EagleOutsider.com

hansen {l Wrote}:

DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:BC should halt any free services it provides the city residents and cease any payments in lieu of taxes.

It bothers me so much because BC plays so nice with the town. The school has a history of preservation of land (beer can hill, etc.) and it's building policy is aesthetically pleasing (minus say the Plex which no longer exists and maybe edmunds/walsh). it's not like we are building soviet style skyscrapers like Syracuse for example. one of BC's selling campus is a beautiful campus and yet these fucking NIMBYs act like such baby maker.

Not to mention access to the library, lectures and events, etc. Newton residents have access to a lot of benefits for living where they do.

BC923 {l Wrote}:

hansen {l Wrote}:

DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:BC should halt any free services it provides the city residents and cease any payments in lieu of taxes.

It bothers me so much because BC plays so nice with the town. The school has a history of preservation of land (beer can hill, etc.) and it's building policy is aesthetically pleasing (minus say the Plex which no longer exists and maybe edmunds/walsh). it's not like we are building soviet style skyscrapers like Syracuse for example. one of BC's selling campus is a beautiful campus and yet these fucking NIMBYs act like such baby maker.

Not to mention access to the library, lectures and events, etc. Newton residents have access to a lot of benefits for living where they do.

Cut off access and see how fast opinions change.

globe story on the issue. interesting that the land abuts the mayor's and the guy that heads the friends of webster woods property.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/newton/2019/12/03/newton-moves-seize-webster-woods-from-boston-college/dBtxRHgGaX9T7vmvMgF7FK/story.html

i can only imagine the uproar in newton if she tried to pull this move on the prior owner

AdamBC {l Wrote}:Newton wants to light tax dollars on fire: https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/ ... ent-domain

Obviously, the school will appeal the decision in court. Lawfully Newton can do this but only if the land is worth $15 million.

Newton real-estate is very expensive. This is a board filled with law-talking guys, don't we have even one that is licensed to sell real estate in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? How much is an acre of undeveloped land in Newton worth? It has to be more than $1,000,000. So this is 24 acres. If 24 acres is worth $30 million (it might be) then Newton will have to cut BC a check for $30 million. $15 million is not enough.

I think if (in court) the judge determines the property to be worth $40 or even $30 million, then Newton will quietly walk-away from the seizure, tail between their legs. They wont pay that. INSTEAD, the city of Newton will now have a "judgment" to determine the real value of the property and they will (in turn and OUT OF SPITE) increase the property tax bill to BC on that land as far as the law in Massachusetts will allow.

Isn't "Proposition 2-and-a-half" still law of the land? That hasn't been repealed yet at Beacon Hill?

$1 billion internet dollars says Newton makes an argument in court that the land is worth less than BC paid for it because developing the land was forbidden subsequent to the transaction

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:$1 billion internet dollars says Newton makes an argument in court that the land is worth less than BC paid for it because developing the land was forbidden subsequent to the transaction

There are a lot of wealthy land developers. If BC could have produced just one (in court) that was in the process of brokering a real-estate deal to acquire the land from the university (at a price BC was willing to accept) BEFORE all this shit hit the fan, then any eminent domain argument that Newton could make (in court) saying that the land is "worth less" would be moot. It would be worth more because "the market" would have proven that. Alas, I don't think that person exists.

I'm having a hard time accepting that an undeveloped acre of land in Newton is worth just $629,167. If that IS the price, guys from EO, lets all throw in together and buy up all of the undeveloped land in Newton, Monopoly style.

innocentbystander {l Wrote}:
I'm having a hard time accepting that an undeveloped acre of land in Newton is worth just $629,167.

highest and best use

This will come as something of a surprise, but while IB has a vague, half-formed idea of how this works, he's wrong in almost every possible way.

Manny {l Wrote}:This will come as something of a surprise, but while IB has a vague, half-formed idea of how this works, he's wrong in almost every possible way.

Manny I am sure you are right. I am not a lawyer. And I don't profess to understand the legalese of this to the level of all our law-talking guys. And I'm sure I am wrong in every possible way. But, I am a real-estate owner. I own a lot of land (both developed and undeveloped.) And I understand that when I want to buy a piece of property, I have to pay the price that the seller is demanding. If I refuse, I can buy something else, it just wont be their property. And if the property is not for sale, I can let them name the price and it won't matter. I don't have any government authority supporting my decision where I have the ultimate power of "force" to acquire land that may not be for sale.

