|
|
Post by player on Apr 25, 2008 14:29:15 GMT -6
Slp: courtesy for concerned2's aunt prompted the Best Regards - my usual is cheers. More later. Got to pick up kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 25, 2008 14:30:17 GMT -6
It metal the same, stronger or weaker after 57 years?
|
|
|
|
Post by slp on Apr 25, 2008 14:55:46 GMT -6
Slp: courtesy for concerned2's aunt prompted the Best Regards - my usual is cheers. More later. Got to pick up kids. thanks.  |
|
|
|
Post by player on Apr 25, 2008 15:39:55 GMT -6
It metal the same, stronger or weaker after 57 years? Weaker, Arch! That couldn't be a trick question, could it?  But, depends on what the weakness means. Corrosion should have caused some of the material to have depleted, and if that continues, then corrosion alone will cause the pipe's integrity to eventually be compromised. This is a slow process over decades - unless the soil is unusually acidic or alkaline. There are no pat rules to estimate pipe lifetimes due to stress or corrosion. The lifetime depends on imperfections (like cracks), the pressure the pipe is subjected to, pipe materials, pipe size and thickness, and soil conditions. So 57 years may mean very little if the expected lifetime of the pipe is 200 years. On the other hand, it could be everything if its lifetime is 50 years. There are ways to calculate pipe lifetime if these variables are known. Do you have the data? I could take a shot at calculating this. The resilience to Structural Stress, like earthquakes is a totally different thing. A 6.5 Richter earthquake from the New Madrid fault will likely destroy the pipe due to the rigid bedrock in this region. It will also likely destroy the Sears Tower, all high schools and much else around Chicago. Will a 57 year old pipe cope with that kind of stress worse than a new one? Depends.... As I said, ain't nothing like no pipe.... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 25, 2008 15:58:51 GMT -6
Player,
I completely agree with you. There are a multitude of factors that are completely out of our control with regards to those lines and their 'safety'. I asked if the SB had gotten a true thickness reading on the pipes on the property from actually on the property itself. The pipeline operators should have that data along with how thick it was when it started. The accident I refer to often, Carlsbad, started at 50mm when it was put in and was down to 28mm when it failed 50 years later.
Every see what a pipeline explosion and fire does to the human body? (yes, this is a gross segway if someone is curious)
How do you think parents would feel about the lovely site location if they actually saw the after effects of a pipeline explosion and resulting fire?
|
|
|
|
Post by player on Apr 25, 2008 16:12:04 GMT -6
Ok! Pipelines next! In a nutshell - no question, no pipeline is better that any pipeline. So if Brach-Brodie is reference, undoubtedly, its is superior in this respect. Why it isn't the site is a matter of much debate, mostly financial, which I'd love to get clarification on too, but thats for a different thread. I have a lot of opinions and questions on that.... ;D So the question in my mind is, keeping Brach-Brodie out of the picture for now, is Eola unacceptable from a risk perspective? The arguments I have seen are along the lines of - it could explode, or - an earthquake could dislodge it, etc. But in Chicago, the darn town is riddled with gas lines! There are lines everywhere, including in the vicinity of many educational institutions. While none is better, I am not seeing this as being compelling. Living in a city is risky! I'm more that willing to look at this afresh, in the context of relative risk. Cheers. I am certainly not the environmental poster. Never have been. Never will be. Something strikes me a bit odd about this post. Since you are taking all other options off the table (much like Mark did) what are you comparing risk to? Or is this one of those... "This is the best we can do arguements...." If it is, I will answer with an equally abvivalent.. "I think we can do better. IMHO." Oh that I had the power to take options on or off any table! Mongo pawn in game of life! I assume (these may be contentious!): 1. There is going to be a space problem in D204 in the next few years 2. To resolve this space problem, something has to be done by the 2009 school year. 3. We have some amount of money from the 2006 referendum slated for this purpose. My personal opinion: the NSFOC suit will not stand up in court on merit (regardless of the intentions behind the filers). We can debate this. My personal opinion: The Brodie lawsuit has solid merit and will eventually cost the district, but to the tune of $5-8M, not $20-40M like some have suggested. We can debate that too - I have reasons for why I believe that. My personal opinion: Eola is incumbent today, and unless the courts reverse this in some fashion (i.e. NSFOC prevails), the school will be built there. If NSFOC is able to slow the process, even if it does not prevail, a school opening by 2009 is not possible, in which case I will oppose building any school at all, and advocate CV's position. I dont believe that with all the litigation flying around, that we can change the site from Eola to anything (Macom, BB, ...) and still make the school opening. So far as I can see, BB is not a site for serious consideration for a 2009 opening any more, regardless of how environmentally sound it is. So I am examining the question of whether Eola should be a school site at all based on environmentals, or should we scrap the whole idea of a 3'rd high school altogether. Use the money to expand NV and WV to tide us over the hump. So far, I have not seen anything about Eola that is showstopper, contrary to many of you on this board, but hey, thats why we are debating this. Harsh as it may sound, its Eola or no HS in my mind. Could be a new referendum too to decide this. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 25, 2008 16:20:20 GMT -6
Out of curiosity, if the District were to just pay BB to make the lawsuits go away and own the land what prevents the original plans from being implemented with as much haste as we have seen applied to Eola lately?
