|
|
Post by cornholio on Mar 21, 2008 23:33:20 GMT -6
www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=158352By Melissa Jenco | Daily Herald Staff Published: 3/21/2008 8:44 PM | Updated: 3/21/2008 4:14 PM Indian Prairie Unit District 204 likely will not release long-awaited environmental reports on the proposed site for Metea Valley High School at Monday night's school board meeting. The reports contain the findings of tests for ground contaminants at the site along Eola Road south of Diehl Road near Aurora. "We are trying to gain approval from the seller to discuss and make public those reports," Superintendent Stephen Daeschner said Friday. He said he hopes to be able to release them later next week. The environmental status of the 87-acre property owned by Midwest Generation and St John AME Church has been a source of debate in the community. Environmental attorney Shawn Collins released a position paper a week ago outlining concerns involving a former power plant on the site and power lines and gas pipelines that run through part of the property. But District 204 attorney Stuart Whitt said Collins is merely trying to scare residents and the district would not jeopardize students' safety. School officials already have confirmed that traces of diesel fuel were found in six of 55 soil borings taken at the site, but they say that issue easily can be fixed. Daeschner said Midwest Generation will be entering into the state Environmental Protection Agency's site remediation program. In the meantime, Collins is representing the grass-roots organization Neighborhood Schools for Our Children in a lawsuit trying to force District 204 to buy the Brach-Brodie land it initially intended to purchase at 75th Street and Commons Drive near Aurora. That plan fell through in September when a jury set the price of the land at $31 million -- $17 million more than the district anticipated. After opening negotiations with several other landowners, the district chose the Eola site for Metea in January. Despite the pending litigation, Daeschner said he plans to continue moving forward. "If I slow down this district and wait for everything like that to happen, we don't get anything done," he said. "This is playing out in the papers. It certainly hasn't played out in the courts." When the school board meets Monday it is scheduled to approve bids for steel for the school. It already has agreed to contracts for grading, excavation, precast walls and roof and materials testing. The contracts are contingent on possessing the title to the property, holding a special board meeting to discuss the environmental reports and annexing the property into Aurora. The board plans to vote on the annexation agreement Monday, which may be followed by an Aurora City Council vote Tuesday. The 3,000-student school is scheduled to open in the fall of 2009. The school board meets at 7 p.m. Monday at the Crouse Education Center, 780 Shoreline Drive, Aurora.
|
|
|
|
Post by cornholio on Mar 22, 2008 0:47:15 GMT -6
The D needs to go back to Alaska. They like oil there.
|
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on Mar 22, 2008 7:02:00 GMT -6
For heaven's sake. What they are trying to do here is to dissuade people from going to the SB meeting on Monday and making public comment. Could it be any more obvious?
|
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on Mar 22, 2008 7:02:48 GMT -6
For heaven's sake. What they are trying to do here is to dissuade people from going to the SB meeting on Monday and making public comment. Could it be any more obvious?
|
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Mar 22, 2008 8:55:11 GMT -6
For heaven's sake. What they are trying to do here is to dissuade people from going to the SB meeting on Monday and making public comment. Could it be any more obvious? I guess you'll have to spell it out for me, because I didn't get that. Anyone can go to these SB meetings and make public comment if they sign up, right? How is this article trying to dissuade us from going? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 22, 2008 8:55:21 GMT -6
www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=158352By Melissa Jenco | Daily Herald Staff Published: 3/21/2008 8:44 PM | Updated: 3/21/2008 4:14 PM Indian Prairie Unit District 204 likely will not release long-awaited environmental reports on the proposed site for Metea Valley High School at Monday night's school board meeting. The reports contain the findings of tests for ground contaminants at the site along Eola Road south of Diehl Road near Aurora. "We are trying to gain approval from the seller to discuss and make public those reports," Superintendent Stephen Daeschner said Friday. He said he hopes to be able to release them later next week. The environmental status of the 87-acre property owned by Midwest Generation and St John AME Church has been a source of debate in the community. Environmental attorney Shawn Collins released a position paper a week ago outlining concerns involving a former power plant on the site and power lines and gas pipelines that run through part of the property. But District 204 attorney Stuart Whitt said Collins is merely trying to scare residents and the district would not jeopardize students' safety. School officials already have confirmed that traces of diesel fuel were found in six of 55 soil borings taken at the site, but they say that issue easily can be fixed. Daeschner said Midwest Generation will be entering into the state Environmental Protection Agency's site remediation program. In the meantime, Collins is representing the grass-roots organization Neighborhood Schools for Our Children in a lawsuit trying to force District 204 to buy the Brach-Brodie land it initially intended to purchase at 75th Street and Commons Drive near Aurora. That plan fell through in September when a jury set the price of the land at $31 million -- $17 million more than the district anticipated. After opening negotiations with several other landowners, the district chose the Eola site for Metea in January. Despite the