Ground Zero @ Highway 1

Annotated by Bob Pilgrim

Comments

[Steve Sinai]

"The only part of of Peebles' plan that was going to be legally binding was that the zoning would be changed to allow 355 housing units."

Not true, Dan-O. The measure specifically said that any developer who wanted to develop in the quarry would have had to build the hotel and commercial before houses were built.

The myth that Peebles wanted to get the quarry rezoned for 355 housing units (not houses) so he could sell it to another developer who would then only develop houses was just that -- a myth.

"Bray, when you bring the Germans and Nazis into an argument, you just lost."

...or flying monkeys.

[Big Banker]

Dan:

Every shopping center is owned by "out of town" owners.

What I find pretty funny is you and your friends backed Skyfield USA, and look at the mess they caused in town.

They were local boys!

Bray, when you bring the Germans and Nazis into an argument, you just lost.

[Carl May]

I have been in Eureka Square for 14 years and have known a number of the ground floor businesses that have left, a few that have opened up and are still here, and a few that have been here all along. Some of those that left departed for lack of customers--thanks partly to the freeway cutting the Sharp Park area in two and making access less easy. Some left because they found another location they preferred, or the rent was too high for them, or the rent was being raised to a level the business could not tolerate. At least one retired, and the martial arts studio left because the lease expired and the owner decided not to renew and to move on to other things in life. I don't know of a single instance where the city's finances were a consideration for a business making a move.

[Dan Underhill]

I can't remember a time when Eureka Square didn't have at least two empty storefronts, and if there was such a time, it didn't last long because the out-of-town owners of Eureka Square kept raising the rents. I talked to several of the business owners as they were moving out, and each of them would have preferred to stay. That is just one shopping area, the one closest to my home, but I don't know of businesses closing based on concerns about the municipal economy.

[todd bray]

Oh boy, if Big Banker were half the man his wife is, he'd post using his own name. Other than that, his comment represents nothing but good old-fashioned scapegoating like that seen early in the past century in Germany.

[Big Banker]

Dan, in 2005-2007 we were in the boom economy and most of the storefronts were full.

The reason why people do not want to open a business in town is because they know the city is bankrupt. The city cannot pay for basic services.

You and your friends don't seem to understand this.You and your friends are responsible for the sad, pathetic financial situation the city is in.

[Dan Underhill]

The only part of of Peebles' plan that was going to be legally binding was that the zoning would be changed to allow 355 housing units. "Giveaways of property for city buildings" or "the commercial part" would have been implemented only if Mr. Peebles had decided to do that. I can see the property giveaway as a tax dodge, but adding storefronts to a town that is already replete with empty storefronts doesn't sound likely. Either sell the rezoned property at a profit or build the 355 houses. Either way it is "take the money and run."

[Carl May]

Because residential housing does not normally provide enough in the way of taxes to offset the governmental services required, the 355 housing units in the quarry area would have most likely been a drain on the city, not a benefit. Then there were going to be some giveaways of property for city buildings -- a not-so-subtle enticement that would have removed some pieces from the tax rolls. So, income from the commercial part would have needed to offset these factors and more for there to be net positive tax monies to the city. Of course, none of that artificial reasoning takes into account the long-term loss to the quality of life in Pacifica due to jamming in more overdevelopment in a city that already is not supporting its needs with natural resources from within its geographic area.
For a review of how excessive urban development has far-reaching negative consequences on the most important natural resource of all (and what people are trying to do about it), drop into Peter Drekmeier's presentation on the Tuolumne River (in a sense, it flows through Pacifica!) at the Sharp Park library on Tuesday evening, 3/12.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: See story on Riptide about Peter's presentation.)

[Steve Sinai]

"Work hard? Moi? No way. I only do the easy stuff."

At least we have that in common, Petey.

[Peter Loeb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of8f7Kj1yiE

[todd bray]

Learning, Steve-O, not lurking -- learning.

[Peter Loeb]

Work hard? Moi? No way. I only do the easy stuff.

[Steve Sinai]

You're playing word games again, Toddster. RDA money would have benefited the city. What are the numbers -- something like 89 percent of RDA taxes go to the city, while only 10 percent to 11 percent of typical taxes do?

If cities didn't benefit from RDAs, then cities, including Pacifica, wouldn't have bitched and griped so much about Gov. Brown eliminating them.

Take some responsibility for the damage you've done to the city, Toddster. Peter, too.

