|
|
Post by momof3 on Dec 7, 2007 16:12:36 GMT -6
they'd have to be willing sellers -- a hard commodity to find it seems - I thought they had their own plans for that land according to the open parcel report they wanted to build townhouses for employees and church families but have not moved on this at all Report is dated 2005 but text was updated in 2006 - item A4 www.ipsd.org/Uploads/IPPC_IPPC_OpenParcel.pdfItem 19 is the new development slated for Watts |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Dec 7, 2007 16:13:09 GMT -6
The third HS was voted on to ease overcrowding, how do you tell people, you paid $125M and your kids are still attending overcrowded HSs?
I do agree that that is the only way to fill the north site.. build it small.
When it was suggested to build MV at BB smaller, I always thought that was an initial problem solved and that at some point you would add the capacity when it was needed and monies became available.
If we're going to just build it with less amenities (smaller capacity is less amenities), then why not build at BB with less amenities?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Dec 7, 2007 16:13:10 GMT -6
The 25 was sold voluntarily with the stipulation that the BB estate can buy it back for the selling price minus $1,000,000. This still this begs the question if the land can be sold for that easily why wouldn't BB be intersted in buying it for $1,000,000 less than they sold it? Yes, that's right, there's another 1 Million in costs in walking away from BB So we have in walkaway costs/losses 5MM legal 1MM planning/surveys/designs 7.5 MM in land differential for the extra 10 acres at BB that are not at a 70 acre site (estimated worth of the prime frontage land and BB along 75th) 4.5 million in land sellback losses (figured at having to sell back the current BB 25 acres at 225K and purchase a new 25 acres somewhere else at 400K/acre) Total loss/reduction value involved at bailing on BB (so far, I'll bet there's more costs to be uncovered/disclosed) - 18 Million That would mean another 70 acre site would need to be less than 31MM-18MM or under 13MM (or approx. $185K/acre) to make it worthwile on costs alone. This does not account for the "suck" factor of another site. They'll need to ghet a hell of a deal elsewhere for this to make sense. we're back to the land ' donation' scenario almost - aren't we |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Dec 7, 2007 16:17:53 GMT -6
The third HS was voted on to ease overcrowding, how do you tell people, you paid $125M and your kids are still attending overcrowded HSs? I do agree that that is the only way to fill the north site.. build it small. there would still be movement from WV to MV,,, and then some from NV to WV....... I am still mulling this over in my head also - we' d have to see what the populations left in WV and NV actually would be. The thought that keeps popping in my head was the mantra from some that we built NV for the south only - some areas complained loudly -- now we would really be doing the same for the north wouldn't we - except this time it would be closer to true. This is quite the brain buster Also would have to identify exactly who would go there past the 4 slam dunk schools -- that is only a MS population, not even a small HS |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Dec 7, 2007 16:20:23 GMT -6
The 25 was sold voluntarily with the stipulation that the BB estate can buy it back for the selling price minus $1,000,000. This still this begs the question if the land can be sold for that easily why wouldn't BB be intersted in buying it for $1,000,000 less than they sold it? Yes, that's right, there's another 1 Million in costs in walking away from BB So we have in walkaway costs/losses 5MM legal 1MM planning/surveys/designs 7.5 MM in land differential for the extra 10 acres at BB that are not at a 70 acre site (estimated worth of the prime frontage land and BB along 75th) 4.5 million in land sellback losses (figured at having to sell back the current BB 25 acres at 225K and purchase a new 25 acres somewhere else at 400K/acre) Total loss/reduction value involved at bailing on BB (so far, I'll bet there's more costs to be uncovered/disclosed) - 18 Million That would mean another 70 acre site would need to be less than 31MM-18MM or under 13MM (or approx. $185K/acre) to make it worthwile on costs alone. This does not account for the "suck" factor of another site. They'll need to ghet a hell of a deal elsewhere for this to make sense. I object to the 4.5. It should be 0, with an *, since we have no ideas what we'd get for it. And I think 0 net should be the assumption. This puts it closer to 200/acre, but it still seems unlikely. Shouldn't the SB have figured this out like the day after the judgement came out? |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Dec 7, 2007 16:26:56 GMT -6
Yes, which is why so many were shocked that we didn't purchase the site in Oct and start digging!
