D204 proposed Metea boundaries - Part 3

[Arch]

wvhsparent said:

archwinsome said:

Speaking of opportunities: www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/P_Acc.htm

How many have you read thru that can be associated with the pipelines similar to one on the site?
The 1st several I read (5) could not.

Hazardous content, line failures. They happen. Who would have thought sugar dust was a bad thing?

[Arch]

rural said:

archwinsome said:

Speaking of opportunities: www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/P_Acc.htm

Keep workin' it, Arch. Who knows, maybe the SB will change their minds and go back to the BB site?

Who knows. Maybe they'll put in a phone call to Plainfield 202 for a near complete high school that they can't fill and save us millions.

[steckmom]

westernburbmom said:

This is my first post, so I'm going to quickly "introduce myself". I have one child at Steck (a walker) and one at Granger (takes the bus about 4 miles away). I've read earlier posts of people wondering what Steck/McCarty residents thought, so I thought I would throw in my two cents.

I can go either way on which high school my children will attend i.e. WVHS is 1 1/2 miles away by bus, is well established and we know numerous college kids in the neighbhorhood who did great at WVHS. Metea is a commute not much different than my Granger student has now and it would be nice to stay at Granger and continue with the Nancy Young and Stonebridge students (who I'm assuming will be going to Metea). But, Tuesday can't get here soon enough. From what I've been reading under this topic, I was almost convinced we will be continuing at Steck, then Granger and onto Metea. However, last night a neighbor told me "absoutely not", that we are walkers and she heard that it hasn't been decided whether the dividing line will be New York Street or Liberty for who will attend Metea. Who she heard this from, she did not say.

Also, I recently talked to a Steck Mom who lives in Lakewood (subdivision along Ogden between Eola & Montgomery) and she told me there is speculation that Lakewood will be switched to McCarty from Steck. Is that because they are walkers to WVHS?

So, I'm really confused. Should I just "sit tight" until Tuesday. Is this all speculation or rumor? Did I miss something?

Welcome also. I'm so glad I don't have to feel like the sole voice of Steck any longer! (I hated that, and tried to qualify my statements--though perhaps a different name would have helped. )

It will be interesting to see what happens on Tuesday.

[hmmm]

archwinsome said:

wvhsparent said:

How many have you read thru that can be associated with the pipelines similar to one on the site?
The 1st several I read (5) could not.

Hazardous content, line failures. They happen. Who would have thought sugar dust was a bad thing?

Thanks again for all of your research Arch. This is too big to bury our heads in the sand over. Thanks for sticking with it.

[Arch]

hmmm said:

archwinsome said:

Hazardous content, line failures. They happen. Who would have thought sugar dust was a bad thing?

Thanks again for all of your research Arch. This is too big to bury our heads in the sand over. Thanks for sticking with it.

Some can't even acknowledge the flaw in their logic: Because there has not been an accident with that pipeline there won't be one.

If that logic held true, there would NEVER be any accident of any kind in the world because there was never one prior to the first.

These things have a built in danger. Choosing to put thousands of kids lives in proximity of that danger is simply irresponsible, IMO.

Take it a step further because one can never be 100% sure:

My stance: If I am right or wrong about the pipeline; if we never build near it, there isn't a problem if I am right or wrong. No safety issue whatsoever.

If someone else is right (it's safe) we're cool. But.. And this is the big but.. If they're wrong, people most likely will die.

[doctorwho]

archwinsome said:

hmmm said:

Thanks again for all of your research Arch. This is too big to bury our heads in the sand over. Thanks for sticking with it.

Some can't even acknowledge the flaw in their logic: Because there has not been an accident with that pipeline there won't be one.

If that logic held true, there would NEVER be any accident of any kind in the world because there was never one prior to the first.

These things have a built in danger. Choosing to put thousands of kids lives in proximity of that danger is simply irresponsible, IMO.

what I don't understand is how was the safety an issue at MACOM but not AME ? There's a reason the SB chose BB the first time - it was the one property without fatal flaws. Somehow the ones at AME went away, just not sure how that happened.


Search the last 2 HS's built- being built in the area -- Oswego East and Plainfield East...the only safety issues parents have is on drop off and pick up zones traffic.. Plenty of 'cheaper' land is available in both of those suburbs also - they chose not to build on it. Why are we ? Why have another pereption issue before the first shovel full of dirt is moved.

And really, I don't want to hear about separate agendas, because for every person harping on the potential safety issues that also has an axe to grind over commute, there is another person willing to overlook anything because the school is close. Not everyone fits either of these generalities. Some genuinely believe the land is safe and some genuinely believe it is not.

