|
|
Post by proschool on Apr 15, 2007 22:58:34 GMT -6
Someone told me that the farmer who plants the crops on the BB land didn't plant on the 55 acres. He did plant on the land the SB doesn't want to buy. Can anyone confirm? He hasn't planted at all as of today |
|
|
|
Post by sd204taxpayer on Apr 19, 2007 9:26:15 GMT -6
I originally posted this on another thread which was leading that thread off target so I have reposted here where it more aptly applies.
Hi all - first time posting here but have been following for a few months. I just wanted to point out that I think the point is being missed in this whole thread. The real issue at hand in my mind is the quick take and the potential impact on our taxes or the proposed design of MVHS. Maybe this should be a new thread and if so I hope the administrator will post as such.
Has anyone gotten a true answer from the school board as to "What if the quick take goes through and the jury finds the value to be much higher than budgeted?" From what i have followed, the school boards noncommital reply has been "We are confident that we will get it for our price." How do they know? Are they in land development? They are relying a few appraisals that they hired to have done. I'm guess BB has appraisals stating much higher values because they were hired by BB.
Personally I don't believe the price of the land will come out in the taxpayers benefit and wonder what the impact of that will be. Will it be that a smaller school will have to be built because the referendum was approved for $124M and more money will be going towards land and less to bricks and mortar? Will the taxpayers be upset with the school board if this is true thus making it harder for the operational referendum to be approved in the 2009 referendum? Will they come back with a future capital referendum for the additional land price? What will the board members responses be if they are wrong on the price? Will they blame the appraisers for the lower value that will be inaccurate when presented at trial? Will they blame HC because he will be retired when this is resolved and they need a scapegoat? What will the school board's response be if they were wrong about this? They aren't making that much money on the issued bonds to cover the potential price increase (I believe half of the bonds have been issued which would be about $70M earning about 5% with costs of about 3% leaving a return of 2% on the $70M or about $1.4M).
The thought just hit me as I started typing this - maybe the current school board members up for re-election wanted this dragged out past the election. Think about it - if it was resolved earlier and the value goes significantly against the taxpayers (I don't use school board because we the taxpayers are the ones it will truely affect) I'm rather confident that the election results would have been a little different yesterday.
I just wonder why the school board is so trusted and PL isn't. Is it because he isn't an elected official? A couple of the newly re-elected board members were appointed to the board by their fellow board members. I'm sure they see things in the same light and that is why they were appointed (are they going to appoint someone that is going to raise questions contrary to their beleifs?) The school board thought the quick take was going to be resolved by January and it is still hanging out there.
Why are people on here so eager to bash candidates that took the time to actually hear PL's side? To me they were performing the research to be better informed and open minded and prepared in case they were elected.
WE ARE THE TAXPAYERS AND ALL STONES SHOULD NOT BE LEFT UNTURNED. I just get the feeling that the "majority" people are satisfied that the school board has done their homework without having to prove the school boards side to the same extent that others are expected to prove theirs.
I'm sure i'll get slammed for being pro PL and or pro Macom but i'm a big boy and I can handle it. I will be judged by many on here without being known.
