LTE 1/3/08 - Naperville Sun

[concerned]

casey said:

lacy said:

Will certain areas be used to "balance" no matter where they build the school? I'm wondering if that's constitutional.

Just wondering if FRY were a true minority school with under-achieving students (granted we don't have that anywhere in 204) whether moving them to a farther school just to balance achievement would be allowed? I'd think Jessie would be standing on the corner. My point is, one has to be careful with regards to reverse discrimination.

Amen!!!!! Couldn't say that any better.

[blankcheck]

If they change the boundaries- even though during the election it was not specific about boundaries-people will be very angry in that they voted for/against based on those boundaries.

BTW-Why is the district so mum about this? This is getting VERY old!

[doctorwho]

archwinsome said:

lacy said:

If Rt. 59 is such a hazard, why would they build a pedestrian bridge over it?

Will it be too hazardous to utilize?

I'll venture a guess and say because people playing 'chicken' on the roadway while trying to cross that width would not be a good idea.

whose financing that bridge ? Is it the local government who is building it for pedestrian assistance to connect neighborhoods- or is it being built because the businesses going up on both sides of the road are concerned about ensuring people travel to both sides to spend money ? When it has been billed as the 'new downtown' area - a lot of financial pressure goes with that

a lot of things take a back seat to $$

[Arch]

doctorwho said:

archwinsome said:

I'll venture a guess and say because people playing 'chicken' on the roadway while trying to cross that width would not be a good idea.

whose financing that bridge ? Is it the local government who is building it for pedestrian assistance to connect neighborhoods- or is it being built because the businesses going up on both sides of the road are concerned about ensuring people travel to both sides to spend money ? When it has been billed as the 'new downtown' area - a lot of financial pressure goes with that

a lot of things take a back seat to $$

It sounds like a city funded thing:

www.naperville.il.us/pedbridge.aspx

[d204mom]

blankcheck said:

If they change the boundaries- even though during the election it was not specific about boundaries-people will be very angry in that they voted for/against based on those boundaries.

BTW-Why is the district so mum about this? This is getting VERY old!

I am wondering if the district is waiting for the judge to dismisses the Brodie motion today before they release any info - especially the "estoppel" stuff that could make us legally bound to purchase the BB property at the jury price. Everything has gone wrong for the district in this trial from the get-go so it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Does anyone know if the judge will rule on the additional damages requested today or if he will just decide if it has merit and can go forward?

I'm actually thinking BB could tie us up at this point on moving forward with another property unless the judge dismisses their entire motion today.

[doctorwho]

archwinsome said:

doctorwho said:

whose financing that bridge ? Is it the local government who is building it for pedestrian assistance to connect neighborhoods- or is it being built because the businesses going up on both sides of the road are concerned about ensuring people travel to both sides to spend money ? When it has been billed as the 'new downtown' area - a lot of financial pressure goes with that

a lot of things take a back seat to $$

It sounds like a city funded thing:

www.naperville.il.us/pedbridge.aspx

there are no pedestrian bridges across Washington Street --Naper Blvd -- Ogden Ave -- Rt 88 -- but we are putting one to connect a lot of retail - tax $$'s. I have no issue with it going up though - just I think there is certainly more than one reason


also in their reasoning - here is the hazard explanation: "These residents have had difficulty crossing Illinois Route 59, due to its high traffic volumes and high vehicular speeds."

[d204mom]

Funny stuff in that motion to dismiss.

"The Plaintiff's post trial motion is frivolous and designed simply to avoid its obligation to close on the $31,003,750 purchase price. As indicated in Exhibit H, the Plaintiff's President refers to the Plaintiff's chances of prevailing as "a Hail Mary pass," while at the same time informing all concerned that Plaintiff is simply stringing the Brach Estate and Brodie Trust along while Plaintiff attempts to strike a deal with another seller for an alternate site."

Oh, that cracks me up. Hey Steve, you ain't the only one that Metzger is stringing along! He's telling all of us that Brach Brodie is still under consideration, too! Oooh, my sides hurts, it's just so funny.

[Arch]

doctorwho said:

also in their reasoning - here is the hazard explanation: "These residents have had difficulty crossing Illinois Route 59, due to its high traffic volumes and high vehicular speeds."

Where I grew up we called that Jaywalking.

[Arch]

d204mom said:

Funny stuff in that motion to dismiss.

"The Plaintiff's post trial motion is frivolous and designed simply to avoid its obligation to close on the $31,003,750 purchase price. As indicated in Exhibit H, the Plaintiff's President refers to the Plaintiff's chances of prevailing as "a Hail Mary pass," while at the same time informing all concerned that Plaintiff is simply stringing the Brach Estate and Brodie Trust along while Plaintiff attempts to strike a deal with another seller for an alternate site."

Oh, that cracks me up. Hey Steve, you ain't the only one that Metzger is stringing along! He's telling all of us that Brach Brodie is still under consideration, too! Oooh, my sides hurts, it's just so funny.

It cracks me up too. I find putting anything from a Sun article into a court exhibit to be just down right hilarious.

