|
|
Post by lacy on Aug 19, 2007 20:05:08 GMT -6
They have the right to get the highest price that they can. No different than if you were selling your property. You wouldn't give it away for the greater good, would you? Eminient domain cases have been litigated all the way to the Supreme Court. Not everyone shares your viewpoint. Indeed, not everyone does share my viewpoint, which is why this is a great place to live. However, the law states that BB is due to "just compensation", not your "highest price". That said, yes it is very, very different than "If I were selling my property". This is a condemnation proceeding, plain and simple, and we should not forget that. We also should not forget that the just compensation is as of the date of the condemnation filing (which IIRC is circa 2002). All the dalay tactics in the book will not buy a penny more. Lacy, you may be mixing your personal views into this. It does not change the facts of the process. Their definition of "just compensation" might be different than the District's. (just a guess) And excuse me, but I'm not "mixing up" anything. Seems to me there is indeed a bone of contention between the two parties or there wouldn't be a pending lawsuit (which seems to have no end in sight) Certain members of the SB sold the public a bill of goods when they said this would be a slam dunk. It's been anything but. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Aug 19, 2007 20:10:13 GMT -6
Evidently some people think it would serve a purpose to conduct a public temper tandrum. What you might label a "tantrum by some people", others might refer to as an outpouring of public support for the needs of the larger community as a whole that have been decided by the residency. Frankly, I don't know, or care, who PREIT is, but maybe it's time that Brach Brody comes to learn, through PREIT, that just possibly obstructionism and delay is a two way street - including the land they already hope to sell. If this is they way to send them the message, so be it. If BB are so worried about their wallets maybe Preit should learn that the new businesses they hope to launch mught bear the consequences. All I know is we are a community, and I as a resident back those who support that larger community, not those who fight against it at every turn - espeecially when it come to the education of children in the area. I am just one man, but I wonder if others feel the same. But, if PREIT wants to sit by and watch this happen, while there investment in the community is in Jeopardy, that is their perrogative. The last public relations/lobbying campaign regarded quick-take and Linda Holmes. Whatever happened with that? |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Aug 19, 2007 20:36:04 GMT -6
I seem to remember hearing/reading sometime ago that BB did not sell the 25 acres willingly, but was forced to sell because the SD used a loophole in a contract after the 1st ref failed. SB members boasted about how shrewd the move was.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 19, 2007 21:02:48 GMT -6
I seem to remember hearing/reading sometime ago that BB did not sell the 25 acres willingly, but was forced to sell because the SD used a loophole in a contract after the 1st ref failed. SB members boasted about how shrewd the move was. The SD bought the 25 acres with a right to buy the other 55. I don't recall a loophole. The SD had until 2006 to pass a referendum for the other 55 or we couldn't go after it. Someone had posted the papers for the orginal 25 somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Aug 20, 2007 5:11:49 GMT -6
Their definition of "just compensation" might be different than the District's. (just a guess) Which is why a jury will decide. I'm willing to allow that process to continue rather than trying to derail it at every turn, or try it in the press. The statement "They have the right to get the highest price that they can." is wrong. They are entitled to "just compensation" under condemnation, nothing more, nothing less. And excuse me, but I'm not "mixing up" anything. No excuses needed, as I never said you were "mixing up" anything. If you are going to quote me, please do so accurately. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 20, 2007 8:29:30 GMT -6
I seem to remember hearing/reading sometime ago that BB did not sell the 25 acres willingly, but was forced to sell because the SD used a loophole in a contract after the 1st ref failed. SB members boasted about how shrewd the move was. they sold the 25 acres willingly ( but wanted all sold at that time)-- what you are remembering hearing about ( likely) was the fact that BB wanted to SD to take loans out to buy all 80 acres at that time ( without a referendum to do so) instead of the 25 they had the money for -- and the SD refused to do that -- and surely there are many here that would have had a cow had they done so -- in retrospect it would have worked out for the best - |
|
|
|
Post by sd204taxpayer on Aug 20, 2007 8:37:05 GMT -6
Unfortunately the only people making out on this deal are the lawyers. When all is said and done they will have padded their billable hours quite nicely on this deal. Unfortunately as consumers we can see what they are doing and i'm sure the judges see this all the time also - but - what were the judges before they became one? yep - lawyers. For them to put a hault to this kind of bull!@#$ would only make sense but their friends and connections are on the lawyer side of our world. I thought judges were public officials - I just don't see them acting in that manner - just like politicians - especially in IL. Unfortunately this case has fallen to the corruptness of our state government and you wash my back and i'll wash yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 20, 2007 8:57:28 GMT -6
I seem to remember hearing/reading sometime ago that BB did not sell the 25 acres willingly, but was forced to sell because the SD used a loophole in a contract after the 1st ref failed. SB members boasted about how shrewd the move was. they sold the 25 acres willingly ( but wanted all sold at that time)-- what you are remembering hearing about ( likely) was the fact that BB wanted to SD to take loans out to buy all 80 acres at that time ( without a referendum to do so) instead of the 25 they had the money for -- and the SD refused to do that -- and surely there are many here that would have had a cow had they done so -- in retrospect it would have worked out for the best - I don't think the BB estate did anything willingly. Dr. Can you supply the documentation that supports this? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 20, 2007 9:11:22 GMT -6
