|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 16, 2008 13:08:47 GMT -6
if plan 4A is really 4/11/07 as it appears, get your checkbooks out kiddies. Make that out to Brodie Estate.. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 16, 2008 13:20:19 GMT -6
4/11/07 - last year?  Any chance that's a typo? Copyright on left does say 2007 though. |
|
|
|
Post by cb on Apr 16, 2008 13:24:27 GMT -6
if plan 4A is really 4/11/07 as it appears, get your checkbooks out kiddies. Make that out to Brodie Estate.. I can't read the fine print. Please explain. Is this MV at the AME site? |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 16, 2008 13:29:30 GMT -6
Yes. It's a pdf, so you can zoom in quite a bit. if plan 4A is really 4/11/07 as it appears, get your checkbooks out kiddies. Make that out to Brodie Estate.. I can't read the fine print. Please explain. Is this MV at the AME site? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 16, 2008 13:34:11 GMT -6
The one here, if you zoom in, looks like a 06 date...?? www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17229_3.pdfCopyright on the left looks like 2006 too If it's 08, then I stand corrected, but why the 2007 and 4/11/07 dates on the NEW one (1 year earlier) ?? |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 16, 2008 13:43:24 GMT -6
Sleepless, have you read their complaint? From what we've learned, they are very competent attorneys. I was worried during the condemnation suit and am still worried. What will happen to the district if they are awarded a significant financial award for damages? Here's where it can be viewed. winsome.cnchost.com/complaint/I'm not an attorney but I know when we are out-gunned. Can someone please point me to the "precedent" of $518/acre for residential property in Aurora prior to Dec 22, 2005? THERE IS NONE. No precedent. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 16, 2008 13:52:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by slp on Apr 16, 2008 14:20:21 GMT -6
I think it's fair to say it didn't fit their agenda at the time. Agree. Their agenda being to get the referendum passed. I don't believe the referendum would have passed if they had chosen option 6. Therefore, it would not have passed if they had chosen the AME site. Simply put, what they are doing now is not what the public voted for. I'm not part of NSFOC, but I do agree that they have a valid case. Didn't Curt Bradshaw say exactly that ....(that he needed to vote in a way to pass the referendum) and that is why he did not chose Option 6 and instead infuriated Brookdale by voting YES to Option 5?. |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Apr 16, 2008 14:23:56 GMT -6
whoa,
I just noticed what you guys came across. The date on the Eola plans....
Is it possible that the plans were drawn up then (2006) but just slapped over the current Eola parcel for this demonstration?
I certainly am interested in what this means. IF it means they hired someone to draw up plans for the Eola site last April I am sure many will be quite surprised. I am sure the NSFOC and BB will love to get a hold of that info if it can be determined that they were looking at Eola last year....around the time of sb elections when the candidates were running on staying at BB.
|
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Apr 16, 2008 14:26:01 GMT -6
4/11/07 - last year? Any chance that's a typo? Copyright on left does say 2007 though. Not a typo - a big whoops by the SB. Sorta like - "AT: we didn't have time to get an appraisal" and "CV's disclosure. They tried to buy the AME land in 05, 06, 07 without any dialog with MidGen. The copyright says 2007 and that labeling is proofed by many to overlook it. This was always the plan "B" they claim they never had. So when they could only negotiate part of the AME property they went to MidGen for the balance. Remember MidGen said the property was never on the market. Be curious to see (not really) if the same architect did plans similar for Macom and Hamman. Bet not - although they claim it was a comparative analysis. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 16, 2008 14:27:31 GMT -6
4/11/07 - last year? Any chance that's a typo? Copyright on left does say 2007 though. Not a typo - a big whoops by the SB. Sorta like - "AT: we didn't have time to get an appraisal" and "CV's disclosure. They tried to buy the AME land in 05, 06, 07 without any dialog with MidGen. The copyright says 2007 and that labeling is proofed by many to overlook it. This was always the plan "B" they claim they never had. So when they could only negotiate part of the AME property they went to MidGen for the balance. Remember MidGen said the property was never on the market. Be curious to see (not really) if the same architect did plans similar for Macom and Hamman. Bet not - although they claim it was a comparative analysis. Or it was part of plan A and plan B was BB to get the $$ with A still on the table. (but a site switch would constitute a B&S  ) Boy, that would suck, eh? The dates and statements will matter... Either way, as Doc said.. get your checkbook ready. |
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Apr 16, 2008 14:33:37 GMT -6
whoa, I just noticed what you guys came across. The date on the Eola plans.... Is it possible that the plans were drawn up then (2006) but just slapped over the current Eola parcel for this demonstration? I certainly am interested in what this means. IF it means they hired someone to draw up plans for the Eola site last April I am sure many will be quite surprised. I am sure the NSFOC and BB will love to get a hold of that info if it can be determined that they were looking at Eola last year....around the time of sb elections when the candidates were running on staying at BB. BTW it also proves they knew of all three gas lines last year that Arch pointed out and not just the one the Dr D's claimed at the Board meeting not too long ago.......................they always knew. I am sure there is soooooo much they have known for soooooo long. Bet it comes out in the BB suit. Betcha. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 16, 2008 14:38:20 GMT -6
But of course, we're the bad guys for not sitting down and shutting up.
... need to find a more legible copy of the MWGEN site plan.
Anyone have a 'clean' PDF of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by snerdley on Apr 16, 2008 14:50:36 GMT -6
Agree. Their agenda being to get the referendum passed. I don't believe the referendum would have passed if they had chosen option 6. Therefore, it would not have passed if they had chosen the AME site. Simply put, what they are doing now is not what the public voted for. I'm not part of NSFOC, but I do agree that they have a valid case. Didn't Curt Bradshaw say exactly that ....(that he needed to vote in a way to pass the referendum) and that is why he did not chose Option 6 and instead infuriated Brookdale by voting YES to Option 5?. YES HE DID. And I was not moved by his tears. I thought he was trying very hard to look out for his neighborhood. During conversations I had with him when the very first options came out for boundaries, Fry was an island - I believe it was option 1. I talked to him a couple of times, and each time he stated that other options made Brookdale an island (which I truthfully failed to see). What I did see was that Option 1 sent Brookdale to the new school, where most if not all of the other options left them at WVHS. It seemed pretty clear to me then what his "gig" was. I was quite frankly VERY uncomfortable with him. |
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Apr 16, 2008 14:55:15 GMT -6
But of course, we're the bad guys for not sitting down and shutting up. ... need to find a more legible copy of the MWGEN site plan. Anyone have a 'clean' PDF of it? Been looking but IMO that was only done in "08 even though its hard to tell cuz of the blurriness of the scan. I'm really intrigued by the date on the latest AME drawings(041107). I would also be interested in seeing the arhitects invoice. It will all leak out and BB will have a field day. Like catching 3-eyed fish in a bowl. They will all get dragged through the ringer, the GC (Turner) the architects, the companies that did all the testing - the list is endless which inlcudes any company that had anything to do with this, BB will tag em all - at our expense. |
|
Any chance that's a typo? Copyright on left does say 2007 though.
)