|
|
Post by d204mom on Feb 3, 2009 13:53:05 GMT -6
What I do find so objectionable is that the SB could reject the site on safety issues without any study to support their position. ----------------------------------- I would like to hear this from the horses' mouth if it is true. I have never heard any board member confirm or deny this. I doubt we will hear this from the horse's mouth directly. However, it is documented that when Midwest Gen was rejected, one of the reasons cited was the "possibility" the the building mightr have to be abandoned due to issues related to the power lines. Rather than take that risk, they rejected the site. That is documented by the SB. After the AME site was selected, a study was done addressing the hazards of EMF at the site. That was Januaury 2008. A copy of the report is attached to either the Brach or the Brodie response that are in the first post on this thread. It may not be directly from the horse's mouth, but the facts are the facts. The statements were made and the study was done. The timing is accurate. If they had data to support the "possibility" of risk at one time, where is it now? Don't you think they would have released it? After all, at that time the agenda was all about getting BB approved. A study would have carried more weight than an opinion -- which is all they offered. Today, we have a January 2008 study that says there is no risk. That's my only point, this SB will say or do most anything to accomplish their objectives -- and we pay for their mistakes. It's time for change. Agree that it's time for change but one quick clarification - the AME site was rejected for health reasons - not MWGEN. The site that the school is being constructed on was the exact site rejected in the site selection report due to health hazards. MWGEN was never rejected by the board or admin. MWGEN backed out because they had the sense to know that their site was not appropriate for a school. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 3, 2009 13:56:56 GMT -6
I would imagine MWGEN also did not want any more scrutiny into the enviro concerns surrounding a part-time piss-ant power plant... which would make people wonder more about the enviro concerns surrounding their full-time larger ones as well as the other 11 or more peakers around the burbs.... all for a meager 'profit' on a land sale.... but that's just my hunch.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 3, 2009 13:58:28 GMT -6
I doubt we will hear this from the horse's mouth directly. However, it is documented that when Midwest Gen was rejected, one of the reasons cited was the "possibility" the the building mightr have to be abandoned due to issues related to the power lines. Rather than take that risk, they rejected the site. That is documented by the SB. After the AME site was selected, a study was done addressing the hazards of EMF at the site. That was Januaury 2008. A copy of the report is attached to either the Brach or the Brodie response that are in the first post on this thread. It may not be directly from the horse's mouth, but the facts are the facts. The statements were made and the study was done. The timing is accurate. If they had data to support the "possibility" of risk at one time, where is it now? Don't you think they would have released it? After all, at that time the agenda was all about getting BB approved. A study would have carried more weight than an opinion -- which is all they offered. Today, we have a January 2008 study that says there is no risk. That's my only point, this SB will say or do most anything to accomplish their objectives -- and we pay for their mistakes. It's time for change. Agree that it's time for change but one quick clarification - the AME site was rejected for health reasons - not MWGEN. The site that the school is being constructed on was the exact site rejected in the site selection report due to health hazards. MWGEN was never rejected by the board or admin. MWGEN backed out because they had the sense to know that their site was not appropriate for a school. correct - the MWGEN site was never on the radar-- why the heck would it have been for a school site ? The fact that it even came into play at all is amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 3, 2009 15:49:03 GMT -6
correct - the MWGEN site was never on the radar-- why the heck would it have been for a school site ? The fact that it even came into play at all is amazing. The headfake was: All AME is better than MWGEN/AME... and we should be 'thankful' for it. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Feb 3, 2009 17:33:05 GMT -6
I am curious. outside of changing her vote, (pressure from who knows where) What qualities does CV have to keep her on the SB? The only dissenting vote on some of what's gone on Kids in the system who actually are affected by changes being passed - and volunteer in the district before that ( PTA etc.) The only SB member to raise concerns with how we refinanced our debt and really the taxpayers have zero clue exactly what happened there. The only SB member who raised the questions on the attendance projections and need for a 3rd HS - and was totally ignored. Funny because she was involved with the group who did the original 8500-8600 estimates ( how does that est look now ??) - then was mocked by some current SB members for her stance and to continue to 'fear factor' she was tied to the infamous CFO group. She said there was going to be no need for split shifts in 2008 or 2009 - or ever) - also said the 5000+ student high schools in all the presentations were a myth. Who was the only SB member to step up in all the nasty SB meetings and tell speakers to tone down the rhetoric against their neighbors - while others seemed to enjoy some areas being ripped a new one ? The only SB member to run on a platform of 'transparency' with regards to financial dealings and major decisions Please show me where she was wrong on these issues ? I agree as a voice of one, we haven't been able to see what she could accomplish to this point. points taken. I do not know much about her..... It's kind of funny because there is a certain lady alderman running for mayor in aurora. she fits the same "profile" as CV. (questions every move by the council..etc)she will probably get 2-3% of the vote and is one of the worst at her elected position IMO.... |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 3, 2009 17:49:12 GMT -6