Unfortunately the only people making out on this deal are the lawyers. When all is said and done they will have padded their billable hours quite nicely on this deal. Unfortunately as consumers we can see what they are doing and i'm sure the judges see this all the time also - but - what were the judges before they became one? yep - lawyers. For them to put a hault to this kind of bull!@#$ would only make sense but their friends and connections are on the lawyer side of our world. I thought judges were public officials - I just don't see them acting in that manner - just like politicians - especially in IL. Unfortunately this case has fallen to the corruptness of our state government and you wash my back and i'll wash yours. although I hate to broadbrush all attorneys and judges and politicians together -- I have a hard time arguing most of what's said here -- the level of political cronyism in this state ( as evidenced by the current fiasco in Springfield) is likely unsurpassed anywhere else in the US |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 20, 2007 9:14:34 GMT -6
they sold the 25 acres willingly ( but wanted all sold at that time)-- what you are remembering hearing about ( likely) was the fact that BB wanted to SD to take loans out to buy all 80 acres at that time ( without a referendum to do so) instead of the 25 they had the money for -- and the SD refused to do that -- and surely there are many here that would have had a cow had they done so -- in retrospect it would have worked out for the best - I don't think the BB estate did anything willingly. Dr. Can you supply the documentation that supports this? can you supply documentation that say they did not ? Kind of a silly question unless I worked for them and was in their negotiation room -- I am going by the fact that the deal was going to go through at $257K and they accepting that at the time however we did not pass the referendum -- where does the supposition that they were unhappy with this come from ? They wanted to have the SD take loans even after the failed referendum to complete the transaction - does that sound like an unhappy seller at the time ? |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 20, 2007 9:20:03 GMT -6
I don't think the BB estate did anything willingly. Dr. Can you supply the documentation that supports this? can you supply documentation that say they did not ? Kind of a silly question unless I worked for them and was in their negotiation room -- I am going by the fact that the deal was going to go through at $257K and they accepting that at the time however we did not pass the referendum -- where does the supposition that they were unhappy with this come from ? They wanted to have the SD take loans even after the failed referendum to complete the transaction - does that sound like an unhappy seller at the time ? My documentation was the previously submitted docs from the 03 Eminent Domain proceedings, which should be in the archives somewhere. I am just asking you to do what we ask most others to do when they make a claim such as you did. What is your source for BB wanting the SD to take loans? I have never seen such documentation, nor ever heard of this before now. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 20, 2007 9:55:03 GMT -6
can you supply documentation that say they did not ? Kind of a silly question unless I worked for them and was in their negotiation room -- I am going by the fact that the deal was going to go through at $257K and they accepting that at the time however we did not pass the referendum -- where does the supposition that they were unhappy with this come from ? They wanted to have the SD take loans even after the failed referendum to complete the transaction - does that sound like an unhappy seller at the time ? My documentation was the previously submitted docs from the 03 Eminent Domain proceedings, which should be in the archives somewhere. I am just asking you to do what we ask most others to do when they make a claim such as you did. What is your source for BB wanting the SD to take loans? I have never seen such documentation, nor ever heard of this before now. I remember this being mentioned by Dave Holm in one of the PTA meetings that they had the opportunity provided to purchase all 80 acres at that time but that they did not have that money and would have to take loans to do so -- which meeting I cannot remember any more -- and likely was said at more than one meeting - the board I believe did not have the authority to purchase what they did not have money for-- maybe someone else can add to this |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Aug 20, 2007 10:05:27 GMT -6
Their definition of "just compensation" might be different than the District's. (just a guess) Which is why a jury will decide. I'm willing to allow that process to continue rather than trying to derail it at every turn, or try it in the press. The statement "They have the right to get the highest price that they can." is wrong. They are entitled to "just compensation" under condemnation, nothing more, nothing less. And excuse me, but I'm not "mixing up" anything. No excuses needed, as I never said you were "mixing up" anything. If you are going to quote me, please do so accurately. BB will continue to fight for the highest possible price they believe they are entitled to. Getting into a war of words doesn't change this fact. And the price they believe they are entitled to may in fact be far greater than what the district planned for in the referendum. You accuse others of derailing the efforts to aquire this property. Well maybe some (many I believe) aren't willing to pay whatever it takes for BB and wait however long it takes. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 20, 2007 10:36:15 GMT -6
Since Blanckcheck said the money was exchanged between PREIT and BB, someone should check with the township or county to see what the land went for.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 20, 2007 11:04:23 GMT -6
Nothing yet from Naperville Twp.www.napervilletownship.com/NewPSrc/ParcelDetail.aspxProperty Information Parcel Number: 07-28-400-011 Address: City: NAPERVILLE First Floor: 0 Second Floor: 0 Third Floor: 0 Misc. Floor: 0 Total Living Area: 0 Lot Frontage: 0 Lot Depth: 0 Lot Total: 4,533,289 Total Acres: 0.00 Irregular Lot: No Style: Agricultural Construction: Agricultural Year Built: Room Count: 0 Bed Rooms: 0 Full Baths: 0 Half Baths: 0 Basement Area: 0 Basement Finished: 0 Garage Type: CAC: No NBHD Code: 023 Property Class: F Subdivision: Lot Number: Block Unit: Photograph Photo not yet available Improvement Sketch Sketch not yet available Site Map Site Map not yet available Assessment Information Year Land Value Improvement Total Assessed Value Tax Code Tax Rate Tax Amount 2006 20,717 0 20,717 7029 5.5615 $1,152.18 2005 31,200 0 31,200 7029 5.7983 $1,809.08 Sales Information (4 year history) Month Year Sale Price Deed Type
|
|
