Dist. 204 plans to discuss Metea land

[bbc]

It is refreshing to see that more contributors to this site are looking for accountability from our elected reps on the SB. There has always been too much "let's trust them" and "give them the benefit of the doubt" in the face of mounting questions to get the job done. Now there is additional evidence that they are unwilling to negotiate to help us taxpayers/parents. I also think the sb needs to answer these concerns. There is nothing wrong with making elected officials accountable in the face of evidence that they are not doing their job. If the "evidence" is unfounded, they should be able to dispute it quite easily.

[bob]

bbc said:

It is refreshing to see that more contributors to this site are looking for accountability from our elected reps on the SB. There has always been too much "let's trust them" and "give them the benefit of the doubt" in the face of mounting questions to get the job done. Now there is additional evidence that they are unwilling to negotiate to help us taxpayers/parents. I also think the sb needs to answer these concerns. There is nothing wrong with making elected officials accountable in the face of evidence that they are not doing their job. If the "evidence" is unfounded, they should be able to dispute it quite easily.

What new evidence? That the SB didn't try to negotiate?

Judge to rule on Indian Prairie lawsuit
(http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/131590,2_1_AU10_LAWSUIT_S1.article)

November 10, 2006

By Paige Winfield staff writer

WHEATON -- The Indian Prairie School District's outlook for acquiring land for its third high school will be clearer next week.

DuPage County Judge Robert Kilander said he will rule Wednesday on a motion filed by managers of the Hazel S. Brodie Trust to dismiss a condemnation lawsuit filed by Indian Prairie.

The trust attorneys concluded their arguments Thursday in court with two witnesses: School Board member Christine Vickers and Tom Swaney, an attorney with the Sidley Austin Law Firm.

Both sides presented closing arguments.

If Kilander rejects the motion to dismiss the lawsuit, proceedings to determine the land value of the contested property is the next step, said Rick Petesch, attorney for the School district.

The district has its sights set on 55 acres along 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora, land known as the Brach Brodie property. While the district owns 25 adjacent acres, it is seeking additional land on which to construct Metea Valley High School. In April, voters approved a $124.6 million referendum measure to build the school.

In November 2005, the district offered $257,500 per acre. But when Brodie Trust lawyers failed to make a counteroffer, the district filed a condemnation lawsuit in December to purchase the land under eminent domain.

In closing arguments, Petesch said the district's offer equaled fair market value and was made in good faith -- the two contingencies that must be met before a condemnation lawsuit can be filed.

He said the district had grounds to file the condemnation suit because price proposals from each half of the trust varied widely during negotiations. The Brach attorney, who manages 50 percent of the trust, asked for $600,000 per acre, while the Brodie attorney asked for $400,000 an acre.

"The lack of agreement shows a disparity that makes further negotiations brutal," Petesch said.

But the trust attorneys said the appraisal on which the district's offer was based originated from a settlement price reached during a 2003 condemnation lawsuit, in which the district acquired the 25 adjacent acres.

Therefore, the district's offer violated legal precedent because it was not based on a current appraisal, they said.

So how did the judge rule? If the SD wasn't negotiating in good faith, then the judge would have ruled in favor of BB. The judge didn't. He let the suit continue. So all this spunk of the SD didn't negotiate in good faith is exactly the opposite of what the JUDGE decided.

[bob]

204 can't take land yet

November 17, 2006
By BRITT CARSON staff writer
Although a recent court decision favored Indian Prairie School District 204, officials can't get their hands on the land just yet.

On Thursday, a judge continued until Dec. 21 a motion filed by the district to gain access to 55 acres of the Brach Brodie property. Rick Petesch, District 204 attorney, filed the motion so soil samples could be taken and wetlands assessed.

On Wednesday the same DuPage County Circuit Court judge, Robert Kilander, denied a motion to dismiss the condemnation lawsuit, saying the district did make a good faith offer of $257,500 per acre. The motion was filed by the Haze S. Brodie Trust, which oversees the property.

Wednesday's ruling allows the condemnation lawsuit to move forward. Petesch said Kilander encouraged both sides to work out access to the property.

Petesch also said the district is still open to a deal with the Brodie Trust.

The district plans to build a high school on 80 acres and wants to start construction in the spring. Petesch said the condemnation lawsuit likely would go to trial in the spring, which is later than District 204 hoped.

[d204mom]

Deciding to ignore the Brodie's Dec 19 offer to negotiate and instead doing exactly what they asked us not to do- file the lawsuit - is just the first step in a long list of mistakes the board made regarding the Brach Brodie purchase.

I guess the judge ruled in favor of the district because they followed the letter of the law. Instead of honoring the sellers requests. That seems to be their MO.

Now they are pining the whole situation on the Brodie trust.

Just yesterday there were claims that Senator Holmes had negotiated a deal and Brodie soured it. As I remember, Linda's only stipulation was the Ashwood swap. So we agreed to that? And then it was all Brodie's fault?

I am sick of "this is all Brodie's fault." Its not.

[proschool]

bob said:

204 can't take land yet

November 17, 2006
By BRITT CARSON staff writer
Although a recent court decision favored Indian Prairie School District 204, officials can't get their hands on the land just yet.

On Thursday, a judge continued until Dec. 21 a motion filed by the district to gain access to 55 acres of the Brach Brodie property. Rick Petesch, District 204 attorney, filed the motion so soil samples could be taken and wetlands assessed.

On Wednesday the same DuPage County Circuit Court judge, Robert Kilander, denied a motion to dismiss the condemnation lawsuit, saying the district did make a good faith offer of $257,500 per acre. The motion was filed by the Haze S. Brodie Trust, which oversees the property.

