|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 22, 2008 22:22:01 GMT -6
Innocent until proven guilty is for CRIMINAL court. 51/49 is all that is required for CIVIL court. Don't forget rules of law and legal precedent.  somewhere , some place every legal ruling had to either be or follow a precedent. This case will be a precedent either way. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 22, 2008 22:24:36 GMT -6
Innocent until proven guilty is for CRIMINAL court. 51/49 is all that is required for CIVIL court. Don't forget rules of law and legal precedent. Don't forget someone's prior school district's legal battle in the Supreme Court. How was that ruling? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 22, 2008 22:26:22 GMT -6
Don't forget rules of law and legal precedent. Don't forget someone's prior school district's legal battle in the Supreme Court. How was that ruling?  |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 22, 2008 22:38:07 GMT -6
"Oh Well"
...said comcast.
|
|
|
|
Post by overtaxed on Apr 23, 2008 9:13:19 GMT -6
When the dust settles, someone needs to ask themselves: Was it worth it to hijack a perfectly good plan for a proper site and HS to push an agenda? No, it wasn't, What drives me crazy is that a VERY SMALL group has this much control to be out of control without checks and balances. |
|
|
|
Post by concerned2 on Apr 23, 2008 10:32:42 GMT -6
When the dust settles, someone needs to ask themselves: Was it worth it to hijack a perfectly good plan for a proper site and HS to push an agenda? No, it wasn't, What drives me crazy is that a VERY SMALL group has this much control to be out of control without checks and balances. Amen, overtaxed!!! How can these individual's have so much power?? |
|
|
|
Post by overtaxed on Apr 23, 2008 10:37:22 GMT -6
No, it wasn't, What drives me crazy is that a VERY SMALL group has this much control to be out of control without checks and balances. Amen, overtaxed!!! How can these individual's have so much power?? they proved they are out of control with our money, waisting it for what should be spent education. I wish I knew how they got here with misleading ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 23, 2008 11:34:30 GMT -6
No, it wasn't, What drives me crazy is that a VERY SMALL group has this much control to be out of control without checks and balances. Amen, overtaxed!!! How can these individual's have so much power?? That is an interesting question, and one I have been pondering. I do wish there was some sort of citizen group that interacts with these people and holds them accountable. I just don't know that much about SB's to know how much power they can have. That is why I am interested to see how the lawsuits come out. Are these people mishandling their power or acting in their realm of authority? |
|
|
|
Post by overtaxed on Apr 23, 2008 11:59:51 GMT -6
Amen, overtaxed!!! How can these individual's have so much power?? That is an interesting question, and one I have been pondering. I do wish there was some sort of citizen group that interacts with these people and holds them accountable. I just don't know that much about SB's to know how much power they can have. That is why I am interested to see how the lawsuits come out. Are these people mishandling their power or acting in their realm of authority? They are totally mishandling their power. I wonder if there could be jail time for misuse of their authority when this all comes out. I don't know enough about legal issues... |
|
|
|
Post by rew on May 4, 2008 7:58:18 GMT -6
I know this is obvious to everyone here, but...
The SB offered BB $257/acre in fall of 2005 for the remaining 55 acres of land.
BB sent a letter stating that it had offers from developers for $420/acre.
If the SB had given BB $420/ acre in fall of 2005, they would have paid $23M for the addt'l land and begun construction in spring of 06. The HS would be opening this fall.
$23M + 6.5M (25 acres) = $29.5M
Instead we now own the Eola site for $19M, have $5M in expedite costs and $5M in BB walkaway (minimum), but also the district has stated that each construction season lost has cost us $8M in inflated costs
$19M + $5M + $5M + $16M - $6.5M (sale of 25 acres) = $38.5M
Now we all know the district "fell in a ditch" and could not have anticipated any of this...
But in fall of 05, pursuing condemnation, they knew they were going to lose at least one construction season. If they had added the $8M inflation costs to the $14M offered. They should have at least been willing to offer $22M to BB because that was their break even point.
What does this show? What it shows is the very flawed logic and lack of sense on the district's part from the onset.
They pursued condemnation, even though, it is apparent that even if the jury had given the district the price it wanted $14M, they were money behind.
$14M + $6.5M + $16M (inflation) = $36.5M
Paying the BB asking price costs you $29.5M
Paying the SBs condemnation price costs you $36.5M, and this does not include our attorney fees.
Paying the walkaway price costs you $38.5M
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on May 4, 2008 8:12:23 GMT -6
I know this is obvious to everyone here, but... The SB offered BB $257/acre in fall of 2005 for the remaining 55 acres of land. BB sent a letter stating that it had offers from developers for $420/acre. If the SB had given BB $420/ acre in fall of 2005, they would have paid $23M for the addt'l land and begun construction in spring of 06. The HS would be opening this fall. $23M + 6.5M (25 acres) = $29.5M Instead we now own the Eola site for $19M, have $5M in expedite costs and $5M in BB walkaway (minimum), but also the district has stated that each construction season lost has cost us $8M in inflated costs $19M + $5M + $5M + $16M - $6.5M (sale of 25 acres) = $38.5M Now we all know the district "fell in a ditch" and could not have anticipated any of this... But in fall of 05, pursuing condemnation, they knew they were going to lose at least one construction season. If they had added the $8M inflation costs to the $14M offered. They should have at least been willing to offer $22M to BB because that was their break even point. What does this show? What it shows is the very flawed logic and lack of sense on the district's part from the onset. They pursued condemnation, even though, it is apparent that even if the jury had given the district the price it wanted $14M, they were money behind. $14M + $6.5M + $16M (inflation) = $36.5M Paying the BB asking price costs you $29.5M Paying the SBs condemnation price costs you $36.5M, and this does not include our attorney fees. Paying the walkaway price costs you $38.5M Makes perfect sense to me but then that would not solve the NCLB issue they are facing. What is more important......covering up our failing children or being fiscally responsible?  |
|
|
|
Post by overtaxed on May 4, 2008 8:51:25 GMT -6
I know this is obvious to everyone here, but... The SB offered BB $257/acre in fall of 2005 for the remaining 55 acres of land. BB sent a letter stating that it had offers from developers for $420/acre. If the SB had given BB $420/ acre in fall of 2005, they would have paid $23M for the addt'l land and begun construction in spring of 06. The HS would be opening this fall. $23M + 6.5M (25 acres) = $29.5M Instead we now own the Eola site for $19M, have $5M in expedite costs and $5M in BB walkaway (minimum), but also the district has stated that each construction season lost has cost us $8M in inflated costs $19M + $5M + $5M + $16M - $6.5M (sale of 25 acres) = $38.5M Now we all know the district "fell in a ditch" and could not have anticipated any of this... But in fall of 05, pursuing condemnation, they knew they were going to lose at least one construction season. If they had added the $8M inflation costs to the $14M offered. They should have at least been willing to offer $22M to BB because that was their break even point. What does this show? What it shows is the very flawed logic and lack of sense on the district's part from the onset. They pursued condemnation, even though, it is apparent that even if the jury had given the district the price it wanted $14M, they were money behind. $14M + $6.5M + $16M (inflation) = $36.5M Paying the BB asking price costs you $29.5M Paying the SBs condemnation price costs you $36.5M, and this does not include our attorney fees. Paying the walkaway price costs you $38.5M Makes perfect sense to me but then that would not solve the NCLB issue they are facing. What is more important......covering up our failing children or being fiscally responsible? [/color] You and I know what is more important educating all the students to the best of their ability and being fiscally responsible. But there are misguided people on the school board unable to make logical choices which they have proven time and time again.  |
|
