Still no environmental reports for MV DH 3/21/2008

[yeson321]

archwinsome said:

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?

IMHO we should absolutely be building at BB. If you talk with people who aren't involved with the lawsuit, many of us would rather pay a premium for the best land than put our kids at risk.

I was cleaning through some old files and came across the 2005 referendum stuff (I have no idea where the 2006 stuff is ) and Mr. Metzger had an interesting quote in the Naperville Sun article - District 204 makes up mind on high school site 12/24/04

"We are paying a $2 (million) to $3 million premium to have a school where it does us a lot of good," Metzger said.

In todays dollars, there is no premium too high IMHO to ensure the safety of my kids. People cannot say to take chances when that could be my kid feeling the repercussions down the road.

[doctorwho]

yeson321 said:

archwinsome said:

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?

IMHO we should absolutely be building at BB. If you talk with people who aren't involved with the lawsuit, many of us would rather pay a premium for the best land than put our kids at risk.

I was cleaning through some old files and came across the 2005 referendum stuff (I have no idea where the 2006 stuff is ) and Mr. Metzger had an interesting quote in the Naperville Sun article - District 204 makes up mind on high school site 12/24/04

"We are paying a $2 (million) to $3 million premium to have a school where it does us a lot of good," Metzger said.

In todays dollars, there is no premium too high IMHO to ensure the safety of my kids. People cannot say to take chances when that could be my kid feeling the repercussions down the road.

All things considered equal - is not a 2010 opening at BB only $3.1 M different than a 2009 opening @ AME ? If so - what has changed since this comment other than the Super ?

[sushi]

IF the board does a turnaround and decides to build at BB, what would keep George Vickers, Paul White and company from filing a lawsuit citing fiscal irresponsibility?

To me, there is not a simple solution; IF Eola is safe, they have to build there.

[Arch]

sushi said:

IF the board does a turnaround and decides to build at BB, what would keep George Vickers, Paul White and company from filing a lawsuit citing fiscal irresponsibility?

To me, there is not a simple solution; IF Eola is safe, they have to build there.

You honestly think we should not build a 3rd HS because you are afraid of Paul White or George Vickers?

[doctorwho]

sushi said:

IF the board does a turnaround and decides to build at BB, what would keep George Vickers, Paul White and company from filing a lawsuit citing fiscal irresponsibility?

To me, there is not a simple solution; IF Eola is safe, they have to build there.

So an equal risk is that AME-MWGEN might be environmentally unsafe ( and there could be issues that arise during construction as well) - vs. G Vickers suing on something we actually DID vote in and have been telling people we WILL DO for 3 years ?

I have to vote for that risk over the potential health risks to children - sorry.


This is where I have an issue - some are willing to 'risk' it and move forward either because they fear the 3rd HS may not open in 2009 - and still others willing to risk all kids there so they can have a new school close to home.....


we could easily get a 'clear letter' from MWGEN and then as we dig more- run into numerous more issues ( all of which will be our responsibility at that point btw ) - then we are totally screwed. Is that not a risk ? And yes the risk is anywhere- but the odds are much better at a site that has had the uses this site has -

[sushi]

I do not have a problem with squeezing for one more year if it makes a difference. I dont see that it will and I don't see it happening. I agree with Smom - this lawsuit will do nothing but de-rail the school entirely. I am not afraid of GV; just making the point that although we don't have a problem throwing more money in, many will. The SB has to answer to ALL the taxpayers, not just the ones in NSFOC. Look, I really wish we were at BB too. It is clearly a better site; the board agrees. I just don't see it working.

How far down do the soil samples bore?

[Arch]

sushi said:

I do not have a problem with squeezing for one more year if it makes a difference. I dont see that it will and I don't see it happening. I agree with Smom - this lawsuit will do nothing but de-rail the school entirely. I am not afraid of GV; just making the point that although we don't have a problem throwing more money in, many will. The SB has to answer to ALL the taxpayers, not just the ones in NSFOC. Look, I really wish we were at BB too. It is clearly a better site; the board agrees. I just don't see it working.

How far down do the soil samples bore?

Don't know how far the samples went. Data like that should be on the report we're not allowed to see yet.

As many have pointed out, the referendum did not say the total amount to use on a HS is 124 million. That was just the money to be raised by selling bonds and that cash can ONLY be used for a 3rd HS and land acquisition. It set no ceiling limit... so GV and PW have no leg to stand on in that regard.

If the district says it puts kid's safety first, then they need to put their money where their mouth is and buy a safe site that has the LEAST POTENTIAL for future environmental problems or safety hazards. Period. So far since the verdict we have been stepping over the dollars to pick up the pennies and all we're slated to get is a site that is about on par for safety with the dump site.

[sushi]

Do you seriously think BB is a possibility after all this?

[Arch]

sushi said:

Do you seriously think BB is a possibility after all this?

Of course it is, but it requires a more humble approach and some people skills.

[steckmom]

archwinsome said:

sushi said:

Do you seriously think BB is a possibility after all this?

Of course it is, but it requires a more humble approach and some people skills.

The problem is that none of us can control the parties who need to do this.

[d204mom]

sushi said:

The SB has to answer to ALL the taxpayers, not just the ones in NSFOC. Look, I really wish we were at BB too. It is clearly a better site; the board agrees.

How are they answering for the 16.8 MIL extra they need for MWGEN?

Anyone that has a problem dipping into excess op funds for 3.1 million also has a problem with MWGEN being over budget by more than 16 million dollars.

There is no "new" money necessary. You've already paid for Brach Brodie. The admin and board just choose to sit on it instead of doing what they said they would.

[Arch]

steckmom said:

archwinsome said:

Of course it is, but it requires a more humble approach and some people skills.

The problem is that none of us can control the parties who need to do this.

I know, this is why I earlier said, put me in a room with B and B and our admin, and we'll have the land.

[sushi]

I think you should set up the meeting. I still think (beating a horse) Brach/Brodie Memorial HS is a start.

[JB]

d204mom said:

sushi said:

The SB has to answer to ALL the taxpayers, not just the ones in NSFOC. Look, I really wish we were at BB too. It is clearly a better site; the board agrees.

How are they answering for the 16.8 MIL extra they need for MWGEN?

Anyone that has a problem dipping into excess op funds for 3.1 million also has a problem with MWGEN being over budget by more than 16 million dollars.

There is no "new" money necessary. You've already paid for Brach Brodie. The admin and board just choose to sit on it instead of doing what they said they would.

They also don't realize / want to admit that MWGEN increases the overall commuting miles, which will increase transportation costs.

There's a 13% increase in bussed miles, which multiplied by our $11.3 milion/year transportation budget makes the operating costs at MWGEN $1.47Mill/year more expensive than BB - say goodbye to the one-time land cost savings, increased variable cost is forever.

[steckmom]

archwinsome said:

steckmom said:

The problem is that none of us can control the parties who need to do this.

I know, this is why I earlier said, put me in a room with B and B and our admin, and we'll have the land.

If you could do that, there would be an Archwinsome (or whatever your real name is) Elementary one day.