|
|
Post by rj on Mar 30, 2008 18:23:55 GMT -6
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. I apologize AE, I shouldn't have drug the kids into it, they can't help how their parents act. I edited my post to read; .............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. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 30, 2008 18:30:22 GMT -6
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? 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. At a minimum, that is what should happen. Seems completely reasonable to me. I don't get why having this deemed a safe site before we build wouldn't happen? Regardless of NSFOC or whatever, why would we start digging without this? Building a school should be about solving long term problems, not quick fixes. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Mar 30, 2008 18:45:57 GMT -6
What's the deal? This is a no brainer. We need the "all clear" FIRST. Why is that such a big problem here? Why the huge push for 2009? Don't try to pull "to alleviate overcrowding" out of the hat. We all know that the ONLY school that will not remain overcrowded on the 2009 timeline will be MV. With the loss of it's freshman center, WV will be MORE crowded in 2009 and the reduction at NV will be minimal. Does the Administration/SB do anything right?
|
|
|
|
Post by magneto on Mar 30, 2008 18:52:56 GMT -6
Let me get this straight. The part of the land where they want to build the HS is the AME part, which like BB was farmland. Neither of which would have required IEPA involvement. Is that part not safe?
If I recall, the only part of the MWGEN parcel that needs remediation is the Peaker area, the front part, closer to Eola was an access road. So have MWGen partition off the peaker part (under 17 acres) until it meets IEPA approval. Put the Tennis courts somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Mar 30, 2008 18:53:52 GMT -6
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. I apologize AE, I shouldn't have drug the kids into it, they can't help how their parents act. I edited my post to read; .............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. ;D How do you plan to put the kids of NSFOC members at WV when they come from all parts of the district. You are starting to sound like JC with her Pick 6 option to blend and frappe the students to all corners of the district. |
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Mar 30, 2008 18:55:24 GMT -6
Let me get this straight. The part of the land where they want to build the HS is the AME part, which like BB was farmland. Neither of which would have required IEPA involvement. Is that part not safe? If I recall, the only part of the MWGEN parcel that needs remediation is the Peaker area, the front part, closer to Eola was an access road. So have MWGen partition off the peaker part (under 17 acres) until it meets IEPA approval. Put the Tennis courts somewhere else. Why buy MWGEN at all then...just leave it rotting as a cesspool of diesel spills.. Why not build on AME only, on less square footage with underground tennis courts? Why do you want us to buy that worthless land? Also, what do you plan to do when the pipelines will be above the tennis courts? What if the ball hits it one too many times? KABOOM!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by magneto on Mar 30, 2008 18:56:52 GMT -6
Let me get this straight. The part of the land where they want to build the HS is the AME part, which like BB was farmland. Neither of which would have required IEPA involvement. Is that part not safe? If I recall, the only part of the MWGEN parcel that needs remediation is the Peaker area, the front part, closer to Eola was an access road. So have MWGen partition off the peaker part (under 17 acres) until it meets IEPA approval. Put the Tennis courts somewhere else. Why buy MWGEN at all then...just leave it rotting as a cesspool of diesel spills.. Why not build on AME only, on less square footage with underground tennis courts? OK. We then save even more money then too. |
|
|
|
Post by rj on Mar 30, 2008 18:57:09 GMT -6
I know most with agendas will find this hard to believe, but it is possible that the AME property is clear and the testing results show that a minimal cleanup is all that is needed on the MWGEN portion. If that were the case, then the SD would go ahead and start the school, leaving the rest to be re mediated, which in minimal cases only takes a short time. With the 50 some reported test holes around the site drilled by the testing Co, there won't be any surprises.
|
|
|
|
Post by rj on Mar 30, 2008 19:02:14 GMT -6
How do you plan to put the kids of NSFOC members at WV when they come from all parts of the district. You are starting to sound like JC with her Pick 6 option to blend and frappe the students to all corners of the district. Ok, you got me, I was trying to be polite, but obviously with you I can't. .............it would be wise to re negotiate with BB and pursue that site, but leave the TG/WE parents kids at WV, because we all know it isn't about the boundaries, it is about safety. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Mar 30, 2008 19:02:44 GMT -6
I know most with agendas will find this hard to believe, but it is possible that the AME property is clear and the testing results show that a minimal cleanup is all that is needed on the MWGEN portion. If that were the case, then the SD would go ahead and start the school, leaving the rest to be re mediated, which in minimal cases only takes a short time. With the 50 some reported test holes around the site drilled by the testing Co, there won't be any surprises. What depths were they taken? How come for a 25 acre parcel for Belmont in CA, they took 750 samples at shallow, intermediate, and 26 ft. deep? How do you know what they tested for? I think the results will surprise us, but not if we can't look at them, so lets just close the door and let the dipping mechanism do its thing and assume that everything will go to plan....what... |
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Mar 30, 2008 19:04:28 GMT -6
How do you plan to put the kids of NSFOC members at WV when they come from all parts of the district. You are starting to sound like JC with her Pick 6 option to blend and frappe the students to all corners of the district. Ok, you got me, I was trying to be polite, but obviously with you I can't. .............it would be wise to re negotiate with BB and pursue that site, but leave the TG/WE parents kids at WV, because we all know it isn't about the boundaries, it is about safety. ;D Why do you perpetuate the stereotype that all TG and WE are members of NSFOC AND why do you suggest that all should pay for the sins of a few AND why do you suggest that sending them to WV is a punishment? |
|
|
|
Post by rj on Mar 30, 2008 19:05:33 GMT -6
Why buy MWGEN at all then...just leave it rotting as a cesspool of diesel spills.. Why not build on AME only, on less square footage with underground tennis courts? Why do you want us to buy that worthless land? Also, what do you plan to do when the pipelines will be above the tennis courts? What if the ball hits it one too many times? KABOOM!!!!!! Now that is classic AE! ;D Rotting cesspool was funny, but tennis balls hitting a pipeline making it go boom? That one gets nominated for the Annual Chicken Little Award Dude! ROFLMAO!! |
|
|
|
Post by rj on Mar 30, 2008 19:09:49 GMT -6
I think the results will surprise us, but not if we can't look at them, so lets just close the door and let the dipping mechanism do its thing and assume that everything will go to plan....what... I guarantee one of us will be surprised AE. Oh, since you are now the go to man on the environmental report, how about a sneak preview on what you read in it? Since you seem so sure it is bad news you must have used your double naught spy training to sneek a peek at it. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 30, 2008 19:10:32 GMT -6
I know most with agendas will find this hard to believe, but it is possible that the AME property is clear and the testing results show that a minimal cleanup is all that is needed on the MWGEN portion. If that were the case, then the SD would go ahead and start the school, leaving the rest to be re mediated, which in minimal cases only takes a short time. With the 50 some reported test holes around the site drilled by the testing Co, there won't be any surprises. since this keeps gettng portrayed like we're removing one soiled diaper from the land - why then is the IEPA's program 6-24 months ( and they're not known for being stickelrs)- also great point on 50-60 corings on 70 acres- now that's thorough. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 30, 2008 19:14:30 GMT -6
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. I apologize AE, I shouldn't have drug the kids into it, they can't help how their parents act. I edited my post to read; .............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. ;D so should we leave 80% of Brookdale's kids without a 3rd high school since they ddidn't think they needed it ? It was all about something other than boundaries too right ? the constant bashing of one or 2 areas over stuff is really getting old. Yet I realize the constant flow of emails - including the 'petition' making it's way thru a certain area near AME right now are finding ways to continue to demonize areas. My scenario isn't right either, but just goes to show how easy it is to do -- |
|
