Sun Blog

[rural]

susan said:

Hi,

This message is directed at the momma bear protecting her cubs. I am also a momma bear and I live in Tall Grass. I would appreciate it if you would top referring to the group who is putting forth a law suit as Tall Grass. As I stated above, I am a resident of Tall Grass and have nothing to do with that group and nor do any of my direct neighbors. From what I understand that meeting was attended by people of all kinds of neighborhoods in the district. I feel that many were there for all kinds of reasons. I personally do not like the way the school board has treated parents, but from what I can see there is nothing I can do about it, I am just making the best of a bad situation. Those people who attended the meeting may feel they can do something, that is their choice. Please stop referring to that group at Tall Grass. I find it very insulting.

I agree with susan about not generalizing. The turn out at this meeting was what, 150? Factor into that about 30 people who were just spying or curious. TG has by their own accounting about 1000 homes in their subdivision. That's a little more than 10% turnout.

Now, if they tell two friends and they tell two friends and so on and so on... That's a different case, but I just don't see getting 1000 residents on board. That doesn't mean they can't come up with the money, I just don't see the support behind the movement.

[researching]

drdavelasik said:

secondtimearound said:

Thanks Doc. It seems very convenient when someone doesn't like what's going on with this group they just label it as TG or WE or people who don't want their kids to go to WV. It is much more than that and to dismiss it like many posters are is disrepectful to those who have genuine concerns.

I met several people last night that are slated to attend MVHS. Stop dumping on the residents of WE and TG. This issue is greater than 2 subdivisions. It is not very becoming.

Thank You!

[sleeplessinnpvl]

doctorwho said:

There is no way an attorney with the reputation Shawn Collins has is going to take a frivolous case..so my guess is he has thought it through

Is it a precendent settig case- you bet. As was put yesterday, no one anywhere has been as mislead on what was going to happen, to have it turn around so dramatically. Due to all the material in wiritng as well as built into the condemnation suit about what exactly the plans were, I do not see this being dismissed as frivolous. Hard to win - that was said yesterday. Unwinable - no.

I think Shawn has thought things over very well. He's gonna be making some money. Get his name in the paper. If he's lucky, he will get a precedent setting case. If not, hey, I tried and thanks for your money folks. He admitted there are no cases like this. Is it because no one sues or is it because judges want to deal with criminals and not disgruntled taxpayers? I don't know. We may have to wait and see what the judge says regarding this lawsuit. Shawn already admitted the district will not be forced to refund our money. So where are we left after the smoke clears from this trial?

[drdavelasik]

corky said:

I'm just trying to understand what exactly does the group "nsfoc" really hope to accomplish here?

What is your agenda, honestly? How does this lawsuit benefit the families in the district? What will we, as a district, gain from this lawsuit. How will the district be better off from this lawsuit? Won't the environmental issues be addressed when the reports are done?

Please explain, I'm not getting it.

It is not for the people on the blog to explain. Do as I did (because I too had several questions) and attend some of these meetings to learn first hand what the position is of this group, future steps of the attorney selected, end result desired, etc. And if you did attend last night then you already walked away with an basic understanding and keep attending and you will learn more. If you don't wish to attend then don't concern yourself and just wait and hope the school goes up on the AME site. Plain and simple.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

rural said:

susan said:

Hi,

This message is directed at the momma bear protecting her cubs. I am also a momma bear and I live in Tall Grass. I would appreciate it if you would top referring to the group who is putting forth a law suit as Tall Grass. As I stated above, I am a resident of Tall Grass and have nothing to do with that group and nor do any of my direct neighbors. From what I understand that meeting was attended by people of all kinds of neighborhoods in the district. I feel that many were there for all kinds of reasons. I personally do not like the way the school board has treated parents, but from what I can see there is nothing I can do about it, I am just making the best of a bad situation. Those people who attended the meeting may feel they can do something, that is their choice. Please stop referring to that group at Tall Grass. I find it very insulting.

I agree with susan about not generalizing. The turn out at this meeting was what, 150? Factor into that about 30 people who were just spying or curious. TG has by their own accounting about 1000 homes in their subdivision. That's a little more than 10% turnout.

Now, if they tell two friends and they tell two friends and so on and so on... That's a different case, but I just don't see getting 1000 residents on board. That doesn't mean they can't come up with the money, I just don't see the support behind the movement.

rural and susan. I agree totally. I can now sympatize with you guys though. We know the district has been divided for some time. But now I am seeing a division within your communities where you live and for that I am truly sad.

[rural]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

doctorwho said:

There is no way an attorney with the reputation Shawn Collins has is going to take a frivolous case..so my guess is he has thought it through

Is it a precendent settig case- you bet. As was put yesterday, no one anywhere has been as mislead on what was going to happen, to have it turn around so dramatically. Due to all the material in wiritng as well as built into the condemnation suit about what exactly the plans were, I do not see this being dismissed as frivolous. Hard to win - that was said yesterday. Unwinable - no.

I think Shawn has thought things over very well. He's gonna be making some money. Get his name in the paper. If he's lucky, he will get a precedent setting case. If not, hey, I tried and thanks for your money folks. He admitted there are no cases like this. Is it because no one sues or is it because judges want to deal with criminals and not disgruntled taxpayers? I don't know. We may have to wait and see what the judge says regarding this lawsuit. Shawn already admitted the district will not be forced to refund our money. So where are we left after the smoke clears from this trial?

