daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 4th, 2008, 07:30 AM   #401
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 19th, 2010 at 02:44 AM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 4th, 2008, 06:38 PM   #402
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton View Post
They got a ton of contracts before Fioretti stepped in so they are already in decent shape, sales-wise. Also, in terms of "solid", I can say that I have seen a decent amount of advertising for X/O recently....on YoChicago as well as in a few Chicago newspapers as well.
So what are their numbers Sir, and when are they going to begin with site development? That would constitute solid news.

On the litigation it seems short sighted. They responded publicly throughout the proposed downzoning that it would never happen, sales were solid and that the threat wouldn't impact their schedule. With the withdrawal of the downzoning they are out on any loss due to vested interest. Unless they can make a case that an Alderman's public pronouncements cost them a critical sales mass that meant the difference between a go and no go on the project -- which in these days of real estate bubble popping would be difficult to imagine and would go against every statement Giles ever made in the press -- what do they have in terms of damages? Delayed construction costs?

Giles decision making on this doesn't appear sensible. Spite is not a terribly good decision maker when it comes to business.

And Loopy I doubt the alderman fears the lawsuit, but litigation can be a pain in the ass legal fee and time wise.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2008, 01:40 AM   #403
wrabbit
Registered User
 
wrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,162
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
.....With the withdrawal of the downzoning they are out on any loss due to vested interest. Unless they can make a case that an Alderman's public pronouncements cost them a critical sales mass that meant the difference between a go and no go on the project.....
Where on earth did you get this idea from? The project doesn't need to be cancelled for them to suffer material harm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Spite is not a terribly good decision maker when it comes to business.....
Nor is it an especially good conduit for legal analysis.

Last edited by wrabbit; January 7th, 2008 at 06:01 AM.
wrabbit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2008, 05:05 PM   #404
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

[QUOTE=wrabbit;17529475]Where on earth did you get this idea from? The project doesn't need to be cancelled for them to suffer material harm.
QUOTE]

Never said it did. But they have to prove their damages. And the only way to prove their damages is to demonstrate that the pronouncements of a coming attempt at downzoning caused them harm. That is not an easy task. Especially when they were in the press constantly saying that the Alderman's actions were not hruting or slowing sales one bit and they fully expected the project to continue on schedule.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2008, 10:27 PM   #405
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

[QUOTE=Prairie Avenue;17540186]
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrabbit View Post
Where on earth did you get this idea from? The project doesn't need to be cancelled for them to suffer material harm.
QUOTE]

Never said it did. But they have to prove their damages. And the only way to prove their damages is to demonstrate that the pronouncements of a coming attempt at downzoning caused them harm. That is not an easy task. Especially when they were in the press constantly saying that the Alderman's actions were not hruting or slowing sales one bit and they fully expected the project to continue on schedule.
Actually, proving that the pronouncements of a coming attempt at downzoning caused them harm is MUCH easier than you make it out to be. If they were selling, let's say, an average of 5 units per week before Fioretti attempted the downzoning, and then 1 unit per week afterwards, I think that is pretty clear data-driven, factual evidence that shows that they were caused harm.

And of course they were going to use positive spin and claim that the Alderman's actions were not slowing their sales, even though, that was probably contrary to the truth...if they had said otherwise, that would have hurt their sales even more. When it comes to a lawsuit, I'm pretty sure that the judge would determine whether or not "harm" was caused based on actual facts/numbers and not based on spin and cherry-coated comments that the developers made to reassure potential buyers.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2008, 12:14 AM   #406
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton View Post
If they were selling, let's say, an average of 5 units per week before Fioretti attempted the downzoning, and then 1 unit per week afterwards, I think that is pretty clear data-driven, factual evidence that shows that they were caused harm.
So "correlation doesn't imply causation" isn't true in a courtroom?

(Sorry, I felt like playing Devil's Advocate)
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2008, 12:38 AM   #407
PrintersRowChemist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
Fioretti is skilled litigator himself, the last thing that is going to scare him is a lawsuit.
Know where I can look up the court record of this "skilled litigator"?
PrintersRowChemist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2008, 05:49 PM   #408
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

[QUOTE=Sir Isaac Newton;17546792]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post

Actually, proving that the pronouncements of a coming attempt at downzoning caused them harm is MUCH easier than you make it out to be. If they were selling, let's say, an average of 5 units per week before Fioretti attempted the downzoning, and then 1 unit per week afterwards, I think that is pretty clear data-driven, factual evidence that shows that they were caused harm.

