|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 19, 2008 23:34:00 GMT -5
Not in the same prime location.
Now one can make the argument that the BB land was actually too good for a school. That schools should ideally be on quiet streets, and prime plots of tax-generating land should be reserved for big retail. But that is a different argument. The land they chose and felt strongly enough about to condemn, was worth way, way more than what they offered and the jury confirmed as much.
The SB should actually thank BB for saving us so much money. After all, Metzger was set to guarantee up to 600k per acre for QT, and from what I understand the only thing that prevented that from happening is BB's perplexing opposition to QT. If QT had happened as the SB wanted, we would have been "stuck" buying BB for the jury amount. What then? Cut out the gyms and pool? No a/c? If the SB was true to its conviction of staying fiscally responsible, that was the only alternative...to "de-content" MV. Yet the outrage would have been such that I think MV would ultimately have been built as a full-service HS and we would have dipped into operating funds. Which in turn probably would have led to an NSFOC-type lawsuit from the Vote No contingent.
All paths lead back to the SB.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 19, 2008 23:43:06 GMT -5
Not in the same prime location. Now one can make the argument that the BB land was actually too good for a school. That schools should ideally be on quiet streets, and prime plots of tax-generating land should be reserved for big retail. But that is a different argument. The land they chose and felt strongly enough about to condemn, was worth way, way more than what they offered and the jury confirmed as much. The SB should actually thank BB for saving us so much money. After all, Metzger was set to guarantee up to 600k per acre for QT, and from what I understand the only thing that prevented that from happening is BB's perplexing opposition to QT. If QT had happened as the SB wanted, we would have been "stuck" buying BB for the jury amount. What then? Cut out the gyms and pool? No a/c? If the SB was true to its conviction of staying fiscally responsible, that was the only alternative...to "de-content" MV. Yet the outrage would have been such that I think MV would ultimately have been built as a full-service HS and we would have dipped into operating funds. Which in turn probably would have led to an NSFOC-type lawsuit from the Vote No contingent. All paths lead back to the SB. In your world, of course they do. No one else is to blame, right? You are right, everyone else is wrong. And yes, it was in the same general vicinity using comp prices from recently sold parcels. Much of what you posted is a real stretch, but hey it's your opinion. If you think so highly of the land, maybe you should purchase it.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 23:56:06 GMT -5
The jury set the price, the rest is irrelevant. What matters is the price set and the last offer. That cost difference goes into the formula for the legal fees, from my understanding.
If the offer was greater, the legal fees would be lower since there would have been a smaller difference between the value set by the jury and the last good faith offer by the condemning body.
That was my read on the condemnation statute people were tossing around. I do admit I could have misinterpreted that.
Who actually decided on the amount for the offer?
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 19, 2008 23:59:33 GMT -5
Who else could be to blame? As the judge declared, the SB is omnipotent when it comes to decisions regarding the SD. They made the decisions, they are to blame. Everyone else, from BB to NSFOC, were just acting in their own perceived best interests.
I think most would disagree with that, but before someone says "prove it," the only thing that matters is that the jury disagreed.
Tell me what part is a stretch. If QT succeeded, we'd be building MV at BB as we speak. Do you disagree? If we had built MV at BB, we'd have had to strip down the amenities. Do you disagree? And if public opinion swayed the SB to ignore the costs, you think it's a stretch that some taxpayers might want to sue?
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 20, 2008 5:44:38 GMT -5
Who else could be to blame? As the judge declared, the SB is omnipotent when it comes to decisions regarding the SD. They made the decisions, they are to blame. Everyone else, from BB to NSFOC, were just acting in their own perceived best interests. I think most would disagree with that, but before someone says "prove it," the only thing that matters is that the jury disagreed. Tell me what part is a stretch. If QT succeeded, we'd be building MV at BB as we speak. Do you disagree? If we had built MV at BB, we'd have had to strip down the amenities. Do you disagree? And if public opinion swayed the SB to ignore the costs, you think it's a stretch that some taxpayers might want to sue? this really warrants another thread, but from what I've heard, if QT had happened last summer, the constructions costs and lack of need for construction expedite would have allowed it to work - water under the bridge at this point, tho
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 20, 2008 7:27:04 GMT -5
That's the first I've ever heard someone speculate that, but if true, it's sad that we couldn't get a better deal on construction costs in this down economy. I would imagine labor is the biggest expense, and with the drop in building, it surprises me we couldn't hold the line on costs. I know contractors with crews just waiting for work.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 20, 2008 8:37:21 GMT -5
.... if QT had happened last summer, the constructions costs and lack of need for construction expedite would have allowed it to work - water under the bridge at this point, tho I agree. Materials are big part of cost too. Steel especially, concrete too. Driven largely not by our down economy but by what is going in in China, India, and elsewhere. Turner Construction Cost incr for 2007 was 7.7%. www.turnerconstruction.com/corporate/files_corporate/CI4q2007.pdf
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 20, 2008 9:43:00 GMT -5
.... if QT had happened last summer, the constructions costs and lack of need for construction expedite would have allowed it to work - water under the bridge at this point, tho I agree. Materials are big part of cost too. Steel especially, concrete too. Driven largely not by our down economy but by what is going in in China, India, and elsewhere. Turner Construction Cost incr for 2007 was 7.7%. www.turnerconstruction.com/corporate/files_corporate/CI4q2007.pdfIf I take the annual indices listed on that link and apply them from 1996, when NV was built for 63M (including land), it comes to just over 100M. (And I didn't think we were building MV to NV's Taj Mahal specs.) How did we end up at $140M+? Probably should be a thread of its own.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Jun 20, 2008 10:28:56 GMT -5
If I take the annual indices listed on that link and apply them from 1996, when NV was built for 63M (including land), it comes to just over 100M. (And I didn't think we were building MV to NV's Taj Mahal specs.) How did we end up at $140M+? Probably should be a thread of its own. You're right, probably should move to another thread. I'm curious what happens with the numbers if you separate the building land costs.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 20, 2008 12:41:10 GMT -5
BTW I have looked on the Clerks site, and the SD filing is not there yet. I wonder if because it is referencing the Brodie financials, which they got the court to approve, it is marked confidential and sealed.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 20, 2008 12:53:55 GMT -5
sealed?.. which filing is marked sealed/confid.?
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 20, 2008 14:19:15 GMT -5
sealed?.. which filing is marked sealed/confid.? This is what I could find. I am trying to remember if that is one of those court things that Parent popped into to listen to. Don't think it was in the paper. BTW Brodie also only wanted to leave their unredacted financials for in-camera review and not provide copies. Kilander Denied that motion...they have to provide copies to all, but they did get them to remain sealed
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 20, 2008 14:58:27 GMT -5
I believe I asked the question too vaguely. Was this sealed stuff from the 4/7, 4/8ish filed suit or a different filing/submission that happened later? I mean.. we have the PDFs online of it, so it's not that 'sealed' if it is in that one (early april)
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 20, 2008 18:06:24 GMT -5
I believe I asked the question too vaguely. Was this sealed stuff from the 4/7, 4/8ish filed suit or a different filing/submission that happened later? I mean.. we have the PDFs online of it, so it's not that 'sealed' if it is in that one (early april) The pdf's from then were the fees from the Brach side. Brodie side wanted to only have their fee submissions reviewed "in camera". Kilander denied that. Apparently Brodie feels their fee submission contains sensitive info, so they motioned to have the ability to mark their submissions as confidential, and only available to certain people........If the TG and NSFOC call charges were one of those....I wonder how much other shady stuff is in there?
|
|