Can you provide us any recent comps at $4.4 million per acre that aren't oceanfront?As the commenter failed to respond, let's throw this one open to everyone. Can anyone find any remotely comparable properties going for $4.4 million per acre (which ignores demolition and asbestos removal costs, by the way!).
We'd love to be proven wrong and find out the taxpayers didn't get completely screwed on this vanity purchase. Help us out!
Wouldn't want any of them doing a real estate deal for me.
ReplyDeleteIs there any piece of property on the 101 worth $10M?? Only the SRF and that's ocean front. Nope this is a fanancial disaster. Not even the 3 Stooges are this dumb and their work was scripted.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Daily Transcript a
ReplyDeleteCardiff a building on Abereenn Dr. between San Eljo and Newcastle less than a half acre has sold for 8 million, so WC ...WTF do you know
MORE F WORK!!!!!!!! And it becomes you ------- LOSER
If it was sold, present the facts or the site that we can view this information. It's public knowledge once it is sold. Will wait for your answer.
DeleteI checked it out in the Daily Transcript.
DeleteThe approximately 10,750-square-foot office building at 131 Aberdeen Drive, Cardiff by the Sea 92007, has been sold for $8.01 million.
The buyer was Covey Cardiff Properties LLC, a California limited liability company, 10 W. Broadway, Suite 810, Salt Lake City 84101. Hal D. Renfro is the manager of Covey Cardiff.
The acquisition was financed with a loan of $3.75 million from The Ohio National Life Insurance Co.
The sellers of the property were AR Acquisition LLC, a California limited liability company, and John E. Burger and Susan C. Burger, co-trustees under the Burger Family Trust (each with 50 percent). Greg Cody is manager of AR Acquisition.
The building was constructed on a half-acre lot in 1967.
In June 2010, the property was sold for $3,415,000, with financing of $1,725,000 and $1,375,000 from Torrey Pines Bank.
$8 million is not the same as $10 million.
DeleteThe property sold was an office building. I'm sure they have renters in there that will continue on with their lease, therefore, immediate cash available to the buyer.
DeletePV is a different ball game. Something has to be done with the building that remains which will cost a great deal of money. It will be years before we see any revenue, if ever, from PV.
The council made a big bad decision that has hurt the taxpayer for years to come.
GoPro is leasing the building.
DeleteOur are you the worst anon blog master ,This has become like a bar bathroom wall FOR A GOOD CALL W. C.
ReplyDeleteWC is just presenting some facts with some twists. The Council majority are the losers that spent $10 million dollars for a $4 million dollar piece of property. The are the losers. Vote them all out. And Tony used to complain about Dalager. Haaaaa! Way to go Dalakranz!
Delete"FOR A GOOD CALL W.C." 7:39PM- ?????????
DeleteYou are not serious, I mean, you cannot be that ignorant. Or maybe you are because you think bathrooms are where the "action is".
I know, but it's 50 Shades Of Vanilla in this town but jeeze....
More mean-spirited comments. The big change in this city over the last thirty years is the amount of mean-spirited people in our community. Encinitas used to be known for it's Aloha spirit and now we are known for it's many assholes who only care about their own selfish interests.
ReplyDeleteYou must be talking about the City Council and City Manager. Now it makes sense.
DeleteJust because a private party on Aberdeen decided to overpay for a property doesn't make it right for them to use public funds for this same gamble. A lot of people supported the purchase until they found out the price.
ReplyDeleteThe lower appraisal for PV used local (North County) comps in the (then) current timeframe, and the same public/semi-public zoning. Comparing a property zoned for commercial use is like comparing apples and oranges.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there are a lot more mean-spirited commentators.
But the anonymous format does allow one or two mean-spirited commentators to dominate, with their numerous disparaging comments, repeated over and over, "undercover."
One half acre in cardiff with a building on the east side of 101 for 8 million and you complain about 10 million for PV ,it's about the value of coastal property.
ReplyDeleteYes. Its a $4 mil property and demo and building something on it will be at minimum $10,000,000. A fricken Lifeguard tower costs the taxpayers $3,000,000 plus. Homeless internet complex $20,000,000. Role of City Council golden toilet paper $5,000 per role. You see the way our City Council roles with your tax dollars.
DeleteHomeless internet complex is perfect description. That is exactly what 20 million bought Encinitas and was the start of derelicts visiting our nice city.
DeleteSorry, 34.8. Not 38.4
ReplyDeleteThe state law, Education Code, that talks about zoning, states, unequivocally, that any rezoning requests for surplus school sites must be compatible with general plans and municipal ordinances (which would include Prop A) established by local jurisdictions.
ReplyDeleteThe rezoning was NOT automatic. State law does not "trump" local in the case of surplus school sites. Wrong again, 9:12.
9:12 what is your point? Aberdeen sold on the open market and was zoend commercial- the buyer knew waht they were gettign, good for them
ReplyDeletePV should have been sold under the Naylor act but EUSD and the Council scammed the public.
PV was attempted tbe sold by a supposed auction- but there were no other bidders, a cooked bake sale to benefit EUSD and the council's ego
PV is zoned semi public not commerical- an apple does not equal an orange
PV can't be used as is, in fact it looks like a rodent rat asbestos infected health trap- Jerry had a great property there and it was well taken care of- in fact the parking lot had recently been repaved and the ocean view deck upgraded-
Aberdeen sold before Prop A (imagine if residents had not gotten the cardiff plan passed, that would be stack and pack- and still might with the infill BS) PV sold after Prop A
there are more holes in your argument than swiss cheese
The point is the low ball appraisal was likely irrelevant, state law was likely to force a rezoning, and the property is worth close to what was paid, even accounting for the risk, cost, and time of the rezone effort.
DeleteJust my opinion after an impartial review of the facts.
I'd love to have the property cheaper, but this wasn't a bad deal.
Sounds like a typical Marco opinion. Wishing state law would force anything don't make it necessarily so.
DeleteThe low ball appraisal was a negotiating tool. IS it possible those who are used to using legal language to extort settlements from taxpayers under threat of lawsuit might see things differently?
DeleteReferencing the property in Cardiff is a useful exercise in the context of we can see responsible spending- the buyer put down a sizeable downpayment because they could and the wanted to lower the debt service
The Encinitas council made no down payment because they already wasted all our money. The Encinitas council is buying property with no money down- that is how irresponsible the council is. And they maxed out our debt service ratio, while the buyer in Cardiff sought to limit his.
The lower appraisal used local comps. The higher appraisal threw the numbers way out of whack by using Los Angeles, Wilshire Blvd. comps. The higher appraisal, by Integra Systems, was the same firm that gave the "high ball" Mossy Property appraisal, that was never released to the public, but was eventually reported in a NCT article by Adam Kaye.
