Sun Blog

[d204mom]

chicoryowl said:

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.

There is a super easy way. Don't buy land that has problems. Why go down that road when you don't have to? There are other options.

[wvhsparent]

gumby said:

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.

Yes it would be you going into the BMW dealer with your money 50k asking for a 4 dr car. (seeing as you are at a BMW dealer, you automatically expect it to be a BMW) Now the exchange rate goes nuts and the BMW you expect costs 75k. They give you the Caddy at 50k...You are upset...why? you asked for a car...but that's all. they sold you a car. You wanted a BMW then you should have specified a BMW.

[steckmom]

wvhsparent said:

gumby said:

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

Yes it would be you going into the BMW dealer with your money 50k asking for a 4 dr car. (seeing as you are at a BMW dealer, you automatically expect it to be a BMW) Now the exchange rate goes nuts and the BMW you expect costs 75k. They give you the Caddy at 50k...You are upset...why? you asked for a car...but that's all. they sold you a car. You wanted a BMW then you should have specified a BMW.

And now your spouse decides they want to sue the dealer and tie up your money and you are stuck without a car?

[WeBe204]

I know its more pie in the sky stuff but I do like the idea of a confidence vote. Even if its just a non-binding vote. We can end this 70% loved the land (via) web monkey voting and 70% disliked the boundaries via the sun blog.

[wvhsparent]

brad204 said:

I know its more pie in the sky stuff but I do like the idea of a confidence vote. Even if its just a non-binding vote. We can end this 70% loved the land (via) web monkey voting and 70% disliked the boundaries via the sun blog.

OK how does one go about that?

[JB]

We're at 17 pages... Part II anyone?

[Arch]

jb said:

We're at 17 pages... Part II anyone?

Good idea... will happen in just a wee bit I'll leave this one open for a bit more time to give anyone who is currently replying the ability to post their reply, but everyone else, please switch the the Part 2 thread being created presently.

Thank you,

[slp]

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.

They spoke about the wetlands issue at the Jan. sb mtg. regarding the AME purchase and mentioned an anticipated cost to the district (I don't recall the amount).

I was sitting next to a real estate developer (commercial and residential) and he about fell out of his chair laughing at the amount budgeted. He said it would cost the district at least 3 times more than budgeted. Does anyone recall the budgeted amount for wetland issues?