|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jan 27, 2008 13:07:03 GMT -6
As well know, it's very easy to stretch the truth with numbers. For example the 25 acres at BB cost $6M+, so WV @ BB, "on budget" at $124.6M was going to cost, at a minimum, $131M. In addition, interest on bonds is a source of income. I don't want to get into an argument of how much income - we've been thru all that before. Let's just say that MV @ BB was going to cost well above $124M - sorry if that wasn't clear to anyone. What was the budget number if they would have just bitten the bullet, bought it after the verdict and started? Did they ever publish or work that number out? Arch, you're changing the topic, but does it matter? Most people seem to think that the SB tried to get BB, if at all possible - some thought they hung on hopes for BB too long before pursuing alternatives. The most recent site analysis has the numbers for BB: 8M-13M more than AME. I doubt things have gone up much since the veridict. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 27, 2008 13:34:00 GMT -6
What was the budget number if they would have just bitten the bullet, bought it after the verdict and started? Did they ever publish or work that number out? Arch, you're changing the topic, but does it matter? Most people seem to think that the SB tried to get BB, if at all possible - some thought they hung on hopes for BB too long before pursuing alternatives. The most recent site analysis has the numbers for BB: 8M-13M more than AME. I doubt things have gone up much since the veridict. It's funny how the turner construction cost went up to pretty much the cost of the original referendum amount when it was somewhere around 110 million or thereabouts before (perhaps even less). So, the cost actually has gone up. What I did not see in there is the cost of the interest we also might owe for keeping the land 'tied up'. Is that part of the 'legal fees' and are those 'legal fees' even accurate or are they lowballed? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 28, 2008 1:34:16 GMT -6
Here's some food for thought.
After the verdict at the end of Sept, there was enough time to get another referendum on the ballot for this coming vote (Feb 5th, right?) to ask the voters if they wanted to fork over more $$ for the 1st choice land parcel.
I'd venture a guess that those that received the benefit of the one a over a decade ago (along with many others) would have risen to the occasion and approve it to get the first choice property.
Realistically, what would 12-13 million (according to the SB's price difference) come out to for each owner? Maybe $35/$40 a year? If even...? I think AC worked out to about $50-$80 a year at 40 million.
Instead, we're stuck with "sloppy seconds" as the recommendation. Get as honked off at that characterization as you want, but the truth is that it has multiple hazards that the first choice property did not have. (railroad, pipeline, sub station, multiple HV power lines bordering 1/2 of the property, legacy power plant and its "issues", further away from the base of the population).
Are those things really worth saving at most $40 a year on the high side to people?
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Jan 28, 2008 6:38:25 GMT -6
Yes, looking back on it from what we know now, I would agree with you. I also would pay $40 more a year to have BB rather than pay for the ulcer medicine I will be taking during the next set of boundary issues. However, do you really think the voters would have then cried that the SB is ramming this down our throats at all costs? People would have demanded the research on the other property and a lot of people would have been screaming Macom property without knowing all the facts about any of the land. Remember there were a lot of people that commended the board for doing the research on the other land options. I think the SB would have then had to come out with all the properties and the known pros and cons of them in order to justify asking for the tax increase which would have hurt their negotiating tactics. In my opinion, it would have been nice to have a choice, but I don't think it would have passed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 28, 2008 6:43:23 GMT -6
Yes, looking back on it from what we know now, I would agree with you. I also would pay $40 more a year to have BB rather than pay for the ulcer medicine I will be taking during the next set of boundary issues. However, do you really think the voters would have then cried that the SB is ramming this down our throats at all costs? People would have demanded the research on the other property and a lot of people would have been screaming Macom property without knowing all the facts about any of the land. Remember there were a lot of people that commended the board for doing the research on the other land options. I think the SB would have then had to come out with all the properties and the known pros and cons of them in order to justify asking for the tax increase which would have hurt their negotiating tactics. In my opinion, it would have been nice to have a choice, but I don't think it would have passed. Short of that, I'd still like to see the pricetag for just doing it back then. IE: every number they are using to justify MWGEN now could and should have been known then. W/ the bond money, portable expenditures as income and an earlier start date (lower construction cost), what would it have cost.... (Yup, circling back around to that earlier question). |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jan 28, 2008 9:17:27 GMT -6
I agree with both of you. I beleive the district will end up spending as much at MWG as they would have at BB, but it would have been easier for people to criticize the decision for BB per the "all costs" argument.
