North site location benefits?

[EagleDad]

WP - It just makes no sense for the district, plan and simple. With 2/3rds of the population South of 75th, that's where 2/3rds of the schools should be. As we've seen, boundaries and assignments just don't work very well with a northern site (Watts gets the shaft) . Add to this the fact that clearly came from the southern part of the district for MVHS will be very upset, and I'm just painting a realistic picture.

That said, I'm not against a northern site if it makes sense and the cost savings outweigh the lost benefits.

What I am against is M2, or the dash making a decision on their own (or with a small group) that goes not give the community a chance to see the options they weigh and provide input as to what they feel is best for the district. This is not a decision that should be made in a vacuum.

What I'm also against is the dismissing or non-pursuit options because of personal conflicts, or because they would take "work" to make happen. I'm also against speaking of Brach Brodie in the past tense already as though the decision was already made to throw away all of of the effort and money invested into it.

I'm also against not reflecting the true already invested costs of Brach Brodie in weighing the savings of a site switch. These costs include the legal fees, architectural and site plans, and most importantly the fact that we will be forced to sell 25 acres of prime real estate that we already own, now known to have a much higher market value, back at less than 1/2 the cost of what we purchased it for.

[warriorpride]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts...

eagledad said:

WP - It just makes no sense for the district, plan and simple. With 2/3rds of the population South of 75th, that's where 2/3rds of the schools should be. As we've seen, boundaries and assignments just don't work very well with a northern site (Watts gets the shaft) . Add to this the fact that clearly came from the southern part of the district for MVHS will be very upset, and I'm just painting a realistic picture.

What "makes sense" is in the eye of the beholder. Every site originally had pros & cons. I understand the part about location not being logistically great (I think BB is better), however, some other portions of the district felt that they got the shaft with BB, and they were upset (we just don't happen to have people from those portions of the SD as active participants on this forum - but we shouldn't discount them), so I think that's (the unhappiness) a wash with any location.

eagledad said:

That said, I'm not against a northern site if it makes sense and the cost savings outweigh the lost benefits.

Yes - I'd like to believe that the only reason is a major short-term savings, and neglible long-term impacts (i.e. transportation costs). As I've said, I'd prefer BB even if it was $15M more, so I'd like the northern site to save $15M+.

eagledad said:

What I am against is M2, or the dash making a decision on their own (or with a small group) that goes not give the community a chance to see the options they weigh and provide input as to what they feel is best for the district. This is not a decision that should be made in a vacuum.

Agreed

eagledad said:

What I'm also against is the dismissing or non-pursuit options because of personal conflicts, or because they would take "work" to make happen. I'm also against speaking of Brach Brodie in the past tense already as though the decision was already made to throw away all of of the effort and money invested into it.

I'm also against not reflecting the true already invested costs of Brach Brodie in weighing the savings of a site switch. These costs include the legal fees, architectural and site plans, and most importantly the fact that we will be forced to sell 25 acres of prime real estate that we already own, now known to have a much higher market value, back at less than 1/2 the cost of what we purchased it for.

Agreed - the SD better be sharing the complete picture, or they will likely continue to lose people's trust. I wasn't aware of the sell-back at 1/2 the price paid. Is that right? We paid ~250/acre and you're saying, if BB wants it back, we'd need to sell it at ~125/acre? I thought we would sell it back at cost, so the deal was essentialy a wash. Can anyone verify this?

[gatordog]

eagledad said:

. As we've seen, boundaries and assignments just don't work very well with a northern site (Watts gets the shaft) .

Considering a non-macom southern location:
if Watts having 2 mile increase to go to the 3000 seat HS is getting the shaft....what do you describe Gombert getting 3+ mile incr to go to the 4200 seat school?
(Ref my post in Bolingbrook boundary thread)

Add to this the fact that clearly came from the southern part of the district for MVHS will be very upset, and I'm just painting a realistic picture.

Why?
The distance change is zero or negligable. And they attend a 3000 seat HS. I think they get in principle EXACTLY what they voted to get. And they gain community with future Ashwood park neighbors.

[bob]

Agreed - the SD better be sharing the complete picture, or they will likely continue to lose people's trust. I wasn't aware of the sell-back at 1/2 the price paid. Is that right? We paid ~250/acre and you're saying, if BB wants it back, we'd need to sell it at ~125/acre? I thought we would sell it back at cost, so the deal was essentialy a wash. Can anyone verify this?

