|
|
Post by d204mom on May 1, 2008 21:14:01 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.  AME has the most baggage of any site in the site selection report. Every site is better - how much better is a matter of debate. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 1, 2008 21:17:59 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. player - could you post the rest of the following quote from the CBD? "Build Smart is a guide for school districts and not binding Is Build Smart not binding for state grant funding or not binding for school construction? |
|
|
|
Post by rural on May 1, 2008 21:18:15 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. AME has the most baggage of any site in the site selection report. Every site is better - how much better is a matter of debate. Agreed. ETA: Except for Hamman, maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 1, 2008 21:23:59 GMT -6
And before everyone jumps on the fact that state funding is in the budget but not guaranteed, remember that we are staking All Day K on state funding coming through next year and in the following years.
It's not grant money - but it is state funding.
|
|
|
|
Post by player on May 1, 2008 21:26:12 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 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. d204mom: I don't think there is any question that Build Smart is a solid set of guidelines. The question I was try to get answered was if the district lost funding if the didn't follow the guidelines. The answer is no. The points you make: "- the current IL budget has appropriated money to reward districts that follow these guidelines with state 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 " appear not to be the case according to the CPB. I guess I must be missing something now - I don't understand how you reached these conclusions based on the response. I have not seen any evidence that the money in the budget is to reward districts for following guidelines (I will stand corrected if someone shows me where). Nowhere in the Build Smart guidelines does it state that funding is available only to districts that follow the guidelines. The statute seems to govern fund allocation eligibility - not Build Smart. And the response from the CDB, who decides this, indicates that the district would be in statutory compliance. Someone else want to research this independently? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 1, 2008 21:29:08 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 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. d204mom: I don't think there is any question that Build Smart is a solid set of guidelines. The question I was try to get answered was if the district lost funding if the didn't follow the guidelines. The answer is no. The points you make: "- the current IL budget has appropriated money to reward districts that follow these guidelines with state 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 " appear not to be the case according to the CPB. I guess I must be missing something now - I don't understand how you reached these conclusions based on the response. I have not seen any evidence that the money in the budget is to reward districts for following guidelines (I will stand corrected if someone shows me where). Nowhere in the Build Smart guidelines does it state that funding is available only to districts that follow the guidelines. The statute seems to govern fund allocation eligibility - not Build Smart. And the response from the CDB, who decides this, indicates that the district would be in statutory compliance. Someone else want to research this independently? Cheers. could you post the rest of the following quote from the CBD? "Build Smart is a guide for school districts and not binding ...? |
|
|
|
Post by player on May 1, 2008 21:30:46 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. player - could you post the rest of the following quote from the CBD? "Build Smart is a guide for school districts and not binding Is Build Smart not binding for state grant funding or not binding for school construction? The entire post - my letter and the response has been posted with no modification. My first question was: 1. Are Build Smart guidelines binding to obtain State funding for School Construction in the future? and the answer was: "Build Smart is a guide for school districts and not binding" exactly as it is in the email (even missing the period at the end!). So I had asked specifically for School Construction. Hope that clarifies it. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by player on May 1, 2008 21:36:47 GMT -6
d204mon: I should mention that I asked about School Construction as the statute in the NSFOC lawsuit was for about eligibility for State Funds for School Development and Construction, not for State Grant Funding.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on May 1, 2008 22:09:44 GMT -6
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. player....a lot of folks on both sides of this debate blindly take unproven information as fact because it strengthens their agenda...... |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 1, 2008 22:11:23 GMT -6
It's natural human tendency to hear what we want to hear and ridicule/ignore what we don't want to hear.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on May 1, 2008 22:14:50 GMT -6
It's natural human tendency to hear what we want to hear and ridicule/ignore what we don't want to hear. one of my favorite things to say...... |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 1, 2008 22:22:12 GMT -6
It's natural human tendency to hear what we want to hear and ridicule/ignore what we don't want to hear. one of my favorite things to say...... I noticed you ignored my part about ignoring things..  j/k |
|
|
|
Post by player on May 2, 2008 5:54:07 GMT -6
one of my favorite things to say...... I noticed you ignored my part about ignoring things.. j/k Human nature! I believe the truth will set us free. What I post can be construed as an attack on a particular stance or other, but really the only thing I want to attack is dogma. Let the chips fall as they may once the decisions are based on fact. But even if I am unpopular, I will attack what I see as misrepresentation of half-truths and speculation as a fact. On all sides of this battle. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by overtaxed on May 2, 2008 5:55:18 GMT -6
player - could you post the rest of the following quote from the CBD? "Build Smart is a guide for school districts and not binding Is Build Smart not binding for state grant funding or not binding for school construction? The entire post - my letter and the response has been posted with no modification. My first question was: 1. Are Build Smart guidelines binding to obtain State funding for School Construction in the future? and the answer was: "Build Smart is a guide for school districts and not binding" exactly as it is in the email (even missing the period at the end!). So I had asked specifically for School Construction. Hope that clarifies it. Cheers. Just because the Build Smart is a "guide" and isn't binding, doesn't make it right or okay not to follow. They were created for a purpose and every school district should follow it. |
|
|
|
Post by player on May 2, 2008 6:09:15 GMT -6
overtaxed: Agreed. It is a sensible set of guidelines. As Arch and I have posted here too, your stance is what should have been argued on the lawsuit. I questioned the financial impact statements in the lawsuit, not the Build Smart program or its use.
If someone said we should follow Build Smart to ensure maximum safety for our kids, I have no beef with that. But as the lawsuit argument was that we should follow Build Smart to get money (or not lose money), not only did I question that, but also feel thats not why Build Smart was introduced - it is a set of safety guidelines, not money-making guidelines. I do not like the commercialization of child safety. Best to keep the arguments crisp and focused - and fact based.
Cheers.
|
|
j/k