|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Jan 11, 2007 9:18:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by cantretirehere on Jan 11, 2007 9:21:24 GMT -6
It seems that BB could sit on that land forever. They already have. I don't think it bothers them in the slightest that they could eventually hold empty land in a housing downturn. They would just hold it until it is the last open land in this whole area, then make a mint.
I think it is possible that this may be more likely to force the district's hand. How might a jury or whoever decides the land price be prejudiced by the knowledge that the district was offered land at a price that they were willing to pay and then refused it?
As for the district counter offering macom with a lower amount, sounds like HC and JC may have already told macom to 'go to hell'.
I think we can be pretty sure that macom has now revealed the offer to the press so that the public can apply pressure to the district to take him up. If the district decides to buy his land and cut BB as a loss, then macom laughs all the way to the bank.
Just a thought: Boundary issues aside, would it be so bad for macom to laugh all the way to the bank if the 3rd HS is built in a timely manner and on budget?
Also wondering: Was there anything on the referendum that specifically stated that the land that the HS was to be built on needed to be the BB property? Or did they just ask for funds for a 3rd HS without any specifics as to location?
|
|
|
|
Post by cantretirehere on Jan 11, 2007 9:23:10 GMT -6
AE - in the article Lehman said that he lost contracts when the boundaries determined that ashwood would go to WV, so I think he knows |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 11, 2007 9:25:35 GMT -6
Perhaps Macom should donate the land??? And if they do, let's not change any boundaries. Even the current boundary plan does not send every student to their nearest HS. not having to go thru that again would make it an easier sell if it came down to that.....also would weed out those just rasing a fuss again because they are unhappy over the current boundary plan more than anything else. Of the would be 4 Naperville HS's - in 203 and 204 , my daughter went to the one furthest from our home -- WVHS - so you are right, it has never been set as to being the closest. If Matea was located at 95th - Neuqua Valley would again become the closest school to my home, and I would be more than glad to still attend Matea there. But I am still hopefull for BB. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 11, 2007 9:27:01 GMT -6
AE - in the article Lehman said that he lost contracts when the boundaries determined that ashwood would go to WV, so I think he knows he can thank the negative bull thrown out by some groups of people about WVHS ( most of which have never set foot in the school) for that.....if indeed that was the cause and not the housing slowdown itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Jan 11, 2007 9:28:38 GMT -6
AE - in the article Lehman said that he lost contracts when the boundaries determined that ashwood would go to WV, so I think he knows Yes, thank you. But my point is that he should at least have updated his website sometime since this happened, over 2 years ago. Also, it is obvious that he is might be trying to throw a wrench into things by doing this out of his bitterness of that previous SB decision. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 11, 2007 9:29:35 GMT -6
Perhaps Macom should donate the land??? And if they do, let's not change any boundaries. Even the current boundary plan does not send every student to their nearest HS. There will need to be SOME tweaking to the boundaries. Now Howies subdivision of Longwood (North end next to Brookdale) would have to go back to WVHS. Hmmm we need Topher and proschool to comeback and do a revised boundary study. It would almost be like everything n/o Ogden goes to WVHS and everything south to the other 2. I think I am going to need a box of wine.......  |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 11, 2007 9:30:05 GMT -6
It seems that BB could sit on that land forever. They already have. I don't think it bothers them in the slightest that they could eventually hold empty land in a housing downturn. They would just hold it until it is the last open land in this whole area, then make a mint. I think it is possible that this may be more likely to force the district's hand. How might a jury or whoever decides the land price be prejudiced by the knowledge that the district was offered land at a price that they were willing to pay and then refused it? As for the district counter offering macom with a lower amount, sounds like HC and JC may have already told macom to 'go to hell'. I think we can be pretty sure that macom has now revealed the offer to the press so that the public can apply pressure to the district to take him up. If the district decides to buy his land and cut BB as a loss, then macom laughs all the way to the bank. Just a thought: Boundary issues aside, would it be so bad for macom to laugh all the way to the bank if the 3rd HS is built in a timely manner and on budget? Also wondering: Was there anything on the referendum that specifically stated that the land that the HS was to be built on needed to be the BB property? Or did they just ask for funds for a 3rd HS without any specifics as to location? the jury may be more prejudiced that BB was being unfair as now another developer has estimated 95 acres of land in the same area for approx the oiffer the SB has made...makes that offer look even more fair now. I hope by coming forward it might break the logjam, but not as Macom would have liked it to. I would still love to hear his reconciliation of how he things BB is worth almot 3 times his land... that would be a great fairy tale. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 11, 2007 9:30:29 GMT -6
Also wondering: Was there anything on the referendum that specifically stated that the land that the HS was to be built on needed to be the BB property? Or did they just ask for funds for a 3rd HS without any specifics as to location? No, the language of what passed did not lock the SB into a specific piece of land, so it could be done per what was already approved. Feasibility of the site is another issue entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by cantretirehere on Jan 11, 2007 9:30:48 GMT -6
was macom involved in the development of WE? I seem to remember that it was. If so, they were the ones to dis WV to begin with. And also, if so, it seems to have turned around and bit them in the a$$.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204taxpayer on Jan 11, 2007 9:31:52 GMT -6
Also wondering: Was there anything on the referendum that specifically stated that the land that the HS was to be built on needed to be the BB property? Or did they just ask for funds for a 3rd HS without any specifics as to location? As I recall, CTH, the ballot did not specifically list BB as the property; the language was silent as to property ID. The referendum asked for permission to borrow money for land and to build a third high school. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 11, 2007 9:32:08 GMT -6
I just checked Yahoo Maps. There are some big powerlines to move, same one that cross behind NV
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 11, 2007 9:33:36 GMT -6
I just checked Yahoo Maps. There are some big powerlines to move, same one that cross behind NV He's willing to pay for that too? |
|
|
|
Post by cantretirehere on Jan 11, 2007 9:35:13 GMT -6
There will need to be SOME tweaking to the boundaries. Now Howies subdivision of Longwood (North end next to Brookdale) would have to go back to WVHS Ah ha. now we know the 'ulterior motive' spoken about earlier. HC shouldn't care if his 'hood goes to WV. It is a perfectly fine school. Sheesh - not this again! If this is his motive for not considering or negotiating a macom deal then is there some way we can boot him without a pension??? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 11, 2007 9:38:30 GMT -6
I wouldn't worry about Howie. I would worry about JC.
Wait. If the powerlines have to be moved that means he doesn't own the land the power lines are on. Kinda like that big space that separates Tallgrass in to two. Would we have to buy that land and from whom?
|
|
