|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 24, 2008 8:40:06 GMT -6
From all what I have read from many different sources, I don't feel that this site is totally driven by NCLB. I think to still goes back to SD goal of closing WV And those two are easily tied together. Reset the clock...  |
|
|
|
Post by sam2 on Apr 24, 2008 8:44:35 GMT -6
Does anyone here really think that mediation will accomplish anything? NSFOC wants to stop construction at AME and force the purchase of BB. Is there anyway the SB is going to agree to that -- especially since they've already bought an alternate parcel? Really, does anyone see room for compromise? Possibly, a mediator could convince NSFOC that they have little chance of prevailing and that they should drop the action and settle for recovery of some legal costs. I simply can't see any other compromise. Maybe someone else can.
Does the judge see room for compromise or is he simply ducking the issue in hopes of not having to tie up the court with a process that cannot turn out well for the taxpayers? Think about that for a minute: Is the judge elected? If the law is on the side of NSFOC any ruling on the law that favors NSFOC will cost the voters a ton of money. At least on the issue of using taxpayer money to prepare literature in connection with the referendum, I think the law is on the side of NSFOC -- BB includes the same claim, they also think it has merit. Who will preside over the BB trial? Will that judge interpret the law the same way, or will he/she rule differently on the issues that both lawsuits have in common? It's a difficult situation for anyone seeking to find justice. What if the law is on the side of NSFOC and BB? How will a ruling in theri favor sit with taxpayers/voters?
Mediation solves that problem -- but, back to my first question: How can NSFOC and the SB find any middle ground?
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Apr 24, 2008 8:47:30 GMT -6
Does anyone here really think that mediation will accomplish anything? NSFOC wants to stop the force the purchase of BB. Is there anyway the SB is going to agree to that -- especially since they've already bought an alternate parcel? Really, does anyone see room for compromise? Possibly, a mediator could convince NSFOC that they have little chance of prevailing and that they should drop the action and settle for recovery of some legal costs. I simply can't see any other compromise. Maybe someone else can. Does the judge see room for compromise or is he simply ducking the issue in hopes of not having to tie up the court with a process that cannot turn out well for the taxpayers? Think about that for a minute: Is the judge elected? If the law is on the side of NSFOC any ruling on the law that favors NSFOC will cost the voters a ton of money. At least on the issue of using taxpayer money to prepare literature in connection with the referendum, I think the law is on the side of NSFOC -- BB includes the same claim, they also think it has merit. Who will preside over the BB trial? Will that judge interpret the law the same way, or will he/she rule differently on the issues that both lawsuits have in common? It's a difficult situation for anyone seeking to find justice. What if the law is on the side of NSFOC and BB? How will a ruling in theri favor sit with taxpayers/voters? Mediation solves that problem -- but, back to my first question: How can NSFOC and the SB find any middle ground? Can the SB provide members of this district with checks each year when it is time to pay the tax bill since they will be going up?  |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 24, 2008 8:50:19 GMT -6
Hey Sleepless - reading your posts on the other board. I would love to comment there, but I registered last weekend and have yet to receive the confirmation email. Anyway, the 9 "FOCers" as you like to call them, do not have to come up with the money for any of this alone. There had to be specific names on the complaint and those are the nine people who offered to put theirs. I'm not one of the nine and I speak for many that there are a LOT more people closely following this then are named on the complaint. I also find it interesting that you all keep relying on one or two incidents to support your idea of the "real" reasons behind all this. I wish you and sushi would have come to the Fry PTA meeting with CB, I think it would have done you a world of good in terms of your perspective. But that's not something you all really want, is it? Thank you for clearing that up fryfox. I was wondering the ramifications of putting one's name on a lawsuit. And I am not discounting the SB's lack of tack toward TG. If you read my posts over there, I think what Dash said was inappropriate. AS for the n-group, I just feel that if other people who were unaffected by the boundary decision put their names on the suit, it would look more credible to the general public. N-fud may have a valid claim and for that we will wait and see. And please put a submission in again over there. We would love to have you and I wouldn't have to spend my time defending my comments over there to you over here. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 24, 2008 8:50:30 GMT -6
" How can NSFOC and the SB find any middle ground? "
This is the wedge I spoke of. They have to be legally pried out of the corner they wedged themselves in (the SB).
There has been 0 indication they want to do any sort of stop, wait, rethink, compromise, etc.
None
Zero
Zip.