I had a concern over the electrical issue @ MACOM, I did not want our HS build next to a landfill at any cost...

And yes I still believe we need a 3rd high school - but this decision is forever . A bad one now and there will NEVER be a referendum to fix this, because it will be so much. I had 2 parents from an ES in 204 that will never ( at least I think not) go to the AME site tell me yesterday when we were at VB, they would never send their kids to that site- and wouldn't have at the landfill site either.
I think we misjudged our voters in that if the truly safest site was a little more money we couldn't get it. Yes, it would be close ...but if this site goes south with issues anytime in the future - what do we do then ?

[Arch]

doctorwho said:

.but if this site goes south with issues anytime in the future - what do we do then ?

We make sure that it's well documented who said what and what information they had been presented with prior to the decision and signing of the paper (sales contract).

Then, we let others sort it out later if it unfortunately comes to that.

[jwh]

archwinsome said:

hmmm said:

Thanks again for all of your research Arch. This is too big to bury our heads in the sand over. Thanks for sticking with it.

Some can't even acknowledge the flaw in their logic: Because there has not been an accident with that pipeline there won't be one.

If that logic held true, there would NEVER be any accident of any kind in the world because there was never one prior to the first.

These things have a built in danger. Choosing to put thousands of kids lives in proximity of that danger is simply irresponsible, IMO.

Take it a step further because one can never be 100% sure:

My stance: If I am right or wrong about the pipeline; if we never build near it, there isn't a problem if I am right or wrong. No safety issue whatsoever.

If someone else is right (it's safe) we're cool. But.. And this is the big but.. If they're wrong, people most likely will die.

What about all of the schools in the urban areas ( i.e. City of Chicago schools) that are built right on top of the city infrastructure, with pipelines of all sorts underneath?

[doctorwho]

jwh said:

archwinsome said:

Some can't even acknowledge the flaw in their logic: Because there has not been an accident with that pipeline there won't be one.

If that logic held true, there would NEVER be any accident of any kind in the world because there was never one prior to the first.

These things have a built in danger. Choosing to put thousands of kids lives in proximity of that danger is simply irresponsible, IMO.

Take it a step further because one can never be 100% sure:

My stance: If I am right or wrong about the pipeline; if we never build near it, there isn't a problem if I am right or wrong. No safety issue whatsoever.

If someone else is right (it's safe) we're cool. But.. And this is the big but.. If they're wrong, people most likely will die.

What about all of the schools in the urban areas ( i.e. City of Chicago schools) that are built right on top of the city infrastructure, with pipelines of all sorts underneath?

So it's OK because someone else does it ? Not sure how anything to do with Chicago makes our site any safer.
There are homes next to landfills, ski hills where people ski around methane release ports - no thanks- just because it is done someone, doesn't convince me it's a good idea to spend $150M for us to do it.

Many of the Chicago schools likely have lead and asbestos in them, should we add that to MV ?

[Arch]

jwh said:

archwinsome said:

Some can't even acknowledge the flaw in their logic: Because there has not been an accident with that pipeline there won't be one.

If that logic held true, there would NEVER be any accident of any kind in the world because there was never one prior to the first.

These things have a built in danger. Choosing to put thousands of kids lives in proximity of that danger is simply irresponsible, IMO.

Take it a step further because one can never be 100% sure:

My stance: If I am right or wrong about the pipeline; if we never build near it, there isn't a problem if I am right or wrong. No safety issue whatsoever.

If someone else is right (it's safe) we're cool. But.. And this is the big but.. If they're wrong, people most likely will die.

What about all of the schools in the urban areas ( i.e. City of Chicago schools) that are built right on top of the city infrastructure, with pipelines of all sorts underneath?

Some people carry shovels behind horses in the parades. That doesn't mean I want that as my job. Do you?

[wvhsparent]

archwinsome said:

hmmm said:

Thanks again for all of your research Arch. This is too big to bury our heads in the sand over. Thanks for sticking with it.

Some can't even acknowledge the flaw in their logic: Because there has not been an accident with that pipeline there won't be one.

If that logic held true, there would NEVER be any accident of any kind in the world because there was never one prior to the first.

These things have a built in danger. Choosing to put thousands of kids lives in proximity of that danger is simply irresponsible, IMO.

Take it a step further because one can never be 100% sure:

My stance: If I am right or wrong about the pipeline; if we never build near it, there isn't a problem if I am right or wrong. No safety issue whatsoever.

If someone else is right (it's safe) we're cool. But.. And this is the big but.. If they're wrong, people most likely will die.

