Brach/Brodie Trial is Over

[doctorwho]

southsidemom said:

Dr. Who, it was an analogy. Don't be so uptight. You're doing a such fine job as the SB's Head Cheerleader, don't loose your pep!

it was an incorrect analogy

I am not their cheerleader - but I also hate to see personal attacks on people trying to work for the community. What role would that be if I am the cheerleader ?

You still haven't answered the property question - and how that would differ from the total school cost to you or me or anyone else.

[bbc]

archwinsome said:

blankcheck said:

Yes, that's true however how long have they lived with trailors?

Long enough that the construction costs are going to be more when they actually rebuild than they supposedly 'saved' getting trailers.

Oh wait, that means they paid for the trailers *AND* will pay for higher construction costs.

Yup.. everyone's rolling in the dough on that one.

Why are alternative ideas to BB always ridiculed? For $150mm you can pay for a lot of trailers simply on the earned income. And I was always led to believe that the student population increase peaks before the useful life of a new high school is exausted. Maybe a temporary solution costs less in the long run. Its worth talking about and not just dismissing because its not a brand new high school on $550,000/acre land that we can be proud of.

[Arch]

bbc said:

archwinsome said:

Long enough that the construction costs are going to be more when they actually rebuild than they supposedly 'saved' getting trailers.

Oh wait, that means they paid for the trailers *AND* will pay for higher construction costs.

Yup.. everyone's rolling in the dough on that one.

Why are alternative ideas to BB always ridiculed? For $150mm you can pay for a lot of trailers simply on the earned income. And I was always led to believe that the student population increase peaks before the useful life of a new high school is exausted. Maybe a temporary solution costs less in the long run. Its worth talking about and not just dismissing because its not a brand new high school on $550,000/acre land that we can be proud of.

Perhaps because a neighboring school district went the 'cheaper' route and not only had to pay for that 'cheaper' "solution" but now also has to pay for a more permanent solution as well.

Cost of new HS

vs.

Cost of Tailers for X years *PLUS* Cost of new HS down the line at higher construction costs.


Which is the cheaper one? I pick the first. It seems though that many have a *ANYTHING BUT BB, no matter the cost* way of looking at it.

I'm actually land neutral and if another could be had and purchased in 30 days for the same price or lower and construction could begin on it, I would hop right on that bandwagon.

Right now, I know of none. Find one and I'm right there with you but it has to be before the 30 days is up and we lose the ability to buy the BB land and begin immediately.

[bbc]

I bet we could find a 40 acre parcel of land (which is comparable to how much land WVHS sits on) but that would be a "cheaper route" and not fullfill the SB's dreams. Why we need 80 acres when WV works fine on 40 is beyond me.

[Arch]

bbc said:

I bet we could find a 40 acre parcel of land (which is comparable to how much land WVHS sits on) but that would be a "cheaper route" and not fullfill the SB's dreams. Why we need 80 acres when WV works fine on 40 is beyond me.

Then find it.

[bob]

bbc said:

I bet we could find a 40 acre parcel of land (which is comparable to how much land WVHS sits on) but that would be a "cheaper route" and not fullfill the SB's dreams. Why we need 80 acres when WV works fine on 40 is beyond me.

Water retention and discharge. Complain to Aurora.

Macom said you need 65 acres at least.

[doctorwho]

bbc said:

I bet we could find a 40 acre parcel of land (which is comparable to how much land WVHS sits on) but that would be a "cheaper route" and not fullfill the SB's dreams. Why we need 80 acres when WV works fine on 40 is beyond me.

within 204 boundaries ?

Maybe Peotone is willing to listen - I hear the airport thing not going well.

[lacy]

archwinsome said:

I suppose after a jury priced the land like it did; the idea that other people in the district would withhold voting for an operating referendum just to spite the school board for their own personal reasons shouldn't be that surprising. I used to have some faith in people to do the right thing but lately that is dwindling very quickly. If people are worried about their wallets this is a nice sure-fire way to shoot yourself in that coveted wallet. Home values where the residents don't support the schools tank very hard and very fast. Given the current housing market, people will be in for a very rude awakening if they do that.

Penny wise and pound foolish.

I think there are many people (probably not on this message board) who don't believe the jury was out of line, but on the contrary, think the SB was dreaming when they thought they could get the land for $250K per acre.

We were the people with our hands raised during the referendum process asking what would happen if the land ended up being more than what was included in the referendum.

I don't think spite has anything to do with it, but rather the realization that everything we were worried about we were right to be worried about.

Why do we HAVE to have this land? I find it impossible to believe that there are not viable options. It's just inconceivable.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

I suppose after a jury priced the land like it did; the idea that other people in the district would withhold voting for an operating referendum just to spite the school board for their own personal reasons shouldn't be that surprising. I used to have some faith in people to do the right thing but lately that is dwindling very quickly. If people are worried about their wallets this is a nice sure-fire way to shoot yourself in that coveted wallet. Home values where the residents don't support the schools tank very hard and very fast. Given the current housing market, people will be in for a very rude awakening if they do that.

Penny wise and pound foolish.

I think there are many people (probably not on this message board) who don't believe the jury was out of line, but on the contrary, think the SB was dreaming when they thought they could get the land for $250K per acre.

We were the people with our hands raised during the referendum process asking what would happen if the land ended up being more than what was included in the referendum.