I guess the bottom line here is why isn't the controlling body (school board) scrutinized more than someone offering another idea that has no control? Let's be open minded and ask the questions that need to be asked until they are answered. When all is said and done we are on the same side - the taxpayers side
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 19, 2007 9:29:53 GMT -6
I originally posted this on another thread which was leading that thread off target so I have reposted here where it more aptly applies. Hi all - first time posting here but have been following for a few months. I just wanted to point out that I think the point is being missed in this whole thread. The real issue at hand in my mind is the quick take and the potential impact on our taxes or the proposed design of MVHS. Maybe this should be a new thread and if so I hope the administrator will post as such. Has anyone gotten a true answer from the school board as to "What if the quick take goes through and the jury finds the value to be much higher than budgeted?" From what i have followed, the school boards noncommital reply has been "We are confident that we will get it for our price." How do they know? Are they in land development? They are relying a few appraisals that they hired to have done. I'm guess BB has appraisals stating much higher values because they were hired by BB. Personally I don't believe the price of the land will come out in the taxpayers benefit and wonder what the impact of that will be. Will it be that a smaller school will have to be built because the referendum was approved for $124M and more money will be going towards land and less to bricks and mortar? Will the taxpayers be upset with the school board if this is true thus making it harder for the operational referendum to be approved in the 2009 referendum? Will they come back with a future capital referendum for the additional land price? What will the board members responses be if they are wrong on the price? Will they blame the appraisers for the lower value that will be inaccurate when presented at trial? Will they blame HC because he will be retired when this is resolved and they need a scapegoat? What will the school board's response be if they were wrong about this? They aren't making that much money on the issued bonds to cover the potential price increase (I believe half of the bonds have been issued which would be about $70M earning about 5% with costs of about 3% leaving a return of 2% on the $70M or about $1.4M). The thought just hit me as I started typing this - maybe the current school board members up for re-election wanted this dragged out past the election. Think about it - if it was resolved earlier and the value goes significantly against the taxpayers (I don't use school board because we the taxpayers are the ones it will truely affect) I'm rather confident that the election results would have been a little different yesterday. I just wonder why the school board is so trusted and PL isn't. Is it because he isn't an elected official? A couple of the newly re-elected board members were appointed to the board by their fellow board members. I'm sure they see things in the same light and that is why they were appointed (are they going to appoint someone that is going to raise questions contrary to their beleifs?) The school board thought the quick take was going to be resolved by January and it is still hanging out there. Why are people on here so eager to bash candidates that took the time to actually hear PL's side? To me they were performing the research to be better informed and open minded and prepared in case they were elected. WE ARE THE TAXPAYERS AND ALL STONES SHOULD NOT BE LEFT UNTURNED. I just get the feeling that the "majority" people are satisfied that the school board has done their homework without having to prove the school boards side to the same extent that others are expected to prove theirs. I'm sure i'll get slammed for being pro PL and or pro Macom but i'm a big boy and I can handle it. I will be judged by many on here without being known. I guess the bottom line here is why isn't the controlling body (school board) scrutinized more than someone offering another idea that has no control? Let's be open minded and ask the questions that need to be asked until they are answered. When all is said and done we are on the same side - the taxpayers side The only suggestion I may have for people that will sign on to this thread for the first time is that maybe pare out some of this -- such as the allegation on the SB members somehow in a grand conspiracy theory with the State of Illinois Executive committe among others to drag out the process -- no need to rehash some of these items again. your call |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 19, 2007 9:33:51 GMT -6
No, we are not on the same side. I am on my children's education side. Yeah, the SB wanted BB to delay the trial again and again. Then they lobbied the judge to push the trial date to Sept. And to top that off, they pleaded with the Illinois Senate to delay the vote for QT. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 19, 2007 9:34:02 GMT -6
It was also stated that putting out ALL of the information at this time is *NOT* in the best interest of the District when it comes to this court process. There is no obligation to put anything else out there and doing so could have an impact in a negative direction.
So, why this is tossed out again and posted here makes me wonder if that is your goal: To have a negative impact on the District during these process.
|
|
|
|
Post by sd204taxpayer on Apr 19, 2007 9:34:41 GMT -6
Someone told me that the farmer who plants the crops on the BB land didn't plant on the 55 acres. He did plant on the land the SB doesn't want to buy. Can anyone confirm? He hasn't planted at all as of today It's been kinda wet as of late - i'm guessing the farmers are just starting to plant their crops in general anyway |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 19, 2007 9:43:00 GMT -6
He hasn't planted at all as of today It's been kinda wet as of late - i'm guessing the farmers are just starting to plant their crops in general anyway Well the farmer did something to the land we don't want and not to the 55 acres we do and the 25 we own. |
|
|
|
Post by sd204taxpayer on Apr 19, 2007 11:13:16 GMT -6
