|
Post by concerned on Sept 4, 2008 8:15:50 GMT -5
This is great news. Those slimeballs from BB aren't going to screw #204 like they had hoped. I can't help but wonder if some of the individuals upset with how the boundries turned out are secretly disappointed at not having more ammunition against the SB. I am not disappointed at ALL. I feel relief and that this is a good thing for the district.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 4, 2008 8:42:24 GMT -5
You are free to wonder what you like, but what you are saying is ludicrous. As much as the situation didn't turn out the way it should have, the last thing any taxpayer would want is even more expense.
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 4, 2008 8:49:35 GMT -5
The outcome is good news indeed. As I read posts in this area let us be very careful as to where we assign blame and to whom ammunition would be assigned to. There are many neighborhoods that took more than one for the team. Some of these folks may still feel marginalized at this very moment. I think nearly every tax payer is happy with this outcome even the folks most affected from the boundary process and that emotional roller coaster.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Sept 4, 2008 8:58:18 GMT -5
You are free to wonder what you like, but what you are saying is ludicrous. As much as the situation didn't turn out the way it should have, the last thing any taxpayer would want is even more expense. Alot of things that have gone on in this district has been ludicrous which I am sure you will agree. Still I probably shouldn't have brought it up; it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Sept 4, 2008 13:27:59 GMT -5
The outcome is good news indeed. As I read posts in this area let us be very careful as to where we assign blame and to whom ammunition would be assigned to. There are many neighborhoods that took more than one for the team. Some of these folks may still feel marginalized at this very moment. I think nearly every tax payer is happy with this outcome even the folks most affected from the boundary process and that emotional roller coaster. Very well said, SSSM. I imagine all taxpayers in this district are breathing a sigh of relief right now.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Sept 4, 2008 14:56:08 GMT -5
I read somewhere else that people are concerned that Brodie will just add this to the one remaining lawsuit. Sounds like, from the newspaper article, that is the plan.
I seem to remember Player's excellent analysis of the condemnation laws/statutes. IIRC, there are limitations on not just what they can ask for but how much.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Sept 4, 2008 16:16:30 GMT -5
I'll repost when I get a chance tonight. Anyone got the actual judgement from Popejoy? I'd like to read the text.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Sept 5, 2008 14:24:02 GMT -5
I read somewhere else that people are concerned that Brodie will just add this to the one remaining lawsuit. Sounds like, from the newspaper article, that is the plan. I seem to remember Player's excellent analysis of the condemnation laws/statutes. IIRC, there are limitations on not just what they can ask for but how much. Dug up from an old April 26 post (Thanks rural, for posting it here.... I couldn't find it on blue)Here's what I believe the SB is using as math to look at costs.
This assumes: a) Capital expenses only - no OpEx b) School gets built at Eola as per original building design at original cost estimate c) Brodie lawsuit will prevail as per statute, but likely no more (this merits more discussion) d) NSFOC lawsuit has not material consequences e) The 25 acres of BB land we own gets sold at fair market value
So: AME land costs $19M - established BB 25 acres will be sold for, oh, say $5M
Brodie law suit damages. Here's where it gets interesting. The Brodie lawsuit explicitly asks for $2.5M for loss of property value for the 55 acre property where they have 50% stake. Their experts estimate the loss in market value to be $2.5M of which Brodie wants half. Now, as far as I can see, there is no precedent for awarding these types of damages in case of Abandonment - in fact, the Brodie lawsuit explicitly states that the statute is silent on this aspect. This is fundamentally different from the PREIT award which was a result of the condemnation for remediation between anticipated property lines - see below.
It is not clear to me if the PREIT settlement of $2.5M was actually paid, or is even valid as the PREIT deal fell through. However, that was damages due to the condemnation (working on water retention, drainage etc.) and not due to Abandonment, which is what this case is about. For the sake of argument, lets include that.
Illinois State statute 735 ILCS 30/10‑5‑110 (Eminent Domain Act) states: ...... (e) If a plaintiff does not accept an offer as provided in subsection (c) and if the final just compensation for the defendant's interest is determined by the trier of fact to be equal to or in excess of the amount of the defendant's last written offer under subsection (b), then the court must order the plaintiff to pay to the defendant that defendant's attorney's fees as calculated under subsection (f) of this Section. The plaintiff shall also pay to the defendant that defendant's reasonable costs and litigation expenses, including, without limitation, expert witness and appraisal fees, incurred after the making of the defendant's last written offer under subsection (b). (f) Any award of attorney's fees under this Section shall be based solely on the net benefit achieved for the property owner, except that the court may also consider any non‑monetary benefits obtained for the property owner through the efforts of the attorney to the extent that the non‑monetary benefits are specifically identified by the court and can be quantified by the court with a reasonable degree of certainty. "Net benefit" means the difference, exclusive of interest, between the final judgment or settlement and the last written offer made by the condemning authority before the filing date of the condemnation complaint. The award shall be calculated as follows, subject to the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:
(1) 33% of the net benefit if the net benefit is $250,000 or less;
(2) 25% of the net benefit if the net benefit is more than $250,000 but less than $1 million; or
(3) 20% of the net benefit if the net benefit is $1 million or more.
