The Macom Deal

[d204mom]

sam2 said:

doctorwho said:

wvhsparent said:

I loathe the BB attorneys right now - but if they came back tomorrow and offered us the land so we could afford it, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I would like them no more than before after all the delays etc -- but would move on.

It's unfair to blame the BB attorneys. The school district attempted to take title to the property involuntarily. BB hired attorneys to protect their interest. Clearly, they did an excellent job for their client. They had no duty to serve anyone else. On the other side, the SB lobbied the population, the legislature, engaged the city of Naperville's support and hired their own attorneys. They won the right to take the land, they just don't like the price. If quick take had succeeded we'd have been forced to pay this price --- don't take out your frustrtions on the BB attorneys. They just did a better job.

Sorry, but it is that simple. Attorneys are ethically bound to represent the interests of their clients and no one else.

Agreed on all fronts.

I would add that in June, our attorney, acting on behalf of the board, made a promise that the district was willing and able to pay 33 Mil for the land when the jury trial ended in September.

They lost the gamble that the jury award would come in at significantly less than $33 Mil. But it did come in at less than 33.

Now it's backpeddle backpeddle backpeddle, "what was possible this summer is no longer possible." With no admission of making a mistake.

Too bad that our kids are the biggest loser in their gamble.

[wvhsparent]

sam2 said:

doctorwho said:

wvhsparent said:

I loathe the BB attorneys right now - but if they came back tomorrow and offered us the land so we could afford it, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I would like them no more than before after all the delays etc -- but would move on.

It's unfair to blame the BB attorneys. The school district attempted to take title to the property involuntarily. BB hired attorneys to protect their interest. Clearly, they did an excellent job for their client. They had no duty to serve anyone else. On the other side, the SB lobbied the population, the legislature, engaged the city of Naperville's support and hired their own attorneys. They won the right to take the land, they just don't like the price. If quick take had succeeded we'd have been forced to pay this price --- don't take out your frustrtions on the BB attorneys. They just did a better job.

Sorry, but it is that simple. Attorneys are ethically bound to represent the interests of their clients and no one else.

Blaming and loathing are 2 different things.
I am not blaming them for their "winning" the verdict they got. Clearly they did a better job.
But I can still loathe them for being so good at their job....

[bob]

d204mom said:

sam2 said:

doctorwho said:

It's unfair to blame the BB attorneys. The school district attempted to take title to the property involuntarily. BB hired attorneys to protect their interest. Clearly, they did an excellent job for their client. They had no duty to serve anyone else. On the other side, the SB lobbied the population, the legislature, engaged the city of Naperville's support and hired their own attorneys. They won the right to take the land, they just don't like the price. If quick take had succeeded we'd have been forced to pay this price --- don't take out your frustrtions on the BB attorneys. They just did a better job.

Sorry, but it is that simple. Attorneys are ethically bound to represent the interests of their clients and no one else.

Agreed on all fronts.

I would add that in June, our attorney, acting on behalf of the board, made a promise that the district was willing and able to pay 33 Mil for the land when the jury trial ended in September.

They lost the gamble that the jury award would come in at significantly less than $33 Mil. But it did come in at less than 33.

Now it's backpeddle backpeddle backpeddle, "what was possible this summer is no longer possible." With no admission of making a mistake.

Too bad that our kids are the biggest loser in their gamble.

Can you pull that quote for me?

[wvhsparent]

eagledad said:

wvhsparent said:

It needs to be a GREAT Offer. and yes if the SD benefits then go for it. Even though this is my least fav site.
PL is not doing this for altruistic reasons. And I certainly don't think he should take a loss for it, but neither should he make gobs of money on it.
Could'nt he write it off on his taxes as a donation?

Why does the offer have to be any better than one from AME, or Wagner, or Ferry? If I said the same thing, say that the AME offer had to be great - that they had to GIVE us the land for free because I hate them, wouldn't you call that unreasonable? I would.

It just needs to be the best offer, for the best land. Nothing more.

