I thought this was a very well written post from the blog.
If you read between the lines, the price differential between the two properties will all boil down to the settlement. If it is zero, as the district claims, then Eola-Molitor is $17mn cheaper. On the other hand, if it is $17mn, then the price of the two pieces of land is the same, with the Brach-Brodie site having less environmental problems and less community relationship problems since it was the site presented during the ballot period.
I hope everyone understands that the district has to say publicly that it thinks it will 'win' the damage claim by not having to pay anything. That is completely unrealistic, but they'd be killing their own case to say anything different.
The Brach-Brodie lawyers probably went for a damage amount that would make the district indifferent between the two choices. That is a smart legal tactic on their part. Can they really get that? Who knows, but they got pretty much everything they wanted in the first phase of the trial, while the district somehow thought a piece of land would cost half of what the jury determined. Given that this is going back to the same court, I have to think the Brach Brodie people have the upper hand.
This story points out that there is no precedent for a settlement like this. That does not mean that the district will likely not have to pay anything. There is no precedent because government bodies that condemn property don't normally back out. I've never heard of a government backing out of a condemnation case.
What normally happens in a condemnation is that the government body offers 90% of market, the land owner and attorneys ask for 125%. An eventual out-of-court settlement or in-court settlement results in the land being sold to the government for 100-110% of market value at the time the condemnation proceeding started. Normally land prices go up during the condemnation proceeding. That is the first aspect of this particular case that is unusual because in this case land prices have clearly gone down. The second unusual aspect is the fact that the jury didn't find a value in the middle--it sided with the landowner, which suggests that the district's offer wasn't legitimate in the first place. But the fact that the district backed away and didn't purchase the land once the jury ruled is by far the most unusual aspect of the case.
This case has the makings of a Supreme Court classic. Can a government entity make a lowball offer for a property and tie it up in a condemnation proceeding for years, thereby preventing the landowner from either selling or developing her land, and then walk away without penalty? That is the issue at question. I have to believe that the decision will be appealed several times, regardless of how it comes down, because it will set a potentially important precedent. Is the district prepared to pay all of those legal fees? Is that what we the taxpayers would want the district to do with our money?
The NSFOC is right when it says the district would be advised to slow down and not purchase the Eola-Molitor site. I'm sorry Dr. Daeschner, but there is a lot of evidence that the district is a lot better at public relations than due diligence. Can you imagine IPSD-204 buying an environmentally damaged site and then having a court rule that it has to either build on the Brach-Brodie site or pay the Brach-Brodie trusts the whole $17mn savings? That would be as stupid as offering $250/acre for land that is obviously worth over $500/acre. Oh wait, the district did that. Buying the Eola-Molitor site now would be as short sighted as overestimating HS enrollment by 900 students and elementary enrollment by 2000 students in data released just prior to a referendum. Oh wait, IPSD-204 did that. Buying the Eola-Molitor site now would be as stupid as not putting in A/C when a building is built and then telling residents that the district would be happy to raise taxes and retro-fit the schools at 7 times the cost of putting it in at construction time. Oh wait, the IPSD-204 did that too.
By Greg on March 19, 2008 9:53 AM
If you read between the lines, the price differential between the two properties will all boil down to the settlement. If it is zero, as the district claims, then Eola-Molitor is $17mn cheaper. On the other hand, if it is $17mn, then the price of the two pieces of land is the same, with the Brach-Brodie site having less environmental problems and less community relationship problems since it was the site presented during the ballot period.
I hope everyone understands that the district has to say publicly that it thinks it will 'win' the damage claim by not having to pay anything. That is completely unrealistic, but they'd be killing their own case to say anything different.
The Brach-Brodie lawyers probably went for a damage amount that would make the district indifferent between the two choices. That is a smart legal tactic on their part. Can they really get that? Who knows, but they got pretty much everything they wanted in the first phase of the trial, while the district somehow thought a piece of land would cost half of what the jury determined. Given that this is going back to the same court, I have to think the Brach Brodie people have the upper hand.
This story points out that there is no precedent for a settlement like this. That does not mean that the district will likely not have to pay anything. There is no precedent because government bodies that condemn property don't normally back out. I've never heard of a government backing out of a condemnation case.
What normally happens in a condemnation is that the government body offers 90% of market, the land owner and attorneys ask for 125%. An eventual out-of-court settlement or in-court settlement results in the land being sold to the government for 100-110% of market value at the time the condemnation proceeding started. Normally land prices go up during the condemnation proceeding. That is the first aspect of this particular case that is unusual because in this case land prices have clearly gone down. The second unusual aspect is the fact that the jury didn't find a value in the middle--it sided with the landowner, which suggests that the district's offer wasn't legitimate in the first place. But the fact that the district backed away and didn't purchase the land once the jury ruled is by far the most unusual aspect of the case.
This case has the makings of a Supreme Court classic. Can a government entity make a lowball offer for a property and tie it up in a condemnation proceeding for years, thereby preventing the landowner from either selling or developing her land, and then walk away without penalty? That is the issue at question. I have to believe that the decision will be appealed several times, regardless of how it comes down, because it will set a potentially important precedent. Is the district prepared to pay all of those legal fees? Is that what we the taxpayers would want the district to do with our money?
The NSFOC is right when it says the district would be advised to slow down and not purchase the Eola-Molitor site. I'm sorry Dr. Daeschner, but there is a lot of evidence that the district is a lot better at public relations than due diligence. Can you imagine IPSD-204 buying an environmentally damaged site and then having a court rule that it has to either build on the Brach-Brodie site or pay the Brach-Brodie trusts the whole $17mn savings? That would be as stupid as offering $250/acre for land that is obviously worth over $500/acre. Oh wait, the district did that. Buying the Eola-Molitor site now would be as short sighted as overestimating HS enrollment by 900 students and elementary enrollment by 2000 students in data released just prior to a referendum. Oh wait, IPSD-204 did that. Buying the Eola-Molitor site now would be as stupid as not putting in A/C when a building is built and then telling residents that the district would be happy to raise taxes and retro-fit the schools at 7 times the cost of putting it in at construction time. Oh wait, the IPSD-204 did that too.
.
