The Brach Brody Motion to Dismiss

[d204mom]

On my calculation I forgot to take into account that the Brach Brodie price came in at 31.7 Mil instead of 33 Mil.

So that means that a pool, stadium, gymnasium, and 500 seats of capacity costs 1.3 Million. That is hard for me to believe as the Neuqua Valley Gymnasium by itself cost about that much in 1996.

But I guess we can make up numbers all day long in the absence of any meaningful information coming out of the school board.

[d204mom]

Something I was thinking about yesterday that this motion kind of insinuates but doesn't come right out and say -

In order to take away someone's property by force via eminent domain, they either have to do something wrong (ala Country Lakes Golf Course) or the governmental body needs to prove that they need the land and can't use other land with willing sellers to satisfy the need. In other words, didn't someone from the district have to testify that Brach Brodie was the only acceptable land to build the high school on?

And if we build the school on another site, isn't that proving by their actions that the condemnation suit was unjust in the first place?

I'm not thinking it's a criminal matter (but maybe it is). Don't the BB people have a justifiable claim to a big punitive civil settlement if they can prove that the district tied up their land unjustly for 2 years?

[d204mom]

Maybe CV can testify for them again!

[proschool]

d204mom said:

Something I was thinking about yesterday that this motion kind of insinuates but doesn't come right out and say -

In order to take away someone's property by force via eminent domain, they either have to do something wrong (ala Country Lakes Golf Course) or the governmental body needs to prove that they need the land and can't use other land with willing sellers to satisfy the need. In other words, didn't someone from the district have to testify that Brach Brodie was the only acceptable land to build the high school on?

And if we build the school on another site, isn't that proving by their actions that the condemnation suit was unjust in the first place?

I'm not thinking it's a criminal matter (but maybe it is). Don't the BB people have a justifiable claim to a big punitive civil settlement if they can prove that the district tied up their land unjustly for 2 years?

I don't think there is a requirement that it be the only acceptable land. What if we needed a forth scholl one day then what wouyld we do?

[d204mom]

proschool said:

d204mom said:

Something I was thinking about yesterday that this motion kind of insinuates but doesn't come right out and say -

In order to take away someone's property by force via eminent domain, they either have to do something wrong (ala Country Lakes Golf Course) or the governmental body needs to prove that they need the land and can't use other land with willing sellers to satisfy the need. In other words, didn't someone from the district have to testify that Brach Brodie was the only acceptable land to build the high school on?

And if we build the school on another site, isn't that proving by their actions that the condemnation suit was unjust in the first place?

I'm not thinking it's a criminal matter (but maybe it is). Don't the BB people have a justifiable claim to a big punitive civil settlement if they can prove that the district tied up their land unjustly for 2 years?

I don't think there is a requirement that it be the only acceptable land. What if we needed a forth scholl one day then what wouyld we do?

My assumption is that governmental bodies can't just go willy nilly taking people's property unless they can prove the need. Why would the judge allow the condemnation to proceed unless the district proved that they needed THAT piece of land?

[d204mom]

Yes, the auto replace put "disagreeuption" instead of a$$umption.

[proschool]

They need the land and that is all they need to prove. Thgey don't need to prove that it is the only land they could possibly use and even if they did need to prove it the other parcels of land were not for sale when the comdemnation proceedings were filed.

[slp]

d204mom said:

Yes, the auto replace put "disagreeuption" instead of a$$umption.

funny, I thought it was just a George W. Bush type of word...disagreeumption.... kind of has a ring to it.

[doctorwho]

d204mom said:

proschool said:

I don't think there is a requirement that it be the only acceptable land. What if we needed a forth scholl one day then what wouyld we do?

I disagreeumption is that governmental bodies can't just go willy nilly taking people's property unless they can prove the need. Why would the judge allow the condemnation to proceed unless the district proved that they needed THAT piece of land?

and they already had a document that said it was the best land for the school- all others had 'issues' - so even if they build somewhere else- it is at a perceived penalty to the district. BB was designated as the least problem free- and as we can see by site selection now - by a long shot. No electrical wires or stations, no RR tracks next to the property, no trucking firm after trucking firm across the street - and placed near where the students who actually were going to attend it live.

I would think ( as long as we don't get the same 12 slack jawed yokels as a jury - that that WAS the land we needed for the school.

Also hard to claim a penalty in my mind when the land supposedly doubled in price in 2 years.

[d204mom]

I was looking for some documentation on this and ran across an old response (our response to traverse motion) wvhsparent posted. Interesting bit of info:

ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=archivedtopics&action=display&thread=1143123431

The DISTRICT'S $257,500 per acre "offer" made on
November 22, 2005 for the SUBJECT 55-ACRE PROPERTY totals $14,162,500,
which is nearly $10,000,000 less than the DISTRICT'S own January 5, 2006
Project Budget Summary for site acquisition and development costs.

So that means way back then there was about 24 MIL set aside for land acquisition and site improvements.

Is the budgeted breakdown of the 124.6 Mil public info? Should be, it's our money, but I can't find it anywhere.

[d204mom]

And hasn't Metzger always claimed that they were NEVER willing to negotiate?

13. Notwithstanding the legally deficient nature of the Plaintiffs November 22, 2005 "offer," the Hazel S. Brodie Trust made a written response thereto by letter dated December 19, 2005 which indicated a willingness to negotiate with the Plaintiff on a fair and meaningful basis. The Plaintiff, however, ignored the Hazel S. Brodie Trust's willingness to negotiate and promptly proceeded to file its condemnation complaint on December 22, 2005 without engaging in any negotiations.

[d204mom]

HEY the archives are super fun! I agree with the earlier posting... CV for prez!



In my opinion, the current District #204 boundary options have been built on a house of cards--pull the referendum card out, the deck collapses.

The introduction of boundaries is designed for the passage of the referendum. What you are seeing is a planned strategy prepared by a referendum consultant hired by the district (The Center for Community Opinion a/k/a CCO http://www.communityopinion.com). This plan was customized based on the results of last year’s community survey. It is used to persuade voters to a predetermined outcome—the passage of a referendum. CCO touts an approximate success rate of 95% in obtaining passage of previously defeated referenda and uses terminology such as “Data Preparation and Manipulation” on their website. Do they care about our community and our children or do they simply care about their next success ad for their portfolio?

Look what has happened to our community! Neighbors and friends are arguing over boundary proposals, which are being prematurely discussed on nonexistent space. Is this a healing process or have the wounds simply deepened? Full disclosure and factually-supported analysis are imperative to obtain public support for all recommended solutions—boundaries or otherwise. The public has expressed extreme frustration in obtaining disclosure and supportive documentation in district processes; it has also been a continual frustration for me as a board member. I promise to disclose to the public all information and documentation necessary to quantify and support any considerations and recommendations even if I have to file a Freedom of Information Act request to get the job done because we all know how hard free-flowing information is to come by in the district.

It is as apparent to me, as it is to others, that a very emotional topic has been interjected into the referendum process. Let’s not lose sight of why we’re really here. Let’s not pour all our energy into “what ifs”. The boundaries can be redrawn at any time; there are no guarantees.

Christine Vickers
IPSD #204 School Board Member
Dated: January 25, 2006