|
Post by 3grownkids on Jun 19, 2008 11:18:16 GMT -5
• $293,813 spent on lobbyists in response to the district's efforts to acquire "quick-take powers."
=========================================================== Nearly $300,000 is an awful lot of money.
I would like to know: 1) Who was lobbied? 2) What lobbyists received this windfall?
There is a story here I suspect.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 11:23:15 GMT -5
• $293,813 spent on lobbyists in response to the district's efforts to acquire "quick-take powers." =========================================================== Nearly $300,000 is an awful lot of money. I would like to know: 1) Who was lobbied? 2) What lobbyists received this windfall? There is a story here I suspect. Should they chop that down $18,000 since someone from the district supposedly put that much of his own money into the effort too? ;D
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 19, 2008 11:31:11 GMT -5
I don't see it as pot meet kettle. I don't want to kick anyone in the teeth. I don't want to pay attorney fees for anyone, either. I want to move on, but the crap keeps coming back, doesn't it? You know, the big picture and all. Last time I checked, NSFOC laid down their arms and walked away... at least that was my read from their letter saying they would not appeal and would respect the court's decision. That's good to hear - another step in the right direction would be removing all the FUD from their web site - actually, apoligizing for the FUD would be nice, too. As much as they want to talk about how noble their cause was, they spewed alot on their website & in their fliers, in order to gain support - I can't see how anyone can deny that... but I'm sure someone will...
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 19, 2008 11:34:53 GMT -5
IIRC Popejoy is also hearing that lawsuit....08CH1366. I think it is being mis-reported as Brodie wanting them to buy the parcel. To me that seems to contradict their fighting of the quick take, which would have been to their advantange. My understanding is that QT means they decision as to whether or not they SHOULD BE ALLOWED the land is short-circuited. It's an instant YES. A condemnation suit still has the SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED portion as part of it, does it not? I've never heard any explanation of why BB hired a lobbyist to fight quick-take. Does anyone know why? It seems like they're talking out of both sides of their mouth by fighting quick-take on one hand, and then trying to force the SD to purchase the land on the other hand.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 11:36:55 GMT -5
My understanding is that QT means they decision as to whether or not they SHOULD BE ALLOWED the land is short-circuited. It's an instant YES. A condemnation suit still has the SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED portion as part of it, does it not? I've never heard any explanation of why BB hired a lobbyist to fight quick-take. Does anyone know why? It seems like they're talking out of both sides of their mouth by fighting quick-take on one hand, and then trying to force the SD to purchase the land on the other hand. The only reason I could think of was for the IF part.. but Parent said that was at the Traverse hearing (unsure of the date on that one)... so if that hearing was prior, I really don't know why they would fight it either if all that was left was price and when.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 11:38:38 GMT -5
Last time I checked, NSFOC laid down their arms and walked away... at least that was my read from their letter saying they would not appeal and would respect the court's decision. That's good to hear - another step in the right direction would be removing all the FUD from their web site - actually, apoligizing for the FUD would be nice, too. As much as they want to talk about how noble their cause was, they spewed alot on their website & in their fliers, in order to gain support - I can't see how anyone can deny that... but I'm sure someone will... People can also choose to not visit the site, not read it, or simply ignore it too. Last time I checked there was still a 1st amendment. Now, unless someone has a legal leg to stand on to thwart their right to put forth what they want, there's really nothing anyone else can do about it except ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 19, 2008 11:42:56 GMT -5
Now I think I get it. That part you are referring to was the Traverse hearing.....whether the SD has the right to condemn...was ruled in favor of the SD......so that had nothing to do with QT. QT is a Give us the land now and we will worry about the price later...... Here's where my knowledge is lacking on the subject... When was the Traverse hearing? That was early on. I'll look thru the case and get you some docs for your perusal....