Ed means since the land was value at 525k avre we would have to sell it back at the price we paid for it; about half the cost.

[EagleDad]

warriorpride said:

eagledad said:

I'm also against not reflecting the true already invested costs of Brach Brodie in weighing the savings of a site switch. These costs include the legal fees, architectural and site plans, and most importantly the fact that we will be forced to sell 25 acres of prime real estate that we already own, now known to have a much higher market value, back at less than 1/2 the cost of what we purchased it for.

Agreed - the SD better be sharing the complete picture, or they will likely continue to lose people's trust. I wasn't aware of the sell-back at 1/2 the price paid. Is that right? We paid ~250/acre and you're saying, if BB wants it back, we'd need to sell it at ~125/acre? I thought we would sell it back at cost, so the deal was essentialy a wash. Can anyone verify this?

Sorry, I meant to say sell back at 1/2 the fair market value (typing too fast). We would sell it back at the ~250K, but is now known and legally worth well over 500K/acre. Selling it back at less than half it's value is a loss and should be refelected in addition to the legal costs. I just don't want this glossed over in what I'me fearfull is the pending decision announcment and snow job.

[warriorpride]

eagledad said:

warriorpride said:

Agreed - the SD better be sharing the complete picture, or they will likely continue to lose people's trust. I wasn't aware of the sell-back at 1/2 the price paid. Is that right? We paid ~250/acre and you're saying, if BB wants it back, we'd need to sell it at ~125/acre? I thought we would sell it back at cost, so the deal was essentialy a wash. Can anyone verify this?

Sorry, I meant to say sell back at 1/2 the fair market value (typing too fast). We would sell it back at the ~250K, but is now known and legally worth well over 500K/acre. Selling it back at less than half it's value is a loss and should be refelected in addition to the legal costs. I just don't want this glossed over in what I'me fearfull is the pending decision announcment and snow job.

That's not something that would show up on a balance sheet anywhere, but I see what you mean. I don't know if I agree, since we wouldn't actually be selling at a loss.

And, even though a jury was tricked into the judgement that they produced (does anyone know if the BB lawyer are Sith? perhaps they used the Jedi mind trick?), does anyone really think that the land that that we would sell would ever go for that price? We're talking non-frontage, multi-family residential, in Aurora.

[wvhsparent]

bob said:

Agreed - the SD better be sharing the complete picture, or they will likely continue to lose people's trust. I wasn't aware of the sell-back at 1/2 the price paid. Is that right? We paid ~250/acre and you're saying, if BB wants it back, we'd need to sell it at ~125/acre? I thought we would sell it back at cost, so the deal was essentialy a wash. Can anyone verify this?

Ed means since the land was value at 525k avre we would have to sell it back at the price we paid for it; about half the cost.

It has also been noted that in all likelyhood BB does not want the 25 acres back, meaning the SD would be free to sell off and maybe make money.

[warriorpride]

wvhsparent said:

bob said:

Ed means since the land was value at 525k avre we would have to sell it back at the price we paid for it; about half the cost.

It has also been noted that in all likelyhood BB does not want the 25 acres back, meaning the SD would be free to sell off and maybe make money.

They may also not have any buyers right now - down market, etc. Remember, this property is burried back in the corner. If BB thought they could sell it at profit, wouldn't they want it back? If the SD can't sell it, then this might complicate the funding for MV at another location.

[wvhsparent]

But I think they get one shot. The SD has to offer it back, if they refuse they lose any further chance at getting it back.
Maybe the SD could sell it to PREIT for say 400k/acre, which is less than they got the other stuff for and a bunch more than tha SD paid for it.

Just a possiblity

[warriorpride]

wvhsparent said:

But I think they get one shot. The SD has to offer it back, if they refuse they lose any further chance at getting it back.
Maybe the SD could sell it to PREIT for say 400k/acre, which is less than they got the other stuff for and a bunch more than tha SD paid for it.

Just a possiblity

why wouldnt BB do that, then?
how is that land zoned? I guess I assumed residential.

[wvhsparent]

warriorpride said:

wvhsparent said:

But I think they get one shot. The SD has to offer it back, if they refuse they lose any further chance at getting it back.
Maybe the SD could sell it to PREIT for say 400k/acre, which is less than they got the other stuff for and a bunch more than tha SD paid for it.

Just a possiblity

why wouldnt BB do that, then?
how is that land zoned? I guess I assumed residential.

