|
Post by eb204 on Jun 19, 2008 13:26:25 GMT -5
SB is arguing against several million $ - nothing trivial and that same amount was certainly made a big deal about on the forums and by nsfoc when it was just a possibility that the SD would have to pay it (i.e. the nsfoc "204 may be liable for X million $" "articles"). The individual charges each have to be looked at, and when made public, some of the line items like this one certainly provide some fodder for discussion. true. I guess I am just more infuriated with BB for this than NSFOC. I think BB knows they can't bill the individual citizen for the call and are grasping at pipelines and attempting to charge the SD for this time. Honestly, didn't we all at one point or another think we could pick up the phone and talk nicely and get BB to be more reasonable? I know I did. I thought , "oh my , maybe we just need to get a group of Mom's to go to their offices and say, "please"". Would I think those slimeballs would charge anyone for that face to face..NO. But now we know differently. No offense to the good lawyers who post on this board but this is an example of the slimy tactics of 'some' lawyers IMO. I agree with you here, slp. I have always been disgusted by the tactics of the BB lawyers and this is yet another example. One thing I can't understand is why aren't MORE people angry with BB? There are many people who want to blame the SD/SB for the Metea situation, when it was by BB's unwillingness to negotiate that ultimately got us here, IMO. Yet, some members of the NSFOC seemed to want to "cheer BB on" in their efforts, or so it seemed. Even on the blue board, not a single person has posted in response to this article. Many have read it but none have replied. Does the silence over on the blue board indicate that these charges are all justified? I'm really curious.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 19, 2008 13:33:01 GMT -5
true. I guess I am just more infuriated with BB for this than NSFOC. I think BB knows they can't bill the individual citizen for the call and are grasping at pipelines and attempting to charge the SD for this time. Honestly, didn't we all at one point or another think we could pick up the phone and talk nicely and get BB to be more reasonable? I know I did. I thought , "oh my , maybe we just need to get a group of Mom's to go to their offices and say, "please"". Would I think those slimeballs would charge anyone for that face to face..NO. But now we know differently. No offense to the good lawyers who post on this board but this is an example of the slimy tactics of 'some' lawyers IMO. I agree with you here, slp. I have always been disgusted by the tactics of the BB lawyers and this is yet another example. One thing I can't understand is why aren't MORE people angry with BB? There are many people who want to blame the SD/SB for the Metea situation, when it was by BB's unwillingness to negotiate that ultimately got us here, IMO. Yet, some members of the NSFOC seemed to want to "cheer BB on" in their efforts, or so it seemed. Even on the blue board, not a single person has posted in response to this article. Many have read it but none have replied. Does the silence over on the blue board indicate that these charges are all justified? I'm really curious. I think that's a reach to draw that correlation. However unlike here, more people there likely blame the SB/SD as well as BB, it takes two to screw things up as badly as were done. There were no innocent parties in what went wrong. I don't know a single person that wants the SD to pay any monies we don't have to. Why would we, it's our money too ! Yes as explained here there are those of us who would love to see certain members get their hands slapped for a number of things in this 3 year fiasco, but not where it takes money from the taxpayers pockets or away from the schools, that's just silly. No one responded yet to Arch's post on Mimi's Cafe, but that doesn't mean all posters there don't like the food there.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 13:37:31 GMT -5
Silence = nothing, but one can assume anything they want and often do.
As a friend who does commercial real estate for a living said early on back in 2006... when an option to purchase expires, typically the price doubles (as an unwritten rule in the industry). When the district's option to purchase the land for 250siK/acre ended, the price basically doubled. That's what played out. The district should have made offers above 250ishK before condemning the land. It's noted in the Brodie Lawsuit that the district did not obtain any professional appraisal reports back then either to come up with that 'offer'. I don't know how true or untrue that is though.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 13:40:04 GMT -5
Speaking of silence.. 6 board members sat in silence as many made public comments and called certain neighborhoods certain things. Does that mean they all agreed with the speakers?
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 19, 2008 13:41:09 GMT -5
I didn't see this posted here, but the online article omits one line item that does appear in the printed newspaper article. That items is "$2,500 in "fees for an undisclosed expert who neither testified or appeared in court." What does this mean? Does BB have an "imaginary expert" they are trying to bill for? Any lawyers out there to explain this? Maybe his name is Harry (no not the Harry from the other board, the rabbit)
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 19, 2008 13:47:30 GMT -5
...I don't know a single person that wants the SD to pay any monies we don't have to. Why would we, it's our money too ! Yes as explained here there are those of us who would love to see certain members get their hands slapped for a number of things in this 3 year fiasco, but not where it takes money from the taxpayers pockets or away from the schools, that's just silly... You mean, for example, like a group of 204 taxpayers suing the 204 SD, and which, if successful, would have amounted to 204 residents potentially having to pay more in taxes? And even in the quick dismissal, 204 taxpayers had to fund the defense of said lawsuit. Like that kind of silliness?
