|
|
Post by blankcheck on May 31, 2006 7:12:45 GMT -6
IMO- The Sun did not represent the amount of land we currently own. We supposedly need 80 acres. We currently own 25 thus needing the additional 55 acres. We do not own half already. Also IMO- this is not to get the public riled up to pay a higher price, we were always going to pay a higher price due to increase in land value. That is one of the major reasons I had a problem with the referendum is that we were asked to vote for something when we had no idea what the final cost would be.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 31, 2006 7:17:04 GMT -6
I just found a read the Civil filing by BB on the violation of the open meetings act. 2006CH660- DuPage Court Case number.
For the life of me I don't see where this has even the slightest bearing on the Eminent Domain hearing.
Other than like bob says, a stall tactic.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 31, 2006 7:39:33 GMT -6
Let me clear this up. I was saying that BB would be using this as a tactic to get public pressure on the SB to up there price and end it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 31, 2006 7:49:00 GMT -6
IMHO I think the public already thinks the price is too high.
I wish it would backfire on BB and the public instead pressure the SB to drop BB and go with plan B site.
|
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on May 31, 2006 7:51:05 GMT -6
IMO- The Sun did not represent the amount of land we currently own. We supposedly need 80 acres. We currently own 25 thus needing the additional 55 acres. We do not own half already. Also IMO- this is not to get the public riled up to pay a higher price, we were always going to pay a higher price due to increase in land value. That is one of the major reasons I had a problem with the referendum is that we were asked to vote for something when we had no idea what the final cost would be. Last year we had a 'buy it by May 31 set in stone' price. B/C the ref failed, we lost that chance. I'm assuming you mean that's why you had a problem with the '06 ref, not the '05 ref? |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 31, 2006 7:53:31 GMT -6
IMO- The Sun did not represent the amount of land we currently own. We supposedly need 80 acres. We currently own 25 thus needing the additional 55 acres. We do not own half already. Also IMO- this is not to get the public riled up to pay a higher price, we were always going to pay a higher price due to increase in land value. That is one of the major reasons I had a problem with the referendum is that we were asked to vote for something when we had no idea what the final cost would be. Last year we had a 'buy it by May 31 set in stone' price. B/C the ref failed, we lost that chance. I'm assuming you mean that's why you had a problem with the '06 ref, not the '05 ref? That is not why the 05 ref failed, but a result of that failure. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on May 31, 2006 8:25:36 GMT -6
IMHO I think the public already thinks the price is too high. I wish it would backfire on BB and the public instead pressure the SB to drop BB and go with plan B site. Yes Paent, we know, you want a site up North by Diehl and Eola  . I think it's a bit early to call a bail on BB though. Another option is for the public to put pressure on the judge, the BB law firm, and this turdball farmer who thinks that a few bushels of soybeans are so precious he has to hold up site access/surveying until the crop is done (on land that he doesn't own, who's use has been gifted to him, I might add). |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 31, 2006 8:48:52 GMT -6
Darn...you outed me! ;D
I agree it's early yet, But I for one would love to know if the SD has a deadline date.
I would be real careful pressuring a judge...they don't take kindly to that. One ruling is all it would take - we really don't have time for the appeals process (you think this regular trial is long!)
also I don't think the BB folks care what we do. The farmer is kind of between a rock and hard place, just doing what he does best...farm. IMHO - the SD should not have allowed him to plant on their property.
|
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on May 31, 2006 8:51:00 GMT -6
Last year we had a 'buy it by May 31 set in stone' price. B/C the ref failed, we lost that chance. I'm assuming you mean that's why you had a problem with the '06 ref, not the '05 ref? That is not why the 05 ref failed, but a result of that failure. agreed - should have typed 'we lost that chance when the ref failed.' |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on May 31, 2006 12:40:38 GMT -6
I would be real careful pressuring a judge...they don't take kindly to that. One ruling is all it would take - we really don't have time for the appeals process (you think this regular trial is long!) also I don't think the BB folks care what we do. The farmer is kind of between a rock and hard place, just doing what he does best...farm. IMHO - the SD should not have allowed him to plant on their property. Pressuring the judge might be a bit stong, but he should be told that the majority of the community is behind this HS and voted for it (with the expectation that it would be on that land). |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on May 31, 2006 14:29:09 GMT -6
I think it's the lawyers' job to argue the case - it isn't appropriate for the public to "pressure" anyone. And the district was and is divided on the BB property. It is much more expensive than other sites.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 31, 2006 14:33:52 GMT -6
No it wasn't.
The church wanted us to buy their land and then another 80 acres for their church.
Bolingbrook had 7 figure waste water charge and a charge to build the fourth lane east of Nap Plainfield on 111th. It is also well known that the Mayor of Bolingbrook really doesn't want the third HS.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 31, 2006 14:45:16 GMT -6
The church wanted us to buy their land and then another 80 acres for their church. That was actually a Howie'ism. (mouth running before brain kicked in.) The church had just priced their parcel somewhat high to discourage the SD. from what m2 said. However noone ever stated what that cost was. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on May 31, 2006 14:58:37 GMT -6
No it wasn't. The church wanted us to buy their land and then another 80 acres for their church. Bolingbrook had 7 figure waste water charge and a charge to build the fourth lane east of Nap Plainfield on 111th. It is also well known that the Mayor of Bolingbrook really doesn't want the third HS. The add'l site improvements to Bolingbrook still didn't make that site as expensive as BB. And that's not what the mayor said. He wanted to see the design of the building. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 31, 2006 16:29:54 GMT -6
|
|
. I think it's a bit early to call a bail on BB though.