|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Mar 8, 2008 0:14:54 GMT -6
That sort of tells of telegraphs the next step. Let's say something crazy happens. The admin/board decides to negotiate. I know, I know I am in fantasy land. What would they negotiate? I can see relief for watts, owen.. (assuming you move some other people around) maybe resolved some splits. But at the end of the day there is no room at the NVHS inn and resort. So, is seems like negotiation or settling is not possible either. right?? I don't recall seeing anything resembling "or send areas {a,b,c} here and areas {d,e,f} there..." in there. Did I miss it? Unless you're saying to negotiate for other things not even listed...? I have to admit, I'm kind of amazed the present boundaries are not even mentioned. Either it wasn't about the current boundaries or someone got very clever and took the wind out of the sails of the people screaming that it was all about the current boundaries. Hard to tell. Either way, I don't see those are anything to negotiate either from what I read. No, No.. None of that in there. I was jsut riffing on Steckmom's comment, "Then I would do everything I could to work out some sort of settlement." |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 8, 2008 0:22:00 GMT -6
ok, here's the deal.. everyone sits down in a room and I make fondue for everyone and we stop this train from careening off the tracks because the spillage is going to be toxic. Right now it's a little vapor cloud but still containable. or "Let's Make Waffles!"  |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Mar 8, 2008 0:24:54 GMT -6
ok, here's the deal.. everyone sits down in a room and I make fondue for everyone and we stop this train from careening off the tracks because the spillage is going to be toxic. Right now it's a little vapor cloud but still containable. or "Let's Make Waffles!" Is that a CN train? |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 8, 2008 0:25:42 GMT -6
Thinking about this a bit more, not one of those counts is a slam dunk. They've all got something wrong with them. This thing could get tossed out on summary judgment.
Doesn't mean it will, but I don't think we're quite as screwed as initially thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 8, 2008 0:31:37 GMT -6
I don't recall seeing anything resembling "or send areas {a,b,c} here and areas {d,e,f} there..." in there. Did I miss it? Unless you're saying to negotiate for other things not even listed...? I have to admit, I'm kind of amazed the present boundaries are not even mentioned. Either it wasn't about the current boundaries or someone got very clever and took the wind out of the sails of the people screaming that it was all about the current boundaries. Hard to tell. Either way, I don't see those are anything to negotiate either from what I read. No, No.. None of that in there. I was jsut riffing on Steckmom's comment, "Then I would do everything I could to work out some sort of settlement." The negotiation could be for another site besides AME or BB. Also, they could negotiate for something other than what is asked for. My guess is that boundaries aren't mentioned only because the attorneys couldn't come up with grounds to sue for them. They barely got in the environmental stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Mar 8, 2008 0:35:49 GMT -6
No, No.. None of that in there. I was jsut riffing on Steckmom's comment, "Then I would do everything I could to work out some sort of settlement." The negotiation could be for another site besides AME or BB. Also, they could negotiate for something other than what is asked for. My guess is that boundaries aren't mentioned only because the attorneys couldn't come up with grounds to sue for them. They barely got in the environmental stuff. hehe, okay I was showing my anti-split bias ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 8, 2008 0:46:04 GMT -6
I thought at one time it was mentioned that there was some grant money being used for this.
Did this site pass the qualifications of the 'no foreseeable hazards' site selection criteria in the ISBE grant program or was the grant money based on BB lacking said hazards?
If no grant, then the ISBE isn't an obstacle. If there was then there's a discrepancy with their site selection criteria I posted elsewhere here.
