D204 spat best settled in voting booth, not court

[steckmom]

Stray comments and statements in emails were not included in the referendum language. The language is what it is. That's why it's so important to get it correctly on the ballot.

The SB wouldn't be able to spend referendum money on things like an addition, portable classrooms, etc, because it isn't in the referendum language. Nor can implied promises be included.

There is a reason why the attorney said there has not been a case like this before.

[d204mom]

steckmom said:

Stray comments and statements in emails were not included in the referendum language. The language is what it is. That's why it's so important to get it correctly on the ballot.

I guess we can agree to disagree on whether the site and boundaries were an "implied promise" or a "stray comment."

[Arch]

d204mom said:

steckmom said:

Stray comments and statements in emails were not included in the referendum language. The language is what it is. That's why it's so important to get it correctly on the ballot.

I guess we can agree to disagree on whether the site and boundaries were an "implied promise" or a "stray comment."

They held too many special functions for it to be a 'stray comment'. I remember attending one at the Gold Campus.

[steckmom]

archwinsome said:

d204mom said:

I guess we can agree to disagree on whether the site and boundaries were an "implied promise" or a "stray comment."

They held too many special functions for it to be a 'stray comment'. I remember attending one at the Gold Campus.

Even if they weren't stray comments, the promises were not included in the referendum language. If the SB can act in a more broad scope than the referendum language, they shouldn't be forced to act within a more narrow scope either.

[steckmom]

doctorwho said:

steckmom said:

Even if they weren't stray comments, there promise was not included in the referendum language. If the SB can act in a more broad scope than the referendum language, they shouldn't be forced to act within a more narrow scope either.

It was however included in the legal documents for condemnation and quick take " ... is to build a school at 75th and commons " -
they defined the scope both there and in all the other documents from their own web site -- no one forced them to do any of that.

Perhaps, but we are talking about a taxpayer suit, where the ballot is the only language the taxpayers examined when voting. The voters did not read the condemnation documents at the election site.

This is not a suit for contractual obligations. The SB owes none of us any contractual duties.

[doctorwho]

steckmom said:

doctorwho said:

It was however included in the legal documents for condemnation and quick take " ... is to build a school at 75th and commons " -
they defined the scope both there and in all the other documents from their own web site -- no one forced them to do any of that.

Perhaps, but we are talking about a taxpayer suit, where the ballot is the only language the taxpayers examined when voting. The voters did not read the condemnation documents at the election site.

This is not a suit for contractual obligations. The SB owes none of us any contractual duties.

not for you and I to decide....I believe when they have made commitments on how to spend our money - and the courts have already reviewed those commitments, they just might be allowed to be reviewed again.



I wonder how the settlement for damages with BB will be affected if we say the language in the condemnation suit " really doesn't mean anything" after we tied up the land for 2+ years for that specific reason ?

[steckmom]

doctorwho said:

steckmom said:

Perhaps, but we are talking about a taxpayer suit, where the ballot is the only language the taxpayers examined when voting. The voters did not read the condemnation documents at the election site.

This is not a suit for contractual obligations. The SB owes none of us any contractual duties.

not for you and I to decide....I believe when they have made commitments on how to spend our money - and the courts have already reviewed those commitments, they just might be allowed to be reviewed again.


but that's OK-- hang onto that thought, again it will not be you and I determining that. I agree things from 204tk etc cannot be attiributed directly to them ( conveniently) - but things they themselves put out to sawy public opinion - got a feeling they might count.


I wonder how the settlement for damages with BB will be affected if we say the language in the condemnation suit " really doesn't mean anything" after we tied up the land for 2+ years for that specific reason ?

It's not that the language in the legal documents means nothing, they are just aren't really relevant to a taxpayer lawsuit. I'm sure the attorney will try to argue that it is, but again as far as I can tell, a suit like this has never been won. I will keep looking though--but I won't let you know.

I never said we weren't in trouble with BB damages, but that damage has already been done.

[steckmom]

doctorwho said:

steckmom said:

. The SB owes none of us any contractual duties.

And people complain that some are turning over $204 without knowing what they going to get for it -- yet others are OK turning over $150 M without any more guarantee of fulfilling promises either ?

I can't do anything about the $150 M at this point.

The $204, that has the potential to increase my taxes above the $150 M, I can at least try something about.

ETA: okay that really didn't make sense. I guess could sue over the $150 M, but I don't think it's the best course of action.

[d204mom]

I think the legal term is "implied but not stated."

But I'm not a lawyer, so take it with a grain of salt. Who knows where this will go?

I do know that the board and super could've gone a long way towards preventing it, but that is spilled milk.

More gauntlets thrown down with every "scoff"!

[Arch]

This looks ugly before even bringing up site safety. Joy.

I have to admit.. interesting angle.

[doctorwho]

steckmom said:

doctorwho said:

not for you and I to decide....I believe when they have made commitments on how to spend our money - and the courts have already reviewed those commitments, they just might be allowed to be reviewed again.


but that's OK-- hang onto that thought, again it will not be you and I determining that. I agree things from 204tk etc cannot be attiributed directly to them ( conveniently) - but things they themselves put out to sawy public opinion - got a feeling they might count.


