Landowners move to force D204s hand

[wvhsparent]

rew said:

I want to ask someone much brainier than I, what are the trusts doing here??

The SD offered to buy what I assume is the interior (continguous with the 25) acreage, zoned residential, for $500K/acre and THEY TURNED THEM DOWN??

What kind of stupid buyer do they have in the wings that could possibly want to pay them more than that? And then have to rezone it commercial and face the potential battle from the resdiential neighbors and all the 204 folks that are a bit miffed at BB?

From filings with the courts, I believe they were planning on putting in a Medium/High density Housing.
They actually had a site plan/layout (like the School Dist).

[macy]

momto4

Maybe you can have more confidence in the situation because you are hearing information from somewhere that I'm not privy to.

Can you share what you are hearing about "daily" negotiations with land owners and where it's coming from?

[rew]

wvhsparent said:

rew said:

I want to ask someone much brainier than I, what are the trusts doing here??

The SD offered to buy what I assume is the interior (continguous with the 25) acreage, zoned residential, for $500K/acre and THEY TURNED THEM DOWN??

What kind of stupid buyer do they have in the wings that could possibly want to pay them more than that? And then have to rezone it commercial and face the potential battle from the resdiential neighbors and all the 204 folks that are a bit miffed at BB?

From filings with the courts, I believe they were planning on putting in a Medium/High density Housing.
They actually had a site plan/layout (like the School Dist).

What kind of housing would get them $500K/acre?Or $400K/acre?
I am baffled by their actions.

[lacy]

momto4 said:

casey said:

Why do I feel like we're now sitting in a position where our trusty SB will be paying the $31M for BB land? Given the fact that we don't even have that money we'll be building a 3rd HS minus some very important amenities (stadium, swimming pool, 2nd gym, etc.).

IMO, while the SB is supposedly examining other sites they are doing it in a half-hearted way. They'll come back and say that no other site was workable (too many obstacles, too many cost factors involved with walking away from BB, etc.). At this point, I feel like the SB is going to jam BB down our throats at a cost we can't afford and it will be a less complete school than WVHS and NVHS. Please don't tell me that the community can work together to get a future referendum passed to cover those amenities. At this point of the game, I don't think there's too many people jumping to support the SB/SD on anything. Get ready for the big hose job - it's coming.

What makes you think the other sites are being examined only half-heartedly? I think the SB would very much like to find a site that would work as well as BB and come in at a lower cost.

I think it's unlikely they'll find something like that and certainly something that works within the timeframe that we need it...

If we wind up at BB I don't at all believe it's for lack of trying to find something else.

My worry is that the SB has promised something that may not be possible - delivering the school without asking for more money. What will happen if more money is the ONLY way to deliver an equitable third high school? At the same time, we will need an education fund referendum and possibly money for a/c (this also seems unlikely to happen, to the detriment of thousands for several weeks of every school year).

I am not laying blame on the SB for this. There is plenty of blame to go around. It is obvious that failing the first ref and voters taking another year to examine the situation more closely has cost us both millions and years. It is astounding that the jury came back with a price that seems so out of line for what similar properties sold for in the given timeframe.

I think all the other properties have issues that make them less than optimal for a site for the third HS. I don't think the SB could or should have done something differently along the way except perhaps push harder in 2005 for that ref. If QT had gone through, we would be building now and probably have the land at a cheaper price than the jury decided upon.

I think we should have just paid the $$ a month or two ago and started building.

How can you say the jury's price was out of line when Preit paid that much or more per acre for their parcel and the SB offered $500K per acre for 40 acres??

Also, why would QT have helped? The jury's price still would have come in where it did.

All of this looks to me like an attempt by the SB to continue to lay blame at someone else's feet. The big bad lawyers for BB, the public who didn't approve the first referendum, the jury, etc.... It just really gets old.

The reality is we have NO idea if they have actually tried to negotiate with any other land owner because everything has been in secret.

How hard is it to make an offer on another piece of land? The SB makes it seem like it's some impossibility.

I think what they're really doing is leading us all down a road where they say, well we couldn't buy anything but BB so we have to pay this ridiculous price - but it wasnt' our fault.

[momto4]

macy said:

momto4

Maybe you can have more confidence in the situation because you are hearing information from somewhere that I'm not privy to.

Can you share what you are hearing about "daily" negotiations with land owners and where it's coming from?

Check with individual SB members or administrators. They will tell you that they have ongoing negotiations for a certain number of land parcels but will likely NOT tell you anything about what parcels they are.

[bob]

How can you say the jury's price was out of line when Preit paid that much or more per acre for their parcel and the SB offered $500K per acre for 40 acres??

Do we really know they offered $500k or is this what the BB lawyer said they did?

[bob]

macy said:

momto4

Maybe you can have more confidence in the situation because you are hearing information from somewhere that I'm not privy to.

