|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 12, 2007 7:30:25 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. possibly, but the 756k figure is now out there...and that really unsettles me. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 12, 2007 7:31:04 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. And we have land sales when we filed. Lehigh Station, the lot across from BB and the townhomes near Rt 59 and North Aurora. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 12, 2007 7:32:42 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. possibly, but the 756k figure is now out there...and that really unsettles me. Show me a $756 comp sale for comaprable land. They didn't even sell corner lot to Costco for that price. (I think it was $550K) |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 12, 2007 7:33:32 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...... but 756 has nothing to do with the timeframe the $$ is set is it. If someone comes out and says the land is worth $10,000,000 an acre does that become the worst case scenario... |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 12, 2007 7:33:39 GMT -6
This is the only one warning......harry, macy, and bob....
keep it civil and on topic or you will be enjoying a weeks suspension.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 12, 2007 7:34:26 GMT -6
I think the MM means the SD worst case sceanrio not BB best case scenario. Meaning that the SD has a range of prices and their worst case scenario is still affordable. possibly, but the 756k figure is now out there...and that really unsettles me. and the judge in Washington DC recently sued a cleaners for $10M for ruining his pants -- sometimes numbers are just baloney |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 12, 2007 7:34:30 GMT -6
I am also very disturbed by by MM's Comment Metzger said he isn’t worried about getting locked into whatever price the jury sets.
“I don’t believe there’s much risk of it being an out-of-control number in the first place,” he said. “Our data is better than their data. Even if it’s the worst case scenario, we can afford it so it doesn’t matter.”Worse case senario is now 756k/Acre........ While I also think that is way out of line...it's now out there...... but 756 has nothing to do with the timeframe the $$ is set is it. If someone comes out and says the land is worth $10,000,000 an acre does that become the worst case scenario... If they have something to back it up....yes it does.....IMHO |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 12, 2007 7:36:29 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. The DH slanted against the 204 SB -- unfortunately not a news flash there. The only thing they're missing is their usual quote from a SB member. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 12, 2007 7:37:04 GMT -6
but 756 has nothing to do with the timeframe the $$ is set is it. If someone comes out and says the land is worth $10,000,000 an acre does that become the worst case scenario... If they have something to back it up....yes it does.....IMHO Let's dig up the comps again. From Bubba Gump The SD comps were Lehigh Station and the lot across from BB. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 12, 2007 7:39:38 GMT -6
Once again, if that land was worth $550-750k then there is no way Macom would offer theirs for in the $300k range.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 12, 2007 7:44:49 GMT -6
That 75th and Beebe concerns me...that one is fairly close, and as stated ED HAS to use Highest and best use for valuations.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Jul 12, 2007 7:48:43 GMT -6
This is the only one warning......harry, macy, and bob.... keep it civil and on topic or you will be enjoying a weeks suspension. Thank you. What the heck did I do that deserved a warning? Could you please point it out to me? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 12, 2007 7:49:21 GMT -6
I believe that one has frontage on two busy streets and zoned commercial.
If I remember right, those comps only use one high density zoned area (Rt59 and Goudy , Naperville 328k/acre)
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 12, 2007 7:51:48 GMT -6
Sorry about that, wvhsparent.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 12, 2007 7:53:44 GMT -6
sorry macy you are right......I just saw your name in a msg from harry....you are fine.
|
|
