Sun Blog

[sleeplessinnpvl]

bbc said:

doctorwho said:

I'm sorry, I and my child are affected far more than you - therefore be as judgemental as you like. If the shoe was on the other foot you might not be so.
If I was going to WVHS like you are I'd likely be viewing many things differently also...
I'm not --

I will never defend this SB as I have always said they are inept but comments like the one above will make it clear to any judge what this is really about--I didn't get what I wanted so I am going to sue someone. The sb is fiscally irresponsible but if the sb were to suddenly change their mind and allow SOMEONE to go to the school THEY want to go to, the lawsuit might go away. Amazing!

Exactly. It's not about the SB making promises and changing their minds. It's about the location of the school. If this were at Macom, the SB would be guilty of the same thing as they are at Eola yet we might not be sitting here talking about any lawsuits because many people would be happier. Go ahead and tar and feather me....I'm going to bed to catch up on the sleep I didn't get last night.

[fryfox]

steckmom said:

fryfox said:

I'm stunned that you are asking if people have tried to work with the school board! Stunned! I think NFSOC is trying to get the school board to slow down. The SD is prepared to sign off on the real estate very soon. Slow down, please, Slow down. That is why the NFSOC is having to move so quickly - to match the SD's pace.

Do you really think a demonstration would make a difference? How often does it? Wouldn't it be great if it would?

Stunned? Really? Did a group actually try?

I'm stunned that you're stunned.

I'm okay with slow down. But I'm not okay with a lawsuit for damages. What is being filed? Is it seeking an injunction?

Were you at the school board meeting? Did you hear at least 1/4 - 1/3 of the speakers request for them to slow down and reconsider? Did you hear the comments at the site selection meeting? For a fact I know that a large percentage of my community (Fry) emailed them and others called. There was response on the website, etc, etc. Not only were they not agreeable, they flat out ignored people's concerns. They didn't even do due diligence on the other optional sites. And I personally emailed them several times for months before the site even went to vote. I heard back from one of them with reassurance that they were thoroughly exploring all options. REALLY?

If they are so amenable to meeting with a group, perhaps they will contact this organization and request a meeting. I think they are well aware of the concerns and I highly doubt it is something they will pursue. It would be great to be proven wrong.

[steckparent]

Let me throw this out there? If the Eola site for MV is determined to be safe by an independant study addressing all potential concerns-- does the lawsuit against the SD go away? Or does it continue b/c of the site change and boundaries don't change? A judge will not change boundaries nor can it force a contract for the BB land if both parties are not willing. What is going to be accomplished by a lawsuit?

[steckmom]

fryfox said:

steckmom said:

Stunned? Really? Did a group actually try?

I'm stunned that you're stunned.

I'm okay with slow down. But I'm not okay with a lawsuit for damages. What is being filed? Is it seeking an injunction?

Were you at the school board meeting? Did you hear at least 1/4 - 1/3 of the speakers request for them to slow down and reconsider? Did you hear the comments at the site selection meeting? For a fact I know that a large percentage of my community (Fry) emailed them and others called. There was response on the website, etc, etc. Not only were they not agreeable, they flat out ignored people's concerns. They didn't even do due diligence on the other optional sites. And I personally emailed them several times for months before the site even went to vote. I heard back from one of them with reassurance that they were thoroughly exploring all options. REALLY?

If they are so amenable to meeting with a group, perhaps they will contact this organization and request a meeting. I think they are well aware of the concerns and I highly doubt it is something they will pursue. It would be great to be proven wrong.

I was at that meeting and I heard alot of individual concerns and agendas. Very few broad concerns and certainly no groups--not the NFSOC. Has the NFSOC made any attempt to contact the SB for negotiation?

I'm sure the SB will be contacting a group that has announced it is going to sue. Maybe once you sue, but it certainly will not be in the same spirit.

Again, do you have any idea what the lawsuit is going to be?

[steckmom]

researching said:

steckmom said:

Stunned? Really? Did a group actually try?

I'm stunned that you're stunned.

I'm okay with slow down. But I'm not okay with a lawsuit for damages. What is being filed? Is it seeking an injunction?

Wow! I almost don't know what to say to this ignorance (see definition below). If you seriously believe that no one has tried to approach the SB before this group forming, either you just moved here and don't know better(your sign up date for this site shows otherwise), or you (like the SB) didn't care enough to pay attention.

Noun 1. ignorance - the lack of knowledge or education
cognitive content, mental object, content - the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned
ignorantness, nescience, unknowing, unknowingness - ignorance (especially of orthodox beliefs)
inexperience, rawness - lack of experience and the knowledge and understanding derived from experience; "procedural inexperience created difficulties"; "their poor behavior was due to the rawness of the troops"
unenlightenment - a lack of understanding
illiteracy - ignorance resulting from not reading

Nice.

My point was not that people did not try to contact the SB. My point is that a coalition of several groups with varied interests has not contacted the SB. Or has it?

