|
|
Post by jftb on Apr 24, 2008 9:56:40 GMT -6
Emotions are so high across this district, even amongst the "silent," that I think any referendum put out by this SB would have a massive turnout.....whenever it makes the ballot.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 24, 2008 9:58:28 GMT -6
Sam2 I had not even thought about the fact that turnout would be high in November due to the Presidential election (I guess this is why I still look at this blog in that it clearly is driven by some pretty smart folks  . I agree...there is NO way that they will put a referendum on the November ballot. High turnout would guarantee that any referendum would be defeated. I am sure that the "manipulation consultants" also advised the Board and Administration that passage of a school money referendum would benefit when turnout is low (in that pasionate people will show up to vote, but those more likely to vote against any tax increases whatsoever are probably less passionate as a whole and less likely to go to the polls for narrower issues). backfired on them in 2005 however.....extremely low turnout as it was the only item on the ballot ( as I remember ) and CFO type people were better organized than they realized. Also they will likely tie any future referendum for additional monies ( not if they have to re-do completely) - in with A/C, or teacher salaries, or something emotional like improvement funds for WVHS, where they can convince people if they vote no, they are voting against the teachers or against A/C for the kids. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 24, 2008 10:21:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 24, 2008 10:27:16 GMT -6
And just a side note on this whole mediation thing, Kilander told the district to sit down with BB one more time in Jan and Brach attorney Simon pleaded in the paper for the same.
So they're going to take Popejoy's advice this time? I'm not hopeful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 24, 2008 10:30:04 GMT -6
The only ones who would keep the mediation suggestion from happening is the District.
|
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Apr 24, 2008 10:32:32 GMT -6
Does anyone here really think that mediation will accomplish anything? NSFOC wants to stop construction at AME and force the purchase of BB. Is there anyway the SB is going to agree to that -- especially since they've already bought an alternate parcel? Really, does anyone see room for compromise? Possibly, a mediator could convince NSFOC that they have little chance of prevailing and that they should drop the action and settle for recovery of some legal costs. I simply can't see any other compromise. Maybe someone else can. Does the judge see room for compromise or is he simply ducking the issue in hopes of not having to tie up the court with a process that cannot turn out well for the taxpayers? Think about that for a minute: Is the judge elected? If the law is on the side of NSFOC any ruling on the law that favors NSFOC will cost the voters a ton of money. At least on the issue of using taxpayer money to prepare literature in connection with the referendum, I think the law is on the side of NSFOC -- BB includes the same claim, they also think it has merit. Who will preside over the BB trial? Will that judge interpret the law the same way, or will he/she rule differently on the issues that both lawsuits have in common? It's a difficult situation for anyone seeking to find justice. What if the law is on the side of NSFOC and BB? How will a ruling in theri favor sit with taxpayers/voters? Mediation solves that problem -- but, back to my first question: How can NSFOC and the SB find any middle ground? I can't figure out how can there be a compromise in our situation? 1. Build 1/2 a school at each site? 2. Give back 1/2 the money to the taxpayers? 3. Build a school 1/2 way between BB and AME? Sounds like a canned ruling to me that in our case doesn't apply at all and only helps to stonewall the situation. Judge Popejoy, this is earth...Have we met?  Seriously, could this work? Can a mediator be appointed to look at the facts, listen to both sides, and then make an autonomous binding decision that fixes some of the problems? Like balancing the achievement gap or readjusting the boundaries? I can't see it happening. Please tell me I am wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Apr 24, 2008 10:34:08 GMT -6
And just a side note on this whole mediation thing, Kilander told the district to sit down with BB one more time in Jan and Brach attorney Simon pleaded in the paper for the same. So they're going to take Popejoy's advice this time? I'm not hopeful. OK, I guess it is a good suggestion....now how can they force the SB to listen to this good advice? |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 24, 2008 10:46:05 GMT -6
And just a side note on this whole mediation thing, Kilander told the district to sit down with BB one more time in Jan and Brach attorney Simon pleaded in the paper for the same. So they're going to take Popejoy's advice this time? I'm not hopeful. OK, I guess it is a good suggestion....now how can they force the SB to listen to this good advice? My point was that the district chose to ignore Kilander's suggestion so I am not hopeful they will listen to Popejoy. I hope I'm wrong. HEY AE - I know what you were watching earlier in the week! |
|
|
|
Post by player on Apr 24, 2008 10:50:39 GMT -6
I also do not think that any court will force the District to buy BB. I do think, however, that there are valid damages being asked for that will indeed be awarded. (as there is already precedent for....the $2.5 already awarded due to PREIT) I think the District's rush is a leveraging strategy for when the trial inevitably comes. I believe they have been advised that if they have already begun construction, it will be harder for the Court to demand they redo this whole fiasco. Time will tell. I think that the judge's advice to seek a TRO is VERY telling. I'm sure this point is not lost on Mr. Collins. Hadn't heard of the $2.5M precedent awarded due to PREIT.. could someone please point me to details? Thx. |
|
|
|
Post by jftb on Apr 24, 2008 11:03:50 GMT -6
