Tri-Valley paid $67,646 an acre for land

By: Diane Benjamin

Before you move to Tri-Valley in hopes of a better education for your children, you need to know the district bought 6.69 acres and paid $450,000. Excessive? I’ve heard the Board bought the property only in case they needed it. They will create the need.

The property includes a house that will be torn down because TV doesn’t want the house, they want the land. At the meeting I attended earlier this year plans were presented for a new yearly childhood education building. Since Pritzker wants to indoctrinate your children even earlier than kindergarten, expect a State grant. Expect another bond issue to fund the rest. The building is already drawn. They talked about constructing it between two existing buildings, but I bet it will be moved.

What you need to know: The contract amount to purchase this property was BLANK in the Board packet. Obviously the purchase price was known before the meeting, they didn’t want you to know: PDF page 35:

Exhibit “A” doesn’t exist, so I created it for you. The property is east of the current District Office. E 750 North Road is Rt 150.

The taxable value of this property was $43,556. Multiply that by 3 – $130,668 is what the assessor valued this property. Tri-Valley paid more than 3 times that value.

Thanks for re-elected school board members. They will continue to rubber stamp whatever is presented instead of representing you.

Everyone who is now elected has forgotten who they represent. It isn’t government. Since the press isn’t a watchdog elected representatives are all you have. They have failed you. Send the school board a thank you for your property taxes!


3 thoughts on “Tri-Valley paid $67,646 an acre for land

  1. “The power of the state of Illinois to take or condemn property by eminent domain has been delegated to municipalities, forest preserves, park districts, school districts, railroads, and public utilities.”

    One has to ask if they needed the property then why didn’t they use eminent domain which would have probably cost less even with the court case. Let me guess they would have had no good reason for taking it to present to the court if they had used that means.

    Just another case where it’s not their money so lets spend it. Another reason to take away school districts cash reserves.

  2. No big surprise – I’m just wondering whose brother-in-law owned the property…

    1. Yes, and I do at least partially blame the greedy people who sell to these creatures in these sort of situations, for this sort of thing. Maybe people need to realize that they want it ALL, eventually, you will have nothing, but you will stay pay one way or another for all that they have.

Leave a Reply