|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 24, 2008 9:22:36 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. That's why I think mediation should be tried first. At least there will be a neutral party who can determine who has merit or if something can be achieved. It's tough for me to comment on this because there are several issues. There is the bait and switch which I don't condone because I personally don't agree with that and mediation won't help that issue IMO. But then there is the miscommunication and mistrust which I agree needs to be looked at. At this point, I don't know what to think. I just wish that for the sake of other taxpayers, mediation would be tried first instead of dragging this out in court. I guess I don't understand is that the BB case seems similar...why not let that play out in court while you try mediating? I am tired and need to stop posting here. I was supposed to go to a PTA meeting this morning and had to defend myself once again on here and missed it. BTW, I am personally holding all of you responsible for the state of my house. You guys can pitch in $204 so I can get a cleaning lady because I get nothing done when I post on here. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on Apr 24, 2008 9:25:33 GMT -6
Sashami - your concerns have been on my mind for awhile now too - what if the SB decides not to build on BB either. And just no third high school. That would be very sad. If they sell the 25 acres they can't build there. Maybe mediation after an injunction might be a thought. I do believe the SD has dug their heels into this site too much to let go of it - it really is a shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by researching on Apr 24, 2008 9:25:53 GMT -6
BTW, I am personally holding all of you responsible for the state of my house. You guys can pitch in $204 so I can get a cleaning lady because I get nothing done when I post on here. ;D LOL! Too funny! ;D Can I get in on that one? Not to mention I should be doing some business too! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 24, 2008 9:27:33 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. That's why I think mediation should be tried first. At least there will be a neutral party who can determine who has merit or if something can be achieved. It's tough for me to comment on this because there are several issues. There is the bait and switch which I don't condone because I personally don't agree with that and mediation won't help that issue IMO. But then there is the miscommunication and mistrust which I agree needs to be looked at. At this point, I don't know what to think. I just wish that for the sake of other taxpayers, mediation would be tried first instead of dragging this out in court. I guess I don't understand is that the BB case seems similar...why not let that play out in court while you try mediating? I am tired and need to stop posting here. I was supposed to go to a PTA meeting this morning and had to defend myself once again on here and missed it. BTW, I am personally holding all of you responsible for the state of my house. You guys can pitch in $204 so I can get a cleaning lady because I get nothing done when I post on here. ;D Sleepless, SD, M2, KB, AT, CB, GW all didn't want to talk about any of these issues months ago. I offered, they refused. WHO ELSE is there from the district who can sit down and have the authority to discuss them? |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Apr 24, 2008 9:27:50 GMT -6
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. Correct me if I'm wrong, Sashimi but can NSFOC file an immediate injunction before the motion to dismiss is thrown out? I thought not but I don't know a thing about the way legal works. I'm trying to learn more though and am getting a quick lesson through all our SB antics ;D. |
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on Apr 24, 2008 9:27:50 GMT -6
Funny, Sleepless, I just made the same comment (about getting stuff done) - I have to get off of this board after this!!! It's so addictive.
One other point from the amended complaint that I thought was interesting - it said that some of the board members did not even know about the contract until the meeting and there was also the suggestion that maybe they didn't know they were closing on Wednesday. Wondering if the NSFOC has a statement from a board member? How else would they be able to state that unequivocally (did I spell that right?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 24, 2008 9:28:34 GMT -6
Sashami - your concerns have been on my mind for awhile now too - what if the SB decides not to build on BB either. And just no third high school. That would be very sad. If they sell the 25 acres they can't build there. Maybe mediation after an injunction might be a thought. I do believe the SD has dug their heels into this site too much to let go of it - it really is a shame. This is probably exactly WHY they want those 25 acres GONE ASAP.. Oh gee, we would LOVE to build on BB but now there's not enough land left.. Not our fault...  |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 24, 2008 9:34:03 GMT -6
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. Just one thought - my understanding was that a special election could be arranged relatively quickly (ala Hastert's seat). But I don't know the first thing about how to go about that. Is that a possibility? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 24, 2008 9:34:13 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.