DeleteAgree 10:07
DeleteEspecially when comparing PV to other city purchases like 4 future underpasses costing $25 million (yikes); the Mossy property for $10 million (which included the city losing $150K per year in taxes in perpetuity.); a multi-million dollar 40 acre mega park that will always be in the big red; a $3 miilion life guard tower etc etc.
Even though it should have been, the Naylor act was not pursued for PV. Still, considering the city is seriously brainstorming HOW to make PV a viable venture to be in the black as a learning center (instead of their other purchases listed above), the alternative would have ushered in "valuable" stack and pack offices or condos in a very short time`. PV's value is in the eye of the beholder. The eye of the community or the eye of a developer. In the big picture PV should pay off in the long run. Meanwhile there's no reason the existing structures cannot be cleaned up reasonably for use. Ever hear of "millions of dollars" needed to address asbestos issues at San Dieguito, Cardiff Elementary, Ocean Knoll, Oak Crest or Paul Ecke Central? Me neither. But many of their classrooms are as old or older than PV's.
9:12 is leaving out Sections (b) and (c) of the State Education Code he's quoting. He's quoting the code out of context to support his twisted logic and selfish interests.
ReplyDelete(b) If all of the public entities enumerated in Section 17489 of the Education Code decline a school district's offer to sell or lease school property pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 17485 of Chapter 4 of Part 10.5 of the Education Code, the city or county having zoning jurisdiction over the property shall, upon request of the school district, zone the schoolsite as defined in Section 39392 of the Education Code, consistent with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and compatible with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite. The schoolsite shall be given the same land use control treatment as if it were privately owned. In no event shall the city or county, prior to the school district's sale or lease of the schoolsite, rezone the site to open-space, park or recreation, or similar designation unless the adjacent property is so zoned, or if so requested or agreed to by the school district.
(c) A rezoning effected pursuant to this section shall be subject to any applicable procedural requirements of state law or of the city or county.
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/GOV/1/7/d1/4/2/s65852.9#sthash.iaet904N.vT83lCY7.dpuf
Shall is a strong word in laws.
ReplyDeleteThis would have been an interesting case. I believe EUSD had about an 85% chance of winning the automatic rezoning.
Did this buyer pay 45% more then their appraisal and then pass on the opportunity to negotiate the required fixes on the building. No reasonable investor would do that!
ReplyDeleteThis will go down as the city's biggest boondoggle.
I agree! Out with Dalakranz and Shaffer. For that matter. Time for a clean house.
ReplyDeleteShalakranz ?
DeleteNow, now children, settle down. It's a "legacy property". Like all antiques it is supposed to be worth more. However, I cannot help but feel if this had gone to a public ballot, along with the fact it would cost 10 million, most people would have voted their pocketbooks instead of legacies. Personally, I would rather have my road repaired, as the potholes are taking its tole on my car. I wonder if the City would by me a new car?
ReplyDeleteSure…. they will just borrow whatever they can, just like Stockton and Sacramento did….
ReplyDeleteHey wait, I see a pattern…. what did these other two looser Cities have in common with Encinitas?
6:30- I agree. However, as much as everyone is blaming the Council I blame a lot of people. Tony Kranz, Scott Chatfield, and anyone else who thought it would be just fine to have this property. If you didn't see the 10 million coming, your head was in the sand. Come on, this was Baird we're talking about. Anyone who knows him knows he could have sold Tony anything. Tony may be an OK guy, and yes, he went to school at San Dieguito, as he will tell you, however, he obviously doesn't know a frigging thing about how negotiations work. And, this is not the person who should have been negotiating with Bard. You don't send the dumbest kid in the room to negotiate with a Ph.D.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of potholes, notice all the road repair around city hall? Guess they don't want the public reminded how bad our roads are on the way to address them.
ReplyDeleteThree logicians walk into a bar. The bartender asks "Does everyone want a beer?" The first logician says "I don't know." The second logician says "I don't know." The third logician says "Yes."
ReplyDeleteThe joke pivots on the fact that "everyone wants a beer" can only be true if all three want a beer. But each logician can only know his own personal decision. If the first logician did not want a beer, he has enough information to answer the question "no." Since he can't know the intent of the others, he has to answer "I don't know." The second logician can deduce from this answer that the first logician wants a beer, and the cycle repeats until the third logician finally has enough information to answer the bartender's question.
The market value of Pacific View hinges on what zoning is appropriate given state and local laws. State law says the city "shall" (must) zone the property consistent with adjacent parcels--which would peg the value closer to EUSD's appraisal ($13M). However, these also says that the zoning should conform to local General Plan, which now includes a vote requirement under Prop A. So what happens if those two requirements conflict? If the people vote no on rezoning, the "shall" zone provision is not satisfied. If a judge forces a rezone, he's ignoring the General Plan provision. None here can claim to know for sure how that conflict would be resolved in court. So the accurate value of the property is difficult to know.
It would be helpful to know the intent of all the "interested parties" in the auction--that would teach us something about how smart business people assessed the legal probability, and how that assessment affected the market price of the property.
Unfortunately, no one is in a position to know that. We are all like the logicians in the joke. Even the individual interested parties may know their own personal intent, but they can't know the intent of the others. To declare with certainty that there were no bidders at $'9.5M you would have to know the intent of every interested party. You would have to be the last logician.
Oh boy..... Basically you are saying our exalted city atty will be up to his ears in court defending us from the lawsuits that will come from all sides.
DeleteQuestion: can the buy PV crowd gather enough money together to due the city after their arts center goes into the shit can ?? Answer: because we don't know how much each member can donate to the cause we don't know how much they have, so perhaps yes , perhaps no.
What we do know is Sabine leaves council meetings laughing his ass off at the idiots in this city. Does he wear a Rollie ?? He will soon.
Due= buy
DeleteTwo questions for 8:34—
Delete1) If EUSD had viable bids, why did they so artfully avoid saying so and then claim to have destroyed the evidence?
2) If there were viable bids, wouldn't that information have leaked out, with the sources being among the investors?
Also, adjacent does not have to mean contiguous, as Maggie Houlihan had researched, and pointed out at the Council Meeting when she and Teresa and Jim Bond voted not to rezone.
DeleteThere are numerous public/semi public parcels in the area adjacent to Pacific View, which is in the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan.
I doubt anyone is going to sue the City over its purchase of Pacific View. Initiating a lawsuit is expensive.
DeleteI wish some philanthropist could have come up with the money to enforce the Naylor Act, but it didn't happen, although some people worked hard on promoting that, for years. 30% of Pacific View should be preserved for open space, including community gardens, especially now that we are paying so dearly for its purchase.
