|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 20, 2008 11:13:12 GMT -6
I would happily pay double the cost for a safer piece of land for the kids going forward.
To me, there is no price to put on safety. If there literally was no other land available, we'd be "stuck" with AME.
Fact is, safer land *IS* available.
Penny wise, pound foolish.
|
|
|
|
Post by hillmom on Jan 20, 2008 11:41:43 GMT -6
You have obviously never tried to fight COMED - I can assure you it is not fun & not pretty - they have even better lawyers than Brach Brodie! Easements are everywhere and they can do with them as they may. I also don't think we should base our opinions of what is safe just on how it looks. As we know looks can be deceiving. I do have to agree with Eagledad the Macom one if either could be called pretty wins the prize. There is definitely an appearance difference between old an new! New being much cleaner and organized!
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jan 20, 2008 12:02:14 GMT -6
I would happily pay double the cost for a safer piece of land for the kids going forward. To me, there is no price to put on safety. If there literally was no other land available, we'd be "stuck" with AME. Fact is, safer land *IS* available. Penny wise, pound foolish. And the "savings" are very much a paper chase at this point. In fact the admin doesn't know how much $$ an alternate site can save, if any. I can't believe we're spending $150M and getting "sloppy seconds" to boot. The SB is compounding mistakes with more mistakes. Do they never learn? I was willing to wait and look at their report, when I believed that the report would show us real savings, remember the missing pool, stadium, 500 seats, they said we couldn't afford at BB? Now we get a 3% savings, maybe, partial opening, hopefully. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jan 20, 2008 12:09:04 GMT -6
I wouldn't call it "sloppy seconds", I'd call it "force-fed fourths".
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 20, 2008 12:09:14 GMT -6
I swear, sometimes it feels like I'm trying to tell people they have a low left front tire that is showing chords and they need to have it replaced before something bad happens.
They would rather insist that the paint color is awesome and there is no problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeson321 on Jan 20, 2008 12:25:10 GMT -6
I would happily pay double the cost for a safer piece of land for the kids going forward. To me, there is no price to put on safety. If there literally was no other land available, we'd be "stuck" with AME. Fact is, safer land *IS* available. Penny wise, pound foolish. I am sure that Mattel has some regrets about outsourcing manufacturing to China, or at least not thoroughly doing their research. Was it worth putting lead paint in the mouths of children just to save a few bucks? I cringe every time I pick-up a toy and it says "Made in China". |
|
|
|
Post by yeson321 on Jan 20, 2008 12:39:06 GMT -6
I swear, sometimes it feels like I'm trying to tell people they have a low left front tire that is showing chords and they need to have it replaced before something bad happens. They would rather insist that the paint color is awesome and there is no problem. I know that people have been going off in different directions about EMFs, etc. I do have to post the exact wording in the original Board of Education’s High School Site Selection Report and Rationale Indian Prairie CUSD 204 Board of Education:
“The northeast parts of the site are immediately adjacent to two high energy electrical switching substations. That means relatively high electromagnetic radiation would be present at that location. The original location of the Patterson Elementary school in sight of electrical power lines caused uproar over the possibility that electromagnetic radiation might create health issues for the students, and the site was moved to its current location. While the Patterson site created the possibility of exposure to electromagnetic radiation, the Eola/Molitor site is somewhere between a probability and a certainty for exposure to such radiation. Although the scientists studying the question of whether such exposures do or do not create health concerns continue to disagree, the Board sees no advantage in constructing a third high school in such a location if there is any possibility of abandonment for health reasons.” Why now when we are absolutely not in dire straights, is the SB willing to abandon their Patterson precedent and previous statements where they were going to use the same logic as a reason not to construct the third high school in such a location? Again, I am not rehasing the EMF stuff, just seems like concrete evidence someone could use in their lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 20, 2008 12:41:16 GMT -6
The cost of defending the easy to file lawsuits using the Districts own previous documentation will chew through any "savings" and then some.