Oh I acknowlege there is a possibilty of a failure......about the same as me getting hit by lightning.
Life is full of risks....the AME one is a very small one.
There is a risk of me getting killed in a car crash....(Mine is probably higher than most due to my job) this risk is way higher than a "pipeline event" or a "RR incident" combined. By your logic...I should never leave my house and get in a car, which would be the only 100% way of me avoiding that risk. Of course I would have a job anymore.
There is a risk of crashing when we get on a plane...should we all stop flying?
I could go on.....but I think I made my point.

[wvhsparent]

archwinsome said:

wvhsparent said:

How many have you read thru that can be associated with the pipelines similar to one on the site?
The 1st several I read (5) could not.

Hazardous content, line failures. They happen. Who would have thought sugar dust was a bad thing?

I knew it was.....
Any farmers knows this around their silos, and anyone who makes any kind of fine powder...all can be explosive.

[forthekids]

wvhsparent said:

archwinsome said:

Some can't even acknowledge the flaw in their logic: Because there has not been an accident with that pipeline there won't be one.

If that logic held true, there would NEVER be any accident of any kind in the world because there was never one prior to the first.

These things have a built in danger. Choosing to put thousands of kids lives in proximity of that danger is simply irresponsible, IMO.

Take it a step further because one can never be 100% sure:

My stance: If I am right or wrong about the pipeline; if we never build near it, there isn't a problem if I am right or wrong. No safety issue whatsoever.

If someone else is right (it's safe) we're cool. But.. And this is the big but.. If they're wrong, people most likely will die.

Oh I acknowlege there is a possibilty of a failure......about the same as me getting hit by lightning.
Life is full of risks....the AME one is a very small one.
There is a risk of me getting killing in a car crash....(Mine is probably higher than most due to my job) this risk is way higher than a "pipeline event" or a "RR incident" combined. By your logic...I should never leave my house and get in a car, which would be the only 100% way of me avoiding that risk.
There is a risk of crashing when we get on a plane...should we all stop flying?
I could go on.....but I think I made my point.

Here is where your logic fails: you are choosing to do those things, the kids that are assigned to this school have no choice. Our district is putting those kids at risk, they are not choosing it for themselves. Also, the school is costing quite a bit of money. If we are wrong in this choice, we have wasted this money.

[Arch]

forthekids said:

wvhsparent said:

Oh I acknowlege there is a possibilty of a failure......about the same as me getting hit by lightning.
Life is full of risks....the AME one is a very small one.
There is a risk of me getting killing in a car crash....(Mine is probably higher than most due to my job) this risk is way higher than a "pipeline event" or a "RR incident" combined. By your logic...I should never leave my house and get in a car, which would be the only 100% way of me avoiding that risk.
There is a risk of crashing when we get on a plane...should we all stop flying?
I could go on.....but I think I made my point.

Here is where your logic fails: you are choosing to do those things, the kids that are assigned to this school have no choice. Our district is putting those kids at risk, they are not choosing it for themselves. Also, the school is costing quite a bit of money. If we are wrong in this choice, we have wasted this money.

Exactly.

I'm not telling you nor anyone else in the district what they have to do for their job and I am not telling you nor anyone else in the district where they have to live.

I chose a job w/out those risks and I chose to live in a place without the risks that exist at that site. Someone else having the choice to send my kids there does not sit well with me.

I think if they buy and build there they should have people volunteer to go there. If you want to go, you go. If you don't, you don't. The other 2 schools do not have the RR tracks next to them nor active large pipelines through the properties.

The first choice site location did not either.

[wvhsparent]

forthekids said:

wvhsparent said:

Oh I acknowlege there is a possibilty of a failure......about the same as me getting hit by lightning.
Life is full of risks....the AME one is a very small one.
There is a risk of me getting killing in a car crash....(Mine is probably higher than most due to my job) this risk is way higher than a "pipeline event" or a "RR incident" combined. By your logic...I should never leave my house and get in a car, which would be the only 100% way of me avoiding that risk.
There is a risk of crashing when we get on a plane...should we all stop flying?
I could go on.....but I think I made my point.

Here is where your logic fails: you are choosing to do those things, the kids that are assigned to this school have no choice. Our district is putting those kids at risk, they are not choosing it for themselves. Also, the school is costing quite a bit of money. If we are wrong in this choice, we have wasted this money.

Maybe so....but around here choosing to drive somewhere whether a passenger or driver is a necessity.
Do your kids take bus to school now?...they have a higher risk of something happening on the bus (regardless of time...doc)
You have a choice too, if your area is assigned to AME....Move.