[Big Banker]

Todd, the RDA is history. Plus, the RDA was the city.

[todd bray]

Steve-O, unfortunately, if there had been any development in he quarry, it would not have generated revenues for the city but rather for the RDA. Please learn; you really owe it to yourself to learn.

[Steve Sinai]

You're the one who's been working hard to keep revenue-generating development out of the quarry, Peter. Not me.

[big banker]

Mr. Loeb, the city would have been cashing in on revenue had the quarry been developed. But thanks to you and your group of obstructionists, the quarry is an empty lot.

I don't see you and your group worried that the city is one emergency or lawsuit away from being insolvent and bankrupt. I don't see your friends and yourself being worried that the city cannot pay for basic services.

Now you and your oh-most-powerful group of friends want to take on Caltrans and the State of California. They will crush you.

[Peter Loeb]

Steve Sinai is apparently unconcerned that the quarry property owners are delinquent in their property taxes to the tune of $640,000. Instead, he'd rather keep whining about how, six years ago, the voters said no to 355 housing units in the quarry.

[Steve Sinai]

This is rich. The very people who kept the quarry from producing income for the city are complaining about how the quarry isn't producing income for the city.

[Larry Rosenstein]

One clarification of Todd's comments. $70,000 is an estimate of how much the City of Pacifica would get if the owners paid the current back taxes. (That assumes the city gets a share of the penalties and interest.) On an annual basis, the city gets about $9,000 from the quarry property taxes.

(One interesting thing about the tax assessment is that when the property changed hands in 2009, it was reassessed at $10 million. But in 2012 it was assessed at only $7.5 million, which is what Peebles paid for it originally.)

If it's five years from when the property became tax defaulted, then that will be July 1, 2014. The last property tax payment was made for the 2007 tax roll year on 4/7/2008. The 2008 taxes became tax-defaulted on July 1, 2009.

Finally, if anyone wants to look at the actual numbers, the secured property tax site is at:

http://www.sanmateocountytaxcollector.org/SMCWPS/pages/secureSearch.jsp

The quarry parcel numbers are 018-150-110, 018-150-120, and 018-150-150.

[todd bray]

Chris, thank you for the educational insight. That the property is not current in its tax revenues is a big deal, as the $70,000 a year that is owed is an incremental increase, meaning the entire sum goes, well, would have or could have gone, directly to the RDA in Pacifica for payments the RDA owes on its own debt (which was transferred to the city a few years ago).

This is an interesting math problem because of all the variables, like the previous RDA, the current property tax percentages, whatever the city's RDA debt is to the state, and any number of other tax/debt factors I could only guess at.

If the quarry is close to the default timeline of five years, that is a very interesting math question. I know from previous emails that there is more than one government agency that is interested in the property, for reasons that reflect their mission statements.

Thanks again, Chris, this is going to be interesting. Oh, and just in case you were not aware of the need for reclamation, there is an approved reclamation plan by the city, property owner, and the mining board, but it requires a California Coastal Commission development permit to proceed.

[Peter Loeb]

"If the property is not redeemed within five years, the property may be sold at public auction or acquired by a public agency." The obvious next question is: How many years is the quarry property delinquent on its taxes? Based on Larry's report that the current owners owe about $640,000 in property taxes, which is $88,000/year plus the penalties and interest that accrue every month the taxes are in default, it looks like it's about five years delinquent. Anybody wanna buy a quarry cheap?

[Chris Fogel]

"How delinquent does a property owner need to be before the property is forfeited?"

If taxes are not paid by the delinquent date, there is a 10 percent penalty. If a taxpayer receives a notice of impending default, and the taxes remain unpaid on the date the notice says they are due, the property is declared tax-defaulted. Monthly redemption penalties of 1.5 percent are added to the unpaid taxes. The property owner has the right to redeem the property by paying the taxes, penalties, and costs within five years of the date the property becomes tax-defaulted. If the property is not redeemed within five years, the property may be sold at public auction or acquired by a public agency.
--California Property Tax: An Overview, Pg. 12
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub29.pdf

[Lionel Emde]

What's wrong with current zoning is that the only thing that makes a profit for developers in Pacifica -- housing -- is not what it's zoned for. If commercial worked here, it would have been built out years ago. It doesn't work here; wrong geography, wrong demographics, no downtown, gotta think of something else!

[Dan Underhill]

How delinquent does a property owner need to be before the property is forfeited?