|
|
|
|
Post by player on Apr 25, 2008 16:23:17 GMT -6
Out of curiosity, if the District were to just pay BB to make the lawsuits go away and own the land what prevents the original plans from being implemented with as much haste as we have seen applied to Eola lately? The "official" reason from the SB is too much $$. You disagree, I presume? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 25, 2008 16:52:07 GMT -6
Out of curiosity, if the District were to just pay BB to make the lawsuits go away and own the land what prevents the original plans from being implemented with as much haste as we have seen applied to Eola lately? The "official" reason from the SB is too much $$. You disagree, I presume? Yes, I disagree. Because the cost of Eola will be greater when the dust settles, IMO. Add to that the future litigation costs and increased transportation costs over the 9% savings BB would have brought us year after year. We also have the ability to come clean and be honest with the taxpayers for any difference. Which site do you think has a better chance of passing any future referendum regardless what it is for? |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Apr 25, 2008 16:54:34 GMT -6
I am certainly not the environmental poster. Never have been. Never will be. Something strikes me a bit odd about this post. Since you are taking all other options off the table (much like Mark did) what are you comparing risk to? Or is this one of those... "This is the best we can do arguements...." If it is, I will answer with an equally ambivalent.. "I think we can do better. IMHO." Oh that I had the power to take options on or off any table! Mongo pawn in game of life! I assume (these may be contentious!): 1. There is going to be a space problem in D204 in the next few years 2. To resolve this space problem, something has to be done by the 2009 school year. 3. We have some amount of money from the 2006 referendum slated for this purpose. My personal opinion: the NSFOC suit will not stand up in court on merit (regardless of the intentions behind the filers). We can debate this. My personal opinion: The Brodie lawsuit has solid merit and will eventually cost the district, but to the tune of $5-8M, not $20-40M like some have suggested. We can debate that too - I have reasons for why I believe that. My personal opinion: Eola is incumbent today, and unless the courts reverse this in some fashion (i.e. NSFOC prevails), the school will be built there. If NSFOC is able to slow the process, even if it does not prevail, a school opening by 2009 is not possible, in which case I will oppose building any school at all, and advocate CV's position. I dont believe that with all the litigation flying around, that we can change the site from Eola to anything (Macom, BB, ...) and still make the school opening. So far as I can see, BB is not a site for serious consideration for a 2009 opening any more, regardless of how environmentally sound it is. So I am examining the question of whether Eola should be a school site at all based on environmentals, or should we scrap the whole idea of a 3'rd high school altogether. Use the money to expand NV and WV to tide us over the hump. So far, I have not seen anything about Eola that is showstopper, contrary to many of you on this board, but hey, thats why we are debating this. Harsh as it may sound, its Eola or no HS in my mind. Could be a new referendum too to decide this. Cheers. Yes, yes we like to debate.  Since you did not answer my question directly I surmised that you think Eola is a "good enough" site. So, I just agree to disagree that is is not. Again, I am not the environmental guy so I will just give you my thoughts on the other issues. This is where I differ in thinking... As a point of information, I have never believed the 2009 date. I do not think the current enrollment numbers support district wide peril when 2009 is missed. Yes, there is a MS problem. Yes, it needs to be solved. I think a rushed 150M hammer is a bit expensive for that 2009 nail. I trust we have enough brain power to figure it out the MS problem. Although, I find it some what ironic that the old cure for no new high schools (freshmen centers) is now the reason we need to build a high school as fast as we can. But the above is a all water under the bridge since the rush is now on. However.... I would have agreed with you completely on the NSFOC viewpoint until the most recent updates to the complaint. I think they have finally found something that sticks. Again this is just my opinion but it is not more valid than yours. I will also have to pat NSFOC on the back (I have never done this before) for being part of getting the site moved completely off MidWest Gen. Unfortunately, these new complaint points are also made in the BB lawsuits as well. There is also some procedurally questions that are being asked by bodies that have scope over our school board. Not sure where that is going. But it is out there. So, basically we have to see what the courts decide. That is the basis for most of my disagreements with the current process. I absolutely 100% disagree with moving forward without cleaning up after the BB mess. I do not see fiduciary responsibility being exercised. I actually do not think your comment was harsh. I think it the reality of the process. IMO, based on the current trajectory I think we are faced with Eola, No High School, or a new referendum. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 25, 2008 17:19:13 GMT -6