I wonder how the settlement for damages with BB will be affected if we say the language in the condemnation suit " really doesn't mean anything" after we tied up the land for 2+ years for that specific reason ?

It's not that the language in the legal documents means nothing, they are just aren't really relevant to a taxpayer lawsuit. I'm sure the attorney will try to argue that it is, but again as far as I can tell, a suit like this has never been won. I will keep looking though--but I won't let you know.

I never said we weren't in trouble with BB damages, but that damage has already been done.

we already know there are no direct precedents - as it seems no one has even been led this far down one path and had it change so dramatically. We're just lucky I guess

[steckmom]

d204mom said:

I think the legal term is "implied but not stated."

But I'm not a lawyer, so take it with a grain of salt. Who knows where this will go?

I do know that the board and super could've gone a long way towards preventing it, but that is spilled milk.

More gauntlets thrown down with every "scoff"!

I agree. It makes it very frustrating for me, because I'm no fan of the SB. I think they dug themselves in deep. Yet here I am trying to defend them because I really think a lawsuit is bad for the district.

If by chance it could just get some negotiation going, maybe it would be okay. But I worry they're going to dig their heels in deep. And then what? Years of a lawsuit while the 204 schools go down the tubes.

And even if it is all the SBs fault, it doesn't change the fact that we're all going to suffer.

Researching posted a question yesterday asking (forgive the paraphrase), "if not a lawsuit, then what?" It's really stuck with me. I wish I had the answer. But I don't think it is 'lawsuit.'

[Arch]

steckmom said:

d204mom said:

I think the legal term is "implied but not stated."

But I'm not a lawyer, so take it with a grain of salt. Who knows where this will go?

I do know that the board and super could've gone a long way towards preventing it, but that is spilled milk.

More gauntlets thrown down with every "scoff"!

I agree. It makes it very frustrating for me, because I'm no fan of the SB. I think they dug themselves in deep. Yet here I am trying to defend them because I really think a lawsuit is bad for the district.

If by chance it could just get some negotiation going, maybe it would be okay. But I worry they're going to dig their heels in deep. And then what? Years of a lawsuit while the 204 schools go down the tubes.

And even if it is all the SBs fault, it doesn't change the fact that we're all going to suffer.

Researching posted a question yesterday asking (forgive the paraphrase), "if not a lawsuit, then what?" It's really stuck with me. I wish I had the answer. But I don't think it is 'lawsuit.'

My fear is that they pull another "See you in court" quip. We're dead then. Regardless of any outcome, we're dead.

[doctorwho]

steckmom said:

d204mom said:

I think the legal term is "implied but not stated."

But I'm not a lawyer, so take it with a grain of salt. Who knows where this will go?

I do know that the board and super could've gone a long way towards preventing it, but that is spilled milk.

More gauntlets thrown down with every "scoff"!

I agree. It makes it very frustrating for me, because I'm no fan of the SB. I think they dug themselves in deep. Yet here I am trying to defend them because I really think a lawsuit is bad for the district.

If by chance it could just get some negotiation going, maybe it would be okay. But I worry they're going to dig their heels in deep. And then what? Years of a lawsuit while the 204 schools go down the tubes.

And even if it is all the SBs fault, it doesn't change the fact that we're all going to suffer.

Researching posted a question yesterday asking (forgive the paraphrase), "if not a lawsuit, then what?" It's really stuck with me. I wish I had the answer. But I don't think it is 'lawsuit.'

I sincerely believe ( and I just had this conversation with someone else) that if there really was another way a good number of people would take it instead -- but the SD-SB appears disinterested in anything except what's already been decided, so I fear the worst. Entire areas blown off from even being mentioned, heard or acknowledged - full speed ahead while there are at least some concerns from most rational people on safety ( varying levels - yes)- and statements on this like the park district & bridge - at best crafted to leave a different impression that full disclosure reality.



Show me an alternative and why anyone would trust it and I am all ears....
many of us have been asking this question now for weeks -

[mandmmom]

steckmom said:

d204mom said:

I think the legal term is "implied but not stated."

But I'm not a lawyer, so take it with a grain of salt. Who knows where this will go?

I do know that the board and super could've gone a long way towards preventing it, but that is spilled milk.

More gauntlets thrown down with every "scoff"!

I agree. It makes it very frustrating for me, because I'm no fan of the SB. I think they dug themselves in deep. Yet here I am trying to defend them because I really think a lawsuit is bad for the district.

If by chance it could just get some negotiation going, maybe it would be okay. But I worry they're going to dig their heels in deep. And then what? Years of a lawsuit while the 204 schools go down the tubes.

And even if it is all the SBs fault, it doesn't change the fact that we're all going to suffer.

Researching posted a question yesterday asking (forgive the paraphrase), "if not a lawsuit, then what?" It's really stuck with me. I wish I had the answer. But I don't think it is 'lawsuit.'

I have also thought a lot about Researching comment and I think they feel like it is the only path to take now. IMO, the SB are the ones to blame for this mess....and steckmom, I agree with you I think we will all suffer from this....IMO they have failed miserably and if they were in the corporate world they would not continue to have their jobs....that is what is frustrating for me.