Eminent Domain gives Newton the authority to simply seize the land for what the town feels is a "public good." But if they do that, they must pay fair market value. I have a hard time believing that 24 acres, anywhere within the boundaries of Newton, is worth $15.1 million. I think a Newton landfill breeding seagulls, mosquitos, and typhus that spanned 24 acres would be worth more than $15.1 million. This is isn't empty desert land 50 miles west of Flagstaff Arizona. I can get you 240 acres of Arizona real-estate for $15.1 million.

Instead of saying I am wrong in every possible way, how about explaining (in bullet point, preferably) why I am wrong? Put in the time. Don't be lazy. Don't be cowardly. Open yourself (and your opinions) up to criticism. Manny, be a man.

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:$1 billion internet dollars says Newton makes an argument in court that the land is worth less than BC paid for it because developing the land was forbidden subsequent to the transaction

Isn't the forbidding a regulatory taking g under that South Carolina coastline case from SCOTUS? Caveat, I dont fake knowing as much about land use as no space. But bundle of sticks and all that.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:$1 billion internet dollars says Newton makes an argument in court that the land is worth less than BC paid for it because developing the land was forbidden subsequent to the transaction

Isn't the forbidding a regulatory taking g under that South Carolina coastline case from SCOTUS? Caveat, I dont fake knowing as much about land use as no space. But bundle of sticks and all that.

You're on the right track. Lucas essentially established the framework for determining when regulation rises to a level that requires compensation as a taking. I don't remember the exact language anymore, but basically if a regulation imposes such a burden that the property has no viable economic use anymore, the regulation amounts to a total taking and thus the landowner is entitled to adequate compensation (not necessarily FMV as it would be determined in the private market - different states allow for different measures of recoverable damages).

Manny {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:$1 billion internet dollars says Newton makes an argument in court that the land is worth less than BC paid for it because developing the land was forbidden subsequent to the transaction

Isn't the forbidding a regulatory taking g under that South Carolina coastline case from SCOTUS? Caveat, I dont fake knowing as much about land use as no space. But bundle of sticks and all that.

You're on the right track. Lucas essentially established the framework for determining when regulation rises to a level that requires compensation as a taking. I don't remember the exact language anymore, but basically if a regulation imposes such a burden that the property has no viable economic use anymore, the regulation amounts to a total taking and thus the landowner is entitled to adequate compensation (not necessarily FMV as it would be determined in the private market - different states allow for different measures of recoverable damages).

I just want to know he we can treble those damages, bitches.

hansen {l Wrote}:

BC923 {l Wrote}:

hansen {l Wrote}:

DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:BC should halt any free services it provides the city residents and cease any payments in lieu of taxes.

It bothers me so much because BC plays so nice with the town. The school has a history of preservation of land (beer can hill, etc.) and it's building policy is aesthetically pleasing (minus say the Plex which no longer exists and maybe edmunds/walsh). it's not like we are building soviet style skyscrapers like Syracuse for example. one of BC's selling campus is a beautiful campus and yet these fucking NIMBYs act like such baby maker.

Not to mention access to the library, lectures and events, etc. Newton residents have access to a lot of benefits for living where they do.

Cut off access and see how fast opinions change.

Fucking baby maker. Move to a different suburb.

I also blame BC alums (and myself included) who move to different urban centers and buy houses. If more BC guys bought in Newton we wouldn’t have this problem.

Newton is only taking 17 acres of the 24 acres. Basically, all of the undeveloped and unimproved land. At the end of the day BC will probably get 20 million. At least it makes the purchase of the temple and parking lot 7-8 acres for 4 million reasonable. We still get to use it for football parking.

Go Eagles!

Eaglekeeper {l Wrote}:Newton is only taking 17 acres of the 24 acres. Basically, all of the undeveloped and unimproved land. At the end of the day BC will probably get 20 million. At least it makes the purchase of the temple and parking lot 7-8 acres for 4 million reasonable. We still get to use it for football parking.

Go Eagles!

This is what BC should tell the town they are going to do because the Mayor is an asshole:

Tell them, we don't even want the 7-8 acres for our self any more, we are going to build low income housing and a halfway house. The town wont be able to stop them the way MA law is set up.

The woods will be filled with lots of poor people and the town will crap itself.

Manny {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:$1 billion internet dollars says Newton makes an argument in court that the land is worth less than BC paid for it because developing the land was forbidden subsequent to the transaction

Isn't the forbidding a regulatory taking g under that South Carolina coastline case from SCOTUS? Caveat, I dont fake knowing as much about land use as no space. But bundle of sticks and all that.

