|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Dec 20, 2007 8:09:15 GMT -6
Thank you for the welcome! I starting composing my post with as much detail as I had, then decided to whittle it down to just the bottom line number because it is so difficult to be accurate when dealing with second hand information. some other details that might be interesting would be who gave you this information (not a name, but their role in this) & why they gave it to you Heck no........ I want names........ |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 20, 2007 8:28:25 GMT -6
If you value the 25 acres at the price the jury determined then that deal is equal to BB acres at roughly 463k/acre.
The other thing I doubt is that Macom would tell people because now if I was BB I would tie up the 25 for as long as I can since that is a linchpin of the deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 20, 2007 8:38:10 GMT -6
If you value the 25 acres at what the SD paid for then the deal is equal to $357/BB
If you value the 25 acres at $350K then then deal is equal to $395/BB.
Is it 65 acres or 80 acres?
Is the PD land swap done?
What about the elderly couple? Who has to play bad guy and give them the boot?
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Dec 20, 2007 8:59:09 GMT -6
If you value the 25 acres at what the SD paid for then the deal is equal to $357/BB If you value the 25 acres at $350K then then deal is equal to $395/BB. Is it 65 acres or 80 acres? Is the PD land swap done? What about the elderly couple? Who has to play bad guy and give them the boot? If it will save them that amount of money, then go for it. I'll be waiting to hear all the juicy details. Until then it's just one of the possible senarios. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 20, 2007 9:17:25 GMT -6
If the district pays 19.5 M for 65 acres, does anyone really think that price is competitive with St. John site?
Remember, the dash was told price and urgency of opening are the most important criteria.
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Dec 20, 2007 9:18:00 GMT -6
Hi Daisy and welcome to the board.
FWIW, I have heard the exact same thing with regards to the Macom deal - the dollar amount as well as the land swap. I am not divulging my resources either but I can say this, I do feel it is very accurate!
Interesting that WP wondered what is coming next, the full page ad in the Sun? Well, that's exactly what should happen. Why should this deal be kept completely secret? The SB doesn't want the details to be made public because they aren't interested - why I don't know! Macom has made a pretty good case for this offer (the purchase price of the land and the BB buy-back) why isn't the SB seriously considering it? Again, in my opinion, egos get in the way! They want that far northern site and want nothing to do with Macom.
This Macom deal should be made public. I know that the land negotiations are supposedly being handled in confidence but the fact is that MACOM isn't getting a chance at their offer . Why is the SB doing nothing to work this deal? Judging by the many posters speaking out on how wrong the northern site is, I should think we'd be happy that there is a deal out there like Macom. Let's go SB! Time to examine the Macom land!
|
|
|
|
Post by Daisy on Dec 20, 2007 9:19:29 GMT -6
OK I'll come right to the point. Still not enough info especially from a new poster to put much weight into it. As we have told many before....If you make a claim, you must be the one to cite the sources, we don't "dig for it". Who did you call? What did you ask? Do you have any more frequent poster here to corroborate your claims? Sorry for lack of names, WVHSparent. I didn't get permission to cite sources - my bad. I posted out of frustration with this whole process. I appreciate your skepticism because I think you will get a number of people like me who will start to say something on this forum now that the decision looks like it's coming down to the northern site. I think all h--- is going to break loose as more people become aware of what's going on. Here are a few details I can pass on about that. Alka Tile said they are leaning toward a northern site. She said something about Howie Crouse did not do "due diligence" on that site before. I don't know what that means. Also, they key players in the negotiations for the northern site met last Friday at 4 p.m. according to State Senator Linda Holmes. She confirmed to me what I have been hearing about a northern site. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Dec 20, 2007 9:25:07 GMT -6
If the district pays 19.5 M for 65 acres, does anyone really think that price is competitive with St. John site? Daisy posted a deal of 13 Million not 19.5. It is, of course impossible to say if this is competitive with the 70 acres at St Johns, not knowing anything about what offers have been made there if any. It would just be speculation - unless you have any information you'd like to share like Daisy. Remember, the dash was told price and urgency of opening are the most important criteria. I wonder who told him that? - I don't believe it was the voters or parents. It seems the primary criteria for a new site have been changed with no public discussion on it. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 20, 2007 9:27:35 GMT -6
Daisy - Do you know if Senator Holmes involved in the discussions for the N site?