I also do not think that any court will force the District to buy BB. I do think, however, that there are valid damages being asked for that will indeed be awarded. (as there is already precedent for....the $2.5 already awarded due to PREIT) I think the District's rush is a leveraging strategy for when the trial inevitably comes. I believe they have been advised that if they have already begun construction, it will be harder for the Court to demand they redo this whole fiasco. Time will tell. I think that the judge's advice to seek a TRO is VERY telling. I'm sure this point is not lost on Mr. Collins. Hadn't heard of the $2.5M precedent awarded due to PREIT.. could someone please point me to details? Thx. Reference the Brodie filing against the District for this number. |
|
|
|
Post by jill on Apr 24, 2008 11:09:54 GMT -6
I agree that there is no middle ground. Mediation sounds pointless at this point. My problem with this is that the SB raced ahead and bought this land at warp speed. I get that they're focused on the 2009 date, but I also think they are playing hard ball with NSFOC. I just hope everyone remembers that the SB put us in this position. They made the chose to purchase the AME land with THREE outstanding lawsuits. NSFOC didn't put us in this position---the SB did. Finally, in regards to sleepless and NSFOC---I don't believe that NSFOC should be doing the talking during Mediation. We all know what they want and why. I think that the SB should be doing the talking. They should be able to sell the community and NSFOC on the merits of this land. The facts should sell themselves...assuming they have any. That's why I think mediation should be tried first. At least there will be a neutral party who can determine who has merit or if something can be achieved. It's tough for me to comment on this because there are several issues. There is the bait and switch which I don't condone because I personally don't agree with that and mediation won't help that issue IMO. But then there is the miscommunication and mistrust which I agree needs to be looked at. At this point, I don't know what to think. I just wish that for the sake of other taxpayers, mediation would be tried first instead of dragging this out in court. I guess I don't understand is that the BB case seems similar...why not let that play out in court while you try mediating? I am tired and need to stop posting here. I was supposed to go to a PTA meeting this morning and had to defend myself once again on here and missed it. BTW, I am personally holding all of you responsible for the state of my house. You guys can pitch in $204 so I can get a cleaning lady because I get nothing done when I post on here. ;D I'll have to drop off cash...my husband doesn't want a paper trail with our names on it. Too many crazy angry people out there. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 24, 2008 12:40:22 GMT -6
I also do not think that any court will force the District to buy BB. I do think, however, that there are valid damages being asked for that will indeed be awarded. (as there is already precedent for....the $2.5 already awarded due to PREIT) I think the District's rush is a leveraging strategy for when the trial inevitably comes. I believe they have been advised that if they have already begun construction, it will be harder for the Court to demand they redo this whole fiasco. Time will tell. I think that the judge's advice to seek a TRO is VERY telling. I'm sure this point is not lost on Mr. Collins. Hadn't heard of the $2.5M precedent awarded due to PREIT.. could someone please point me to details? Thx. A belated welcome, player. The more people that become informed in the district the better! ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=newhighschool&action=display&thread=1055&page=1Dist. 204 will pay double for high school landIndian Prairie Unit District 204 will have to pay double what it was offering in order to purchase land for Metea Valley High School, a jury decided Wednesday. After nearly eight hours of deliberation, a jury unanimously determined that the 55 acres of land off Route 59 near 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora is worth a total of just over $28.5 million, far more than the district's offer of $13.75 million. It also awarded the property owners, the Brach-Brodie trust, an additional $2.5 million to make up for lost value of the remaining 70.9 acres of property at the site."As counsel for the board we're disappointed, but the jury has spoken and that's the way the system works," said Stuart Whitt, attorney for the school district. |
|
|
|
Post by jftb on Apr 24, 2008 12:56:44 GMT -6
Sashimi or someone informed (smom?) can you explain what the bond requirement is to file a TRO? I'm assuming that it's a cache of money held in case there are damages, etc. Does the court determine the bond amount, then? What could that possibly be?
|
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Apr 24, 2008 14:33:24 GMT -6
A bond (but which can be waived) is usually required when a TRO is issued.
This bond is usually secured from an insurance company, and the bond is set in an amount sufficient to cover any damages that would result in the event that a TRO is set in place but the defendant later wins the case (damages caused by the restraining order). The District would argue that these damages would be in the millions of dollars (and thus the bond cost would be high).
However, in a case like this, I would not be surprised if the Court waived the bond (in that the TRO would be requested from residents of the District).
The cost of a bond in a case like this would be very significant, and would be cost prohibitive for NSFOC to secure and this is most likely why this has not been pursued so far (and the cost of the bond is ...like an insurance policy, are not refundable even if NSFOC wins the ultimate case).
|
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Apr 24, 2008 14:44:36 GMT -6
The cost of a bond in a case like this would be very significant, and would be cost prohibitive for NSFOC to secure and this is most likely why this has not been pursued so far (and the cost of the bond is ...like an insurance policy, are not refundable even if NSFOC wins the ultimate case). This has been my understanding of the situation. Which is why I thought NSFOC was asking for an earlier trial. That would short circuit the need for a TRO. But the judge came back with mediation or TRO. Such is the infinite circle that is this situation. This result can of course can be interpreted differently based on your general bias to the situation. The judge might be telegraphing this case is not going anywhere so go mediate something or this case is gold so get a TRO. My crystal ball got tossed against the wall after that last school board meeting. I am flying blind  |
|
. 