[doctorwho]

newbie said:

I just took this off the Naperville Sun's Blog. I realize there is a lot of inaccurate information out there but thought I'd post here to see if anyone is aware of whether or not this is true.

DH @ 1:06 am post -

You base your 70% number on the fact that "the responses in comments online and overall at the SB meeting (including the more than 25 residents who spoke) were definitely supportive".
Do you know where that support came from? Let me enlighten you. MM2 had a private meeting with Stonebridge the Sunday night before that SB meeting. He disclosed to them where the new site of the 3rd HS would be (prior to this info being released district wide), and he asked for their support. He asked them to come to the SB meeting to show their support. And lo and behold, they came and the Sun flashed on the front page that the SB was very happy with the show of support for the location of the third HS. Well they should be happy, they lobbied for that support. I wonder why no such meetings were requested with other subdivisions. Just another example of the deceitfulness that has taken place all through this process.

Posted by: trey | March 5, 2008 02:07 PM

I heard they were coming to Watts also but some didn't know where we were located - they kept looking in the northern section of the district and gave up when they coudn't find us. The rest were on busses and they took forever so they gave up.

[twhl]

doctorwho said:

newbie said:

I just took this off the Naperville Sun's Blog. I realize there is a lot of inaccurate information out there but thought I'd post here to see if anyone is aware of whether or not this is true.

DH @ 1:06 am post -

You base your 70% number on the fact that "the responses in comments online and overall at the SB meeting (including the more than 25 residents who spoke) were definitely supportive".
Do you know where that support came from? Let me enlighten you. MM2 had a private meeting with Stonebridge the Sunday night before that SB meeting. He disclosed to them where the new site of the 3rd HS would be (prior to this info being released district wide), and he asked for their support. He asked them to come to the SB meeting to show their support. And lo and behold, they came and the Sun flashed on the front page that the SB was very happy with the show of support for the location of the third HS. Well they should be happy, they lobbied for that support. I wonder why no such meetings were requested with other subdivisions. Just another example of the deceitfulness that has taken place all through this process.

Posted by: trey | March 5, 2008 02:07 PM

I heard they were coming to Watts also but some didn't know where we were located - they kept looking in the northern section of the district and gave up when they coudn't find us. The rest were on busses and they took forever so they gave up.

Maybe they were testing our new fleet of Greyhound busses and got too comfortable?

[twhl]

wvhsparent said:

doctorwho said:

Did they or did they not tell us numerous times they had the money to buy the land ?

Which they erroneously thought was going to be substantially less as did most people here. IIRC they never mentioned a number.
So I really think everyone needs to stop trying to hang their hat on that 600k figure as an amount the SD would pay.
I had spoken to M2 at that Naper Dem mtg prior to QT, at which time I got the impression from him that 450K/acre was over their limit.

M2 claimed over and over and over again, we can get the remaining acres for the same price........huh??? Dont worry - we got it covered no matter what it costs...........

[doctorwho]

bbc said:

doctorwho said:

I'm sorry, I and my child are affected far more than you - therefore be as judgemental as you like. If the shoe was on the other foot you might not be so.
If I was going to WVHS like you are I'd likely be viewing many things differently also...
I'm not --

I will never defend this SB as I have always said they are inept but comments like the one above will make it clear to any judge what this is really about--I didn't get what I wanted so I am going to sue someone. The sb is fiscally irresponsible but if the sb were to suddenly change their mind and allow SOMEONE to go to the school THEY want to go to, the lawsuit might go away. Amazing!

You can decide anything you want to - that is your call, the defense above is an explanation as to why I might be more interested than someone not affected. My child would have to go to a site I do not deem safe at this point, therefore my child is affected more. My child will be the one on the bus for 1.5 hours a day - therefoe I might choose to get more involved than another person whose bus ride is 5 minutes.

At this point I have chosen to be involved - as I think AME/MWGEN is a bad site -- if I lived in Builta and was going to NV away from all of this, most likely I would be less informed and less invovled because it doesn't directly affect me.

Cook County raised their sales tax to 10.5% for the fall. I choose not to get involved because it doesn't affect me - I have an option not to be affected by it, someone who lives and works in Cook County doesn't have the same options and is more likely to be concerned.



If that concept is lost on you, I can't help you.

[promark]

steckparent said:

Let me throw this out there? If the Eola site for MV is determined to be safe by an independant study addressing all potential concerns-- does the lawsuit against the SD go away? Or does it continue b/c of the site change and boundaries don't change? A judge will not change boundaries nor can it force a contract for the BB land if both parties are not willing. What is going to be accomplished by a lawsuit?

Seems to me that the purpose of a lawsuit would be to prevent the SB from pursuing a site that, in the long run, will possibly be every bit as expensive as BB (considering transportation costs) and may have environmental issues to boot. As far as I know, the ONLY reason BB was canceled was due to cost. To me the critical element is how much of the referendum's support was related to the boundary proposal. The SB thought it was critical enough to announce the new boundaries ahead of the vote.

