|
|
Post by snerdley on May 1, 2008 20:23:17 GMT -6
Player, the judge wil rule based on the law. I'll be glad when we reach that point. All the posturing prior to then is irrelevant. snerdley: Agreed. The Build Smart posturing has been going on for months. Its just not true. I too will be glad when this gets decided where it should, in court, based on law. Cheers. Player, I would just love to believe that you are some interested parent who suddenly got the urge to become educated on every legal nuance involved. But after your long posts, you keep coming around to the district's side. BB damages will be minimal, lawsuit won't stick, etc. And I have to wonder what it is you're trying to sell us.... 5/23 will roll around soon enough and we'll get a concrete answer from the only person whose opinion really matters here. Edit: Fence that baby off! |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 1, 2008 20:26:55 GMT -6
I'll grant you this, the 'posturing' that was done around it, quite frankly, sucked because it talked with absolutes. It would have been better if they merely worded it as something like: "The State of Illinois has as part of its funding criteria, certain guidelines that they strongly urge school systems to follow to help ensure a safe site for children to attend school. The Eola property goes directly against several of those site selection guidelines such as....." Arch: Yeah! That would be completely true and non-controversial! Instead, an extreme possible consequence of this guideline is presented without verification! Controversial like 'entitled', 'elitists', 'racists' and "It's all about boundaries" ?? ...which of course is not true either but certainly controversial. and again.. just alleged, not proved. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 1, 2008 20:31:46 GMT -6
eta - I just noticed that the response says that funding is included in the budget. So we are walking away from available funding? Unbelievable. It is included in the proposed budget - doesn't mean it will be included in the approved budget. Given the financial status of the State of Illinois, I highly doubt that funding will be approved for a program that hasn't been funded in 4 to 5 years. The fact that it's in the budget means that Collins is right, right? At this point in time, choosing Eola = walking away from money that is budgeted to be spent on district schools that comply with Build Smart. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 1, 2008 20:37:13 GMT -6
I am writing this as a parent in School District 204 covering parts of Naperville, IL and Aurora, IL where a third high school has been proposed, land acquired and construction is expected to start on May 13 2008, and slated for completion in time for the 2009 school year. Did I miss something? When did the start date get pushed back another week to May 13? |
|
|
|
Post by snerdley on May 1, 2008 20:45:22 GMT -6
Must be something the district knows that the rest of us don't (or didn't, rather)?
|
|
|
|
Post by player on May 1, 2008 20:46:59 GMT -6
snerdley: Agreed. The Build Smart posturing has been going on for months. Its just not true. I too will be glad when this gets decided where it should, in court, based on law. Cheers. Player, I would just love to believe that you are some interested parent who suddenly got the urge to become educated on every legal nuance involved. But after your long posts, you keep coming around to the district's side. BB damges will be minimal, lawsuit won't stick, etc. And I have to wonder what it is you're trying to sell us.... 5/23 will roll around soon enough and we'll get a concrete answer from the only person who's opinion really matters here. snerdley: I am sufficiently secure in my motives to not be offended by you doubting them. Thats your prerogative. No one on this board has to believe a word of what I say. If even one individual takes it on themselves to verify all things thrown around as "fact" by anyone, including me, my intent in posting has been met. My world is not as black/white or green/blue as several - and thats my choice. If I won't fit into a neat bucket in someones classification scheme, so be it. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by player on May 1, 2008 20:51:16 GMT -6
Arch: Yeah! That would be completely true and non-controversial! Instead, an extreme possible consequence of this guideline is presented without verification! Controversial like 'entitled', 'elitists', 'racists' and "It's all about boundaries" ?? ...which of course is not true either but certainly controversial. and again.. just alleged, not proved. Arch: All those terms are abhorrent and absolutely wrong, and I have no respect for anyone who said that. |
|
|
|
Post by player on May 1, 2008 20:57:07 GMT -6
I am writing this as a parent in School District 204 covering parts of Naperville, IL and Aurora, IL where a third high school has been proposed, land acquired and construction is expected to start on May 13 2008, and slated for completion in time for the 2009 school year. Did I miss something? When did the start date get pushed back another week to May 13? d204mom: It isn't? My bad. When is it? |
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on May 1, 2008 21:00:40 GMT -6
In my quest to understand what is real and what is speculation I decided to investigate one of the many statements in the NSFOC filing, and one that I have seen often in these boards. The statements in question are in nsfoc.org/pdf/NSFOC_2nd_Amended_Complaint.pdfSpecifically, "62. (f) The Eola/Molitor property would be disqualified from consideration under guidelines established by the State of Illinois Capital Development Board" and " 70. ....