And of course they were going to use positive spin and claim that the Alderman's actions were not slowing their sales, even though, that was probably contrary to the truth...if they had said otherwise, that would have hurt their sales even more. When it comes to a lawsuit, I'm pretty sure that the judge would determine whether or not "harm" was caused based on actual facts/numbers and not based on spin and cherry-coated comments that the developers made to reassure potential buyers.
You would be wrong. The case cannot be built on trend numbers alone. Although those numbers would be interesting as a starting point because if sales had already dropped before the publicity of the downzoning, which is very likely given the real estate market, it will make their case pretty tough. Do you have numbers that show such a trend? I doubt it as the overall market had cooled before Fioretti ever took office. Also, Haithcock had issued statements she was going to stop the permit process in public forums, and those statements had been reported in the media as well, so how do you unravel what supposed sales were lost by that (or momentum) as opposed to Fioretti's similar efforts.

The Giles case will require expert testimony and I could begin to list the factors that would go into their analysis but the comprehensive list would be long. Market conditions and overall sales slowdown in the area would go a long way to diminishing any impact of a downzoning proposal never ruled on, would be my guess.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2008, 06:59 PM   #409
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

[QUOTE=Prairie Avenue;17562971]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton View Post

You would be wrong. The case cannot be built on trend numbers alone. Although those numbers would be interesting as a starting point because if sales had already dropped before the publicity of the downzoning, which is very likely given the real estate market, it will make their case pretty tough. Do you have numbers that show such a trend? I doubt it as the overall market had cooled before Fioretti ever took office. Also, Haithcock had issued statements she was going to stop the permit process in public forums, and those statements had been reported in the media as well, so how do you unravel what supposed sales were lost by that (or momentum) as opposed to Fioretti's similar efforts.

The Giles case will require expert testimony and I could begin to list the factors that would go into their analysis but the comprehensive list would be long. Market conditions and overall sales slowdown in the area would go a long way to diminishing any impact of a downzoning proposal never ruled on, would be my guess.
I don't quite understand all the animosity toward this project. So much writing with no news or factual info to base it on.
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2008, 01:13 AM   #410
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
So "correlation doesn't imply causation" isn't true in a courtroom?

(Sorry, I felt like playing Devil's Advocate)
Haha, point well taken.

However, the overwhelming majority instances where there is correlation but not causality between two factors, it is because there is a third factor that happens to be the cause of BOTH of the other two factors. For example, there is a correlation between how much violence a teenager watches on TV and the likelihood that they will eventually commit a violent crime. However, watching violence on TV may not be the cause of someone being more prone to committing violence later on in life. There may be a third factor - that a person just happens to be a more violent/aggressive by nature, which means he is more likely to enjoy violent TV shows AND partake in violence himself.

This isn't the case here, and I don't think that the defense could come up with some other cause that does seem plausible. I'm definitely no legal expert, so I don't know how convincing the evidence has to be to get a judgment, but I am guessing that the plaintiff doesn't have to prove causality without a shadow of a doubt, to win a CIVIL case (especially since causality is extremely difficult to prove with 100% certainty, in almost all cases). My guess is that as long as you can show strong correlation AND show that there are no other factors that likely would have been the cause of the result, you could win a judgment. I could be wrong though - and if so - any lawyers out there correct me!


Also, I'm sure that the lawyers for the developers could take gather names of hundreds of people who visited their sales office during the time that Fioretti threatened downzoning, but didn't end up buying any units...and then call them up and ask what their reasons for not ultimately purcashing a unit in X/O were. I would imagine that at least a few would mention the uncertainty of the project's viability due to Fioretti and the possible downzoning...and any of those people could be deposed as witnesses.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2008, 01:23 AM   #411
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

[QUOTE=Prairie Avenue;17562971]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton View Post

You would be wrong. The case cannot be built on trend numbers alone. Although those numbers would be interesting as a starting point because if sales had already dropped before the publicity of the downzoning, which is very likely given the real estate market, it will make their case pretty tough. Do you have numbers that show such a trend? I doubt it as the overall market had cooled before Fioretti ever took office. Also, Haithcock had issued statements she was going to stop the permit process in public forums, and those statements had been reported in the media as well, so how do you unravel what supposed sales were lost by that (or momentum) as opposed to Fioretti's similar efforts.

The Giles case will require expert testimony and I could begin to list the factors that would go into their analysis but the comprehensive list would be long. Market conditions and overall sales slowdown in the area would go a long way to diminishing any impact of a downzoning proposal never ruled on, would be my guess.
I don't have any numbers myself, and I'm not even saying for sure that X/O's sales greatly declined after Fioretti stepped in. All I'm saying that IF that sales did greatly decline after Fioretti stepped in, they could make a good case in a civil trial that Fioretti was responsible for lost sales.