If I missed it (and I am more than willing to admit it if I did and you can show me) then show me where they gave ANY SUCH INDICATION since the site selection meeting. Show me the tough questions asked from the board to the administration on anything regarding site selection... aside from CV.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 24, 2008 8:53:32 GMT -6
Hey Sleepless - reading your posts on the other board. I would love to comment there, but I registered last weekend and have yet to receive the confirmation email. Anyway, the 9 "FOCers" as you like to call them, do not have to come up with the money for any of this alone. There had to be specific names on the complaint and those are the nine people who offered to put theirs. I'm not one of the nine and I speak for many that there are a LOT more people closely following this then are named on the complaint. I also find it interesting that you all keep relying on one or two incidents to support your idea of the "real" reasons behind all this. I wish you and sushi would have come to the Fry PTA meeting with CB, I think it would have done you a world of good in terms of your perspective. But that's not something you all really want, is it? Thank you for clearing that up fryfox. I was wondering the ramifications of putting one's name on a lawsuit. And I am not discounting the SB's lack of tack toward TG. If you read my posts over there, I think what Dash said was inappropriate. AS for the n-group, I just feel that if other people who were unaffected by the boundary decision put their names on the suit, it would look more credible to the general public. N-fud may have a valid claim and for that we will wait and see. And please put a submission in again over there. We would love to have you and I wouldn't have to spend my time defending my comments over there to you over here. You would have had a TON more names on the lawsuit if people were not worried about reprisals from the 'whack jobs' out there acting like they wanted blood from anyone who dared show any dissent to Moses' proclamation from on high. |
|
|
|
Post by jill on Apr 24, 2008 8:58:16 GMT -6
I agree that there is no middle ground. Mediation sounds pointless at this point. My problem with this is that the SB raced ahead and bought this land at warp speed. I get that they're focused on the 2009 date, but I also think they are playing hard ball with NSFOC. I just hope everyone remembers that the SB put us in this position. They made the chose to purchase the AME land with THREE outstanding lawsuits. NSFOC didn't put us in this position---the SB did.
Finally, in regards to sleepless and NSFOC---I don't believe that NSFOC should be doing the talking during Mediation. We all know what they want and why. I think that the SB should be doing the talking. They should be able to sell the community and NSFOC on the merits of this land. The facts should sell themselves...assuming they have any.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 24, 2008 9:00:39 GMT -6
Thank you for clearing that up fryfox. I was wondering the ramifications of putting one's name on a lawsuit. And I am not discounting the SB's lack of tack toward TG. If you read my posts over there, I think what Dash said was inappropriate. AS for the n-group, I just feel that if other people who were unaffected by the boundary decision put their names on the suit, it would look more credible to the general public. N-fud may have a valid claim and for that we will wait and see. And please put a submission in again over there. We would love to have you and I wouldn't have to spend my time defending my comments over there to you over here. You would have had a TON more names on the lawsuit if people were not worried about reprisals from the 'whack jobs' out there acting like they wanted blood from anyone who dared show any dissent to Moses' proclamation from on high. I agree 100% Arch. There would be a ton more names but people are worried about reprisal. I guess they don't want to be targeted nor put on any "hit list". |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Apr 24, 2008 9:01:23 GMT -6
Thank you for pointing that out, O Wise One. definition of remediation: the correction of something bad or defective Maybe that was a subliminal typing thing. then the right word might have been resignation (s) That one made me laugh out loud! Thanks Doc! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 24, 2008 9:04:31 GMT -6
I agree that there is no middle ground. Mediation sounds pointless at this point. My problem with this is that the SB raced ahead and bought this land at warp speed. I get that they're focused on the 2009 date, but I also think they are playing hard ball with NSFOC. I just hope everyone remembers that the SB put us in this position. They made the chose to purchase the AME land with THREE outstanding lawsuits. NSFOC didn't put us in this position---the SB did. Finally, in regards to sleepless and NSFOC---I don't believe that NSFOC should be doing the talking during Mediation. We all know what they want and why. I think that the SB should be doing the talking. They should be able to sell the community and NSFOC on the merits of this land. The facts should sell themselves...assuming they have any. the SB has played hard ball with everyone not just the nsfoc. They playedhard ball with BB and lost ( won - but lost ? ) - and with the residents/voters -- " shut up and sit down - we know what's best , your opinions and concerns don't matter one iota " |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Apr 24, 2008 9:10:25 GMT -6
