|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 4, 2008 6:12:14 GMT -6
Finally, an update: www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1143987,6_1_NA04_D204_S1.article September 4, 2008 By Tim Waldorf twaldorf@scn1.com Two down, one to go. DuPage County Circuit Court Judge Kenneth Popejoy dismissed Wednesday the Brodie Trust's demand that Indian Prairie School District 204 purchase the 55-acre parcel at 75th Street and the future extension of Commons Drive in Aurora - otherwise known as the Brach-Brodie property. The district sought to condemn this property, but abandoned that effort after a jury determined the property, which was billed to be the site of Metea Valley High School, would cost $31 million. The district expected to pay roughly half that amount for the parcel. But the Brodie Trust argued that, after a 2005 condemnation suit in which the district bought 25 acres from the Brach-Brodie trusts, the two parties agreed the district would purchase the property at the price determined by a jury in the condemnation suit if voters approved a referendum for the third high school. And the trust argued that the district repeatedly said during its successful referendum campaign and during the condemnation suit that it would purchase the balance of the Brach-Brodie property and build Metea on the land. The district shouldn't be able to use any of the $124.7 million that voters gave it unless it is used to build the promised school on the promised site, the trust argued. In dismissing the trust's case, Popejoy only ruled that this argument should be made as part of the ongoing condemnation lawsuit in which both the Brach and Brodie trusts are seeking reimbursement for the expenses they incurred because of it. Steve Helm, the Brodie Trust's attorney, said Wednesday he will now make this argument in that venue, and added that the only reason he pursued it separately is that, in other condemnation cases he has handled, judges have ruled that such requests were to be filed as separate cases. As expected, Popejoy's ruling pleased Rick Petesch, the attorney representing District 204. "It's great because we've narrowed it down," he said. "People were worried that we had all of these lawsuits pending, but one by one they have been dismissed." On May 29, Popejoy threw out a lawsuit filed in March by Neighborhood Schools for Our Children. The group of parents sought to block Indian Prairie School District 204 from building Metea at any site other than the Brach-Brodie property. And now this suit, filed in mid-April, has been dispatched, leaving but one outstanding legal matter concerning Metea: the settling of the condemnation suit. That case has stalled since the Aug. 14 hearing in which Judge Dorothy French ruled that the district must turn over a variety of billing records to the trust. Neither party can agree which records were included in the ruling. They are due back in court Nov. 13. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 4, 2008 7:37:37 GMT -6
Finally, an update: www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1143987,6_1_NA04_D204_S1.article September 4, 2008 By Tim Waldorf twaldorf@scn1.com Two down, one to go. DuPage County Circuit Court Judge Kenneth Popejoy dismissed Wednesday the Brodie Trust's demand that Indian Prairie School District 204 purchase the 55-acre parcel at 75th Street and the future extension of Commons Drive in Aurora - otherwise known as the Brach-Brodie property. The district sought to condemn this property, but abandoned that effort after a jury determined the property, which was billed to be the site of Metea Valley High School, would cost $31 million. The district expected to pay roughly half that amount for the parcel. But the Brodie Trust argued that, after a 2005 condemnation suit in which the district bought 25 acres from the Brach-Brodie trusts, the two parties agreed the district would purchase the property at the price determined by a jury in the condemnation suit if voters approved a referendum for the third high school. And the trust argued that the district repeatedly said during its successful referendum campaign and during the condemnation suit that it would purchase the balance of the Brach-Brodie property and build Metea on the land. The district shouldn't be able to use any of the $124.7 million that voters gave it unless it is used to build the promised school on the promised site, the trust argued. In dismissing the trust's case, Popejoy only ruled that this argument should be made as part of the ongoing condemnation lawsuit in which both the Brach and Brodie trusts are seeking reimbursement for the expenses they incurred because of it. Steve Helm, the Brodie Trust's attorney, said Wednesday he will now make this argument in that venue, and added that the only reason he pursued it separately is that, in other condemnation cases he has handled, judges have ruled that such requests were to be filed as separate cases. As expected, Popejoy's ruling pleased Rick Petesch, the attorney representing District 204. "It's great because we've narrowed it down," he said. "People were worried that we had all of these lawsuits pending, but one by one they have been dismissed." On May 29, Popejoy threw out a lawsuit filed in March by Neighborhood Schools for Our Children. The group of parents sought to block Indian Prairie School District 204 from building Metea at any site other than the Brach-Brodie property. And now this suit, filed in mid-April, has been dispatched, leaving but one outstanding legal matter concerning Metea: the settling of the condemnation suit. That case has stalled since the Aug. 14 hearing in which Judge Dorothy French ruled that the district must turn over a variety of billing records to the trust. Neither party can agree which records were included in the ruling. They are due back in court Nov. 13. So if I am reading this right - nothing has changed except they took this lawsuit and added it to the one already opened. BB was not told they lost this - just argue as one discussion with damages. |
|
|
|
Post by moneypit on Sept 4, 2008 7:44:32 GMT -6
I read the same thing Doc. Less lawsuits, same amount of exposure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 4, 2008 7:54:51 GMT -6
I read the same thing Doc. Less lawsuits, same amount of exposure. I think at this point it now falls within the limits of 'damage' set forth by condemnation if it is added to the condemnation suit. I'm not sure what would happen if it is withdrawn completely (for now) and brought back at a later time *AFTER* the condemnation fees stuff is over; or if it can be at all. I'm sure BB's attorneys are exploring this already and will play it accordingly. On the bright side, it would be nice if we don't have to throw as much money down that hole. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 4, 2008 8:02:55 GMT -6