Oh that I had the power to take options on or off any table! Mongo pawn in game of life! I assume (these may be contentious!): 1. There is going to be a space problem in D204 in the next few years 2. To resolve this space problem, something has to be done by the 2009 school year. 3. We have some amount of money from the 2006 referendum slated for this purpose. My personal opinion: the NSFOC suit will not stand up in court on merit (regardless of the intentions behind the filers). We can debate this. My personal opinion: The Brodie lawsuit has solid merit and will eventually cost the district, but to the tune of $5-8M, not $20-40M like some have suggested. We can debate that too - I have reasons for why I believe that. My personal opinion: Eola is incumbent today, and unless the courts reverse this in some fashion (i.e. NSFOC prevails), the school will be built there. If NSFOC is able to slow the process, even if it does not prevail, a school opening by 2009 is not possible, in which case I will oppose building any school at all, and advocate CV's position. I dont believe that with all the litigation flying around, that we can change the site from Eola to anything (Macom, BB, ...) and still make the school opening. So far as I can see, BB is not a site for serious consideration for a 2009 opening any more, regardless of how environmentally sound it is. So I am examining the question of whether Eola should be a school site at all based on environmentals, or should we scrap the whole idea of a 3'rd high school altogether. Use the money to expand NV and WV to tide us over the hump. So far, I have not seen anything about Eola that is showstopper, contrary to many of you on this board, but hey, thats why we are debating this. Harsh as it may sound, its Eola or no HS in my mind. Could be a new referendum too to decide this. Cheers. Yes, yes we like to debate. Since you did not answer my question directly I surmised that you think Eola is a "good enough" site. So, I just agree to disagree that is is not. Again, I am not the environmental guy so I will just give you my thoughts on the other issues. This is where I differ in thinking... As a point of information, I have never believed the 2009 date. I do not think the current enrollment numbers support district wide peril when 2009 is missed. Yes, there is a MS problem. Yes, it needs to be solved. I think a rushed 150M hammer is a bit expensive for that 2009 nail. I trust we have enough brain power to figure it out the MS problem. Although, I find it some what ironic that the old cure for no new high schools (freshmen centers) is now the reason we need to build a high school as fast as we can. But the above is a all water under the bridge since the rush is now on. However.... I would have agreed with you completely on the NSFOC viewpoint until the most recent updates to the complaint. I think they have finally found something that sticks. Again this is just my opinion but it is not more valid than yours. I will also have to pat NSFOC on the back (I have never done this before) for being part of getting the site moved completely off MidWest Gen. Unfortunately, these new complaint points are also made in the BB lawsuits as well. There is also some procedurally questions that are being asked by bodies that have scope over our school board. Not sure where that is going. But it is out there. So, basically we have to see what the courts decide. That is the basis for most of my disagreements with the current process. I absolutely 100% disagree with moving forward without cleaning up after the BB mess. I do not see fiduciary responsibility being exercised. I actually do not think your comment was harsh. I think it the reality of the process. IMO, based on the current trajectory I think we are faced with Eola, No High School, or a new referendum. "IMO, based on the current trajectory I think we are faced with Eola, No High School, or a new referendum. " at this point I agree, and I believe it will be the new referendum. I do not believe the courts would make us buy BB- but we may be hoping it is still there if they have to take a referendum back to the people that will actually pass again ( and and in the meantime having to deal with owning a piece of land that will be clear then, we grossly overpaid for. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 25, 2008 17:48:24 GMT -6
Yes, yes we like to debate. Since you did not answer my question directly I surmised that you think Eola is a "good enough" site. So, I just agree to disagree that is is not. Again, I am not the environmental guy so I will just give you my thoughts on the other issues. This is where I differ in thinking... As a point of information, I have never believed the 2009 date. I do not think the current enrollment numbers support district wide peril when 2009 is missed. Yes, there is a MS problem. Yes, it needs to be solved. I think a rushed 150M hammer is a bit expensive for that 2009 nail. I trust we have enough brain power to figure it out the MS problem. Although, I find it some what ironic that the old cure for no new high schools (freshmen centers) is now the reason we need to build a high school as fast as we can. But the above is a all water under the bridge since the rush is now on. However.... I would have agreed with you completely on the NSFOC viewpoint until the most recent updates to the complaint. I think they have finally found something that sticks. Again this is just my opinion but it is not more valid than yours. I will also have to pat NSFOC on the back (I have never done this before) for being part of getting the site moved completely off MidWest Gen. Unfortunately, these new complaint points are also made in the BB lawsuits as well. There is also some procedurally questions that are being asked by bodies that have scope over our school board. Not sure where that is going. But it is out there. So, basically we have to see what the courts decide. That is the basis for most of my disagreements with the current process. I absolutely 100% disagree with moving forward without cleaning up after the BB mess. I do not see fiduciary responsibility being exercised. I actually do not think your comment was harsh. I think it the reality of the process. IMO, based on the current trajectory I think we are faced with Eola, No High School, or a new referendum. "IMO, based on the current trajectory I think we are faced with Eola, No High School, or a new referendum. " at this point I agree, and I believe it will be the new referendum. I do not believe the courts would make us buy BB- but we may be hoping it is still there if they have to take a referendum back to the people that will actually pass again ( and and in the meantime having to deal with owning a piece of land that will be clear then, we grossly overpaid for. Maybe the church will buy it back from us. Do you think they will get an appraisal if it goes that route?  |
|
|
|
Post by player on Apr 25, 2008 18:21:06 GMT -6
WeBe204: We disagree on some points, but we agree on some. Yes - I do believe Eola is "good enough". You will have to take me through your logic on why we only have an MS probem in 2009 and not an HS problem - if you are right, that would make me lean towards nixing the $150M hammer altogether. And I am open to amending my stance.
