Dist. 204 plans to discuss Metea land

[d204mom]

Using your logic that it was "publically known" that the district was going to file suit on 12/22 then I say good for the Brodie folks for delivering the letter beforehand to try to stop the lawsuit and negotiate with us.

Shame on us for not taking them up on it. If what you say is true no wonder they are unwilling to negotiate now.

[d204mom]

bob, I'm just not seeing where "everyone knew" about the condemnation proceedings.

By the way, the Eminent Domain proceeding were authorized at that special meeting I posted earlier. The Monday before 12/21 is 12/19/2005 - the same day they got the letter.
Isn't it ironic, don't ya think?

High school plan back where it started: Brach land; 204 says 55 acres adjacent to earlier purchase best fit
Naperville Sun, The (IL) - December 21, 2005
Author: Britt Carson

Despite spending months searching and evaluating land in Indian Prairie School District 204, the Brach Brodie property again came out on top as the preferred site for a third high school.

On Monday, school board members authorized the district to begin eminent domain proceedings for the 55 acres adjacent to the 25 acres the district bought this spring. The site is off 75th Street and would be accessible from an extension of Commons Drive. Board member Mark Metzger said the bottom line was the Brach Brodie land is best suited for the district's needs.

[warriorpride]

d204mom said:

Using your logic that it was "publically known" that the district was going to file suit on 12/22 then I say good for the Brodie folks for delivering the letter beforehand to try to stop the lawsuit and negotiate with us.

Shame on us for not taking them up on it. If what you say is true no wonder they are unwilling to negotiate now.

Mom - could you give an executive summary of your purpose in all of your posts about this? What outcome do you seek?

[d204mom]

Am I on notice that my postings are annoying or something?

Maybe I'm trying to help the Brodies put together their damage claim.

Does it matter?

[warriorpride]

d204mom said:

Am I on notice that my postings are annoying or something?

Maybe I'm trying to help the Brodies put together their damage claim.

Does it matter?

"(this forum) is a community of residents willing to exchange ideas to make IPSD a better place. "

no, I'm not an admin - yes, it's a free country, post away - I'm just getting a headache - really, what's the point of all this?

[d204mom]

bob said:

d204mom said:

Funny you should pick that date bob. No I don't think it was 12/18. I think it was 12/19.

Wonder what was discussed in Executive Session at the special board meeting called?

Agenda says "Administrative Recommendation: That the Board of Education goes into Executive Session to discuss the following:

1. Land Acquisition"

board.ipsd.org/204boardfiles/boardfiles_view_list.asp?MeetingDate=12/19/2005&BoardMtgType=special

Yeah, it wasn't publically known they would file. .

Well, anyway, back to bob's comment.

As of Nov 22 they hadn't even announced that Brach Brodie was going to be the site of the school.

So I don't buy that it was publically known that they were going to file a condemnation suit on 12/22 when it wasn't even publically announced that Brach Brodie was the site choice before then.

Clock ticking on third high school; 204 up against deadline acquire land
Naperville Sun, The (IL) - November 22, 2005
Author: Britt Carson

AURORA -- The laundry list of to-do items to build a third high school in Indian Prairie District 204 is rather long.

Superintendent Howie Crouse laid out the timeline and list of things the school board needs to do between Monday night and the scheduled opening in 2008 -- if a March referendum measure passes. If the board wants to move forward with a measure to build a third high school, it must file the question it will ask voters along with the cost by Jan. 13. The district also must identify land and negotiate an agreement on a site over the next two weeks, Crouse said.

He discussed the timeline Monday with the board during a committee meeting on what events must take place and when if the board is to succeed in getting a question on the March 21 ballot.

"Once we get the site, we have several more significant hurdles to get over, one of which is which gold campus to switch back to a middle school," Crouse said. "We also need to start looking at boundary options."

The district has 9,300 students in grades 2 to 5. It can house approximately 8,400 students at the high school level.

The district is also projecting enough students to fill another middle school. The gold campuses, one at each high school, were middle schools the district converted to freshman centers to accommodate growth at the high schools.

For whichever high school loses its freshman center, the district said will institute the freshman center concept into its main building. Crouse said that decision should be made by Jan. 9.

The board has asked the administration to start working on a new set of boundaries, depending on what site for the third high school is chosen. Crouse said those discussions will take place in late January.

If voters approve a third high school, construction plans need to be in place if the school is to open as planned, Crouse said. But he said the likelihood of the entire building being finished by then is slim.

"We have to be very aggressive, and if we don't meet our benchmarks, that

2008 date goes by the wayside," he said.

District 204 includes parts of Naperville, Aurora, Bolingbrook and Plainfield.

The most likely candidate for land is the Brach Brodie property at 75th Street and Route 59. The district already owns 25 acres of the property and had a deal for an additional 55 acres that fell through when the $130.5 million April referendum measure failed.

The district is considering other sites around the district. However, finding 80 acres of vacant residential land that is not zoned for commercial use is hard to come by. Crouse said the district is not pursuing commercial land since that would be taking away a potential revenue source for the district without adding any more students.

[Arch]

Whether or not it was known when the suit would be filed, even a blind folded chimp with a pencil through its teeth knew it was going to be BB long before then.

[d204mom]

archwinsome said:

Whether or not it was known when the suit would be filed, even a blind folded chimp with a pencil through its teeth knew it was going to be BB long before then.

So we were using blind folded chimps back then instead of our current game of IPPC telephone? Wow! We sure have come a long way.

[Arch]

d204mom said:

archwinsome said:

Whether or not it was known when the suit would be filed, even a blind folded chimp with a pencil through its teeth knew it was going to be BB long before then.

