|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 10:03:41 GMT -5
Did it occur to anyone that perhaps NSFOC was talking to BB attorneys to try to get them to make the BB land more affordable to the district and lower their price? I had heard mention of this too, but like everything else.. hard to filter through the accusatory stuff flying around. It would seem to 'fit' on some level that if NSFOC wanted the district to buy BB and the district said BB was too expensive that NSFOC could be asking BB to make some concessions on the price or the damages to make the land 'affordable' to the district. Since I wasn't on the call, I don't know if that's what happened but it is a possibility.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Jun 19, 2008 10:04:20 GMT -5
I don't doubt there were some in the district eager to just kick the SB in the teeth for whatever reason they feel they were wronged or perceived wrong. There are still those that just want to kick NSFOC in the teeth too for some perceived wrong. Pot meet kettle I don't see it as pot meet kettle. I don't want to kick anyone in the teeth. I don't want to pay attorney fees for anyone, either. I want to move on, but the crap keeps coming back, doesn't it? You know, the big picture and all.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 10:05:41 GMT -5
I don't doubt there were some in the district eager to just kick the SB in the teeth for whatever reason they feel they were wronged or perceived wrong. There are still those that just want to kick NSFOC in the teeth too for some perceived wrong. Pot meet kettle I don't see it as pot meet kettle. I don't want to kick anyone in the teeth. I don't want to pay attorney fees for anyone, either. I want to move on, but the crap keeps coming back, doesn't it? You know, the big picture and all. Last time I checked, NSFOC laid down their arms and walked away... at least that was my read from their letter saying they would not appeal and would respect the court's decision.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 19, 2008 10:06:06 GMT -5
...Also, the Brodie trust has filed suit seeking a judge's order to require the school district to purchase the originally intended site for the high school... This lawsuit is still hanging around? I understand it's different parties & for different reasons, but if Popejoy said that he can't force 204 to purchase BB, can another judge force the purchase? I've heard the 204 attorneys state that the SD is within its legal rights to drop the condemnation, but I don't recall hearing Brodie's explanation as to the legal basis for this lawsuit. I always thought that the timing of this lawsuit smelled fishy, as it was at the time that nsfoc was working on their lawsuit, generating publicity & doing their fund-raising. With the confirmation that BB and nsfoc were in communication, this makes me think even moreso that the Brodie lawsuit is just as frivolous as nsfoc's, and was possibly planned in conjunction with nsfoc's lawsuit in order to generate public pressure to purchase BB. IIRC Popejoy is also hearing that lawsuit....08CH1366. I think it is being mis-reported as Brodie wanting them to buy the parcel. To me that seems to contradict their fighting of the quick take, which would have been to their advantange.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 10:08:49 GMT -5
This lawsuit is still hanging around? I understand it's different parties & for different reasons, but if Popejoy said that he can't force 204 to purchase BB, can another judge force the purchase? I've heard the 204 attorneys state that the SD is within its legal rights to drop the condemnation, but I don't recall hearing Brodie's explanation as to the legal basis for this lawsuit. I always thought that the timing of this lawsuit smelled fishy, as it was at the time that nsfoc was working on their lawsuit, generating publicity & doing their fund-raising. With the confirmation that BB and nsfoc were in communication, this makes me think even moreso that the Brodie lawsuit is just as frivolous as nsfoc's, and was possibly planned in conjunction with nsfoc's lawsuit in order to generate public pressure to purchase BB. IIRC Popejoy is also hearing that lawsuit....08CH1366. I think it is being mis-reported as Brodie wanting them to buy the parcel. To me that seems to contradict their fighting of the quick take, which would have been to their advantange. My understanding is that QT means they decision as to whether or not they SHOULD BE ALLOWED the land is short-circuited. It's an instant YES. A condemnation suit still has the SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED portion as part of it, does it not?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 19, 2008 10:13:11 GMT -5
Did it occur to anyone that perhaps NSFOC was talking to BB attorneys to try to get them to make the BB land more affordable to the district and lower their price? I had heard mention of this too, but like everything else.. hard to filter through the accusatory stuff flying around. It would seem to 'fit' on some level that if NSFOC wanted the district to buy BB and the district said BB was too expensive that NSFOC could be asking BB to make some concessions on the price or the damages to make the land 'affordable' to the district. Since I wasn't on the call, I don't know if that's what happened but it is a possibility. I have no problem with anyone calling BB and asking if they would reconsider. As making them billable to the SD..that I have a problem with.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 19, 2008 10:14:59 GMT -5
IIRC Popejoy is also hearing that lawsuit....08CH1366. I think it is being mis-reported as Brodie wanting them to buy the parcel. To me that seems to contradict their fighting of the quick take, which would have been to their advantange. My understanding is that QT means they decision as to whether or not they SHOULD BE ALLOWED the land is short-circuited. It's an instant YES. A condemnation suit still has the SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED portion as part of it, does it not? I don't understand your post?
