|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 19, 2008 14:30:46 GMT -5
Let's say they didn't. After the jury's number came in, were we still able to walk away or would QT have been binding?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 19, 2008 14:37:10 GMT -5
Let's say they didn't. After the jury's number came in, were we still able to walk away or would QT have been binding? It would have been binding, and the SD would have had to pay up. That's the risk one takes using QT
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Jun 19, 2008 14:42:47 GMT -5
Let's say they didn't. After the jury's number came in, were we still able to walk away or would QT have been binding? It would have been binding, and the SD would have had to pay up. That's the risk one takes using QT So is it that they didn't want us to be stuck paying the jury price? Or that they didn't want to sell to us? Or is it that they do want to sell to us at jury price? Hard to tell or is it all just a question of timing? (i.e. previously didn't want to be forced to sell to us, but now that the price came out in their favor they'd like us to pay up)
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 19, 2008 14:44:18 GMT -5
Let's say they didn't. After the jury's number came in, were we still able to walk away or would QT have been binding? I don't know. You can start another thread to discuss this if you want. My point in discussing this here is that I think, as the SD lawyers do, that, among a number of other potential inappropriate fees that BB is seeking to be reimbursed for, seeking reimbursement for what was essentially fighting the SD acquiring the BB land seems inappropriate, and, to me, a bit odd, since it appears to be in direct conflict with some of BB's other actions, words, and lawsuits (especially if there's still a lawsuit out there to force the SD to purchase the BB land).
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 14:58:16 GMT -5
Let's say they didn't. After the jury's number came in, were we still able to walk away or would QT have been binding? It would have been binding, and the SD would have had to pay up. That's the risk one takes using QT Given the timing with the dates you posted then no, I can't understand what reason they would have to fight it other than to simply 'fight it' for the sake of fighting it. Looked at another way, however, they had a legal right to fight it, and thus did. The applicability of it being a cost that can be passed onto us is another story and whether or not a judge believes it falls under the blanket of a 'defense related cost' is their decision alone.. but it never hurts to ask, the worst that can be said is NO. eta: typo and some grammar
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 19, 2008 15:10:06 GMT -5
I didn't see this posted here, but the online article omits one line item that does appear in the printed newspaper article. That items is "$2,500 in "fees for an undisclosed expert who neither testified or appeared in court." What does this mean? Does BB have an "imaginary expert" they are trying to bill for? Any lawyers out there to explain this? Maybe his name is Harry (no not the Harry from the other board, the rabbit) thanks for clarifying -- btw harry is registered here too !
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 19, 2008 15:55:37 GMT -5
What's funny is how people say we got a great deal for AME's land (3 times what they paid a few years earlier, and in a down market), yet blame BB for not accepting an insulting offer that would have represented virtually no increase from the first parcel, in a rising market). Some of BB's tactics certainly raise questions (fighting QT, first and foremost), but the core issue will always be the lowball offer. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC, the offer that was presented was in the neighborhood of $250K/acre and that was comparable to the prices of similar parcels and/or similar land in the general location. While it may seem "lowball" in comparison to the jury verdict, at the time it was what other parcels in the general vicinity were going for. And considering we got AME for $226K/acre, I think we did farely well. To rehash whether the church made a profit or not is irrelevant. If you or I made a profit on our stock purchase and subsequent sale of that same stock, we'd be looked at as good investors. However, because AME is involved and essentially ruined the chances of getting a HS at BB, they become the bad guys for "making a profit". What does this have to do with the fees this thread was discussing?
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 19, 2008 16:00:37 GMT -5
I agree with you here, slp. I have always been disgusted by the tactics of the BB lawyers and this is yet another example. One thing I can't understand is why aren't MORE people angry with BB? There are many people who want to blame the SD/SB for the Metea situation, when it was by BB's unwillingness to negotiate that ultimately got us here, IMO. Yet, some members of the NSFOC seemed to want to "cheer BB on" in their efforts, or so it seemed. Even on the blue board, not a single person has posted in response to this article. Many have read it but none have replied. Does the silence over on the blue board indicate that these charges are all justified? I'm really curious. Why should we be mad at BB, they had every right to fight the price of the land. Of course they want money. I blame for the SB for negotiating with BB for soooo long. They knew who they were fighting against. The SB promised the voters that they would be able to get this land and no plan B. Poor, poor, planning done by our SB. Hopefully, this fight with BB will not cost us MILLIONS of dollars. Even 1 Million is a lot of money. Also remember we still have to sell those 25 acres. More wasted in money IMO. Could of been used for something like EDUCATION. And as our SB played their silly games with BB our children sat in crowded schools. Nothing done for them. My child will get no relief from this ref. So please stop passing this blame this mess this SB created on anyone else but them. I voted no for the simple reason they did not have the land. Fun watching Plainfield build their school with their 06 funds. Our SB did not have their ducks in a row. My post was in direct correlation to the topic of this thread. If you want to rehash where the blame lies, review previous threads that have been posted. I can certainly say we will have to agree to disagree on the subject you brought up.
