|
|
Post by jftb on May 16, 2008 11:31:52 GMT -6
Hope we're subpoenaing that firm that did the survey/marketing research to get the referendum passed. I'll bet they've got some pretty interesting information in their files....
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 16, 2008 11:54:15 GMT -6
I've always found it helpful to go back to the beginning... winsome.cnchost.com/204/settlement.pdfPage 8 in the PDF, (page 6 listed on the actual paper) item #14 Speaks of an agreement between the parties (the trusts and the district) about a subsequent referendum in 2006 to authorize funds to pay for such condemned property. The district agreed to the fact that the intention of the 2006 referendum (subsequent referendum in case the 2005 one failed) was to authorize the funds FOR THE PURCHASE OF SUCH CONDEMNED PROPERTY (the BB property). Clearly the money was not used for that. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 16, 2008 12:05:19 GMT -6
I've always found it helpful to go back to the beginning... winsome.cnchost.com/204/settlement.pdfPage 8 in the PDF, (page 6 listed on the actual paper) item #14 Speaks of an agreement between the parties (the trusts and the district) about a subsequent referendum in 2006 to authorize funds to pay for such condemned property. The district agreed to the fact that the intention of the 2006 referendum (subsequent referendum in case the 2005 one failed) was to authorize the funds FOR THE PURCHASE OF SUCH CONDEMNED PROPERTY (the BB property). Clearly the money was not used for that. Don't forget about the fact is there is the issue of how the referendum language will be analyzed. A basic rule of statutory and contractual analysis is that if a statute or document is unambiguous on its face, the court won't look to outside evidence for its meaning. I know SC is trying to say that the court needs to look at all this other evidence, but I don't think the law on this is really in his favor. If the judge finds the referendum language to be unambiguous on its face, all these other statements won't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 16, 2008 12:07:31 GMT -6
I've always found it helpful to go back to the beginning... winsome.cnchost.com/204/settlement.pdfPage 8 in the PDF, (page 6 listed on the actual paper) item #14 Speaks of an agreement between the parties (the trusts and the district) about a subsequent referendum in 2006 to authorize funds to pay for such condemned property. The district agreed to the fact that the intention of the 2006 referendum (subsequent referendum in case the 2005 one failed) was to authorize the funds FOR THE PURCHASE OF SUCH CONDEMNED PROPERTY (the BB property). Clearly the money was not used for that. Don't forget about the fact is there is the issue of how the referendum language will be analyzed. A basic rule of statutory and contractual analysis is that if a statute or document is unambiguous on its face, the court won't look to outside evidence for its meaning. I know SC is trying to say that the court needs to look at all this other evidence, but I don't think the law on this is really in his favor. If the judge finds the referendum language to be unambiguous on its face, all these other statements won't matter. Assuming that is 100% true, then any future referendum probably needs to be multiple pages long just to vote, or people will just vote NO because there may be ambiguity in how the money really can and should be used. That's a heck of an uphill climb going forward for any referendum. I shudder to think of the number of trees that will be needed to explicitly put all details of any 'operating referendum' on all of the ballots in Will and DuPage counties. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 16, 2008 12:15:05 GMT -6
Don't forget about the fact is there is the issue of how the referendum language will be analyzed. A basic rule of statutory and contractual analysis is that if a statute or document is unambiguous on its face, the court won't look to outside evidence for its meaning. I know SC is trying to say that the court needs to look at all this other evidence, but I don't think the law on this is really in his favor. If the judge finds the referendum language to be unambiguous on its face, all these other statements won't matter. Assuming that is 100% true, then any future referendum probably needs to be multiple pages long just to vote, or people will just vote NO because there may be ambiguity in how the money really can and should be used. That's a heck of an uphill climb going forward for any referendum. I shudder to think of the number of trees that will be needed to explicitly put all details of any 'operating referendum' on all of the ballots in Will and DuPage counties. I don't agree with that at all. The district just needed to ask for money for a school. The rest is in their discretion. There's no need to spell it out. Same for operating referendums. They just need to ask for the money, the rest is discretion. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 16, 2008 12:17:04 GMT -6
Assuming that is 100% true, then any future referendum probably needs to be multiple pages long just to vote, or people will just vote NO because there may be ambiguity in how the money really can and should be used. That's a heck of an uphill climb going forward for any referendum. I shudder to think of the number of trees that will be needed to explicitly put all details of any 'operating referendum' on all of the ballots in Will and DuPage counties. I don't agree with that at all. The district just needed to ask for money for a school. The rest is in their discretion. There's no need to spell it out. Same for operating referendums. They just need to ask for the money, the rest is discretion. while technically you are right - I think the discretion of the voters that have been misled in the past will then take over -- this is especially true with the sitting SB members - and quite frankly for me- not sure who I'd trust in that role any more...it's what happens when one's faith is shaken.. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 16, 2008 12:19:04 GMT -6
Assuming that is 100% true, then any future referendum probably needs to be multiple pages long just to vote, or people will just vote NO because there may be ambiguity in how the money really can and should be used. That's a heck of an uphill climb going forward for any referendum. I shudder to think of the number of trees that will be needed to explicitly put all details of any 'operating referendum' on all of the ballots in Will and DuPage counties. I don't agree with that at all. The district just needed to ask for money for a school. The rest is in their discretion. There's no need to spell it out. Same for operating referendums. They just need to ask for the money, the rest is discretion. I agree with you about the asking, they don't legally NEED to. I was only making the prediction about the harder uphill climb they are giving themselves going forward based on this 'technicality' they are trying to stand on. A lot of voters in the district will not like 'vague' anymore and I predict, will reflect that on future votes. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 16, 2008 12:21:30 GMT -6
I'm not fan of the SB, that's for sure. I'm just saying what I think the law is here. Even SC admitted it was a long shot.