Also, I'm not too worried about this suit. My prognostication is that they will lose, we will pay more taxes to fight the suit and the school district will now have a fantastic new reason to open at Eola in 2010 rather than 2009.

[concerned]

This group wants to the SB to slow down and do due diligence. There are many problems with that site and first the safety of these kids needs to be seriously considered. Why do you think the land is so cheap? Why this rush? This school will not open in 2009. Slow down and make sure the site is safe. Arch has brought up many good points.

It the SB feels this site is safe and they know that many are concerned it is their job to alliviate those fears. The way they are treating the taxpayers and there is so much mistrust, how do you trust them with the biggest concern we have. Our children's safety.

If that means the kids have to deal one more year in crowded schools then so be it. Better then a big mistake of building on a dangerous site and jeopardizing anyones kids.

I think it is very selfish to those in the district who are not effected to be happy that someone elses kids are put in danger, so their kids can sit in a less crowded school.

[rural]

Just to be clear, I'm not in TG. I'm north. I'm just trying to stop generalizing. ;D

[d204mom]

corky said:

Won't the environmental issues be addressed when the reports are done?

NO. The Phase I and II testing does not address the pipelines and EMF problems. So, NO, the district is NOT addressing the environmental concerns.

They are making matters WORSE by trying to cloud the issues with talk that the Phase I and II will address all of the enviornmental concerns because that is not true. Why try to cover up the high EMF readings?

[sleeplessinnpvl]

concerned said:

This group wants to the SB to slow down and do due diligence. There are many problems with that site and first the safety of these kids needs to be seriously considered. Why do you think the land is so cheap? Why this rush? This school will not open in 2009. Slow down and make sure the site is safe. Arch has brought up many good points.

It the SB feels this site is safe and they know that many are concerned it is their job to alliviate those fears. The way they are treating the taxpayers and there is so much mistrust, how do you trust them with the biggest concern we have. Our children's safety.

If that means the kids have to deal one more year in crowded schools then so be it. Better then a big mistake of building on a dangerous site and jeopardizing anyones kids.

I think it is very selfish to those in the district who are not effected to be happy that someone elses kids are put in danger, so their kids can sit in a less crowded school.

I understand your concerns and they are valid. People are probably now realizing that the chances of this opening in 2009 are slim to none and given the mistrust of the SB, a fast opening on this site would still leave many wondering. If this is what NSFOC has in mind, I would be disappointed but understanding. If their intent is to squash the 3rd HS, (whether they actually intended to or accidentally caused that to happen by their haste to file a lawsuit) then I have a problem with that. And I don't think there are many people in this district who would want other people's kids to go to an unsafe school.

[concerned]

The the SB needs to slow down!!! I truely don't believe that anyone wants to shoot down the 3rd HS. The housing market is terrible and the growth is slowing. Look at Oswego. 204 enrollment numbers are also declining. Why the rush? You can't be too careful when it comes to safety. I don't see them as trustworthy folk and it will hurt the district for a long time with an unsafe HS.

Anyone remember what happened in St. Charles.

[steckparent]

Precedent setting is legease for $$$$$ in the attorneys pockets. The average law case in Dupage County takes over three years from the date of filing to verdict. An Appeal will take at least two more years. $$$$$ Can't wait to see how much we owe to the property owners for holding the land up until after the lawsuit has resolved.

[rural]

steckparent said:

Precedent setting is legease for $$$$$ in the attorneys pockets. The average law case in Dupage County takes over three years from the date of filing to verdict. An Appeal will take at least two more years. $$$$$ Can't wait to see how much we owe to the property owners for holding the land up until after the lawsuit has resolved.

They'll burn through that 200k pretty quickly if it ends up going to trial. Do they have operators standing by to take your donation when that runs out? Or do they have a payment cap agreement with Mr. Collins?

[sleeplessinnpvl]

steckparent said:

Precedent setting is legease for $$$$$ in the attorneys pockets. The average law case in Dupage County takes over three years from the date of filing to verdict. An Appeal will take at least two more years. $$$$$ Can't wait to see how much we owe to the property owners for holding the land up until after the lawsuit has resolved.

steckparent. Can the SD turn around and sue the NSFOC for court costs if the suit is dismissed?

Also, never thought about the good Reverend pulling a Brach Brodie and suing us for damages for holding up the deal up north. Hmmm...this time it will not be the SB responsible for that.

[gumby]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

steckparent said:

Precedent setting is legease for $$$$$ in the attorneys pockets. The average law case in Dupage County takes over three years from the date of filing to verdict. An Appeal will take at least two more years. $$$$$ Can't wait to see how much we owe to the property owners for holding the land up until after the lawsuit has resolved.

steckparent. Can the SD turn around and sue the NSFOC for court costs if the suit is dismissed?

Also, never thought about the good Reverend pulling a Brach Brodie and suing us for damages for holding up the deal up north. Hmmm...this time it will not be the SB responsible for that.

Highly unlikely. I don' think this case would fall under frivolous. There's some reasonable arguments to be made.