Sun Blog

[sam2]

momto4 said:

sam2 said:

In my opinion, the most damaging argument is the board's own evaluation that the AME site presented risks that were unacceptable when compared with BB. I doubt there is much scientific substance to that issue. I always thought that was just spin to support BB.

Wasn't that a *perception* of risk? Very different than actual risk and we will find out soon about the evaluation of actual risks. When we lost the ability to build on BB they of course had to go back to the drawing board and it turns out that perception of risk could no longer be taken as a factor if we're really going to relieve overcrowding in a timely manner.

momto4 is correct, it was a perception issue. I didn't mean to imply that there were, or were not, problems with the site, I simply don't know. My point was that the board planted this perception in their efforts to support BB -- and I think they were prudent to avoid the potential problems if they could.

[Arch]

momto4 said:

sam2 said:

In my opinion, the most damaging argument is the board's own evaluation that the AME site presented risks that were unacceptable when compared with BB. I doubt there is much scientific substance to that issue. I always thought that was just spin to support BB.

Wasn't that a *perception* of risk? Very different than actual risk and we will find out soon about the evaluation of actual risks. When we lost the ability to build on BB they of course had to go back to the drawing board and it turns out that perception of risk could no longer be taken as a factor if we're really going to relieve overcrowding in a timely manner.

They mentioned they did not want to pick a site that may have to be abandoned in the future due to health concerns.

The ISBE has similar criteria in their grant program for site selection. From the language in that program I doubt very seriously the MWGEN/AME site would be allowed as a site under their selection criteria due to hazards located on or adjacent to the property.

[d204mom]

sam2 said:

I doubt there is much scientific substance to that issue. I always thought that was just spin to support BB.

I think that's what everyone thought, hopefully Collins will find out if that is the case or not.

[d204mom]

sam2 said:

As for how well Collins will represent this new group, keep in mind that they are representing Furstenau in his lawsuit and they represented the interest of those opposed to the recently approved location of the middle school in Wheaton/Warrenville. The issues there seemed to be related to environmental concerns.

The city just set aside more $$ to defend against the Furstenau suit.
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/opinions/816532,6_4_NA28_EDITORIAL_S1.article

THE ISSUE: The city is transferring more than $700,000 to its legal budget to pay for defense of Councilman Richard Furstenau's lawsuit.

[doctorwho]

sam2 said:

momto4 said:

Wasn't that a *perception* of risk? Very different than actual risk and we will find out soon about the evaluation of actual risks. When we lost the ability to build on BB they of course had to go back to the drawing board and it turns out that perception of risk could no longer be taken as a factor if we're really going to relieve overcrowding in a timely manner.

momto4 is correct, it was a perception issue. I didn't mean to imply that there were, or were not, problems with the site, I simply don't know. My point was that the board planted this perception in their efforts to support BB -- and I think they were prudent to avoid the potential problems if they could.

wouldn't it be nice to know for sure though ? yes I believe it was spin the first time, who said it isn't again now ?
An independent review would go a long way towards that...and remove an issue. Would like to see a body of 'experts' make that call that the issue is only perception / visual.

[Arch]

d204mom said:

sam2 said:

As for how well Collins will represent this new group, keep in mind that they are representing Furstenau in his lawsuit and they represented the interest of those opposed to the recently approved location of the middle school in Wheaton/Warrenville. The issues there seemed to be related to environmental concerns.

The city just set aside more $$ to defend against the Furstenau suit.
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/opinions/816532,6_4_NA28_EDITORIAL_S1.article

THE ISSUE: The city is transferring more than $700,000 to its legal budget to pay for defense of Councilman Richard Furstenau's lawsuit.

Maybe we should have the site towed.

[sam2]

doctorwho said:

sam2 said:

momto4 is correct, it was a perception issue. I didn't mean to imply that there were, or were not, problems with the site, I simply don't know. My point was that the board planted this perception in their efforts to support BB -- and I think they were prudent to avoid the potential problems if they could.

wouldn't it be nice to know for sure though ? yes I believe it was spin the first time, who said it isn't again now ?
An independent review would go a long way towards that...and remove an issue. Would like to see a body of 'experts' make that call that the issue is only perception / visual.

Dr., I agree with you -- I think the phase 2 review will address some of the concerns. I'm afraid that the lack of broad scientific consensus concerning EMF dangers will prevent bringing resolution to the dispute about this aspect of the site's safety - real or percieved.

[we4]

doctorwho said:

In the spirit off full disclosure - I know several people have been asking if anyone has heard anything on this topic. Several people have referenced this Sun Blog post so I thoughtI would post it here...

"Dear District 204 Residents,

As most of you are already aware, on February 19th, the school board passed a new boundary proposal to go with the sudden change to the new Eola/Rt.88 school site - to go along with a higher cost yet to be determined. As we expected, the school board had already made up their minds as signified by the prepared statements they read.

Officials summarily dismissed rational and logical arguments from many individuals, ranging from pleas to follow their own criteria to requests to slow down and reconsider their planned actions. Many thanks to all concerned 204 residents and groups who showed up and/or spoke at the meeting. You have patiently waited for some action and next steps. You may have thought it was all over. It's not over.

Next steps. Legal firms have been interviewed (mostly by District 204 resident attorneys and business people familiar with the details). The Collins Law Firm has been selected as lead counsel and, pending your collective voice and support, action will be taken to force the Board and District to slow down the due diligence process relating to the environmental issues at the new Eola site, and to account for the representations that were made during the second referendum process (specifically promises that the third high school would be built on the BB land). Good relationships with other national firms and legal foundations are being maintained in the event they need to step in and help.

