Land hearing

[wvhsparent]

Here is the BB response to the SD motion for access

www.savefile.com/files/9704602

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

I wasn't bashing WVHS. Re read the remark. But there are some in this district who don't want their kids to go there, so they would not want another site. I just don't want there to be a long delay in a solution for the students. We need the space now.

I read it twice before I posted.
There is no need to bring that to the fore again....I still feel feel it comes across as a disengenuous comment meant to stir a response and nothing more-- it brought nothing to the discussion except bad feelings.

[chicoryowl]

I'm sorry to pile on, but I think to raise the red flag at this point is very premature. Court proceedings take time. I don't sense that this is proceeding any slower than the SD anticipated.

And suggestions of moving to a new parcel ignore the realities of the situation that there are limited parcels available, the parcels examined previously were deemed not as attractive, and that a referendum was held to build the high school at the BB site, not a different one. The SD can't just snap their fingers and decide to build the HS someplace else.

[momof3]

dpc said:

bob said:

That was sarcasm. I still would like to see your reasoning behind that it will take years.

OK here it is: If it goes to a jury trial, it will take months to get a court date, jury selection, arguments, testimonies, and decision. Then there is the appeal process. Shall I go on?

OK maybe I see why some folks are upset here. Were some people under the impression this wasn't going to trial? IIRC the BB lawyers requested a jury trial way before the referendum. That's always been part of the plan.

[wvhsparent]

chicoryowl said:

I'm sorry to pile on, but I think to raise the red flag at this point is very premature. Court proceedings take time. I don't sense that this is proceeding any slower than the SD anticipated.

And suggestions of moving to a new parcel ignore the realities of the situation that there are limited parcels available, the parcels examined previously were deemed not as attractive, and that a referendum was held to build the high school at the BB site, not a different one. The SD can't just snap their fingers and decide to build the HS someplace else.

While I don't want to cause a big stir... the ref was for a 3rd HS. Nowhere on my ballot did it state location.
I guess a lot of people, myself included would love to have somewhat of an idea on what their timetable is.

[lacy]

[quote author=doctorwho board=newhighschool thread=1143033695 post=1148587588}

I read it twice before I posted.
There is no need to bring that to the fore again....I still feel feel it comes across as a disengenuous comment meant to stir a response and nothing more-- it brought nothing to the discussion except bad feelings.[/quote]

Labeling people as CFO/CRAFT or crazy if they have a question or concern doesn't exactly bring anything to the discussion nor does it help to get to the bottom of anything. Time will tell on the land and I hope it works out. But I would hope if something's up, it could be discussed.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

[quote author=doctorwho board=newhighschool thread=1143033695 post=1148587588}

I read it twice before I posted.
There is no need to bring that to the fore again....I still feel feel it comes across as a disengenuous comment meant to stir a response and nothing more-- it brought nothing to the discussion except bad feelings.

Labeling people as CFO/CRAFT or crazy if they have a question or concern doesn't exactly bring anything to the discussion nor does it help to get to the bottom of anything. Time will tell on the land and I hope it works out. But I would hope if something's up, it could be discussed.[/quote]

If it would have been me who stated either, I would respond.( and I doo not seem to recall crazy anywhere) .but it wasn't....the WVHS offended me so I commented....that's all I am saying....I just don't think there's room for any 'stirring of the pot' at this point in the district.

Hard to discuss ongoing court cases, lots of room for errors there and the attorneys involved would be none too happy. I think we'd all like a little more daily update, but unfortunately we are not the direct litigants.

[EagleDad]

A quick seach for the word "crazy" on this board in the last 30 days reveals that no one has called anyone crazy, yet a few have been asking/goading others to call them that.

[lacy]

doctorwho said:

lacy said:

[quote author=doctorwho board=newhighschool thread=1143033695 post=1148587588}

I read it twice before I posted.
There is no need to bring that to the fore again....I still feel feel it comes across as a disengenuous comment meant to stir a response and nothing more-- it brought nothing to the discussion except bad feelings.

Labeling people as CFO/CRAFT or crazy if they have a question or concern doesn't exactly bring anything to the discussion nor does it help to get to the bottom of anything. Time will tell on the land and I hope it works out. But I would hope if something's up, it could be discussed.

If it would have been me who stated either, I would respond.( and I doo not seem to recall crazy anywhere) .but it wasn't....the WVHS offended me so I commented....that's all I am saying....I just don't think there's room for any 'stirring of the pot' at this point in the district.

