player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 3, 2008 20:37:30 GMT -5
I felt that KB and JS did the best they could given the parameters necessary to make the boundaries. I am convinced any outside consultant would have come up with a similiar solution. Regardless, people would have been ticked. Again, there is just no perfect solution; the district is too spread out with too many variables to address - population, performance, distance, contiguity etc. I thought using KB and JS - two very respected people in our district - was a great idea; they know the district best. Hello, Player. Hi sushi! I'm back after some travels to finalize the details on the Red Sox domination project, now that AME looks a lot more certain! Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Jun 3, 2008 20:45:09 GMT -5
I'm back after some travels to finalize the details on the Red Sox domination project, now that AME looks a lot more certain! Hi Player, Glad to see you back. IIRC, I suggested the American League Chicago Team as your target ? And please pay no attention to my avatar, as I am doing penace for something very bad. Some day I will have to tell you. My Cubs avatar will be returning shortly...I hope.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 3, 2008 20:48:38 GMT -5
You could make the same "impartial 3rd party decision" about every decision the SB makes - they could outsource their roles totally, right? And, to select this impartial 3rd party, everyone should a say in who is selected, right? I've got an idea, we could have an election to select this group, whose job it is to look out for the best interests of the entire district. And maybe we could call this group the School Board. Wow, Warriorpride...what a concept. This might even date back to 1776? Oops, my apologies for the the '76 reference, player Time does heal...I hope that holds for 204 By the way, player, I fully agree with your analysis. well said.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 3, 2008 20:52:14 GMT -5
Player, I respectfully disagree. MWGEN would have backed out over the simple fact that if certain things were at this site that 'barely got used' then they did not want the public spotlight shined up their backside about their larger 24x7x365 coal burning facilities in any way whatsoever, especially that TCE was used at those locations and there's an interesting lawsuit history with that particular chemical. Do you like your crow fried, grilled or tartar ? With all due respect to you, Arch, if that were the case, and it could not have been remediated to IEPA standards, they would have never agreed to sell the land in the first place. As I am sure we all recollect, there was to be Phase II and remediation, and eventual certification by the IEPA for their property. And they would own the bill for the remediation too! Using your own logic, it makes no sense for them to first decide to expose their alleged terrifying chemical soup which would have definitely come to light by virtue of them agreeing to sell the land, and then back out. So what happened? They suddenly got religion in the middle of a genocide? Or are you just accusing them of being plain stupid and changing their mind on one fine morning? That is NOT what I think happened. Nice try, though! I like my meat raw - Crow tartare for me - blood and all- but if I were you, I would not hold my breath on me eating it just yet. Cheers. Did the district talk to their legal department first or the business development guy who put things in motion then legal reviewed it and put the brakes on it? Many 'whizz bang' ideas get a lot of effort and progress in big companies before legal gives it a look and sticks a fork in it and gives the person a nice thump on the forehead along with the "What were you thinking?!" talk (or pink slip sometimes). That's my theory, obviously you have yours. What threshold, in your mind, has to be crossed to eat the crow? "I wait for their action to protect children better" That's interestingly vague language. Awesome.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 3, 2008 20:54:30 GMT -5
I'm back after some travels to finalize the details on the Red Sox domination project, now that AME looks a lot more certain! Hi Player, Glad to see you back. IIRC, I suggested the American League Chicago Team as your target ? And please pay no attention to my avatar, as I am doing penace for something very bad. Some day I will have to tell you. My Cubs avatar will be returning shortly...I hope. Wow!!! That must have been one heck of a boo-boo to get that penance ;D I feel for you, dude - hope you get out of the Sox, er, dog house soon Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 3, 2008 20:54:31 GMT -5
I could throw down the legality card asking what anyone who filed suit did that was illegal? Nothing. Who's rights were violated by their lawsuit? No one's. Is talking to a state rep illegal? No. People didn't have to like what they did but they had every right to do it. Maybe it's time everyone sat down and shut up about the lawsuit since it was dismissed anyway. The BB's are knocking at the door. They are the ones to worry about and will cost us more time and money than NSFOC did. By the way, what was the legal bill for the district on that? Anyone have a number? I'm curious what it really did cost to get dismissed. arch, I would be happy to never have to talk about the nFUD lawsuit ever again - do you want everyone to shut up about it lawsuit, or do you want to know 204's legal bill for defending it? you probably know the quickest way to try to obtain the cost, so I'm not sure why you don't just pursue it I was simply curious if anyone here knew. I guess not.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 3, 2008 21:01:03 GMT -5
With all due respect to you, Arch, if that were the case, and it could not have been remediated to IEPA standards, they would have never agreed to sell the land in the first place. As I am sure we all recollect, there was to be Phase II and remediation, and eventual certification by the IEPA for their property. And they would own the bill for the remediation too! Using your own logic, it makes no sense for them to first decide to expose their alleged terrifying chemical soup which would have definitely come to light by virtue of them agreeing to sell the land, and then back out. So what happened? They suddenly got religion in the middle of a genocide? Or are you just accusing them of being plain stupid and changing their mind on one fine morning? That is NOT what I think happened. Nice try, though! I like my meat raw - Crow tartare for me - blood and all- but if I were you, I would not hold my breath on me eating it just yet. Cheers. Did the district talk to their legal department first or the business development guy who put things in motion then legal reviewed it and put the brakes on it? Many 'whizz bang' ideas get a lot of effort and progress in big companies before legal gives it a look and sticks a fork in it and gives the person a nice thump on the forehead along with the "What were you thinking?!" talk (or pink slip sometimes). That's my theory, obviously you have yours. What threshold, in your mind, has to be crossed to eat the crow? "I wait for their action to protect children better" That's interestingly vague language. Awesome. I disagree. I work for a $13B corporation and NO legal documents get signed without legal approving it. My clients are all Fortune 500 companies, and I have never seen one even sign a sales contract without legal OKing it. This is a major land sale. No corporation I know signs documents that are valid in a court of law without internal legal approval. I dont know where you are getting your information from. Their=NSFOC or the same politicians who took it upon themselves to stop Eola. If I see them lifting a finger on their own accord to actually do something to make AME safe, I will eat crow. Less vague for you? Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 3, 2008 21:07:14 GMT -5
arch, I would be happy to never have to talk about the nFUD lawsuit ever again - do you want everyone to shut up about it lawsuit, or do you want to know 204's legal bill for defending it? you probably know the quickest way to try to obtain the cost, so I'm not sure why you don't just pursue it I was simply curious if anyone here knew. I guess not. Until the motions have made it through the courts, nobody knows. Why would we have a better idea than you?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 3, 2008 21:07:46 GMT -5
I disagree. I work for a $13B corporation and NO legal documents get signed without legal approving it. My clients are all Fortune 500 companies, and I have never seen one even sign a sales contract without legal OKing it. This is a major land sale. No corporation I know signs documents that are valid in a court of law without internal legal approval. I dont know where you are getting your information from. Their=NSFOC or the same politicians who took it upon themselves to stop Eola. If I see them lifting a finger on their own accord to actually do something to make AME safe, I will eat crow. Less vague for you? Cheers. We completed a land sale with MWGEN and they breached the contract? Really? Do you have a scan of the signed sales contract? Why didn't D204 sue them for breach? We could use the money.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 3, 2008 21:08:59 GMT -5
I was simply curious if anyone here knew. I guess not. Until the motions have made it through the courts, nobody knows. Why would we have a better idea than you? I was guessing that some still got the emails from board members with tidbits of info the general public doesn't have. Was I mistaken and they dried up for everyone else here too?
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 3, 2008 21:09:44 GMT -5
Until the motions have made it through the courts, nobody knows. Why would we have a better idea than you? I was guessing that some still got the emails from board members with tidbits of info the general public doesn't have. Was I mistaken and they dried up for everyone else here too?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 3, 2008 21:27:47 GMT -5
Not sure what you meant by that. Just upset I said it in general, claiming it never happened or claiming it's no longer happening?
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 3, 2008 21:29:29 GMT -5
Not sure what you meant by that. Just upset I said it in general, claiming it never happened or claiming it's no longer happening? No. I don't understand what you mean. Arch, how can any one of us know what the final costs are when the judge has not ruled on the motions? So tidbits or whatever won't help here.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 3, 2008 21:31:20 GMT -5
Their=NSFOC or the same politicians who took it upon themselves to stop Eola. If I see them lifting a finger on their own accord to actually do something to make AME safe, I will eat crow. Less vague for you? Cheers. First you mentioned the idealists in the group. Hypothetically if the group disbands and the idealists in turn get help from others who were never members to move forward, does that count or will you call a technicality?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 3, 2008 21:33:07 GMT -5
Not sure what you meant by that. Just upset I said it in general, claiming it never happened or claiming it's no longer happening? No. I don't understand what you mean. Arch, how can any one of us know what the final costs are when the judge has not ruled on the motions? So tidbits or whatever won't help here. I was talking about the cost of the lawsuit that was dismissed, not the BBs. To my knowledge, that one is done (the one dismissed last thursday), kaput, nothing further from the court.
|
|