It was mentioned in the filings for the appeal that BB does not want the original 25 acres back.

[Arch]

if BB doesn't want it back at 250, then what makes you think we can sell it to PREIT for 400?

BB could do that and flip a nice profit. Perhaps it's not WORTH that much and this talk about magic money from selling it is all BS at this point.

[warriorpride]

archwinsome said:

if BB doesn't want it back at 250, then what makes you think we can sell it to PREIT for 400?

BB could do that and flip a nice profit. Perhaps it's not WORTH that much and this talk about magic money from selling it is all BS at this point.

agreed - it's more likely that the land can be sold right now for no more than what we paid, and maybe even less (and that WOULD be a accountable LOSS/COST of dropping BB). Unless the SD has a buyer under contract for than land, they would be foolish to assume anything about what price they can get for the land or when they might be able to sell it - every assumption that's been made has seemingly fallen thru. As I said - this $ cannot be assumed to be available to contribute to cost of building MV at a non-BB location (unless there's a contract in hand).

[wvhsparent]

I see your points, But I wanted to get it out there too that at this point BB does not want it back either. So the comments about having to give it back at a price less than it's worth is just as spurious.

[sd204taxpayer]

gatordog said:

OK, everybody...bear with me here. The spirit of this is a good lawyer can always make arguments for either side. With grudging admiration for the BB trial lawyers, I forge on. (If it werent for them....this exercise would have been completely pointless! ). Can we offer thread dedications like songs on radio? I dedicate this thread to the skillful BB attorneys.

For thought-stimulation purposes lets consider AME site in terms of location only.
Quest: What is the real location cost compared to the BB central location?

For this exercise, lets ignore
-land cost savings (we dont know this, we dont know prices, fees, etc)
-potential site hazards (elect, RR. considered elswhere)

Things I will assume negligible, or not the district direct concern:
-HS driver gas cost due to milage differential (this cost pales in comparison to car ownership costs, insurance costs)
-possible lengthened rush hour commute time home increase due to participation in extra curricullars. First, the added time (even if drive doubles) pales in comparison to time spent in the activity itself. Its another small cost to a students participation, and well worth it surely most (all) would agree. (EX: Nobody will say I will not be in marching band because my drive home takes 15 minutes as opposed to 10 if a left right after school). Secondly, a commute time could actually decrease if you go to a HS early, non rush hour, for extracurricular. Therefore, I deem this negligable cost.

Lets assume the boundary solution with Watts, Cowl at MV. Just for arguments sake.

Lets measure location cost in terms of commute TIME. Strictly speaking, I am thinking ontime morning commute time (rush hour) and the on-time dismissmal commute (not yet rush hour).

Location COSTS:
1. Cowl adds <10 min to expected commute, or equivalently ~5 min to commute it currently has.
2. Watts adds <10 min to expected commute, or equivalently ~5 min to commute it currently has.
3. White Eagle adds <5 min to expected commute
4. Gombert East (~20%) adds <5 min to expected commute
5. North part of Mccarty (~30%) adds ~ 5 min to expected commute
6. North part of Steck (~30%) adds ~ 5 min to expected commute
7. Split ES's increase from 2 with BB to 4. (Possibly mitigated by ES boundary adjusting.)
(I will assume Fry time going to BB or WV is equal...must be within couple minutes)

Location BENEFITS:
1. Shorter commute times for Brooks
2. Young
3. Longwood
4. Brookdale
5. Owen east (50%)... goes to NV.

Note: in terms of overall bus mile cost...I will assume the shorter commutes balance out the longer commutes.

Other General Location BENEFITS
6.. First and foremost, everybody attends school within capacity. (the prime benefit!)
7. Virtually all those who voted expecting to attend a 3000 seat school will. I believe Owen East is the only exception. (To me personally, this is significant benefit)
8. If one acknowledges that Brookdale had legitimate concerns from being an "island", this problem solved.
9. If one acknowledges that Peterson/Ashwood, current and future residents, had legitimate concerns from being an "island", this problem solved.
10. No further "islands" created, I believe.

I look forward to everybodies comments and thoughts on this. If it provokes consternation I can only blame myself....after all I did dedicate this to the BB trial attorneys!

Won't the traffic be even worse than the BB site once the new full interchange goes in on Eola from 88? What about the safetly factor of driving especially when it is non-experienced high school drivers. Wouldn't this call for a major redistricting of the attendance boundaries?