Can you share what you are hearing about "daily" negotiations with land owners and where it's coming from?

I get the same answer to my e-mails.

[doctorwho]

rew said:

I want to ask someone much brainier than I, what are the trusts doing here??

The SD offered to buy what I assume is the interior (continguous with the 25) acreage, zoned residential, for $500K/acre and THEY TURNED THEM DOWN??

What kind of stupid buyer do they have in the wings that could possibly want to pay them more than that? And then have to rezone it commercial and face the potential battle from the resdiential neighbors and all the 204 folks that are a bit miffed at BB?

remembering though that the trust attorneys are under no pressure to sell or make money or anything else - they manage the property - just as they have done the last what 20 years since the last heir disappeared. They are not your normal seller -

[macy]

Exactly Dr. Who... They are in no hurry as evidenced by their behavior the last two years!

But, we are now.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

momto4 said:

What makes you think the other sites are being examined only half-heartedly? I think the SB would very much like to find a site that would work as well as BB and come in at a lower cost.

I think it's unlikely they'll find something like that and certainly something that works within the timeframe that we need it...

If we wind up at BB I don't at all believe it's for lack of trying to find something else.

My worry is that the SB has promised something that may not be possible - delivering the school without asking for more money. What will happen if more money is the ONLY way to deliver an equitable third high school? At the same time, we will need an education fund referendum and possibly money for a/c (this also seems unlikely to happen, to the detriment of thousands for several weeks of every school year).

I am not laying blame on the SB for this. There is plenty of blame to go around. It is obvious that failing the first ref and voters taking another year to examine the situation more closely has cost us both millions and years. It is astounding that the jury came back with a price that seems so out of line for what similar properties sold for in the given timeframe.

I think all the other properties have issues that make them less than optimal for a site for the third HS. I don't think the SB could or should have done something differently along the way except perhaps push harder in 2005 for that ref. If QT had gone through, we would be building now and probably have the land at a cheaper price than the jury decided upon.

I think we should have just paid the $$ a month or two ago and started building.

How can you say the jury's price was out of line when Preit paid that much or more per acre for their parcel and the SB offered $500K per acre for 40 acres??

Also, why would QT have helped? The jury's price still would have come in where it did.

QT would have helped in that if done when proposed - the school would be well under construction already -- saving the $5 - $6 M is walk away fees and getting the school done 'at least' a year earlier - saving somewhere between 8% - 10% - the YTY construction cost increase ( as best determined by the numerous builders sites noted here recently).

that $90M will likely cost $98-$99M if done 1 year late and close to $110M if 2 years later.

I know it isn't what some wanted - and yes the price could have been the same -- but now we've got a $5-$6M walk away penalty and a potential $10 - $20M building increase depending on when the school gets done.

Not getting QT on time may cost us as much as $26M -

so as it stands right now - not getting QT was a bad thing financially also, and lets say we cannot get a piece of property that works for another year and the school is 2 years late -- we will never make up the cost on a cheaper per acre parcel unless someone donates the land...

[rew]

But they do have a fiducuary duty to do what's in the best interest of the trusts.

Are we sure there are no Brodie heirs involved?

[lacy]

momto4 said:

macy said:

momto4

Maybe you can have more confidence in the situation because you are hearing information from somewhere that I'm not privy to.

Can you share what you are hearing about "daily" negotiations with land owners and where it's coming from?

Check with individual SB members or administrators. They will tell you that they have ongoing negotiations for a certain number of land parcels but will likely NOT tell you anything about what parcels they are.

I'm wondering if that will enable them to say "we tried - it just didn't work out with any other site" when really they weren't doing much at all.

I guess though when it's all said and done that these other land owners will let us know if there were any real negotiations.

[bob]

I doubt we are going to hear about all of the sites. Do the landowner really want the public to know what they were willing to sell their land for?

[doctorwho]

rew said:

But they do have a fiducuary duty to do what's in the best interest of the trusts.

Are we sure there are no Brodie heirs involved?

that's what was written up front - I assume it's true ( and you haven't heard from any have you ? ) - I would think if there were any they would have been dragged into this by now - by one side or the other

fiduciary responsibility could be determined to be sit on the land for another 10 years because it will be worth even more --- that's a very open interpretation.

[lacy]

bob said:

I doubt we are going to hear about all of the sites. Do the landowner really want the public to know what they were willing to sell their land for?

If a landowner wants to sell their land - why would they want to keep it a secret? Think about how silly that presumption is. Maybe if they aren't an interested seller that would be a different question.

But if they were a willing seller, then I think we will eventually learn that as well as the price they would have accepted. And if the SB wasn't really trying too hard to acquire other land, we would learn that too.

If they could have acquired land that was much less than BB, but we bought BB anyway, I wonder if that would affect the 09 referendum.