|
|
Post by 3woodgal on May 2, 2008 6:32:54 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.  of any site in the site selection report. Every site is better - how much better is a matter of debate. Correction.....D204 land has the most baggage....we own it! Remember?  |
|
|
|
Post by slp on May 2, 2008 6:32:56 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. player, That is exactly what I heard Mr. Collins say about these guidelines when asked about them at a recent NSFOC mtg....he stated the point isn't whether or not money will be available with this program....the point is the fact that the state developed guidelines with which they use to determine where their money should be spent. The question becomes why wouldn't we (as taxpayers) expect the same set of guidelines regarding safety to guide where our money goes as well. I appreciate that you have the time to correspond with the Build Smart program but your revelation is really not one at all as it relates to the point of Built Smart. The lawsuit folks have NEVER said we are actually losing money as a result of not following BuildSmart, but they have said WHY would we not follow a guideline which is in place for the SAFETY of children and schools? ? |
|
|
|
Post by snerdley on May 2, 2008 6:33:14 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. I am, in fact, very doubtful. Sorry. I believe the next 3 weeks we will see much pressure applied to the NSFOC in an attempt to discredit them or have them drop their suit. I think the reason for this is the SB is in fact very concerned about the merits of the suit. My hope is that the SB hasn't spent too much of the taxpayers' money. Because the judge will be the one to sift through the facts and render an opinion. I'm content to wait until the ruling - I believe any "debate" at this point is probably at least partly propaganda. If I'm wrong, my sincere apologies. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 2, 2008 6:42:23 GMT -6
Debate is always good. As we have heard from the SB and many diehard supporters, apparently what is posted on an official website doesn't matter. Remember, the emails and website material that claimed the referendum WAS FOR BB? Well, we've been told that does not matter and in fact only what is on the referendum matters. So, applying the exact same logic, what is on the NSFOC website does not matter, only what is in the lawsuit.  Player, Does the lawsuit make a monetary case and seek a specific remedy based solely on Build-Smart? If not, then it doesn't matter, right? |
|
|
|
Post by rural on May 2, 2008 7:03:05 GMT -6
Debate is always good. As we have heard from the SB and many diehard supporters, apparently what is posted on an official website doesn't matter. Remember, the emails and website material that claimed the referendum WAS FOR BB? Well, we've been told that does not matter and in fact only what is on the referendum matters. So, applying the exact same logic, what is on the NSFOC website does not matter, only what is in the lawsuit. Player, Does the lawsuit make a monetary case and seek a specific remedy based solely on Build-Smart? If not, then it doesn't matter, right? So, true, Arch. So, true. |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on May 2, 2008 7:15:27 GMT -6
I really doubt Judge Popejoy is reading these blogs.
|
|
|
|
Post by player on May 2, 2008 7:39:43 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. player, That is exactly what I heard Mr. Collins say about these guidelines when asked about them at a recent NSFOC mtg....he stated the point isn't whether or not money will be available with this program....the point is the fact that the state developed guidelines with which they use to determine where their money should be spent. The question becomes why wouldn't we (as taxpayers) expect the same set of guidelines regarding safety to guide where our money goes as well. I appreciate that you have the time to correspond with the Build Smart program but your revelation is really not one at all as it relates to the point of Built Smart. The lawsuit folks have NEVER said we are actually losing money as a result of not following BuildSmart, but they have said WHY would we not follow a guideline which is in place for the SAFETY of children and schools? ? slp: I'm all in favor of local communities setting their own guidelines as the state does. Lets do it following the legislative process we follow. But, I have to disagree about "the lawsuit folks have NEVER said we are actually losing money". "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. ..." I don't know how else to interpret this language in the lawsuit. Maybe this was not the intent, but it is what is in front of Popejoy. Arch: Your point "Player, Does the lawsuit make a monetary case and seek a specific remedy based solely on Build-Smart?". No. I have not seen any call for a specific remedy based on Build Smart. So it is not relavant, which is precisely what I have been arguing. I think the crux of th NSFOC case relies not on environmental concerns, but the whether the SB acted illegally in purchasing AME after the 2006 Referendum. Thats where the rubber meets the road in front of Popejoy. snerdly: If you think what I post is propaganda, I humbly submit to you that 90% of everything in public record, especially on these forums about these issues, is propaganda for several months. I would say what the NSFOC says is propaganda and the what the SB says is propaganda too. I agree with Arch that debate is good. Even if viewpoints differ, and facts are distorted, it opens it up for clarity. You and I have 1'st Amendment rights, and I will fight for your right to have your opinion heard, even if I disagree with you. But I am not here to convince you or anyone else. Decide what you will, but base it on solid information. Popejoy will make his own determination. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on May 2, 2008 7:45:12 GMT -6
Well, I so like a good player on the boards. Makes for a much more interesting debate. Sorry I missed out last night.
My take on these guidelines is they are a set of suggestions to ensure capital project referendums get passed by the public. Since that part is complete the district is ignoring the guidelines. Just my personal opinion.
