Dist. 204 to quit fighting for land

[rew]

And the district/school board was so smooth, their biggest screw up and it all went away without the slightest whimper from the taxpayers.

[rew]

I agree with you Proschool that government entities have the right to condemn property, but doesn't that right come with responsibility, like not to condemn property unless you really intend to buy it?

Nobody feels sorry for the trusts, but what if this were your elderly parents and the land was all they had and they had a willing buyer for $420K acre two years ago and the school district said it was the only piece of property that filled their needs?

And then they put up $33M in escrow to prove they could pay whatever the jury granted. But then, after two years, and a rocky real estate market they found a better deal and left Mom & Pop high and dry?

Is this responsible use of condemnation?

[Arch]

rew said:

I agree with you Proschool that government entities have the right to condemn property, but doesn't that right come with responsibility, like not to condemn property unless you really intend to buy it?

Nobody feels sorry for the trusts, but what if this were your elderly parents and the land was all they had and they had a willing buyer for $420K acre two years ago and the school district said it was the only piece of property that filled their needs?

And then they put up $33M in escrow to prove they could pay whatever the jury granted. But then, after two years, and a rocky real estate market they found a better deal and left Mom & Pop high and dry?

Is this responsible use of condemnation?

The fact that they walked away after the trial is what is the most burning issue. I hate to say it, but if they strung me along for multiple years with a court case then finally said something to the effect of "NAY, nevermind.. we weren't *REALLY* serious" I'd be suing their butts to kingdom come and kicking them in the teeth for what they put me through.

The district deserves a very heavy kick in the teeth for that one and they are the ones who brought it upon themselves.

[proschool]

rew said:

I agree with you Proschool that government entities have the right to condemn property, but doesn't that right come with responsibility, like not to condemn property unless you really intend to buy it?

Nobody feels sorry for the trusts, but what if this were your elderly parents and the land was all they had and they had a willing buyer for $420K acre two years ago and the school district said it was the only piece of property that filled their needs?

And then they put up $33M in escrow to prove they could pay whatever the jury granted. But then, after two years, and a rocky real estate market they found a better deal and left Mom & Pop high and dry?

Is this responsible use of condemnation?

I agree wwith what you say. BB is entitlted to get the money that is used to defend its property from condemnation.

BB could have sold the land to whomever at any time. During that period they may not have as much money but the could have sold it just the same. Governments may act in ways that decrease the selling price of your propery, like building a highway or prison but they don't owe you the difference.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

proschool said:

BB could have sold the land to whomever at any time. During that period they may not have as much money but the could have sold it just the same. Governments may act in ways that decrease the selling price of your propery, like building a highway or prison but they don't owe you the difference.

Gee, I thought that an agreement was a meeting of the minds. If BB says the land is worth $500,000/acre and the district thinks it is worth $200,000/acre then there is no meeting of the minds. The buyer can choose to leave if there is no agreement. If you think your house is worth $900,000 and a buyer thinks it's worth $400,000, then there is no meeting of the minds and the buyer can walk. And if BB could sell at any time, perhaps they should have evaluated that there were no others buyers knocking at their door to pay that. Gosh, maybe it's not worth that after all. Property is only worth what a buyer is willing to pay. I really don't feel sorry for BB at all.

[rj]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe one can sell property that is involved in an eminent domain suit. That would make the suit moot, wouldn't it? The government agency wouldn't get the land they so desperately need at a discount price. Maybe someone can verify this?

As far as Sleepless In Npvl's scenario, one vital part was omitted. Say the buyer files eminent domain on your house that is worth $900k and is only willing to pay $400k, and keeps you tied up in court for year or more, during which time the housing market collapses making your house more difficult to sell. Then a jury decides your house is worth $900k plus damages, you end up with an outrageous legal bill defending your right to get a fair price for your house and the buyer walks away. Sleepless In Npvl, you mean to tell me you would just shrug it off? I don't think so. You would want your legal fees and damages paid, that is the way the system works.

The more I read about all this, the more I think the SB should cut their losses and buy the BB land. By the time they pay for damages, legal fees, new engineering and environmental tests on AME, it is going to cost the same or less to build at BB.

Oh, BTW, my kids are all out of school, but I do pay taxes in 204, so the boundaries really don't mean much to me. How the money is spent does matter though, and this AME deal is looking worse and worse.

[confused]

rj said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe one can sell property that is involved in an eminent domain suit. That would make the suit moot, wouldn't it? The government agency wouldn't get the land they so desperately need at a discount price. Maybe someone can verify this?

As far as Sleepless In Npvl's scenario, one vital part was omitted. Say the buyer files eminent domain on your house that is worth $900k and is only willing to pay $400k, and keeps you tied up in court for year or more, during which time the housing market collapses making your house more difficult to sell. Then a jury decides your house is worth $900k plus damages, you end up with an outrageous legal bill defending your right to get a fair price for your house and the buyer walks away. Sleepless In Npvl, you mean to tell me you would just shrug it off? I don't think so. You would want your legal fees and damages paid, that is the way the system works.

The more I read about all this, the more I think the SB should cut their losses and buy the BB land. By the time they pay for damages, legal fees, new engineering and environmental tests on AME, it is going to cost the same or less to build at BB.

