Schumer: EPA should eye Island Trees school for lead

2003? Chuckie is right on it.

where the hell is the PTA on this???!!! has it really become a buncha "work for the district" minimum wage fat cows that are more concerned about gossip than the safety of our kids?? come on levittown, what ever happened to the strength in numbers solidarity?? keep kissing ass- your kids are suffering, what a shame..

Wow.I haven't seen Schumer's mug in awhile.I guess there's no positive PR events going on around here for him to stick his beak into the camera.
You're a snizzler Shumer.

Chuckie who wrote:

Wow.I haven't seen Schumer's mug in awhile.I guess there's no positive PR events going on around here for him to stick his beak into the camera.
You're a snizzler Shumer.

The ice princess is out so I guess he's tired of kissing her you know what for a cabinet post. Now I guess he's trying to get back into the limelight and get his face shown. Chuck who?? Vote out all incumbents next election. These crooked bums write their own ticket. Why don't we have their medical plan or make them take ours. Never in a million years. Why don't we have their retirement plan? Make them take ours. See they get to vote their own raises, medical, retirement and any other thing that's beneficial for themselves and let the common people flounder. THEY DO NOT represent us just themselves. Ever see a poor politician????

Check the drinking water also.. All those buildings built long ago used lead to soilder the pipes. I bet those kids in all pre-nonlead schools have a high lead in their bodies,

But those taxpayers did not pay for a lead clean up that was never done properly in the first place and now it is going to cost the taxpayers much more!! It should have been cleaned correctly.

harry wrote:

Check the drinking water also.. All those buildings built long ago used lead to soilder the pipes. I bet those kids in all pre-nonlead schools have a high lead in their bodies,

Schumer should check Long Island schools for not only lead, but for pension fraud too.

Peter wrote:

Schumer should check Long Island schools for not only lead, but for pension fraud too.

Ya think lead in the pipes/air caused the pension grabs?

When a parent files a claim against the school alleging his kid's hearing is due to some fault of the school, there had better be HARD and damning evidence that the problem could ONLY have been caused by that, and that alone. I would be hard pressed to believe he could present such a case. If I were the residents of the school district, THESE are the kinds of things that would send alarm bells ringing. Absolutely get the school checked out and fix whatever problem there may be, but be VERY MUCH AWARE of parents looking to slap lawsuits on the district hoping to collect FAT SETTLEMENTS that EVERYBODY HAS TO PAY FOR. People like Kelty think if they sue an entity, it's not a big deal. But is IS a big deal because that entity is the TAXPAYERS. I'm tired of greedy people hoping for a fat payday at everyone else's expense. Go to the board meetings and challenge everyone, including the bullies with the big mouths and open hands.

Hey Chuckie, plan on causing any more banks to fail ?

You are right we must be aware of the whole situation including all persons involved. But the fact of the matter is that this school should have been cleaned up correctly the first time and it is going to cost the taxpayers alot of money because of this and now we question is this school safe. The only one to blame for this mess is the district itself.

Frank wrote:

When a parent files a claim against the school alleging his kid's hearing is due to some fault of the school, there had better be HARD and damning evidence that the problem could ONLY have been caused by that, and that alone. I would be hard pressed to believe he could present such a case. If I were the residents of the school district, THESE are the kinds of things that would send alarm bells ringing. Absolutely get the school checked out and fix whatever problem there may be, but be VERY MUCH AWARE of parents looking to slap lawsuits on the district hoping to collect FAT SETTLEMENTS that EVERYBODY HAS TO PAY FOR. People like Kelty think if they sue an entity, it's not a big deal. But is IS a big deal because that entity is the TAXPAYERS. I'm tired of greedy people hoping for a fat payday at everyone else's expense. Go to the board meetings and challenge everyone, including the bullies with the big mouths and open hands.

liner wrote:

<quoted text>
Ya think lead in the pipes/air caused the pension grabs?

Possibly......LI districts are full of hot air. Especially when it comes to high salaries and spending taxpayer's money.

Frank wrote:

When a parent files a claim against the school alleging his kid's hearing is due to some fault of the school, there had better be HARD and damning evidence that the problem could ONLY have been caused by that, and that alone. I would be hard pressed to believe he could present such a case. If I were the residents of the school district, THESE are the kinds of things that would send alarm bells ringing. Absolutely get the school checked out and fix whatever problem there may be, but be VERY MUCH AWARE of parents looking to slap lawsuits on the district hoping to collect FAT SETTLEMENTS that EVERYBODY HAS TO PAY FOR. People like Kelty think if they sue an entity, it's not a big deal. But is IS a big deal because that entity is the TAXPAYERS. I'm tired of greedy people hoping for a fat payday at everyone else's expense. Go to the board meetings and challenge everyone, including the bullies with the big mouths and open hands.

What should send alarm bells ringing IS a school district that was aware of lead contamination at the high shool in 2003 and did nothing. In 2004 the district received notices of violation from the DEC for IMPROPERLY dumping untreated sand from the rifle range into the tunnels housing the high school’s HVAC system. In April, Island Trees was advised by The New York State Education Department to have the HVAC system tested for lead contamination and as of today those tests still have NOT been done. As you state Frank “ABSOLUTELY get the school checked out and FIX whatever problem there may be” well Frank that’s what we are trying to get the school district to do. If Island Trees School District had done their homework back in 2003 and cleaned up the school we wouldn’t be dealing with all of this today. As a TAXPAYER I am APPALLED and what I am hearing and reading regarding this issue the cost is in excess of $700,000 and that number keeps growing. But you know what Frank as a taxpayer I would be willing to pay even more as long as I know that my child is learning in a SAFE environment. So as you stated lets FIX the problem for once and for all and get our district to COMPLETE THEIR HOMEWORK.

