to operate it (and its other 'peaking' locations around the Chicagoland area) competitively and subsequently officially decommissioned it in Dec 2004.

Google for their SEC filings. You'll find it.

Thanks Arch, I was looking for that info.

More mis-information from the SB. The paper also states that the peaker plant ceased operations last year - when it's actually been 3 years - and was not in operation when the site selection report was written. Which is probably why the site selection report does not mention the peaker plant.

I just want to be sure I have this straight.

M2 quotes the EMF issue as an issue in some memo, but says nothing about the peaker plant issue. So does that void the environmental question of the peaker plant. Do we assume since it wasn't addressed it wasn't PERCEIVED as an environmental issue? In pari materia, people.

[d204mom]

rural said:

d204mom said:

Thanks Arch, I was looking for that info.

More mis-information from the SB. The paper also states that the peaker plant ceased operations last year - when it's actually been 3 years - and was not in operation when the site selection report was written. Which is probably why the site selection report does not mention the peaker plant.

M2 quotes the EMF issue as an issue in some memo, but says nothing about the peaker plant issue. So does that void the environmental question of the peaker plant. Do we assume since it wasn't addressed it wasn't PERCEIVED as an environmental issue? In pari materia, people.

My only point was that hillmom said that she did not question the site selection report back in 2006 because the peaker plant was still operating back then. It was not. So it negates that argument.

[rural]

Hillmom was corrected by Arch and admitted the error. It was not in operation at that time.

[d204mom]

So my original question remains.

Why did she wait until 2008 to challenge the site selection report instead of when it was issued in 2006?

hillmom said:

d204mom said:

Did you raise these points regarding the Site Selection report in 2006 to Metzger and the board?

The peaker plant was still in operation in 2006 - that is the reason that site wasn't an option. That parcel was not available for sale. I didn't have a preference on site and did not take EMF readings as I disclosed until January 21st which for some reason Macy finds to be suspect - of what I don't know. that was the first time EMF's ever came up and again not worried about EMF's - I'm sure how collecting data to show EMF's are everywhere is suspect. It was not to show one was worse than the other just simply that we are fighting a losing battle on EMF's if you use power - end of sentence. It actually doesn't argue either point - just nullifies it as arch pointed out.

[yeson321]

d204mom said:

One other thing I was thinking about.

If the new claim is that BB is not safe (and I am all for running the same tests there as at MWGEN) and walking away from BB makes building a 3rd high school too expensive, then it seems to me that the only thing that can be done is to pay BB their $13 million and start over.

Am I missing something?

I still want to know where Hillmom was standing. There are only powerlines along the 75th street portion of the BB site and if she was standing on the sidewalk, they are right next to the sidewalk. If in fact the school is 500ft from those powerlines and on the actual school site where kids are located do not have elevated readings, then we need to know that before assuming that the school site has elevated readings. Basically, where are the readings for the locations where the kids will be?

ETA: No portion of the school site will be remotely near the powerlines on Rt 59.

[rural]

d204mom said:

So my original question remains.
Why did she wait until 2008 to challenge the site selection report instead of when it was issued in 2006?

Here is something you may not be understanding about Hillmom. The EMFs are not an issue. Hillmom is only trying to make a point to all the alarmists out there on the EMF platform. She never came forward in 2006 because it's a non-issue, therefore no need to get up in arms about the EMFs at BB or AME. Get it?

Now, this is me talking:

However, as a warning to the people using this as a platform to move their agenda forward, this dangerous area is where their arguments will lead: If it becomes an issue at AME, then it must also be considered an issue at BB or any other site under consideration in the future, HS, MS, ES. So all the BB supporters out there better double check their readings at the BB site if they want to continue down this path.

I hope this helps.

[Avenging Eagle]

rural said:

d204mom said:

So my original question remains.
Why did she wait until 2008 to challenge the site selection report instead of when it was issued in 2006?

Here is something you may not be understanding about Hillmom. The EMFs are not an issue. Hillmom is only trying to make a point to all the alarmists out there on the EMF platform. She never came forward in 2006 because it's a non-issue, therefore no need to get up in arms about the EMFs at BB or AME. Get it?