You're on the right track. Lucas essentially established the framework for determining when regulation rises to a level that requires compensation as a taking. I don't remember the exact language anymore, but basically if a regulation imposes such a burden that the property has no viable economic use anymore, the regulation amounts to a total taking and thus the landowner is entitled to adequate compensation (not necessarily FMV as it would be determined in the private market - different states allow for different measures of recoverable damages).

It will be interesting to see if the implementation of restrictions on development can be tied to the subsequent attempt to take the land via eminent domain. It reeks of local politicians sitting around coming up with a half-brained scheme to get something for nothing. I don't know what standard Mass uses to value properties taken in eminent domain cases, but if they use the highest and best use valuation, the mayor will have to set aside well more than $15 mil to get the land. My fear is that BC will fall into the "good neighbor" mode and settle for what they paid for the land a few years ago plus any expenses.

DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:The woods will be filled with lots of poor people and the town will crap itself.

I have no idea what any of you are talking about, but this caught my eye: let's all drive shoddy pickups with tarps, shit tons of propane and vegetable oil, and poultry fryers into the woods here, run some badass WiFi, and all work remote from wherever this is. If we throw up a few protest signs and claim we're SJWs protesting something, anything, we can stay there forever and host a 24/7/365 tailgate of ass-hattery and doom.

We can charter Jarmond's jet to air-drop us supplies.

angrychicken {l Wrote}:

Manny {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:$1 billion internet dollars says Newton makes an argument in court that the land is worth less than BC paid for it because developing the land was forbidden subsequent to the transaction

Isn't the forbidding a regulatory taking g under that South Carolina coastline case from SCOTUS? Caveat, I dont fake knowing as much about land use as no space. But bundle of sticks and all that.

You're on the right track. Lucas essentially established the framework for determining when regulation rises to a level that requires compensation as a taking. I don't remember the exact language anymore, but basically if a regulation imposes such a burden that the property has no viable economic use anymore, the regulation amounts to a total taking and thus the landowner is entitled to adequate compensation (not necessarily FMV as it would be determined in the private market - different states allow for different measures of recoverable damages).

It will be interesting to see if the implementation of restrictions on development can be tied to the subsequent attempt to take the land via eminent domain. It reeks of local politicians sitting around coming up with a half-brained scheme to get something for nothing. I don't know what standard Mass uses to value properties taken in eminent domain cases, but if they use the highest and best use valuation, the mayor will have to set aside well more than $15 mil to get the land. My fear is that BC will fall into the "good neighbor" mode and settle for what they paid for the land a few years ago plus any expenses.

It doesn't sound like the current mayor returns BC's phone calls. Basically, the "good neighbor" routine only works when your neighborhood at least acknowledges your presence. BC's comments make clear that they are being forced to fight this in court. They won't be vindictive (that emboldens support for townhall). They will quietly and expensively argue for a fair valuation and may throw in a bias claim for good measure. They won't go the "neighbor" route until the current mayor has left office (with the bump in her property value thanks to the town's taxpayers). Ultimately, I'm guessing this matter gets resolved when a new mayor decides to close a massive hole in the budget by agreeing to whatever the land-swap proposal floated by BC.

We could get a pool going on what law firm takes lead on this. I'm going Goodwin Procter.

TontoKowalski {l Wrote}:

DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:The woods will be filled with lots of poor people and the town will crap itself.

I have no idea what any of you are talking about, but this caught my eye: let's all drive shoddy pickups with tarps, shit tons of propane and vegetable oil, and poultry fryers into the woods here, run some badass WiFi, and all work remote from wherever this is. If we throw up a few protest signs and claim we're SJWs protesting something, anything, we can stay there forever and host a 24/7/365 tailgate of ass-hattery and doom.

We can charter Jarmond's jet to air-drop us supplies.

I'm guessing if we make a glory hole in the porta, then TRE will be in since he seems to be so fascinated with talk of the fifth floor O'Neill bathroom. I have plenty of power tools but cutting plastic brings upon certain challenges. Not sure I have the equipment to bore a 1/2 radius hole in plastic without tool breakage or cracking the material.