If sales started to slow before Fioretti stepped in, due to a slowing economy, it wouldn't make it any more difficult for an actuary/statistician to make the case that Fioretti caused sales to decline. For example, if X/O was selling 7 units a week 3 months before Fioretti stepped in, 6 units a week 2 months before Fioretti stepped in, and 5 units a week 1 month before Fioretti stepped in, and then all the way down to 1 unit a week DIRECTLY after Fioretti stepped in, it's clear that the slowdown in real estate didn't cause the majority of the drop-off in sales. Any actuary/statistician/mathematician could easily perform a multivariate analysis to show that the majority of the dropoff in sales was not due to the overall decline in the housing market.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2008, 01:13 AM   #412
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

[QUOTE=Sir Isaac Newton;17572711]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post

I don't have any numbers myself, and I'm not even saying for sure that X/O's sales greatly declined after Fioretti stepped in. All I'm saying that IF that sales did greatly decline after Fioretti stepped in, they could make a good case in a civil trial that Fioretti was responsible for lost sales.

If sales started to slow before Fioretti stepped in, due to a slowing economy, it wouldn't make it any more difficult for an actuary/statistician to make the case that Fioretti caused sales to decline. For example, if X/O was selling 7 units a week 3 months before Fioretti stepped in, 6 units a week 2 months before Fioretti stepped in, and 5 units a week 1 month before Fioretti stepped in, and then all the way down to 1 unit a week DIRECTLY after Fioretti stepped in, it's clear that the slowdown in real estate didn't cause the majority of the drop-off in sales. Any actuary/statistician/mathematician could easily perform a multivariate analysis to show that the majority of the dropoff in sales was not due to the overall decline in the housing market.
Way too simplistic. What was X/O's ad buys, events post the pronouncement? Sales typically start strong for good projects and then tail off after the most desirable units are off the market and/or early sales inducements expire.

To think this is an easy damage claim for Giles is just not correct. But let's toss that all aside, there are people here who used to proclaim knowledge on unit sales numbers and how well things were going, why not now provide the breakdown.

This started awhile back with a request for solid news. Is there any in terms of percent of units sold, when groundbreaking is expected to start, etc?
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2008, 05:51 AM   #413
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
This started awhile back with a request for solid news. Is there any in terms of percent of units sold, when groundbreaking is expected to start, etc?
Absolutely not. I'm just waiting for somebody here or at the Yo to have an edgewise conversation at the X/O sales office and get a sales figure or groundbreaking date.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2008, 08:58 PM   #414
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Absolutely not. I'm just waiting for somebody here or at the Yo to have an edgewise conversation at the X/O sales office and get a sales figure or groundbreaking date.
Another month has passed and nothing?
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2008, 05:59 PM   #415
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 881

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Another month has passed and nothing?
I actually went to the sales center about 2 weeks ago. I was told that sales have in fact improved after the whole PDNA bullshit.

They are hoping to begin demolition sometime in May or June of this year.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2008, 08:38 PM   #416
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
I actually went to the sales center about 2 weeks ago. I was told that sales have in fact improved after the whole PDNA bullshit.

They are hoping to begin demolition sometime in May or June of this year.
Appreciate this information. Fair conclusion would be they don't have current sales of enough muster to lock in a start date for demo then, agree?
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2008, 04:55 AM   #417
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

^ Why is that a fair conclusion?

Sounds more like your wishful conclusion.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2008, 12:01 AM   #418
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
^ Why is that a fair conclusion?

Sounds more like your wishful conclusion.
Because if they had enough sales now that would justify starting demolition it would be on a firm schedule by now, not something they hope to get rolling by May or June. You are savvy enough to know that.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2008, 04:26 AM   #419
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 881

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Because if they had enough sales now that would justify starting demolition it would be on a firm schedule by now, not something they hope to get rolling by May or June. You are savvy enough to know that.
I gave you information given to me by a sales agent. I suppose that we'll have to wait the 3 or 4 months until that time comes and goes before we know whether it was accurate or not.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2008, 05:40 AM   #420
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton View Post
This isn't the case here, and I don't think that the defense could come up with some other cause that does seem plausible. I'm definitely no legal expert, so I don't know how convincing the evidence has to be to get a judgment, but I am guessing that the plaintiff doesn't have to prove causality without a shadow of a doubt, to win a CIVIL case (especially since causality is extremely difficult to prove with 100% certainty, in almost all cases). My guess is that as long as you can show strong correlation AND show that there are no other factors that likely would have been the cause of the result, you could win a judgment. I could be wrong though - and if so - any lawyers out there correct me!


Also, I'm sure that the lawyers for the developers could take gather names of hundreds of people who visited their sales office during the time that Fioretti threatened downzoning, but didn't end up buying any units...and then call them up and ask what their reasons for not ultimately purcashing a unit in X/O were. I would imagine that at least a few would mention the uncertainty of the project's viability due to Fioretti and the possible downzoning...and any of those people could be deposed as witnesses.
To all who posited the Kargil lawsuit would be a slam dunk or anything near it, it appears to have been voluntarily dismissed. Read into the dismissal what you will, perhaps even that there has been an uptick in sales and some actual work will start soon.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu