|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 3, 2008 19:29:46 GMT -5
If MWGEN was convinced the site was safe, it would be being built there right now. You must not have read the same letter I did. IIRC, MWGEN cited political pressure as a reason for backing out and community support, NOT that their site was inappropriate for a school. If you still owned the land you would say what ? Political pressure would mean nothing if there was no basis for concern. Their concern was that if something did happen, it would affect their other properties - they made the smart move. I don't care what they said, I am glad the school is not on that property. yes, I am concerned it is next door. The political pressure should now continue to make sure they do that simple remediation.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 3, 2008 19:33:39 GMT -5
You must not have read the same letter I did. IIRC, MWGEN cited political pressure as a reason for backing out and community support, NOT that their site was inappropriate for a school. If you still owned the land you would say what ? Political pressure would mean nothing if there was no basis for concern. I don't care what they said, I am glad the school is not on that property. yes, I am concerned it is next door. The political pressure should now continue to make sure they do that simple remediation. Actually political pressure is a huge thing in this state. They were certainly not about to risk contracts and their ability to operate in this state over the sale of a piece of land that in the long run is inconsequential to them. To be honest, my initial point was, why would hiring a professional company to create boundaries go over any better than hiring the environmental professionals?
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 3, 2008 19:39:51 GMT -5
If you still owned the land you would say what ? Political pressure would mean nothing if there was no basis for concern. I don't care what they said, I am glad the school is not on that property. yes, I am concerned it is next door. The political pressure should now continue to make sure they do that simple remediation. Actually political pressure is a huge thing in this state. They were certainly not about to risk contracts and their ability to operate in this state over the sale of a piece of land that in the long run is inconsequential to them. To be honest, my initial point was, why would hiring a professional company to create boundaries go over any better than hiring the environmental professionals? very simply for this reason - regardless of what some of think about the safety of the property it is being built - and an objective 3rd party decided that ... One thing we could be sure of with an outside 3rd party doing boundaries, is that if you give the project manager designed goals, one of which is minimize travel expense - that will be what's addressed. Not what appear to be mid week late night deals with areas that then show up at boundary meetings like these are original ideas - and a good number of people in the district already know what is going to happen - an outside 3rd party won't care about any of that.... takes that part of the argument completely from the equation. And no one can then blame the SB - much like the safety issue, one may not like the outcome, or even agree with it, but it becomes an impartial 3rd party decision and not one people can cast doubts over how it occured.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 3, 2008 19:46:21 GMT -5
very simply for this reason - regardless of what some of think about the safety of the property it is being built - and an objective 3rd party decided that ... One thing we could be sure of with an outside 3rd party doing boundaries, is that if you give the project manager designed goals, one of which is minimize travel expense - that will be what's addressed. Not what appear to be mid week late night deals with areas that then show up at boundary meetings like these are original ideas - and a good number of people in the district already know what is going to happen - an outside 3rd party won't care about any of that.... takes that part of the argument completely from the equation. And no one can then blame the SB - much like the safety issue, one may not like the outcome, or even agree with it, but it becomes an impartial 3rd party decision and not one people can cast doubts over how it occured. Sorry, when a group of people file a lawsuit despite the outside professional involvement, I figure that any outside professional creating boundaries will get the same reaction from the group or groups that are angry with the end results. We can agree to disagree on this.
