|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 4, 2008 20:58:13 GMT -5
I guess you didn't see the portion in red that was highlighted. I'll make it glowing, so you can see it better. And that fact that you quoted me led me to believe you were addressing me. As for the blind devotion, I haven't heard one person on here say the SB is perfect. Everyone here has something they wish the SB could have done differently. You may just be coming back to green, so you might want to read through the other posts. Also, just because they've made some mistakes doesn't mean the need to be burned at the stake for it. They've also done a lot of good, but I don't see many from "your side" acknowledging that. It seems as if you and others just want to wallow in your own sorrows and re-live every horrible moment of the last 2 years and take others down with you. It's a choice you make. My "rant" comes from the repetitiveness of your posts. We get it. I'm begging you, move on, man. sorry, the situation doesn't change here does it ? Does that bus ride get shorter - no it gets longer over time. When you start saying people blame them for everything - I see specific items. Everybody gets to have an opinion on it - you have yours - and I have mine, and others have theirs. As far as 'my side' , yes we have to live with this situation forever - sorry it bothers you, but I don't believe that opinion is going to change any time soon here - When I see the good here as it affects our area - I will acknowledge it . I spent a lot of time complimenting things they did, it got me what ? and the nsfoc comment was uncalled for, but I notice you didn't address that... does being on a different board give you the privilege to make accusations ? I sure hope not, and in fact I know better. Dr, you expect to get something in return for complimenting someone? OK - we've had some warnings, this is the last one - take this off-topic topic to another thread or we'll need to lock this one.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 4, 2008 20:59:09 GMT -5
eb---doc.......take it outside please!!!!! start a new thread on your likes and dislikes of the SB.....I'll chime in there too. will do - in fact do you want to start it off ? Heck, some may find out that there are things I don't 'rail' on -- also it's not a personal dislike for anyone, it is a dislike of some of the ways things have been handled - and then at least one confusing outcome.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 4, 2008 21:01:14 GMT -5
eb---doc.......take it outside please!!!!! start a new thread on your likes and dislikes of the SB.....I'll chime in there too. will do - in fact do you want to start it off ? Heck, some may find out that there are things I don't 'rail' on -- also it's not a personal dislike for anyone, it is a dislike of some of the ways things have been handled - and then at least one confusing outcome. BB hearing on fees. Any comments?
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 4, 2008 21:03:29 GMT -5
sorry, the situation doesn't change here does it ? Does that bus ride get shorter - no it gets longer over time. When you start saying people blame them for everything - I see specific items. Everybody gets to have an opinion on it - you have yours - and I have mine, and others have theirs. As far as 'my side' , yes we have to live with this situation forever - sorry it bothers you, but I don't believe that opinion is going to change any time soon here - When I see the good here as it affects our area - I will acknowledge it . I spent a lot of time complimenting things they did, it got me what ? and the nsfoc comment was uncalled for, but I notice you didn't address that... does being on a different board give you the privilege to make accusations ? I sure hope not, and in fact I know better. Dr, you expect to get something in return for complimenting someone? OK - we've had some warnings, this is the last one - take this off-topic topic to another thread or we'll need to lock this one. No, just seems like that's what some people want me to do - and I've been there, and when I like something else I will compliment it again also. I also don't expect to be have anything happen the other way if I am critical - so maybe it was a bad choice of words on my part - but I can tell you being critical gets you cut off in a hurry. However, when I get told specific things and then they turn out not to be so true, that is bothersome to me. btw - just answering your question - so no need to lock, I am done with this topic right now also.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 4, 2008 21:06:55 GMT -5
