Half Moon Bay Selling Bonds to Pay Off Developer

HALF MOON BAY SELLING BONDS TO PAY OFF DEVELOPER

Comments

[Lionel Emde]

No one has answered the question about Mr. Keenan's outsize judgment.
Now I realize that there are a lot of people who want to be in Mr. Keenan's shoes, as a winner of an outsize judgment against a municipality, which will be indebted for decades as a loser in the capitalist-oriented court system, but really, is this what you want to see happen?

[Dan Underhill]

"our ABAG commitment from 1999-2006 was over 600 single family homes."

And where were we going to put all of these homes? The lay of the land here doesn't lend itself to unending rapid expansion and the places that were in a position to do that and did it (Las Vegas is a fair example) have had their sprawl turn into slums. Even now there are empty houses here. I would bet that the housing you list has a far better chance of remaining occupied and cared for in the future than the more than twice that many that would have matched ABAG's arbitrary (based on a housing bubble) number.Also, you say that 270 were approved and built. How many got rejected by our city government. Those that Pacifica voters didn't choose to change the rules for can hardly be considered to reflect on city government. If we had built as much as we could during the end of the housing bubble those houses would, in all likelihood, have been sold using sub-prime loans and there is a pretty good chance that many of their owners would have been evicted by now.

[Jeffrey Simons]

"I would also caution against throwing around the term "No Growth" especially when it is aimed at people who have supported and approved a great many projects."

name them, please. by the way, here's our single family home permit approvals for the last 10 years:

1999: 45 buildings, average cost: $234,900
2000: 36 buildings, average cost: $261,200
2001: 31 buildings, average cost: $269,600
2002: 14 buildings, average cost: $341,400
2003: 7 buildings, average cost: $299,700
2004: 9 buildings, average cost: $427,100
2005: 9 buildings, average cost: $451,600
2006: 4 buildings, average cost: $400,500
2007: 101 buildings, average cost: $417,800
2008: 14 buildings, average cost: $509,700

our ABAG commitment from 1999-2006 was over 600 single family homes. 95% of the homes approved for 2007 were in Cypress Walk along Skyline.

and our population has decreased 1.7% since 2000

http://www.city-data.com/city/Pacifica-California.html

[jim alex]

For some reason, if you are an out-of-town developer, that is even worse.

Not that anyone had the deep pockets in Pacifica to build out the quarry!!!

Oh wait, the City was waiting for a local group to buy a business and real estate and redevelop the site. Wait, that was a sham, but wait, they were local guys!!!! The City also gave them the right to negotiate on a couple of City-owned pieces of property. Oh wait, they had no money!!

Fast Forward to Whole Energy! From Washington, for-profit business!!!

[Dan Underhill]

I don't know where everybody is getting this "greedy developer" stuff. Developers are in business to make money as are the rest of those of us who are in business. As in other kinds of business there are those who behave responsibly and those who, as my very diplomatic father in law used to say,"are no better than they should be". To suggest that development or developers are all good or all bad is ludicrous. I would also caution against throwing around the term "No Growth" especially when it is aimed at people who have supported and approved a great many projects. I assume that it is a tactic aimed at making them fall all over themselves to approve anything and everything you present. If the truth is merely that they failed to approve your pet project you can certainly feel justified in saying "they failed to approve my pet project" but this "No Growth" stuff like the "greedy developer" stuff just undermines your credibility.

[jim alex]

"Asking typical 'developers/contractors/realtors' to limit growth and development to what can be sustained indefinitely is like asking guppies to stop eating their young or dung beetles to stop rolling balls of their foul bounty." -- Carl May, coastside commentator

Anyone with a for profit business=bad

Anyone who lives off the Goverment or wants the city to be so broke they can not pay for fire and police and/or basic services, and file bankruptcy=good..

I really don't understand this way of thinking!!!!

[Steve Sinai]

"...This amazes me the thinking..Anyone who wants to build something is a greedy developer.."

I wonder about people who think developers buy land with the intention of making a profit by entering into a lawsuit.

Or people who suggest birdwatching is a way out of Pacifica's economic doldrums.