pending litigation, Daeschner said he plans to continue moving forward. "If I slow down this district and wait for everything like that to happen, we don't get anything done," he said. "This is playing out in the papers. It certainly hasn't played out in the courts."When the school board meets Monday it is scheduled to approve bids for steel for the school. It already has agreed to contracts for grading, excavation, precast walls and roof and materials testing. The contracts are contingent on possessing the title to the property, holding a special board meeting to discuss the environmental reports and annexing the property into Aurora. The board plans to vote on the annexation agreement Monday, which may be followed by an Aurora City Council vote Tuesday. The 3,000-student school is scheduled to open in the fall of 2009. The school board meets at 7 p.m. Monday at the Crouse Education Center, 780 Shoreline Drive, Aurora. For everyone complaining a law suit was not necessary - people could get them to slow down without it - here's your answer. ( and of course we already knew this ) |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 22, 2008 10:17:35 GMT -6
For heaven's sake. What they are trying to do here is to dissuade people from going to the SB meeting on Monday and making public comment. Could it be any more obvious? This is what I believe people are referring to: "If I slow down this district and wait for everything like that to happen, we don't get anything done," Think of it like trying to tell your Dad that he's driving down the wrong way on a one-way street and he insists that you shut up and don't make another peep because he's trying to drive. It basically makes people say "WTF is the point in saying anything anyways, no one is listening" |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 22, 2008 11:59:45 GMT -6
www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=158352By Melissa Jenco | Daily Herald Staff Published: 3/21/2008 8:44 PM | Updated: 3/21/2008 4:14 PM Indian Prairie Unit District 204 likely will not release long-awaited environmental reports on the proposed site for Metea Valley High School at Monday night's school board meeting. The reports contain the findings of tests for ground contaminants at the site along Eola Road south of Diehl Road near Aurora. "We are trying to gain approval from the seller to discuss and make public those reports," Superintendent Stephen Daeschner said Friday. He said he hopes to be able to release them later next week. The environmental status of the 87-acre property owned by Midwest Generation and St John AME Church has been a source of debate in the community. Environmental attorney Shawn Collins released a position paper a week ago outlining concerns involving a former power plant on the site and power lines and gas pipelines that run through part of the property. But District 204 attorney Stuart Whitt said Collins is merely trying to scare residents and the district would not jeopardize students' safety. School officials already have confirmed that traces of diesel fuel were found in six of 55 soil borings taken at the site, but they say that issue easily can be fixed. Daeschner said Midwest Generation will be entering into the state Environmental Protection Agency's site remediation program. In the meantime, Collins is representing the grass-roots organization Neighborhood Schools for Our Children in a lawsuit trying to force District 204 to buy the Brach-Brodie land it initially intended to purchase at 75th Street and Commons Drive near Aurora. That plan fell through in September when a jury set the price of the land at $31 million -- $17 million more than the district anticipated. After opening negotiations with several other landowners, the district chose the Eola site for Metea in January. Despite the pending litigation, Daeschner said he plans to continue moving forward. "If I slow down this district and wait for everything like that to happen, we don't get anything done," he said. "This is playing out in the papers. It certainly hasn't played out in the courts."When the school board meets Monday it is scheduled to approve bids for steel for the school. It already has agreed to contracts for grading, excavation, precast walls and roof and materials testing. The contracts are contingent on possessing the title to the property, holding a special board meeting to discuss the environmental reports and annexing the property into Aurora. The board plans to vote on the annexation agreement Monday, which may be followed by an Aurora City Council vote Tuesday. The 3,000-student school is scheduled to open in the fall of 2009. The school board meets at 7 p.m. Monday at the Crouse Education Center, 780 Shoreline Drive, Aurora. For everyone complaining a law suit was not necessary - people could get them to slow down without it - here's your answer. ( and of course we already knew this ) This article came out yesterday and the lawsuit was filed a few weeks ago. One could argue that the lawsuit is what is making them refuse to slow down. I don't know, I must have missed the headline that Sun ran about the NSFOC parent group protests/attempts to negotiate/or even attends a SB meeting as a group. All I ever saw was that they sued. I know you attended meetings and spoke your piece, but it was every man for himself. Here's a quote I read today: “One parent complaining is a fruitcake; two parents are a fruitcake and friend; five parents will get some attention; 20 parents can be seen as a powerful organization.” It was even written in the context of dealing with schools. (I'll provide the source through a PM, if anyone wants it) And I do understand it goes both ways. Maybe it's just easier to pay an attorney to fight the battle, but now we all have to pay. I was okay with an attempt at a TRO, but since it looks like that isn't coming, or at least not until SB sinks a ton of $ into MWGEN, I'm completely opposed to the lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 22, 2008 12:46:03 GMT -6
Whether it is one person or 20 should not matter.