will do - in fact do you want to start it off ? Heck, some may find out that there are things I don't 'rail' on -- also it's not a personal dislike for anyone, it is a dislike of some of the ways things have been handled - and then at least one confusing outcome. BB hearing on fees. Any comments? Other than I understand why they are seeking them, as does the SB as they planned for them. They estimated accurately it appears which is good, and I also don't think we should pay a nickle more than we have to - and it should be scrutinized by line item as it appears they will- that is the proper fiscal responsibility to us as taxpayers. almost sounds like a compliment -
|
|
|
Post by chicoryowl on Jun 4, 2008 21:53:09 GMT -5
I've avoided as much of these discussions as possible and I see why. I don't know how you get that eb204's post proves your point that there is blind devotion to the SB when you he/she indicates that the SB is not perfect and has made mistakes. And BTW, how does one define SB apologist? Is it somebody that refuses to attack them at every turn? I guess that's me too. I think they've made plenty of mistakes. But i don't feel the need to constantly rail against them. no it's someone that posts on both boards comments like " people are blaming them for the weather too -- I'm sorry I am still angry over the lot we drew, but it is what it is... I accept the fact that MV will be built at AME - have moved past BB - etc.- that does not mean I have to sit down and shut up and like the lot we drew- if that makes me someone who rails on them for everything ( seems like a few points to me) - then it is I who don't understand. It sure seems to me his/her "rant" doesn't have anything to do with her thinking the SB can do no wrong. It seems to me that you're pretty much twisting his/her words so you can argue and complain about your plight. My personal take is that you're so upset over the boundaries that you're just looking to fight with somebody. And about anything just to come back to the point that things suck for you. I have a deep amount of respect for you and have no doubt that if you and I sat down and argued a point, it would end with me not only conceding to your point, but also agreeing to wear a tutu for a week. That said, AA has some creed about learning to change what they can and accept what they can't. I hope that you can reach that stage soon. You're burning too much energy being upset. And it's not good for anybody.
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Jun 5, 2008 6:01:53 GMT -5
This is an updated version of the article Parent posted yesterday...
Rejected landowners want $5 million from Indian Prairie district
June 5, 2008
By Jennifer Golz jgolz@scn1.com
AURORA -- The Indian Prairie School District could be ordered to pay $5 million to the owners of the land on which it chose not to build its third high school.
Totals are in for the Brach and Brodie trusts -- $2.2 million and $2.8 million, respectively -- for what each says are reimbursable costs to defend the eminent domain lawsuit the district brought against them as owners of a 55-acre parcel at 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora. That site originally was targeted by the School District as the location for the new Metea Valley High School.
The district dropped its eminent domain case for the land, which is contiguous to a 25-acre parcel it already owns, after a DuPage County jury priced the Brach-Brodie land at $31 million -- more than twice what the district had budgeted.
A groundbreaking ceremony was held Tuesday for the site the district instead purchased in April, at Eola and Molitor roads in Aurora. The cost of that land was $19 million.
Construction is under way along Eola Road, and district officials say the new 3,000-seat high school will be open to freshmen and sophomores in the fall of 2009.
But the attorneys who represent the Brach and Brodie trusts are not letting the district off that easily.
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. If that fails, Brodie trust attorney Steve Helm said he intends to seek $12 million in damages for his client's share of the land.
While $2.8 million of that represents attorney fees and witness costs associated with the condemnation case, the remainder is what Helm feels is compensation in price for what the land could have sold for in 2005, when the suit was filed, compared to today's real estate market.
The Brach trust is seeking $2.2 million for its costs in defending the abandoned eminent domain case and an undisclosed amount in damages.
Rick Petesch, attorney for the School District, said he intends to file objections to specific costs for each trust, such as the combined $49,500 paid to a Springfield lobbying firm hired to oppose the district's quick-take bill. The legislation would have allowed the district to take immediate possession of the Brach-Brodie land, but the measure was rejected by the Legislature.
