District won't postpone Metea for IEPA/SUN 3/30

[Arch]

rj said:

Sorry Arch, using a kid drilling an above ground pipeline to push your fear mongering agenda is a stretch considering the AME pipelines are underground.

For that matter, most of your examples of pipeline tragedies involved above ground pipelines, but hey, why let facts get in the way of a good agenda.

Protection of lives and property are my agenda.

Sad to see it's not yours nor is it the Administration's or the School Board's.

[WeBe204]

rural said:

Didn't one class steal the bell that doesn't ring?

Yeah, only to find out it was fake... Even that move required the kids to circumvent school security to get on the roof.

[rj]

archwinsome said:

Protection of lives and property are my agenda.

Sad to see it's not yours nor is it the Administration's or the School Board's.

I am all for protecting lives and property, only I can differentiate between real and imagined threats. Comparing above and below ground pipelines is apples to oranges. They are both fruit, but that is where the similarities end.

[Arch]

FYI, Carlsbad NM, which I documented previously on here was the UNDERGROUND section of the pipeline that exploded and rained down burning fuel to cook to Extra Crispy the 12 campers including several children and infants who were camping out by the Above Ground section of the pipeline. Their distance from the blast was farther than the building at MV will be to the pipelines running under the athletic fields.

[rj]

I suppose your pipeline fears will be the least of our worries when the Braidwood 1 or 2 Nuclear plant melts down, which inevitably it will according to some in the know. Do the plans for MV include lead encasement for such an event?

[Avenging Eagle]

rj said:

avengingeagle said:

what about BB breaks CA law?

And put the gun down while we are discussing this situation please.

First off AE, what gun? Or is this another case of censuring anyone who dares question the masses?

Now that that is out of the way, according to CA standards, a school should not be built on former farm land because of the toxic fertilizers/ pesticides dumped into the soil over the years, many of them before the EPA regulated them. Surely you remember DDT and the other carcinogenic chemicals that have since been banned by the EPA? Well, they don't evaporate, they end up in the ground, all the way into the water table.

That being said, it doesn't appear that the CA law regarding school siting is a buffet, where you choose what suits you and leave the rest, so BB is just as unfit for a school as the AME/MWGEN site. As a matter of fact, if you want to stand by the CA standard, there probably isn't a safe place for a school in the district.

Have you finished reading JB's post about how it is OK to build on farmland but not a pipeline site?

Please don't pull a Glawe on us and make up your own version of CA law out of convenience.

The gun I refer to is the one that you and others are holding to the district's head that if you don't get "your site" of MWGEN, then you will shoot and kill the BB site.

Talk about agendas.

[Arch]

rj said:

I suppose your pipeline fears will be the least of our worries when the Braidwood 1 or 2 Nuclear plant melts down, which inevitably it will according to some in the know. Do the plans for MV include lead encasement for such an event?

I obtained copies of the data from the NRC prior to them taking it off the net in 2001 with regards to their emergency procedures and worst-case scenarios. We're actually in a good spot for Braidwood and Dresden in case you were wondering.

[Arch]

avengingeagle said:

rj said:

First off AE, what gun? Or is this another case of censuring anyone who dares question the masses?

Now that that is out of the way, according to CA standards, a school should not be built on former farm land because of the toxic fertilizers/ pesticides dumped into the soil over the years, many of them before the EPA regulated them. Surely you remember DDT and the other carcinogenic chemicals that have since been banned by the EPA? Well, they don't evaporate, they end up in the ground, all the way into the water table.

That being said, it doesn't appear that the CA law regarding school siting is a buffet, where you choose what suits you and leave the rest, so BB is just as unfit for a school as the AME/MWGEN site. As a matter of fact, if you want to stand by the CA standard, there probably isn't a safe place for a school in the district.

Have you finished reading JB's post about how it is OK to build on farmland but not a pipeline site?

The gun I refer to is the one that you and others are holding to the district's head that if you don't get "your site" of MWGEN, then you will shoot and kill the BB site.

Talk about agendas.

I'm all for lining up EVERY site and methodically going through all sites and hazards and liabilities and picking the best of the best. *THAT* is fair and *THAT* is what the district deserves. Nothing less.

[rj]

I'm all for lining up EVERY site and methodically going through all sites and hazards and liabilities and picking the best of the best. *THAT* is fair and *THAT* is what the district deserves. Nothing less.

That would work if you could pull it off. Good luck with that.

[rj]

avengingeagle said:

The gun I refer to is the one that you and others are holding to the district's head that if you don't get "your site" of MWGEN, then you will shoot and kill the BB site.

Talk about agendas.

Sorry AE, but I have no dog in this fight, except financing it. My kids are all out of school, so unlike you, it isn't about my kid going to (GASP!) WV.

