|
|
Post by gatormom on Dec 21, 2007 11:13:02 GMT -6
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...... PL has been fighting BB since he made his offer to the district last fall. He is not the only reason BB didn't happen but he certainly helped. I won't forget that. And yes, if the offer is the best offer I will get over it but as WP said, he has some bridges to rebuild. One of them might be a great deal and not just a good deal. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 21, 2007 11:13:38 GMT -6
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? The break ground date of the end of September for Brach Brodie was known and did not change. The trial was over exactly when the district predicted. Your requested calculation would be related to changing sites. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 21, 2007 11:15:16 GMT -6
And I'm tired of doing your homework for you today bob.
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Dec 21, 2007 11:16:00 GMT -6
Warriorpride and WVHSParent - why are you bashing Waubonsie? It's a great school and trying to ascribe motivations and financial value to not going there only perpetuates stereotypes that the district does not need. It's unfortunate that you put these words in other peoples mouths.
As I recall, Macom's current homes are slated to go to Waubonsie, and they have put together marketing materials and programs backing and promoting the school.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Dec 21, 2007 11:18:52 GMT -6
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 That was also based on getting the land in Summer and starting const. I would have still flipped out at the verdict amount regardless. Seeing as that agreed order/QT never happened, the document is of little value. So I understand...you want the SB to go ahead and pay the 33mil to BB and go.....right? I do not......so we cancel each other out...... |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Dec 21, 2007 11:21:01 GMT -6
Warriorpride and WVHSParent - why are you bashing Waubonsie? It's a great school and trying to ascribe motivations and financial value to not going there only perpetuates stereotypes that the district does not need. It's unfortunate that you put these words in other peoples mouths. As I recall, Macom's current homes are slated to go to Waubonsie, and they have put together marketing materials and programs backing and promoting the school. Bull - I'm not putting words in anyone's mouths - he's the one perpetuating the stereotypes - they were printed in the papers and some were quoted on this very site. I don't have time to go find the quotes right now. It took them a d**n long time to get NV off their site, too. ETA: quick Google result: southeastvillages.org/node/104 |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Dec 21, 2007 11:21:34 GMT -6
Warriorpride and WVHSParent - why are you bashing Waubonsie? It's a great school and trying to ascribe motivations and financial value to not going there only perpetuates stereotypes that the district does not need. It's unfortunate that you put these words in other peoples mouths. As I recall, Macom's current homes are slated to go to Waubonsie, and they have put together marketing materials and programs backing and promoting the school. I am in no way bashing WVHS. I am mereley reporting that other people have been doing all the bashing (PL is one of the main instigators), and frankly I am growing very tired of it. Those marketing materials you speak of were only after much arm twisting. I was informed of that thru my participation in the WVHS Parents advisory panel. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 21, 2007 11:24:33 GMT -6
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 That was also based on getting the land in Summer and starting const. I would have still flipped out at the verdict amount regardless. Seeing as that agreed order/QT never happened, the document is of little value. So I understand...you want the SB to go ahead and pay the 33mil to BB and go.....right? I do not......so we cancel each other out...... I have tried to point out that the district's arguements about hurry up costs and rising construction costs don't really hold up when you put pen to paper. Say I buy your argument that the district / board was bluffing about REALLY being able to pay $33 mil back in June. By the way, bluffing is my nice euphanisim for lying. Is that a better way to view this? That our board was lying to us to get us to support QT? I must have put my marbles where my glue went. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Dec 21, 2007 11:28:06 GMT -6
That was also based on getting the land in Summer and starting const. I would have still flipped out at the verdict amount regardless. Seeing as that agreed order/QT never happened, the document is of little value. So I understand...you want the SB to go ahead and pay the 33mil to BB and go.....right? I do not......so we cancel each other out...... I have tried to point out that the district's arguements about hurry up costs and rising construction costs don't really hold up when you put pen to paper. Say I buy your argument that the district / board was bluffing about REALLY being able to pay $33 mil back in June. By the way, bluffing is my nice euphanisim for lying. Is that a better way to view this? That our board was lying to us to get us to support QT? I must have put my marbles where my glue went. I'll go along with that assumption. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Dec 21, 2007 11:31:33 GMT -6
I have not seen posts mentioning the positives on Macom in relation to the Frontier Campus. I for one would like my children to take advantage of college courses at a reduced tuition, if at all possible. People have complained that WVHS is too far - well a Northern MVHS makes that near impossible given the time constraints. The distance of a Northern site has many negatives, one that for my family if forced to go to a Northern MVHS will not lessen over time. They can then go to the actual COD - they will be much closer to it  This is a valid point IMHO also - they will be left out of that scenario - |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Dec 21, 2007 11:33:12 GMT -6
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. I fully understand that -- terrorists are bound to what their goals are also - I can still not like them for it. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 21, 2007 11:34:16 GMT -6
I have tried to point out that the district's arguements about hurry up costs and rising construction costs don't really hold up when you put pen to paper. Say I buy your argument that the district / board was bluffing about REALLY being able to pay $33 mil back in June. By the way, bluffing is my nice euphanisim for lying. Is that a better way to view this? That our board was lying to us to get us to support QT? I must have put my marbles where my glue went. I'll go along with that assumption. The assumption that they were lying to us THEN or lying to us NOW? At this point it's either one or the other regarding the price of Brach Brodie. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Dec 21, 2007 11:34:32 GMT -6
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? short term - sure -- again why does it matter ? Does the church profit at AME - who cares ! |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Dec 21, 2007 11:35:14 GMT -6
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.... you said it much better than my response Parent - I agree wholly |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Dec 21, 2007 11:41:42 GMT -6
I'll go along with that assumption. The assumption that they were lying to us THEN or lying to us NOW? At this point it's either one or the other regarding the price of Brach Brodie. what if the contruction costs at the proposed time of quick take would have made BB feasible, but now with a rise in construction costs, plus additional costs adding up (legal, etc.) it wasn't feasible in Oct? just trying play devil's advocate here - I'm not worried about trying to figure out if BB is still feasible (the SB can determine that) or who is or isn't lying |
|