(g) This Section does not apply to the acquisition of property under the O'Hare Modernization Act.
(Source: P.A. 94‑1055, eff. 1‑1‑07.)
In this particular case, I read this as meaning that BB lawers are entitled to 20% of what they increased the value of the property over the last firm SB offer by going to a jury trial = ($518K-$225K)*55 acres*20%=$3.3M or so.
So the grand total = $2.5M (damages to 55acres)+2.5M (damages due to PREIT deal) + $3.3M (attorneys fees) = $8.3M, which is why I kept mentioning the $8M number.
So if we bring it all together,
Total cost of property at AME= $19M (capex)+ $8M (damages)-$5M(sales of 25 acres)=$22M.
I suspect this is why the SB is stating that "AME land will save the district money" as they are looking at $31M-$22M=$9M as net savings.
Nota bene, this is CapEx, and I know Arch has numbers for increases in transportation costs of 9% (any $ figures for this, Arch?) which should be added in to make a true TCO.
Now, some of the assumptions could be questioned. For example: - the 25 BB acres could be a turd, and we are unable to get what we want for it - Construction cost overruns due to accelerated timelines. I have heard this before, and I believe the SB claims the overrns would be the same for BB. - Brodie damages, through some unknown mechanism, are greater - NSFOC has material impact - Add your own....
So fence, this is why I suspect the SB is charging along feeling very secure in their current position in spite of pending lawsuits. So as I said before, unless some one can manifestly prove that the SB actions in acquiring AME were ILLEGAL (political misrepresentation would not count here - the SB can and will argue that until the Sep 2007 verdict, all their actions were single-mindedly focused on BB), I see very little chance of derailing AME using financial arguments.
Now thats the math as I see it. I'd love to see what others see. A lot of it is from the pre-AME days, of course, but the part on Damages of $2.5M+$2.5M+$3.3M = BB Lawsuit+PREIT+BB Attorneys fees still holds. Now it is questionable if the district is liable for PREIT damages, as PREIT backed out, and BB is claiming damages for that now! As now the BB damages lawsuit must be filed under the Eminent Domain lawsuit (thanks to Popejoy's most recent ruling), ED statute makes NO allowance for any such damages, and neither is there any legal precedent. The BB lawsuit , in fact, admits that they have no statutory support for their claim. It is possible that Judge French may be a judge who "legislates from the bench" where the statute is murky, but if she does, she will set one heck of a precedent that will affect ALL ED proceedings the government initiates. That will be a whopper - and Bantha fodder for appeal! So all the District may be liable for is Attorneys fees of a max of $3.3M (capped by statute - except for expert witnesses and appraisal cost) which Scotti is trying his best to reduce even further. Lets see what French rules. [It is kind of eerie going back to my older posts.... NSFOC had no material consequences (got dismissed), AME is being built, the District did argue that until the Sep 2007 verdict, they single-mindedly pursued BB, so no intent to decieve, the BB Lawsuit is forced into the ED lawsuit and subject to Abandonment damages.... I can see why lot of people thought (and probably still think) that I am an SB plant!] Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 5, 2008 14:33:11 GMT -5
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Sept 5, 2008 14:45:39 GMT -5
The post was not in a public area in green, though it was public in blue. I'll look up the thread on blue if I need it for reference. Cheers.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Sept 5, 2008 14:51:58 GMT -5
Oh, forgot to mention that the District was liable for Attorneys fees even if BB had been the site Metea was built on. I believe some people forwarded the theory that BB would "forgive" the damages if the SB stuck with BB - I ain't buying that speculation and I have seen no evidence for that either.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 5, 2008 14:53:10 GMT -5
The post was not in a public area in green, though it was public in blue. I'll look up the thread on blue if I need it for reference. Cheers. Interesting... I thought she wasn't a mod, unless there's just other private areas here based on userid-specific access... no worries and Cheers to you too Nice to see you back.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 5, 2008 14:54:22 GMT -5
Oh, forgot to mention that the District was liable for Attorneys fees even if BB had been the site Metea was built on. I believe some people forwarded the theory that BB would "forgive" the damages if the SB stuck with BB - I ain't buying that speculation and I have seen no evidence for that either. Cheers. It was actually buried in their suit text if I recall; something about them standing ready to hand over the deed upon payment for the land, blahblahblah.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Sept 5, 2008 14:57:28 GMT -5
And I am not a mod either. Guess Proboards has a lot of configuration options.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Sept 5, 2008 14:59:15 GMT -5
Oh, forgot to mention that the District was liable for Attorneys fees even if BB had been the site Metea was built on. I believe some people forwarded the theory that BB would "forgive" the damages if the SB stuck with BB - I ain't buying that speculation and I have seen no evidence for that either. Cheers. It was actually buried in their suit text if I recall; something about them standing ready to hand over the deed upon payment for the land, blahblahblah. Hmmm... somehow I must have missed that. I'll check the actual filing again.
|
|