|
|
Post by blankcheck on Jul 12, 2007 7:07:49 GMT -6
How much of a buffer? 15-20M is a lot of buffer that they would need. There are also two more experts for BB that have to be deposed. Lets see now - we have 2 people for 204 and 8 for BB? And ya really want this quick take to go through?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 12, 2007 7:09:45 GMT -6
Dist. 204 land dispute heats up He says Crouse initially set the price without independent advice from real estate appraisers, then hired two appraisers who agreed with him. Metzger adamantly denies the claim. “They’re just dead wrong about that,” he said. “They always have been. There are a number of things they’ve made up about the case as it’s gone along.” The price of the land is based on the value of the property when the condemnation suit began in December 2005, not today’s value, Metzger said. The district purchased its 25 acres in 2005 for $257,000 an acre. Metzger said the price was higher than market value at the time but the deal came with an agreement that the district would then be able to purchase the remaining 55 acres. /quote] It IS NOT what the property is worth today, it is what it was worth then. If we would have approved the firs treferendum it is what it would have sold for. Notice BB does not mention the comps at the time....do we just ignore them ? Also where is mention of the land that old rightnext to the property, or the Lehigh station land which sold for less....... but as long as it is a message for the nay sayers....hey, let's go with the BB attorneys because we know they are truthful and have the areas' best interest at heart. Give me a break. I just hope the bull they are pulling costs them enough credibility wise.... |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 12, 2007 7:12:12 GMT -6
How much of a buffer? 15-20M is a lot of buffer that they would need. There are also two more experts for BB that have to be deposed. Lets see now - we have 2 people for 204 and 8 for BB? And ya really want this quick take to go through? And again - the comps count for nothing ? You may take the word of the realtors - who have their lobbyist group trying to hold things up -- but sorry, I do not. I see exactly what Lehigh station and the plot of land along Ogden sold for -- I'll take the hard proof over some realtors opinion any time -- look at the statements - it is one of the last pieces of land left ( for us to make money on ) - - well this case goes back a few years for the settlement, it is not current day. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 12, 2007 7:12:46 GMT -6
How much of a buffer? 15-20M is a lot of buffer that they would need. There are also two more experts for BB that have to be deposed. Lets see now - we have 2 people for 204 and 8 for BB? And ya really want this quick take to go through? Well I guess we can go out and hire more guys to appraise for our side if we really wanted. Appraisals are biased by the person who side their on. IMO, you one has to look at what same property comps have gone for during that time. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 12, 2007 7:15:23 GMT -6
I read the same thing this morning. How arrogant. Sounds like M2 is taking lessons from Blago. "Our data is better than their data"? Worst case scenario, we can afford it so it doesn't matter?? WHAT? It doesn't matter? To whom does it not matter M2? If any of those appraised reports for BB is what they settle on, it could cost the district anywhere from 15.8 M to 20.7 M more than what they thought. And we can afford it? And another attack on M2 -- nice. He is the guy trying to get the schools kids housed here in 2009 -- but let's make him out to be the bad guy, that makes sense. And the attorneys for BB again are just wonderful people looking out for your best interests -- |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 12, 2007 7:16:40 GMT -6
How much of a buffer? 15-20M is a lot of buffer that they would need. There are also two more experts for BB that have to be deposed. Lets see now - we have 2 people for 204 and 8 for BB? And ya really want this quick take to go through? Well I guess we can go out and hire more guys to appraise for our side if we really wanted. Appraisals are biased by the person who side their on. IMO, you one has to look at what same property comps have gone for during that time. why do that ? the realtors say they 'know' it is worth a lot more. A time lined comp sale -- pshaw...irrelevant  |
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jul 12, 2007 7:17:11 GMT -6
I remember when quick-take was first presented to the SB and the public at an informational SB meeting. The BB attorneys were then and that is when the 400K and 600K numbers were first mentioned publically.
I was looking over my notes from that meeting and the comps that were mentioned had absolutely no comparison to the land we are trying to buy.
