acm
Frosh
Posts: 10
|
Post by acm on Apr 13, 2008 9:51:52 GMT -6
But the votes weren't for BB-- they were for a third HS. I won't go down this road- already addressed over and over on the boards.
|
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on Apr 13, 2008 9:54:01 GMT -6
Puhleese - the environmental factors were only part of the reasons for the lawsuit - no one has ever denied that. But when you look at a site like that, surrounded by hazards - PCB's in soil, power lines/EMF's, RRtracks AND high pressure gas lines underneath and try to say they are no hazards? PUHLEESE to you! Any one of those would be a reason for at least some concern - this site has all four. What a great site! And if the lawsuits from BB come to fruition, which is likely, it's not any cheaper and actually more costly than BB. If you're so confident in the community's acceptance of this site, why aren't you begging the SB and SD to put it to a vote? If it gets approved by a public vote, the others have no case.
|
|
|
|
Post by jill on Apr 13, 2008 9:55:22 GMT -6
Jill-- don't forget, the SD is being SUED. I"m cetain they are under the direction of their attys to keep quiet. As far as suggestions for above board conduct I could drone on forever. For starters, don't perpetuate myths and pretend your suit is about the safety of children in order to raise money to sue your fellow district taxpayers. Secondly VOTE-- the voter turn out levels are typically pretty low for the local elections (not the referendum of course, but for the sb positions- yes). Since there are so many people out there on both side who think they can do better-- they should RUN for office! What difference would voting make? The votes for BB apparently don't mean a darn thing! AMEN to that. Plus, the SB was silent long before the suit ever came about. We've all been on a "need to know" basis for close to five years now. Honestly, I would love to know what other options they had beside a lawsuit? I don't know anyone involved in the lawsuit personally, but I have to believe that this is the last thing they wanted to be funding. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 13, 2008 9:55:46 GMT -6
Are you referring to my desperate remark? That is just my opinion. I didn't know I needed proof to express my opinion. Nor have I called anyone racist. I was referring to the article. IMO people are emotional or desperate or whatever you want to call it and therefore, desperate times call for desperate measures and name calling occurs.
no,no,no sleepless....I was referring to the article also. I don't even know you! No problem. I get paranoid when posting on this site. I tend to think everyone is after me!  |
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on Apr 13, 2008 9:56:31 GMT -6
But the votes weren't for BB-- they were for a third HS. I won't go down this road- already addressed over and over on the boards. It was promised all over the place. Why are there hundreds and hundreds of documents with the SB talking about BB as the site of this high school? Why? Because they know it wouldn't have been supported anyplace else. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 13, 2008 9:56:53 GMT -6
But the votes weren't for BB-- they were for a third HS. I won't go down this road- already addressed over and over on the boards. You and I both know the votes were for BB! I'm so sick of hearing that the vote was only about a third high school regardless of location and boundaries. If the vote was only for a third high school why did the Brookdale community feel so strongly against it? ETA: Spelling... Arch, can you get me some coffee too! |
|
acm
Frosh
Posts: 10
|
Post by acm on Apr 13, 2008 9:58:32 GMT -6
Fence- I agree with your comments about being ok with people wanted something being honest about why. Also that we are all blessed and fortunate to have what we do in this world. However, I don't anyone who is pro Eola is saying they want location because they are trying to save the world and our children from the clutches of elitist snobs bent on getting their own way. Yes- there has been some of that sentiment on the blogs, but I think it's more of the imflamatory stuff from the entertainment seeking type bloggers rather than a true sentiment. I'll conceed I'm sure some of the comments coming from Pro BB or NO HS views are rooted in sport as well. Lots of fire fanning out there ont he potluck board.