The MWG site grants the SB the argument that they TRIED to save money, even if, in the end it does not end up so.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jan 28, 2008 9:20:52 GMT -6
When will we hear whether BB wants the 25 acres back or not..how long do they have to respond to the district?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 28, 2008 9:57:55 GMT -6
I believe the district has to officially abandon the property first before that fun gets set into motion.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Jan 28, 2008 10:44:24 GMT -6
I agree with both of you. I beleive the district will end up spending as much at MWG as they would have at BB, but it would have been easier for people to criticize the decision for BB per the "all costs" argument. The MWG site grants the SB the argument that they TRIED to save money, even if, in the end it does not end up so. Most of the people I've talked with are resigned to the fact that MV will open in 2010 and cost more than Brach Brodie in the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Jan 28, 2008 11:09:05 GMT -6
I agree with both of you. I beleive the district will end up spending as much at MWG as they would have at BB, but it would have been easier for people to criticize the decision for BB per the "all costs" argument. The MWG site grants the SB the argument that they TRIED to save money, even if, in the end it does not end up so. Most of the people I've talked with are resigned to the fact that MV will open in 2010 and cost more than Brach Brodie in the long run. Most of the people I've talked to are hopeful that it will open in 2009 and will be disappointed if it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Jan 28, 2008 11:11:36 GMT -6
I believe the district has to officially abandon the property first before that fun gets set into motion. Speaking of that, there has been no metion of how we'll extract ourselves from that litigation. It would be nice to see a timeline or a chain of events that needs to happen. I don't think we've even abandoned yet. |
|
bbc
Soph
Metea Opening Day 2009
Posts: 76
|
Post by bbc on Jan 28, 2008 15:42:21 GMT -6
Here's some food for thought. After the verdict at the end of Sept, there was enough time to get another referendum on the ballot for this coming vote (Feb 5th, right?) to ask the voters if they wanted to fork over more $$ for the 1st choice land parcel. I'd venture a guess that those that received the benefit of the one a over a decade ago (along with many others) would have risen to the occasion and approve it to get the first choice property. Realistically, what would 12-13 million (according to the SB's price difference) come out to for each owner? Maybe $35/$40 a year? If even...? I think AC worked out to about $50-$80 a year at 40 million. Instead, we're stuck with "sloppy seconds" as the recommendation. Get as honked off at that characterization as you want, but the truth is that it has multiple hazards that the first choice property did not have. (railroad, pipeline, sub station, multiple HV power lines bordering 1/2 of the property, legacy power plant and its "issues", further away from the base of the population). Are those things really worth saving at most $40 a year on the high side to people? I'm sorry. It appears that some people on this site didn't hear that the SB decided that MV will be on the Eola site and BB is no longer under consideration. The debate on BB is over (or at least should be). |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 28, 2008 16:11:32 GMT -6
Here's some food for thought. After the verdict at the end of Sept, there was enough time to get another referendum on the ballot for this coming vote (Feb 5th, right?) to ask the voters if they wanted to fork over more $$ for the 1st choice land parcel. I'd venture a guess that those that received the benefit of the one a over a decade ago (along with many others) would have risen to the occasion and approve it to get the first choice property. Realistically, what would 12-13 million (according to the SB's price difference) come out to for each owner? Maybe $35/$40 a year? If even...? I think AC worked out to about $50-$80 a year at 40 million. Instead, we're stuck with "sloppy seconds" as the recommendation. Get as honked off at that characterization as you want, but the truth is that it has multiple hazards that the first choice property did not have. (railroad, pipeline, sub station, multiple HV power lines bordering 1/2 of the property, legacy power plant and its "issues", further away from the base of the population). Are those things really worth saving at most $40 a year on the high side to people? I'm sorry. It appears that some people on this site didn't hear that the SB decided that MV will be on the Eola site and BB is no longer under consideration. The debate on BB is over (or at least should be). Some people also did not hear that there are going to be things that need to be done first and there are 'back-out' provisions based on how certain things do or do not come back. (testing). |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 28, 2008 20:44:21 GMT -6
No worries...I also held out hope that BB would go by the wayside and AME would actually be chosen...even in light of them winning the traverse...even when all looked like it was going the right way for BB.
I therefore expect nothing less from them....Now I also while railing against BB was also on record as saying I would support BB after the 1st shovel of dirt is turned; I also expect the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Jan 28, 2008 20:45:28 GMT -6
I agree, Arch. I am alarmed after reading today that the traffic impact has not really been done. What happens to the Metea Valley Budget if we can't build on that site because of traffic, increased traffic lights needed, etc. not to mention the other concerns we all have about the site? They make it sound like Eola is a no-brainer, but is it really? Or do we still have insurmountable obstacles that may not pan out?
|
|