[jim alex]

Those commenting would do well to learn the whole history of the Beachwood mess in Half Moon Bay, beginning at least in the early 1980's, as the statements here are rife with errors and misconceptions. Chop Keenan was not even in on the beginning years of the complex of problems that evolved with the property. He purchased the property in midstream for a relative pittance and put into it amounts calculated to make his speculation pay off--either through development or legal action.

Mr. May

Being I know Julia Scott and Mr Keenan, personally I have invited them both to this website to tell the story..

Actually, when I look at Mr. Keenan's webpage and personal accomplishments I see him as a very smart business person..

All Business has to make a profit in order to keep the lights and doors open..

This amazes me the thinking..Anyone who wants to build something is a greedy developer..

[Jeffrey Simons]

"Likewise, Julia Scott's article contains several factual errors and, also, omissions germane to assumptions made and statements (mostly from Muller) parroted. She can get some sympathy, as it is not possible to summarize even the latest steps in the Beachwood mess in the scope of a journalistic article."

I love how Julia Scott gets attacked when she runs a story not to the liking of some people. Please state your case, as the city officials were asked to do when they accused her of being inaccurate about the 7.5 million gallon sewer spill in January 2008. We were assured there were inaccuracies and there would be a retraction. No inaccuracies, no retraction.

She's a wicked smart kid (as we would say back East) and does her homework. Walk us through the inaccuracies and facts.

I agree Chop Keenan bought the property with the intent of profiting from its development. Of course, this is true of every developer who built the home where you currently reside, or the stores where you shop. It seems pretty clear his intent was always to develop, and resorted to litigation as a last resort. Even after winning a $41 million judgment against HMB, he agreed to lower it to $18 million unless the city could get development permits for the property. What a cad!

[Lionel Emde]

Carl,
You don't explain your assertions that we're all wet. So are you to be taken seriously?

Keenan used the court system as a pinball machine, much as our local serial litigator Mr. Fromm did.
Keenan got an activist judge who awarded him an outsized settlement. HMB decided to roll over, thereby indebting their residents for the next several decades.

If you have better knowledge, do tell...

[Carl May]

Those commenting would do well to learn the whole history of the Beachwood mess in Half Moon Bay, beginning at least in the early 1980's, as the statements here are rife with errors and misconceptions. Chop Keenan was not even in on the beginning years of the complex of problems that evolved with the property. He purchased the property in midstream for a relative pittance and put into it amounts calculated to make his speculation pay off--either through development or legal action.

Likewise, Julia Scott's article contains several factual errors and, also, omissions germane to assumptions made and statements (mostly from Muller) parroted. She can get some sympathy, as it is not possible to summarize even the latest steps in the Beachwood mess in the scope of a journalistic article.

The point is, to extrapolate to Pacifica's general attitude on additional development from the specific, complicated Beachwood fiasco doesn't make sense.

[Dan Underhill]

Wow!

Sorry, Jeff. I never took Mr. Thomas' meaning quite that far.

[Jeffrey Simons]

"News for the Pacifica lovers of our dear, recently defeated developer: He would have already started the legal process if he thought he could ruin us. He is well-versed in that sort of stuff, and can only envy Mr. Keenan's luck."

Having reviewed the material upon which the initial Peebles claim against the city was based, I think we should feel damn lucky Peebles has chosen not to sue. It's like Beachwood with a much clearer paper trail. Again, seeing as how I am moving to Texas, I'll say quite honestly that a lawsuit is the last thing Peebles Corp. wants to bring on to Pacifica, but we shouldn't take that as carte blanche to frustrate the sale or development of that property.

I don't think a city's abuse of power to hinder and devalue an owner's property rights is such a righteous cause to defend. There is a middle ground where the process is followed fairly for all developers, and they are not treated like "predators." If memory serves me correctly, Keenan also paid several thousand dollars into a sewer improvement fund and taxes on the property he owned. Hardly the actions of someone looking to profit from a lawsuit.

[Jeffrey Simons]

Dan,

From anyone else, I'd take that characterization as an insult. But seeing as how I am leaving for the greener pastures of Texas, I am afforded some measure of honesty. That attitude is part of the problem, and not part of the solution. The biodiesel plant was not "growth." It was a nifty science project gone horribly awry. It never was intended to be financially beneficial to the taxpayers of Pacifica.