As for taxes, I wonder if AME jeopardizes their tax-free non-profit status selling a piece of land they never used bought for 6MM for say 15MM.

you are right....IMHO a great offer would be anything better than the rest.
Interesting tax question....maybe jenrick can answer that for us....

[wvhsparent]

bob said:

d204mom said:

sam2 said:

Agreed on all fronts.

I would add that in June, our attorney, acting on behalf of the board, made a promise that the district was willing and able to pay 33 Mil for the land when the jury trial ended in September.

They lost the gamble that the jury award would come in at significantly less than $33 Mil. But it did come in at less than 33.

Now it's backpeddle backpeddle backpeddle, "what was possible this summer is no longer possible." With no admission of making a mistake.

Too bad that our kids are the biggest loser in their gamble.

Can you pull that quote for me?

I'll help here.
It was from exhibit A in the BB motion to dismiss. Where the SD agreeed to put 33mil in an account with the County treasurer as part of the quick take attempt, of which BB could take an initial 300k/acre out.
This was in no way an offer to pay 33 mil for the parcel.

In Poker terms the SD was calling BB's raising of the bet, thinking BB was bluffing.

[d204mom]

bob said:

d204mom said:

sam2 said:

Agreed on all fronts.

I would add that in June, our attorney, acting on behalf of the board, made a promise that the district was willing and able to pay 33 Mil for the land when the jury trial ended in September.

They lost the gamble that the jury award would come in at significantly less than $33 Mil. But it did come in at less than 33.

Now it's backpeddle backpeddle backpeddle, "what was possible this summer is no longer possible." With no admission of making a mistake.

Too bad that our kids are the biggest loser in their gamble.

Can you pull that quote for me?

I re-typed because I can't copy from a pdf file.
It is from Exhibit A and Exhibit C in the motion to dismiss.

eagledad said:

This is required reading for evereyone as we discuss alternate sites. Grab a glass of your finest box wine and let your blood boil:

www.savefile.com/files/1249600

We're screwed. I'm with arch, the district needs to pay up, say they're sorry and move on building MVHS.

Ha! In re-reading the motion, I also forgot that instead of making a counteroffer in Nov of 05, we filed the condemnation suit.

"In November 2005, the district offered that same amount for the additional 55 acres, for a total price of $14, 162,500. However, the Estate and the Trust then claimed that the property was worth over $400,000 per acre, or $22,000,000. In December 2005 the district filed for condemnation."

So here is the quote you asked for from Exhibit A, a proposed order from our attorney:

"B. In exchange for certain stipulations by plaintiff, the deposit by plaintiff of $600,000 per acre ($33,000,000) with the DuPage County Treasurer, and the ability of defendents to withdraw $300,000 per acre ($16,500,000) as a form of preliminary compensation, defendents agree that possession of the take parcel be granted to plaintiff and that a judicial deed be entered transferring fee simple title of the take parcel to plaintiff."

and in Exhibit D, is the backpeddle by our attorney:

"You will recall that quick-take efforts were pursued earlier this year so that the District could begin timely construction of the high school to ensure a 2009 opening. An agreed order was proposed (but summarily rejected) which was designated to enable construction to begin immediately and guaranteed full payment of any condemnation award up to $600,000 per acre. "

blah blah blah - hurry up construction will cost $10M -

"What was financially feasible in June is no longer feasible."

[EagleDad]

warriorpride said:

eagledad said:

Why does the offer have to be any better than one from AME, or Wagner, or Ferry? If I said the same thing, say that the AME offer had to be great - that they had to GIVE us the land for free because I hate them, wouldn't you call that unreasonable? I would.

It just needs to be the best offer, for the best land. Nothing more.

As for taxes, I wonder if AME jeopardizes their tax-free non-profit status selling a piece of land they never used bought for 6MM for say 15MM.

Do you agree that Macom benefits from MV being built on their property?

No, I do not. Outside of the transaction for the land itself, how do they benefit?

I'd agree that all landowners, homeowners and builders in the district benefit froma 3rd HS being built, regardless of location. But that's the only benefit I see.