Or is the district just keeping her apprised of the situation?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Dec 20, 2007 9:29:50 GMT -6
OK I'll come right to the point. Still not enough info especially from a new poster to put much weight into it. As we have told many before....If you make a claim, you must be the one to cite the sources, we don't "dig for it". Who did you call? What did you ask? Do you have any more frequent poster here to corroborate your claims? Sorry for lack of names, WVHSparent. I didn't get permission to cite sources - my bad. I posted out of frustration with this whole process. I appreciate your skepticism because I think you will get a number of people like me who will start to say something on this forum now that the decision looks like it's coming down to the northern site. I think all h--- is going to break loose as more people become aware of what's going on. Here are a few details I can pass on about that. Alka Tile said they are leaning toward a northern site. She said something about Howie Crouse did not do "due diligence" on that site before. I don't know what that means. Also, they key players in the negotiations for the northern site met last Friday at 4 p.m. according to State Senator Linda Holmes. She confirmed to me what I have been hearing about a northern site. I am in the camp with WVHSparent on this one -- there is sooo much second and 3rd hand info out there right now, knowing the real facts would be great on anything. If MACOM really put this exact deal out there then they should be willing to put it in writing for the public also - if they really feel they are not getting their due diligence in terms of replies/consideration. I know that is normally not how one goes about negotiating - but if they really think they are not being negotiated with anyway - then nothing to lose. And if they are being negotiated with fairly - then they should stay behind the scenes like they are now. I am not trying to discount what you are saying - we know they had to make some proposal - however it's just like that old game of telephone though when people give a message to another - who gives it to another and so on down the line- by the time it is 20 people down it barely resembles the actual original statement. |
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Dec 20, 2007 9:33:42 GMT -6
OK I'll come right to the point. Still not enough info especially from a new poster to put much weight into it. As we have told many before....If you make a claim, you must be the one to cite the sources, we don't "dig for it". Who did you call? What did you ask? Do you have any more frequent poster here to corroborate your claims? Sorry for lack of names, WVHSparent. I didn't get permission to cite sources - my bad. I posted out of frustration with this whole process. I appreciate your skepticism because I think you will get a number of people like me who will start to say something on this forum now that the decision looks like it's coming down to the northern site. I think all h--- is going to break loose as more people become aware of what's going on. Here are a few details I can pass on about that. Alka Tile said they are leaning toward a northern site. She said something about Howie Crouse did not do "due diligence" on that site before. I don't know what that means. Also, they key players in the negotiations for the northern site met last Friday at 4 p.m. according to State Senator Linda Holmes. She confirmed to me what I have been hearing about a northern site. I am having problems with the good Senator's involvement here. This just seems inappropriate. Not saying Macom site or offer is bad or good, just find this piece of information completely disturbing. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 20, 2007 9:35:13 GMT -6
If the district pays 19.5 M for 65 acres, does anyone really think that price is competitive with St. John site? Daisy posted a deal of 13 Million not 19.5. It is, of course impossible to say if this is competitive with the 70 acres at St Johns, not knowing anything about what offers have been made there if any. It would just be speculation - unless you have any information you'd like to share like Daisy. Remember, the dash was told price and urgency of opening are the most important criteria. I wonder who told him that? - I don't believe it was the voters or parents. It seems the primary criteria for a new site have been changed with no public discussion on it. Goals and objectives were approved by the board on Oct 22, 2007 without any public input as far as I know. From the document: f. Plan, develop and implement activities to build and open Metea ValleyHigh School within public approved revenue and open a seventh middle school as soon as possible, and adjust middle school boundaries. Responsibility – Stephen Daeschner, Dave Holm, Kathy Birkett It is posted on the district's website |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Dec 20, 2007 9:36:03 GMT -6
Sorry for lack of names, WVHSparent. I didn't get permission to cite sources - my bad. I posted out of frustration with this whole process. I appreciate your skepticism because I think you will get a number of people like me who will start to say something on this forum now that the decision looks like it's coming down to the northern site. I think all h--- is going to break loose as more people become aware of what's going on. Here are a few details I can pass on about that. Alka Tile said they are leaning toward a northern site. She said something about Howie Crouse did not do "due diligence" on that site before. I don't know what that means. Also, they key players in the negotiations for the northern site met last Friday at 4 p.m. according to State Senator Linda Holmes. She confirmed to me what I have been hearing about a northern site. I am having problems with the good Senator's involvement here. This just seems inappropriate. Not saying Macom site or offer is bad or good, just find this piece of information completely disturbing. Especially for someone who wouldn't get on board when we needed her -- why the change of heart ? |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 20, 2007 9:38:15 GMT -6
She said something about Howie Crouse did not do "due diligence" on that site before. I don't know what that means. Well it's nice to see someone charged with leading this district is taking some reponsibility for this mess. Oh no, Alka and Co. are throwing Howie under the bus. Speaks volumes. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 20, 2007 9:38:38 GMT -6
There is not one piece of evidence that the SB or the admin is not considering the deal.
|
|