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jun 19, 2008 16:17:10 GMT -5
Too FUNNY! In my previous post I typed, "grasping at straws" and the post appeared grasping at pipelines. I did not type pipelines. Did someone go into my post unauthorized or is the word 'straws' not allowed here? eta: actually its not funny; someone or something changed my wording from pipelines to pipelines. I am a bit curious how and why that happened. Any insight from a mod on this? Anytime a mod modifies someone's posts it shows with name and time, nobody modified your post. There must be a glitch in the censored word list. We used to censor pipelines to say $traws. I will look into it. situation corrected. got a PM from a mod who said there was a problem with the system. no harm done. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jun 19, 2008 16:22:26 GMT -5
...I don't know a single person that wants the SD to pay any monies we don't have to. Why would we, it's our money too ! Yes as explained here there are those of us who would love to see certain members get their hands slapped for a number of things in this 3 year fiasco, but not where it takes money from the taxpayers pockets or away from the schools, that's just silly... You mean, for example, like a group of 204 taxpayers suing the 204 SD, and which, if successful, would have amounted to 204 residents potentially having to pay more in taxes? And even in the quick dismissal, 204 taxpayers had to fund the defense of said lawsuit. Like that kind of silliness? with all due respect warriorpride, you really need to let go of this if you want the district to move forward. The nasty comments that you continue to post are not helping to bridge the gap. I'm not looking for a fight here, just pointing out that posts like this one really tick me off and make it more difficult to forget what has transpired in this district. I have gotten over what Brookdale did and the potential harm that could have had on our district and I would kindly suggest you get over whatever horrible things you think NSFOC could have done as well. IF BB gets reimbursed the $7k they want from the SD for NSFOC "phone calls" (which I HIGHLY doubt a judge will grant) , it is a far cry from the MILLIONS of dollars the district has already paid for attorney fees to obtain BB and no land to show for it. Moving on is a two way street, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 19, 2008 16:45:08 GMT -5
You mean, for example, like a group of 204 taxpayers suing the 204 SD, and which, if successful, would have amounted to 204 residents potentially having to pay more in taxes? And even in the quick dismissal, 204 taxpayers had to fund the defense of said lawsuit. Like that kind of silliness? with all due respect warriorpride, you really need to let go of this if you want the district to move forward. The nasty comments that you continue to post are not helping to bridge the gap. I'm not looking for a fight here, just pointing out that posts like this one really tick me off and make it more difficult to forget what has transpired in this district. I have gotten over what Brookdale did and the potential harm that could have had on our district and I would kindly suggest you get over whatever horrible things you think NSFOC could have done as well. IF BB gets reimbursed the $7k they want from the SD for NSFOC "phone calls" (which I HIGHLY doubt a judge will grant) , it is a far cry from the MILLIONS of dollars the district has already paid for attorney fees to obtain BB and no land to show for it. Moving on is a two way street, don't you think? I realize that I've taken this thread off course, and for that I apologize. However, I don't apologize for the outrage that I felt about that lawsuit. That lawsuit is also something that "transpired" - and while I hope it, and that group, will fade from memory, I cannot help responding to a post about "wasting tax dollars" without sharing my feelings about what that lawsuit put at risk, as far as getting MV open, and additional tax dollars wasted. That's a two way street, too. Some people want to direct alot of their unhappiness at the SB (and even defend nsfoc's actions, including the lawsuit) - others want to direct it elsewhere. Given that the lawsuit has been thrown out, hopefully it'll be brought up less and less. I'll try, but I can't make any promises.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 19, 2008 16:50:22 GMT -5
with all due respect warriorpride, you really need to let go of this if you want the district to move forward. The nasty comments that you continue to post are not helping to bridge the gap. I'm not looking for a fight here, just pointing out that posts like this one really tick me off and make it more difficult to forget what has transpired in this district. I have gotten over what Brookdale did and the potential harm that could have had on our district and I would kindly suggest you get over whatever horrible things you think NSFOC could have done as well. IF BB gets reimbursed the $7k they want from the SD for NSFOC "phone calls" (which I HIGHLY doubt a judge will grant) , it is a far cry from the MILLIONS of dollars the district has already paid for attorney fees to obtain BB and no land to show for it. Moving on is a two way street, don't you think? I realize that I've taken this thread off course, and for that I apologize. However, I don't apologize for the outrage that I felt about that lawsuit. That lawsuit is also something that "transpired" - and while I hope it, and that group, will fade from memory, I cannot help responding to a post about "wasting tax dollars" without my felling about what that lawsuit put at risk, as far as getting MV open, and additional tax dollars wasted. That's a two way street, too. Some people want to direct alot of their unhappiness at the SB (and even defend that group's actions, including the lawsuit) - others want to direct it elsewhere. Given that the lawsuit have been thrown out, hopefully it'll be brought up less and less. I'll try, but I can't make any promises. Given the fact that I am stil hearing about BD voting predominantly no for the referendum, I doubt this will fade none too soon. That was after all 2 years ago and the dismissal of the lawsuit was less than a month ago. All these small reminders, like Brodie submitting a bill for the actions of "people who belong to the NSFOC but not acting for the NSFOC", make it hard not to chat about it.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 17:01:47 GMT -5
Yesterday I thought we were moving forward with....
"...we have heard this all before. Something new please."
"Yeah, we get it - you're angry."
"This has gone far enough. Nothing new to discuss here."
"This forum was not created to have non-stop, endless repetition of disatisfaction & venting posted here. You could post every day here for the next 4 years, but it's not going to get you what you want"
... Looks like 2 steps back today, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 19, 2008 18:15:31 GMT -5
Yesterday I thought we were moving forward with.... "...we have heard this all before. Something new please." "Yeah, we get it - you're angry." "This has gone far enough. Nothing new to discuss here." "This forum was not created to have non-stop, endless repetition of disatisfaction & venting posted here. You could post every day here for the next 4 years, but it's not going to get you what you want" ... Looks like 2 steps back today, IMO. oh well....human nature. I am just glad the fine toothed comb is out on the fees. To it reveals what BB attys are all about.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 18:39:26 GMT -5
The nature of the beast is that an attorney is out to make the most of any position for their client.
When they are on your side, you love it. When they are on the 'other side' you loathe it.
|
|