I don't think spite has anything to do with it, but rather the realization that everything we were worried about we were right to be worried about.

Why do we HAVE to have this land? I find it impossible to believe that there are not viable options. It's just inconceivable.

finding that chunk of land in an area that is built the way we are is not easy. If 203 had to find 60 - 80 acres could they ? I don't believe so either.

As far as the $257, there was always a contingency fund ( based on interest) built into the final cost - and they were open about this in all those same meetings. It's not that the final cost eneded up higher - it's that it ended up over the moon higher for the timeframe it was supposed to represent. Look at Lehigh station - if that land was $525 per acre when they bought same timeframe -- one of two things would have occured - they would have walked away or those thousands of townhomes would be almost double what they are.

[Arch]

So let me get this straight..

First the SB was crazy to not expect a price this high.. now they are crazy to pay it, but the same people who said they were crazy to not expect it to be that high say more is out there cheaper...

So, is there a concession that the jury was off their rocker in setting the price or are people flip-flopping their position on land prices to suit their fancy?

If there is cheaper, then where is it and how much will it cost and is the buyer ready to let it go within the next 30 days so that construction can begin?

[bbc]

archwinsome said:

So let me get this straight..

First the SB was crazy to not expect a price this high.. now they are crazy to pay it, but the same people who said they were crazy to not expect it to be that high say more is out there cheaper...

So, is there a concession that the jury was off their rocker in setting the price or are people flip-flopping their position on land prices to suit their fancy?

If there is cheaper, then where is it and how much will it cost and is the buyer ready to let it go within the next 30 days so that construction can begin?

Not Flip-flopping at all unless your point is that an acre of land costs the same amount of money regardless of where it is located. Not sure I would agree with that. Is there a minimum parcel of land available that is at least 65 acres? Don't know if there is or not but we better be sure there isn't.

[wvhsparent]

doctorwho said:

southsidemom said:

Who said anything about spite.

When you take your car to your mechanic and she assures you that it will be no more than a $100 and you call back and check and she says $100 again and again. Then when you arrive, the bill's $1000, you'll go back to her the next time to get your car fixed??

It's about trust. Integrity.

Not to mention that the economic climate is creating pressure for many to just keep up.

But that is a non sequitur...... we approved $124M -- if that is all it costs us out of pocket ( they find the remaining money elsewhere ) - how is that coming back 10 times higher ? By your example it would be expecting a $100 bill and the mechanic tells you it was much higher but he found a way to bridge the gap - your bill is still $100 -- do you care ?

also you did not answer -

Did you buy your house based on the finished price or did you negotiate the land cost separately ? Did you even know the lot cost when you bought ? If they would have cut my lot price by $5000 but the structure cost $5000 more - as long as the total deal stayed the same, it didn;t matter. No different here.

If they come back for more money for the high school you have a point to make - that has not happened as of today - so this line of arguing seems off base - and wrought with bad examples.

As a matter of fact I did have a separate price for the home and land, which were both negotiated and know up front before the 1st shovel of dirt was moved.

It is like this is how much your home is going to cost, but we are not sure on the lot yet. Probably 25,000.00.
You say OK Then they come back and say...no sorry your lot is 50,000.00.
At that point I would have to either take it, pick a different lot at my price point, pick a different model home, etc.

[wvhsparent]

archwinsome said:

So let me get this straight..

First the SB was crazy to not expect a price this high.. now they are crazy to pay it, but the same people who said they were crazy to not expect it to be that high say more is out there cheaper...

So, is there a concession that the jury was off their rocker in setting the price or are people flip-flopping their position on land prices to suit their fancy?

If there is cheaper, then where is it and how much will it cost and is the buyer ready to let it go within the next 30 days so that construction can begin?

Yes, and I have given my list already.

[bob]

It was only 65 acres because Macom was going to eat the cost for some of the retention ponds.

[Arch]

bbc said:

archwinsome said:

So let me get this straight..

First the SB was crazy to not expect a price this high.. now they are crazy to pay it, but the same people who said they were crazy to not expect it to be that high say more is out there cheaper...

So, is there a concession that the jury was off their rocker in setting the price or are people flip-flopping their position on land prices to suit their fancy?

If there is cheaper, then where is it and how much will it cost and is the buyer ready to let it go within the next 30 days so that construction can begin?

Not Flip-flopping at all unless your point is that an acre of land costs the same amount of money regardless of where it is located. Not sure I would agree with that. Is there a minimum parcel of land available that is at least 65 acres? Don't know if there is or not but we better be sure there isn't.

Apparently to 8 people, an acre of land actually costs near double to other comps at any given time frame.. Personally I wish we could just buy whatever acreage we could get for the money set aside (with whatever cushion) and leave them with the rest; as long as it's still enough to put a school on and get it underway. Taking 14 steps back to square one just seems counter productive when the students who need the room are going to be here regardless of where it gets built.

If there's another affordable amount of land, I'm on board in a heartbeat, but it has to be found and found soon with a commitment to sell.. otherwise it could wind up right back to square 1 with another condemnation suit and we all now know how those can go. I'm even on board for a smaller HS to keep the total cost within budget as long as the district as a whole still has the needed capacity for what is in the pipe.

Frankly, I'm surprised Paul's not come forth yet.