we4
Junior
Girls Can't Do What?
Posts: 245
|
Post by we4 on Oct 30, 2007 3:23:26 GMT -6
Article from Naperville Sun (10/30) www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/625827,6_1_NA30_LAND_S1.article# Dist. 204 makes its case for new trial on Brach-Brodie October 30, 2007 By BRITT CARSON Staff writer Building Metea Valley High School on the Brach-Brodie property will not devalue the remaining 71-acre parcel, attorneys for Indian Prairie School District 204 said Monday. School district attorney Rick Petesch filed a motion last week seeking a new trial in the condemnation lawsuit and is prepared to argue the district should not have to pay $2.5 million in damages. While the condemnation lawsuit was being heard, Pennsylvania Real Estate Trust bought the 71 acres that face Route 59 for $40 million. Petesch cited that as evidence that the land would not be devalued by District 204 purchasing it for a third high school. The district wants to build Metea on 55 acres of the Brach-Brodie property along 75th Street and the future extension of Commons Drive in Aurora. The district owns an adjacent 25 acres. In September, a jury determined the 55 acres would cost the district $28.5 million, plus $2.5 million in damages. School board President Mark Metzger said last week the price is too high and the district will not purchase the 55 acres for $518,250 an acre. The district is considering three other sites for Metea. The district is waiting for a response from Brach-Brodie attorneys and then for the judge to set a timeline. Both parties would have a chance to argue their positions on the motion and a judge would have to then make a decision whether a new trial is warranted. Petesch said it is unclear exactly how long until the judge decides whether to grant a new trial or appeals are exhausted. "It is hard to say, but less than three months is probably my best guess," Petesch said. Contact Britt Carson at bcarson@scn1.com or 630-416-5269. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 30, 2007 7:32:52 GMT -6
How much of the taxpayers' money has been spent on legal fees and lobbyist fees trying to obtain the BB property?
|
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Oct 30, 2007 14:12:21 GMT -6
Probably a lot less than if we have to walk and pay damages.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 30, 2007 15:11:07 GMT -6
I really doubt that.
Why throw more good money after bad (and keep wasting time)?
They need to accept that BB isn't going to work - they've spent enough time and money (at our's and our kid's expense) chasing it.
Move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Oct 30, 2007 15:13:18 GMT -6
Probably a lot less than if we have to walk and pay damages. I'm not sure what the number actually is but I keep hearing between $4-6M for BB legal fees and I'd heard an amount of $100K+ for lobbyist fees. I just don't think that we will ever be privy to those kinds of figures. Say what you want about FOI and SB minutes but those amounts are never clearly spelled out - they are listed in without outside consultant fees, etc. As a SD I'd say that we've definitely P...ed away a LOT of money chasing BB. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot to show for it. |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Oct 30, 2007 15:13:59 GMT -6
This question has been asked numerous times. Heck M2 is an attorney. I'm sure it is a pretty hefty sum.
|
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Oct 30, 2007 15:30:11 GMT -6
I really doubt that. Why throw more good money after bad (and keep wasting time)? They need to accept that BB isn't going to work - they've spent enough time and money (at our's and our kid's expense) chasing it. Move on. Well, considering that your position has always been anti-BB, I can understand you position. I don't think this appeal will really cost that much, relative to what has been spent already. I'd guess reasonable attorney costs would average about $600-$800 an hour (an associate, partner and a secretary), depending on the firm (a mid-range one). |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 30, 2007 17:17:04 GMT -6
And since your position has always been pro-BB, I'm sure you're going to tell us that it's really not that much and it would cost us more to walk away.
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Oct 30, 2007 18:07:14 GMT -6
It's no big surprise that I'm a "no BB" but it still amazes me that the SB chooses to spend more time and money chasing down BB. Do they honestly think that they'll amazingly get the damages reduced and the cost lowered? Yes, there's a downturn in the housing market but considering PREIT just paid over $500K/acre for virtually the same land, I don't see it happening. How can they in good faith continue to pursue the land knowing that there are major costs involved and we simply can't afford it?  I know many will say there are no other workable choices with regards to land sites but is BB even workable at this point? We can't afford it and that has been stated by many including the SB and MM. |
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Oct 30, 2007 18:49:02 GMT -6
And since your position has always been pro-BB, I'm sure you're going to tell us that it's really not that much and it would cost us more to walk away. Didn't I already say the latter? Actually, I do support the BB property still. It's in a location that works better than what it seems the alternatives may be. I just want a high school that's a little closer if possible. Plus, I don't mind paying more taxes. It wouldn't really be that much extra probably anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 30, 2007 18:51:23 GMT -6
And since your position has always been pro-BB, I'm sure you're going to tell us that it's really not that much and it would cost us more to walk away. Didn't I already say the latter? Gumby, with all due respect, bad comeback.  Have a good night. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 30, 2007 19:05:53 GMT -6
Gumby, O.K. - I see you added a little more. I respect your opinion (even if I don't agree). I don't want to pay more taxes. I'm paying enough. I think they're wasting time and money chasing BB.
I'm starting to think my name should be blankcheck2.....
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 30, 2007 19:22:01 GMT -6
And since your position has always been pro-BB, I'm sure you're going to tell us that it's really not that much and it would cost us more to walk away. Didn't I already say the latter? Actually, I do support the BB property still. It's in a location that works better than what it seems the alternatives may be. I just want a high school that's a little closer if possible. Plus, I don't mind paying more taxes. It wouldn't really be that much extra probably anyway. I'm with you gumby but we are in the minority on this issue and I understand why we are. See in a northern site there are likely only a few ES areas that get a poor deal. We happen to potentially be one of them along with Cowlishaw. We might get the privilege of travelling across the district for MS - 3 miles further for HS - and when we get there we get the added bonus ( actually all there share this one) -of breaking in new admin / programs and no varsity sports. But our kids will learn how to drive longer commutes, in heavier traffic, or can do a weeks worth of homework on one bus trip. Yes we get a 'new school'. I'll take WV in any scenario - thank you. Quite the deal for the 11% tax assessment increase I just received |
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Oct 30, 2007 20:53:41 GMT -6
See in a northern site there are likely only a few ES areas that get a poor deal. We happen to potentially be one of them along with Cowlishaw. I don't agree - I think with a northern site more get a worse deal then get a better deal. Even the original site selection report states that the location alone makes the Eola site undesirable. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 30, 2007 21:29:29 GMT -6
See in a northern site there are likely only a few ES areas that get a poor deal. We happen to potentially be one of them along with Cowlishaw. I don't agree - I think with a northern site more get a worse deal then get a better deal. Even the original site selection report states that the location alone makes the Eola site undesirable. I'm open for more perspective, tell me who else loses, especially distance wise which is by far my main concern. |
|
