|
|
Post by cornholio on May 16, 2008 12:42:38 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 Here is the article from the Daily Herald... 11/29/2006 By Rick Pearson Daily Herald SPRINGFIELD -- An Illinois House panel Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a bid by Aurora-based Indian Prairie School District 204 to gain control of 55 acres of private property to begin construction of a third high school in April. The move by the House Executive Committee prompted warnings from school district officials that its projected August 2009 opening of the planned Metea Valley High School near the intersections of Illinois Highway 59 and 75th Street could be delayed. "I've got 2,000 high school kids I have to have a seat for in 2009," District Supt. Howard Crouse said. At the hearing, Crouse said that if the district is required to pay the potential high-end cost for the land, as much as $600,000 per acre, it could result in a smaller high school. District officials have offered $260,000 per acre. "Then we would have to come up with $15 million of a reduction, approximately, in the project itself, reducing the size of the high school and displacing more students," Crouse said on paying the higher price. The district, which has been one of the most rapidly growing in the state, serves students in Naperville, Aurora and Plainfield. Metea Valley would be the third high school, joining Waubonsie Valley in Aurora and Neuqua Valley in Naperville. The creation of Metea Valley has not been smooth. In March, voters in the district approved a $124.7 million bond issue to finance land acquisition and construction of the school at 75th Street and Commons Drive. That vote followed weeks of bickering about school capacity, population projections and proposed boundary changes. Ultimately, the district chose a boundary plan that would displace the fewest number of families, but opposition remained. Before the referendum, the district acquired 25 acres for the school--at a cost of $257,500 per acre--from two trusts, including the estate of the late candy heiress Helen Brach. The district sought the remaining 55 acres from the trusts for the same price and later upped its offer to $260,000 per acre, but the Brach trust contends that the parcel is worth $600,000 per acre.At issue in the legislature was an attempt by the district to secure so-called quick take power for the 55 acres. Earlier this month, a DuPage County judge ruled for the district in a condemnation case to obtain the land. Although satisfied, district officials also sought the quick take powers from the legislature, contending that its construction plans would be delayed if it was forced to await the outcome of a jury trial expected next year to determine the fair market value of the property. District officials maintained that even if they obtained the quick take power, they would pay whatever price the jury determined for the property. But a lobbyist representing the land trusts questioned the district's ability and willingness to pay a high-end price for the land and whether school district taxpayers would be satisfied by such an outcome. "Our only concern is whether they're going to have the money to pay the award when that time comes," lobbyist James Morphew said. "It's our position, when you have such a wide disparity between the governmental unit and the property owner, the prudent thing to do would be to wait and see where the jury comes down in terms of compensation." Crouse countered Morphew's assertion. "We believe that we have sufficient funds available through referendum or other sources to pay fair market value of the property," Crouse told lawmakers.Only three members of the House panel, including sponsoring Rep. Joseph Dunn (R-Naperville), supported the measure while nine members cast a "present" vote. The vote effectively killed the measure for the short fall veto session, but Dunn said that if the district wants to pursue it, he would try to bring the bill back in the new General Assembly that begins Jan. 10. |
|
|
|
Post by perspective on May 16, 2008 12:46:15 GMT -6
There was an expedite cost either way since the original schedule reflected the 2005 ref. being approved.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 16, 2008 12:48:51 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. the link is this -- the SB went on a public 'campaign' to sell the referendum, appeared at every ES during their PTA meetings to present the reasons to vote YES in the upcoming election. Dave Holm attended those meetings with 1 -2 SB members - complete with easel charts , handouts and answering any and all questions regarding what we were voting for, how much would it cost, the bond issue questions etc.. These were public appearances done for one reason and one reason only - to ensure a YES majority on the referendum vote. People believed what they were told in thesemeetings - I am sure there are minutes to many of these meetings. The questions were many and tough, and I have already explained some of the answers - such as why the referendum did not read Brach-Brodie, and the response. Not that anything could change with that - but only because it was too late to change the wording -but they were convinved then the wording didn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 16, 2008 12:50:11 GMT -6
Only three members of the House panel, including sponsoring Rep. Joseph Dunn (R-Naperville), supported the measure while nine members cast a "present" vote. The vote effectively killed the measure for the short fall veto session, but Dunn said that if the district wants to pursue it, he would try to bring the bill back in the new General Assembly that begins Jan. 10. HEY you gotta wonder how Dunn and Hultgren now feel about going out on a limb for the district and supporting QT and then having the school board snap off that limb and smack them in the face with it? One thing is for sure, no one in any elected position will be doing D204 any favors in the foreseeable future. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 16, 2008 13:09:42 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. smom Will the resolution language (that included BB as the location) matter in your opinion? |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 16, 2008 13:19:56 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. smom Will the resolution language (that included BB as the location) matter? Based on the rule I was talking about, no it wouldn't matter. The resolution would only be evidence of the SB's intent of what they wanted on the referendum--only coming into play if there were an ambiguity on the ballot's face. But that is where I think it gets tricky, and that is what I think SC is arguing. That the two need to be read together--because the resolution is a board action and is essentially part of the referendum. If it were just a matter of the outside comments, I would say there would be no way that the NSFOC could win. But the resolution language might be a way around this basic rule. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 16, 2008 13:25:27 GMT -6
I agree with you... The fact that two separate resolutions tied the referendum to the BB property may be "tricky".
