|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 16, 2007 11:09:46 GMT -6
What's the $2 million in Misc? a combo or new architectural fees and other research study, and any other costs we may not be privy to today - leaving a buffer - feel free to make it $1M if you like - but I would believe there are more bills potentially |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 16, 2007 11:12:29 GMT -6
I just wanted to confirm that your information wasn't based on anything official we have heard.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Oct 16, 2007 11:15:41 GMT -6
I think it is Wagner versus St. John's since, IMHO, HC really screwed up any potential to negotiate the church property during his regime. Which church property - St. John or Calvary? Regardless, HC is gone. Fresh start. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 16, 2007 11:22:28 GMT -6
Someone should post up how much Macom originally paid for the land per acre at 248th. It would be nice to know their profit. If they paid less than $73K / acre, then they will profit more than the 17 million big scary number that is being floated around for BB. That will be profit to a land developer, not to a foundational trust that does give back to communities and organizations in need. ;D Thank you for my laugh of the day! Coming from someone who is typically bashing the BB foundation at every turn, this is hilarious!!!! I've bashed their lawyers and their actions with regards to how I believe they worked against the intention of the trust (to help children), yes. The trust itself stands on its own merits. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 16, 2007 11:27:03 GMT -6
;D Thank you for my laugh of the day! Coming from someone who is typically bashing the BB foundation at every turn, this is hilarious!!!! I've bashed their lawyers and their actions with regards to how I believe they worked against the intention of the trust (to help children), yes. The trust itself stands on its own merits. I think of the BB trust lawyers like those big bankers on those Capital One commercials "What's in your wallet?" soon...nothing!  |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 16, 2007 11:47:57 GMT -6
;D Thank you for my laugh of the day! Coming from someone who is typically bashing the BB foundation at every turn, this is hilarious!!!! I've bashed their lawyers and their actions with regards to how I believe they worked against the intention of the trust (to help children), yes. The trust itself stands on its own merits. And their lawyers represent whom......?? How about all that "I'm never buying their candy again" and stopping people in the grocery store who are picking up their candy....etc. etc. Sounds like double talk to me.  |
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Oct 16, 2007 11:57:58 GMT -6
I've bashed their lawyers and their actions with regards to how I believe they worked against the intention of the trust (to help children), yes. The trust itself stands on its own merits. And their lawyers represent whom......?? How about all that "I'm never buying their candy again" and stopping people in the grocery store who are picking up their candy....etc. etc. Sounds like double talk to me. In all fairness - There are 2 parties involved - Brach and Brodie. I can't find any Brodie charitable activities and they may have living relatives. Helen Brach started the HVB foundation before she died. Their retiring foundation president grew the assets to 125 Mil and gave away 70 Mil during his tenure. Their mission is to help the poor and underserved. The Brach candy company was sold by Helen and her late husband in the 60s and last I checked, is now owned by an overseas company. And eta - for the record I refuse to purchase Brach candy products, even though they are not fiscally related anymore, because they leave a bad taste in my mouth. !! |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 16, 2007 11:58:13 GMT -6
I've bashed their lawyers and their actions with regards to how I believe they worked against the intention of the trust (to help children), yes. The trust itself stands on its own merits. And their lawyers represent whom......?? How about all that "I'm never buying their candy again" and stopping people in the grocery store who are picking up their candy....etc. etc. Sounds like double talk to me. Their lawyers represent themselves under the cloak and wrapper (pun intended) of the trust. You're really grasping at a straw here. This is bashing the trust to you? My spending habits as a consumer? |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 16, 2007 12:04:37 GMT -6
And their lawyers represent whom......?? How about all that "I'm never buying their candy again" and stopping people in the grocery store who are picking up their candy....etc. etc. Sounds like double talk to me. Their lawyers represent themselves under the cloak and wrapper (pun intended) of the trust. You're really grasping at a straw here. This is bashing the trust to you? My spending habits as a consumer? As stated by Arch on another thread... "I wonder if there's any nasty stuff on the BB property that the EPA needs to do a thorough sampling of. Who knows what's been spread on the beans and corn (pesticides and fertilizers and who knows what else) over the years and who knows what that has done to the groundwater. Did they ever find 'the body?' Is the property ADA compliant for future potential buyers? Perhaps there's even some historic preservation that might have to happen since there's so much mystique surrounding the family history..." I never noticed that you had any warm feelings regarding any of the BB people involved up until today.... Just pointing that out. The reality is that it doesn't matter who owns what land and who benefits from selling it. What matters is that we make the best decision concerning the children and the taxpayers of the district. To get into this emotional stuff is silly - it should be a business decision based on sound business principles. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 16, 2007 13:58:29 GMT -6
Yup, I posted that.. simple questions and 'wondering'....
