|
|
Post by macy on Aug 22, 2007 8:28:17 GMT -6
Does anyone else find it interesting that the Naperville Sun chose not to print anything about the pre-trial motions and court date last week? The Daily Herald printed it on Saturday but I'm not sure that many read it. In fact, I saw it here on this pro-board only. Say what you want about the paper not being able to print everything but I consider not printing it irresponsible journalism. Tell me our 204 community wouldn't need or want to know the delay tactics that BB attorneys are trying to use (separating into two trials, moving venue, etc.)? This is extremely important news. Unfortunately, I feel the Sun often chooses to align itself with the SD and somehow feeds the community the information they want. I would cancel my subscription but I need the paper for the sport recaps as well as all the local news. sigh....... Of course, I'm sure there's many that will love my "conspiracy theory" but it's just my opinion. They were to busy covering the Naperville North student cook out. tailgate party ;D LMAO!!! Too true, too true... Seriously though, where is the Sun? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 22, 2007 8:41:17 GMT -6
They were to busy covering the Naperville North student cook out. tailgate party ;D LMAO!!! Too true, too true... Seriously though, where is the Sun? behind the clouds a lot lately - LOL ! (and this works for the paper too ) |
|
|
|
Post by sd204taxpayer on Aug 23, 2007 9:46:20 GMT -6
Harry, the city isn't moving Wolf's Crossing until next spring and the huge drainage ditch they dug through the length of the property are two big problems for building at Macom right now. Now, we can say they can fill the ditch but it seems to be there for a reason. Just a few comments on the Macom Property: The total cost was only $200,000 more than what the school would have paid for Brach Brodie USING $257,000. If you are looking at it from a fiscal perspective i'm sure the school district has spent more than $200,000 on attorney fees, lobbyists, and increased construction costs. Macom seemed to be a motivated seller vs dealing with trust attorneys that only care about billing hours and padding their personal income. The dollars the attorneys earn go back into their communities which i doubt are out here in 204 where there are not many entities that have made local contributions to the extent that Macom has. The ditch does not run through the proposed School Site but is part of the stormwater management system. The proposed school site would be South of a commercial site per the plans. Train noise? The EJ&E is not the Burlington Northern by any means and has minimal traffic. My stance is that i want to pay the least amount of taxes as possible. IMHO I don't believe the direction the SB has taken will lead us to the most fiscally responsible solution. I'm not saying BB is correct either but why haven't other solutions been pursued? It is nice that the SB gets to pick and choose what they will answer or ignore to leave the taxpayers in the dark which is what they want. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 23, 2007 9:59:48 GMT -6
Harry, the city isn't moving Wolf's Crossing until next spring and the huge drainage ditch they dug through the length of the property are two big problems for building at Macom right now. Now, we can say they can fill the ditch but it seems to be there for a reason. Just a few comments on the Macom Property: The total cost was only $200,000 more than what the school would have paid for Brach Brodie USING $257,000. If you are looking at it from a fiscal perspective i'm sure the school district has spent more than $200,000 on attorney fees, lobbyists, and increased construction costs. Macom seemed to be a motivated seller vs dealing with trust attorneys that only care about billing hours and padding their personal income. The dollars the attorneys earn go back into their communities which i doubt are out here in 204 where there are not many entities that have made local contributions to the extent that Macom has. The ditch does not run through the proposed School Site but is part of the stormwater management system. The proposed school site would be South of a commercial site per the plans. Train noise? The EJ&E is not the Burlington Northern by any means and has minimal traffic. My stance is that i want to pay the least amount of taxes as possible. IMHO I don't believe the direction the SB has taken will lead us to the most fiscally responsible solution. I'm not saying BB is correct either but why haven't other solutions been pursued? It is nice that the SB gets to pick and choose what they will answer or ignore to leave the taxpayers in the dark which is what they want. Please help me with the math here: FROM PREVIOUS POST - by BOB...........
His $340/acre for 90 acres is $30,600,000
80 acres is $27,200,000
That $30,600,000 divided by 55 acres that we need to settle with BB would work out to be $556K/acre fro BB
Under 80 acres $494K/acre For BB
If we wind up paying $300k an acre for BB 55 acres that is $15.125 mil.
Macom would have to come down to $168k/acre to match for this
Even if we pay BB top$ offer it is a scratch with Macom's offer How did you ever arrive at $200K ? Please show the details for us as I cannot understand how that is possible to have more acreage and significantly higher cost per acre - and yet we end up with basically the same amount ? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 23, 2007 10:08:48 GMT -6
When I went by a few months ago, the ditch ran south of the current Wolf's Crossing ( where the middle of the school would be). If they filled it in fine since then, fine by me.
Dr., Macom later said the SD would only need 65 because he would eat the costs of retention or something like that. I don't recall Macom ever really clarifying more than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 23, 2007 10:15:19 GMT -6
Maybe SSM meant 200k/acre more, which it would be.....
It's still too far south.
OK this is for the doctor..........If I had to choose between BB and Macom....... I would choose BB. (Gritting teeth.......)
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Aug 23, 2007 10:18:07 GMT -6
My husband says the proposal from Macom was for less acreage because they were including the storm drainage that is part of the BB 80 acres. He seems to remember they were talking about 62 - 65. Are you including Park District land?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 23, 2007 10:18:31 GMT -6
When I went by a few months ago, the ditch ran south of the current Wolf's Crossing ( where the middle of the school would be). If they filled it in fine since then, fine by me. Dr., Macom later said the SD would only need 65 because he would eat the costs of retention or something like that. I don't recall Macom ever really clarifying more than that. okay I faintly remember that with a redrawn layout onto a smaller property -- but never saw any followup -- is there anything on their web site clarifying ? what was the resolution for the people living on the property , if they are still on the acreage we would be occupying ? Also timetable /cost for moving the electrical wires ? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 23, 2007 10:30:17 GMT -6
Maybe SSM meant 200k/acre more, which it would be..... It's still too far south. OK this is for the doctor..........If I had to choose between BB and Macom....... I would choose BB. (Gritting teeth.......) ;D |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Aug 23, 2007 20:29:46 GMT -6
My stance is that i want to pay the least amount of taxes as possible. I think I understand your stance. I believe some of the other posters on this board are of the same mindset. For some, that's what it's all about. I respect your right to have that opinion, even though I disagree. Even more I thank your for clearly stating that it is your motivating factor. |
|
|
|
Post by sd204taxpayer on Aug 24, 2007 12:22:32 GMT -6
My stance is that i want to pay the least amount of taxes as possible. I think I understand your stance. I believe some of the other posters on this board are of the same mindset. For some, that's what it's all about. I should clarify my statement after re-reading it  I am willing to pay a little more in taxes for the right site or agreed upon amenities if you will. The quick take issue which i believe is now dead at this point with the legislature out of session was a blank check with our tax dollars as collateral. Hopefully the s.d. is correct about the value but it was too large of a risk to pursue in my mind. I respect your right to have that opinion, even though I disagree. Even more I thank your for clearly stating that it is your motivating factor. [/quote] first. Otherwise your really are putting words in other people's mouths.[/size][/sub] |
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 27, 2007 12:38:38 GMT -6
I heard that the judge ruled this morning on the motion for two trials, it was denied.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 27, 2007 14:07:31 GMT -6
I heard that the judge ruled this morning on the motion for two trials, it was denied. hopefully the beginning of some common sense rulings, and maybe a signal flare for the end of the delays - |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 27, 2007 14:10:59 GMT -6
SSM, I took a drive down to the Macom site. The ditch is still there. In order to see it you have to view it from Wolf's Crossing because the dirt they took out was put to the side and blocks the view. The ditch is about 20-40 feet wide and runs from Wolf's Crossing south to the the power lines. If you go west down Wolf's Crossing, look for the orange plastic fence.
They can still push the dirt in but I want to know why Macom dug it out in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 28, 2007 9:46:07 GMT -6
This thread/topic is now locked
|
|