ETA: In my opinion the fact that there were two board resolutions tied to BB and the referendum means a great deal in terms of intent.
I'm not an attorney. Just an "unreasonable" voter that can be intentionally lied to.
|
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on May 16, 2008 13:35:51 GMT -6
smom...did you actually hear SC say this was a longshot? I do not believe this is true and is NSFOCfraud propaganda (say it enough times and people believe it).
I have heard SC speak at least 1/2 dozen times (some were before the lawsuit was filed and some were after). He has stated that "this was not a slam dunk", but without getting into the specifics, he has repeatedly stated that he believes that the case has at least a 50% chance of success.
SC has also publically said that neither NSFOC or the District should feel confident that they will win because of the unique facts (and lack of perfect precedent for either side). If you heard Shawn say this was a longshot with your own ears, I believe you, but this would not be consistent with what SC has said on other occasions (and would question the context).
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 16, 2008 13:42:51 GMT -6
I have heard SC say the same things Sashimi. Never have I heard him say it's a "long shot" that it will be heard.
Because of the fact this is a unique case and there is virtually little precedent, nobody really knows what the odds are.
It is my opinion that the case will not be dismissed because it is rather unique and could potentially set a precedent. To me those are strong points as to WHY Judge Popejoy cannot dismiss on 5/23.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 16, 2008 13:53:09 GMT -6
smom...did you actually hear SC say this was a longshot? I do not believe this is true and is NSFOCfraud propaganda (say it enough times and people believe it). I have heard SC speak at least 1/2 dozen times (some were before the lawsuit was filed and some were after). He has stated that "this was not a slam dunk", but without getting into the specifics, he has repeatedly stated that he believes that the case has at least a 50% chance of success. SC has also publically said that neither NSFOC or the District should feel confident that they will win because of the unique facts (and lack of perfect precedent for either side). If you heard Shawn say this was a longshot with your own ears, I believe you, but this would not be consistent with what SC has said on other occasions (and would question the context). No, I did not hear him say that. I never attended any of the NSFOC meetings. I thought I read that on here. Sorry about that. I'm consistently surprised by the confidence on both sides of this, though. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 16, 2008 13:56:30 GMT -6
smom...did you actually hear SC say this was a longshot? I do not believe this is true and is NSFOCfraud propaganda (say it enough times and people believe it). I have heard SC speak at least 1/2 dozen times (some were before the lawsuit was filed and some were after). He has stated that "this was not a slam dunk", but without getting into the specifics, he has repeatedly stated that he believes that the case has at least a 50% chance of success. SC has also public ally said that neither NSFOC or the District should feel confident that they will win because of the unique facts (and lack of perfect precedent for either side). If you heard Shawn say this was a longshot with your own ears, I believe you, but this would not be consistent with what SC has said on other occasions (and would question the context). No, I did not hear him say that. I never attended any of the NSFOC meetings. I thought I read that on here. Sorry about that. I'm consistently surprised by the confidence on both sides of this, though. I'm surprised as well by the confidence on both sides of this as well. It is probably due to the fact that this is a very unique situation and opinion on the lawsuit is driven (in my opinion) on perspective. I am also motivated by the fact that I don't believe it's acceptable to mislead voters. Regardless of the referendum language, our elected leaders and 204 administrators led us to believe (prior to the 06 referendum) that BB was a slam dunk. Whether or not that is legally permissable, I think it's just plain wrong. The promise of boundaries and location was not a motivating factor in one election but, in my opinion, two elections. The 07 School Board election was based, in part (a major part) on the boundary decision for BB. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 16, 2008 14:01:50 GMT -6
No, I did not hear him say that. I never attended any of the NSFOC meetings. I thought I read that on here. Sorry about that. I'm consistently surprised by the confidence on both sides of this, though. I'm surprised as well by the confidence on both sides of this as well. It is probably due to the fact that this is a very unique situation and opinion on the lawsuit is driven (in my opinion) on perspective. I guess you're right. I feel like I'm somewhat objective in that although I disagree with the lawsuit, at this point I don't care what the outcome actually is. I have a slight preference for seeing it dismissed based on public policy--I think it's a slippery slope. But I'm irritated with the SB and I'm starting to think that long term we'd probably be better off without a third school at all. That and the pipelines.  |
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 16, 2008 14:05:40 GMT -6
smom For what it's worth, I think you are one of the most objective, level headed, honest posters on this board. I cannot say the same. I'm kinda mad, can you tell ! |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 16, 2008 14:15:44 GMT -6
smom For what it's worth, I think you are one of the most objective, level headed, honest posters on this board. I cannot say the same. I'm kinda mad, can you tell ! Really? You're angry about all of this? I hadn't noticed.  Thanks, but I think it comes partly from where we live and how we have been affected through this entire process. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 16, 2008 14:52:02 GMT -6
I appreciate and value your input, Smon.
|
|
