Sun Blog

[fryfox]

concerned said:

That wasn't me.

I'm sorry!!! (foot in mouth).

[slp]

promark said:

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.

interesting hypothetical.

It is true that the only explanation given why the sb abandoned BB was due to cost.

Many voters don't feel they have been given the full/real story on BB.

[Avenging Eagle]

slp said:

It is true that the only explanation given why the sb abandoned BB was due to cost.

Many voters don't feel they have been given the full/real story on BB.

And they also admitted that the difference between the AME site and paying the BB cost came out to only a 6mm difference.

Surely, we will be paying more than that for cleanup costs and other BB damages if they go with AME.

[slp]

In keeping with the topic of this thread.... I read this post on the Sun Blog and found it spoke well of what many voters think is the 'right' thing to do. A democratic process is the only fair process.

Here is the post:



The simple fact here that is fundamentally flawed, is that SD204 did not involve the taxpayers in making this decision.

They asked for a referendum for a very specific site, and then allowed the entire district to VOTE on maps. They then took that data and moved forward. Unfortunately, BB was greedy - and they're allowed to be, it is a capitalistic society.

The flaw here, however, is that SD204 then changed the location and boundary without going through the same process.

To dumb this down - go put $50k on the counter at Bill Jacobs BMW, wait a couple of months, and have them deliver a Cadillac instead. Sure it's a car, and a nice car at that some might say - but it is not what you agreed to pay your hard earned money to buy. Simple as that.

If 204 wants to do the Eola location, fine, put it up to a proper district-wide vote. Propose 3 zone options at the same time to allow for expediency. And let the taxpayers decide what is right.

We're all arguing back and forth because this will always be inconvenient to someone. Tough. But if we all vote - then if the results are not what we personally wanted, at least we know we were counted and the results are for the true majority.

[chicoryowl]

avengingeagle said:

slp said:

It is true that the only explanation given why the sb abandoned BB was due to cost.

Many voters don't feel they have been given the full/real story on BB.

And they also admitted that the difference between the AME site and paying the BB cost came out to only a 6mm difference.

Surely, we will be paying more than that for cleanup costs and other BB damages if they go with AME.

I can't speak to the BB damages because I haven't heard what is known and unknown at this point. However, as I've heard, MWGEN is responsible for all cleanup costs.

[Arch]

chicoryowl said:

avengingeagle said:

And they also admitted that the difference between the AME site and paying the BB cost came out to only a 6mm difference.

Surely, we will be paying more than that for cleanup costs and other BB damages if they go with AME.

I can't speak to the BB damages because I haven't heard what is known and unknown at this point. However, as I've heard, MWGEN is responsible for all cleanup costs.

Only for things 'identified'.

[gumby]

slp said:

In keeping with the topic of this thread.... I read this post on the Sun Blog and found it spoke well of what many voters think is the 'right' thing to do. A democratic process is the only fair process.

Here is the post:



The simple fact here that is fundamentally flawed, is that SD204 did not involve the taxpayers in making this decision.

They asked for a referendum for a very specific site, and then allowed the entire district to VOTE on maps. They then took that data and moved forward. Unfortunately, BB was greedy - and they're allowed to be, it is a capitalistic society.

The flaw here, however, is that SD204 then changed the location and boundary without going through the same process.

To dumb this down - go put $50k on the counter at Bill Jacobs BMW, wait a couple of months, and have them deliver a Cadillac instead. Sure it's a car, and a nice car at that some might say - but it is not what you agreed to pay your hard earned money to buy. Simple as that.

If 204 wants to do the Eola location, fine, put it up to a proper district-wide vote. Propose 3 zone options at the same time to allow for expediency. And let the taxpayers decide what is right.

We're all arguing back and forth because this will always be inconvenient to someone. Tough. But if we all vote - then if the results are not what we personally wanted, at least we know we were counted and the results are for the true majority.

The car analogy is pretty flawed, although I understand what they're trying to say.

[Avenging Eagle]

gumby said:

The car analogy is pretty flawed, although I understand what they're trying to say.