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jun 19, 2008 10:19:29 GMT -5
I had heard mention of this too, but like everything else.. hard to filter through the accusatory stuff flying around. It would seem to 'fit' on some level that if NSFOC wanted the district to buy BB and the district said BB was too expensive that NSFOC could be asking BB to make some concessions on the price or the damages to make the land 'affordable' to the district. Since I wasn't on the call, I don't know if that's what happened but it is a possibility. I have no problem with anyone calling BB and asking if they would reconsider. As making them billable to the SD..that I have a problem with. I think BB is out of line charging ANYONE for these calls. My impression is that individual residents who contributed to NSFOC were the ones who made the calls to BB trying to get them to reduce their price, not Shawn Collins. BB is trying to get whatever fees that can from the SD because the SD backed out of the price awarded by the jury. Any minute of conversation the BB attorneys had with ANYONE is billable to the SD in their minds. Again, blame BB not residents who were trying to make BB a less expensive reality.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 10:22:51 GMT -5
I had heard mention of this too, but like everything else.. hard to filter through the accusatory stuff flying around. It would seem to 'fit' on some level that if NSFOC wanted the district to buy BB and the district said BB was too expensive that NSFOC could be asking BB to make some concessions on the price or the damages to make the land 'affordable' to the district. Since I wasn't on the call, I don't know if that's what happened but it is a possibility. I have no problem with anyone calling BB and asking if they would reconsider. As making them billable to the SD..that I have a problem with. We both agree on that, it's not something that BB should be making the district pay for.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 19, 2008 10:24:37 GMT -5
I think BB is out of line charging ANYONE for these calls. My impression is that individual residents who contributed to NSFOC were the ones who made the calls to BB trying to get them to reduce their price, not Shawn Collins. BB is trying to get whatever fees that can from the SD because the SD backed out of the price awarded by the jury. Any minute of conversation the BB attorneys had with ANYONE is billable to the SD in their minds. Again, blame BB not residents who were trying to make BB a less expensive reality. Huh? If individual members of the NSFOC called BB, maybe they should go after the individuals for those costs. You can't expect to use a lawyer's service without paying for it. Obviously, the district had nothing to do with that/those calls. I am certain BB will find a way to get it. They are pretty good lawyers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 10:30:56 GMT -5
My understanding is that QT means they decision as to whether or not they SHOULD BE ALLOWED the land is short-circuited. It's an instant YES. A condemnation suit still has the SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED portion as part of it, does it not? I don't understand your post? You mentioned them fighting quick take.. I would think that if your land was under a condemnation suit that has not been heard yet then it's not been decided yet if they condemning entity is even ALLOWED to have it. That is a different situation than QT. In QT, they decision has already been made: YES. So, if one feels they should not have their land forcibly taken away (being a defendant in a condemnation suit) then it would stand to reason that you would also fight the short-circuiting of that case (QT) which automatically decides YES. Once the condemnation suit was heard and it WAS DECIDED that the SB had the right to take the land then they are out of options and it's all about price at that point. Obviously, the price was good for them... and if I was in their shoes I would want someone to pay that price too for that land. I can understand their position at each step if I put myself in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 19, 2008 10:32:00 GMT -5
I have no problem with anyone calling BB and asking if they would reconsider. As making them billable to the SD..that I have a problem with. I think BB is out of line charging ANYONE for these calls. My impression is that individual residents who contributed to NSFOC were the ones who made the calls to BB trying to get them to reduce their price, not Shawn Collins. BB is trying to get whatever fees that can from the SD because the SD backed out of the price awarded by the jury. Any minute of conversation the BB attorneys had with ANYONE is billable to the SD in their minds. Again, blame BB not residents who were trying to make BB a less expensive reality. In total agreement
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 19, 2008 10:34:00 GMT -5
This hatred for NSFOC is no different than those who expressed anger towards Brookdale for voting NO. Both groups did what they felt was their only recourse. I applaud both for standing up for what they believed in in a civilized and non violent way. With the principal at stake, the one for which they were both "standing up for what believe in" being ultimately who goes to which school and with whom. There is a word that starts with b to describe that, but many are getting a bit tired of hearing that The BD people, to their honest credit, openly said this. The NSFOC "lawyered-up" and went about it in a circular way....but the judge realized what all there claims were really about.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 19, 2008 10:39:30 GMT -5
I don't understand your post? You mentioned them fighting quick take.. I would think that if your land was under a condemnation suit that has not been heard yet then it's not been decided yet if they condemning entity is even ALLOWED to have it. That is a different situation than QT. In QT, they decision has already been made: YES. So, if one feels they should not have their land forcibly taken away (being a defendant in a condemnation suit) then it would stand to reason that you would also fight the short-circuiting of that case (QT) which automatically decides YES. Once the condemnation suit was heard and it WAS DECIDED that the SB had the right to take the land then they are out of options and it's all about price at that point. Obviously, the price was good for them... and if I was in their shoes I would want someone to pay that price too for that land. I can understand their position at each step if I put myself in that situation. Now I think I get it. That part you are referring to was the Traverse hearing.....whether the SD has the right to condemn...was ruled in favor of the SD......so that had nothing to do with QT. QT is a Give us the land now and we will worry about the price later......
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 10:43:21 GMT -5
You mentioned them fighting quick take.. I would think that if your land was under a condemnation suit that has not been heard yet then it's not been decided yet if they condemning entity is even ALLOWED to have it. That is a different situation than QT. In QT, they decision has already been made: YES. So, if one feels they should not have their land forcibly taken away (being a defendant in a condemnation suit) then it would stand to reason that you would also fight the short-circuiting of that case (QT) which automatically decides YES. Once the condemnation suit was heard and it WAS DECIDED that the SB had the right to take the land then they are out of options and it's all about price at that point. Obviously, the price was good for them... and if I was in their shoes I would want someone to pay that price too for that land. I can understand their position at each step if I put myself in that situation. Now I think I get it. That part you are referring to was the Traverse hearing.....whether the SD has the right to condemn...was ruled in favor of the SD......so that had nothing to do with QT. QT is a Give us the land now and we will worry about the price later...... Here's where my knowledge is lacking on the subject... When was the Traverse hearing?
|
|