Oh, BTW, my kids are all out of school, but I do pay taxes in 204, so the boundaries really don't mean much to me. How the money is spent does matter though, and this AME deal is looking worse and worse.

That's the big question - at what point to the damages filed for become too big to move forward on AME? Aren't the BB attorneys likely to file for more than they expect they'll get (I think that's the way this stuff normally goes, though I'm FAR from a legal expert)? Does the district have the right to move forward in this sale if they are at risk for, say, $20M in damages? Is that a realistic amount or does that seem high?

[sam2]

rew said:

And the district/school board was so smooth, their biggest screw up and it all went away without the slightest whimper from the taxpayers.

Isn't this typical for our district taxpayers?

Besides, the cost of this debacle will be buried under the excitement of building a new school and new boundary discussions and complaints.

When was the last time you heard anyone on the SB or in the administration even mention BB? The Sun's coverage seems to consist primarily of press releases issued by the district. The administration has moved on -- we'll get the bill because of the big bad trust and its lawyers, not because we were inept.


FWIW, I disagree that BB could have sold the land during the condemnation proceeding. Such a sale may or may not have been legal, but who would buy property that was being condemned? Why would anyone choose to buy land, knowing that they would never be able to use it? Filing the condemnation suit effectively took the property off the market.

But, as MM said, whatever it is, the taxpayers can afford it.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

rj said:

Sleepless In Npvl, you mean to tell me you would just shrug it off? I don't think so. You would want your legal fees and damages paid, that is the way the system works.

Of course I wouldn't shrug it off. I never said that BB doesn't have a right to go after us in court for the fact that we tied up their land for years and forced them to get attorneys. I am only pointing out that the district had every right to walk away from this if they didn't like the price. And my scenario of the $900,000 house was not an eminent domain situation. It was a real world situation in which I was pointing out that Buyers walk away from negotiations all the time. Notice I said the seller "thinks" his house is worth $900,000. The buyer "thinks" the house is worth $400,000. A house is only worth what someone will pay for it. So if there is no agreement, the buyer can walk. The fact that the jury "thinks" the price should be $500,000 an acre doesn't mean that someone will really pay that for the land. The district supposedly continued negotiations with BB after the verdict because there was still no agreement on price. And when negotiations failed, they walked away because they still couldn't agree. Yes, it makes us look bad, but I don't think the district ever signed anything that said we had to commit to a jury price. I must admit the fact that the district put that big sign on the corner of 59 and 75th stating this was the site of the next HS was a bit premature since we really didn't have the land yet.

[d204mom]

rj said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe one can sell property that is involved in an eminent domain suit. That would make the suit moot, wouldn't it? The government agency wouldn't get the land they so desperately need at a discount price. Maybe someone can verify this?

That is my understanding. Once the judge ruled way back then that the condemnation case has merit and the district has the right to the property, they cannot just sell to anyone else - the district won the rights to the property around election time if I remember. That's why BB kept fighting and filed that motion that the district didn't need the property - so they could maintain the right to sell it whenever they wanted.

The district won the traverse... BB lost their right to sell.

[d204mom]

rj said:

As far as Sleepless In Npvl's scenario, one vital part was omitted. Say the buyer files eminent domain on your house that is worth $900k and is only willing to pay $400k, and keeps you tied up in court for year or more, during which time the housing market collapses making your house more difficult to sell. Then a jury decides your house is worth $900k plus damages, you end up with an outrageous legal bill defending your right to get a fair price for your house and the buyer walks away.

Everyone thought that this quote from John Simon was an offer to negotiate, however, I thought it was setting the stage for additional damages due to the housing market taking a hit:


"The price of the land was set based on property values at the time of the eminent domain case filing - Dec. 21, 2005 - which Simon said is not indicative of today's real estate market."

[jwh]

What about the 25 acres at BB the district owns/bought at ~$250K per acre. I don't recall the actual price paid...

Wouldn't the profit off of the sale of that parcel offset the legal fees? Not sure if that is already part of the Metea school funding, either.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

d204mom said:

Everyone thought that this quote from John Simon was an offer to negotiate, however, I thought it was setting the stage for additional damages due to the housing market taking a hit:


"The price of the land was set based on property values at the time of the eminent domain case filing - Dec. 21, 2005 - which Simon said is not indicative of today's real estate market."

Ah, yes....the price was supposed to be in 2005. I am not a land-sale expert, but does anyone know if anything had ever sold in 2005 for $500,000 an acre? What did we pay for the 25 acres and in what year was that? That was what the district was basing their estimate of worth on. Does anyone know what Costco paid for their land back then? I don't think it was $500,000 an acre but I could be wrong. If Costco did pay $500,000 an acre, then the school board was way off on their estimates and didn't do their research. But if Costco paid $300,000 an acre, then the school board has every right to disagree with the jury's decision.

[bob]

The SD paid $257/ in 03.

Costco paid $535 for the corner lot of 59 and 75. Corner lots are the most expensive pieces of land.


Lehigh station went for something like $280K.

The lot across from BB went for $280K.

Now 80 acres goes for less than $225K.

Really looks like jury was wrong.

[jwh]

Yeah, I don't see the BB parcel as much different than the lot behind Home Depot....and that was only $280K??? Wow.