Hard to discuss ongoing court cases, lots of room for errors there and the attorneys involved would be none too happy. I think we'd all like a little more daily update, but unfortunately we are not the direct litigants.[/quote]

I'm not stirring the pot. I heard some things were going on with the land last week and lo and behold, there were. I was looking for more information and some people flipped out. That's weird.

As for the WVHS issue, it offends me too. But it's true. And I wouldn't want people who think that way to hold up a solution for our district.

Agree with your last statements. Hopefully the delay of one year is misinformation or confusion.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

doctorwho said:

lacy said:

If it would have been me who stated either, I would respond.( and I doo not seem to recall crazy anywhere) .but it wasn't....the WVHS offended me so I commented....that's all I am saying....I just don't think there's room for any 'stirring of the pot' at this point in the district.

Hard to discuss ongoing court cases, lots of room for errors there and the attorneys involved would be none too happy. I think we'd all like a little more daily update, but unfortunately we are not the direct litigants.

I'm not stirring the pot. I heard some things were going on with the land last week and lo and behold, there were. I was looking for more information and some people flipped out. That's weird.

As for the WVHS issue, it offends me too. But it's true. And I wouldn't want people who think that way to hold up a solution for our district.

Agree with your last statements. Hopefully the delay of one year is misinformation or confusion.

My stirring the pot comment was mainly about the WVHS issue. I have chosen to try and educate those who feel that way about Waubonsie. Brought a few nay sayers who had never stepped foot inside the building to the Fine Arts Festival....

I choose not to lend any credence to the few ( and I think they are vocal, but not a majority in any area) that feel that way about WVHS....some will never be changed and I could care less about them. Others just need to get a view of what it really is. I brought relatives that were negative towards WVHS ( wife's relatives as some I don't want to claim- LOL ) - to the Hill Middle School talent show in WVHS auditorium......and found you can change some opinions...especially when they were not based on anything but hearsay....

[chicoryowl]

wvhsparent said:

chicoryowl said:

I'm sorry to pile on, but I think to raise the red flag at this point is very premature. Court proceedings take time. I don't sense that this is proceeding any slower than the SD anticipated.

And suggestions of moving to a new parcel ignore the realities of the situation that there are limited parcels available, the parcels examined previously were deemed not as attractive, and that a referendum was held to build the high school at the BB site, not a different one. The SD can't just snap their fingers and decide to build the HS someplace else.

While I don't want to cause a big stir... the ref was for a 3rd HS. Nowhere on my ballot did it state location.
I guess a lot of people, myself included would love to have somewhat of an idea on what their timetable is.

I would agree with you technically that the ballot simply stated floating $125K in bonds to build a HS. However, there were a number of items underpinning that simple statement (boundaries, location, amenties of new school, restructuring of debt, etc.) that weren't articulated on the ballot.

I have limited experience with the legal system and I don't know the exact timetable the board has in mind. If you have a concern about whether we're falling off the timetable, I would e-mail Mark Metzger and ask him. Based on what I've seen, he'll give you a full, thorough, detailed, thoughtful answer.

[wvhsparent]

You are correct; I could contact M2 and ask and I shall, however I assume I am not the only one with these questions/concerns. It would be advantageous for the SD to provide the info to the public at regular intervals, instead of waiting till asked.
Would also go far to improve their standing with us regular folk.

[momthreekids]

WVHSparent-I couldn't agree more with you. I feel the SB fails to communicate well with the public and updates on the court proceedings is a great idea!! We should not have to ask for this info. and I bet M2 would be a great one to explain it to the public so we can understand.

[bob]

I have a feeling that the SB can't comment on the proceedings. Lawyers wouldn't want their clients to comment on current proceedings.

[bob]

So I have been doing some research and talking to my corporate lawyer who pointed me to a real estate lawyer friend. Here is I have learned.

BB filed a traverse which is saying the SD didn't follow the rules and haven't shown a need for the land. People use a traverse to cause the following three possible things
1)It slows down proceeding hoping that the gov't body will pay a higher price
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.

So we are currently in this traverse argument, the condemnation suit cannot start until this is resolved.

The SD motions were denied were because they were not relevant to the traverse but are relevant to the condemnation.

The Gov't agency could use BB delay tactics against itself with motions showing how BB delays are harming student's education.

The RE lawyer also stated that this is very typical in a condemnation suit.

I am going to sleep now. It has been an educational day.