|
|
Post by proschool on May 12, 2008 14:31:13 GMT -6
Best case scenario maybe popejoy would allow the valves to be installed to mitigate the pipeline safety risk when all is siad and done (if Eola is still "the site"). MANDATE with a $250,000 per week penalty recurring for every week not done on all pipes... Full Pipe replacement and ACVs on both the NORTH and SOUTH side of the property to isolate the segment ASAP in case of a structural failure on the premises. I don't see how a shut off valve will do any good. In anbn explosion the damage will be done before the shutoff valve can be activated. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 12, 2008 14:38:33 GMT -6
MANDATE with a $250,000 per week penalty recurring for every week not done on all pipes... Full Pipe replacement and ACVs on both the NORTH and SOUTH side of the property to isolate the segment ASAP in case of a structural failure on the premises. I don't see how a shut off valve will do any good. In anbn explosion the damage will be done before the shutoff valve can be activated. The initial blowout will happen either way with or without valves. Look for that crater to be 40 foot X 100 foot at least, probably pink-misting (sorry, military term) anyone unfortunate enough to be near it. The shutoff valve only helps to limit the amount of gas out there that can IGNITE and do even greater damage from the resulting FIRE if the gas ignites. It would be better than it currently sits today, but you are right, the initial blowout has nothing to do w/ the valves. Carlsbad 30" pipeline crater:  Seismic data: www.ees.nmt.edu/Geop/Pipeline/pipeline.htmlDisclaimer: My opinion based on the research I have done on pipelines the past 5 months. |
|
|
|
Post by overtaxed on May 12, 2008 16:05:15 GMT -6
A/C Proponents!! I am totally for A/C in all the buildings that currently lack it. I realize we may have to wait until the last vestiges of the old replublic are swept away (2011 for the final 3). After that, I would hope more folks would be ready to "trust" again since the old guard that did all the deceptive decietful practices would be long gone. I also hope that all the folks that are so outraged by all that has transpired (me included) continue to stay active. They need to stop the 'bundling' too of the key things. Let each bump in price stand on its own on the ballot with EXPLICIT LANGUAGE. Is there any way we can get the SB/SD to have separate items on the ballots and not to bundle items together??? They should know by now we are reasonable voters becasue of the bait and switch-not naive voters  anymore!! |
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 12, 2008 17:23:35 GMT -6
I will go to the polls on any district 204 issue in the future as a "reasonable" voter.
I will vote with the knowledge that that it is legally okay for an elected school board to intentionally lie.
I didn't realize that was something I should be "reasonably aware of" until I read the motion to dismiss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 13, 2008 14:35:20 GMT -6
This is interesting... People are quoting a small section of the Eminent Domain act, trying to put an artificial cap on the lawsuit 'damages'..
They forgot section (e) above it...
(e) If a plaintiff does not accept an offer as provided in subsection (c) and if the final just compensation for the defendant's interest is determined by the trier of fact to be equal to or in excess of the amount of the defendant's last written offer under subsection (b), then the court must order the plaintiff to pay to the defendant that defendant's attorney's fees as calculated under subsection (f) of this Section. The plaintiff shall also pay to the defendant that defendant's reasonable costs and litigation expenses, including, without limitation, expert witness and appraisal fees, incurred after the making of the defendant's last written offer under subsection (b).
(f) Any award of attorney's fees under this Section shall
be based solely on the net benefit achieved for the property owner, except that the court may also consider any non‑monetary benefits obtained for the property owner through the efforts of the attorney to the extent that the non‑monetary benefits are specifically identified by the court and can be quantified by the court with a reasonable degree of certainty. "Net benefit" means the difference, exclusive of interest, between the final judgment or settlement and the last written offer made by the condemning authority before the filing date of the condemnation complaint. The award shall be calculated as follows, subject to the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:
(1) 33% of the net benefit if the net benefit is
$250,000 or less;
(2) 25% of the net benefit if the net benefit is more
than $250,000 but less than $1 million; or
(3) 20% of the net benefit if the net benefit is $1 million or more.
The part, without limitation sounds like a loophole. How much were their (BBs) expert witness and appraisal fees?
|
|
anymore!!