2 + 2 equals 4 even if just one fruitcake answered 4 and the 19 other parents answered 12.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 22, 2008 12:59:39 GMT -6
8 and 1/2 weeks later since we were told the district would share the data on the site with us.... one more week of waiting and we'll have a copyright infringement with that movie title. Oh, but it'll come any day now as we've been told over and over  |
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on Mar 22, 2008 13:41:03 GMT -6
"This article came out yesterday and the lawsuit was filed a few weeks ago. One could argue that the lawsuit is what is making them refuse to slow down."
I don't believe that you really believe that. They were full steam ahead before the lawsuit was announced - that is the reason the lawsuit was acted on - because they are not listening. It appears they're trying to rush so that too much damage will already be done before anything that could stop them comes from BB or the lawsuit. Then it will just cost our district even more.
Again, instead of being mad about the people trying to get them to slow down and make thoughtful decisions, why don't you question why they are so focused on 2009. Why, when they don't even have all the answers they need? What is the harm in slowing down? I just don't get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 22, 2008 13:45:23 GMT -6
"This article came out yesterday and the lawsuit was filed a few weeks ago. One could argue that the lawsuit is what is making them refuse to slow down." I don't believe that you really believe that. They were full steam ahead before the lawsuit was announced - that is the reason the lawsuit was acted on - because they are not listening. It appears they're trying to rush so that too much damage will already be done before anything that could stop them comes from BB or the lawsuit. Then it will just cost our district even more. Again, instead of being mad about the people trying to get them to slow down and make thoughtful decisions, why don't you question why they are so focused on 2009. Why, when they don't even have all the answers they need? What is the harm in slowing down? I just don't get it. anyone who believes they were going to slow down for anything is just in denail. What reason did they have to slow down.? They see no issue with the lousy site. They give a rats behind about some of the commutes - and only roll their eyes and scoff when someone speaks about it. They were moving just as fast as now. You're forgetting that nsfoc is a combine of many different smaller groups who have been petitioning for saner solutions for quite some time now -- the reason thre is an NSFOC is because the SD and SB basically gave all these groups the collective finger -- period. If they spend our money to start this and then it goes in the tank- THEY are responsible. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 22, 2008 14:26:29 GMT -6
"This article came out yesterday and the lawsuit was filed a few weeks ago. One could argue that the lawsuit is what is making them refuse to slow down." I don't believe that you really believe that. They were full steam ahead before the lawsuit was announced - that is the reason the lawsuit was acted on - because they are not listening. It appears they're trying to rush so that too much damage will already be done before anything that could stop them comes from BB or the lawsuit. Then it will just cost our district even more. Again, instead of being mad about the people trying to get them to slow down and make thoughtful decisions, why don't you question why they are so focused on 2009. Why, when they don't even have all the answers they need? What is the harm in slowing down? I just don't get it. No harm in slowing down, and I don't really mean to sound angry at anyone here. I apologize. But where's the TRO? Here's my fear- The SB is moving forward quickly. The NSFOC has sued, but is moving slowly as it is just gaining ground and $. After we have started building, the NSFOC will gain momentum and $. Then they and begin moving forward quickly with the lawsuit. And we will be stuck for years with a school half built, paying off contractors, overcrowded schools, a crummy school district and lowered property values. I'd rather see the school built (or not started at all) and take the environmental risks. But that's just me. And please, Arch, don't attack me with an explosion statistic. It's just my opinion. You are all entitled to yours and you are all entitled to sue. |
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 22, 2008 14:34:20 GMT -6
On behalf of the taxpayers that make up NSFOC, I want to clarify why the lawsuit was filed. It is the only vehicle we have to make the courts aware of our objections to how this tax money is being spent. TRO are wonderful, but they require posting of a bond...why risk money that may be need for future litigation on a Bond? Remember the SB has the pot of money from your tax bill to pay whatever bonuses, bad hires and legal bills they choose to .
Your insights are right on target, the more exposure our concerns have and the continued behavior of the school board turning a deaf ear to the residents helps our funding and membership. We ask for your support in spreading the word on meetings, membership and donations. United we can beat this; it does not effect just one or two subdivisions. Whatever happened in the past is over; we have one purpose now.
come to the meeting on March 25 at VFW 908 Jackson 7p, make your opinion known!
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 22, 2008 14:34:52 GMT -6
I'm not going to attack you, Smom. We can politely agree to disagree.
I would rather see them side-step the enviro concerns forever and cough up the $$ for BB and put everything to bed in one swoop; forever ridding us of this 'SUE ME' target that will be with us forever if they purchase AME/MWGEN and put a school there.
If I'm wrong and the site was clean and someone else puts something there at Eola/Molitor, what's the harm?
If the Administration is wrong and there is an enviro problem after our money is SUNK into the site, well, we all know the harm then especially since it is very methodically documented about WHO knew WHAT and WHEN when it came to people pointing out problems with the site.
Which route do you think will get us a school quicker and cheaper?
God forbid that slim outside chance of an accident w/ a pipeline happens too. How will everyone feel then? Chalk it up to "Oh Well, it was cheap, we can't complain" ??
Call that last one unfair, but it's a valid question that every parent in this district needs to ask themselves.
|
|
