|
|
Post by bob on Jun 1, 2006 13:28:24 GMT -6
Why would they sell the origional 25 acres then?
|
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Jun 1, 2006 13:38:21 GMT -6
Maybe it is the most undesirable portion of that land and not worth as much.
|
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on Jun 1, 2006 13:46:34 GMT -6
I thought there were no living heirs to the Brach/Brodie trusts, and the proceeds of the sale would eventually go to charity? If so, why would the lawyers care so much about the price of the land?
I think the lawyers are just dragging this out to maximize their billable hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 1, 2006 14:11:58 GMT -6
Maybe it is the most undesirable portion of that land and not worth as much. But you just sold 31% of the 80 acres we want . So we can we start pressuring Aurora to change the zoning on this land to something less desirable than housing. Every month is costing the BB trust about $47,166 in lost interest. 55acre at 257K with 4% interest |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 1, 2006 14:27:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 1, 2006 14:38:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jun 1, 2006 14:46:04 GMT -6
<cough>crock</cough>
|
|
|
|
Post by cantretirehere on Jun 1, 2006 15:59:55 GMT -6
Let me see if I understand this. Please, don’t anyone jump down my throat. I am not a lawyer and am asking for someone to educate me without accusing me of jumping to conclusions.
Does this mean that BB lawyers think that the SB/SD violated an Act which says that they are supposed meet openly, and if they don’t meet openly, they are supposed to release the minutes of the closed meetings to the public as per item 7?
Does this mean that because of the alleged violation, BB is asking the judge for the following as per item 17:
A. To see pretty much all documentation of the closed meetings pertaining to BB property acquisition, while in the judge’s chambers. (These being documents which were supposed to be released to the public anyway.)
B. Declare that the SB/SD violated the act
C. For the SB/SD to provide BB with the documents of item A
D. Payment of litigation fees to the BB lawyers by the SB/SD
E is the one that has me confused because of the wording in the document which is as follows:
“Granting such other and further relief…..including declaring null and void any and all final actions taken by the Defendants regarding the Brach/Brodie Property/Project, third high school site and related matters at closed meetings in violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act.”
When they say “declaring null and void all final actions taken by the Defendants…” what exactly does that mean? Does this mean that if the SB/SD is found in violation, the BB lawyers are asking the judge to order the SB/SD to stop proceeding to obtain the BB property? (Don’t even bring up the word FUD, bob. This is an honest attempt to understand what this document means. I really don’t want this district to rack up any more costs or time delays than have already occurred.)
Did the SB/SD violate the Illinois Open Meetings Act? If they did, shouldn’t the residents of this district be outraged? I thought that all of the meetings WERE open.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 1, 2006 16:16:16 GMT -6
Closed sessions, IIRC, shouldn't be made public. It looks like BB is searching for the top $ price that the SD is willing to pay.
Note the local lawyer. Now there is a guy that a local boycott could effect.
Technicality
I say let's turn over all the info pertaining to Brach-Brodie Property/Project, third high school siie .
Now how does that slip by?
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jun 1, 2006 16:23:21 GMT -6
I have nothing to substantiate the accusation I'm about to make, so take it as only that, but...
Mark my words, time will show that Christine Vickers has a key hand in all of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by dpc on Jun 1, 2006 18:06:33 GMT -6
I have nothing to substantiate the accusation I'm about to make, so take it as only that, but... Mark my words, time will show that Christine Vickers has a key hand in all of this. What does that mean? |
|
|
|
Post by dpc on Jun 1, 2006 18:16:05 GMT -6
I have nothing to substantiate the accusation I'm about to make, so take it as only that, but... Then don't make it. But since you did, I must say that your tone sounds a bit threatening. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 1, 2006 18:22:31 GMT -6
Well, the lengths that members of CFO have gone to defeat referendums in the past (lawsuits to stop them) and that Vickers belongs to CFO , ED might just putting 2 and 2 together.
|
|
|
|
Post by dpc on Jun 1, 2006 18:32:31 GMT -6
Well, the lengths that members of CFO have gone to defeat referendums in the past (lawsuits to stop them) and that Vickers belongs to CFO , ED might just putting 2 and 2 together. Let ED speak for himself |
|
|
|
Post by Schooldaze on Jun 1, 2006 18:46:59 GMT -6
Here's a little tidbit. After the purchase of the 25 acres a SB member shared with some community members how the SD was able to take advantage of a loophole in the agreement with BB that allowed for the purchase even if the April 05 referendum failed. Perhaps the BB folks were not pleased with this and that is why they are fighting the suit.
|
|