Now, this is me talking:

However, as a warning to the people using this as a platform to move their agenda forward, this dangerous area is where their arguments will lead: If it becomes an issue at AME, then it must also be considered an issue at BB or any other site under consideration in the future, HS, MS, ES. So all the BB supporters out there better double check their readings at the BB site if they want to continue down this path.

I hope this helps.

I do not buy this argument rural and it is the argument that makes me think that the naysayers are desparately trying to shoot down and degrade BB to deflect the focus on the many environmental problems at MWGEN.

Get it?

[rural]

You don't have to buy it. Only a judge does.

[doctorwho]

rural said:

d204mom said:

So my original question remains.
Why did she wait until 2008 to challenge the site selection report instead of when it was issued in 2006?

Here is something you may not be understanding about Hillmom. The EMFs are not an issue. Hillmom is only trying to make a point to all the alarmists out there on the EMF platform. She never came forward in 2006 because it's a non-issue, therefore no need to get up in arms about the EMFs at BB or AME. Get it?

Now, this is me talking:

However, as a warning to the people using this as a platform to move their agenda forward, this dangerous area is where their arguments will lead: If it becomes an issue at AME, then it must also be considered an issue at BB or any other site under consideration in the future, HS, MS, ES. So all the BB supporters out there better double check their readings at the BB site if they want to continue down this path.

I hope this helps.

So we're supposed to accept a high school that we believe has safety issues or at the very least potential serious safety concerns ( to go along with questionable placement compared to population) - because we might now get another HS approved quickly either?

Am I netting that out correctly as that is what I seem to be reading.


I hope that's not the defense the SB-ADmin is going to use

I too want a 3rd high school- but not at all costs

[d204mom]

rural said:

Here is something you may not be understanding about Hillmom. The EMFs are not an issue. Hillmom is only trying to make a point to all the alarmists out there on the EMF platform. She never came forward in 2006 because it's a non-issue, therefore no need to get up in arms about the EMFs at BB or AME. Get it?

With all due respect I don't get it.

My question is: IF EMFs are a non issue at MWGEN then WHY did she NOT raise it to the board's attention in 2006? Her answer was because the peaker plant was still operating. That's not true. SO what is the answer?

IF EMFs are a NON ISSUE at MWGEN/AME then why let it slide 2 years ago and ONLY bring it up NOW?

[d204mom]

rural said:

However, as a warning to the people using this as a platform to move their agenda forward, this dangerous area is where their arguments will lead: If it becomes an issue at AME, then it must also be considered an issue at BB or any other site under consideration in the future, HS, MS, ES. So all the BB supporters out there better double check their readings at the BB site if they want to continue down this path.

A warning?

I don't want a HS at BB if it's not safe. I don't want a high school at MWGEN because it's not safe. Get it?

Sounds like the "anti" group is threatening to kill the 3rd high school if they can't have it at AME.

Or it sounds like a threat to kill the 3rd high school altogether unless people STOP questioning the safety of the MWGEN site. I guess these "anti" people "DON'T GET IT." We will not stop questioning until we are satisified that our kids won't get sick there.

Go ahead and throw a fit and kill the 3rd high school but at least my kids will be safe.

[yeson321]

d204mom said:

rural said:

However, as a warning to the people using this as a platform to move their agenda forward, this dangerous area is where their arguments will lead: If it becomes an issue at AME, then it must also be considered an issue at BB or any other site under consideration in the future, HS, MS, ES. So all the BB supporters out there better double check their readings at the BB site if they want to continue down this path.

A warning?

I don't want a HS at BB if it's not safe. I don't want a high school at MWGEN because it's not safe. Get it?

Sounds like the "anti" group is threatening to kill the 3rd high school if they can't have it at AME.

Or it sounds like a threat to kill the 3rd high school altogether unless people STOP questioning the safety of the MWGEN site. I guess they "DON'T GET IT." We will not stop questioning until we are satisfied that our kids won't get sick there.

Go ahead and throw a fit and kill the 3rd high school but at least my kids are safe.

I keep asking where Hillmom was when she took the readings at BB because I thought that there was room to shift the high school within the site if there was a portion that would not be deemed safe. Didn't the SB try to see if they could only buy a portion of the site in order to save costs? I believe the portion of BB that the SB would not have bought was the strip along 75th street. In that case, no portion of MVHS @ BB would be on areas near the powerlines. This is only my opinion based on the limited information I have regarding the BB site.