You would have had a TON more names on the lawsuit if people were not worried about reprisals from the 'whack jobs' out there acting like they wanted blood from anyone who dared show any dissent to Moses' proclamation from on high. You're absolutely right. There are so many people that are just flat-out fed up and would be willing to put their names on the lawsuit but are just scared. The thing preventing them is retaliation from others. Look how the names of the original 9 were trashed around. Who wants to be mixed up in that? I think many (and hopefully the SB members) now recognize that NSFOC is not just a small group of disgruntled TG residents looking at boundaries. If you don't believe that make certain that you come to the meeting tonight at the TG clubhouse. The NSFOC group seems to have grown considerably as they move ahead with action. I am glad to see a group of residents stand up and say "enough". I think that the SB way underestimated the power of a vocal group of citizens willing to organize and do something to stop them. I don't think that has happened before. I look forward to seeing NSFOC moving ahead with the lawsuit. Meditation, mediation, remediation, whatever. Our SB is to blame for all this mess and I still am hoping for resignations (oh and Dr. D to be forced out ). |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 24, 2008 9:14:54 GMT -6
You would have had a TON more names on the lawsuit if people were not worried about reprisals from the 'whack jobs' out there acting like they wanted blood from anyone who dared show any dissent to Moses' proclamation from on high. You're absolutely right. There are so many people that are just flat-out fed up and would be willing to put their names on the lawsuit but are just scared. The thing preventing them is retaliation from others. Look how the names of the original 9 were trashed around. Who wants to be mixed up in that? Beyond the trash talk was real vandalism in W.E. at one point in the past. Things tend to escalate and what's the next step after that? |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Apr 24, 2008 9:16:30 GMT -6
I am an attorney and in my experience and opinion, it is very unlikely that this case will be resolved on a motion to dismiss.
Some counts of the complaint may be dismissed for technical reasons with leave to replead, but it is standard motion practice for a defendant to file a motion to dismiss, and I would be shocked of the the claims set forth in the second amended compaint are dismissed.
Thus, the May 23d date is unlikely to be very significant in the life of the lawsuit.
There are a couple of other critical dates are being thrown around. May 7th is the planned start of construction work and June 10th is start of foundation work. But I think May 4th may be one of the most critical dates out there!
May 4th is the date that any new referendum would have to be submitted to make it on the November 2008 ballot. And why do I think this is important?? Because if you read between the lines, yesterday, Judge Popejoy made it very important.
Judge Popejoy invited NSFOC (on his own initiative) to file for an immediate injunction. This indicates he will give it serious thought (again, he suggested it in open court!). I would think we will see such a motion come forward in the next week or so.
I will note that I do not think the District is in favor with the DuPage Court system.
I also agree with others who have opined that the court may not ultimately order the District to build on BB based on the facts that have evolved (and the land may not even be available when the case is decided). Thus I think the likely remedy/result will be to invalidate the 2006 referendum and require a re-vote.
This means to restart contruction, the District would need a new referendum, and if this is not put in place by May 4th, the referendum can not be voted on until March of 2009 earliest. I doubt that the referendum would pass if it was voted on in November, but the longer it waits, the more likely the District will have been hit by the BB damages and the less likely any referendum presented by this Administration and Board would pass!
Thus, I think it is ironic that the District's rush and all or nothing gamble may very well result in a result that niether the District or NSFOC wants...having no new high school at all.
It will be interesting to see if the District moves before May 4, 2008 to get a referendum on the ballot. My guess is that they will not and that this could be the final nail in assuring that we do not get a third high school at all.
As he prepares to offer the 25 acres at BB, Maybe Dr. D should try to get a two for one price on For Sale signs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 24, 2008 9:21:05 GMT -6
Paying BB and putting all the lawsuits to bed gets us a third HS and they can put a much smaller referendum on the ballot for Nov 2008 to FINISH it.
*THAT* will get us a 3rd HS.
It sounds simple because it is simple.
Occam's Razor
On the other hand.. no 3rd HS? = Less taxes.
My family did split shifts before elsewhere. If they want to run the risk of killing the 3rd HS forever, be my guest. Why should I keep trying to stop them from doing just that?
|
|
|
|
Post by jftb on Apr 24, 2008 9:22:19 GMT -6
I also do not think that any court will force the District to buy BB. I do think, however, that there are valid damages being asked for that will indeed be awarded. (as there is already precedent for....the $2.5 already awarded due to PREIT)
I think the District's rush is a leveraging strategy for when the trial inevitably comes. I believe they have been advised that if they have already begun construction, it will be harder for the Court to demand they redo this whole fiasco. Time will tell.
I think that the judge's advice to seek a TRO is VERY telling. I'm sure this point is not lost on Mr. Collins.
|
|
