ilove204
Soph
khkoi00ms,m.stjki050858a;lm m msKtakt
Posts: 50
|
Post by ilove204 on Mar 22, 2006 7:21:35 GMT -6
Isn't the hearing on the land today?... or was it yesterday??
Any news??
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 22, 2006 7:44:26 GMT -6
It was rescheduled for 4/6/06....with a new judge.
I'll get the particulars in a bit
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Mar 22, 2006 8:21:56 GMT -6
Me three....let's have a "space race" with Plainfield, they are planning on a 2008 opening!
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 22, 2006 9:10:56 GMT -6
Me three....let's have a "space race" with Plainfield, they are planning on a 2008 opening! "I believe this District should commit itself, before this decade is out, of putting a student in the new High School and returning them safely to the home. No single education project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range education of this place". |
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Mar 22, 2006 9:18:52 GMT -6
Me three....let's have a "space race" with Plainfield, they are planning on a 2008 opening! Me 4, because my son will be either the last sophomore class from our area in an overcrowded Neuqua in 2008 or the 1st sophomore class in the new school if they finish it then, alleviating space for everyone else. Do we have the right stuff? What can we do to put pressure on our SB to get this done? If we can get the land, then why can't we hire builders who will get it done on time? Any ideas? |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 22, 2006 13:34:19 GMT -6
Hey...Lets call Ty Pennington and crew....maybe they can get it done in a week.....
while we all go to Disney.....
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 22, 2006 13:43:07 GMT -6
The next hearing is on 4-6-06
Courtroom 2008 at the DuPage County Judicial Center at 9:00am in front of Judge John T. Elsner. Kilander.
It is set for Status review...any lawyers out there want to translate?
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Mar 22, 2006 13:52:54 GMT -6
Legal eagles...
It is my impression that Illinois allows for "quick take" in condemnation proceedings.
Meaning, that the judge says the condemnation is necessary....the SD gets immediate title to the land...BB gets some compensation up front and then the jury trial proceeds independent of the land transfer. The trial is about setting the price and does not interfere with the project proceeding. Am I correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Mar 22, 2006 14:00:51 GMT -6
Hmm, I wonder if it would do any good for us to petition the judge, describing the necessity from the community.
(what a difference a day makes)
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 22, 2006 14:01:18 GMT -6
I would hope that there is a price before the project gets started. I, as one who never liked BB from the beginning would be very P.O.ed if they got stuck with a high land price.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 22, 2006 14:03:12 GMT -6
Kilander is a fair judge....but don't forget the BB trust has requested a jury trial......
|
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Mar 22, 2006 14:08:54 GMT -6
Legal eagles... It is my impression that Illinois allows for "quick take" in condemnation proceedings. Meaning, that the judge says the condemnation is necessary....the SD gets immediate title to the land...BB gets some compensation up front and then the jury trial proceeds independent of the land transfer. The trial is about setting the price and does not interfere with the project proceeding. Am I correct? You are correct. But, as wvhsparent implies, the land's fair market value would be determined after the quick take. So, in that case, yes, you are guaranteed the land, but the cost remains unknown. I do not think the SB realistically would be able to do this because of the limited referendum budget and the uncertainty in price. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 22, 2006 14:37:21 GMT -6
You gotta pray for a mild winter for the next 2 years for a 2008 opening.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Mar 22, 2006 14:40:20 GMT -6
The FMV should not be affected by the quick take. I understand what you're implying by a "walk away price"....but, if it turned out that the FMV was an unacceptable number, then the SB really screwed up ---- When was the $257K/acre price for last year set??? Was that a settlement price or a condemnation proceeding and was that price set by a jury?
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 22, 2006 14:45:08 GMT -6
The FMV should not be affected by the quick take. I understand what you're implying by a "walk away price"....but, if it turned out that the FMV was an unacceptable number, then the SB really screwed up ---- When was the $257K/acre price for last year set??? Was that a settlement price or a condemnation proceeding and was that price set by a jury? Courtesy of our CFO friends, here's the settlement for the 25 acres: voteno204.org/settlement.pdf - anyone care to translate into english? |
|