|
|
|
Post by JWH on Jun 3, 2008 19:46:33 GMT -5
Did the professionals find the site safe for a high school? Yes. MWGEN ? If MWGEN was convinced the site was safe, it would be being built there right now. Until a Senator was urged to get involved. I have a personal email from her attempting (feebly) to prove why.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 3, 2008 20:02:25 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.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 3, 2008 20:05:34 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. Actually, there are a few issues with a certain state senator but that is a whole other story. The NSFOC did nothing illegal. And again, that is old news. Guess we will be finding out soon what all the rest costs us. Lets hope our new lawyers are as sharp as they seem.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 3, 2008 20:07:39 GMT -5
Guess we will be finding out soon what all the rest costs us. Lets hope our new lawyers are as sharp as they seem. Who on here is in the legal profession? I'm curious if the district lawyers have ever gone toe to toe with the firms the B's have hired and if so, what were the results.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 3, 2008 20:09:04 GMT -5
Actually political pressure is a huge thing in this state. They were certainly not about to risk contracts and their ability to operate in this state over the sale of a piece of land that in the long run is inconsequential to them. To be honest, my initial point was, why would hiring a professional company to create boundaries go over any better than hiring the environmental professionals? very simply for this reason - regardless of what some of think about the safety of the property it is being built - and an objective 3rd party decided that ... One thing we could be sure of with an outside 3rd party doing boundaries, is that if you give the project manager designed goals, one of which is minimize travel expense - that will be what's addressed. Not what appear to be mid week late night deals with areas that then show up at boundary meetings like these are original ideas - and a good number of people in the district already know what is going to happen - an outside 3rd party won't care about any of that.... takes that part of the argument completely from the equation. And no one can then blame the SB - much like the safety issue, one may not like the outcome, or even agree with it, but it becomes an impartial 3rd party decision and not one people can cast doubts over how it occured. "objective 3rd party" deciding the safety is a questionable term, at best - their note to 204 listed government pressure as one of their reasons for backing out. But that's water under the bridge & we have a "safer" site now. 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. Seriously, I've never heard of a hiring someone to define boundaries for a school district - I don't see this being done in 204. Has this ever been done anywhere?
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 3, 2008 20:09:12 GMT -5
Guess we will be finding out soon what all the rest costs us. Lets hope our new lawyers are as sharp as they seem. Who on here is in the legal profession? I'm curious if the district lawyers have ever gone toe to toe with the firms the B's have hired and if so, what were the results. IIRC, the district's lawyers won every motion in the entire condemnation case. The problem was the jury and that is where our lawyers lost.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 3, 2008 20:09:24 GMT -5
If you still owned the land you would say what ? Political pressure would mean nothing if there was no basis for concern. I don't care what they said, I am glad the school is not on that property. yes, I am concerned it is next door. The political pressure should now continue to make sure they do that simple remediation. Actually political pressure is a huge thing in this state. They were certainly not about to risk contracts and their ability to operate in this state over the sale of a piece of land that in the long run is inconsequential to them. To be honest, my initial point was, why would hiring a professional company to create boundaries go over any better than hiring the environmental professionals? I agree with gatormom. If Politician-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named had not threatened MWGen, they would not have backed out. Of course, I believe the motive there was to kill AME so Macom could be sold to the District instead. And IIRC, the NSFOC took full credit for that, but unfortunately, it had the completely disastrous side effect (from NSFOC's point of view) of AME selling the rest of their land to the District. If either the political forces or the NSFOC really gave a hoot about the welfare of the people on AME property, they would be pushing for getting Kinder-Morgan to replace pipes and install ACVs, now that AME is the site. Where are they now? Why aren't the same politicians talking to K-M? Why isn't the NSFOC collecting funds to lobby for remediation of the pipelines? Shucks, even I might contribute to that! No Macom and no BB=no incentive to keep up any pressure. Actions speak loud and clear. I am not holding my breath for any pressure to continue. This is strictly my personal opinion, but, I am convinced that neither the political influences or the NSFOC had anything but self-serving interests at heart. There may be a few idealists who genuinely cared, and my heartfelt respect to them - but I believe they are a very small minority. If they were in the majority, I wait for their action to protect children better - at which point I will be the first to eat crow. Till then I will be a doubting Thomas. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 3, 2008 20:16:33 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 ?
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 3, 2008 20:18:32 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
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 3, 2008 20:29:35 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.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Jun 3, 2008 20:32:31 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.
|
|