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 19, 2008 13:51:19 GMT -5
I agree with you here, slp. I have always been disgusted by the tactics of the BB lawyers and this is yet another example. One thing I can't understand is why aren't MORE people angry with BB? There are many people who want to blame the SD/SB for the Metea situation, when it was by BB's unwillingness to negotiate that ultimately got us here, IMO. Yet, some members of the NSFOC seemed to want to "cheer BB on" in their efforts, or so it seemed. Even on the blue board, not a single person has posted in response to this article. Many have read it but none have replied. Does the silence over on the blue board indicate that these charges are all justified? I'm really curious. I think that's a reach to draw that correlation. However unlike here, more people there likely blame the SB/SD as well as BB, it takes two to screw things up as badly as were done. There were no innocent parties in what went wrong. I don't know a single person that wants the SD to pay any monies we don't have to. Why would we, it's our money too ! Yes as explained here there are those of us who would love to see certain members get their hands slapped for a number of things in this 3 year fiasco, but not where it takes money from the taxpayers pockets or away from the schools, that's just silly. No one responded yet to Arch's post on Mimi's Cafe, but that doesn't mean all posters there don't like the food there. I wasn't drawing any correlations. It was merely an observation (i.e. "IMO", and "so it seemed") and a question (i.e. "I'm curious.") Thus far, everyone seems to have an opinion to any article remotely related to MVHS or the school district in general. I simply found it odd that no one even had a thought or an opinion to post since we've all been living this for the last 2 years. As for Arch's post on Mimi's, I haven't been there yet, so I can't comment on the food or the service. However, because of his post, it reminded me that I do, indeed, plan to check it out. Maybe after I eat there, I'll post my thoughts, because then, I might have an opinion of it.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 19, 2008 13:56:10 GMT -5
Speaking of silence.. 6 board members sat in silence as many made public comments and called certain neighborhoods certain things. Does that mean they all agreed with the speakers? Fair enough...but even in other SB meetings, the SB members really just sit and listen to the public comment. That portion of the meeting is not meant for dialogue. Otherwise, it would be called a "Q & A" period and would go on for hours. Again, though, my post was an observation and a question. I wasn't drawing an conclusions one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 14:03:58 GMT -5
I didn't see this posted here, but the online article omits one line item that does appear in the printed newspaper article. That items is "$2,500 in "fees for an undisclosed expert who neither testified or appeared in court." What does this mean? Does BB have an "imaginary expert" they are trying to bill for? Any lawyers out there to explain this? Maybe his name is Harry (no not the Harry from the other board, the rabbit) I thought that was Harvey
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 14:05:19 GMT -5
Speaking of silence.. 6 board members sat in silence as many made public comments and called certain neighborhoods certain things. Does that mean they all agreed with the speakers? Fair enough...but even in other SB meetings, the SB members really just sit and listen to the public comment. That portion of the meeting is not meant for dialogue. Otherwise, it would be called a "Q & A" period and would go on for hours. Again, though, my post was an observation and a question. I wasn't drawing an conclusions one way or the other. Of course it was just a question... my bad.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 19, 2008 14:05:46 GMT -5
Maybe his name is Harry (no not the Harry from the other board, the rabbit) I thought that was Harvey I stand corrected
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 19, 2008 14:19:00 GMT -5
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? SD filed to condemn 12/22/05 Brodie Files Travers and Motion to dismiss 2/7/06 SD responds to Traverse 3/7/06 Many motions/depositions...etc..etc Hearing on Traverse in Nov. 06 Ruling in favor of SD on Traverse 11/16/06 Then onto the value of the land portion.........
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 19, 2008 14:21:27 GMT -5
What's funny is how people say we got a great deal for AME's land (3 times what they paid a few years earlier, and in a down market), yet blame BB for not accepting an insulting offer that would have represented virtually no increase from the first parcel, in a rising market).
Some of BB's tactics certainly raise questions (fighting QT, first and foremost), but the core issue will always be the lowball offer.
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Jun 19, 2008 14:23:14 GMT -5
true. I guess I am just more infuriated with BB for this than NSFOC. I think BB knows they can't bill the individual citizen for the call and are grasping at pipelines and attempting to charge the SD for this time. Honestly, didn't we all at one point or another think we could pick up the phone and talk nicely and get BB to be more reasonable? I know I did. I thought , "oh my , maybe we just need to get a group of Mom's to go to their offices and say, "please"". Would I think those slimeballs would charge anyone for that face to face..NO. But now we know differently. No offense to the good lawyers who post on this board but this is an example of the slimy tactics of 'some' lawyers IMO. I agree with you here, slp. I have always been disgusted by the tactics of the BB lawyers and this is yet another example. One thing I can't understand is why aren't MORE people angry with BB? There are many people who want to blame the SD/SB for the Metea situation, when it was by BB's unwillingness to negotiate that ultimately got us here, IMO. Yet, some members of the NSFOC seemed to want to "cheer BB on" in their efforts, or so it seemed. Even on the blue board, not a single person has posted in response to this article. Many have read it but none have replied. Does the silence over on the blue board indicate that these charges are all justified? I'm really curious. Why should we be mad at BB, they had every right to fight the price of the land. Of course they want money. I blame for the SB for negotiating with BB for soooo long. They knew who they were fighting against. The SB promised the voters that they would be able to get this land and no plan B. Poor, poor, planning done by our SB. Hopefully, this fight with BB will not cost us MILLIONS of dollars. Even 1 Million is a lot of money. Also remember we still have to sell those 25 acres. More wasted in money IMO. Could of been used for something like EDUCATION. And as our SB played their silly games with BB our children sat in crowded schools. Nothing done for them. My child will get no relief from this ref. So please stop passing this blame this mess this SB created on anyone else but them. I voted no for the simple reason they did not have the land. Fun watching Plainfield build their school with their 06 funds. Our SB did not have their ducks in a row.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 19, 2008 14:24:52 GMT -5
Don't go through the trouble for the docs.. just a date range.. 2006? early 2007? SD filed to condemn 12/22/05 Brodie Files Travers and Motion to dismiss 2/7/06 SD responds to Traverse 3/7/06 Many motions/depositions...etc..etc Hearing on Traverse in Nov. 06 Ruling in favor of SD on Traverse 11/16/06 Then onto the value of the land portion......... Sound like this was all decided well in advance of the Quick Take being pursued, which was Spring/Summer of 2007 IIRC. Again, I can't imagine why they would want to fight Quick Take, so much so that they hired a lobbyist and paid a pretty penny. How could they justify the expense or expect to recoup the cost?
|
|