Just thinking out loud taking the "If Steckmom is right and it gets tossed, what's left for other filings" that they could be up against or is there not a 'do over'?
|
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 8, 2008 0:56:07 GMT -6
I thought at one time it was mentioned that there was some grant money being used for this. Did this site pass the qualifications of the 'no foreseeable hazards' site selection criteria in the ISBE grant program or was the grant money based on BB lacking said hazards? If no grant, then the ISBE isn't an obstacle. If there was then there's a discrepancy with their site selection criteria I posted elsewhere here. Just thinking out loud taking the "If Steckmom is right and it gets tossed, what's left for other filings" that they could be up against or is there not a 'do over'? I've been thinking out loud all night.  I think they've thrown out everything that they could possibly sue for. There would not be a 'do over,' but they could appeal. They had to sue to get the TRO. Maybe we'll get lucky and NSFOC won't take this thing as far as it could go. |
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Mar 8, 2008 0:56:10 GMT -6
Thinking about this a bit more, not one of those counts is a slam dunk. They've all got something wrong with them. This thing could get tossed out on summary judgment. Doesn't mean it will, but I don't think we're quite as screwed as initially thought. I didn't want to get involved in this discussion, but I don't think a motion for summary judgement will fly. No slam dunk winners in there for NSFOC, I agree. But, there's enough meat on the bones of their complaint that it will likely survive such a motion. I think NSFOC made some colorable arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 8, 2008 1:20:12 GMT -6
Thinking about this a bit more, not one of those counts is a slam dunk. They've all got something wrong with them. This thing could get tossed out on summary judgment. Doesn't mean it will, but I don't think we're quite as screwed as initially thought. I didn't want to get involved in this discussion, but I don't think a motion for summary judgement will fly. No slam dunk winners in there for NSFOC, I agree. But, there's enough meat on the bones of their complaint that it will likely survive such a motion. I think NSFOC made some colorable arguments. It would have been nice to have your help a few hours ago.  |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 8, 2008 1:21:33 GMT -6
At the risk of sounding redundant (ok, when has that ever stopped me?)
Again... thank you for the analysis and honest opinions about this. I'm always amazed at the credentials and talent out there amongst the population of the district and the way everyone contributes to throw their opinions and talents out on the table and apply them in a very productive manner. Sincerely, I appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Mar 8, 2008 1:31:47 GMT -6
I didn't want to get involved in this discussion, but I don't think a motion for summary judgement will fly. No slam dunk winners in there for NSFOC, I agree. But, there's enough meat on the bones of their complaint that it will likely survive such a motion. I think NSFOC made some colorable arguments. It would have been nice to have your help a few hours ago. Unfortunately, this is not my area, so I'm not going to be very useful. I'm more IP and M&A. But, I can probably talk basics and evaluate the arguments. At some point if the nuances of the arguments get too subtle, they will likely go over my head. |
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Mar 8, 2008 2:56:27 GMT -6
I find this lawsuit worrisome. Given the relief requested, and if it goes to a jury, the chances of the jury saying "do-over" is a possibility.
If that happens, I have my doubts that another referendum will pass given the recent history and the economy. In that case, CFO, both Vickers and Mr. Paul "LTE" White will have won.
I think we need to get this suit settled well before it gets to a jury.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 8, 2008 7:46:20 GMT -6
At the risk of sounding redundant (ok, when has that ever stopped me?) Again... thank you for the analysis and honest opinions about this. I'm always amazed at the credentials and talent out there amongst the population of the district and the way everyone contributes to throw their opinions and talents out on the table and apply them in a very productive manner. Sincerely, I appreciate it. Thanks. It's not my area either, but I thought I'd try to help. I think most people here do that on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 8, 2008 7:49:16 GMT -6
I find this lawsuit worrisome. Given the relief requested, and if it goes to a jury, the chances of the jury saying "do-over" is a possibility. If that happens, I have my doubts that another referendum will pass given the recent history and the economy. In that case, CFO, both Vickers and Mr. Paul "LTE" White will have won. I think we need to get this suit settled well before it gets to a jury. I find it extremely worrisome. I didn't mean to give the impression that I don't. And at this point I'm hoping CFO was right, because unless this thing settles, we aren't getting a third high school. |
|