Anyway.. I like a good spin as well. So, here is my my spinny little spin for ya playa...
We are paying 150M for
The site has several natural gas transmission pipelines at a closest
distance of 220 ft from it.
There are high tension voltage lines and a substation visible from
the school site.
A parcel of land adjoining the site was operates as a peaker plant
and Phase II testing revealed some contaminants, mainly due to prior
diesel spills on the site.
There is a train line in the proximity of the site visible from the
site.
All of which led to Karen Shoup, Administrator School Construction, Capital Development Board calling our new school location a "challenging site.." and a "brownfield site..".
Yeah, it is spin. And it takes liberty with her response. Unfortunately this is the game we are playing since no one seems to be able to sit down and have a conversation without emotion. And I stress that on both sides of the arugement. "Entitled" indeed...
|
|
|
|
Post by snerdley on May 2, 2008 7:51:20 GMT -6
To Playa:
As you stated: "Popejoy will make his own determination."
Exactly.
But just a quick comment from reading your above post, my understanding of NSFOC's position is that the site would not have qualified if they had been using Build Smart. Not that the SB was losing possible grant money because of the site selection. There is no grant money available - right? Just taxpayer money.
The question posed at the one meeting I attended was why should the standards be any different using taxpayer money than they would have been using state money. Don't the kids deserve a safe site regardless of where the funding is coming from?
Other land is available - why choose a site the SB themselves deemed to be unsafe in 2006?
Have they conducted tests since 2006 causing them to change their minds about the safety of the site? Will the Illinois EPA be involved?
I heard they will not.
Maybe today you could contact the Illinois EPA with regard to what their involvement will be in determining the site is safe. It would be great to have an email or something that confirms this. Let me know what you learn.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
Post by player on May 2, 2008 8:18:41 GMT -6
To Playa: As you stated: "Popejoy will make his own determination." Exactly. But just a quick comment from reading your above post, my understanding of NSFOC's position is that the site would not have qualified if they had been using Build Smart. Not that the SB was losing possible grant money because of the site selection. There is no grant money available - right? Just taxpayer money. The question posed at the one meeting I attended was why should the standards be any different using taxpayer money than they would have been using state money. Don't the kids deserve a safe site regardless of where the funding is coming from? Other land is available - why choose a site the SB themselves deemed to be unsafe in 2006? Have they conducted tests since 2006 causing them to change their minds about the safety of the site? Will the Illinois EPA be involved? I heard they will not. Maybe today you could contact the Illinois EPA with regard to what their involvement will be in determining the site is safe. It would be great to have an email or something that confirms this. Let me know what you learn. Cheers! snerdly: Good idea. I think I will contact the EPA. I am sure I'll be accused of propaganda regardless of what the EPA says. ;D Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by player on May 2, 2008 8:37:19 GMT -6
Well, I so like a good player on the boards. Makes for a much more interesting debate. Sorry I missed out last night. My take on these guidelines is they are a set of suggestions to ensure capital project referendums get passed by the public. Since that part is complete the district is ignoring the guidelines. Just my personal opinion. Anyway.. I like a good spin as well. So, here is my my spinny little spin for ya playa... We are paying 150M for The site has several natural gas transmission pipelines at a closest
distance of 220 ft from it.
There are high tension voltage lines and a substation visible from
the school site.
A parcel of land adjoining the site was operates as a peaker plant
and Phase II testing revealed some contaminants, mainly due to prior
diesel spills on the site.
There is a train line in the proximity of the site visible from the
site.All of which led to Karen Shoup, Administrator School Construction, Capital Development Board calling our new school location a "challenging site.." and a "brownfield site..". Yeah, it is spin. And it takes liberty with her response. Unfortunately this is the game we are playing since no one seems to be able to sit down and have a conversation without emotion. And I stress that on both sides of the arugement. "Entitled" indeed... WeBe204: Nice spin! I like it! Takes great advantage of inherent ambuguity in her response. I am trying very very hard to get above (or below!) emotion and getting information to people. On both sides. Regardless of mow much I get attacked or what motives get attributed to my posts, I plan to persist. I past the age where I give a crap about what people think of me personally. Let the data do the talking. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on May 2, 2008 9:04:16 GMT -6
Well, I so like a good player on the boards. Makes for a much more interesting debate. Sorry I missed out last night. My take on these guidelines is they are a set of suggestions to ensure capital project referendums get passed by the public. Since that part is complete the district is ignoring the guidelines. Just my personal opinion. Anyway.. I like a good spin as well. So, here is my my spinny little spin for ya playa... We are paying 150M for The site has several natural gas transmission pipelines at a closest
distance of 220 ft from it.
There are high tension voltage lines and a substation visible from
the school site.
A parcel of land adjoining the site was operates as a peaker plant
and Phase II testing revealed some contaminants, mainly due to prior
diesel spills on the site.
