Land hearing

[gumby]

FMV will not be affected by a quick take. But, with the FMV being uncertain, I cannot imagine doing a QT and then having a jury come back with a huge FMV evaluation. It would be taking a big risk doing that. QTs are very difficult get anyway.

I do not know the timing of the values, although people have discussed them on the board here earlier.

[warriorpride]

bob said:

You gotta pray for a mild winter for the next 2 years for a 2008 opening.

Maybe they can stage the earth-moving equipment on the 25 acres - ready to spring into action!

[notconvinced]

The possibility of a 'quick take' approach was one of the things that gave me pause when voting yes. I would definitely be against the SB doing a 'quick take'.

[momthreekids]

Remember they can't build on that 25 acres they need it for retention. I sure hope they get the land. Just because Lehigh went for 257/acre in 2005 does not mean the district can get that for the BB site. This will go before a jury and you never know??

[Avenging Eagle]

They don't need it for retention....but in looking at the big picture, they would like to use that area for retention....

So, it seems to me that they might try to grab this land quickly and get started.

For the same reason it was not "right" for our district to condemn a church property, it is also not "right" for some lawyers or rich land owners to deprive the kids their new school.

I believe we need to send the SB the message that if they get the land quickly, we really need the new high school to open in 2008.

If our builders can't do it and Plainfield's builders can, we should somehow convince Plainfield to make a trade of builders.

[rew]

Is anyone aware of what the new fitness gym paid for the property right behind Costco??? I understand that is zoned commercial, not residential like the HS site.

Also, by my calc the district paid $245K/acre for the 25 acres they purchased one year ago. And my impression is this was land they had the money for already from the 2001 ref.

Does that mean that they have to negotiate and purchase, the additional 55 acres only?

And does anyone think that land values have doubled in the last eighteen months or would a guess of 20% max...meaning $300K/acre sound like an upper limit??

BB lawyers have asked for a jury trial, but if the jury came back with an outrageous FMV price...like $400K/acre, wouldn't the judge step in??

And what jury is going to feel the need to fill a billionairess' coffers, when she's been dead for thirty years, with an overstated FMV?

And, yes, I am willing to be seated on that jury....

[notconvinced]

avengingeagle said:

They don't need it for retention....but in looking at the big picture, they would like to use that area for retention....

So, it seems to me that they might try to grab this land quickly and get started.

For the same reason it was not "right" for our district to condemn a church property, it is also not "right" for some lawyers or rich land owners to deprive the kids their new school.

I believe we need to send the SB the message that if they get the land quickly, we really need the new high school to open in 2008.

I don't mind if they get the land quickly if they do it in a fiscally responsible way and do not over pay for it. Are we so fixated now not just on BB but on getting the school in 2008 instead of the planned 2009 that we will commit to the ownership and let them tell us the price later? Sure it would be nice to have in 2008 but let's be responsible here. I don't think the QT is fiscally responsible in this case.

[gumby]

It is not necessarily irresponsible, but it is like gambling on a fixed budget. Regardless, QT would be very difficult to get I think in this case.

[Avenging Eagle]

Can we buy all the materials now and stack them on the corner of BB?

If not, I believe Dr. Who when he says that we can save 8-9% if it is built by 2008 instead of 2009.

But, I would not suggest gambling on the land price.

I am assuming for argument's sake that they would have a quick trial, and then the jury rules in favor of a reasonable price within the expected range, and then we get out there and build it before Fall 2008.

Is a quick trial even possible?

[Avenging Eagle]

Also, I just heard that all the profits from this sale are going to charities.

In the spirit of charity, why not allow us to start building sooner rather than later, AND still give the money to charity. (2 times the benefit and goodwill)

And, if the referendum had passed last year, we would have started building immediately, which means that the plans and builders should be pretty much ready to roll.

Shouldn't the judge take these things into consideration?

[gumby]

The main issue is that the procedures take time. Each side is allowed to present various motions along the way, which itself takes time. But, because a judge has to be (supposedly) impartial, he needs to let each side follow the proper prcedures and the judge himself has to follow proper procedure.

I would hate to see an appeal by the BB owners/attorneys because they get ticked off by something where there is incorrect procedure followed by the judge, which would then let the BB party file a colorable appeal.

[warriorpride]

Do we know for sure that the SB will keep the public updated on the progress of the BB hearing?

[refbasics]

avengingeagle said:

Also, I just heard that all the profits from this sale are going to charities. ...

Shouldn't the judge take these things into consideration?

I believe MM said at the Scullen MS RIM that the charities were ANIMAL charities- you might not want to tussle too much with them!!

[refbasics]

Sorry- had to leave my computer for a few minutes!

I don't know which animal charities but just that MM mentioned that they were the benefactors of the estate-he mentioned it just in passing; doesn't the court paperwork say something strange about all unknown parties- i haven't looked at those papers for a few weeks; and i'm, definitely, not an expert at looking at court papers!

Is it 2 estates, also? brach and brodie- i don't anything much about the background of the land since i've only lived here 5 years!

Have to go!

[wvhsparent]

I am keeping a close eye on the proceedings. I have a copy of the District's response to the Traverse Motion to dimiss...no bombshells......If could only find a place to put it.

It's a pdf file and IMO It's too big to cut and paste here.