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 19, 2008 11:43:01 GMT -5
I've never heard any explanation of why BB hired a lobbyist to fight quick-take. Does anyone know why? It seems like they're talking out of both sides of their mouth by fighting quick-take on one hand, and then trying to force the SD to purchase the land on the other hand. The only reason I could think of was for the IF part.. but Parent said that was at the Traverse hearing (unsure of the date on that one)... so if that hearing was prior, I really don't know why they would fight it either if all that was left was price and when. I've heard a theory that one or both lawyers may just have wanted to drag everything on as long as possible, just to keep generating some billable hours for themselves. I could never understand why BB delayed the original hearing several times, either.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 19, 2008 11:46:24 GMT -5
That's where most of the delays were too, within the traverse hearing portion. It was the 1st part of the Case, to determine whether the SD has the right to even proceed with the condemantion.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 19, 2008 11:46:56 GMT -5
The only reason I could think of was for the IF part.. but Parent said that was at the Traverse hearing (unsure of the date on that one)... so if that hearing was prior, I really don't know why they would fight it either if all that was left was price and when. I've heard a theory that one or both lawyers may just have wanted to drag everything on as long as possible, just to keep generating some billable hours for themselves. I could never understand why BB delayed the original hearing several times, either. Another theory was to drag it out long enough that the district out of desperation to start building Metea would pay whatever BB wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 11:47:24 GMT -5
Here's where my knowledge is lacking on the subject... When was the Traverse hearing? That was early on. I'll look thru the case and get you some docs for your perusal.... Don't go through the trouble for the docs.. just a date range.. 2006? early 2007?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 11:48:10 GMT -5
I've heard a theory that one or both lawyers may just have wanted to drag everything on as long as possible, just to keep generating some billable hours for themselves. I could never understand why BB delayed the original hearing several times, either. Another theory was to drag it out long enough that the district out of desperation to start building Metea would pay whatever BB wanted. There was land elsewhere as evidenced by the site selections report
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jun 19, 2008 11:48:37 GMT -5
I think BB is out of line charging ANYONE for these calls. My impression is that individual residents who contributed to NSFOC were the ones who made the calls to BB trying to get them to reduce their price, not Shawn Collins. BB is trying to get whatever fees that can from the SD because the SD backed out of the price awarded by the jury. Any minute of conversation the BB attorneys had with ANYONE is billable to the SD in their minds. Again, blame BB not residents who were trying to make BB a less expensive reality. Huh? If individual members of the NSFOC called BB, maybe they should go after the individuals for those costs. You can't expect to use a lawyer's service without paying for it. Obviously, the district had nothing to do with that/those calls. I am certain BB will find a way to get it. They are pretty good lawyers. Obviously you are not following my line of thought/assumption...I think that BB is charging for their time spent talking with individuals from NSFOC when those individuals were NOT calling for BB attorney advice nor for aliances with them but rather to try to mediate a better price for the district. Heck, I thought about calling those attorneys and begging them to reduce their price....would I think they would bill me or anyone for that, NO! But heh, we have learned the hard way that BB is not playing fair. I find it a bit ridiculous that there is such "outrage" for a $7k charge from BB when our SD has spent MILLIONS on attorney fees trying to acquire land that they should have had every reason to believe could have cost them $600K an acre. I am done with this topic.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 19, 2008 11:49:22 GMT -5
That's good to hear - another step in the right direction would be removing all the FUD from their web site - actually, apoligizing for the FUD would be nice, too. As much as they want to talk about how noble their cause was, they spewed alot on their website & in their fliers, in order to gain support - I can't see how anyone can deny that... but I'm sure someone will... People can also choose to not visit the site, not read it, or simply ignore it too. Last time I checked there was still a 1st amendment. Now, unless someone has a legal leg to stand on to thwart their right to put forth what they want, there's really nothing anyone else can do about it except ignore it. that's fair - I'll let the integrity and veracity of the "information" on their site (and, therefore, the group itself, as well) speak for itself
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 11:49:48 GMT -5
The only reason I could think of was for the IF part.. but Parent said that was at the Traverse hearing (unsure of the date on that one)... so if that hearing was prior, I really don't know why they would fight it either if all that was left was price and when. I've heard a theory that one or both lawyers may just have wanted to drag everything on as long as possible, just to keep generating some billable hours for themselves. I could never understand why BB delayed the original hearing several times, either. If none of their evidence is dated after or during the delays, then this might be believable (of course, not provable).. if they had any evidence to present that was put together during or after then it would fall under the nature of 'needing time to prepare a proper defense'... I would guess...
|
|