Land hearing

[bob]

IIRC, your 5 is that if the referendum did not pass that the SD had could not pursue the BB site again. Since it did pass this point is no longer valid. WVP has the docs stating this.

4) The estates simply do not want to sell to the SD and are very serious about getting the condemnation case dismissed with prejudice, which means the SD could not refile.

Could you point that out in the traverse? I believe that is a typical motion in these kind of proceedings.

[bob]

with prejudice.

I always liked that legal term. ;D

[wvhsparent]

A reply from m2 on the hearing.

Nothing is happening in the condemnation suit that is out of the ordinary and nothing has yet happened that would force a delay in the targeted Fall, 2009 opening of the school.

m2 has been upfront with us so I have no reason to doubt this.

[bob]

If he did, I don't think WHParent would hold back on us.

[wvhsparent]

d204taxpayer said:

wvhsparent said:

A reply from m2 on the hearing.

Nothing is happening in the condemnation suit that is out of the ordinary and nothing has yet happened that would force a delay in the targeted Fall, 2009 opening of the school.

m2 has been upfront with us so I have no reason to doubt this.

He's right, the condemnation aspect of the case appears to be on hold until the traverse is decided. Did he address the traverse and motion to dismiss aspects of the case? There is a difference between the two as explained to me. It's all about wording.

Think of the Traverse as Part 1 of the proceedings. If settled in favor of the SD then onto Part 2, if in favor of BB then, IMHO ( and I am not a lawyer) there is no part 2.... Got start over.
Any Legal eagles want to confirm?

BTW still not docs posted on 5/24 hearing

[bob]

Does anyone have the Settlement Agreement with BB?

thus seems to be the result of the current traverse and dismissal proceedings.

BB is also sayin that the SD doesn't need the land. I wonder what evidence they have back that up with and where and who they might get that from?

[bob]

In 2005, BB did take 25 of those acres not the whole 80 and was paid 257,500/acre.

If you look at all the situation in the agreement, we passed the referendum and filed condemnation before the deadline. To me it looks like the BB lawyers never put a repricing in the contract if the referendum got passed a year later. That seems like a big loophole that BB lawyers forgot. The covered every other situation but that one. A big mistake.

If BB thinks this is not right then why did they allow the 25 acres to be sold in 2005 for $257,000.

[EagleDad]

wvhsparent said:

A reply from m2 on the hearing.

Nothing is happening in the condemnation suit that is out of the ordinary and nothing has yet happened that would force a delay in the targeted Fall, 2009 opening of the school.

m2 has been upfront with us so I have no reason to doubt this.

Let's see, given this, I can see the direct headline that the Daily Herald would run in the paper:

IPSD204 School Board says "Nothing is happening in the condemnation suit"

Sorry, couldn't resist

[bob]

The opening paragraph from Sarah Hooker would be.

A local real estate attorney is concerned that the condemnation lawsuit is not going very well. "We were told that the SD would break ground this June! How can we trust them? They lied again. The SD just lost two major decisions. I was worried about this that is why I was against the referendum. The schools are severely overcrowded. My kids are going to suffer" says the local real estate attorney.

[chicoryowl]

But I thought the local real estate attorney thought our schools weren't overcrowded?

Should his quote be: "We were told that the SD would break ground this June! How can we trust them? They lied again. The SD just lost two major decisions. I was worried about this that is why I was against the referendum. The schools aren't overcrowded anyway and our taxes are just going up for no reason. My kids are going to suffer because of the boredom of making it to class on time and having to sit through the entire class not to mention the possible injuries they could get from actually making a sports team. This is why I'm voting against the referendum in 2008 and the next one in 2016," says the local real estate attorney.

[bob]

But you have to flip flop on the issue and use the overcrowded argument against the SD because the SD can never do anything right. When the the new HS opens, he can flip back and complain the that the new HS is only half full. (knowing that only fr/soph classes are the only ones there). Then Sara Hooker can run the headline Too Much Space in 204?

[momof3]

d204taxpayer said:

bob said:

2)If they win the traverse, the SD will have to refile. Since the "price" of the land in the condemnation is based on when it is filed, Iit the SD would have to refile at a higher price.
3) It is also used to drive up legal fees because IF the condemnation is abandoned then legal fees will have to paid by the gov't agency.

As we read the documents, #2 is a major basis of the motion to dismiss. The SD did not take the 80 acres by end of May 2005 at the price of $257,000/acre per the agreement approved by the judge in the first action. This price was agreed to by the parties in this agreement in the 2003 case but they had to take the land and close the transaction by May 31, 2005 per terms. By not doing so, this price per acre became null and void thereafter.

What we get out of it is that the SD neglected to do a couple of important and required actions by law before it filed the 2005 case. BB alleges the SD did not do its due diligence as required under the law in that they did not attempt good faith negotiations by offering the 2003 price of $257,000/acre nor did they even attempt to procure an updated appraisal to find out today's current market price for the land. It sounds like they made one offer with an old price and it was rejected, and then apparently ended any additional attempt at negotiations (the second piece lacking in due diligence). There may be other requirements under the law as well but as far as we can see these are the main points made by BB attorneys.