Consider this hypothetical. Let's say the BB land was available for the originally estimated amount and we were all set to build following the referendum for $125M. Prior to the BB contract being signed, along comes this new landowner that is willing to sell their site for much less (due to location and possible environmental concerns), resulting in a total cost of only $100M. Though the location would be inferior in many ways, could the SB have switched to the new site purely based on saving the taxpayers $25M? Don't you think a lot of people would be infuriated that they weren't getting what they voted for? Some may have looked at the lower cost as a blessing, while others may have felt betrayed. I'm thinking the SB would/could not have made such a drastic move without another vote.

[fryfox]

steckmom said:

fryfox said:

Were you at the school board meeting? Did you hear at least 1/4 - 1/3 of the speakers request for them to slow down and reconsider? Did you hear the comments at the site selection meeting? For a fact I know that a large percentage of my community (Fry) emailed them and others called. There was response on the website, etc, etc. Not only were they not agreeable, they flat out ignored people's concerns. They didn't even do due diligence on the other optional sites. And I personally emailed them several times for months before the site even went to vote. I heard back from one of them with reassurance that they were thoroughly exploring all options. REALLY?

If they are so amenable to meeting with a group, perhaps they will contact this organization and request a meeting. I think they are well aware of the concerns and I highly doubt it is something they will pursue. It would be great to be proven wrong.

I was at that meeting and I heard alot of individual concerns and agendas. Very few broad concerns and certainly no groups--not the NFSOC. Has the NFSOC made any attempt to contact the SB for negotiation?

I'm sure the SB will be contacting a group that has announced it is going to sue. Maybe once you sue, but it certainly will not be in the same spirit.

Again, do you have any idea what the lawsuit is going to be?

I don't know exactly what the lawsuit would be but I believe the spirit is to get some accountability and appearance of due diligence.

Do you really think it would be effective if this group contacted the SB/District? Maybe it is worthwhile for them to try AGAIN - but this time as an organized group.

I'm only speaking for myself here, but I personally feel that aside from the environmental concerns of AME, there is a BIG concern that it's too far from the population density to be a good long term solution. I hope that that would be included in concerns represented by this group.

By the way, though I am surprised by your comments, Steckmom, and I respect a lot of your comments, Concerned, I think the ignorance piece was out of line. Sorry, but I do.

[steckmom]

fryfox said:

I don't know exactly what the lawsuit would be but I believe the spirit is to get some accountability and appearance of due diligence.

Do you really think it would be effective if this group contacted the SB/District? Maybe it is worthwhile for them to try AGAIN - but this time as an organized group.

I'm only speaking for myself here, but I personally feel that aside from the environmental concerns of AME, there is a BIG concern that it's too far from the population density to be a good long term solution. I hope that that would be included in concerns represented by this group.

By the way, though I am surprised by your comments, Steckmom, and I respect a lot of your comments, Concerned, I think the ignorance piece was out of line. Sorry, but I do.

I'm sure it is too late now for NFSOC to have any sort of meaningful discussion with the SB. I just wish it didn't have to go right to a costly lawsuit.

I'm just angry about the potential cost to the district for a lawsuit, particularly one for damages. Like I said, I'm okay with getting them to slow down.

As for the ignorance comment, eh, I know I'm ruffling alot of feathers, I can take it.

[researching]

steckmom said:

researching said:

Wow! I almost don't know what to say to this ignorance (see definition below). If you seriously believe that no one has tried to approach the SB before this group forming, either you just moved here and don't know better(your sign up date for this site shows otherwise), or you (like the SB) didn't care enough to pay attention.

Noun 1. ignorance - the lack of knowledge or education
cognitive content, mental object, content - the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned
ignorantness, nescience, unknowing, unknowingness - ignorance (especially of orthodox beliefs)
inexperience, rawness - lack of experience and the knowledge and understanding derived from experience; "procedural inexperience created difficulties"; "their poor behavior was due to the rawness of the troops"
unenlightenment - a lack of understanding
illiteracy - ignorance resulting from not reading

Nice.

My point was not that people did not try to contact the SB. My point is that a coalition of several groups with varied interests has not contacted the SB. Or has it?

It was extremely rude of me to make that post and for that I apologize and have deleted the original. I am just frustrated that, after countless hours spent trying to get the SB's attention in a direct and logical way, there could be any thought that a lawsuit would be the FIRST route to take. This is especially hard to read when all of the hard work has fallen on deaf ears and this whole discussion validates that perception.

Again, I apologize. Sorry that I took the low road there.

[concerned]

That wasn't me.

[steckmom]

Researching, apology accepted. No big deal.

I don't know what you have gone through, but the first I heard of the NSFOC was yesterday and all I heard about was a lawsuit. I do understand being frustrated with the school board.

Concerned, sorry I didn't point out that it wasn't you, I just paid attention to the comment, not the person.