The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(05-18-2014 03:02 PM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  There is not a snowballs chance in hell that 500 stadium certificates would have covered the outright purchase of the additions.

I was not privy to the price of the SCs but remember that at the time, Bama was still playing important games here. Having access to two guaranteed tickets to all Bama home games (including Auburn) was a valuable consideration. The Park Board only told me the number of SCs that were sold, not how much they raised or how much of the total cost they paid.

If they were $2,000 each, that would have provided over a million which were in 1980 dollars. (A middle class new home could be built in 1980 for about $60,000 to $70,000 - depending on location)

You really can't pull off boondoggles like the old days. For some lite reading: Anatomy of a Con: How the Public Was Scammed to Build Candlestick Park

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

(05-19-2014 09:12 PM)blazr Wrote:  You really can't pull off boondoggles like the old days. For some lite reading: Anatomy of a Con: How the Public Was Scammed to Build Candlestick Park

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Thanks Blazr. An interesting read. It sounds like the story of every ballpark built since then.

Huntsville just paid 41k an acre for 70 acres of unused cotton field so they could build a new Grissom high school. Citing location as the reason for the high cost.

(05-20-2014 12:20 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 09:12 PM)blazr Wrote:  You really can't pull off boondoggles like the old days. For some lite reading: Anatomy of a Con: How the Public Was Scammed to Build Candlestick Park

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Thanks Blazr. An interesting read. It sounds like the story of every ballpark built since then.

Huntsville just paid 41k an acre for 70 acres of unused cotton field so they could build a new Grissom high school. Citing location as the reason for the high cost.

One has to consider the demographic makeup of Huntsville with its high tech industrial workers. It is likely they would not be satisfied with a rural Alabama quality of high school for their kids. They are very likely aware of the newest innovations in school fixtures and IT devices around the nation and want them incorporated into their new Grissom High School. The land may turn out to be among the least expensive parts of the project.

The land was purchased from the largest developer in North Alabama and a premium price was paid. Many options were considered but the 3 mil for the 70 acres was the decision.

And you will never guess who owns the adjacent 400 acres. It is good to be king.

Huntsville is building a new Johnson high at the same time. 7500 an acre for that site.

Phil, do you have any idea what other sites were looked at, and what the cost of those was? It seems like even in that area there would be some cheaper options for Grissom. I wasn't even aware that they were building a new school.

(05-21-2014 07:33 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  Phil, do you have any idea what other sites were looked at, and what the cost of those was? It seems like even in that area there would be some cheaper options for Grissom. I wasn't even aware that they were building a new school.

The school board considered building in place and taking the band practice field, soccer field, softball field, football practice field & baseball field for the new school. And it should have been plenty of room, IMO. There is a cell tower and a few houses inside the Blevins gap road loop that would have had their property severly degraded and maybe the home owners told the school board they wanted a million a piece for their property ?

Weatherly Elementary & Chaffee Elementary are being consolidated with Whitesburg Middle and the new school for the three of the elementary schools is being built on the Fern Bell Park site, adjacent to WBM. The Weatherly campus was considered for the site of the new Grissom H.S. but was deemed too small. (accurate IMO)

That's what I know, and that was me eavesdropping on the wive's discussing it on Friday at dinner a few weeks ago. So the accuracy of the other site considered is suspect.

(05-21-2014 09:15 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  maybe the home owners told the school board they wanted a million a piece for their property ?

Even if that were the case, eminent domain means that they only have to pay fair market price, not whatever out of this world price the homeowners might ask for. Sounds like a snow job

(05-21-2014 09:40 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 09:15 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  maybe the home owners told the school board they wanted a million a piece for their property ?

Even if that were the case, eminent domain means that they only have to pay fair market price, not whatever out of this world price the homeowners might ask for. Sounds like a snow job

If eminent doamin would have worked, then why did the city pay $41k an acre for dormant cotton field ?

The site chosen & purchased is across the street from Sams Warehouse next to Lowes just off South Parkway.

(05-21-2014 12:54 PM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 09:40 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 09:15 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  maybe the home owners told the school board they wanted a million a piece for their property ?

Even if that were the case, eminent domain means that they only have to pay fair market price, not whatever out of this world price the homeowners might ask for. Sounds like a snow job

If eminent doamin would have worked, then why did the city pay $41k an acre for dormant cotton field ?

The site chosen & purchased is across the street from Sams Warehouse next to Lowes just off South Parkway.

See the aforementioned snow job. Sounds like something for the Alabama Ethics Commission to investigate, if we had one.

The City of Alabaster was able to use eminent domain to force a family to sell their land to Walmart. I'm pretty sure the Huntsville City Schools could've gotten the land for a school.

(05-22-2014 07:18 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 12:54 PM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 09:40 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 09:15 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  maybe the home owners told the school board they wanted a million a piece for their property ?

Even if that were the case, eminent domain means that they only have to pay fair market price, not whatever out of this world price the homeowners might ask for. Sounds like a snow job

If eminent doamin would have worked, then why did the city pay $41k an acre for dormant cotton field ?

The site chosen & purchased is across the street from Sams Warehouse next to Lowes just off South Parkway.

See the aforementioned snow job. Sounds like something for the Alabama Ethics Commission to investigate, if we had one.

The City of Alabaster was able to use eminent domain to force a family to sell their land to Walmart. I'm pretty sure the Huntsville City Schools could've gotten the land for a school.

Eminent domain is a useful tool, but if there is a difference of opinion over "fair market price" it will wind up in court (perhaps with additional time for appeals) with those added lawyer fees. All in all, it may have been considered cheaper and certainly quicker to go with the asking price. Remember when the city tried to use it to get the Fish Market location on 21st Street for the Kirklin(sp?) Clinic but failed to win in court.

All of Detroit is a monumental dump. The latest? More than 40,000 buildings have been labeled unsafe and designated for demolition:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/us/det...ef=us&_r=0

(05-28-2014 09:13 AM)Grammar-Nazi Wrote:  All of Detroit is a monumental dump. The latest? More than 40,000 buildings have been labeled unsafe and designated for demolition:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/us/det...ef=us&_r=0

I have heard (as in reading the NEWS or magazines) that a common problem with vacant, unsafe or dangerous buildings / homes inside the (perhaps any) city is that they are often owned by nonresident people who refuse to fix them, don't keep them at least partially insured but fight their demolition by the city. No city can legally just declare anyone's property a nuisance and demolish it at will even if it is "dangerous and unsafe". It takes time and money to pursue absentee owners who may not even live in the state, much less in the city.

Those damn suburbians always got to be trashing the effing city. Somehow I doubt you would have much motivation to fix a house up that is now worth pennies on the dollars you paid for it.

(05-29-2014 12:24 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  Those damn suburbians always got to be trashing the effing city. Somehow I doubt you would have much motivation to fix a house up that is now worth pennies on the dollars you paid for it.

A family friend inherited a house in Ensley from her grandmother. At one time it was very nice, but they have been unable to keep the house up, secure it against invading persons (drug dealers, homeless folks and such) and the back taxes were over $5,000. They live in a house in Homewood and don't want to move to Ensley, but are having trouble selling it or working out other arrangements due to their costs (taxes, repairs, etc.).

There may be many such persons living in other places who for economic reasons can't refurbish or even keep up houses they own in distressed inner city neighborhoods. The cities usually lack the legal ability to take over such houses and demolish them, even if the neighbors want it to do so. The U.S. Constitution says "no person can be deprived of their.... property... without due process of law". That includes deserted and/or vacant houses.