Actually, I am torn on this one, you see I am adamantly opposed to eminent domain, so I am glad the jury stuck it to the SD. On the other hand, AME/MWGEN isn't the best location either. Right now, it would be wise to re negotiate with BB and pursue that site, but leave the NSFOC parents kids at WV, because we all know it isn't about the boundaries, it is about safety. But that isn't going to happen, (the BB site), so we have to deal with AME/MWGEN. It would be nice if everyone could sit down and discuss the real and perceived hazards like adults, and leave the hype and fear mongering out of it, but I highly doubt that will happen either, as there are too many conflicting agendas, including the SB.

[Arch]

rj said:

avengingeagle said:

The gun I refer to is the one that you and others are holding to the district's head that if you don't get "your site" of MWGEN, then you will shoot and kill the BB site.

Talk about agendas.

Sorry AE, but I have no dog in this fight, except financing it. My kids are all out of school, so unlike you, it isn't about my kid going to (GASP!) WV.

Actually, I am torn on this one, you see I am adamantly opposed to eminent domain, so I am glad the jury stuck it to the SD. On the other hand, AME/MWGEN isn't the best location either. Right now, it would be wise to re negotiate with BB and pursue that site, but leave the NSFOC kids at WV, because we all know it isn't about the boundaries, it is about safety. But that isn't going to happen, (the BB site), so we have to deal with AME/MWGEN. It would be nice if everyone could sit down and discuss the real and perceived hazards like adults, and leave the hype and fear mongering out of it, but I highly doubt that will happen either, as there are too many conflicting agendas, including the SB.

Landswap MWGEN land w/ Stonebridge for part of the golf course. Build a walk-over to play the other holes across Eola. School is now buffered by homes around stonebridge. North gets their school, site has less hazards and everyone wins. Since many up there believe the site is 'safe' there should be no balking at any of that, right?

[specailneedsmom]

Doesn't the golf club have a leaky underground tank, or has that been cleaned up?

[rj]

Or.................go back and negotiate with BB for a fair price, like the SD should have done before demanding they sell them the land at 05 prices in 06 and filing eminent domain. It sure is nice to dream, isn't it Arch?

[Avenging Eagle]

rj said:

avengingeagle said:

The gun I refer to is the one that you and others are holding to the district's head that if you don't get "your site" of MWGEN, then you will shoot and kill the BB site.

Talk about agendas.

Sorry AE, but I have no dog in this fight, except financing it. My kids are all out of school, so unlike you, it isn't about my kid going to (GASP!) WV.

Actually, I am torn on this one, you see I am adamantly opposed to eminent domain, so I am glad the jury stuck it to the SD. On the other hand, AME/MWGEN isn't the best location either. Right now, it would be wise to re negotiate with BB and pursue that site, but leave the NSFOC kids at WV, because we all know it isn't about the boundaries, it is about safety. But that isn't going to happen, (the BB site), so we have to deal with AME/MWGEN. It would be nice if everyone could sit down and discuss the real and perceived hazards like adults, and leave the hype and fear mongering out of it, but I highly doubt that will happen either, as there are too many conflicting agendas, including the SB.

What is your agenda then rj...to bash WE for some sins of the past. Did they make you feel bad back in your day?

And why do you need to try to attack any kid in the district by labeling them NSFOC kids? You say to leave the discussions to adults, but you are acting like and arguing like a baby.

[fence]

Well, we will be going to WV and (GASP) I don't care.

I would just ask the people in this district to answer one question - should we have IEPA approval before we start building? Is that reasonable financially and otherwise, considering that if we start building and something is wrong, we lose pretty much everything put in up to that point?

I think that the real majority would say that IEPA sign off on the land is reasonable and should be required. This is the question that fulfills the SBs obligation of due dilligence in my opinion.

If the site is approved by a trusted source, the bad press goes away, the majority of the questions go away, the majority of the safety concerns go away, and we can move forward and get past this.

The reality is that we've been sardines for a few years, some places more. One less year of overcrowding doesn't trump conducting due dilligence on safety of a school that will serve us for decades.

And heaven knows, everyone is very quick to tell those going to WV that the extra overcrowding we'll experience for the 2 years after MV is built is only "temporary." If that's OK for WV, it should be OK for everyone in the name of due dilligence, damage control, and financial responsibility.

Right?

rj said:

avengingeagle said:

The gun I refer to is the one that you and others are holding to the district's head that if you don't get "your site" of MWGEN, then you will shoot and kill the BB site.

Talk about agendas.

Sorry AE, but I have no dog in this fight, except financing it. My kids are all out of school, so unlike you, it isn't about my kid going to (GASP!) WV.

Actually, I am torn on this one, you see I am adamantly opposed to eminent domain, so I am glad the jury stuck it to the SD. On the other hand, AME/MWGEN isn't the best location either. Right now, it would be wise to re negotiate with BB and pursue that site, but leave the NSFOC kids at WV, because we all know it isn't about the boundaries, it is about safety. But that isn't going to happen, (the BB site), so we have to deal with AME/MWGEN. It would be nice if everyone could sit down and discuss the real and perceived hazards like adults, and leave the hype and fear mongering out of it, but I highly doubt that will happen either, as there are too many conflicting agendas, including the SB.