We're close to $130 million in debt, between the sewer plant and the capital improvements. Factor in the unpaid pension obligations, and quite frankly we're up Calera Creek without a dime. The problem is, we have no steady or increasing stream of revenue to pay those debts, besides raising taxes and fees. We pay almost $2 million a year in interest on those debts. That doesn't make me a whore for developers if I want Pacifica to stay solvent and not go county. I see the need for economic development, and saying NO all the time doesn't pay the bills.

So maybe we can hopefully learn a little from our mistakes, and the mistakes of like-minded individuals like yourself in HMB. Always fighting does not mean always winning, and those losses can cost a community big time. Yes, I advocated developing the quarry. It's a redevelopment zone. That means it is zoned for development, with some huge tax benefits to the city. Why would this make me a whore, in your eyes? I supported Rick Lee and Tait Cowan on their projects, and I support Jama and Monika Houman on their project. They all have great projects. Does supporting local developers make me a whore, in your eyes? Or am I an altrustic hero if I fight and delay these projects until the developers go broke so nothing gets built?

And for the record, THIS sailor served his country and his community honorably, thank you very much. No selling out, never took a dime from any developer to do anything.

[Lionel Emde]

No developer should have any "legal right" to bankrupt the community in which he or she works.

This "property rights" crap is a real problem.

So corporate America runs the show, and the rich, such as Mr. Keenan, are able to use the legal system to ruin a city.

News for the Pacifica lovers of our dear, recently defeated developer: He would have already started the legal process if he thought he could ruin us. He is well-versed in that sort of stuff, and can only envy Mr. Keenan's luck.

[Steve Sinai]

Grady was one of the council members who came in after the fact, and was stuck with trying to clean up the mess the council of 2000 made when they denied the Chopster the right to develop. The HMB council members I'm talking about are Ruddick, Taylor, Coleman, Donovan and Partridge.

http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2000/05/11/news/export17405.txt

The following is an opinion piece, so I won't try to pass it off as absolute fact, but it makes some interesting points about the HMB Council's close relationship with Coastside anti-development groups.

http://coastsider.com/index.php/mobile/news/opinion_accountability/

[Dan Underhill]

"At least the sensible folk in HMB kicked out all the city council members that had anything to do with this fiasco."

I gotta say that I recognize that this council has "feet of clay." Everybody I know has "feet of clay" and I don't know any Pacificans who are "No Growth." The biodiesel plant, if it had worked out, would have been "growth." My problem with the alternative council members who have been presented thus far is that they enthusiastically await development (to paraphrase Mr. Thomas, with apologies) "the way that over-jolly girls wait for sailors," and I believe that, under their watchful eye, far greater and less reparable damage would have happened to our town than a 13-foot-long trench.

[jim alex]

I sent this article and an open letter to the council members to ask them to please call Peebles, and try to get him back to the table!!!

[Brian Ginna]

"At least the sensible folk in HMB kicked out all the city council members that had anything to do with this fiasco."

Not yet. Hopefully, Jim Grady will not run again.

I am not sure most no-growthers on the Coastside are exactly what I would call "hippies" - a lot of them are retired, worked in high tech or finance, own businesses, etc.

Most hippies I know do not need to lie to get their way. That would not be cool.

[Steve Sinai]

Let's see here. The "we're at one with the earth" Coastside contingent blocked Chop from building. Chop sued the city and now HMB has to pay out tens of millions to Chop and bondholders. The way HMB will try to recoup part of the lost money is to sell the land for development when the market recovers.

So the initial outcome (build at Beachwood) and the final outcome (build at Beachwood) are the same, except that thanks to the "we're at one with the earth" Coastside peeps, HMB is out tens of millions of dollars.

Way to go, HMB hippies!! It's probably asking too much to expect local Pacifca no-growthers to learn from this. At least the sensible folk in HMB kicked out all the city council members that had anything to do with this fiasco.

[Cynthia Montanez]

This is a classic! The irony here is just killing me.