The City should have used the Naylor Act, Eminent Domain, and the lower appraisal as tools to get a better price. But that cash cow is out of the barn, now.
I'm glad we got it, but sorry it was with the cavalier attitude that price is no object.
9:34,
DeleteTo your Question 1: The instructions to bidders says "The sealed envelope containing the Bid Form and Bid Security must be received by the District no later than 4:00 p.m. on March 24, 2014 at the District Board Room located at 101 South Rancho Santa Fe Road, Encinitas, CA 92024."
The EUSD Board voted to suspend the auction and deal exclusively with the city on March 21.
How could EUSD know on March 21 if there would be compliant bids in hand on March 24?
I think it's possible--even likely that EUSD had no sealed envelopes in hand on March 21. Is this proof that there would have been no bidders on March 24? Hardly.
Question 2: If you thought the property was fairly valued, and you wanted to bid on it, your best outcome would be for the sale between EUSD and the city to collapse, sending the property back to auction. If you step forward and publicly disclose your bid, you are (a.) validating the $10M price and giving the city political cover to complete the sale, and (b.) giving other bidders in a potential re-auction information.
It would be in the best interests of bidders to share nothing.
8:34 here again. A final thought on the rezoning issue.
DeleteAs I stated above, we can't really know how the legal challenge would play out when the law says the city "shall" zone surplus school property similar to adjacent property, and conform with the General Plan, which includes Prop A. It's not clear what happens when these two provisions in the law conflict.
But I think it's more likely that EUSD would prevail, and here's why:
One way to interpret the law is to give weight to the General Plan provision. Our General Plan includes Prop A, which requires a vote to rezone. If the people vote no, then rezoning would conflict with our General Plan. Tough luck, EUSD. No soup for you.
I think that interpretation is flawed, and here's why. That interpretation of the law gives every city the power to put a poison pill into their General Plan that can override and invalidate the state law. It doesn't need to be Prop A--a one line provision that disallows the rezone request for surplus school property would do. Ta-da. Automatic conflict with the General Code.
Basically, this interpretation of the code gives the discretion to the City to decide whether to rezone surplus school property or not. It makes the state law optional. Could that really be the intent of the legislature?
The problem is, before the state law was passed, cities already had the discretion to decide whether to rezone surplus school property. If the interpretation is correct, the law grants powers to the cities that they already had--it serves no purpose--achieves nothing. The fact that the law exists at all is strong evidence that the legislature did not intend to give discretion to the city.
"Shall" rezone.
I think a smart judge would rule for EUSD.
So, 10:57, you're saying that bidders would have waited till the deadline was imminent to submit their sealed bids.
DeleteParaphrasing UCSD: If we had had any bids, we would have destroyed them after the auction was canceled.
9:34 used the words "leaked out." There was no expectation that bidders, if there were any, or EUSD would have broadcast the bid information.
Yes, the evidence is circumstantial, but it and logic point to no bids.
Nobody with that kind of money would have been so foolish as to risk it. There was too much uncertainty.
Make that "paraphrasing EUSD."
DeleteAs far as anybody knows, UCSD was not involved.
2:03,
DeleteAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
A lack of information on planned bids is not evidence that there were no bids.
4:17, try reading 2:03 again. You're arguing a point that 2:03 didn't make.
DeleteCAL. GOV. CODE § 65852.9: See more at:
Deletehttp://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/GOV/1/7/d1/4/2/s65852.9#sthash.iaet904N.qEA40JpC.dpuf
11:23, those provisions your are incorrectly characterizing in state law don't conflict with our local law. They are part of the same Government Code, subsections a, b and c.
When a Court reads statutory code it gives the Legislature's words their logical meaning. The Legislature did not write Government code so that subsections within in it are meant to conflict with themselves, or with local jurisdictions' regulations.
When State Code says surplus school sites shall be rezoned, upon request, to make it so that the zoning is compatible with adjacent properties, that pre-supposes that some jurisdictions may have zoning exclusive to "school sites."
In Encinitas, schools sites are permitted by right within public/semi-public zones. Therefore, no rezoning is needed so that a property can be sold and redeveloped, with regard to COMPATIBILITY of adjacent zoning.
Government Code is written, including with respect to Density Bonus law, to be respectful of local jurisdictions' General and Specific Plans, as well as municipal or county ordinances.
The fantasy that State Law trumps local regulations is just that. A facade, more propaganda put out by building industry special interests, as well as litigious attorneys or members of their cheering squads who think they have a higher understanding of the law.
It seems apparent to me that you didn't support Prop A. The Right to Vote Initiative is NOT a poison pill, designed to defeat State Laws. It was designed to be compatible with our General and Specific Plans and the Municipal Code that supports them. Our local law is not in conflict with California Government Code; they each support one another.
8:41 is Lynn.
DeleteI hope your health is okay.
Otherwise, Your record of legal analysis speaks for itself. No further response needed.
You don't respond to any of 8:41's statements of fact, or opinions about the law. Who are you to say no further response is needed? If that's true, then why did you respond?
DeleteYour response certainly didn't add anything, other than calling someone out by her name, making a passive-agressive reference to her health, and then attacking her by saying "your record of legal analysis speaks for itself."
You don't argue the facts, because you can't do so. You, as usual, Charles, resort to ad hominem attacks.
8:46 is Crappy Marvy, aka Charley.
http://www.nationofchange.org/stadium-subsidies-financed-pension-cuts-1406298613
ReplyDeleteNo, you're wrong. The Govt. Code requires that the Education Code should be honored re the Naylor Act. Also, the "shall" is stating that the City "shall, upon request of the school district, zone the schoolsite as defined in Section 39392 of the Education Code, consistent with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and compatible with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite."
ReplyDeletePublic/semi public is compatible with the uses of property surrounding the school site, and consitent with our general and specific plans. Any upzoning, including residential, would only be allowed after a public vote because: "rezoning effected pursuant to this section shall be subject to any applicable procedural requirements of state law or of the city or county."
Do you have challenges with comprehension?
I would like to ask the question: "Who exactly is this so called PV legacy for?"
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that it is for the people who worked and begged the council to buy the property, and some 800 or so people who emailed the council also begging to buy the property.
There are over 63,000 that live in Encinitas. The rest of us more than likely knew nothing about this purchase or what was going on at city hall because let's face it, we don't follow politics.
Even if some claim it as a legacy, most of this city I dare to say will not see it that way. Most of us don't even know where the property is located and don't care about attending an arts colony or whatever it will turn into.
So, as far as I am concerned I can fairly say that MOST of us in Encinitas did not want this "legacy" at such an extravagant price, if at all.