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Apr 13, 2008 9:59:11 GMT -6
We could also stop pretending that any and all opposition to what is going on is due to elitism. We could hold up a mirror to the situation and address the truth. If we thought that selecting the Eola site would not cause an unrecoverable PR firestorm we were simply not thinking. If we thought that we could change sites and boundaries so drastically after what we went through with referendum, we were simply being unrealistic. That's why as Arch says, let's just get back to square one and finish what we started and just get it over with. Jill-- don't forget, the SD is being SUED. I"m cetain they are under the direction of their attys to keep quiet. As far as suggestions for above board conduct I could drone on forever. For starters, don't perpetuate myths and pretend your suit is about the safety of children in order to raise money to sue your fellow district taxpayers. Secondly VOTE-- the voter turn out levels are typically pretty low for the local elections (not the referendum of course, but for the sb positions- yes). Since there are so many people out there on both side who think they can do better-- they should RUN for office! |
|
|
|
Post by cornholio on Apr 13, 2008 10:02:41 GMT -6
Puhleese - the environmental factors were only part of the reasons for the lawsuit - no one has ever denied that. But when you look at a site like that, surrounded by hazards - PCB's in soil, power lines/EMF's, RRtracks AND high pressure gas lines underneath and try to say they are no hazards? PUHLEESE to you! Any one of those would be a reason for at least some concern - this site has all four. What a great site! And if the lawsuits from BB come to fruition, which is likely, it's not any cheaper and actually more costly than BB. If you're so confident in the community's acceptance of this site, why aren't you begging the SB and SD to put it to a vote? If it gets approved by a public vote, the others have no case. These safety factors were also outlined in Illionois' Build Smart Program. Why would someone take the time to write these guidelines if it wasn't important? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 13, 2008 10:05:45 GMT -6
But the votes weren't for BB-- they were for a third HS. I won't go down this road- already addressed over and over on the boards. It was promised all over the place. Why are there hundreds and hundreds of documents with the SB talking about BB as the site of this high school? Why? Because they know it wouldn't have been supported anyplace else. I'll tell you why they did it, so other entities could conduct business based on the promises made that they could and would afford the land even at a price higher than the jury award. Those assurances were given and things were set into motion due to the documented promises from our district. Now, we say we don't want to pay that much and other business deals fall apart... and we're being sued for damages. Even BB is suing us for broken promises. You honestly think we can defend against them now they they are the plaintiff? |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 13, 2008 10:07:27 GMT -6
Puhleese - the environmental factors were only part of the reasons for the lawsuit - no one has ever denied that. But when you look at a site like that, surrounded by hazards - PCB's in soil, power lines/EMF's, RRtracks AND high pressure gas lines underneath and try to say they are no hazards? PUHLEESE to you! Any one of those would be a reason for at least some concern - this site has all four. What a great site! And if the lawsuits from BB come to fruition, which is likely, it's not any cheaper and actually more costly than BB. If you're so confident in the community's acceptance of this site, why aren't you begging the SB and SD to put it to a vote? If it gets approved by a public vote, the others have no case. These safety factors were also outlined in Illionois' Build Smart Program. Why would someone take the time to write these guidelines if it wasn't important? Whomever wrote the Illinois Build Smart Program certainly didn't take into account the "Will of God". Hard to fight that! |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 13, 2008 10:09:00 GMT -6
One simple action makes this all go away.. buy BB for the jury price plus interest.
Everything else is far more espensive and jeopardizes the 3rd HS from ever happening.
If we 'can not afford it' I say BS. We got out the vote to afford it and we can do it again. Our job as citizens will be to ensure we can afford it. All things considered, it is the CHEAPEST option we have short of NO HIGH SCHOOL AT ALL.
Green and Blue board people got out the vote and got the referendum passed along with countless others in the community who do not participate online.
We work better TOGETHER than we do against each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by entitled on Apr 13, 2008 10:17:59 GMT -6
This was an interesting entry from a blogger on green board. Sums up the "distraction" angle.
=================================================================
This is what happens, District 204 community, when you don't have the facts on your side. You smear, you defame, you isolate, you marginalize, and you attempt to silence your opposition. You do whatever it takes, yes whatever it takes to, to reach your goal, you even bring GOD into the equation. But most importantly, you scare people into believing that if they speak up, they will be next. They will be on the front page of the news.