[lacy]

doctorwho said:

archwinsome said:

I'll venture a guess and say because people playing 'chicken' on the roadway while trying to cross that width would not be a good idea.

whose financing that bridge ? Is it the local government who is building it for pedestrian assistance to connect neighborhoods- or is it being built because the businesses going up on both sides of the road are concerned about ensuring people travel to both sides to spend money ? When it has been billed as the 'new downtown' area - a lot of financial pressure goes with that

a lot of things take a back seat to $$

I appears similar to the one on Eola. It connects to a park, library and school.

[gatormom]

lacy said:

doctorwho said:

whose financing that bridge ? Is it the local government who is building it for pedestrian assistance to connect neighborhoods- or is it being built because the businesses going up on both sides of the road are concerned about ensuring people travel to both sides to spend money ? When it has been billed as the 'new downtown' area - a lot of financial pressure goes with that

a lot of things take a back seat to $$

I appears similar to the one on Eola. It connects to a park, library and school.

Are you describing the 59 bridge or the Eola bridge. The bridge over Eola does not connect to a library or school. As has been discussed, it is a recreational path connecting two parks. I am sorry if I misunderstood your post.

[d204mom]

archwinsome said:

d204mom said:

Funny stuff in that motion to dismiss.

"The Plaintiff's post trial motion is frivolous and designed simply to avoid its obligation to close on the $31,003,750 purchase price. As indicated in Exhibit H, the Plaintiff's President refers to the Plaintiff's chances of prevailing as "a Hail Mary pass," while at the same time informing all concerned that Plaintiff is simply stringing the Brach Estate and Brodie Trust along while Plaintiff attempts to strike a deal with another seller for an alternate site."

Oh, that cracks me up. Hey Steve, you ain't the only one that Metzger is stringing along! He's telling all of us that Brach Brodie is still under consideration, too! Oooh, my sides hurts, it's just so funny.

It cracks me up too. I find putting anything from a Sun article into a court exhibit to be just down right hilarious.

You're right, they normally save their "greatest hits" for the Daily Herald!

Daeschner: You can't get to where we are now through any logic you can understand. The situation all changed with some things we would have never guessed at the time. It's like walking and falling into a ditch.


Or how's about this one:

Q. So why bother going through the time and money?

Metzger: Because if everything blows up on every other site, you've got to have the opportunity to have the best chance to make that site affordable and a new trial is the only tool we've got to do that.

-Pause- now he's thinking "oh, crap, I can't believe I just said that out loud. backpeddle, backpeddle, backpeddle...."

I need to make perfectly clear as someone who has a license to practice law, we absolutely, positively did not file this motion solely for the purpose of holding that property up. That would be wrong.

[lacy]

gatormom said:

lacy said:

I appears similar to the one on Eola. It connects to a park, library and school.

Are you describing the 59 bridge or the Eola bridge. The bridge over Eola does not connect to a library or school. As has been discussed, it is a recreational path connecting two parks. I am sorry if I misunderstood your post.

The bridge on Eola is just north of the library/rec center and WVHS. It is 1/2 mile from the north entrance to WVHS and even closer to the rec center/library/athletic fields.

You say tomato - I say tamato.

Is the usage limited to the park? So for instance, if someone wanted to ride their bike over it to the library or to watch a softball game or football game they would be prohibited?

I don't get all the interest in the one on 59 by people who are not affected by it and won't use it. Trying to figure that one out...

[gatormom]

lacy said:

gatormom said:

Are you describing the 59 bridge or the Eola bridge. The bridge over Eola does not connect to a library or school. As has been discussed, it is a recreational path connecting two parks. I am sorry if I misunderstood your post.

The bridge on Eola is just north of the library/rec center and WVHS. It is 1/2 mile from the north entrance to WVHS and even closer to the rec center/library/athletic fields.

You say tomato - I say tamato.

Is the usage limited to the park? So for instance, if someone wanted to ride their bike over it to the library or to watch a softball game or football game they would be prohibited?

I don't get all the interest in the one on 59 by people who are not affected by it and won't use it. Trying to figure that one out...

You have to take a very indirect route to use that bridge to get to the library or the high school. Using the light at Eola and the library makes much more sense. That is not to say that people who live north of the bridge on Eola don't use that bridge to get to the library, it is just that nobody is saying that the bridge over Eola makes anyone a walker to Waubonsie.

Mr Bridge brought up the 59/TG situation. We are just commenting on that.

[casey]

d204mom said:

I'm actually thinking BB could tie us up at this point on moving forward with another property unless the judge dismisses their entire motion today.

How ironic! BB attorneys holding up the SB on their decision to move forward on another piece of property. I never really stopped and thought about that but it could happen. Maybe the BB attorneys will sit and cry "foul" and tell the SB "hey you have an obligation to buy the property at $33M" wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?

Is anyone familiar with a legislative piece that said if QT went through (at any dollar amount) the SB could have forced the amount off to taxpayers in the form of a special tax and we would have been stuck paying regardless of the amount? We would have had no voice into whether or not the SB should buy the BB land at that astronomical case. Wonder if this is the reason the SB pushed for QT even at the 11th hour. Hmmmm.......