You need to run for council, you have my vote .
DeleteThe issue was public for weeks if not months before the buy decision was made. If the majority was against buying, why didn't all those people make their voices heard during the process?
DeleteThat you're complaining after the fact and claiming to be the majority is silly.
It was a public issue being debated, but the option of paying $10 mil was not part of the discussion. Most people complaining about the purchase now are focused on the $10 mil the city paid. If Kranz had proposed paying $10 mil for the property assessed at $4.5 mil, there would have been a lot of noise. That is why the troika publicly announced the size of their offer only after they submitted it, and not before.
DeleteOMG- 4:04 I had not even considered this! They are snakes!
DeleteRight, the $10 million is the rub. But 11:00 AM wrote, "So, as far as I am concerned I can fairly say that MOST of us in Encinitas did not want this "legacy" at such an extravagant price, if at all."
DeleteIt's a pretty safe bet that most would have preferred to pay $5 million. But it's not a safe bet that most didn't want the property at all. If most didn't want it, why didn't they say so?
Most don't want permissive interpretation of the state density bonus law. They said so, and look what happened.
If you do nothing, you can't complain about the results afterward.
Exactly, 6:55. The people who were writing to Council and coming to Council Meetings were all in support of the purchase of Pacific View, but for a fair price.
Delete11:00 and 12:12 are probably the same poster. CM (Crap Master) is disgruntled because he knows the city doesn't have enough money for its ludicrous plans, not verified by independent needs assessments or statistically valid surveys for a $19 Million (plus) cementscape.
CM's streetscam was to include six roundabouts on 101, through Leucadia, forcing bicyclists into and all motorists into one lane roundabouts, and with a net loss in parking, including the parking that would be lost in the RR right of way on the west side of the tracks.
If allowed to choose between the two projects, we are confident most people would vote to purchase PV, so that the existing classrooms can be rehabbed and leased out as a true community art and learning center. There wasn't time for a vote, before Baird's scam auction.
Another bait and switch Baird did was that he couldn't delay the auction, because he had a time limit as to when the law expires so that he could have a "one-time injection of monies from the sale of PV" go into EUSD's General Fund. Actually, there are many conditions that the State Allocation Board would have to approve before ANY money could go into EUSD's General Fund, and it's highly doubtful that could have been accomplished, on time, whether or not the auction was cancelled.
Plus a public vote for upzoning would have been required, by definition, as a result of Prop A, before the January 1, 2016 deadline specified in the then to be sunsetted Education Code. The money for the sale of PV is more likely to go into the school district's facility improvement fund, the same place our Property Taxes are going for School Bond Propositions O and P (P was passed in 2010).
6:55- you are not being truthfil. Residents did oppose the $10M price, residents also opposed the bond and the due diligence. BY your logic more people oppopsed the bonds two weeks ago so teh council should have listented to them right?
DeleteCheck out Teresa Barth's interview with Scott Chatfield on the Save pacific View website. Interesting read. You all can judge for yourselves as to how accurate it is.
ReplyDelete11:00- I legacy of what? The reason the school was shut down was because there were fewer kids attending. All of us who live here know that the community is getting older as far as the population. So, what do we do? Let's see-Make way for bikes older people can't ride; built a ball park for kids that don't exist; and the list goes on. What is this community doing for people who cannot ride a bike anymore, or don't play soccer or ball? The answer my friend is somewhere, but don't look to City Hall to find it.
ReplyDeleteTent city in the park for the recent influx of border runners. Shaffer can lecture them with her camp fireside chats on ethics.
DeleteBarth can terrorize them as the coopachbra on the bike.
Gaspar can make orange crate décor for their tents.
Muir can lecture them about the land of plenty (the pension dole).
Kranz can give them fashion tips to impress for success.
How do we become #1?? Let's see by limiting development of affordable housing. By creating un necessary traffic delays. Paying our city staff more salary and pensions. Restricting business hours of our vibrant downtown restaurant scene, those are my suggestions... Anyone else have ideas??
ReplyDeleteLOL. Great article, Sculpin! And I love the irony of our funky boathouses pictured as representing our snooty city. (The pic of Walnut Creek looks like the guy who lit the place was on drugs). All I can say is Rancho Santa Fe can thank their lucky stars they're not a city or they would have knocked us down to 9.
ReplyDelete12:17 Don't be fooled. RSF has plenty of problems of their own....city or not. They have that covenant everyone has to abide by and the people serving on the board are all fighting with each other. Plus, a lot of crooks are hiding behind those big bushes and brick fences.
ReplyDeleteAs a crude benchmark, look at one of the properties along 3rd Street that is approximately 5,000 square feet (R-15). I won't say which it is but it is just north of PV. I don't want to drag in the property owner but it is a standard single family house. Then look at the current Assessor roll online. The property last sold in 2004 and assessment values can only increase by Prop 13 standards.
ReplyDeleteThe Assessor lists the land value at $938,000. Dividing 5,000 sq ft into 43,560 (sq ft per acre) results in 8.712. Multiply $938,000 times 8.712 results in $8,171,856 per acre.
Yes, this is crude and ignores a few things but at least it gives a ballpark figure of the value of land in that neighborhood.
As a developer in the area I can tell you at $10 million I can make a few million profit. Nothing this size so close to ocean exists. The argument of asbestos is absurd as it's all going to be leveled anyways. I'm an expert in this field and can make good money on this deal. Too bad I didn't get it
ReplyDeleteYou are an expert? BS- the land is zoned semi public, there is no gurantee it can be changed, there is no gurantee it will get by Prop A, there is no gurantee the Coastal Commission will approve anything-
Deletetry again
There are no guarantees in life either.
Deleteright 2:26 tht is why no one was stupid enough to bid on the PV site- you could lose your ass. Kind of like the Encinitas taxpayers lost their ass on the cost of teh Hall Property and Hall Property clean up Or how Encinitas taxpayers lost their ass on the mossy yard-
DeleteThere are no gurantees. I say Barth already knows this land will become government subzidized stack and pack housing as soon as the 10 year limit is up. It took them 10 years to do something at the Hall Park and it will take them 10 years to so something here.
barth outsnaked everyone into thinking she was a leader and open, turns out she is a follower and self-promoter
actually Barth calls this an "Equitable social neighborhood"
DeleteWhat is that in English??
DeleteA ghetto...
Deleteactually that is waht it becomes after they drive those who can afford it to leave the "equitable social neighborhood"
DeleteThere is a guarantee in life - it will end.
DeleteUnless you're Cher.
Delete1:14 PM
ReplyDeleteWhy are you dividing 43,560 sq. ft. by 5000 sq. ft.?