There is a train line in the proximity of the site visible from the
site.All of which led to Karen Shoup, Administrator School Construction, Capital Development Board calling our new school location a "challenging site.." and a "brownfield site..". Yeah, it is spin. And it takes liberty with her response. Unfortunately this is the game we are playing since no one seems to be able to sit down and have a conversation without emotion. And I stress that on both sides of the arugement. "Entitled" indeed... WeBe204: Nice spin! I like it! Takes great advantage of inherent ambuguity in her response. I am trying very very hard to get above (or below!) emotion and getting information to people. On both sides. Regardless of mow much I get attacked or what motives get attributed to my posts, I plan to persist. I past the age where I give a crap about what people think of me personally. Let the data do the talking. Cheers. Player, I really do appreciate your posts. They do inspire thought and basically that is what we are all doing here (that and the free therapy ;D). I would have to say, so far the responses to you seemed to be just simple debate of personal opinion. I hope you won't get offended and will continue to debate. That being said...I agree, let the data do the talking. As we discussed before, the research on EMF exposure is inconclusive and contradictory at best. The question of risk is absolutely there. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. I chose my home based on it's distance from the powerlines in our subdivision so you know it is a real concern for me. The gas line issue...obvious to me. The data (thank arch!) completely spells it out. RR tracks...obvious again. What is in question is the SB / Admin. and their actions thus far. I am personally of the opinion that they are not thinking in the overall best interests of this district. If they were, AMES would have NEVER even been brought back into the mix. Too many potential risks/problems. The pace at which the SB/Admin. is moving is also a tell tale sign of inpropriety. The AMES site closed at lightning speed. They weren't in a hurry during the BB fiasco. Strange how that changed when WV failed NCLB for a 5th consecutive year. We have been overcrowded for years. To the point that my children have known nothing else. I personally hope that these lawsuits will finally bring about FULL DISCLOSURE by the district. I would love to hear what has really been going on. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 2, 2008 9:15:59 GMT -6
It would be nice if the board could just simply say:
If we are wrong about the safety of this site, your kids could easily die.
Think they will ever concede that point? Me neither, but it's true.
|
|
|
|
Post by player on May 2, 2008 10:10:38 GMT -6
WeBe204: Nice spin! I like it! Takes great advantage of inherent ambuguity in her response. I am trying very very hard to get above (or below!) emotion and getting information to people. On both sides. Regardless of mow much I get attacked or what motives get attributed to my posts, I plan to persist. I past the age where I give a crap about what people think of me personally. Let the data do the talking. Cheers. Player, I really do appreciate your posts. They do inspire thought and basically that is what we are all doing here (that and the free therapy ;D). I would have to say, so far the responses to you seemed to be just simple debate of personal opinion. I hope you won't get offended and will continue to debate. That being said...I agree, let the data do the talking. As we discussed before, the research on EMF exposure is inconclusive and contradictory at best. The question of risk is absolutely there. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. I chose my home based on it's distance from the powerlines in our subdivision so you know it is a real concern for me. The gas line issue...obvious to me. The data (thank arch!) completely spells it out. RR tracks...obvious again. What is in question is the SB / Admin. and their actions thus far. I am personally of the opinion that they are not thinking in the overall best interests of this district. If they were, AMES would have NEVER even been brought back into the mix. Too many potential risks/problems. The pace at which the SB/Admin. is moving is also a tell tale sign of inpropriety. The AMES site closed at lightning speed. They weren't in a hurry during the BB fiasco. Strange how that changed when WV failed NCLB for a 5th consecutive year. We have been overcrowded for years. To the point that my children have known nothing else. I personally hope that these lawsuits will finally bring about FULL DISCLOSURE by the district. I would love to hear what has really been going on. researching: While we can agree to disagree on EMF, I fully respect and support your decision to make the choices that you are most comfortable with for your family. On the actions of the SB and accountability, you've seen me rant and rave about lack of controls. So I share your trepidation there, and right now, a legal path is the only one left to pursue. I would prefer a third party other that the SB and Courts to provide oversight. Hopefully in the future, there will be other means to do this. The litigation proceedings should be very entertaining. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by slp on May 2, 2008 10:42:12 GMT -6
Player, this thread was started to talk about the Build Smart reply, right?
Well , IMO you completely missed the point of why Build Smart is being referenced by the NSFOC and concerned parents. The point is not whether or not monies are actually going to come from this program; sure it would be nice, but lets be real, its not there.
THE POINT IS THAT THE STATE DEVELOPED GUIDELINES TO ENSURE THAT STATE MONEY IS USED IN AN APPROPRIATE AND SAFE WAY (yes, our states attempt to ensure the money is put to good use and not paid towards inadaquate sites when avoidable) The point of the mentioning of this Build Smart guidelines is to pose the question...." Why wouldn't we too , as taxpayers, demand the same guidelines if they are designed to protect us and our kids???"
The reply you received from Build Smart is accurate but no surprise; most people know no funds are available currently. Who knows...perhaps in the future that will change. What a shame that the school board has decided not to follow these guidelines because so much for getting any future construction money and so much for the taxpayers money being put to a higher standard.
Nastrovia
|
|