Wednesday's ruling allows the condemnation lawsuit to move forward. Petesch said Kilander encouraged both sides to work out access to the property.

Petesch also said the district is still open to a deal with the Brodie Trust.

The district plans to build a high school on 80 acres and wants to start construction in the spring. Petesch said the condemnation lawsuit likely would go to trial in the spring, which is later than District 204 hoped.

Thanks for reminding us Bob.

BB can't pretend like they were negotaiating to sell the land when they wouldn,t even allow the SD to look at it.

[d204mom]

This is all coming up now because people read things in the paper yesterday like John Simon basically begging the district to come back to the table.

It starts to make you wonder who is telling the truth about which side is unwilling.

[wvhsparent]

OK here is what I found.

11/22/05 - SD makes offer for remaining 55 acres @ 257k/acre
12/7/05 - reply from 1st atty for Brodie - Rejected SD offer - no counter offer
12/7/05 - reply from Brach atty Simon - Rejected SD offer, with reference to appraised value of upwards of 600k/acre.
12/7/05 - Reply from Whitt law (SD) refuting 600k/acre claim reasserting the 257k/acre as good faith ---blah blah........ asking to reconsider or counter offer prior to 12/12/05 SB meeting.
12/12/05 - reply from 1st atty (Brodie) still rejects SB offer, but not counter offer.....lots of defiant lawyerspeak......
12/19/05 - reply from Brodie atty ref a 12/16/05 telephone call - in summary "the school district would consider it's initial proposal to have been rejected and further negotiations to be futile absent a counteroffer from the Owners"
The next paragraph is the best I can find on any type of "counteroffer"
"As representatives of the Brodie interests, we continue to believe that the School District has not made a valid or appropiate offer for the above property. We base this belief on an offer of $420,000 per acre received by Owners from a knowledgeable and experienced developer who is familiar with and has developed property in the area. The offer of $420,000 per acre relates specifically to the above referenced 55 acres. Based on this offer, we are receptive to negotiating with the School District bearing in mind this offer of $420,000 per acre and other developments."
No further offers/counter offers found...nothing else from the Brach side.

Another curious note. I found the next document to be interesting. It was the projected project budget summary.
The line item for Site acquisition and delevopement was 23,.9mil. and at 420k/acre that would had taken up 23.1mil of it.

[d204mom]

That number in the contruction budget is referenced in the most recent counter motion as well. Something about the first offer of 14M being 10M short of what the district budgeted for site acquisition.

I do find it curious that the district wouldn't make any other offer besides $257. Instead they keep asking "Well, what do you want?"

Until after the jury award, then we offer $500/acre for 40 acres. After our bargining position had taken a huge hit.

[bbc]

wvhsparent said:

OK here is what I found.

11/22/05 - SD makes offer for remaining 55 acres @ 257k/acre
12/7/05 - reply from 1st atty for Brodie - Rejected SD offer - no counter offer
12/7/05 - reply from Brach atty Simon - Rejected SD offer, with reference to appraised value of upwards of 600k/acre.
12/7/05 - Reply from Whitt law (SD) refuting 600k/acre claim reasserting the 257k/acre as good faith ---blah blah........ asking to reconsider or counter offer prior to 12/12/05 SB meeting.
12/12/05 - reply from 1st atty (Brodie) still rejects SB offer, but not counter offer.....lots of defiant lawyerspeak......
12/19/05 - reply from Brodie atty ref a 12/16/05 telephone call - in summary "the school district would consider it's initial proposal to have been rejected and further negotiations to be futile absent a counteroffer from the Owners"
The next paragraph is the best I can find on any type of "counteroffer"
"As representatives of the Brodie interests, we continue to believe that the School District has not made a valid or appropiate offer for the above property. We base this belief on an offer of $420,000 per acre received by Owners from a knowledgeable and experienced developer who is familiar with and has developed property in the area. The offer of $420,000 per acre relates specifically to the above referenced 55 acres. Based on this offer, we are receptive to negotiating with the School District bearing in mind this offer of $420,000 per acre and other developments."
No further offers/counter offers found...nothing else from the Brach side.

Another curious note. I found the next document to be interesting. It was the projected project budget summary.
The line item for Site acquisition and delevopement was 23,.9mil. and at 420k/acre that would had taken up 23.1mil of it.

The judge in this case only has to find that the SB "believed" they were acting in good faith. It is an easy standard to achieve. If you were selling your house and someone had offered you $420,000 and then another potential buyer came in and offered $257,000 would you be compelled to respond to this person with a counter-offer? I would be insulted and certainly would not respond to the $257,000.

[wvhsparent]

But then you cannot come back in the papers and claim you gave the SD a counter offer, when you really did not.

[bob]

PWNED.

[bbc]

wvhsparent said:

But then you cannot come back in the papers and claim you gave the SD a counter offer, when you really did not.

agreed. but the sb can't claim they really negotiated in good faith.

[bob]

bbc said:

wvhsparent said:

But then you cannot come back in the papers and claim you gave the SD a counter offer, when you really did not.

agreed. but the sb can't claim they really negotiated in good faith.

Then you can't claim they didn't.

[d204mom]

wvhsparent said:

But then you cannot come back in the papers and claim you gave the SD a counter offer, when you really did not.

Wait, when did either attorney claim they made the district a counter offer? I don't remember that.

[d204mom]

bob said:

bbc said:

agreed. but the sb can't claim they really negotiated in good faith.

Then you can't claim they didn't.

bob I'm still waiting for the proof that Brodie soured the Holmes-negotiated deal. And how the Ashwood swap was negotiated in that deal.