To arrive at a per acre figure. There are 43,560 square feet in an acre. 5,000 square feet is the approximate size of the lot I used for the land value.
DeleteA small 60 yr old house on a 4000 sq ft lot on the east side of Neptune just sold for $1.5 million. Per sq ft, PV costs less than a third of that.
Deleteagain- residentially zoned versus semi-public zoned
Deletethey are not the same thing
try again
They're sure not the same thing. That's why PV would have been a bargain for a condo developer. What makes you think zoning will never change anywhere in this town? Prop A? And what guarantees a public vote on the matter wouldn't fall in favor with a developer on this parcel? 800 votes? Or the slim margin we won with Prop A? Neither. There are no guarantees, but there are plenty of deep pockets with developers. If PV semi-public zoning status had to remain the same in perpetuity, there would never have been such a push to preserve it.
Delete1:52, Glad you asked.
Delete2:25, Glad you answered.
All of you nay Sayers appear to be wrong about this property and it's a done deal let's move on please.
ReplyDeleteIf my calculations are correct, and if there are 63,000 people in Encinitas, we each paid $158.73 for this legacy property. That means each person who was counted in the census, man, woman and child. So a family of 4 would have paid $634.92 as their share. I don't know about you, but I sure would have liked to had a say so in whether I wanted to pay it. And there were a lot of naysayers, however Chatfield and his group shut us down. It was heresy if you remember to even consider not buying it. So, everyone on the famous list of Chatfield's fork one the money, or publicly denounce it, using your name. The list is on the website with a big Thank You.
ReplyDelete2:44 For your $158.73, you get a free ticket to the first performing arts event or gallery show at the Pacific View Arts Center (PVAC).
Delete6:59- I will be long gone when that day happens. I am too old to wait 20 years for anything that I didn't remotely care about in the first place.
DeleteIt's called a legacy property because it's a legacy our generations will leave for future generations. If you don't believe in that kind of thing, so be it.
DeleteI'm glad Paramahansa Yogananda believed in leaving a legacy. Same for the guy who built the boat houses. Same for all the people who have kept the La Paloma alive.
The only problem is the City paid twice what it should have for PV.
Legacy crap. Certainly not worth the $10 million just for the purchase price. Over a 30 year period it will cost $22 million. That figure does not include any thing done to improve the property. It will cost thousands and thousand more.
DeleteThis is the kind of "legacy" you want to leave? Why? So your children and grandchildren get stuck with the bill. Thanks, but no thanks.
Again, CM (Crap Master) is disgruntled because he knows the city doesn't have enough money for its ludicrous plans, not verified by independent needs assessments or statistically valid surveys for a $19 Million (plus) cementscape.
DeleteThe La Paloma is dying a slow death. The Facade is going to disappear or just fall down if it isn't restored soon. The roof is leaking and it has destroyed some of the ceiling fresco and a portion of the upper east wall. There is no money for repairs or restoration.
DeleteThe La Paloma is the essence of Encinitas. Caring residents will not let it go away.
DeleteThe pension fiasco seems to have been forgotten. These trough slopping city employee hogs are adding millions to the city's debt load and it continues unabated. No pension over $100k - maybe even lower. The taxpayers' are supporting an extravagant lifestyle for common civil servants - these people are not brain surgeons. If reductions can be approved and they don't like the arrangements, take a walk. These clowns are easily replaced.
Delete2:02
ReplyDeleteYep. But of course it would have been developed! Opps, I didn't move on...
8 Million dollars for 1/2 Acre and a building in Cardiff and you guys think PV is a bad deal------------ you are kidding !!!!!!
ReplyDelete5:13 1/2 acre of commerical zoned property, with an a rated building, with a new parking lot, with a new roof top ocen view deck, with a pre-paid revenue generating tenant vs
ReplyDeleteA lot zoned semi public. No gurantee the zoning will ever be changed to commerical, no gurantee the zoning will ever be changed to pass Prop A, no gurantee the building will ever be rezoned to pass the cost commission,
the building is a rat infested dilapidated shith*** that EUSD and the city conspired to allow to fall into disrepair, the building needs be scraped at a demo cost to exceed $1M+ any new building as currently zoned would be small and cover only 30% of the lot with structure-
yea- PV is a jack-ass deal for anyone- that's why there were no takers- except egomaniacs looking to have a legacy on the backs of taxpayers-
10 years from now Chatfield and the PV neighbors will get subsidized stack and pack housing brought to you by Barth's friend John De Wald and Robert Mance- wait for it- they will call it "Conscious capitalism"
Buildings, pre-existing classrooms can be rehabbed, don't need to be demolished. There are rats all over the City; Crap Master is one of them.
DeleteScott Chatfield did a good thing for our City; just like Jerome Stocks and Jim Bond hated the Surfing Madonna, and denigrated Mark Patterson, so the naysayers scoff at and put down those with a vision who have come together to help save Pacific View from being sold off for private profit, at the great expense of our community.
11:05 that's a lie, back it up. Where is the money to "rehab existing classrooms"?
DeleteOh- there is not enough money in the budget this year for core services- you know, roads, sewers, trails, beachs, parks- funding art programs- yes, you heard that right
And now $750,000 grand a year is going to pay debt. So if there is not enough money now, there won't be money later.
Surfing Madonna cost the taxpayers- $0 dollars
That is why the Shaffer Kranz Barth Blakespear Tax hike is being planned for after the election
Nice try at propaganda and rewriting history. Go try another photo shoot to glorify Shaffer Kranz and their tax plan
Wasn't Mark also fined by the city? I think the taxpayer actually made money on the SM debacle.
Delete7:47 combines ignorance with prejudice, anger and stupidity. Go join Cliven Bundy.
Delete3:20 ah- so where is the money to rehab the buildings?
DeleteReally, name calling might make you feel good but it is not a productive solution
So why is Shaffer and KRanz proposing a tak hike if the city is in good financial shape?
So why is Shaffer and Kranz proposing a tax hike if there is money to rehab the school?
If there is money to rehab the school why did Kranz say in March there was no money and he proposed raising our taxes?
Looking forward to your answers, hopefully you can refrain from name calling- reasonable people would agree name calling reflects ignorance, prejudice, anger and stupidity.
Kindly stick to the facts.
Why wasn't this put before the voters so that we all could have had a say as to how we want our money spent. Barth, Kranz and Shaffer didn't ask the other 62,000 people what they wanted.
ReplyDeleteHey Barth, Kranz and Shaffer. We should all vote to sell your living residence without your knowledge. How would that make you feel? Just a question.