The only dissenting vote on some of what's gone on Kids in the system who actually are affected by changes being passed - and volunteer in the district before that ( PTA etc.) The only SB member to raise concerns with how we refinanced our debt and really the taxpayers have zero clue exactly what happened there. The only SB member who raised the questions on the attendance projections and need for a 3rd HS - and was totally ignored. Funny because she was involved with the group who did the original 8500-8600 estimates ( how does that est look now ??) - then was mocked by some current SB members for her stance and to continue to 'fear factor' she was tied to the infamous CFO group. She said there was going to be no need for split shifts in 2008 or 2009 - or ever) - also said the 5000+ student high schools in all the presentations were a myth. Who was the only SB member to step up in all the nasty SB meetings and tell speakers to tone down the rhetoric against their neighbors - while others seemed to enjoy some areas being ripped a new one ? The only SB member to run on a platform of 'transparency' with regards to financial dealings and major decisions Please show me where she was wrong on these issues ? I agree as a voice of one, we haven't been able to see what she could accomplish to this point. points taken. I do not know much about her..... It's kind of funny because there is a certain lady alderman running for mayor in aurora. she fits the same "profile" as CV. (questions every move by the council..etc)she will probably get 2-3% of the vote and is one of the worst at her elected position IMO.... The thing is CV does not question everything for the sake of it- the things she has questioned all had to do with the platform she ran on - fiscal responsibility and transparency -- as well as her views on the 3rd high school were driven from her involvement with the team that worked on freshman centers and population projections - .. things like ADK not an issue and also strong advocate for increasing strength of curriculum ( one of Dr D's goals) - and understanding more about where we need to focus on improvement. She was painted as an obsructionist by some- but not how I view it at all. Personally if you don't know much about her- I can tell you it would be worth your while to listen to what she has to say this election period - then of course everyone is free to make their own judgements from there. I think you might like some of her talking points. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 19, 2011 23:48:02 GMT -6
Seems that the Wheaton District 200 had no formal offers at their initial marketing of the old Hubble school site, they decided to entertain bids at HALF the price; assuming they can even get that. napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/4921966-418/auction-to-be-held-for-old-hubble-school-site.htmlHow's 204's sale of the 25 acres at BB property been going lately? Does anyone really want it? Woops, that would be NO... we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future and the money that was supposed to come from that sale to pay for MV had to be found elsewhere in our budget. $10 to the first person who can get an honest answer from someone in Admin or on the board as to where that money had to come from instead because that sale has not happened....  |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 20, 2011 6:40:38 GMT -6
Seems that the Wheaton District 200 had no formal offers at their initial marketing of the old Hubble school site, they decided to entertain bids at HALF the price; assuming they can even get that. napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/4921966-418/auction-to-be-held-for-old-hubble-school-site.htmlHow's 204's sale of the 25 acres at BB property been going lately? Does anyone really want it? Woops, that would be NO... we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future and the money that was supposed to come from that sale to pay for MV had to be found elsewhere in our budget. $10 to the first person who can get an honest answer from someone in Admin or on the board as to where that money had to come from instead because that sale has not happened.... Hell, we can't even get the super to quote honest answers about how much was spent until a bumbling paper calls her out |
|
|
|
Post by brant on Apr 20, 2011 7:15:00 GMT -6
Amazing how much money went down the drain with everything concerned with BB. I have been a business owner for over 20 years and would have had to file for bankruptcy if I made half of the bad decisions the SB has in the last several years. And the famous MM email would have landed any of my employees out of the street. With the exception of CV and now hopefully MR the current and past SB has no idea how to run a district. And that includes CB. His credentials may be impressive but I have yet to see anything from him.
|
|