For example, and in addition to the guidelines of the Capital Development Board previously identified, 71 Ill. Adm. Code 40.130 prohibhits Defendants from obtaining school construction grants for the site. ..." Here's a link to the Ill. Admin. Code Title 71 Section 40.130 www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/071/071000400001300R.htmlWe'll have to wait for the judge to decide whether the Eola site meets this criteria: |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 1, 2008 21:01:08 GMT -6
Did I miss something? When did the start date get pushed back another week to May 13? d204mom: It isn't? My bad. When is it? This is the last I'd heard; I assumed you had an update of some sort. District 204 finalizes Eola Road land purchase
By Justin Kmitch | Daily Herald StaffNow that the district owns the land, Metzger said excavation work is expected to begin May 7. Installation of silt fences and other preparatory work will begin any day now. "The only reason for a bulldozer to be out there prior to May 7 would be for show and we're not doing that," he said. May 7 is also the day Aurora planning commissioners are expected to amend annexation plans approved last month by the city council. |
|
|
|
Post by rural on May 1, 2008 21:02:10 GMT -6
I believe the 7th or the 8th.
|
|
|
|
Post by player on May 1, 2008 21:03:44 GMT -6
d204mom: It isn't? My bad. When is it? This is the last I'd heard; I assumed you had an update of some sort. District 204 finalizes Eola Road land purchase
By Justin Kmitch | Daily Herald StaffNow that the district owns the land, Metzger said excavation work is expected to begin May 7. Installation of silt fences and other preparatory work will begin any day now. "The only reason for a bulldozer to be out there prior to May 7 would be for show and we're not doing that," he said. May 7 is also the day Aurora planning commissioners are expected to amend annexation plans approved last month by the city council. d204mom: No - I mis-spoke.  |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 1, 2008 21:06:58 GMT -6
OK I'm trying to be objective and when I read the response player received, it seems that NOT following Build Smart guidelines is just plain dumb:
- the guidelines were written to help districts properly site schools for the long term health and safety of students and to help districts minimize long term operating costs
- the current IL budget has appropriated money to reward districts that follow these guidelines with state grant money
- the fact that we chose not to follow the guidelines negates any possibility of access to these funds; any available will go to districts that chose to follow the guidelines
- if there are no other suitable sites available, these folks have helped districts clean up brownfield sites (not applicable to us because we have alternative sites available)
I must be missing your point, player.
eta - The fact that the board and administration chose to ignore guidelines established to ensure the health and safety of my children because we may not get funding (even though it's in the budget) is insulting. Makes me angry when they say that the health and safety of my kids is numero uno. IT MOST DEFINATELY is NOT or they would have chose one of the other sites available.
|
|
|
|
Post by rural on May 1, 2008 21:11:31 GMT -6
What other suitable sites would that include? BB is out of our price range and the other sites have just as much baggage attached.  ETA: Okay, Okay. Pipelines, pipelines! But I think you still get my point. |
|
|
|
Post by player on May 1, 2008 21:12:51 GMT -6
204parent: That is exactly the section of 40.130 I sent with my letter and asked specifically if the site would be in violation of the statute. The answer is as posted - no statutory issues. And references to other "brownfield" sites that the State works with. If Popejoy disagrees, then the State of Illinois CDB and Judiciary disagree. But, I seriously doubt if Popejoy will have a stance on this.
The Judge does not make funding available for school construction, the State does. If D204 applied for funding, got it, and was challenged, then I can see Popejoy getting involved. Not before. We will see.
Cheers.
|
|