That's easy 7:18- Because most of the residents either didn't know they were buying it, or they were busy supporting this purchase, or if anyone who didn't support it said a word, they were told to STFU. I know this to be true, at least to me, as I never supported it and I was told to STFU. The other reason it didn't go to the voters is because, and call me a conspiracy freak if you want, the Council and Vina still want to do an end run around Prop. A. I have heard it from 3 council members, and they are not the ones most of you hate. Need I say more. At this point I don't even care. I'll let you younger folks work it out.
ReplyDelete7:18 and 7:33 are most likely the same naysayer, probably CM.
DeleteAgain, we are confident most people would vote to purchase PV, so that the existing classrooms can be rehabbed and leased out as a true community art and learning center.
And we are confident most people in Encinitas would not vote to fund 6 roundabouts, five of them one-laners, reducing 101 to one lane northbound and one lane southbound, given the opportunity to choose.
Delete11:07 you have been had, and who ever 'we' is-
Deletea few facts- there is no gurantee it will be an 'art center' read the papers and listen to barth.
After 10 years is up the city can sell it to a builder- do you really think the council will be motivated over the next 10 years ot put money into it? It took more than 10 years to start the hall park
meanwhile $750,000 a year that could be going to imorive roads, safe schools, parks etc is going to pay debt-
Reallt, 11:07 you sound like Scott, I got have my way at any cost, Chatfield. "We" please, give me a break
Saw a "nice" FB post from Barth today. She and Blakespeare seem to be good buddies and Teresa is going all out for her. If I had second thoughts about Julie, they were laid to rest when I saw that.
ReplyDeleteDon't confuse Blakespear with Shakespeare.
DeleteBarth's posts should be called Baffling Barth's Buffoonery Babble.
DeleteI'll say this again , YOU ARE KIDDING !!!!!!!!!
ReplyDelete12:08, Yeah. How bout a toll booth at La Costa Ave / 101?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't vote for Blakespear if some one paid me. Julie is our girl.
ReplyDeleteShe is a shill for the triumvirate - bail on Blakespear. More of the same if she gets on the council.
DeleteKentia Palm from Lord Howe Island - Six of them on Leucadia Blvd will be removed because of leaning crown syndrome. City staff can't take care of current trees. There are 40 year old Kentia Palms in Balboa Park.
ReplyDeleteIt is a bad week for palms. Altogether, thirteen trees around the city will be removed starting next week.
Can we just stop it with the trees?
DeleteTree's all over the west are under attack from an ever increasing advance of new parisitic and destructive organisms moving north not to mention the worst drought the west has ever had since records have been kept.
We have trees all over this city, many more than when we incorporated. I am sure they will all be replaced.
We are about to go into level 2 status can we really afford to be watering all these trees? We live in a desert people. Go spend some time in baja and see what we really look like without water piped in from somewhere else.
8:23 AM
DeleteIt is the cost of cutting down and replacing the tress that should be of concern. At least $26,000 will be spend on cutting and replacing. That money could go to repairing the roads.
The city does NOT replace dead trees nor plants.
DeleteWater rationing, but new developments continue unabated. No wonder people can't take government seriously.
DeleteI agree. Why is the government allowing more water meters in this desert? Vote out these fools. Its time for people to leave not come here. If you can't afford it, get the hell out.
DeleteKranz has the leaning syndrome too - leaning over the bar stool. telling the patrons how much of a big shot he now is. Barth and Gaspar have the leaning tiara syndrome and Shaffer has leaning ethics. Muir has leaning over the condiment bar syndrome.
Delete3:20 You couldn't be more "right on".
DeleteHappy birthday, Teresa. I see it was your birthday yesterday?
ReplyDeleteShe looks great for 86.
DeleteIt should be called the haters BLOG
ReplyDelete$$tock$$ chiming in??/
DeleteNo wonder nobody wants to run for council. People say the meanest things and most are untrue.
ReplyDeleteHey W.C.
ReplyDeleteYou asked for comps on coastal property and I found one .To bad it doesn't fit your don't confuse me with facts agenda.Sorry but nice try
11:24 thank you for sharing, where is the comp for the semi-publicly zoned building with asbestos and lead paint liabilities, easment problems the could result in lawsuits and an old shith*** building that needs to be torn down?
DeleteI don't want to be confused with non similiar buildigns- like commerically zoned buildings.
Sabine questions the road easement issue of the residents adjacent to the Pacific View property - ever hear of precedent?
DeleteIt has been used by them for decades, is the only access to the properties and has never been questioned by government prior. Sabine probably wants to milk this one thru his private firm, double dipping if he can. Why is he still City Attorney? He is another legacy failure of Barth, who had the chance of uprooting this anachronism but refused. Run them both out on the same rail.
1:00
DeleteIf PV needs to be torn down, half of San Dieguito needed to be torn down 20 years ago.
With the drought efforts stepping up. Why is the City pouring millions of gallons on huge grass fields that are so unnatural in the desert on the Sports Complex? Is that recycled water?
ReplyDeleteAll the Major streets should be plumbed for recycled water lines to irrigate the streetscape.
that is really intersting 12:12 I just drove by the sports complex and saw the watering of grass as well- $80 million! It's the Jerome Stocks sinkhole soon to be followed by the Barth Pacific View Boondoggle and the Shaffer Kranz tax hike
Delete12:12 PM
DeleteYes it is recycled water but there are only so many flushes available to fill the recycle tank. What goes in must come out. Cut back on potable water and have less to recycle.
Yes, it will be watered with reclaimed as well as the golf course and most of 101 and Leucadia and Encinitas blvd medians. Most of the current parks already have it as well.
DeleteI do get your point though...Why keep planting trees, shrubs, flowers and types of grasses that don't belong here?
The city barely and I mean barely waters the landscape.... It's a complete joke.
DeleteAnd yet, we still seek more people to live here under entity Bonus. I do find it difficult to believe that our alleged lobbyist (does anyone know who he or she is?) cannot make a case for drought conditions in our area as a reason to cut back on building new homes for people that will use water.
ReplyDeleteShould have said Density Bonus
ReplyDeleteBarth continues to reveal herself as an elitist who thinks she knows better then the rest of us what we need- to that end so does Shaffer.
ReplyDeleteEver notice in each newsletter Barth does the following
1. Promotes herself
2. Promotes Lisa Shaffer (notice how Barth seldom congratulates men-unless they are men she can control)
3. Promotes government control of housing, food, transportation and freedom of movement as good things beneficial to residents when they actually limit freedom, liberty and self-reliance
4. Promotes socialist and communist ideologies as mainstream by linkining to stories- last week it was "equitable neighborhoods"
For 6 years Barth flew under the radar and many, myself included thought she was sensible. We are now learning she is egocentric, arrogant, irresponsible and a failed leader.