Several resident groups have reached out to join forces with our organization as a show of unity, and in recognition that inclusive actions by concerned parents across District 204 trump exclusive interests every time. We have also combined, and will continue to expand forces, with other neighborhoods in district-wide unity.

As you may know we are forming a non-profit organization to look after the interests, health and safety of our children and their right to attend the nearest schools to their neighborhood. Neighborhood Schools for our Children (NSFOC) is an umbrella organization, non-neighborhood specific, made up of District-wide members. NSFOCs main focus is overturning poor decisions made by the School Board.

Please pass this information on to interested parties who are unhappy with the decision-making in our district. We have setup a web site (http://www.nsfoc.org) that we encourage you to visit and register with your contact information for newsletters and other flash communications that we send periodically as we make progress towards achieving our common goals.

To help volunteer and to become a member click on the REGISTER button, To help fund the effort, please click on the DONATE button. In order to proceed, we need the support of as many caring parents and citizens as possible. Although we have raised thousands of dollars, we will need thousands more to enforce our rights against an out of control process.

Please consider making a donation if you support moving forward for our children and our community! Numbers are powerful and we need to show that, contrary to the Board's assertions, there are more than a few isolated residents who are not satisfied with their sudden change in direction.

The first rally is on Tuesday 3/4/08 at 7 PM, at White Eagle Club House, 4265 White Eagle Drive (take Route 59, turn west on 83rd street/Montgomery and left at first entrance by the pool - suggested way) Attorney Shawn Collins will attend.

Join us! By registering right away you can keep up with other events, news and information.

Sincerely,
Neighborhood Schools For Our Children

[e-mail]

blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/newsblog/2008/02/your_turn_suggest_a_topic.html#comments

I have a feeling this will do nothing but further divide the district.

[momto4]

we4 said:

I have a feeling this will do nothing but further divide the district.

I fear that's the least harm it could do. It could also cost time and money.

[rural]

we4 said:

I have a feeling this will do nothing but further divide the district.

I agree. My gut reaction was to blame TG and WE, but I had to take a step back and realize it is just a singular group of zealots. The same group that thought they were voting on boundaries and not a school. Would this group still be suing if their students were slated to go to NV instead of WV?

Maybe I'm totally off base on this and there is a huge majority of taxpayers in this district who want to pay attorney's fees to sue themselves.

[jwh]

rural said:

we4 said:

I have a feeling this will do nothing but further divide the district.

I agree. My gut reaction was to blame TG and WE, but I had to take a step back and realize it is just a singular group of zealots. The same group that thought they were voting on boundaries and not a school. Would this group still be suing if their students were slated to go to NV instead of WV?

Maybe I'm totally off base on this and there is a huge majority of taxpayers in this district who want to pay attorney's fees to sue themselves.

The last time around, there were unhappy residents/areas. But, they didn't light the torch and run around organizing lawsuits. Do you think they'll schedule a march or sit in?

[WeBe204]

rural said:

we4 said:

I have a feeling this will do nothing but further divide the district.

I agree. My gut reaction was to blame TG and WE, but I had to take a step back and realize it is just a singular group of zealots. The same group that thought they were voting on boundaries and not a school. Would this group still be suing if their students were slated to go to NV instead of WV?

Maybe I'm totally off base on this and there is a huge majority of taxpayers in this district who want to pay attorney's fees to sue themselves.

Can I vote and I say I was pretty upset about spending money on suing BB. But we followed through on that and everyone stood behind it. Also, from what I am hearing (yes second hand knowledge) is this is a much bigger effort than just FRY and WE.

Someone somewhere needs to stand up and put the brakes on this crazy train. Someone (cough, cough Dash) needs to reach out to these people an hear them. TALK to them. Shed some light on their concerns. Reason with them. So far all I have seen is a sneer and the word Entitlement tossed out. I think there are other ways to go about this

[we4]

rural said:

we4 said:

I have a feeling this will do nothing but further divide the district.

The same group that thought they were voting on boundaries and not a school.

I voted yes based on location. Am I happy about the change? No. However, I do not think a lawsuit is the way to go. That being said, I can understand the frustration some people may feel.

[slp]

jwh said:

rural said:

I agree. My gut reaction was to blame TG and WE, but I had to take a step back and realize it is just a singular group of zealots. The same group that thought they were voting on boundaries and not a school. Would this group still be suing if their students were slated to go to NV instead of WV?

Maybe I'm totally off base on this and there is a huge majority of taxpayers in this district who want to pay attorney's fees to sue themselves.

The last time around, there were unhappy residents/areas. But, they didn't light the torch and run around organizing lawsuits. Do you think they'll schedule a march or sit in?

The last time around the unhappy residents had their voices heard in the voting booth.

I think that this group of people is upset that they do not have that same opportunity on a proposal that is the polar opposite to what was 'marketed' by the school board to pass the referendum.

Repeating what I am hearing.

[momto4]

slp said:

The last time around the unhappy residents had their voices heard in the voting booth.

I think that this group of people is upset that they do not have that same opportunity on a proposal that is the polar opposite to what was 'marketed' by the school board to pass the referendum.

Repeating what I am hearing.

Not to be argumentative, but providing a comprehensive third high school and a 7th middle school in 2009 is not the polar opposite of what was marketed or voted on.