[d204mom]

I understand that construction costs are rising, but they are rising for every site.

They knew when quick take failed this summer that they would need the hurry up construction, regardless of site, and they also knew that $600 K was the worst case scenario.

So throwing away 3 months of construction - from September verdict until now - has turned into 6 months. You can break ground in Fall.

[warriorpride]

eagledad said:

warriorpride said:

Do you agree that Macom benefits from MV being built on their property?

No, I do not. Outside of the transaction for the land itself, how do they benefit?

I'd agree that all landowners, homeowners and builders in the district benefit froma 3rd HS being built, regardless of location. But that's the only benefit I see.

So selling (at a pretty decent price) what he may consider unbuildable land (due to whatever factors, real or imagined, exist) isn't a benefit?

How about Ashwood avoiding going to WV? He's essentially been fighting & complaining about this from the beginning and he's even publicly blamed WV for slower sales in Ashwood. Isn't the ability to sell his expensive houses much quicker a benefit?

Sorry - he burned the bridges, so he needs to rebuild them.

You said that if Macom has the best offer, the SD should take it. What's your definition of best?

[d204mom]

Based on my earlier calculation, losing 3 months of construction time cost the district somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.6M due to rising costs. Since the jury award came back at 31.7 instead of 33, that drops the "gap" to 1.3.

Our attorney sez that hurry up costs 10 mil.

So we are 11.3 Mil short to build on Brach Brodie starting September 27.

Push back the implementation of all day K for 1 year and you have 6Mil of it. As I understand, you can use operating funds for building but not vice-versa.
What is their yearly operating budget - 300 Mil or so? So they couldn't shave 1% off over the next 2 years to come up with it? Perhaps we could do without mulch for a year?

[wvhsparent]

d204mom said:

bob said:

I re-typed because I can't copy from a pdf file.
It is from Exhibit A and Exhibit C in the motion to dismiss.

eagledad said:

This is required reading for evereyone as we discuss alternate sites. Grab a glass of your finest box wine and let your blood boil:

www.savefile.com/files/1249600

We're screwed. I'm with arch, the district needs to pay up, say they're sorry and move on building MVHS.

Ha! In re-reading the motion, I also forgot that instead of making a counteroffer in Nov of 05, we filed the condemnation suit.

"In November 2005, the district offered that same amount for the additional 55 acres, for a total price of $14, 162,500. However, the Estate and the Trust then claimed that the property was worth over $400,000 per acre, or $22,000,000. In December 2005 the district filed for condemnation."

So here is the quote you asked for from Exhibit A, a proposed order from our attorney:

"B. In exchange for certain stipulations by plaintiff, the deposit by plaintiff of $600,000 per acre ($33,000,000) with the DuPage County Treasurer, and the ability of defendents to withdraw $300,000 per acre ($16,500,000) as a form of preliminary compensation, defendents agree that possession of the take parcel be granted to plaintiff and that a judicial deed be entered transferring fee simple title of the take parcel to plaintiff."

and in Exhibit D, is the backpeddle by our attorney:

"You will recall that quick-take efforts were pursued earlier this year so that the District could begin timely construction of the high school to ensure a 2009 opening. An agreed order was proposed (but summarily rejected) which was designated to enable construction to begin immediately and guaranteed full payment of any condemnation award up to $600,000 per acre. "

blah blah blah - hurry up construction will cost $10M -

"What was financially feasible in June is no longer feasible."

All from the QT attempt, which requires the maximum possible amount to be set aside...not an offer to pay 33mil. QT did not happen therefore it is meaningless. It's all legaleeze, not for us mere mortals to understand (Myself included)

[wvhsparent]

eagledad said:

warriorpride said:

Do you agree that Macom benefits from MV being built on their property?

No, I do not. Outside of the transaction for the land itself, how do they benefit?

I'd agree that all landowners, homeowners and builders in the district benefit froma 3rd HS being built, regardless of location. But that's the only benefit I see.

