Thanks to everyone who attended the annual meeting last night -
After significant debate the community approved the motions authorizing the board to lease the Maywood property and sell or lease the Nichols property. Concerns were raised about capacity for future growth, appropriate use of the sites, and the facilities for MG21. These are all issues the board will have to consider before taking any action. The district doesn't have any "deals" pending, but the authorization will IMHO increase the chance that we will be able to take advantage of any appropriate interest that comes along.
Authorization is only the first step in the processes that will involve the district, community and the municipal governments, and any agreements would have to conform to local zoning and use provisions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"The district doesn't have any "deals" pending, but the authorization will IMHO increase the chance that we will be able to take advantage of any appropriate interest that comes along. "
Then why do you need the right to sell it? Something in Denmark Stinks.
re:"hen why do you need the right to sell it? Something in Denmark Stinks."
I wouldn't be surprised to hear about a sale in the near future either, but authorizing the district to do it really is needed.
Who is going to spend the time and money negotiating with the district if they'd have to wait until the following October just to see if voters would even consider it? Most developers want to move quickly because they mostly spend money until the building is complete. Given a choice between a location with an extra a year delay, and another, most would choose the later regardless of how good the site is.
Even with the vote, the board could say no to a deal. If they do announce a deal, evaluate it, and let them know what you think.
On a similar note, I will add that I find the 2 million estimate the board got last year to be way too low. I'm fine with the board testing the waters, but I urge them to reject an offer that low.
"Given a choice between a location with an extra a year delay, and another, most would choose the later regardless of how good the site is."
A special annual meeting can be called in 30 days. How LONG has this prop been for sale? Your argument does NOT make sense.
"I'm fine with the board testing the waters, but I urge them to reject an offer that low."
Once again your argument does NOT hold water. You seem to be saying that the board has NOT been trying to sale that school. This is not the truth.
A special meeting can be called in 30 days, however it takes months for a developer to prepare a proposal. They will be significantly less willing to make that investment if they don't know the property will even be available. They will just give the property a pass and look for another location rather than risk the investment. If they will look at it you can bet they will factor the extra risk they are taking into the price. Either way the taxpayers of the district get screwed.
"They will just give the property a pass and look for another location rather than risk the investment."
Good Point. My assumption would be that we would have board members and the super. saying they have lost deals because of this hoop that needs to jumped through, right?
So-as I do a reading of Peter's blog and the IH-there is NONE, ZIPPO ZERO comments that look like the following: "We keep missing good deals because this property would need approval at an annual meeting developers are walking away."
A big fat rat is lurking in shadows.
Post a Comment