Yeah, the analogy is more like we did get the BMW, but Bill Jacobs told us that we have to keep it at the AME site in an ugly garage nowhere near the house, and with industrial fallout that will destroy the finish.

I believe that would be a deal breaker even though it was still a BMW.

[d204mom]

chicoryowl said:

avengingeagle said:

And they also admitted that the difference between the AME site and paying the BB cost came out to only a 6mm difference.

Surely, we will be paying more than that for cleanup costs and other BB damages if they go with AME.

I can't speak to the BB damages because I haven't heard what is known and unknown at this point. However, as I've heard, MWGEN is responsible for all cleanup costs.

Also, still, no explaination on how we are going to comply with Illinois wetland laws that require you to purchase wetlands someplace else to replace the one you drain. We have 9 acres of wetlands that we are draining on AME. Where will the replacement acreage be and how much will it cost?

Like I said, I believe Daeschner lost his patiences, made up his mind, and counted to 10 with Brach Brodie. End of story. Won't put the school there. Made up justifications along the way but in reality it was an emotional decision.

[chicoryowl]

archwinsome said:

chicoryowl said:

I can't speak to the BB damages because I haven't heard what is known and unknown at this point. However, as I've heard, MWGEN is responsible for all cleanup costs.

Only for things 'identified'.

What else would there be? What cleanup costs at the MWGEN site would we be responsible for?

[d204mom]

Turbines aren't scheduled to be removed until end of '08. Anything found under those is ours and our cost to re mediate, as we will have closed and started construction by then.

Do I think the district believes that MWGEN would pay for that? You bet.

Unfortunately, MWGEN are expert at playing hot potato with environmental cleanup and the school board and admin are complete armatures.

[chicoryowl]

d204mom said:

chicoryowl said:

I can't speak to the BB damages because I haven't heard what is known and unknown at this point. However, as I've heard, MWGEN is responsible for all cleanup costs.

Also, still, no explaination on how we are going to comply with Illinois wetland laws that require you to purchase wetlands someplace else to replace the one you drain. We have 9 acres of wetlands that we are draining on AME. Where will the replacement acreage be and how much will it cost?

Like I said, I believe Daeschner lost his patiences, made up his mind, and counted to 10 with Brach Brodie. End of story. Won't put the school there. Made up justifications along the way but in reality it was an emotional decision.

First I've heard of that. Is it linked anywhere? I don't know how/where you would go about replacing wetlands.

[d204mom]

chicoryowl said:

d204mom said:

Also, still, no explaination on how we are going to comply with Illinois wetland laws that require you to purchase wetlands someplace else to replace the one you drain. We have 9 acres of wetlands that we are draining on AME. Where will the replacement acreage be and how much will it cost?

Like I said, I believe Daeschner lost his patiences, made up his mind, and counted to 10 with Brach Brodie. End of story. Won't put the school there. Made up justifications along the way but in reality it was an emotional decision.

First I've heard of that. Is it linked anywhere? I don't know how/where you would go about replacing wetlands.

That question was asked at the 1/22 board meeting along with the EMF testing questions during public comment.

Unfortunately, these questions never made Daeschner's list of questions that got answered at the end of public comment.

[chicoryowl]

d204mom said:

Turbines aren't scheduled to be removed until end of '08. Anything found under those is ours and our cost to re mediate, as we will have closed and started construction by then.

Do I think the district believes that MWGEN would pay for that? You bet.

Unfortunately, MWGEN are expert at playing hot potato with environmental cleanup and the school board and admin are complete armatures.

I don't think you can build in a cost esimate for being snookered. You may argue that the SB's lawyers can't be expected to build an ironclad contract, but I think this is a reach.

[chicoryowl]

d204mom said:

chicoryowl said:

First I've heard of that. Is it linked anywhere? I don't know how/where you would go about replacing wetlands.

That question was asked at the 1/22 board meeting along with the EMF testing questions during public comment.

Unfortunately, these questions never made Daeschner's list of questions that got answered at the end of public comment.

Is there any chance it doesn't apply to us because we're a government entity? I know nothing about this law.