|
|
Post by rural on Apr 15, 2008 18:25:12 GMT -6
What I don't understand is didn't they get an appraisal when they were looking at the AME land along with the MWG land? They had plenty of time to do that before they approved that sale. If they did, then maybe they can at least extrapolate what the better AME land would be worth for the new offer. But it sounds like they didn't even do that months ago. I guess as long as it is less than $560K/acre, who cares. ETA: I meant I would have hoped that they looked at comparables before negotiating. You do not have to have an appraisal to make an offer. When you buy a home, the appraisal comes after the offer. What comparable was AT talking about at the meeting and had that sold and when? I have to agree that this is the part that is just bugging me like a loose tooth. If AT were to say they didn't do the appraisal because they already knew what comps were for the area, etc., etc., it wouldn't bother me anywhere near as much as saying it was because of a tight timeline. Is she talking about right now for the whole parcel? I'm okay with the 225/acre price. Is anyone able to find a lot in 204 to build a house on that's less than that? |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Apr 15, 2008 18:34:57 GMT -6
What I don't understand is didn't they get an appraisal when they were looking at the AME land along with the MWG land? They had plenty of time to do that before they approved that sale. If they did, then maybe they can at least extrapolate what the better AME land would be worth for the new offer. But it sounds like they didn't even do that months ago. I guess as long as it is less than $560K/acre, who cares. ETA: I meant I would have hoped that they looked at comparables before negotiating. You do not have to have an appraisal to make an offer. When you buy a home, the appraisal comes after the offer. What comparable was AT talking about at the meeting and had that sold and when? I have to agree that this is the part that is just bugging me like a loose tooth. If AT were to say they didn't do the appraisal because they already knew what comps were for the area, etc., etc., it wouldn't bother me anywhere near as much as saying it was because of a tight timeline. Is she talking about right now for the whole parcel? I'm okay with the 225/acre price. Is anyone able to find a lot in 204 to build a house on that's less than that? A lot to build on usually implies an imporoved lot with electric sewer, street, water lines, water retention, sidewalks etc. The ladn we are buying is unimproved and it has none of that. |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 15, 2008 18:36:43 GMT -6
I have to agree that this is the part that is just bugging me like a loose tooth. If AT were to say they didn't do the appraisal because they already knew what comps were for the area, etc., etc., it wouldn't bother me anywhere near as much as saying it was because of a tight timeline. Is she talking about right now for the whole parcel? I'm okay with the 225/acre price. Is anyone able to find a lot in 204 to build a house on that's less than that? A lot to build on usually implies an imporoved lot with electric sewer, street, water lines, water retention, sidewalks etc. The ladn we are buying is unimproved and it has none of that. And BB did? |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 15, 2008 18:40:50 GMT -6
A lot to build on usually implies an imporoved lot with electric sewer, street, water lines, water retention, sidewalks etc. The ladn we are buying is unimproved and it has none of that. Even an unimproved lot in this area--and there are some in the area one is available right on Molitor Road--sells for a great deal more than AME is asking. ETA: I'm actually not sure of the asking price of the land just guessing. Is someone a RE agent who can look it up? |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Apr 15, 2008 18:45:19 GMT -6
A lot to build on usually implies an imporoved lot with electric sewer, street, water lines, water retention, sidewalks etc. The ladn we are buying is unimproved and it has none of that. And BB did? I never said it did. However at about the same time that the church bought the Eola site for 35k/acre the school bought 25 acres at BB for over 260k/acre. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 15, 2008 18:47:15 GMT -6
I never said it did. However at about the same time that the church bought the Eola site for 35k/acre the school bought 25 acres at BB for over 260k/acre. Location, Location, Location.... |
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on Apr 15, 2008 19:07:54 GMT -6
204Parent are you referring to the "improving the "Albatross" plan? Don't blame me, I didn't say it. To add: I've never uttered one bad word about WVHS. Yet, despite any issue I may have with the decision making abilities of our elected leaders and the debacle they've created, I'm labeled a racist, entitled, Waubonsie Hater. I'm so over this! Yes, the "anti-Albatross plan". On one hand, everyone says WVHS is just fine. On the other hand, the SB says we need a "new WVHS" or it will be an Albatross. It makes no sense to me. The referendum was for a 3rd HS to alleviate overcrowding. It had nothing to do with creating a "new WVHS". That idea didn't exist until after Dash joined the district... |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 15, 2008 19:07:59 GMT -6
I never said it did. However at about the same time that the church bought the Eola site for 35k/acre the school bought 25 acres at BB for over 260k/acre. So the land at AME costs less/acre than the original 25 BB acres? |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 15, 2008 19:08:48 GMT -6
