|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 20, 2007 12:50:30 GMT -6
I don't blame the IAR - in general I think they are against all things eminent domain. I always love the irony of absolutes. I'm sure the IAR people use roads that acquired land by eminent domain. It's like the anti-tax people who travel via those same roads or use services funded by tax dollars. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 20, 2007 12:54:07 GMT -6
Why is the IAR so against quick take? Is it the fact that the land is zoned residential? I was surprised that these folks really are taking a stance like this. Anybody have thoughts on this? ETA - also found this on their site. A "follow the money" analysis says they may be upset missing out on commissions.... ============================================ Eminent Domain/Takings
We strongly believe in the right of the individual to own real property without the fear of a government taking. We oppose the taking of private property without just compensation. We oppose the widespread use of the power of eminent domain, and encourage government policies and programs which encourage the acquisition of property by purchase on the open market rather than by condemnation.
We generally oppose the use of “quick-take” condemnation as a means of acquiring property, as this form of obtaining property is inherently unfair to the property owner. We do, however, recognize that extraordinary circumstances may, on rare occasion, necessitate the rapid acquisition of property by government. Legislation which authorizes rapid acquisition of property by government should be narrowly drawn to limit the timeframe and specify the purpose for the acquisition.I don't blame the IAR - in general I think they are against all things eminent domain. Yeah, they basically say that in the quote  I'm just wondering what their motivation in this particular case is. Do they fully realize the situation, or is it a "one size fits all" statement? They talk about "the right of the individual to own real property," but do they realize that this is an estate? Why wouldn't this fall under their "extraordinary circumstances" clause? I keep coming back to money. The land is worth alot, properties located on the land will be worth more, and the comissions on those properties changing hands several times over the years is mega millions. I think that is the real motivation. |
|
|
|
Post by chicoryowl on Apr 20, 2007 12:57:33 GMT -6
hey ric and sd204taxpayer, Can you please tell us the purpose of your continued posts here? to take out your anger about the 06 and 07 election results? to show us how many of us on this board are stupid & naive (and how much smarter and savvy you are)? to tell us how horrible 204 is and how horrible the SB is? just to be contrarian? to tell us all how we're not fiscally responsible & you're as mad as hell about it? to try to work us all up in a frenzy worried about 100 'what if' scenarios? Do you think that posting the same thing over and over and over and over will accomplish something tangible? If so, you're the one that's stupid & naive. You're not going to change anyone's mind, nor are you actually getting anything accomplished in the district - once you've achieved something for 204, give us a call. my purpose here is to point out that the sb is rolling the dice on the value of the property and the taxpayers expense - they are confident and so is BB. I believe the cost will come in somewhere in the middle which will blow the $124m referendum. I am active, i do my best to stay informed, and i go out and vote. How do you know that BB is confident? I think they're just throwing out the highest numbers they could conceive to get people all worked up. Have they even presented comps? What makes you think the amount will be somewhere in the middle? And is it conceivable to you that the SB has budgeted more for the price of land than their offer? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 20, 2007 12:59:59 GMT -6
May we see see your logic behind your middle price guess? Also, what is your middle price guess? Is it between BB $335K comp of HD housing and The SD $256?
