|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jan 19, 2007 20:14:17 GMT -6
Worse yet, you take part of the Macom land, and then get sued for the damage to the remainder (I forget the legal name of that, but it was an issue with Wagner Farms).
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jan 19, 2007 20:15:49 GMT -6
It's our right to question. I'll just leave it at that. And just to be clear, I define your rights, here on this board.  |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Jan 19, 2007 20:17:50 GMT -6
Welcome Back Eagle - Going to answer my question?
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jan 19, 2007 20:18:50 GMT -6
RE: The 30 acres that macom gave to the park district.
A couple of years ago Macom swapped park district land that was along route 59 for land in Sector G. He developed the Route 59 land commercailly (big profit) and placed the park in his own development (sweet).
Does anyone know if the land they swapped is the same land that they want for the school?
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 19, 2007 20:21:10 GMT -6
Yes, it is the same land he now is trying to get back from the NPD.
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jan 19, 2007 20:21:46 GMT -6
Worse yet, you take part of the Macom land, and then get sued for the damage to the remainder (I forget the legal name of that, but it was an issue with Wagner Farms). Macom is selling the land voluntarily so they will not be entitled to damage to the remainder. But there may be an issue with damage the remainder for the Comm Ed property and the park district property. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jan 19, 2007 20:22:14 GMT -6
Eagle- "Just to be clear" - why so defensive about Macom not donating to 204thekids? I really wasn't intending to come off as defensive. We were posting at the same time (there was like 4 posts in five minutes). I was trying to make sure everyone was on the same page as you brought up the donation of Macom to the referendum without being clear that it was in 2001, not in 2006. I didn't want people left with the wrong impression, that Macom was a backer of 204theKids and the 3rd high school last year when they weren't. Left without comment someone could have read it that way. Sorry if it seemed defensive. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 19, 2007 20:22:47 GMT -6
Welcome Back Eagle - Going to answer my question? BC if your question was why did it take til Jan for the offer to become known...That is what we all would love to know. The SB is not saying. Most of us are peeved about that too. I hope I am not assuming too much for the group.... |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jan 19, 2007 20:25:19 GMT -6
Not assuming for me, I'm a little miffed on that myself (but the safety guards are still on the pitchfork  ) |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 19, 2007 20:25:52 GMT -6
The factual problems with the SW site. I call it the SW site and not the Macom site because Macom does not own all of the land.
1) Power Lines and the land under it
2) More than one owner
3) One half of land is in unincorporated Will County which means water ,sewage and run off problems.This also includes the land under the power lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Jan 19, 2007 20:26:18 GMT -6
So, why did they not donate this time around? Since you were so involved in the process?
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 19, 2007 20:27:31 GMT -6
I believe the reason they didn't tell us is because they rejected it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 19, 2007 20:28:24 GMT -6
So, why did they not donate this time around? Since you were so involved in the process? Macom was mad at their development being put in the WVHS boundary. That is the only thing that changed between 05 and 06. |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jan 19, 2007 20:31:21 GMT -6
So, why did they not donate this time around? Since you were so involved in the process? But you haven't answered my question about the Brail on the drive up ATM machines either. |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Jan 19, 2007 20:31:25 GMT -6
I'll bet that was a heated meeting between Macom and the SB. Sorry-something is just not right here - not sure what it is. For all these years you have developers and builder donating to campaigns then poof their gone?
|
|
)