Brilliant penny pinching there.
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Jan 20, 2008 13:09:36 GMT -6
I swear, sometimes it feels like I'm trying to tell people they have a low left front tire that is showing chords and they need to have it replaced before something bad happens. They would rather insist that the paint color is awesome and there is no problem. I know that people have been going off in different directions about EMFs, etc. I do have to post the exact wording in the original Board of Education’s High School Site Selection Report and Rationale Indian Prairie CUSD 204 Board of Education:
“The northeast parts of the site are immediately adjacent to two high energy electrical switching substations. That means relatively high electromagnetic radiation would be present at that location. The original location of the Patterson Elementary school in sight of electrical power lines caused uproar over the possibility that electromagnetic radiation might create health issues for the students, and the site was moved to its current location. While the Patterson site created the possibility of exposure to electromagnetic radiation, the Eola/Molitor site is somewhere between a probability and a certainty for exposure to such radiation. Although the scientists studying the question of whether such exposures do or do not create health concerns continue to disagree, the Board sees no advantage in constructing a third high school in such a location if there is any possibility of abandonment for health reasons.” Why now when we are absolutely not in dire straights, is the SB willing to abandon their Patterson precedent and previous statements where they were going to use the same logic as a reason not to construct the third high school in such a location? Again, I am not rehasing the EMF stuff, just seems like concrete evidence someone could use in their lawsuit. EXACTLY. And this will not only raise the price but delay the opening until heaven knows when. I mean, how much proof and how long will it take to reverse their own statement that this site is a risk for "somewhere between a probability and a certainty for exposure to such radiation..." Their credibility is totally shot for me on this one. |
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Jan 20, 2008 22:50:35 GMT -6
Both MM and Dr. D responded in an Email to say that things have changed because the peaker plant has been closed, which was the biggest EMF culprit. They didn't address the power lines and substations.
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jan 20, 2008 23:23:33 GMT -6
Both MM and Dr. D responded in an Email to say that things have changed because the peaker plant has been closed, which was the biggest EMF culprit. They didn't address the power lines and substations. The report said the problem was the two switching stations not the power plant. |
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Jan 21, 2008 8:03:45 GMT -6
Both MM and Dr. D responded in an Email to say that things have changed because the peaker plant has been closed, which was the biggest EMF culprit. They didn't address the power lines and substations. The report said the problem was the two switching stations not the power plant. M2 stated this: "The largest potential producer of electromagnetic radiation for the site -- the peaker plant -- shut down last year." Great, so we're getting lies or inadvertent inaccuracies. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jan 21, 2008 8:16:50 GMT -6
I don't understand...I thought the concern for the peaker plant was the jet fuel emissions contaminating the site? I thought the EMF concern was from the substation and cell towers?
The plant shut down in 2000, did the SD not know that when the report was written in 2005?
Why , if you have the switching stations operating 24/7 would a peaker plant, only used during peak demand, be the greatest EMF concern?
If the EMFs were the concern, why the need for environmental remediation at the site?
|
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Jan 21, 2008 8:32:54 GMT -6
I don't understand...I thought the concern for the peaker plant was the jet fuel emissions contaminating the site? I thought the EMF concern was from the substation and cell towers? The plant shut down in 2000, did the SD not know that when the report was written in 2005? Why , if you have the switching stations operating 24/7 would a peaker plant, only used during peak demand, be the greatest EMF concern? If the EMFs were the concern, why the need for environmental remediation at the site? I agree. The argument by the SB is inconsistent. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jan 21, 2008 8:33:41 GMT -6
The report said the problem was the two switching stations not the power plant. M2 stated this: "The largest potential producer of electromagnetic radiation for the site -- the peaker plant -- shut down last year." Great, so we're getting lies or inadvertent inaccuracies. Or possible conviently supportive new was of looking at it. It doesn't matter the electromagnetic radiation hazzards are only "perception" now. |
|