taxpayingdollars wrote:

You are right we must be aware of the whole situation including all persons involved. But the fact of the matter is that this school should have been cleaned up correctly the first time and it is going to cost the taxpayers alot of money because of this and now we question is this school safe. The only one to blame for this mess is the district itself.
<quoted text>

From what I remember, the district was guided by the DEC on this issue and they handled it in the way that was acceptable to the DEC, at the time, and testing levels were within normal limits. Why would the district think otherwise if the results of those tests showed there to no longer be a threat? It seems reasonable to me, a regular shmo, that anyone would have been satisfied with those results. I'm glad that there continues to be testing done, and if indeed the remediation was not successful, then further measures need to be taken. I would want the DEC then involved to find out WHY their previous acceptable methods did not provide proper protection. And whatever the results are, GET IT DONE RIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Hey Frank if you would take the time out of your busy day of bashing people on a blog, send the DEC a F.O.I.L. request, asking for any and all information that they have on this lead catastrophe in the Island Trees High School. After you do that maybe you would be able to write about the facts and stop the personal attacks.

Frank wrote:

<quoted text>
From what I remember, the district was guided by the DEC on this issue and they handled it in the way that was acceptable to the DEC, at the time, and testing levels were within normal limits. Why would the district think otherwise if the results of those tests showed there to no longer be a threat? It seems reasonable to me, a regular shmo, that anyone would have been satisfied with those results. I'm glad that there continues to be testing done, and if indeed the remediation was not successful, then further measures need to be taken. I would want the DEC then involved to find out WHY their previous acceptable methods did not provide proper protection. And whatever the results are, GET IT DONE RIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL!

frank, a tidbit of info to cure the rampant plague of ignorance that seems ever so pervasive in detractors' blogs:
1. School districts are bonded and insured: In order to protect itself fiscally with regard to fund management, decreasing tax revenue, and even suits, every district insures itself and most issue bonds. This means at no time will a settlement against the school cost you 1 penny as a taxpayer.
2. Federal Agencies have been wrong before: The EPA, as it demonstrated in the weeks following 9/11, has, in the past, deliberately withheld devastating information in regards to health issues. The DOH was lax at best in its administration involving the needle scandal. The DEC, in this particular case, returned final test results a mere 23 minutes after the samples were collected: physically impossible.
...food for thought.

Did the DEC tell this district to due this:
In 2004, the district received notices of violation from the state Department of Environmental Conservation for improperly dumping untreated sand from the rifle range into the tunnels housing the high school's heating and ventilation systems, and was ordered to remediate the property. I agree we need to find out exactly whom was involved with this, which includes the DEC?

Frank wrote:

<quoted text>
From what I remember, the district was guided by the DEC on this issue and they handled it in the way that was acceptable to the DEC, at the time, and testing levels were within normal limits. Why would the district think otherwise if the results of those tests showed there to no longer be a threat? It seems reasonable to me, a regular shmo, that anyone would have been satisfied with those results. I'm glad that there continues to be testing done, and if indeed the remediation was not successful, then further measures need to be taken. I would want the DEC then involved to find out WHY their previous acceptable methods did not provide proper protection. And whatever the results are, GET IT DONE RIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL!

non sequitur wrote:

frank, a tidbit of info to cure the rampant plague of ignorance that seems ever so pervasive in detractors' blogs:
1. School districts are bonded and insured: In order to protect itself fiscally with regard to fund management, decreasing tax revenue, and even suits, every district insures itself and most issue bonds. This means at no time will a settlement against the school cost you 1 penny as a taxpayer.
2. Federal Agencies have been wrong before: The EPA, as it demonstrated in the weeks following 9/11, has, in the past, deliberately withheld devastating information in regards to health issues. The DOH was lax at best in its administration involving the needle scandal. The DEC, in this particular case, returned final test results a mere 23 minutes after the samples were collected: physically impossible.
...food for thought.

A BOND is an indebtedness that the school district (aka TAXPAYER) ASSUMES. Which means, when a bond is issued, us taxpayers will be paying for it for a very long time. Forgive my "ignorance".

How about the fact that the district was asked (NOT ORDERED) to register with the county as a contaminated site, in part because of it's failure to "make this a priority and to notify the stuidents and parents" Of course the district had the health and safty of the stuidents and staff that they took TWO YEARS TO START THE REMIDATION. AND WE SHOULD TRUST THEM

Jim Levittown wrote:

Did the DEC tell this district to due this:
In 2004, the district received notices of violation from the state Department of Environmental Conservation for improperly dumping untreated sand from the rifle range into the tunnels housing the high school's heating and ventilation systems, and was ordered to remediate the property. I agree we need to find out exactly whom was involved with this, which includes the DEC?
<quoted text>

Frank wrote:

<quoted text>
A BOND is an indebtedness that the school district (aka TAXPAYER) ASSUMES. Which means, when a bond is issued, us taxpayers will be paying for it for a very long time. Forgive my "ignorance".

ah, yes. this is all true. I did not intent to imply that the bond will pay the suit settlement, in fact that would be illegal (however it would not surprise me if such an attmept was made given ITUFSD's fiscal policy record). That was not my claim. Debt is taken on to fund certain projects, such as a new athletic facility, and to protect against funding decreases such as decreasing property tax revenue. Insurance, on the other hand, is maintained to provide for emergencies, such as a fire or natural disasters that may damage the building, or more specifically for necessary fees should the school become party to a lawsuit. Bonds are voted on and BOTH are factored into the budget that is voted on annually; that is no extra tax dollars leave your pocket when the district is sued. Now that being said, should this be the main focus of the matter at hand, or should we more acutely aim concern at the heart of the matter: health and welfare of minors.?