|
Post by gatormom on Jun 19, 2008 18:41:09 GMT -5
Yesterday I thought we were moving forward with.... "...we have heard this all before. Something new please." "Yeah, we get it - you're angry." "This has gone far enough. Nothing new to discuss here." "This forum was not created to have non-stop, endless repetition of disatisfaction & venting posted here. You could post every day here for the next 4 years, but it's not going to get you what you want" ... Looks like 2 steps back today, IMO. oh well....human nature. I am just glad the fine toothed comb is out on the fees. To it reveals what BB attys are all about. What I find interesting is the district has been pretty open about budgeting 5M for legal fees and amazingly, the BB fees add up to exactly 5M. It appears they dug pretty deep to take every penny budgeted.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 19, 2008 19:13:47 GMT -5
Yesterday I thought we were moving forward with.... "...we have heard this all before. Something new please." "Yeah, we get it - you're angry." "This has gone far enough. Nothing new to discuss here." "This forum was not created to have non-stop, endless repetition of disatisfaction & venting posted here. You could post every day here for the next 4 years, but it's not going to get you what you want" ... Looks like 2 steps back today, IMO. The board has been discussing the NSFOC and BB collaborating to screw the district and its taxpayers for 7 hours; you have been ranting about boundaries for 6 months; and you have the brazenness to pontificate that we should move on? You, of all people, have lost the right to have anyone extend the courtesy of listening to you any more! First eat what you are shoveling before donning your halo. And until someone shows evidence that the NSFOC only talked to BB lawyers to get a better deal (or maybe I missed the press release when the District gave legal authority to the NSFOC to negotiate on their behalf...not!) in my books the two parties collaborated. This is not a court of law where I have to prove that they did collaborate. This is the court of public opinion where they have to prove that they did not Sheesh! Cheers. ETA removed one word.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 19:51:24 GMT -5
You not liking my opinions, player, is your own problem.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 19, 2008 19:57:12 GMT -5
Great, Arch! Then I am sure you won't mind me if I take apart the flim flam defense you are putting up on behalf of the NSFOC! But the fact that you don't respond to that speaks volumes....
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 19:58:41 GMT -5
Great, Arch! Then I am sure you won't mind me if I take apart the flim flam defense you are putting up on behalf of the NSFOC! But the fact that you don't respond to that speaks volumes.... Cheers. I'm not doing anything on behalf of anyone. But knock yourself out, you seem like you're egging to. Have at it. EDIT (add a line below, and fix a capitalization above): Sounds like you're focusing mostly on opinion and personalities rather than facts.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Jun 19, 2008 20:58:48 GMT -5
SC admitted talking to BB attys. I don't doubt that some overzealous shitsuit members called as well; maybe to talk about land, but not $8000 worth. Look, it is what it is. It's small potatoes compared to what we have to pay Scotti to defend the suit. And yes, it's much smaller than what we have to pay BB. Still, it ticks me off. It could pay for any number of things, especially when you add the two (Scotti and BB "advice") together. I don't begrudge anyone's right to sue. What has bothered me all along is the smoke used to hide the real issue. I hate the hipocrisy.
Obviously there were many parties working behind the scenes to further their own agenda. It's really a miracle we have any land at all.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 19, 2008 21:44:17 GMT -5
It is relevant because the reason the fees are so high is because the SB was negligent in not securing the land prior to the ref.
When you respond to one of my quotes, it would help if you didn't twist my words. I never criticized the church for making a profit. I simply said that it was interesting that over a four year period in a falling market, the church was able to triple its investment -- yet conversely, over a similar time frame in a market that seemed to still be healthy, BB was being asked to sell for half of market value. Half!
If the SB had been less insulting to BB, the fees wouldn't be where they are IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jun 19, 2008 22:14:46 GMT -5
Yesterday I thought we were moving forward with.... "...we have heard this all before. Something new please." "Yeah, we get it - you're angry." "This has gone far enough. Nothing new to discuss here." "This forum was not created to have non-stop, endless repetition of disatisfaction & venting posted here. You could post every day here for the next 4 years, but it's not going to get you what you want" ... Looks like 2 steps back today, IMO. I thought the same thing; appears only certain topics can be belabored while others cannot. hmmmm
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jun 19, 2008 22:17:52 GMT -5
I realize that I've taken this thread off course, and for that I apologize. However, I don't apologize for the outrage that I felt about that lawsuit. That lawsuit is also something that "transpired" - and while I hope it, and that group, will fade from memory, I cannot help responding to a post about "wasting tax dollars" without my felling about what that lawsuit put at risk, as far as getting MV open, and additional tax dollars wasted. That's a two way street, too. Some people want to direct alot of their unhappiness at the SB (and even defend that group's actions, including the lawsuit) - others want to direct it elsewhere. Given that the lawsuit have been thrown out, hopefully it'll be brought up less and less. I'll try, but I can't make any promises. Given the fact that I am stil hearing about BD voting predominantly no for the referendum, I doubt this will fade none too soon. That was after all 2 years ago and the dismissal of the lawsuit was less than a month ago. All these small reminders, like Brodie submitting a bill for the actions of "people who belong to the NSFOC but not acting for the NSFOC", make it hard not to chat about it. chatting about a topic is quite different than incessant sarcastic jabs IMO. All I am saying is that it goes both ways; if you expect people to move forward everyone needs to bite their tongue a bit and take the high road. Can you hear it now? I am singing, "we are the world"! Seriously, just asking that BOTH sides stick to straight talk and not nasty talk. Is that too much to ask?
