Landowners move to force D204s hand

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

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.

the people would actually have to know for sure - not hearsay - that other land would have been cheaper. I am still of the mindset that we will not end up with BB, but we willnot save any significant monies either.

as far as willing sellers, do any of the perceived properties actually have for sale signs on them ?

[bob]

lacy said:

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.

They might be a willing seller but that doesn't mean they want the info to be public.

If the SB pases on a piece of land from Group A at $400k/acre.

Then the next buyer has advantage knowing that A is willing to sell at $400/k.

In this buyer's market, guess what the next buyer is going to do? Give Group A a lower bid to see if Group A comes down.

[doctorwho]

bob said:

lacy said:

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.

They might be a willing seller but that doesn't mean they want the info to be public.

yeah, think about a church -- when the congregation thinks they may have $30M or so tied up in land they aren't using - they may be a little more cranky about the collection basket --

[wvhsparent]

doctorwho said:

lacy said:

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.

the people would actually have to know for sure - not hearsay - that other land would have been cheaper. I am still of the mindset that we will not end up with BB, but we willnot save any significant monies either.

as far as willing sellers, do any of the perceived properties actually have for sale signs on them ?

Totally agree with you here doc. The problem as I see it is the SB is being so secretive that right now all we have to go on is heresay. They had better disclose all info come decision time...regardless of the ultimate site chosen.

I see lacy's point come 09 ref time. The court of public opinion and the jury of voters does allow for heresay. Which rightly or wrongly could have a negative effect on the outcome of the 09 ref.

[wvhsparent]

bob said:

lacy said:

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.

They might be a willing seller but that doesn't mean they want the info to be public.

If the SB pases on a piece of land from Group A at $400k/acre.

Then the next buyer has advantage knowing that A is willing to sell at $400/k.

In this buyer's market, guess what the next buyer is going to do? Give Group A a lower bid to see if Group A comes down.

I still think they could indicate the properties they are looking at with disclosing any of the financials behind them.
The only other possibility is that the very locations in play will cause a meltdown irregardless of cost.

[slp]

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.

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.

The reason why the jury verdict is viewed by some as 'out of line' is because they (the jury ) were required to determine a price based on the value of the land at the time the condemnation proceeding was FILED. (Please interject if someone knows...wasn't that at least two years ago?)

That is not an apples to apples comparison to what Preit paid THIS YEAR due to the passage of time.

[doctorwho]

slp said:

lacy said:

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.

The reason why the jury verdict is viewed by some as 'out of line' is because they (the jury ) were required to determine a price based on the value of the land at the time the condemnation proceeding was FILED. (Please interject if someone knows...wasn't that at least two years ago?)

That is not an apples to apples comparison to what Preit paid THIS YEAR due to the passage of time.

And obviously comletely ignored Lehigh Station property - both west of 59 - both in Aurora and yet Lehigh Station was around or under $250K per acre -- same time frame -- how did that not factor in ?

[Arch]

doctorwho said:

slp said:

The reason why the jury verdict is viewed by some as 'out of line' is because they (the jury ) were required to determine a price based on the value of the land at the time the condemnation proceeding was FILED. (Please interject if someone knows...wasn't that at least two years ago?)

That is not an apples to apples comparison to what Preit paid THIS YEAR due to the passage of time.

And obviously comletely ignored Lehigh Station property - both west of 59 - both in Aurora and yet Lehigh Station was around or under $250K per acre -- same time frame -- how did that not factor in ?

Repeatedly say that it's worth $600K in enough papers around the suburbs for a couple of years, and everyone simply takes it as fact.

[lacy]

doctorwho said:

lacy said:

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.

the people would actually have to know for sure - not hearsay - that other land would have been cheaper. I am still of the mindset that we will not end up with BB, but we willnot save any significant monies either.

as far as willing sellers, do any of the perceived properties actually have for sale signs on them ?

How do we "actually know for sure" that the SB is negotiating "daily" or whatever it is they're telling us. I mean, isn't what they're saying hearsay too?

They all could be playing strip poker in those executive sessions for all we know.

[lacy]

slp said:

lacy said:

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.

The reason why the jury verdict is viewed by some as 'out of line' is because they (the jury ) were required to determine a price based on the value of the land at the time the condemnation proceeding was FILED. (Please interject if someone knows...wasn't that at least two years ago?)

That is not an apples to apples comparison to what Preit paid THIS YEAR due to the passage of time.

We never heard this from anyone but SB supporters.

If the jury's verdict was flawed because they failed to follow the instructions given to them, that would be obvious grounds for an appeal - or even reason for the judge to not accept their findings.

But we appealed for different reasons - correct?

I just think some have never accepted that the jury returned a verdict that was fair, but not one some people wanted to accept. Kinda like denial.

So we keep blaming everyone but the SB for the mess we're in. They never had a plan B and it's becoming clear that they aren't working on anything other than still trying to get BB.

[EagleDad]

lacy said:

They all could be playing strip poker in those executive sessions for all we know.

Thanks lacy - I just had a mental vision of JC with a straight and M2 with a flush that I'll need to go to counseling now to get out of my head

[Arch]

Why don't you take a seat over there....

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

slp said:

The reason why the jury verdict is viewed by some as 'out of line' is because they (the jury ) were required to determine a price based on the value of the land at the time the condemnation proceeding was FILED. (Please interject if someone knows...wasn't that at least two years ago?)

That is not an apples to apples comparison to what Preit paid THIS YEAR due to the passage of time.

We never heard this from anyone but SB supporters.

If the jury's verdict was flawed because they failed to follow the instructions given to them, that would be obvious grounds for an appeal - or even reason for the judge to not accept their findings.

But we appealed for different reasons - correct?

I just think some have never accepted that the jury returned a verdict that was fair, but not one some people wanted to accept. Kinda like denial.

So we keep blaming everyone but the SB for the mess we're in. They never had a plan B and it's becoming clear that they aren't working on anything other than still trying to get BB.

again, if it was fair - why would Lehigh Station and the piece of land off 75th street only be worth half that ? Even if you took an average - something else wouldhave to have sold for $750K - and I highly doubt that. It appears those comps were left out -- I would like to know why --

one of those comps will now be pumping kids into this system


btw - I know you can't answer why - but you are looking for why some of us think it was unfair -- maybe $257K was not the right price either - but where they landed appears to also be wrong retro to 2 years ago.

I'm not sure one could appeal a subjective decision - I am sure they were not told you must come up with a composite mean -- otherwise we wouldn't have needed a jury. The jury that passed out millions because someone decided putting hot coffee between their legs in a car was a brilliant idea for example also came to their own conclusion --

[Arch]

doctorwho said:

lacy said:

We never heard this from anyone but SB supporters.

If the jury's verdict was flawed because they failed to follow the instructions given to them, that would be obvious grounds for an appeal - or even reason for the judge to not accept their findings.

But we appealed for different reasons - correct?

I just think some have never accepted that the jury returned a verdict that was fair, but not one some people wanted to accept. Kinda like denial.

So we keep blaming everyone but the SB for the mess we're in. They never had a plan B and it's becoming clear that they aren't working on anything other than still trying to get BB.

again, if it was fair - why would Lehigh Station and the piece of land off 75th street only be worth half that ? Even if you took an average - something else wouldhave to have sold for $750K - and I highly doubt that. It appears those comps were left out -- I would like to know why --

one of those comps will now be pumping kids into this system

If we knew who owns/owned the parcels, it would probably not be hard to guess why they were 'left out'.

[bob]

Lacy all it takes is an e-mail to the SB. Why don't you e-mail CV and report back what she says?