Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Apr 8, 2008 13:15:04 GMT -5
Did we actually close on the AME land already? This whole thing is such a mess that I can't keep it all straight. Any legal minds out there have any idea when the BB lawsuits might actually be heard and decided upon? I'm just wondering how long 204 is supposed to wait. If they want to pursue Eola or Macom or any other location, when could we do so free and clear of BB potentially? Is there potential for BB to file a TRO if the district moves forward with Eola?
|
|
|
Post by bborbust on Apr 8, 2008 13:20:32 GMT -5
Yeah, just like a jury would never award them $518k/ acre. The real estate market is a tad different now. The change in the real estate market isn't going to change the terms of a real estate contract.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Apr 8, 2008 13:28:22 GMT -5
The real estate market is a tad different now. The change in the real estate market isn't going to change the terms of a real estate contract. What contract? I must not understand what you are talking about. The district never signed a contract with BB. I thought PREITT did but that must be wrong if they were able to walk away.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Apr 8, 2008 13:28:36 GMT -5
The real estate market is a tad different now. The change in the real estate market isn't going to change the terms of a real estate contract. Did 204 sign a contract with BB to purchase the 55 acres? I'm assuming not, since we're not building MV there, but rather, pursuing a different site.
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 8, 2008 13:31:42 GMT -5
I think the BB settlement, in the end, is not going to be nearly as unfavorable as many would lead you to believe. Yeah, just like a jury would never award them $518k/ acre. Good thing the jury won't be the one deciding this part, then.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Apr 8, 2008 13:52:07 GMT -5
The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that BB knows that the jury verdict was ridiculously high, and they would have a hard time getting that price for the 55 acres any time soon, so they're willing to throw all this stuff out there to try to force 204 to buy their land.
Also, I'm interested to know how there can be "damages" regarding property values when 204 didn't touch any of the land. Who's to say that, some time in the future, the Rte 59-facing property won't sell for more than PREIT was going to pay?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Apr 8, 2008 15:39:15 GMT -5
Did we actually close on the AME land already? This whole thing is such a mess that I can't keep it all straight. Any legal minds out there have any idea when the BB lawsuits might actually be heard and decided upon? I'm just wondering how long 204 is supposed to wait. If they want to pursue Eola or Macom or any other location, when could we do so free and clear of BB potentially? Is there potential for BB to file a TRO if the district moves forward with Eola? The next BB hearing is on May 13. NFUD - The SD have until Apr 25 to file any motion to dismiss. the n-fud, then has 14 days to respond to May 9, and the SD then has 7 more to reply May 16. The a hearing is scheduled for May 30 on the SD Motion to dismiss.
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Apr 8, 2008 15:56:34 GMT -5
I know this has been brought up before, but how can BB attorneys claim damages due to a depressed real estate market when a jury only recently came back with a price of 518K an acre for their property? I agree with warriorpride, they know the jury verdict was high and now they are trying to force the district to buy the land at this inflated price. It is all about GREED!
The timing is most definitely suspect, and the whole thing smells of desperation on both nFud & BB's part. I've heard the closing is very soon, and the timetable to open in '09 has not changed.
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 8, 2008 16:14:37 GMT -5
The next BB hearing is on May 13. NFUD - The SD have until Apr 25 to file any motion to dismiss. the n-fud, then has 14 days to respond to May 9, and the SD then has 7 more to reply May 16. The a hearing is scheduled for May 30 on the SD Motion to dismiss. What are the odds at for Nsfoc submitting a Motion to Withdraw their Complaint before the May 30 date? ETA: Or would that be a petition?
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Apr 8, 2008 16:32:06 GMT -5
The next BB hearing is on May 13. NFUD - The SD have until Apr 25 to file any motion to dismiss. the n-fud, then has 14 days to respond to May 9, and the SD then has 7 more to reply May 16. The a hearing is scheduled for May 30 on the SD Motion to dismiss. What are the odds at for Nsfoc submitting a Motion to Withdraw their Complaint before the May 30 date? ETA: Or would that be a petition? Depends on how much money they have raised. Seeing as how their last fundraiser informational meeting was attended by less than 100 people, my guess would be they have not raised enough for the duration. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 8, 2008 16:48:10 GMT -5
I'm also wondering if interest in the group will wane now that the enviro reports are all out in the open. Obviously, not for the diehard fans . . .
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 8, 2008 16:52:13 GMT -5
I think it also will have much to do with how the Board goes about remediation. There are not a lot of proponents of the barrier method. (Sounds like a line in a prophylactic commercial).
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Apr 8, 2008 17:11:29 GMT -5
I know this has been brought up before, but how can BB attorneys claim damages due to a depressed real estate market when a jury only recently came back with a price of 518K an acre for their property? I agree with warriorpride, they know the jury verdict was high and now they are trying to force the district to buy the land at this inflated price. It is all about GREED! The timing is most definitely suspect, and the whole thing smells of desperation on both nFud & BB's part. I've heard the closing is very soon, and the timetable to open in '09 has not changed. Just to clarify that a little - it's my understanding (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that the price was supposed to be determined based on land values at the time that the condemnation was filed (i.e. back in 2006 - not sure exactly when). So, we are probably approaching 2 years since that alleged price was "valid".
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 8, 2008 17:25:12 GMT -5
That is my understanding also. The price the jury awarded was supposed to be the value of the land in 2006.
|
|
|
Post by JWH on Apr 8, 2008 18:20:18 GMT -5
I know this has been brought up before, but how can BB attorneys claim damages due to a depressed real estate market when a jury only recently came back with a price of 518K an acre for their property? I agree with warriorpride, they know the jury verdict was high and now they are trying to force the district to buy the land at this inflated price. It is all about GREED! The timing is most definitely suspect, and the whole thing smells of desperation on both nFud & BB's part. I've heard the closing is very soon, and the timetable to open in '09 has not changed. Just to clarify that a little - it's my understanding (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that the price was supposed to be determined based on land values at the time that the condemnation was filed (i.e. back in 2006 - not sure exactly when). So, we are probably approaching 2 years since that alleged price was "valid". Yes, the high point of the real estate market around here was at that time. Not that they have gone down a bunch (residential), but I bet retail/commercial is a different story. Their eyes have opened up a little more in the two years. Two years. Too late, a**wipes!
|
|