Her propagandist me first newsletter this week has each of the items in it I reference above.
Her link to this weeks "I know better than you" story is a trumped up propaganda piece written by the Huffpost to denigrate american families, parents, teachers and leaders promoting the values of compassion, family, community and self-reliance- the story Barth links to paints your parenets, and you, as losers, and today's kids - many who don't work can't find work, can't hold a conversation, are uninformed of the world or have been brainwashed by the media- as the greatest generation.
The propaganda is an effort to silence adults promoting liberty and freedom and encourage children who function more as wards of the state to continue their selfish and self-seeking ways. It is political propoaganda. In Barth's world the decline of traditional values is a good thing- and the rise in promiscuity to be celebrated. The decline of family and marriage is a good thing while the rise in fatherless homes and children lacking role models is a good thing.
Encinitas families are lucky Barth is moving on, she does not share our values of family, hard work and community.
What the heck is a 'thought leader'? and who is arrogant enough to describe themselves that way? Propagandist is a better term
Deletecheck out the ridiculous story Barth linked too at the Huffpost and the guy who describes himself as a 'thought leader"
Interesting, this "thought leader" is against a meritocracy - you know, a world where we are all equal to create our own lives- Somewhere MLK is rolling over in his grave
Barth "Peter Principaled" out as a ticket taker at the Del Mar Fair. She can't get lost fast enough.
DeleteThe little town of RSF sent out a questionnaire to their residents asking them if they would approve or not approve a bond to build a nice sports complex to the tune of over $20 million.
ReplyDeleteThe majority did not want to go ahead with the bond. The Board of RSF listened to their citizens and will not build this expensive complex at this time.
We here in Encinitas could have been afforded the same privilege when it came to the purchase of PV. Why did the council listen to only a handful of residents and not the majority of the rest of us, who I am sure, would not have approved such a purchase?
Praises to RSF who actually care what their residents want.
Shame on Encinitas who do not care what their residents want.
Shame on this City Council for sticking us with a boondoggle of a mess for years and years to come. We should have learned something with the Hall property, but apparently NOT.
And, no, I have no desire to move to RSF.
Vote NO on any bond proposal that the city endorses or initiates.
Delete2:07- I encourage you to read the recent writings of Hugo Salinas Price. He'll tell you all about the elitist plans for your life.
ReplyDeleteThanks but I have my own elitist plans.
DeleteA local tax hike would have to be approved by a public vote, so please stop the ignorant accusations of a councilmember-forced tax hike.
ReplyDeleteA tax hike needs 4/5 of the council to vote to put it on the ballot. This will not happen with the current city council, so the issue is mute at this point.
DeleteSince Shaffer, Kranz and Barth love to spend our money, I suggest they donate their salaries and pensions to help with the cost of PV and other necessary items that need fixing in this city.
Since Muir's pension was increased by his buddy $tock$, I wonder if he would be willing to donate some of it back to the city to help with road repairs, etc.
Lead by example city council.
About as likely as passenger pigeons darkening the sky.
DeleteA tax hike would have to go to the citizens. Agree. However, a lease revenue bond does not. Neither do several other ways of getting more revenue, such as parking meters, and other things the new troika has spoken of. I am very disturbed to find out that the Council knew about all of the downsides of PV, such as the road to people's homes that is now being discussed, such as all of the asbestos, when I was told there was none, the 10% of the land that cannot be used. If they knew all of that going in, why in the hell didn't they use it as leverage if they were intent on buying this piece of property?
DeleteI will once again repeat, there were no sealed bids! The developers all knew the above, plus the zoning problem. And as much as we might dislike some developers, they are not as stupid as this Council, IMHO.
The city negotiators and city council were fully aware of all the details involving the purchase of PV.
DeleteIf Muir and Gaspar had any common sense, they would have wanted to know all the pertinent details -- all they had to do was ASK. Instead, they sat back, uninvolved, and whoa and behold now Muir wonders why the property size is less in acreage. C'mon Muir and Gaspar, you can't be that ignorant, or are you?
7:52 PM, LOL, you have a job with Cirque De Soleil as a contortionist, if you try to smear Muir and Gaspar in this hilarious manner.
DeleteYou might want to check out a local college or online class on logic.
7:36 I have 12 years of college behind my belt and no degrees online. What do you have?
Delete4:07
ReplyDeleteLisa Shaffer proposed a tax hike, Tony Kranz supported it. The first step is they survey to get it on the ballot. They are running from it becuase it is getting traction, the Shaffer/Kranz tax hike is becoming a campaign issue- just what Shaffer wanted to avoid when she tabled the survey until after the election
You are incorrect as well about 4-1 not happening, as far fetched as it sounds it must be pointed out
1. Say only Kranz and Fidel run for mayor- likely winner- Kranz
2. Say Gaspar/Graboi/Blakespear run for council- while Gaspar could win, say Graboi and Gaspar split the vote and Blakespear wins
Now the new council will appoint a council person because Kranz is Mayor (Barth and Stocks wrote a crappy mayor amendment - how is it the council could appoint yet another crony)
So, for argument sake Kranz, Shaffer and Blakespear appoint..........wait for it.............. Barth, that's right, I said it, and Barth writes a column how she was 'called to serve the community"
Voila- 4-1 vote for a tax hike, done, signed, sealed, delivered. The gang of 4 then appropriate $200,000 for marketing 'surveys' to hoodwink and mislead the public on the tax hike like they lied on Prop A-
watch for it
6:19 Your hypothetical scenarios are totally wacko. Stop posting.
Delete6:19 It won't happen, so watch for it.
Delete6:49 wacko, really?, so Fidel beats Kranz- I think you might be hitting the hooka with Alex too much if you think that
Delete11:00 I think you meant 6:29 not 6:49. Maybe too much to drink before posting?
DeleteSo, they knew about those things, but still paid more than 3 times the appraised value and $500,000 above the asking price? Wow, that's tough negotiation!
ReplyDelete10:03,
DeleteEither you have information on one has heard yet, or math isn't your strong suit.
Tell us about this appraisal below $3.33 M.
$10 Million is more than three times the appraised value of $3.3 Million. I don't recall that the lower appraised value, using North County Comps, was for $3.33 Million.
Delete8:23 With all respect you are not making any sense
ReplyDeleteNegotiating is just that.
1. Baird needs to sell (underline needs) EUSD is burning cash
2. Now that Baird has run out of auction options- the city has had hand- as in the upper hand
3. For Baird to go back thru a sale is misery
4. So the city says hey, we got cold feet, some stuff came up we are not sure of, we love you Tim, but we rally don't think we can do the deal at that price, we can do if 6.5 Tim, but we can't do it at 10. LEt us know what you think?
really, the buyer can back out at any time with a reason- that is what due diligence is
you can always pull your offer before you close-
10:57,
ReplyDeletebad faith 1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it.
