|
|
Post by steckmom on Apr 16, 2008 11:59:55 GMT -6
Here we go with the "intent" thing again. Where is my dead horse picture?. If our SB members had it in their minds to want Eola all along and devised a plan to manipulate us to vote yes and then, heck, let's spend a huge amount of time in the condemnation suit persuing this just so we look good, but thank goodness the jury came up with $500K/acre so we have a reason to walk away from property we never wanted in the first place....yes that it fraud. Here's where the river goes from clear to something along a slight shade of charcoal. We specified INTENT to acquire BB. We did not follow up with those INTENTIONS as laid out to the public to secure the vote. We COULD have afforded it after the verdict. The difference is at that moment in time, we DID NOT WANT TO. Later, we now all of a sudden have a way to pay well above and beyond the cost it would have been THEN for the total PROJECT with expedited costs due to a LATE START of not breaking ground in October of 2007. I think the district is miscalculating things here believing there had to be prior INTENT to secure eola... the fact is they specified an INTENT for BB but then did not follow through with it after puting forth statements that said they COULD follow through with the INTENT to secure BB and COULD AFFORD a price HIGHER than the jury award. There are always two sides to a coin and sometimes the dang thing stands on its edge when you least expect it. And actually, the intent of the SB is the only relevant intent in this whole thing, because it directly relates to the NSFOC lawsuit. The intent of the NSFOC or the NSFOC fraud groups are irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 16, 2008 12:03:03 GMT -6
......... the vast majority of people in the district and especially those of us with kids in it, are willing to listen to reason and support what is best for the community at large. I understand your feelings rew and you are certainly entitled to them as is everyone that is not happy. We need a fresh change to this SB I think. And I hope you are right about your above statement. I think it was true at a point in time...today, not so sure. It starts when those elected to represent you stop talking with you, and only talk AT you...or totally ignore you that any semblance of reason goes out the door. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 16, 2008 12:09:27 GMT -6
I understand your feelings rew and you are certainly entitled to them as is everyone that is not happy. We need a fresh change to this SB I think. And I hope you are right about your above statement. I think it was true at a point in time...today, not so sure. It starts when those elected to represent you stop talking with you, and only talk AT you...or totally ignore you that any semblance of reason goes out the door. But I can still hope that this issue is addressed in the polling booth and not at the expense of our third HS. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 16, 2008 12:14:36 GMT -6
I think it was true at a point in time...today, not so sure. It starts when those elected to represent you stop talking with you, and only talk AT you...or totally ignore you that any semblance of reason goes out the door. But I can still hope that this issue is addressed in the polling booth and not at the expense of our third HS. that will be determined by the courts now--- the SB has decided to take that gamble for a less than optimal site. I want a 3rd HS also, I worked mightily for a 3rd HS @ BB as I was told a zillion times over 2 years. I did not work for a school @ AME, no matter how they want to spin it. That business case was never made to me to decide - and today we still do not have a business case. They even went as far as to show 9% savings in transportation with 5A - etc -- so we had some facts to decide on thigns for. All we have is the SB's whim at this point. That's not good enough for me. I will not blame NSFOC, or BB attorneys or anyone else other than our SB and Admin if we end up with 1/2 the referendum $ gone and no 3rd high school. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 16, 2008 12:20:26 GMT -6
Here we go with the "intent" thing again. Where is my dead horse picture?. If our SB members had it in their minds to want Eola all along and devised a plan to manipulate us to vote yes and then, heck, let's spend a huge amount of time in the condemnation suit persuing this just so we look good, but thank goodness the jury came up with $500K/acre so we have a reason to walk away from property we never wanted in the first place....yes that it fraud. Here's where the river goes from clear to something along a slight shade of charcoal. We specified INTENT to acquire BB. We did not follow up with those INTENTIONS as laid out to the public to secure the vote. We COULD have afforded it after the verdict. The difference is at that moment in time, we DID NOT WANT TO. Later, we now all of a sudden have a way to pay well above and beyond the cost it would have been THEN for the total PROJECT with expedited costs due to a LATE START of not breaking ground in October of 2007. I think the district is miscalculating things here believing there had to be prior INTENT to secure eola... the fact is they specified an INTENT for BB but then did not follow through with it after puting forth statements that said they COULD follow through with the INTENT to secure BB and COULD AFFORD a price HIGHER than the jury award. There are always two sides to a coin and sometimes the dang thing stands on its edge when you least expect it. Wow, arch, are you sure you are not an attorney? That sounded good. I hope you are not right, however for all of our sakes. I am clinging to the post made on the green board as follows: ______________________________________________ 735 ILCS 30/10‑5‑70) (was 735 ILCS 5/7‑123) Sec. 10‑5‑70. Judgments. (a) If the plaintiff is not in possession pursuant to an order entered under the provisions of Section 20‑5‑15 of this Act, the court, upon the report of the jury under Section 10‑5‑45 or upon the court's ascertainment and finding of the just compensation when there was no jury, shall proceed to adjudge and make such order as to right and justice shall pertain, ordering that the plaintiff shall enter upon the property and the use of the property upon payment of full compensation as ascertained, within a reasonable time to be fixed by the court. That order, together with evidence of payment, shall constitute complete justification of the taking of the property. Thereupon, the court in the same eminent domain proceeding in which the orders have been made shall have exclusive authority to hear and determine all rights in and to just compensation and shall make findings as to the rights of the parties , which shall be paid by the county treasurer out of the respective awards deposited with him or her, as provided in Section 10‑5‑85 of this Act, except when the parties claimant are engaged in litigation in a court having acquired jurisdiction of the parties with respect to their rights in the property condemned prior to the time of the filing of the complaint to condemn. Appeals may be taken from any findings by the court as to the rights of the parties in and to the compensation paid to the county treasurer as in other civil cases. If the plaintiff dismisses the complaint before the entry of the order by the court first mentioned in this subsection (a) or fails to make payment of full compensation within the time named in that order or if the final judgment is that the plaintiff cannot acquire the property by condemnation, the court shall, upon the application of the defendants or any of them, enter an order in the action for the payment by the plaintiff of all costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees paid or incurred by the defendant or defendants in defense of the complaint, as upon the hearing of the application shall be right and just, and also for the payment of the taxable costs. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 16, 2008 12:23:23 GMT -6
