|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 1, 2007 13:13:22 GMT -6
I am interested in knowing the definition of people's "less". What would be a land price that some of you would consider to be "less" enough to pull the trigger on BB..... 1M? 5M? 10M? less than BB, ... or within the original budgeted land amount of $14M?? and that figure has to include all payouts that must be made if we abandon BB - as well as cover any new architect fees |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Oct 1, 2007 13:16:16 GMT -6
casey, I respect your opinion on why you don't like the site. As long as you respect mine on BB and St John's........ I am willing to take a chance on St. John's knowing that it would be less than BB. Of course, I respect your opinion, we just simply disagree. I never said that I thought Macom was a great location - I don't but they should at least thoroughly examine all options. Although, I've said it numerous times but I think it's a moot point to discuss St. John's or Macom. In my opinion, neither one will ever get off the table because it's BB all the way. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at tonight's meeting. I wish it were open to the public. It would be quite interesting. Honestly, I think that they'll end up discussing ways to make BB work after examining enrollment numbers. Then they'll approve a 2 week waiting window at which time they'll promise to come back with updated enrollment numbers determining that we do in fact, need the 3rd HS (no big surprise, eh?). Then, they'll have some creative ways to make the budget work at the BB site. I'm skeptical but I'll hold off until tomorrow to hear what happens...... |
|
|
|
Post by al on Oct 1, 2007 13:19:12 GMT -6
That one has never made sense, good enough to have a high school that serves residents of his town, but too good to have it IN that town? Does he really have that kind of say in the decision in any case?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 1, 2007 13:22:30 GMT -6
That one has never made sense, good enough to have a high school that serves residents of his town, but too good to have it IN that town? Does he really have that kind of say in the decision in any case? enough to raise a stink and delay any discussion of it any more so that the builders could start improvements on the land - so there would be damages owed if we went that way. This is one slippery fox -- he's more than happy to advertise Naperville schools ( 203 ) and Indian Prairie schools (204) - but don't take any of his property tax land away - he might want a 2nd multi million dollar golf club. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 1, 2007 13:26:41 GMT -6
Prelim numbers are out. DPC got them from someone on the SB.
NET +50
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 1, 2007 13:26:59 GMT -6
I thought the Bolingbrook episode had an about face and deflection with a 'he said' / 'they said' twist.
The mayor has been quoted in the paper in the previous year as saying he welcomes a school but instead it's the planning commission that had the beef with it. (yes, tax purposes cited for that one).
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 1, 2007 13:28:33 GMT -6
Prelim numbers are out. DPC got them from someone on the SB. NET +50 If you stand on your head.. that means it's down! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 1, 2007 13:33:58 GMT -6
I thought the Bolingbrook episode had an about face and deflection with a 'he said' / 'they said' twist. The mayor has been quoted in the paper in the previous year as saying he welcomes a school but instead it's the planning commission that had the beef with it. (yes, tax purposes cited for that one). he danced a while after he labeled the school ( of which he had only seen an architectural sketch of the structure ) as ugly and he didn't want that box there. I am sure the GOP party dropped him a line after that one... but the net end as I remember was he didnt see why he had to give up the tax dollars for 'high end' houses -- if he chose to blame the planning commiss eventually who knows - it all started and ended with him. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 1, 2007 13:36:17 GMT -6
In other words.. typical politician
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Oct 1, 2007 13:41:20 GMT -6
I know the cost is not the issue for you WVHSP...you are willing to pay St John's three times what they paid for the property in 2003, but you are not willing to pay twice what the SB determined BB worth in 2003?? (The $257 per acre is what the initial proceedings determined the 2003 value of BB to be, which is why I highly doubted it was going to come in at that)
I guess it is St John's for you at any price.....
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 1, 2007 13:46:05 GMT -6
I thought the Bolingbrook episode had an about face and deflection with a 'he said' / 'they said' twist. The mayor has been quoted in the paper in the previous year as saying he welcomes a school but instead it's the planning commission that had the beef with it. (yes, tax purposes cited for that one). he danced a while after he labeled the school ( of which he had only seen an architectural sketch of the structure ) as ugly and he didn't want that box there. I am sure the GOP party dropped him a line after that one... but the net end as I remember was he didnt see why he had to give up the tax dollars for 'high end' houses -- if he chose to blame the planning commiss eventually who knows - it all started and ended with him. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 1, 2007 13:47:20 GMT -6
In other words.. typical politician Cook County would be proud of him, regardless of party ( see new article I just posted ) - |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Oct 1, 2007 13:49:57 GMT -6
I know the cost is not the issue for you WVHSP...you are willing to pay St John's three times what they paid for the property in 2003, but you are not willing to pay twice what the SB determined BB worth in 2003?? (The $257 per acre is what the initial proceedings determined the 2003 value of BB to be, which is why I highly doubted it was going to come in at that) I guess it is St John's for you at any price..... I don't get that impression from WVHSparent at all in reading his posts. He has consistently been concerned about the outcome of BB. I don't have a problem buying land from someone that will profit from the sale. I do have a problem with spending more than we have to on land. 518k is too high if there are other options. I'd much rather that money go into the building than the ground. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 1, 2007 13:50:25 GMT -6
Ew. what a repulsive personality, IMO (BB Mayor). Thanks for the link.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 1, 2007 13:51:36 GMT -6
I know the cost is not the issue for you WVHSP...you are willing to pay St John's three times what they paid for the property in 2003, but you are not willing to pay twice what the SB determined BB worth in 2003?? (The $257 per acre is what the initial proceedings determined the 2003 value of BB to be, which is why I highly doubted it was going to come in at that) I guess it is St John's for you at any price..... No not at all. Let's do the math... 3x what St John's paid is 219k/acre...less than the initial offer to BB (which BTW was one of my arguments from day 1)...and WAAAAAAY less than jury verdict. Now I have never liked BB and have said so many times. |
|