One parcel was an 11 acre parcel in Winfield on which there are million dollar homes being built. Another is Walnut Ridge, the former 203 school site. It's wooded, secluded and also has million dollar homes going up on it. The third was Timber Trails golf course in Cook County. Rolling hills, 100 year old oak trees. Sounds just like a bean field in Aurora.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 12, 2007 7:21:19 GMT -6
How much of a buffer? 15-20M is a lot of buffer that they would need. There are also two more experts for BB that have to be deposed. Lets see now - we have 2 people for 204 and 8 for BB? And ya really want this quick take to go through? You can e-mail David Holm and ask him but likely they are not going to release exact figures while negotiating.... but why trust the financial group here who have gotten 204 to the highest state rating available ? I am sure M2 has been lockstep with them on this. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 12, 2007 7:21:31 GMT -6
I am also very disturbed by by MM's Comment Metzger said he isn’t worried about getting locked into whatever price the jury sets.
“I don’t believe there’s much risk of it being an out-of-control number in the first place,” he said. “Our data is better than their data. Even if it’s the worst case scenario, we can afford it so it doesn’t matter.”Worse case senario is now 756k/Acre........  While I also think that is way out of line...it's now out there...... |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 12, 2007 7:21:49 GMT -6
Does anyone here believe either side would use appraisal that wouldn't benefit their side?
Could you see BB saying, let's use the guy who says the land is worth $285? And the opposite could be said for the SD.
Also, if the tracts of land were worth that much why was Macom willing to sell their land in the $300-$375k range.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Jul 12, 2007 7:24:19 GMT -6
I am also very disturbed by by MM's Comment Metzger said he isn’t worried about getting locked into whatever price the jury sets.
“I don’t believe there’s much risk of it being an out-of-control number in the first place,” he said. “Our data is better than their data. Even if it’s the worst case scenario, we can afford it so it doesn’t matter.”Worse case senario is now 756k/Acre........ While I also think that is way out of line...it's now out there...... Ditto here. And to me, it goes against previous statements made by the board in which the range in which "we could afford" was nowhere near as high as the worst case scenarios presented in that article. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 12, 2007 7:24:52 GMT -6
“I don’t believe there’s much risk of it being an out-of-control number in the first place,” he said. “Our data is better than their data. Even if it’s the worst case scenario, we can afford it so it doesn’t matter.” Second to last paragraph. It jumped out to me as being a very strange comment as well. Did they not say there was a buffer built into the referendum, or are we just choosing to overlook that statement, made many times ? IIRC while at several of the SB Meetings, they mentioned how they were keeping all "buffers" at a lower level than normal, to contain costs, which I took as meaning they really do not have a lot of wiggle room. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 12, 2007 7:26:23 GMT -6
I think the MM means the SD worst case sceanrio not BB best case scenario. Meaning that the SD has a range of prices and their worst case scenario is still affordable.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 12, 2007 7:27:30 GMT -6
Dist. 204 land dispute heats up He says Crouse initially set the price without independent advice from real estate appraisers, then hired two appraisers who agreed with him. Metzger adamantly denies the claim. “They’re just dead wrong about that,” he said. “They always have been. There are a number of things they’ve made up about the case as it’s gone along.” The price of the land is based on the value of the property when the condemnation suit began in December 2005, not today’s value, Metzger said. The district purchased its 25 acres in 2005 for $257,000 an acre. Metzger said the price was higher than market value at the time but the deal came with an agreement that the district would then be able to purchase the remaining 55 acres. /quote] It IS NOT what the property is worth today, it is what it was worth then. If we would have approved the firs treferendum it is what it would have sold for. Notice BB does not mention the comps at the time....do we just ignore them ? Also where is mention of the land that old rightnext to the property, or the Lehigh station land which sold for less....... but as long as it is a message for the nay sayers....hey, let's go with the BB attorneys because we know they are truthful and have the areas' best interest at heart. Give me a break. I just hope the bull they are pulling costs them enough credibility wise.... IMHO Property values were acually higher in 2005 as the economy was better. |
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Jul 12, 2007 7:28:57 GMT -6
The Daily Herald's article appears to be slanted in favor of BB. What's with the "bullet points" on all of their so-called experts' opinions? As I was reading each one, I kept thinking "irrevelant, irrevelant, irrevelant.....", because it was clear to me that each one of them was using TODAY's information to reach their conclusion and not data from December 2005.
It's all smoke and mirrors on BB's part. The only relevant data that the jury/judge needs to use to determine the fair market price are accurate appraisals from that time period. The District has that. IMHO - by piling on with so many "expert" opinions, BB is using a "slight of hand" trick to divert our attention away from the facts of the case.
|
|