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 19, 2008 22:20:02 GMT -5
It is relevant because the reason the fees are so high is because the SB was negligent in not securing the land prior to the ref. When you respond to one of my quotes, it would help if you didn't twist my words. I never criticized the church for making a profit. I simply said that it was interesting that over a four year period in a falling market, the church was able to triple its investment -- yet conversely, over a similar time frame in a market that seemed to still be healthy, BB was being asked to sell for half of market value. Half! If the SB had been less insulting to BB, the fees wouldn't be where they are IMHO. Um....someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the jury price set for BB the value in 2005-date of condemnation? There were land parcels for sale in early 2005 at the $250-300K range IIRC. So land went from $300K - $500K in less than a year? And you are OK with that but you are not OK with the church making a profit over four years?
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 19, 2008 22:20:27 GMT -5
Yesterday I thought we were moving forward with.... "...we have heard this all before. Something new please." "Yeah, we get it - you're angry." "This has gone far enough. Nothing new to discuss here." "This forum was not created to have non-stop, endless repetition of disatisfaction & venting posted here. You could post every day here for the next 4 years, but it's not going to get you what you want" ... Looks like 2 steps back today, IMO. I thought the same thing; appears only certain topics can be belabored while others cannot. hmmmm I defer to player, very well stated. The board has been discussing the NSFOC and BB collaborating to screw the district and its taxpayers for 7 hours; you have been ranting about boundaries for 6 months; and you have the brazenness to pontificate that we should move on? You, of all people, have lost the right to have anyone extend the courtesy of listening to you any more! First eat what you are shoveling before donning your halo. And until someone shows evidence that the NSFOC only talked to BB lawyers to get a better deal (or maybe I missed the press release when the District gave legal authority to the NSFOC to negotiate on their behalf...not!) in my books the two parties collaborated. This is not a court of law where I have to prove that they did collaborate. This is the court of public opinion where they have to prove that they did not Sheesh! Cheers. ETA removed one word.
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jun 19, 2008 22:23:10 GMT -5
I thought the same thing; appears only certain topics can be belabored while others cannot. hmmmm I defer to player, very well stated. The board has been discussing the NSFOC and BB collaborating to screw the district and its taxpayers for 7 hours; you have been ranting about boundaries for 6 months; and you have the brazenness to pontificate that we should move on? You, of all people, have lost the right to have anyone extend the courtesy of listening to you any more! First eat what you are shoveling before donning your halo. And until someone shows evidence that the NSFOC only talked to BB lawyers to get a better deal (or maybe I missed the press release when the District gave legal authority to the NSFOC to negotiate on their behalf...not!) in my books the two parties collaborated. This is not a court of law where I have to prove that they did collaborate. This is the court of public opinion where they have to prove that they did not Sheesh! Cheers. ETA removed one word. sorry I don't really follow player. At least I tried. (not to follow player; but to try to encourage a more positive dialogue) Have a great night!
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 22:23:28 GMT -5
It is relevant because the reason the fees are so high is because the SB was negligent in not securing the land prior to the ref. When you respond to one of my quotes, it would help if you didn't twist my words. I never criticized the church for making a profit. I simply said that it was interesting that over a four year period in a falling market, the church was able to triple its investment -- yet conversely, over a similar time frame in a market that seemed to still be healthy, BB was being asked to sell for half of market value. Half! If the SB had been less insulting to BB, the fees wouldn't be where they are IMHO. Um....someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the jury price set for BB the value in 2005-date of condemnation? There were land parcels for sale in early 2005 at the $250-300K range IIRC. So land went from $300K - $500K in less than a year? And you are OK with that but you are not OK with the church making a profit over four years? Prices are what they are, but when you stack the pro and con of the two places together, I personally feel the higher price would have been 'worth it'. Over the lifetime of the building, the difference in the land cost would have been a pinch on a donkey's butt.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 19, 2008 22:29:48 GMT -5
Um....someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the jury price set for BB the value in 2005-date of condemnation? There were land parcels for sale in early 2005 at the $250-300K range IIRC. So land went from $300K - $500K in less than a year? And you are OK with that but you are not OK with the church making a profit over four years? Prices are what they are, but when you stack the pro and con of the two places together, I personally feel the higher price would have been 'worth it'. Over the lifetime of the building, the difference in the land cost would have been a pinch on a donkey's butt. Higher price meaning over $500K?? Or the $250- 300K that was offered to BB? If it's the up to $300K, then I'd agree with you, but that land is certainly not worth twice what was paid for AME. There are not THAT many pro's to make it worth that much, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 22:36:06 GMT -5
Prices are what they are, but when you stack the pro and con of the two places together, I personally feel the higher price would have been 'worth it'. Over the lifetime of the building, the difference in the land cost would have been a pinch on a donkey's butt. Higher price meaning over $500K?? Or the $250- 300K that was offered to BB? If it's the up to $300K, then I'd agree with you, but that land is certainly not worth twice what was paid for AME. There are not THAT many pro's to make it worth that much, IMO. There just aren't that many negatives, IMO.
|
|