All parties will reconvene June 10 in DuPage County Circuit Court in Wheaton, when a hearing date to determine reimbursable expenses will be set.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 25, 2008 9:56:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 25, 2008 10:12:50 GMT -5
cool - they seem to be fighting this with gusto
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 25, 2008 11:10:39 GMT -5
I hope these BB lawyers get what they deserve which is nothing. If all of this is true, it just proves these people are padding time spent on the case and trying to throw all expenses against the wall to see if any will stick. Should be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 25, 2008 13:30:14 GMT -5
Tall Grass lawsuit calls in January? MMMkay. Some are dated before the MWGEN land announcement too. Was the 'word out' on the site selection at the time of the first call (we all know some people have an 'inside' so let's not even pretend they don't) and did they catch wind of it?
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 25, 2008 15:00:32 GMT -5
Tall Grass lawsuit calls in January? MMMkay. Some are dated before the MWGEN land announcement too. Was the 'word out' on the site selection at the time of the first call (we all know some people have an 'inside' so let's not even pretend they don't) and did they catch wind of it? It's no real secret that the district was looking at 3 parcels of land prior to the final decision/approval by the board on Jan. 22. I don't think one needs any "inside information" to know that. The very fact that other land parcels were being considered during that time frame and that BB wasn't one of them would lead me to believe that these phone calls were quite possibly initiated by those listed on the lawsuit or their attorney. And even if they weren't initiated by that group, both parties were obviously in contact. It seems as if efforts to de-rail building anywhere but BB were already underway. By that, I mean why would the BB legal team initiate contact with the NSFOC group? What's in it for them? However, I can see why the NSFOC group might want an "alli" in their efforts. Just my observation. BTW, at one of the SB meetings, prior to the Jan. 22 meeting where they approved the MWGEN land, there was a gentleman sitting in front of me that had a legal size file folder with "Tall Grass Lawsuit" written on the tab. Not NSFOC, but Tall Grass. Now it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 25, 2008 15:49:14 GMT -5
Tall Grass lawsuit calls in January? MMMkay. Some are dated before the MWGEN land announcement too. Was the 'word out' on the site selection at the time of the first call (we all know some people have an 'inside' so let's not even pretend they don't) and did they catch wind of it? It's no real secret that the district was looking at 3 parcels of land prior to the final decision/approval by the board on Jan. 22. I don't think one needs any "inside information" to know that. The very fact that other land parcels were being considered during that time frame and that BB wasn't one of them would lead me to believe that these phone calls were quite possibly initiated by those listed on the lawsuit or their attorney. And even if they weren't initiated by that group, both parties were obviously in contact. It seems as if efforts to de-rail building anywhere but BB were already underway. By that, I mean why would the BB legal team initiate contact with the NSFOC group? What's in it for them? However, I can see why the NSFOC group might want an "alli" in their efforts. Just my observation. BTW, at one of the SB meetings, prior to the Jan. 22 meeting where they approved the MWGEN land, there was a gentleman sitting in front of me that had a legal size file folder with "Tall Grass Lawsuit" written on the tab. Not NSFOC, but Tall Grass. Now it makes sense. And since the boundary meeting was in mid to late Feb, that kind of puts to bed that the lawsuit was all because of boundaries. If they were kicking around the idea back then, it seems to me to be more tied to the land/location as they said it was.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 25, 2008 16:48:41 GMT -5
And since the boundary meeting was in mid to late Feb, that kind of puts to bed that the lawsuit was all because of boundaries. If they were kicking around the idea back then, it seems to me to be more tied to the land/location as they said it was. location change means boundaries change, obviously. We will never know for sure if SD purchasing Macom would have triggered a "voters rights" lawsuit from Tall Grass, will we?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 25, 2008 17:26:31 GMT -5
And since the boundary meeting was in mid to late Feb, that kind of puts to bed that the lawsuit was all because of boundaries. If they were kicking around the idea back then, it seems to me to be more tied to the land/location as they said it was. location change means boundaries change, obviously. We will never know for sure if SD purchasing Macom would have triggered a "voters rights" lawsuit from Tall Grass, will we? I suppose the only way to know that answer would be to ask the plaintiffs. Then again, I like the simple, direct and obvious.
|
|