" 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. "I am not an attorney but have reviewed this with attorney's I know ( some who have ties to gov't) - and I also believe this is the likely end game - negating the 2006 vote and requiring a new referendum. And is there anyone who thinks this site will pass district wide ? All the rhetoric about silent majority is just that... the true silent majority are those who are unaffected. And with the economy being what it is, the chances of no 3rd high school are very high at that point - especially when 8921 is used as max students now instead of 10,400. Many of us will still believe we need a 3rd HS - but this will only add fuel to the those who don't and to those who were on the fence. I already hear from people that want to resurrect the quote for a 600 student addition at NV and buy land to build a 7th MS. At that point truly ALL options will be on the table |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 24, 2008 9:36:15 GMT -6
Sashami - your concerns have been on my mind for awhile now too - what if the SB decides not to build on BB either. And just no third high school. That would be very sad. If they sell the 25 acres they can't build there. Maybe mediation after an injunction might be a thought. I do believe the SD has dug their heels into this site too much to let go of it - it really is a shame. This is probably exactly WHY they want those 25 acres GONE ASAP.. Oh gee, we would LOVE to build on BB but now there's not enough land left.. Not our fault... my money's on Helm to drag that one out for years |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 24, 2008 9:39:21 GMT -6
" 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. " I am not an attorney but have reviewed this with attorney's I know ( some who have ties to gov't) - and I also believe this is the likely end game - negating the 2006 vote and requiring a new referendum. And is there anyone who thinks this site will pass district wide ? All the rhetoric about silent majority is just that... the true silent majority are those who are unaffected. And with the economy being what it is, the chances of no 3rd high school are very high at that point - especially when 8921 is used as max students now instead of 10,400. Many of us will still believe we need a 3rd HS - but this will only add fuel to the those who don't and to those who were on the fence. I already hear from people that want to resurrect the quote for a 600 student addition at NV and buy land to build a 7th MS. At that point truly ALL options will be on the table 25 acres is enough for a "non-comprehensive" high school (magnet) - better sell it quick so that option is "off the table" too |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Apr 24, 2008 9:40:21 GMT -6
Yes, NSFOC can file for a TRO (immediate injunction) before the motion to dismiss is heard.
I think one of the biggest hurdles of why NSFOC has not filed a TRO is that there is usually a bond requirement that needs to be posted by the plaintiffs. However, a Judge can waive the bond requirement and I would expect that since Judge Popejoy invited such a filing, he is not now going to come back and preclude it by requiring a bond (that NSFOC would be unlikely to get).
The District will of course argue that a bond should be filed in that, if the construction is stopped, the District will incur significant damages (and perhaps financial penalties). However, this is where I think the District has shot its self in the foot (and its recklessness will cost all of us). The District was put on notice that it was moving ahead at its own peril by not 1, not 2, but 3 lawsuits (and I think they are all before Judge Popejoy)!
Also, no enitity executes a contract and closes within 36 hours (especially on land worth almost 20 million dollars). The Court is unlikely to give serious merit to the District's claims that a bond needs to be entered to protect intself against its own foolish conduct.
|
|
|
|
Post by researching on Apr 24, 2008 9:41:50 GMT -6
Sashami - your concerns have been on my mind for awhile now too - what if the SB decides not to build on BB either. And just no third high school. That would be very sad. If they sell the 25 acres they can't build there. Maybe mediation after an injunction might be a thought. I do believe the SD has dug their heels into this site too much to let go of it - it really is a shame. This is probably exactly WHY they want those 25 acres GONE ASAP.. Oh gee, we would LOVE to build on BB but now there's not enough land left.. Not our fault... Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! That thought completely fits with every SB action thus far. Will they EVER be held accountable for their mistakes? How about a piece of humble pie SB? It does wonders for the soul! |
|
|
|
Post by sam2 on Apr 24, 2008 9:46:00 GMT -6
Sashimi raises some interesting points.
I agree that the district is not likely to put a referendum on the ballot. First reason, they are convinced that they will prevail in all the litigation -- so, no more money will be necessary.
I think they are wrong.
On the other hand, they can hardly weaken their position by asking form more money now. How would they sell the request? We're over budget? We need to pay damages? Damn taxpayers have interfered and we need funds for expedited construction?
Even if they come up with a palatable reason, how much should they ask for? Remember when the SB had no idea how much had been spent on legal fees related to the condemnation action - and that was money for which checks had already been issued. Apparently too small an amount to be bothered with. No one knows how much this debacle is going to cost -- but I'll bet it's going to be a lot more than $204 per household.
Finally, the November election is likely to see very high turnout and the SB prefers to put referendum issues on ballots when the turnout is low.
|
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Apr 24, 2008 9:51:29 GMT -6
Sam2 I had not even thought about the fact that turnout would be high in November due to the Presidential election (I guess this is why I still look at this blog in that it clearly is driven by some pretty smart folks  . I agree...there is NO way that they will put a referendum on the November ballot. High turnout would guarantee that any referendum would be defeated. I am sure that the "manipulation consultants" also advised the Board and Administration that passage of a school money referendum would benefit when turnout is low (in that pasionate people will show up to vote, but those more likely to vote against any tax increases whatsoever are probably less passionate as a whole and less likely to go to the polls for narrower issues). |
|
.