It was also stated that putting out ALL of the information at this time is *NOT* in the best interest of the District when it comes to this court process. There is no obligation to put anything else out there and doing so could have an impact in a negative direction. So, why this is tossed out again and posted here makes me wonder if that is your goal: To have a negative impact on the District during these process. Nope - my goal is to have school board members answer what will happen if the value of the land puts them over the $124M referendum amount - lord knows they are confident in their price but I don't buy it. As a taxpayer I'm hoping that they can get the property for their offer - but on the other hand - what is Plan B if the costs exceed the $124M because we've spent more on land than expected. Answering the question doesn't impact the value of the property. Not answering the question makes taxpayers wonder why they won't answer the question. They don't comment on the question because they don't want the issue to be in the spotlight. It must be nice to be able to pick and choose what taxpayer issues to address or not address - can you do that at work? What is the answer? Blame HC? Blame the appraisers? Build a smaller school? |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Apr 19, 2007 11:19:58 GMT -6
It was also stated that putting out ALL of the information at this time is *NOT* in the best interest of the District when it comes to this court process. There is no obligation to put anything else out there and doing so could have an impact in a negative direction. So, why this is tossed out again and posted here makes me wonder if that is your goal: To have a negative impact on the District during these process. Nope - my goal is to have school board members answer what will happen if the value of the land puts them over the $124M referendum amount - lord knows they are confident in their price but I don't buy it. As a taxpayer I'm hoping that they can get the property for their offer - but on the other hand - what is Plan B if the costs exceed the $124M because we've spent more on land than expected. Answering the question doesn't impact the value of the property. Not answering the question makes taxpayers wonder why they won't answer the question. They don't comment on the question because they don't want the issue to be in the spotlight. It must be nice to be able to pick and choose what taxpayer issues to address or not address - can you do that at work? What is the answer? Blame HC? Blame the appraisers? Build a smaller school? The answer will likely be "it depends". The amount above what was initially budgeted will likely drive the outcome. The outcomes that I image span from one end being to look at another property, to the middle being something similar to NV (not initially building a gym) or finding some other cost-saving alternatives, to the other end, and having a few extra $M to cover the difference (they did state that the $124M does include a small amount of contingency). I don't know if this satifisfies you or not, but I also can't imagine the SB saying anything more at this time. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 19, 2007 11:30:09 GMT -6
It was also stated that putting out ALL of the information at this time is *NOT* in the best interest of the District when it comes to this court process. There is no obligation to put anything else out there and doing so could have an impact in a negative direction. So, why this is tossed out again and posted here makes me wonder if that is your goal: To have a negative impact on the District during these process. Nope - my goal is to have school board members answer what will happen if the value of the land puts them over the $124M referendum amount - lord knows they are confident in their price but I don't buy it. As a taxpayer I'm hoping that they can get the property for their offer - but on the other hand - what is Plan B if the costs exceed the $124M because we've spent more on land than expected. Answering the question doesn't impact the value of the property. Not answering the question makes taxpayers wonder why they won't answer the question. They don't comment on the question because they don't want the issue to be in the spotlight. It must be nice to be able to pick and choose what taxpayer issues to address or not address - can you do that at work? What is the answer? Blame HC? Blame the appraisers? Build a smaller school? Welcome to life. You're not going to get all the answers you want when you want them. You're also not always going to get the answers that you want to hear. The majority of the taxpayers who bothered to vote left the incumbents in. Their decision (for various reasons already stated) is to not put forth any other information about much else other than the task at hand until it is exhausted. You can feel free to wonder why all you want but the most likely answer is that NOW is not the proper time nor place to go down those other roads because of the ball still in play. When we are at that bridge, yes there definitely better be other plans in place but we are not there yet. You don't frost the cookie sheet before you've baked the cookies. There is an order, time and place for everything. |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Apr 19, 2007 11:31:39 GMT -6
There is no way a SB member can call themselves fiscally responsible but support QT. Above quote was from diff thread...but I will bring it here. I do not see QT as being fiscally irresponsible. Here is why I support quick take: I disagree with premise that QT will lead us to "overpay". We will NOT overpay, we will pay fair market value. Sure, ideally, that value is determined by a willing seller and a willing buyer. But, in this case, it may come down to an alternative way of determining fair market value--a judge and jury. From a property-rights point of view, its only just to pay fair market value. Too little is not fair to the land owners in condemnation situation. Too much is not fair to the taxpayers. Sure, all of us here are taxpayers and none of us here are the land owners in this case, so we all are rooting for a low price. But a court-imposed low ball price is not right from a legal justice point of view, even if you and I personally benefit financially. There is another angle that to me greatly reduces the "taking a risk" aspect of QT . Once fair market value is established for BB (perhaps by jury trial)....what is the approximate selling price of land in 204 that is suitable for building a high school? The value set during the BB trial! If you are owners of land for Plan B, C, etc....what price are you going to ask the SD for your land? It will be quite close to what was established as "fair market value" for BB! BB has been selected as the optimal land. We will pay fair market value for this property. Backup plans will lead to similar prices for other land (the sellers would be fools otherwise) yet with expected additional costs as well due to their being less-than-optimal. We should trust the system to provide a just price. (Just like we trust the system if we are accused of a crime). We should hope that the board did their homework and budgeted correctly for land value. To a high degree of probablity, I think they did. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 19, 2007 11:47:19 GMT -6