A smaller whole less cash spent that would be a step in the right direction, I will wait and see, Not a rejoicing taxpayer just yet . Any thoughts on the cost of the final suit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 4, 2008 8:05:33 GMT -6
A smaller whole less cash spent that would be a step in the right direction, I will wait and see, Not a rejoicing taxpayer just yet . Any thoughts on the cost of the final suit. Fees/damages done under the condemnation suit are a math formula of the difference in price between what the last offer (before condemnation) was and what was 'set' by the jury at the trial. I've not verified it yet, but I believe this is what was used by the district to estimate their $5 million 'exposure' as an upper limit. 5 would be a hell of a lot better than 40/20/15/10 but it's still a big OUCH from $0.00 |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 4, 2008 8:22:44 GMT -6
A smaller whole less cash spent that would be a step in the right direction, I will wait and see, Not a rejoicing taxpayer just yet . Any thoughts on the cost of the final suit. I'm not celebrating either - until it's a sdone deal. As a taxpayer I hope we owe nothing. Amazing though to read elsewhere how some of us 'unhappy boundary' people might not be happy to see this be very low $ wise because we want more ammo against the SB. What a silly statement 1/ we have all the ammo and more we need for the SB concerns 2/ we are all taxpayers here - why would we throw money away ? Of course it just helps make us look worse in some eyes - supposedly. we have no reason to be upset about a commute 176 days a year which is virtually the same distance commute once for the CN-EJE meeting that is being depicted as such an inconvenience  |
|
|
|
Post by moneypit on Sept 4, 2008 9:07:12 GMT -6
I dont see anything on this board that indicates that there would be anyone unhappy with having these remaining lawsuits go away. They can keep trying though Doc.
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 4, 2008 9:21:29 GMT -6
Amo Huh?
that poster got some amo by more than I, one needs to stay on task. Better to bicker about landscaping and dog poop! I say!
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 4, 2008 9:26:25 GMT -6
Amo Huh? that poster got some amo by more than I, one needs to stay on task. Better to bicker about landscaping and dog poop! I say! While both are piles, the yard type doesn't try to hide it in a fabricated double-talk strawman smear. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 4, 2008 9:40:52 GMT -6
Amo Huh? that poster got some amo by more than I, one needs to stay on task. Better to bicker about landscaping and dog poop! I say! might be a closer correlation between the dog poop discussion and the boundary issues than one might think at first -- ;D |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 4, 2008 9:44:54 GMT -6
Amo Huh? that poster got some amo by more than I, one needs to stay on task. Better to bicker about landscaping and dog poop! I say! I saw your post in reply - thank you. Some seem to keep forgetting what you stated - and a few simply don't care. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Sept 4, 2008 10:44:34 GMT -6
A smaller whole less cash spent that would be a step in the right direction, I will wait and see, Not a rejoicing taxpayer just yet . Any thoughts on the cost of the final suit. I'm not celebrating either - until it's a sdone deal. As a taxpayer I hope we owe nothing. Amazing though to read elsewhere how some of us 'unhappy boundary' people might not be happy to see this be very low $ wise because we want more ammo against the SB. What a silly statement 1/ we have all the ammo and more we need for the SB concerns 2/ we are all taxpayers here - why would we throw money away ? Of course it just helps make us look worse in some eyes - supposedly. we have no reason to be upset about a commute 176 days a year which is virtually the same distance commute once for the CN-EJE meeting that is being depicted as such an inconvenience let me get this straight. OK to use as ammo against the SB, but not rooting for a decision in favor for BB? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 4, 2008 10:54:22 GMT -6
let me get this straight. OK to use as ammo against the SB, but not rooting for a decision in favor for BB? My take: Call it what you want.. information, facts, past history, current doings. Calling it 'ammo' makes it sound like there's a war and those that we pin the word ammo onto are 'the enemy'; you know.. those bad guys... Nice PR stunt there. I think it's intentional but it's also 'double speak' because the original poster of it can say "that's not what I meant". Everyone can form their own opinion on that one. Rooting for a decision in favor of the BB estate means you are rooting for a higher tax bill. I'd like to see anyone honestly say they are rooting for that. Mine's high enough, I don't need more on it... but I have a bad feeling it's still coming and will never go down... |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 4, 2008 11:02:10 GMT -6
I'm not celebrating either - until it's a sdone deal. As a taxpayer I hope we owe nothing. Amazing though to read elsewhere how some of us 'unhappy boundary' people might not be happy to see this be very low $ wise because we want more ammo against the SB. What a silly statement 1/ we have all the ammo and more we need for the SB concerns 2/ we are all taxpayers here - why would we throw money away ? Of course it just helps make us look worse in some eyes - supposedly. we have no reason to be upset about a commute 176 days a year which is virtually the same distance commute once for the CN-EJE meeting that is being depicted as such an inconvenience let me get this straight. OK to use as ammo against the SB, but not rooting for a decision in favor for BB? I surely am not going to root against our collective selves - I don't think anyone is either - not sure why that would even have been portrayed - but sometimes any shot against some areas seems relevant as far as calling it ammo - was not my word- belonged to another poster elsewhere. I would call it a history of bad data or no data, failures in key items that were targeted to be done and bad decisions - more recently including what certainly appears to be some favoritism or at least some form of indifference to some areas, and dislike for others, up to and including playing area vs area. Not saying there haven't been some good things also- because there have - but they are overshadowed by miscues - and when it bcomes so personal ( both ways ) it is time for new leadership IMHO. pick any word that fits that you like...I don't particulary like ammo either. |
|