What I don't understand is didn't they get an appraisal when they were looking at the AME land along with the MWG land? They had plenty of time to do that before they approved that sale. If they did, then maybe they can at least extrapolate what the better AME land would be worth for the new offer. But it sounds like they didn't even do that months ago. I guess as long as it is less than $560K/acre, who cares. ETA: I meant I would have hoped that they looked at com parables before negotiating. You do not have to have an appraisal to make an offer. When you buy a home, the appraisal comes after the offer. What comparable was AT talking about at the meeting and had that sold and when? I have to agree that this is the part that is just bugging me like a loose tooth. If AT were to say they didn't do the appraisal because they already knew what comps were for the area, etc., etc., it wouldn't bother me anywhere near as much as saying it was because of a tight time line. Is she talking about right now for the whole parcel? I'm okay with the 225/acre price. Is anyone able to find a lot in 204 to build a house on that's less than that? I think if I've learned anything in the past two years, it's not to trust a school board member when they discuss real estate. So now they are experts in real estate com parables? Alka says so, so it's believable? I would think otherwise based on what happened during the condemnation suit. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 15, 2008 19:10:56 GMT -6
I'm okay with the 225/acre price. Is anyone able to find a lot in 204 to build a house on that's less than that? No one on the board would build their house on that land. Any of them are welcome to make a liar out of me. Lord knows I have of them. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 15, 2008 19:14:07 GMT -6
I'm okay with the 225/acre price. Is anyone able to find a lot in 204 to build a house on that's less than that? No one on the board would build their house on that land. I wouldn't build my home on that land. And 225K an acre is ridiculously high in my opinion. They bought it for 35K an acre four years ago. If anything, an appraisal might have brought the cost down to a more reasonable level. 35K to 225K in a really bad market? No appraisal? Seems odd to me. I think we were "owned" once again. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 15, 2008 19:59:53 GMT -6
No one on the board would build their house on that land. I wouldn't build my home on that land. And 225K an acre is ridiculously high in my opinion. They bought it for 35K an acre four years ago. If anything, an appraisal might have brought the cost down to a reasonable level. I think we were "owned" once again. All I can say is kudos to the church for making such a great investment. Wish I could have bought farmland a few years ago for $35K/acre. (that only needed Phase I testing if I may remind you and if anyone was getting ready to type that it has MWG kooties). Just for fun, does anyone know what Macom bought his land for a few years ago? Say someone gets a screamin' deal on a home because it's in foreclosure or the seller is motivated to sell, and say he gets it for $50,000 less than the comparables. Does that mean that later, when other homes are selling for $100,000 more appreciation, that he should still sell for $50,000 less? Maybe there are commercial real estate agents out there who can verify this, but I was under the impression that land by the interstate is more valuable than land not by an interstate. I know when I looked at houses in this area, those pesky northerners pay a premium to have that desirable commuting location. Hence, my southern address. Don't know how that works for undeveloped land. And Arch, people have built homes very near that land. IIRC, the school will now be in those people's backyards. |
|
|
|
Post by cb on Apr 15, 2008 20:16:26 GMT -6
204Parent are you referring to the "improving the "Albatross" plan? Don't blame me, I didn't say it. To add: I've never uttered one bad word about WVHS. Yet, despite any issue I may have with the decision making abilities of our elected leaders and the debacle they've created, I'm labeled a racist, entitled, Waubonsie Hater. I'm so over this! Yes, the "anti-Albatross plan". On one hand, everyone says WVHS is just fine. On the other hand, the SB says we need a "new WVHS" or it will be an Albatross. It makes no sense to me. The referendum was for a 3rd HS to alleviate overcrowding. It had nothing to do with creating a "new WVHS". That idea didn't exist until after Dash joined the district... Yes it did. I believe JCs' Option 6 during the BB boundary meetings was her vision of the new WVHS. Watch out Tamarack. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Apr 15, 2008 20:22:53 GMT -6
I have been looking for Option 6. can you post what it looked like??
And didn't JC want to switch Gombert and Wheatland in the end??
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Apr 15, 2008 20:23:23 GMT -6
I wouldn't build my home on that land. And 225K an acre is ridiculously high in my opinion. They bought it for 35K an acre four years ago. If anything, an appraisal might have brought the cost down to a reasonable level. I think we were "owned" once again. All I can say is kudos to the church for making such a great investment. Wish I could have bought farmland a few years ago for $35K/acre. (that only needed Phase I testing if I may remind you and if anyone was getting ready to type that it has MWG kooties). Just for fun, does anyone know what Macom bought his land for a few years ago? Say someone gets a screamin' deal on a home because it's in foreclosure or the seller is motivated to sell, and say he gets it for $50,000 less than the comparables. Does that mean that later, when other homes are selling for $100,000 more appreciation, that he should still sell for $50,000 less? Maybe there are commercial real estate agents out there who can verify this, but I was under the impression that land by the interstate is more valuable than land not by an interstate. I know when I looked at houses in this area, those pesky northerners pay a premium to have that desirable commuting location. Hence, my southern address. Don't know how that works for undeveloped land. And Arch, people have built homes very near that land. IIRC, the school will now be in those people's backyards. If there was on onramp on to the he interstate it might help. But so far there is none at Eola. |
|