I have a box of 100 straws for $0.50 if you really want something better.
I have no warm feelings for the BB people (the lawyers). I have even less for a very profitable land developer who may stand to gain as much or more profit from a land sale than the 'extra' amount over what we offered to a trust.
Personal opinion and preference. Welcome to America. Do you have some problem with people having personal choices all of a sudden?
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Oct 16, 2007 15:49:55 GMT -6
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Macom price lowered. PL wants to sell that land to the SB and the SB needs new houses to support that 3rd HS. Both sides win if they can orchestrate a deal at that property. That new development could be answer to the SB's mantra that we needed that 3rd HS to support the future growth of the SD. Remember when that was the rally cry? Now it's been toned down to say we need it for the current enrollment. For the first time, I do think the SB and SD listened to persons in the community that have been saying it's time to look at Option B. IMHO, I don't think Option B really existed until last night. Due to the outcry of many, the SB has now been forced to thoroughly examine Macom's offer as well as other options. I don't think they were doing that before. I think the four properties are: Macom, BB, Calvary, and St. John's. Let's just hope that they give all of them full research (as much as you can in two days! ). What outcry? Based on the reports about how many people showed up and how many people stayed to speak, I would not consider that an outcry. Keep in mind that the SB made it more than clear that last night's meeting would not be an opportunity for public comment rather it would be Executive Session - closed doors only. After that they would allow only non-agenda items to be discussed. Do you think it's possible that many felt it wasn't worth it to go to the meeting? To say public outcry doesn't necessarily mean that people needed to flock the school board meeting. Don't you think that the SB members have received emails, phone calls, etc. from people stating opposition to BB? The SB isn't going to point that out. How do you know that there isn't a public outcry? I don't know that there is but I certainly don't know that there isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 16, 2007 16:05:35 GMT -6
What outcry? Based on the reports about how many people showed up and how many people stayed to speak, I would not consider that an outcry. Keep in mind that the SB made it more than clear that last night's meeting would not be an opportunity for public comment rather it would be Executive Session - closed doors only. After that they would allow only non-agenda items to be discussed. Do you think it's possible that many felt it wasn't worth it to go to the meeting? To say public outcry doesn't necessarily mean that people needed to flock the school board meeting. Don't you think that the SB members have received emails, phone calls, etc. from people stating opposition to BB? The SB isn't going to point that out. How do you know that there isn't a public outcry? I don't know that there is but I certainly don't know that there isn't. I won't try to guess how others felt. You mentioned a large outcry. You're the one saying how others are feeling at this point. An outcry is a shout and/or showing of extreme disapproval or anger. That implies emotions are usually cranked up. Without getting scientific about adrenalin and the 'adrenalin rush' and what it does to 'judgment' let's just say that I have a very hard time believing that 'outcry' and 'follow the rules to the letter' go hand in hand. So, what was the 1 public comment about then? Are you saying that people would have followed the instructions and only commented about non agenda items? I'd like to believe that. Is that what happened last night? Who was there that actually heard it? In the past, people shouted out at meetings, making noise out of turn. They had no regard for the rules then. They do now? Again, I would like to believe that to be true. If someone who was there would post what the comment was about we can see if people actually are giving regard to the rules or not and I would be more inclined to believe that those giving an outcry are better behaved and being respectful of the procedures than in the past at meetings when boundaries were being hashed out. So, who has the comment topic? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 16, 2007 16:14:39 GMT -6
Keep in mind that the SB made it more than clear that last night's meeting would not be an opportunity for public comment rather it would be Executive Session - closed doors only. After that they would allow only non-agenda items to be discussed. Do you think it's possible that many felt it wasn't worth it to go to the meeting? . I am sorry but that is wrong. It seems you have the same problem as Lacy,. Item 4 gave the right to speak on Non-agenda items. Since nothing was on the agenda except the executive meeting, everything was fair game for public comment. If the issue means that much to you, what is a hour or two wait to say your piece of mind? |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Oct 16, 2007 16:17:21 GMT -6
Does anyone know what time they came out of Executive Meeting?
|
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Oct 16, 2007 16:25:04 GMT -6
Does anyone know what time they came out of Executive Meeting? The paper says they were in ES for 2 hours |
|