But there is one thing you don’t do, you don’t talk about the facts. You don’t talk about what is in the best interest of the entire community. You don't talk about what the voters asked for. You don't acknowledge that a school located on a safe piece of land, where the majority of the students are, is in the best interest of the community or that it will actually reduce busing and operating costs. You certainly don't talk about the lawsuits brought by the Brach-Brodie attorneys as having any substance. You don't talk about the fact that it is the residents of District 204 who are on the hook for paying these damages. Why? The facts aren’t on your side.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
|
|
|
|
Post by friend on Apr 13, 2008 10:21:29 GMT -6
I am absolutely disguted by this comment and first and foremost apologize to the entire rest of the 204 community as this is NOT a representative comment of all of the Hill community. I am embarassed to be a part of the Hill community today after this dispicable comment- part of a temper tantrum to get what someone wants. I am sorry people in position of leadership have decided to voice this kind of opinion -- it is mindboggling. From my experience at Owen, NOT everybody represents what I think about this new HS. It was very clear when a "small group" of people wanted to be split without involving the knowledge of the whole school. At the time, there were signs posted near the school about a meeting at Starbucks, indicating what some thought were a homeowners meeting. As it was not unusual to see signs out about upcoming subdivision events. Even still......the majority of Owen is bused into that school daily. Most of those parents, unless they are walkers,volunteer or attend school functions, do not even drive into that neighborhood. Point being..........what happened at Owen with the latest boundaries was because of a "small group of people" that represented Owen that did not include me. And I was not included because I was not informed! I have learned that when people speak they speak for themselves, NOT for a representation of a particular school. Dr.D has once again has imitated a new label in this community........"a small group of people." That label has stuck, but I believe that label could belong to anybody in District 204 So, how is this new HS situation any different to start? A group of people were told one thing and something else happened. People reacted and then other people reacted to them and so. In my opinion. The "small group of people in the district" could be anybody! Just depends who you talk to. sorry , I had heard about the Owen situation -- and I agree - however on this statement "I have learned that when people speak they speak for themselves, NOT for a representation of a particular school. " when one is in a position of power / authority, they have a responsibility to those they represent. Would you not agree. Just because a small group along with you SB member violated your ability to be represented, does mean it's right for someone to consider to speak when they have another role either. These people take oathes to represent their constituencies - obvously they mean nothing.[/quote] This is how I feel about the way things were handled at Owen. 1. Everyone is entitled to their point of view, wether I agree or not. With that said , Owen "east" had every right to speak up. But when the SB did not allow the Owen "west" to be heard, that was wrong!! 2. I am most angered that the SB did not even discuss what would happen to the Owen community. NOT ONE SCHOOL BOARD PERSON! Part of the Owen community is still feeling "raw " from the last boundary change. So the fact that the SB just made swift changes without even a discussion, shows me that I, Owen "West" was not even represented at all! And yes, I and many others did send emails to the SB about this very issue prior to the announcement of the split. So I am very perturbed when the SB said they did not hear from Owen "west." 3. Just from talking to neighbors/friends prior to the Owen split, most did not think we would even be at MVHS because of our current bus ride to Owen, and never ever thought we would be split! 4. I think that Owen "East" would be traveling far, but so would I and ALOT of other people in this district. 5. As much as I despise the Owen split, I probably could have digested the Owen split much better if the SB had a least talked about how this might impact Owen "West" who already travels far for ES. 4. |
|
|
|
Post by sam2 on Apr 13, 2008 10:22:09 GMT -6
Arch, I think you are correct.
No matter how anyone feels emotionally, a non-emotional reading of both the Arpil 7 suit and the NSFOC suit can easily lead an impartial arbiter of the "facts" to the conclusion that the district has acted in bad faith. Yes, the actual ballot language was silent with respect to the site, but the background, the district's actions -- as detailed in the lawsuits -- tell a different story. I had forgotten Metzger's comment that the district was holding onto the option to buy BB at the jury price while the district shopped for a cheaper site. No one has forgotten that the district offered to put $33 million in escrow for BB. And, it was clear before the trial that BB had good evidence that the land was worth more than $250,000 and acre and that information was provided to the district. They knew, or should have known, that the jury award would be greater than $250,000/acre.
The situation was poorly handled and the district didn't get what it promised the voters.
To think they can prevail in the current suits is extremely risky. I hope they do not close on any land until the sutis are resolved.
|
|