We should start the Paul Bunyan School of Lumberjacking and use the woods for training.

angrychicken {l Wrote}:

Manny {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:$1 billion internet dollars says Newton makes an argument in court that the land is worth less than BC paid for it because developing the land was forbidden subsequent to the transaction

Isn't the forbidding a regulatory taking g under that South Carolina coastline case from SCOTUS? Caveat, I dont fake knowing as much about land use as no space. But bundle of sticks and all that.

You're on the right track. Lucas essentially established the framework for determining when regulation rises to a level that requires compensation as a taking. I don't remember the exact language anymore, but basically if a regulation imposes such a burden that the property has no viable economic use anymore, the regulation amounts to a total taking and thus the landowner is entitled to adequate compensation (not necessarily FMV as it would be determined in the private market - different states allow for different measures of recoverable damages).

It will be interesting to see if the implementation of restrictions on development can be tied to the subsequent attempt to take the land via eminent domain. It reeks of local politicians sitting around coming up with a half-brained scheme to get something for nothing. I don't know what standard Mass uses to value properties taken in eminent domain cases, but if they use the highest and best use valuation, the mayor will have to set aside well more than $15 mil to get the land. My fear is that BC will fall into the "good neighbor" mode and settle for what they paid for the land a few years ago plus any expenses.

I agree with all of this. I'd love to see BC take a scorched Earth approach for once, just to make a point. I'm generally pretty far to the left on most things, but something about eminent domain turns me into a sovereign citizen-level property rights loon.

You guys have inspired some great ideas for BC to play hardball.

BC should start doing religious retreats, dorm floor community exercises, athletic teambuilding, you name it, in the woods

let's see how fast the "friends of Webster Woods" change their mind about the sanctity of nature when they have loud, obnoxious groups of 19 year olds trudging through their woods every 2 days.

Someone email this to the BC folks. It's legitimate.

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:
let's see how fast the "friends of Webster Woods"...

Wait...what??? Any relation to the moonbat?

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:You guys have inspired some great ideas for BC to play hardball.

BC should start doing religious retreats, dorm floor community exercises, athletic teambuilding, you name it, in the woods

let's see how fast the "friends of Webster Woods" change their mind about the sanctity of nature when they have loud, obnoxious groups of 19 year olds trudging through their woods every 2 days.

Someone email this to the BC folks. It's legitimate.

Even better, programs to expose inner city kids and the homeless to nature (which has some proven scientific benefits as well as christian angle and actually would be a legitimate idea.)

hansen {l Wrote}:

TontoKowalski {l Wrote}:

DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:The woods will be filled with lots of poor people and the town will crap itself.

I have no idea what any of you are talking about, but this caught my eye: let's all drive shoddy pickups with tarps, shit tons of propane and vegetable oil, and poultry fryers into the woods here, run some badass WiFi, and all work remote from wherever this is. If we throw up a few protest signs and claim we're SJWs protesting something, anything, we can stay there forever and host a 24/7/365 tailgate of ass-hattery and doom.

We can charter Jarmond's jet to air-drop us supplies.

I'm guessing if we make a glory hole in the porta, then TRE will be in since he seems to be so fascinated with talk of the fifth floor O'Neill bathroom. I have plenty of power tools but cutting plastic brings upon certain challenges. Not sure I have the equipment to bore a 1/2 radius hole in plastic without tool breakage or cracking the material.

I'm down with this. I got two old Army Surplus tents. I'll drive them cross country on my dime. Lets put 'em up on Webster Woods and have a 24/7/365 tailgate. I'll even bring the Schlitz.

Are you guys all going to blow me off and leave me alone in those woods after saying you'd meet me like some of you told me back in 2013?

JesuitIvy {l Wrote}:

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:You guys have inspired some great ideas for BC to play hardball.

BC should start doing religious retreats, dorm floor community exercises, athletic teambuilding, you name it, in the woods

let's see how fast the "friends of Webster Woods" change their mind about the sanctity of nature when they have loud, obnoxious groups of 19 year olds trudging through their woods every 2 days.

Someone email this to the BC folks. It's legitimate.

Even better, programs to expose inner city kids and the homeless to nature (which has some proven scientific benefits as well as christian angle and actually would be a legitimate idea.)

with plenty of Karkov for the homeless folk and fruit flavored vapes for the kids.

innocentbystander {l Wrote}:
Are you guys all going to blow me off and leave me alone in those woods after saying you'd meet me like some of you told me back in 2013?

I'll be there. I promise.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:We could get a pool going on what law firm takes lead on this. I'm going Goodwin Procter.

You would be wrong