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Dec 7, 2007 16:30:55 GMT -6
If AME bought the property in 2004ish for $6M why would $14M (200K/acre) seem unlikely?
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Dec 7, 2007 16:33:00 GMT -6
The 25 was sold voluntarily with the stipulation that the BB estate can buy it back for the selling price minus $1,000,000. This still this begs the question if the land can be sold for that easily why wouldn't BB be intersted in buying it for $1,000,000 less than they sold it? Yes, that's right, there's another 1 Million in costs in walking away from BB So we have in walkaway costs/losses 5MM legal 1MM planning/surveys/designs 7.5 MM in land differential for the extra 10 acres at BB that are not at a 70 acre site (estimated worth of the prime frontage land and BB along 75th) 4.5 million in land sellback losses (figured at having to sell back the current BB 25 acres at 225K and purchase a new 25 acres somewhere else at 400K/acre) Total loss/reduction value involved at bailing on BB (so far, I'll bet there's more costs to be uncovered/disclosed) - 18 Million That would mean another 70 acre site would need to be less than 31MM-18MM or under 13MM (or approx. $185K/acre) to make it worthwile on costs alone. This does not account for the "suck" factor of another site. They'll need to ghet a hell of a deal elsewhere for this to make sense. Don't forget to add that the BB estate still expects $2,500,000 in damage to the remainder even if we walk away from BB |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Dec 7, 2007 16:42:04 GMT -6
You don't have to sell it at a profit just sell the 15 acres for what we paid...$564K/acre and that's $8.5M even at $518K/acre that's $7.8M Show me where it states that is legal to do. I don't think it is. Show me where it's not legal to sell it. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Dec 7, 2007 16:54:52 GMT -6
Again, find a buyer who signed a contract before you even begin to think you have another 8 million to play with for the 'what if' game.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Dec 7, 2007 17:01:23 GMT -6
If AME bought the property in 2004ish for $6M why would $14M (200K/acre) seem unlikely? likely because they read the papers also - I wouldn't sell it for that now after seeing the BB verdict if I owned it |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Dec 7, 2007 17:08:40 GMT -6
Again, find a buyer who signed a contract before you even begin to think you have another 8 million to play with for the 'what if' game. But don't tell me that extra 10 acres is worth nothing either. Admittedly my 7.5MM is on the high end. 2.25 is the low end. The reality is somewhere in the middle - how about we settle on 5MM. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Dec 7, 2007 17:10:58 GMT -6
Show me where it states that is legal to do. I don't think it is. Show me where it's not legal to sell it. I asked first.... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Dec 7, 2007 17:17:34 GMT -6
The 25 was sold voluntarily with the stipulation that the BB estate can buy it back for the selling price minus $1,000,000. This still this begs the question if the land can be sold for that easily why wouldn't BB be intersted in buying it for $1,000,000 less than they sold it? Yes, that's right, there's another 1 Million in costs in walking away from BB So we have in walkaway costs/losses 5MM legal 1MM planning/surveys/designs 7.5 MM in land differential for the extra 10 acres at BB that are not at a 70 acre site (estimated worth of the prime frontage land and BB along 75th) 4.5 million in land sellback losses (figured at having to sell back the current BB 25 acres at 225K and purchase a new 25 acres somewhere else at 400K/acre) Total loss/reduction value involved at bailing on BB (so far, I'll bet there's more costs to be uncovered/disclosed) - 18 Million That would mean another 70 acre site would need to be less than 31MM-18MM or under 13MM (or approx. $185K/acre) to make it worthwile on costs alone. This does not account for the "suck" factor of another site. They'll need to ghet a hell of a deal elsewhere for this to make sense. You are using politician/Daily Herald Math. I don't really think you can use the 7.5 or the 4.5 and they are merely made up numbers (kinda like asset depreciation) and not actual dollars to be spent. The 1mil for planning/etc. of which much can be reused/modified for a new site. The building design is fine and probably could be placed on any flat parcel. But I'll humor you with your figuring. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Dec 7, 2007 17:25:18 GMT -6
Something tells me the cookie cutter srchitecture and planning approach won't work so well on another site that is smaller ans sorrunded by hazzards. My guess is there would be significant redesign work needed on AME.
|
|