|
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 20, 2007 13:07:43 GMT -6
May we see see your logic behind your middle price guess? Also, what is your middle price guess? Is it between BB $335K comp of HD housing and The SD $256? Or, please explain why the comps presented here, placing the value at $250k/acre, are wrong. www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_14240_1.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by sd204taxpayer on Apr 20, 2007 13:33:51 GMT -6
my purpose here is to point out that the sb is rolling the dice on the value of the property and the taxpayers expense - they are confident and so is BB. I believe the cost will come in somewhere in the middle which will blow the $124m referendum. I am active, i do my best to stay informed, and i go out and vote. It is conceivable to a point - but if the value is dramatically higher then i'm sure the total cost of MTVS will exceed the $124 referendum approved by the taxpayers How do you know that BB is confident? I think they're just throwing out the highest numbers they could conceive to get people all worked up. Have they even presented comps? What makes you think the amount will be somewhere in the middle? And is it conceivable to you that the SB has budgeted more for the price of land than their offer? I'm sure both sides (sb & BB) are exagerating their values to a point - usually a value comes in somewhere in the middle when mediated It is conceivable to a point - but if the value is dramatically higher then i'm sure the total cost of MTVS will exceed the $124 referendum approved by the taxpayers |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 20, 2007 13:37:40 GMT -6
It is conceivable to a point - but if the value is dramatically higher then i'm sure the total cost of MTVS will exceed the $124 referendum approved by the taxpayers How do you know that BB is confident? I think they're just throwing out the highest numbers they could conceive to get people all worked up. Have they even presented comps? What makes you think the amount will be somewhere in the middle? And is it conceivable to you that the SB has budgeted more for the price of land than their offer? I'm sure both sides (sb & BB) are exagerating their values to a point - usually a value comes in somewhere in the middle when mediated It is conceivable to a point - but if the value is dramatically higher then i'm sure the total cost of MTVS will exceed the $124 referendum approved by the taxpayers It comes in at FMV, not in the middle. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 20, 2007 13:40:01 GMT -6
They can't be exagerating the values because they are using sale prices.
BB seems to reaching in trying to improve their price by using retail corner lots on busy intersections and plots that are not even close to the BB site.
BB's biggest problem is the Lehigh Station sale.
|
|
|
|
Post by sd204taxpayer on Apr 20, 2007 13:51:05 GMT -6
yeah - but a couple of them were appointed by the current board members - doesn't seem independent to me. They obviously would apoint potential members that share their same opinions. Kind of puts the sb in the same state as the state of IL with the Dems controlling everything. Which ones were appointed? Because I think they were all voted into their position. weren't bradshaw and tyle appointed their last term? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 20, 2007 13:52:34 GMT -6
Which ones were appointed? Because I think they were all voted into their position. weren't bradshaw and tyle appointed their last term? That was their last term. The whole board has now been elected by the voters. |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Apr 20, 2007 13:52:52 GMT -6
They can't be exagerating the values because they are using sale prices. BB seems to reaching in trying to improve their price by using retail corner lots on busy intersections and plots that are not even close to the BB site. BB's biggest problem is the Lehigh Station sale. And don't forget that Lehigh Station and BB are both in Aurora - I point this out because sometimes it seems that having a Naperville address adds cost/value to the price of a house. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 20, 2007 13:57:50 GMT -6
Which ones were appointed? Because I think they were all voted into their position. weren't bradshaw and tyle appointed their last term? They were elected by the voters last Tuesday. If the voters wanted them out, they would have been out and someone else would have been in. But, that's not how it transpired. |
|
|
|
Post by driven on Apr 20, 2007 14:28:51 GMT -6
weren't bradshaw and tyle appointed their last term? They were elected by the voters last Tuesday. If the voters wanted them out, they would have been out and someone else would have been in. But, that's not how it transpired. Absolutely. We all agree that the voters were pretty apathetic this time around. I am sure with a referendum on the ballot the turnout will be much better in 2009. Not to mention that is also when the most controversial SB members come up for re-election. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 20, 2007 14:33:24 GMT -6
They were elected by the voters last Tuesday. If the voters wanted them out, they would have been out and someone else would have been in. But, that's not how it transpired. Absolutely. We all agree that the voters were pretty apathetic this time around. I am sure with a referendum on the ballot the turnout will be much better in 2009. Not to mention that is also when the most controversial SB members come up for re-election. Hopefully then too the people will see what's for the good of the district and do the right thing again. |
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Apr 20, 2007 16:18:29 GMT -6
I believe overall turnout from Dupage was around 25% - not quite as much as last spring with the ref on the ballot (iirc that was in the low 30's) but much higher than the last sb election w/o a ref in '03. We are moving in the right direction. www.qualityeducation203.org/index.shtmlVote totals in '07 Bradshaw 4676 Metzger 4218 Tyle 3173 Davis 2766 Vote totals in '03 - the last non-ref year - with fewer names on the ballot INDIAN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT 204 The top three vote-getters will serve four-year terms. 71 of 71 precincts x Mark Metzger (I) 2,470 Jeff Davis (I) 1,755 x Diane Loosbrock 2,838 Chuck Kern 2,076 x Bruce Rodman 2,277 |
|