It seems to indicate that they are now questioning the need because the voters rejected almost the exact same referendum in 2005 according to their documents. Now, one might question the method by which the SD got the public to come around to basically flip flop the referendum results opposite of last year's poll in their favor. It's a very intriguing saga indeed.

We can only speculate how it will end.

I don't understand how any of this is new news. This is all old news hashed out in the papers well before the referendum vote.... he said/she said; attorney posturing; mystery offer (possibly 'King Development and Construction'??) for 420/acre...etc. We all knew this before we voted. (eta - iirc, some of the speculation on this board was that the only reason these motions were filed was to generate negative publicity to influence the vote)

Why is everyone freaking out now about something that happened in February? (taxpayer - i am not accusing you of freaking out, but the discussion got very heated yesterday)

Brodie trust pulls 204 into land tug of war; Motion to dismiss condemnation threatens plans
Naperville Sun, The (IL)
February 23, 2006
Author: Britt Carson
Indian Prairie School District 204 isn't going to get the land for a third high school without a fight.

Attorneys for the Hazel S. Brodie Trust have filed a motion to dismiss the condemnation lawsuit filed by the school district. The motion cites the district's "failure to make a good faith offer" for 55 acres.
The district wants to purchase 55 acres commonly known as the Brach Brodie property, which is overseen by a trust. The district filed the condemnation lawsuit in December and, pending passage of a referendum measure in March, intends to purchase the property for a third high school.

Richard Petesch, an attorney for the district, said the motion to dismiss came as no surprise.

"We were expecting they would possibly file a traverse," he said. "We will file a formal response to the motion."

District 204 administrators were deposed last week as part of the proceedings pertaining to the lawsuit.

The district sent a letter to attorneys for the trust on Nov. 22, offering $257,500 per acre for the land, near 75th Street along a future extension of Commons Drive in Aurora. It's the same price the district paid last year for 25 acres adjacent to the 55 they are seeking. The district has offered $14.16 million for the 55 acres.

According to the motion to dismiss, the $257,500 figure was exclusive to the agreement struck before the April referendum measure, which failed, and does not carry over to future negotiations. The motion also says the district is not basing its offer on any type of appraisal.
However, Petesch said he is satisfied with the offer the district put on the table in November.

"We believe $257,500 is fair price for the property now in 2006, and we thought it was fair market price in November 2005 when we made the offer,"

Petesch said. "We believe that is more than fair market value."

Stephen Helm, one of the attorneys for the Brodie trust, said in the motion that a previous offer from a developer for the same 55 acres was for $420,000 per acre. Helm could not be reached for comment.

Both sides are due back in court March 21 for a status hearing. A hearing on the motion to dismiss has not been scheduled.

Purchase of the 55 acres is contingent upon voter approval of the $124.7 million referendum measure. Without it, the district does not have the funds to purchase the property.

Petesch says the district would like to move forward as quickly as possible.

"Obviously if a referendum is approved, we would like to secure the property as soon as we could to begin construction," he said.

[wvhsparent]

It's relevant because the hearnigs for the above posturing started mid May with the Traverse hearing starting on the 24th.
Sorry I am just not a very patient person.

[momof3]

I think BC of the Sun does a good/fair job of covering 204. Maybe send her an email reminding her that the hearing for the traverse started and she may cover it and put it in the paper. [e-mail] or [phone]

[bob]

After voters approved a $124.7 million referendum in March, school officials had hoped to quickly obtain the 55 acres needed to build the third high school. Indian Prairie already owns about half the land, commonly known as the Brach Brodie property along 75th Street near the planned extension of Commons Drive in Aurora.

But the school district is still wrangling with owners of the other half of the property.

Richard Petesch, attorney for District 204, said the district wants to move forward with its land condemnation suit. Attorneys for the Hazel S. Brodie Trust moved to dismiss the lawsuit in February. Petesch said the district is still waiting for a judge to hear the request to dismiss. A hearing on the matter has been postponed twice.

"On both occasions, the other side has asked for additional time to respond," Petesch said. "We would like to move this forward."

The next court date for arguments on the motion to dismiss is set for June 28. Attorneys for the Brodie trust are asking for more time to collect statements from people, and they want additional documents from the school district. However, Petesch said Brodie attorneys are requesting the minutes from executive session school board meetings, and the district does not feel it is necessary to surrender those documents.

Attorneys for the Brodie Trust have filed another lawsuit accusing the district of violating the Open Meetings Act, and they want to combine that lawsuit with the condemnation suit. The school district opposes that request.

Meanwhile, the district is proceeding with architectural and design plans for the third high school. Sketches of the building are expected to be unveiled in June, and the preliminary floor plans are in place. The district hopes to put the project out for bid this winter and complete the project in time for a 2009 opening.

IMO Typical Stall Tactics.... then try and get the public are riled up and worried thus forcing the SB to pay a higher price then the agreed uopn $257k/acre.

Rememeber we are not planning to break ground until Spring.
It's still early. So let's not turn into