Land hearing

[d204brat]

Reading through this thread I see two common thoughts. First, the idea that BB is just attempting to talk up the price. Second, BB is conducting delaying tactics.

There's a flip side. Howie said months ago BB does not want to sell the land.

If that is true these filings look anything but routine, in fact this last one on the open meetings act is beginning to look like hardball.

Let’s review in light of BB not wanting to sell –

1. BB was forced to sell 25 acres to the SD last year. They didn't want to sell so they wrote up a contract that had some gotchas in it. If the SD didn't take the remaining 55 acres by March 31, 2006 the SD could never again file for condemnation of the BB land. Also, if they don't build a school on the 25 acres they must sell back the land at the same price they paid. (Meanwhile BB has $6.4 M in the bank). Plus the SD will have to pay $1+M legal fees. Knowing the 2005 referendum failed they must have had some confidence the SD could not offer to purchase the other 55 acres within the deadline.

2. Facing a deadline the SD rushed to condemn. BB claims the SD did not negotiate in good faith. BB asks for documents proving the SD acted in good faith. During depositions they discovered the decisions were made in closed door meetings so they asked for transcripts. The SD claims client attorney privilege.

3. BB files traverse asking the judge to throw out the condemnation suit based on technicality. They keep digging. SD continues to stall on releasing the exec session minutes.

4. BB files violations of open meetings act against members of the SD. BB is attempting to establish a pattern of secrecy, arrogance and misdeeds on the part of the SD.

Possible outcomes..

1. The judge finds in favor of BB on traverse and the fat lady sings. SD goes in search of new parcel of land. Boundary wars are revisited.

2. Judge finds in favor of SD. A date is set in future for a jury trial to hear the condemnation suit. Last I heard there’s about a 2 year backlog waiting to come to trial.

3. Potential for our SB members to get charged with misdemeanors over violation of OMA.

4. Condemnation goes to trial in front of jury. Don’t expect it to be 12 members from district 204. BB argues no need. Remember the referendum was not tied to the land and there is other land available. They play on the antics of the SD & SB especially if they manage to prove wrong doing with the OMA & lack of good faith negations.

So from BB standpoint if they fight they keep their land get the lost 25 acres back, pocket $1M in legal fees and the SD must leave them alone forever.

I also heard there is some personal animosity between JC and BB that might also be adding fuel to the fight. But that’s just rumor.


If I put on the rose colored glasses -

the actions of BB are designed to drive of the settlement price and the delaying tactics are so the farmer gets to harvest his beans before the sale.

Tofu anyone?

[EagleDad]

dpc said:

bob said:

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

That's exactly what I'm postulating. My speculation (and it's only that) is that a certain board member who was at the closed executive sessions of the board went spouting off to the BB estate about those sessions, and is misrepresenting them to suit their own agenda (kill the 3rd high school, and undercut the SD). I wouldn't be suprised either if this strategy had input from a local Naperville Real Estate lawyer.

[bob]

Well to change the subject a bit,

I spoke to the real estate attorney again for his opinion.

The latest move is to consolidate the Open Meetings Law and the Condemnation is a stalling tactic. If they separated the cases, then the condemnation would proceed because the judge probably wouldn't want to wait for another judge to decide on the Open Meeting Case. So BB now gets to bog down the condemnation judge with another lawsuit.



If we have to build a school I say we build a one room school house to hold us over. ;D

[momof3]

d204brat said:

4. Condemnation goes to trial in front of jury. Don’t expect it to be 12 members from district 204. BB argues no need. Remember the referendum was not tied to the land and there is other land available. They play on the antics of the SD & SB especially if they manage to prove wrong doing with the OMA & lack of good faith negations.

So from BB standpoint if they fight they keep their land get the lost 25 acres back, pocket $1M in legal fees and the SD must leave them alone forever.

Two things -

BB can purchase the 25 acres back for 6.4 m (purchase price) at some point in the future if we don't put a school there. What is the timeline on 'putting a school there'? (I don't know - I'm honestly asking - I would assume the district would give themselves plenty of time - many years - ?)

The traverse was filed in Feb claiming the SD doesn't need the land because the referendum failed. Well, the referendum passed, so how is that a valid argument anymore?

[dpc]

eagledad said:

That's exactly what I'm postulating. My speculation (and it's only that) is that a certain board member who was at the closed executive sessions of the board went spouting off to the BB estate about those sessions, and is misrepresenting them to suit their own agenda (kill the 3rd high school, and undercut the SD). I wouldn't be suprised either if this strategy had input from a local Naperville Real Estate lawyer.

ED - that's a pretty big accusation and one that could be of legal consequences to you. Sounds like you think BB might be in jeapordy and you are looking to blame someone. Of course, CV is an easy target and Ari is an even easier target.