I will not blame NSFOC, or BB attorneys or anyone else other than our SB and Admin if we end up with 1/2 the referendum $ gone and no 3rd high school. Even if NFSOC never formed and never did anything, B&B is still lined up to knock our socks off. Some people are quoting parts of IL code with respect to condemnation suits and judgements only being for legal fees. Unfortunately the district had official correspondence outside of the suit that made virtual guarantees and promises that set in motion other things based on those official statements. One of those things was securing a vote based on INTENT. Other things put in motion were business plans based on those statements of INTENT. Then, they changed course for reasons given that have since turned out to be less than accurate (affordability). This is why I believe the B&B trusts are going to knock the taxpayers right on their butts because of the documented INTENT without quantifiable evidence to an absolute need to 'change course'. If the district has that quantifiable evidence, the public has not seen it. Instead, we have mis-matched apples/oranges comparisons that 'lead us to believe a predetermined outcome', much the same way it was said that the original land survey was written to lead everyone to a predetermined outcome (BB). IMO, Someone along the way failed multiple times to quantify their exposure before they acted. That unfortunately seems to be a common fatal flaw with the district. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 16, 2008 12:28:17 GMT -6
Even the green board veterans do not deny the previous practices of the district 'leading people to foregone conclusions' via official documents and statements.
We disagree on places best suited for a 3rd HS, but no one on either board disagrees about INTENT to mislead or direct people to a predetermined outcome on multiple occasions.
Seriously.. take some time to soak that in. It's a doozy... because B&B are about to drive a rather large truck through that opening. If you or anyone you know still has an ear on the board, they need to be aware of this because I think they are only focusing on that small snippet of IL code. There is far more in play than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 16, 2008 12:35:26 GMT -6
I am no attorney, but to me, it sounds like after reading the red part, we could have said yes and then just failed to make our first payment and we would have been excused. I don't see where it lists that you even need a valid reason for dismissing it.
If a buyer is negotiatiing and the seller wants proof that he can afford the home, he has to produce a letter from the bank saying he can afford it. So the buyer shows him the letter. Then they ask a mediator to determine a price for the land. That price is high, but the buyer still needs to show that he can afford the home. But does that mean he has to pay?
Again, no meeting of the minds between buyer and seller (I admit, I don' t have any court tapes to prove I am right) Did we say to the court that "We are willing to pay whatever it takes to get this property?" Or did we say that just to the frustrated parents in an effort to give them hope? Does the court care about the opinions of MM and what he brags about to the taxpayers, or does it just care if law was violated? I don't know. Hopefully we will all find out in less than a month.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 16, 2008 12:37:48 GMT -6
Even the green board veterans do not deny the previous practices of the district 'leading people to foregone conclusions' via official documents and statements. We disagree on places best suited for a 3rd HS, but no one on either board disagrees about INTENT to mislead or direct people to a predetermined outcome on multiple occasions. Seriously.. take some time to soak that in. It's a doozy... because B&B are about to drive a rather large truck through that opening. If you or anyone you know still has an ear on the board, they need to be aware of this because I think they are only focusing on that small snippet of IL code. There is far more in play than that. The fact that 2 of the largest law firms in Chicago, that do not have a reputation for losing, are not intimidated by those few lines of code should tell one something. If this was the slam dunk no chance that some would have you believe , or even if the odds were against it ( seeing as though the defendant is a SB and even Shawn Collins said they get a certain amount of build in sympathy, or benefit of the doubt) - they would have packed up shop a long time ago and let this go away. They have not.....that should tell you all you need to know about the risk to our finances This is not bluff poker on Friday night with the guys...they have got to believe they will win this, and that worries me. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 16, 2008 12:43:38 GMT -6
Sleepless, sorry for the obvious question... but have you read the Brodie complaint?
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 16, 2008 12:44:54 GMT -6
The fact that we have an arrogant SB and incompetent attorneys scares me. WE could probably really have a legal precedent, but one or both of them will manage to screw it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 16, 2008 12:47:25 GMT -6
Sleepless, sorry for the obvious question... but have you read the Brodie complaint? I've tried, but arch, I am not a legal person. Yes, this stuff scares me because I don't know what it means. Maybe it is legal posturing without merit, I don't know. I am not saying I think this is a slam dunk. I am just hoping we prevail and the law is on our side. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 16, 2008 12:51:08 GMT -6
Sleepless, sorry for the obvious question... but have you read the Brodie complaint? I've tried, but arch, I am not a legal person. Yes, this stuff scares me because I don't know what it means. Maybe it is legal posturing without merit, I don't know. I am not saying I think this is a slam dunk. I am just hoping we prevail and the law is on our side. Agreed.. neither of us are lawyers... but the 'big boys' behind them don't come over to your sandbox just for sh!ts and giggles. If it is not favorable for us, I predict the taxpayers of the district will never pass another referendum for anything from this district ever again. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Apr 16, 2008 13:00:01 GMT -6
Maybe not ever again, but I would bet not for a long time and not before all the current SB is gone and not before some dire consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 16, 2008 13:01:15 GMT -6
|
|