Presumably you are referring to the Open Meetings Act angle in the latest filing from NSFOC? I'm not sure it will stick, but as you said, the courts will tell us what the right interpretation is. Short of catching the SB having done something manifestly illegal, the NSFOC has a tough job making its case.
I completely agree that the NSFOC suit had the unintended pleasant side effect of having MWGen pull out - but I dont think anyone anticipated that AME would come through and bail the SB out, giving them cleaner land to fight with. In effect, it weakened the environmental case considerably. But, if the HS is built on Eola, I will sleep better as a result. So while I'm not going to "pat" their back ( as I dont believe that was their intended end result), I do appreciate the outcome.
The Brodie suit is solid. I checked a lot of Illinois statutes, and I can't see how they wont get
a nice chunk of change. But nowhere near $20M.
And, I appreciate you recognizing that Eola or no HS is not just a stance in favor of the SB, but a clear and present condition - pretty much a statement of fact. The tragedy is that all camps are passionate in their support for their stance, NSFOC, SB, Eola supporters, BB supporters, and very firmly entrenched in their camps to dislodge them for any middle ground. So, as you say, the current trajectory is what we must accept as fact - with Eola or a referendum being the likely outcomes.
How are you suggesting we approach "cleaning up after the BB mess"?
Arch: Our math differs. I got to run - got a family to feed before they get irate, but I'll post my logic after dinner.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 25, 2008 18:31:24 GMT -6
Player, I appreciate your participation and input. I am of the same mindset that the net result is going to be Eola or nothing because the SB does not want BB and has tried everything since the verdict to avoid it. If I was wrong on that, the Brodie trust would not have filed a suit because we would have just bought the land and broke ground in October. The question of where will we get the $$ for the rest is a red herring. The reason it is a red herring is because it is the same source where we will get money from to pay the Brodie and Brach verdict awards if we go to court. Yes, us.. the taxpayer. We passed a referendum when it was intended to be at BB. Another referendum for the difference doesn't amount to much and it would be above board and honk off a lot less people in the district. Since the SB has sown the seeds of deceit and distrust with putting out so much information that has been found to be untrue, there is an air of deceit that looms over the Eola land in addition to site hazards; some of which are perceived and some are very very real.
|
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 25, 2008 19:02:21 GMT -6
Player, I appreciate your participation and input. I am of the same mindset that the net result is going to be Eola or nothing because the SB does not want BB and has tried everything since the verdict to avoid it. If I was wrong on that, the Brodie trust would not have filed a suit because we would have just bought the land and broke ground in October. The question of where will we get the $$ for the rest is a red herring. The reason it is a red herring is because it is the same source where we will get money from to pay the Brodie and Brach verdict awards if we go to court. Yes, us.. the taxpayer. We passed a referendum when it was intended to be at BB. Another referendum for the difference doesn't amount to much and it would be above board and honk off a lot less people in the district. Since the SB has sown the seeds of deceit and distrust with putting out so much information that has been found to be untrue, there is an air of deceit that looms over the Eola land in addition to site hazards; some of which are perceived and some are very very real. You could use OP funds to bridge the differenece, which is $3MM in 2010 - see the SB land "analysis" used to push '09 AME. Any legal fees get passed directly to us - they can raise our rates up to the tax cap, if they like, to pay legal fees. To them, it's free money, or at least they act that way. Let's face it - the only reason they're hell-bent for 2009 is NCLB, and no trivial matters such as safety, legal costs, operation costs, or district disintegration is going to stand in their way. |
|