If anyone is to "blame" it would JC, MM and others who led the charge to buy the initial 25 acres. From what I understand, it was this move that really ticked off the BB attorneys.

[bob]

ED - that's a pretty big accusation and one that could be of legal consequences to you.

There is a difference between speculation for which ED did and accusation.

And if we go under your accusations for legal consequences, JC would have a one heck of a case against you.

If BB didn't want to sell the 25 acres, I guess they shouldn't have sold it then.

[momof3]

mdavis said:

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.

I'd be pretty mad too if I had hired some super expensive international law firm to look after my property and they made a rookie mistake like that. But you never know, BB's local attorney could have made the mistake. In any case, the owners are dead, and there are no living heirs. So how can they be mad?

[bob]

They have living heirs and from what I have heard that this is their last asset in the trust. So after this sale, the trust is disolved and the heirs can't live off the trust anymore.

[EagleDad]

dpc said:

ED - that's a pretty big accusation and one that could be of legal consequences to you.

Bring it on

Are you ready to rumble?

[dpc]

bob said:

ED - that's a pretty big accusation and one that could be of legal consequences to you.

There is a difference between speculation for which ED did and accusation.

And if we go under your accusations for legal consequences, JC would have a one heck of a case against you.

If BB didn't want to sell the 25 acres, I guess they shouldn't have sold it then.

Bob, again, please let ED speak for himself or are you one in the same?

Come to think of it, you are beginning to sound a lot like Stinks or even MM since I heard he posts on this board. Are you one of them?

[momof3]

bob said:

They have living heirs and from what I have heard that this is their last asset in the trust. So after this sale, the trust is disolved and the heirs can't live off the trust anymore.

I'm not too sure about that - I believe there is a living brother in Ohio of either Hazel Brodie or HVB, but I don't think this property was left to anyone alive. It benefits the foundation. You know, poultry rights and such.

[d204brat]

momof3 said:

d204brat said:

Two things -

BB can purchase the 25 acres back for 6.4 m (purchase price) at some point in the future if we don't put a school there. What is the timeline on 'putting a school there'? (I don't know - I'm honestly asking - I would assume the district would give themselves plenty of time - many years - ?)

The traverse was filed in Feb claiming the SD doesn't need the land because the referendum failed. Well, the referendum passed, so how is that a valid argument anymore?

When BB could take back the land has been a question I've been asking too ever since I first read the agreement. I'd imaging this would be yet another law suit. Its fair to guess it would happen shortly after the condemnation is resolved - if it goes in BB's favor.

The 'no need' is interesting because they can argue their parcel of land is not needed. There is other land available & the referendum language did not stipulate the BB land. Also 'no need' was only one part of their argument the other being failure to negotiate in good faith. Its the later they seem to be focused on.

The condemnation suit pre-dates the referendum too.

[EagleDad]

dpc said:

bob said:

There is a difference between speculation for which ED did and accusation.

And if we go under your accusations for legal consequences, JC would have a one heck of a case against you.

If BB didn't want to sell the 25 acres, I guess they shouldn't have sold it then.

Bob, again, please let ED speak for himself or are you one in the same?

Come to think of it, you are beginning to sound a lot like Stinks or even MM since I heard he posts on this board. Are you one of them?

I can speak for bob, he is not Stinks, MM, or me. Also, M2 does not post on this board.

As for bob speaking for me, I'm fine with that, we are of a similar mindset and I would trust him do so anytime. He definitely is not a CRAFTy fellow

[momof3]

d204brat said:

Its fair to guess it would happen shortly after the condemnation is resolved - if it goes in BB's favor.

I would have to respectfully disagree with you on that point. The money used to purchase that 25 acres came from two places - land cash donations from developers and money from the 2001 referendum to be used for a new middle school. Even if it goes in BBs favor and we can't purchase the remaining 55 acres, I don't see the district selling the property back for 2 reasons -

- we may eventually need it for another ES or MS; and hopefully we have many many years to do that (I didn't see that the agreement was exclusive to putting a HS there.)

- I believe 124 Mil is enough to buy a different full 80 acres and build a school

[d204brat]

momof3 said:

d204brat said:

- we may eventually need it for another ES or MS; and hopefully we have many many years to do that (I didn't see that the agreement was exclusive to putting a HS there.)

Actually we're in partial agreement, the land is sufficient to build a middle school and we are tight for middle school space. I'd rather see us build another middle school on that land than take away Waubonsie's Gold Campus.

I doubt we'd ever need to build another ES. We've loads of space in ES and Peterson is in mothballs down south just waiting for the kids to show up.