|
Post by gatormom on Apr 23, 2008 17:19:07 GMT -5
I have to bring this thread back into play for a minute and ask this: Critics of the AME purchase are now saying that the district is recklessly spending our money by buying the land at AME. They are claiming that the church is making three times what they paid for the land in 2004 and it is not worth a three-fold increase in 4 years. (Bought $72K/acre in 2004 and sold for $225K/acre in 2008.) Yet they sit there and say it is OK to pay $516K/acre for the BB land. I was just reading the B lawsuit and the timeline didn't really kick in until now. Sorry, I'm a bit slow. The SB bought the 25 acres of land for $257,000 an acre in May, 2005. The jury was supposed to determine the market value at the time of condemnation, right? So they came in at $516,000 per acre for a December 2005 price. So that is a two fold increase in 7 months?? Here's another question maybe someone can answer. The letter that the SB pushed for the quick take states that BB never produced an appraisal for the land (See exhibit C under B lawsuit). Did they EVER produce an appraisal later? And if they did, would you have to wonder who the appraiser was? Why would BB produce an appraisal letter in the middle of a condemnation trial? Isn't that like showing someone your hand during a game of poker? They had appraisals lined up from experts at the time. Why would they produce them prior to the trial? Pretty sure they used appraisals at the school board meeting where the district presented quick-take to the SB. Both Brach and Brodie attorneys talked about their appraisals and how much the land was worth. Who woulda figured the value of the land doubled in a mere 7 months.
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 23, 2008 17:28:47 GMT -5
Why would BB produce an appraisal letter in the middle of a condemnation trial? Isn't that like showing someone your hand during a game of poker? They had appraisals lined up from experts at the time. Why would they produce them prior to the trial? Pretty sure they used appraisals at the school board meeting where the district presented quick-take to the SB. Both Brach and Brodie attorneys talked about their appraisals and how much the land was worth. Who woulda figured the value of the land doubled in a mere 7 months. Just heard the $257K per acre was for a 2003 condemnation price. So doubled in 2 years. Still good profit.
|
|
|
Post by mclovin on Apr 23, 2008 17:32:06 GMT -5
Pretty sure they used appraisals at the school board meeting where the district presented quick-take to the SB. Both Brach and Brodie attorneys talked about their appraisals and how much the land was worth. Who woulda figured the value of the land doubled in a mere 7 months. Yes, a good profit but yet the market was on fire at the time. And, 59 and 75th is one of the last open major intersections available in a huge commerce area. Just ask Walmart for their opinion.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Apr 23, 2008 20:14:54 GMT -5
Why would BB produce an appraisal letter in the middle of a condemnation trial? Isn't that like showing someone your hand during a game of poker? They had appraisals lined up from experts at the time. Why would they produce them prior to the trial? Pretty sure they used appraisals at the school board meeting where the district presented quick-take to the SB. Both Brach and Brodie attorneys talked about their appraisals and how much the land was worth. Who woulda figured the value of the land doubled in a mere 7 months. FYI there were appraisals tendered by the SD to the courts for BB. Thsoe appraisals supported their 257 -275k/acre stance on the property.
|
|
|
Post by mclovin on Apr 23, 2008 20:17:15 GMT -5
Pretty sure they used appraisals at the school board meeting where the district presented quick-take to the SB. Both Brach and Brodie attorneys talked about their appraisals and how much the land was worth. Who woulda figured the value of the land doubled in a mere 7 months. FYI there were appraisals tendered by the SD to the courts for BB. Thsoe appraisals supported their 257 -275k/acre stance on the property. That was my point. The school board got appraisals (bad ones) for the BB property. Why wouldn't they have gotten one for the AME property.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Apr 23, 2008 20:22:19 GMT -5
FYI there were appraisals tendered by the SD to the courts for BB. Thsoe appraisals supported their 257 -275k/acre stance on the property. That was my point. The school board got appraisals (bad ones) for the BB property. Why wouldn't they have gotten one for the AME property. They got the appriasals because they were in a court fight. They were needed for that. They don't really need one for AME as they are not getting a mortgage. The Mortgage holder is the one who requires the appraisal to approve the loan. I guess you could consider us the mortgage holders, however we already approved it.
|
|
|
Post by bborbust on Apr 23, 2008 20:50:57 GMT -5
That was my point. The school board got appraisals (bad ones) for the BB property. Why wouldn't they have gotten one for the AME property. They got the appriasals because they were in a court fight. They were needed for that. They don't really need one for AME as they are not getting a mortgage. The Mortgage holder is the one who requires the appraisal to approve the loan. I guess you could consider us the mortgage holders, however we already approved it. Yeah, and as the mortgage holder (taxpayers), we should have held the SB accountable for an appraisal BEFORE they closed on the land. But of course, M2 closed the deal before anyone could say anything.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Apr 23, 2008 21:25:33 GMT -5
They got the appriasals because they were in a court fight. They were needed for that. They don't really need one for AME as they are not getting a mortgage. The Mortgage holder is the one who requires the appraisal to approve the loan. I guess you could consider us the mortgage holders, however we already approved it. Yeah, and as the mortgage holder (taxpayers), we should have held the SB accountable for an appraisal BEFORE they closed on the land. But of course, M2 closed the deal before anyone could say anything. Plenty of comps. Plenty of offers from other land owners in the past couple of months. When the offer was made to the district, it was something that fit the needs of the district, was completely affordable and works with the 2009 timeline.
|
|