PL benefits big time.......He gets to sell off his million$+ homes saying they get to go to a shiny new high school right next door, instead of WVHS, which he blames for his lack of sales.

I feel another loathing coming on..............yep...there it is......

[bob]

d204mom said:

Based on my earlier calculation, losing 3 months of construction time cost the district somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.6M due to rising costs. Since the jury award came back at 31.7 instead of 33, that drops the "gap" to 1.3.

Our attorney sez that hurry up costs 10 mil.

So we are 11.3 Mil short to build on Brach Brodie starting September 27.

Push back the implementation of all day K for 1 year and you have 6Mil of it. As I understand, you can use operating funds for building but not vice-versa.
What is their yearly operating budget - 300 Mil or so? So they couldn't shave 1% off over the next 2 years to come up with it? Perhaps we could do without mulch for a year?

How about calculating from summer of QT to an unknown Spring break ground date?

[yeson321]

wvhsparent said:

gatormom said:

Ideally, Frontier Campus is not for one or two classes, it offers a college setting in the senior year of high school for the senior who is ready for that. That really should not be part of the formula in selecting a site, IMO.

Exactly. the concept is that is where a Senior would go for the day? I am unclear. Is there travel between Frontier and the HS during the day for other courses?
Where it is located benefits the South end of the dist much better. This is an example where a centrally located facility is better as there is only 1 to service the entire district.
Anyone with a child at Frontier please chime in and report on your experience.

I do hope that we can benefit from someone posting who currently has a child at Frontier.

It is my understanding from talking to someone at Frontier, that they are trying to have a separation between seniors at Frontier and their respective high schools when it comes to coursework next year. They indicated that it all depends on enrollment. In the past they made it seem like there was a blend. Students must travel back to their respective high schools for extracurricular activities as they are not impacted regardless of where students have courses. Therefore, to me, distance does matter here and someone at a Northern site may view the Frontier Campus differently than someone who has it in the close vicinity of their high school.

[d204mom]

wvhsparent said:

d204mom said:

bob said:

I re-typed because I can't copy from a pdf file.
It is from Exhibit A and Exhibit C in the motion to dismiss.



Ha! In re-reading the motion, I also forgot that instead of making a counteroffer in Nov of 05, we filed the condemnation suit.

"In November 2005, the district offered that same amount for the additional 55 acres, for a total price of $14, 162,500. However, the Estate and the Trust then claimed that the property was worth over $400,000 per acre, or $22,000,000. In December 2005 the district filed for condemnation."

So here is the quote you asked for from Exhibit A, a proposed order from our attorney:

"B. In exchange for certain stipulations by plaintiff, the deposit by plaintiff of $600,000 per acre ($33,000,000) with the DuPage County Treasurer, and the ability of defendents to withdraw $300,000 per acre ($16,500,000) as a form of preliminary compensation, defendents agree that possession of the take parcel be granted to plaintiff and that a judicial deed be entered transferring fee simple title of the take parcel to plaintiff."

and in Exhibit D, is the backpeddle by our attorney:

"You will recall that quick-take efforts were pursued earlier this year so that the District could begin timely construction of the high school to ensure a 2009 opening. An agreed order was proposed (but summarily rejected) which was designated to enable construction to begin immediately and guaranteed full payment of any condemnation award up to $600,000 per acre. "

blah blah blah - hurry up construction will cost $10M -

"What was financially feasible in June is no longer feasible."

All from the QT attempt, which requires the maximum possible amount to be set aside...not an offer to pay 33mil. QT did not happen therefore it is meaningless. It's all legaleeze, not for us mere mortals to understand (Myself included)

please, I know what proposing "guaranteed full payment of any condemnation award up to $600,000 an acre" means! It means that we guaranteed full payment of any award up to $600K an acre! And when the proposal was written, we knew the trial date!

An agreed order was proposed (but summarily rejected) which was designated to enable construction to begin immediately and guaranteed full payment of any condemnation award up to $600,000 per acre.

WHERE IS MY GLUE!?



(sniff, sniff) ahhh, that's better