It was also stated that putting out ALL of the information at this time is *NOT* in the best interest of the District when it comes to this court process. There is no obligation to put anything else out there and doing so could have an impact in a negative direction. So, why this is tossed out again and posted here makes me wonder if that is your goal: To have a negative impact on the District during these process. Nope - my goal is to have school board members answer what will happen if the value of the land puts them over the $124M referendum amount - lord knows they are confident in their price but I don't buy it. As a taxpayer I'm hoping that they can get the property for their offer - but on the other hand - what is Plan B if the costs exceed the $124M because we've spent more on land than expected. Answering the question doesn't impact the value of the property. Not answering the question makes taxpayers wonder why they won't answer the question. They don't comment on the question because they don't want the issue to be in the spotlight. It must be nice to be able to pick and choose what taxpayer issues to address or not address - can you do that at work? What is the answer? Blame HC? Blame the appraisers? Build a smaller school? it seems to me usually all answers are not given to everyone regardless of consequences such as if a trial is going on, or some variables can change. mentioning work - for anyone" ask you employer exactly what your pension will be upon retirement - see what perfect answer you get. ask the Social security administration exactly what your check will be when you decide to take it and tell them it better not differ ask your insruance company what your premiums will be in 2009 - I am sure they have that readily available and will guarantee it what the guaranteed rate on your credit cards for 2010? I am sure all these companies know - they just won't tell us.  this discussion seems to have run it's course ....it is obvious, you think the SB is fiscally irresponsible ( not living up to their fiduciary responsibilites - there that's more like the standard line) - they were in collusion with other state entities and attorneys for BB to ensure QT dragged on past the election for their own personal gains, and the MACOM people have all the answers just waiting for us and can all be resolved in 6 weeks as we have read. We get it.....duly noted. If the majority of voters ( taxpayers ) in the district felt that way they would have ambled out and voted such on Tuesday.. they did not. Is there some risk in QT - absolutely. If there was an alternative on the table what worked better for all people in this district would I consdier it - sure - but there is NOT. Are most of us ( and the last I checked we were taxpayers also) - willing to look at the facts at hand, assess the probable outcome and take that risk also -it appears so. If that makes us irresponsible or stupid by your measuring stick, than so be it. |
|
|
|
Post by sd204taxpayer on Apr 19, 2007 14:19:52 GMT -6
drwho,
i guess i see why you side with the school district. It seems like you are willing to wait to see what the outcome is before starting to plan for contingencies. I don't think that is the fiscally responsible approach but everyone is allowed to have their own opinion.
To me you fall into the sb's trap of if we don't answer it will just go away and we will just hope we get it for our price.
For all the taxpayers sake I hope that approach works - if the price is too high the taxpayers will be all over the sb as to why wasn't this addressed sooner.
If they start constuction in June and the land comes in too high and the building needs to be changed, I would think it brings a delay to the project and higher costs - stop construction - revise plans - hope the weather is good enough to pick up before winter sets in and hope the school can be completed on time and that the taxpayers vote for the operating cost referendum even though they'll feel betrayed by the sb.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 19, 2007 14:23:18 GMT -6
Love the backhanded comment. You have no idea if there is a Plan B,C or D.
If it comes in too high there is always Macom's site. That site won't be ready until after Sept.
$330K for Macoms 65 acres = $390k for 55 acres at BB.
Sd why don't you lay out your reasons what is too high for BB, what price do you think will be fair price and your reasoning behind it? Some people keep on posting that BB is going to get the sky from the judge/ jury and I am interested where that logic is coming from.
We have the comps from both BB and the SD so this should be easy.
Please remember that the BB land is zoned HD family.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 19, 2007 14:34:02 GMT -6
I would think that there probably exists the knowledge or knowhow about scaling in construction so that no delay and 'back to square one' condition has to happen. The weather will be what the weather is, regardless of the price. Mother Nature really doesn't care about our leafy greens in the budget.
If the people feel betrayed by anyone it would be the ones who have tried to block and delay this passage of the referendum to build it in the first place and those who keep wishing to throw every monkey wrench into the process that they can. I don't believe the majority of the public out there sees the SB as being solely responsible for where we sit. If they did, Tuesdays results would have been DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT.
|
|
