Disappointment - Cont'd

[rew]

Then why sell to Costco, PREIT etc. I don't buy it.

[sushi]

what I heard......

[WeBe204]

rew said:

I think there is MUCH MORE to the story than the BB attorneys were unccoperative.

I am always up for a good conspiracy, but I am not sure where you are going with this line of thought. In hindsight, the 2.5 year legal strategy to get bb was not the correct path. I think that is clear.

[rew]

Oh No, I am not going conspiracy. I am saying more incompetence. Like if the AME land went up 178% in three years and now in a buyers market, why did the SB ever think that BB was worth 257/acre in a sellers market.

And they condemned immediately after BB truned down that low ball offer. Maybe it was the SD/SB that did not negotiate in good faith, but rather thought they could steal the land from the estate.

And maybe BB would have negotiated even after condemnation, but personalities within the SD/SB prevented those negotiations from being productive.

And maybe numerous public comments from the SD/SB, like "no other site would do", we were "willing to pay any price" etc were not our best negotiating tools.

[wvhsparent]

brad204 said:

rew said:

I think there is MUCH MORE to the story than the BB attorneys were unccoperative.

I am always up for a good conspiracy, but I am not sure where you are going with this line of thought. In hindsight, the 2.5 year legal strategy to get bb was not the correct path. I think that is clear.

There was friction amongst the BB Trusts. One was willing to deal, and the other one pretty much said they would not deal with the SD period, to the point where money was not the issue with them. So unless the SD could get both parts of the trust on the same page, nothing could happen, hence nothing did.

[Arch]

wvhsparent said:

brad204 said:

I am always up for a good conspiracy, but I am not sure where you are going with this line of thought. In hindsight, the 2.5 year legal strategy to get bb was not the correct path. I think that is clear.

There was friction amongst the BB Trusts. One was willing to deal, and the other one pretty much said they would not deal with the SD period, to the point where money was not the issue with them. So unless the SD could get both parts of the trust on the same page, nothing could happen, hence nothing did.

Again, the rub being the court told them they had to sell.. if we would have put up the money we prior said we could afford.

[wvhsparent]

archwinsome said:

wvhsparent said:

There was friction amongst the BB Trusts. One was willing to deal, and the other one pretty much said they would not deal with the SD period, to the point where money was not the issue with them. So unless the SD could get both parts of the trust on the same page, nothing could happen, hence nothing did.

Again, the rub being the court told them they had to sell.. if we would have put up the money we prior said we could afford.

It goes back further than that.....to the Initial condemantion with the settlement for the 25 acres.

[WeBe204]

wvhsparent said:

archwinsome said:

Again, the rub being the court told them they had to sell.. if we would have put up the money we prior said we could afford.

It goes back further than that.....to the Initial condemantion with the settlement for the 25 acres.

I thought the 25 acres came from the purchase of land for the DEC. Was that obtained through condemantion? Sorry, if this is all repeated history. Maybe we should create a wikipedia page

[rew]

It is my understanding that the 05 ref was a negotiated price. It was not set by a court. Did the SD file a condemenation on the property and the trusts settled?

[Arch]

Please continue in Part3 *locked to prevent lost posts*