Oh. I get it.
Like agreeing to buy a property for a specific price, but not intending to pay that amount.
7:29 by your logic, a deal is final when an offer is made and accepted. By that logic there is no need to perform due diligence prior to closing - just hand over the check
ReplyDeleteOf course your logic is wrong. Perhaps you have never owned property. Due diligence affords the buyer the opportunity to further evaluate the risk. That the seller disclosed known risks is inmaterial- the buyer can't reasonably be expected to have researched all the risks without first doing what is called "an inspection" or in other words Due Diligence- that is why there is a time period
The buyer- the city of Encinitas, could simply have said we accessed the property, we got our people out there, we are no longer comfortable with the risks of the property and the price, we are no longer interested to buy it at $10M-
this in business is called pulling your offer-
or they could have said "we don't know if we want to move forward, we need a lower price"
Really, your logic sounds like someone in politics who is used to spending other peoples money - not your own.
9:20:
ReplyDeleteIf due diligence exposes previously unknown risks, it is acceptable to renegotiate or rescind and offer. In this case, the property inspection exposed no previously unknown risks, with the exception of clear title risk. The city has clearly stated that they will rescind the offer if clear title cannot be established.
Given you business ethics, please let us all know where you work, so we can avoid doing business there.
9:20,
ReplyDeleteBy your logic, I can stand in your driveway and shake hands on an amount to buy your car, subject to an inspection. After the inspection, I can lower my offer because the car is the wrong color.
yes, you can, because we shook hands on paying the price contigent on accepting the inspections and what you found out. I knew this when I shook hands with you.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I had the car painted and you thought the paint was original, maybe you discovered the paint was chipped and likley to chip further, maybe you found out the paint was lead based, and a threat to your household-
Apaprently the only business you have done has been spending other peoples money- I on the other hand have spent my own
Only in Encinitas would three incompetents may $10Million for a property that appraised at $4.5 million.
9:20 You are wrong, a buyer can withdraw an offer at anypoint during the due diligence phase if they decide based on the due dilgence they no longer want to move forward with the deal.
ReplyDeleteThat is the whole point of due diligence.
That you support Kranz Shafffer and Barth is ok-
That you suppot paying $10M for a property that appraised for $4.5 is ok
That you support going in debt for $20M with no money or plan to make the building useful is ok
It's all reckles, foolis and self centered- but this is America and you can think as you like.
You can not however spread misinformation and untruths-
The coucil could have done three things with the Due Diligence report
1. Accepted it and paid full price
2. Not accepted it and attempt to get a better price
3. Refused to accept it and walk away
The 3 who want to raise our taxes- The Shaffer Barth Kranz tax plan - voted to again pay $10M for a property that appraised at $4.5 million that also lost 10% of it acreage
So if I found out the paint was not original, that would be new information I didn't have when I made the offer, right?
ReplyDeleteDitto for the chipping and lead.
I would agree with you that this new information would justify changing the original terms. But that isn't the analogy I used.
The analogy was, I can lower my bid based strictly on the color of the car (e.g. Green vs. Blue). Since I made the offer in your driveway, this is information I had before extending the offer.
As for my business CV, if you only knew . . . (smiles, shakes head).
Wrong-
ReplyDeleteWe shook hands so you could do an inspection. Our deal was after the inspection you could decided or not decide to move forward. Hey, maybe you decided after the inspection you didn't like the color after all- it was your decision to move or not move forward not mine.
In the real world where we private citizens live- it is called leverage- (ps I head Kranz might have lost his job in the private sector)
You had no leverage until you made me an offer contingent on an inspection. I accepted that offer that put the leverage to close the deal in your hands.
After the inspection you could have
1. Paid full price and moved forward
2. Attempted to get a better price
3. Walked
really, your the type of person who'd buy a car without a test drive? That is waht due dilgence is- a test drive
Hey, maybe on the test drive you decided you didn't like the way the sun hit the paint while driving- super high gloss, dull and faded, who knows
You can join the 3 other suckers at city hall who dropped $20M we don't have on a property that appraised for $4.5M and expect all of us to think you are wise. We all know there are at least 3 suckers in Encinitas so it would not be surprising their is a 4th. (smiles, shakes head)
11:01,
ReplyDeleteRe: suckers.
I understand you don't support the PV purchase at $10M. But we weren't talking about that. We were talking about wether it's ethical to renegotiate or rescind an offer based on old information.
The fact that you mingle the two separate issues is evidence that you are practicing something called situational ethics. It means that your ethical boundaries shift depending on how the choices affect your desired outcome. Situational ethics is very dangerous, and bad business practice.
I fully respect your position that the council offered too much. In fact, I agree. But that position does not grant a license to behave badly.
12:35 wrong - if it was a done deal with an offer there would be inspection period. If you did not want to make me an offer with an inspection period you would have paid me on site without a test drive. It is you with situational ethics and I acting in accordance with the agreed to deal.
ReplyDeleteYou made me an offer contingent on :
1. performing an inspection
2. accepting an inspection
3.paying me a check
After the inspection you decided you didn't want to buy it. Way it goes. That's what I agreed to. End of story
You want the public to Barth Shaffer and Kranz's hands were tied when they were not. It is you practicing situational ethics.
For situational ethics check with your buddy Lisa Shaffer. In March she said "borrowing is not a long term strategy" in proposing a tax hike on residents - 4 months later she borrowed money we don't have, for a building we don't need and we can't afford to repair.
1:03,
ReplyDeleteMe: 'You appear to be using situational ethics.'
You: 'Nuh-uh, you are, and Lisa.'
Very intelligent. Meeting adjourned.
1:47 wrong again
ReplyDelete1. you offered to buy my car contingent on an inspection.
2. I agreed
3. You now claim that after the inspections you don't want to buy my car- you don't like the paint.
Way it goes, I hold up my end of the deal, You are out, the deal is off, I am free to sell to another buyer.
You picked the analogy, I showed you how it works. Now that you don't like the result you're crying about it-
Jeez- you sound a lot like Lisa Shaffer, maybe you can send out an email about how residents sued the developer (wrong) or claim you didn't propose a tax hike (wrong) you and Shaffer seem to have trouble not only with reality but also the truth
ps- I just sold my car for more money, thanks for deciding not to buy it- as agreed to , your decision not to move forward cancelled our deal enabling me to get an even better price. Funny how things work out in the business world. Good luck on Fantasy Island- say hello to Tatoo and Mr. Rourke.
Touche. Great arguments. Keep up the good effort.
ReplyDelete