It's always a good idea to look at both sides of things, anticipating and understanding the other side's arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 16, 2008 12:23:40 GMT -6
I don't agree with that at all. The district just needed to ask for money for a school. The rest is in their discretion. There's no need to spell it out. Same for operating referendums. They just need to ask for the money, the rest is discretion. I agree with you about the asking, they don't legally NEED to. I was only making the prediction about the harder uphill climb they are giving themselves going forward based on this 'technicality' they are trying to stand on. A lot of voters in the district will not like 'vague' anymore and I predict, will reflect that on future votes. True, but any operating referendum was doomed from the day the district changed sites, not because of any court ruling. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 16, 2008 12:29:59 GMT -6
I agree with you about the asking, they don't legally NEED to. I was only making the prediction about the harder uphill climb they are giving themselves going forward based on this 'technicality' they are trying to stand on. A lot of voters in the district will not like 'vague' anymore and I predict, will reflect that on future votes. True, but any operating referendum was doomed from the day the district changed sites, not because of any court ruling. The biggest killer will be those in the district with no children in the system. To them, they see the district saying one thing, then doing something else. What little trust there may have been for those without a dog in the race, I think, will be GONE. Their built in NO vote just got bigger for that simple reason alone. The proper thing to have done was to put Eola for $XXXX, or BB for $YYYYY and let the public decide. |
|
|
|
Post by perspective on May 16, 2008 12:32:29 GMT -6
drwho,
That is the first time I have heard the $660K per acre, since I do not know where that came from it is hard to comment. I have heard $600K per acre, but that was a court and GA determined number based on the asking price of the land $560 by the BB estate and legal fees -- 55acres *600K=$33 Mil. It was the amount that the SD would have been required to deposit in escrow had the quick take effort succeeded. However, I still believe that the SB thought they would put up the $33 mil. in escrow and then the price would come back at approx $400K at worst case and they would get the remaining funds back. I know it is just my opinion. BTW, a huge and ill advised gamble by or SB. I said it before in another Blog, that the luckiest thing to happen to the SB was the failure of the quick take – try to explain to the district that the land price is almost double what you had planned for and that would open up a whole new set of legal problems
|
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 16, 2008 12:33:59 GMT -6
True, but any operating referendum was doomed from the day the district changed sites, not because of any court ruling. The biggest killer will be those in the district with no children in the system. To them, they see the district saying one thing, then doing something else. What little trust there may have been for those without a dog in the race, I think, will be GONE. Their built in NO vote just got bigger for that simple reason alone. The proper thing to have done was to put Eola for $XXXX, or BB for $YYYYY and let the public decide. I completely agree. Why they didn't do that is beyond me. What would have been the downside? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 16, 2008 12:35:12 GMT -6
The biggest killer will be those in the district with no children in the system. To them, they see the district saying one thing, then doing something else. What little trust there may have been for those without a dog in the race, I think, will be GONE. Their built in NO vote just got bigger for that simple reason alone. The proper thing to have done was to put Eola for $XXXX, or BB for $YYYYY and let the public decide. I completely agree. Why they didn't do that is beyond me. What would have been the downside? This is where the 2009 opening comes into play. The big question is WHY. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 16, 2008 12:39:12 GMT -6
drwho, That is the first time I have heard the $660K per acre, since I do not know where that came from it is hard to comment. I have heard $600K per acre, but that was a court and GA determined number based on the asking price of the land $560 by the BB estate and legal fees -- 55acres *600K=$33 Mil. It was the amount that the SD would have been required to deposit in escrow had the quick take effort succeeded. However, I still believe that the SB thought they would put up the $33 mil. in escrow and then the price would come back at approx $400K at worst case and they would get the remaining funds back. I know it is just my opinion. BTW, a huge and ill advised gamble by or SB. I said it before in another Blog, that the luckiest thing to happen to the SB was the failure of the quick take – try to explain to the district that the land price is almost double what you had planned for and that would open up a whole new set of legal problems $660 was typo - $600 is correct -- and while again they may have been hoping for $400K ( or less) that is not the message they conveyed directly to the public - it was conveyed as a non issue as far as the site was concerned. Here is one thing with QT not working however - it if had gone thru it would not have involved $5M - $12M ( depending on who one wants to delive in expedite costs to open the school in Fall 2009 - it would have been ready on BB. |
|
|
|
Post by perspective on May 16, 2008 12:39:35 GMT -6
Dr Who,
I do not get the link between the PTA and the SB since they are two different entities? I had not heard those statement -- I think you would still need to prove that it materially altered the teh outcome of teh referendum.
Just my thought.
|
|