So we were using blind folded chimps back then instead of our current game of IPPC telephone? Wow! We sure have come a long way.

I'm having Amaretto, want a glass too?

[EagleDad]

bob said:

We certainly did not recognize in 2005 that what we would be facing is a seller that would never, even to this day, state a price at which they'd be willing to sell us the land, unlike what they did with the 25 acres. It wasn't anticipated on many levels.

Well if the seller wouldn't name a price, how can you negotiate?

Because negotiation is a two way street. One can always ask "what is your price" to begin, and not wait for it to come to you. There is clear evidence (a letter) that BB tried to negiotiate. There is recent evidence (newspaper quotes) that they are trying to negotiate again.

Is there any evidence that the SD has reciprocated, then or now? As a taxpayer, I want to know. All I've seen to date is that they were negotiating with PREIT all along, which which rather a shock to me.

[warriorpride]

eagledad said:

bob said:

Well if the seller wouldn't name a price, how can you negotiate?

Because negotiation is a two way street. One can always ask "what is your price" to begin, and not wait for it to come to you. There is clear evidence (a letter) that BB tried to negiotiate. There is recent evidence (newspaper quotes) that they are trying to negotiate again.

Is there any evidence that the SD has reciprocated, then or now? As a taxpayer, I want to know. All I've seen to date is that they were negotiating with PREIT all along, which which rather a shock to me.

Nobody seems willing to give the SB the benefit of the doubt lately. What if they've tried? Do we really need to see physical evidence & paperwork & quotes in order to believe that the SB has tried everything possible to obtain BB, while staying within their full budget (whatever that is)? Lord knows they've screwed some things up here, but for a long time, there were a number of posters that accused the SB of trying to get "BB at all costs". Now, since BB seems all but gone, we're going to turn it around and say "the SB isn't trying hard enough to get BB, for <insert reason here>"? (and some of the reasons border on ridiculous). Please. The combo platter of BB laywers hasn't been 100% cooperative here - it takes both of them in order to make it work.

[EagleDad]

Here is why I want to see evidence or minimally communication that they have fully negotiated Brach Brodie:

$5-$10 million dollars, plain and simple.

That is far too much money to throw down the drain because of grudges, personalities, or simple lack of communication (they never called me).

Its also called accountability. I was and always have been a big supporter of BB. Now it has gotten screwed up, suddenly we can't afford the 33 million we could this summer and I demand to know why.

I will not accept "oops, we tried", I expect more.

In short, my "trust" has worn thin, if not out altogether, so now I have to monitor it much more closely. Believe me, it's not because I want to or enjoy it.

[wvhsparent]

warriorpride said:

eagledad said:

Because negotiation is a two way street. One can always ask "what is your price" to begin, and not wait for it to come to you. There is clear evidence (a letter) that BB tried to negiotiate. There is recent evidence (newspaper quotes) that they are trying to negotiate again.

Is there any evidence that the SD has reciprocated, then or now? As a taxpayer, I want to know. All I've seen to date is that they were negotiating with PREIT all along, which which rather a shock to me.

Nobody seems willing to give the SB the benefit of the doubt lately. What if they've tried? Do we really need to see physical evidence & paperwork & quotes in order to believe that the SB has tried everything possible to obtain BB, while staying within their full budget (whatever that is)? Lord knows they've screwed some things up here, but for a long time, there were a number of posters that accused the SB of trying to get "BB at all costs". Now, since BB seems all but gone, we're going to turn it around and say "the SB isn't trying hard enough to get BB, for <insert reason here>"? (and some of the reasons border on ridiculous). Please. The combo platter of BB laywers hasn't been 100% cooperative here - it takes both of them in order to make it work.

Actually, given the track record/past and current practices of the SB/Admin, yes I need to see total proof on everything thy have been doing.
The SB's trust level is so low they are not afforded any benefit of doubt.
And this from someone who has not cared for BB from day 1...go figure.

[slp]

wvhsparent said:

warriorpride said:

Nobody seems willing to give the SB the benefit of the doubt lately. What if they've tried? Do we really need to see physical evidence & paperwork & quotes in order to believe that the SB has tried everything possible to obtain BB, while staying within their full budget (whatever that is)? Lord knows they've screwed some things up here, but for a long time, there were a number of posters that accused the SB of trying to get "BB at all costs". Now, since BB seems all but gone, we're going to turn it around and say "the SB isn't trying hard enough to get BB, for <insert reason here>"? (and some of the reasons border on ridiculous). Please. The combo platter of BB laywers hasn't been 100% cooperative here - it takes both of them in order to make it work.

Actually, given the track record/past and current practices of the SB/Admin, yes I need to see total proof on everything thy have been doing.
The SB's trust level is so low they are not afforded any benefit of doubt.
And this from someone who has not cared for BB from day 1...go figure.

very true! Many took the sb's 'word' for it when they believe BB would survive litigation without a problem. Now we are told a completely different story.

Based on the BB attorney quote in the papers yesterday, I expect the board to sit down and SERIOUSLY negotiate with BB . And I expect to know the details of those talks.

As taxpayers that voted them info office we deserve to know the complete rationale if they do decide to abandon BB and pursue another site; which it appears they will imo.

[wvhsparent]

FYI. I am pouring over the volumes of court documents (My head already hurts).

It then dawned on me..That was what the initial part of the proceedings were about... the Traverse, which asked if the District had acted in good faith in it's negotiations. The judge ruled in favor of the SD, that they had been acting in good faith prior to filing the ED proceedings.

I will look a little more...but then I have to get some work done.