tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893302589122052170.post4240423471066348451..comments2023-11-03T01:31:46.516-07:00Comments on I Heart SCV: Happenings: City Buys a BlockA Santa Claritanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02447506523590861174noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893302589122052170.post-16451514358902363322009-11-16T01:46:20.473-08:002009-11-16T01:46:20.473-08:00u rock santa claritanu rock santa claritanshirleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04441725309529855652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893302589122052170.post-11308236589396877692009-10-28T14:03:32.207-07:002009-10-28T14:03:32.207-07:00Anon. 1,
"I attended this Council Meeting. Y...Anon. 1,<br /><br />"I attended this Council Meeting. You are incorrect when you state no answer was given as to why the City agreed to pay this price. It was clearly stated that the property owners owed that much on the property so would make zero profit."<br /><br />I still stand by what I wrote; that's no reason to over-pay by half-a-million dollars for the property. The City shouldn't consider how much money a party stands to make or lose on a sale. If that "reasoning" held, then real estate could never be sold for less than the previous purchase price, as we'd always want the owners to at least break even. The City isn't a charity. Like Cam Noltemeyer said, they could have let it go into foreclosure and picked it up then!<br /><br />As for the second part of your comment, I think Anon. 2's response says it all. <br /><br />The simple fact is that the City really wanted the property and didn't want to wait for it, so they spent much more money on it than it's worth.A Santa Claritanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02447506523590861174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893302589122052170.post-62958223422768618002009-10-28T12:38:28.670-07:002009-10-28T12:38:28.670-07:00In reply to Anonymous, the new leases issue is a r...In reply to Anonymous, the new leases issue is a red herring. The property can continue to be leased on a month to month basis until the property is sold. If the owner does so (and they will)this rationale does not fly. Furthermore, the appraisal is likely only based on comparative sales. Comparative sales do not take into account income. Instead, and income approach is used and the timing of leases is may not be much of an issue in the income approach because there is always some assumed down time (i.e. the property is 90 9r 95% leased). A willing seller is another crock - If this property is foreclosed upon, you can bet your house on the fact that the note holder will be an extremely willing and aggressive seller. They won't want to pay a dime to hold a non-performing asset\loan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893302589122052170.post-79809541089737754242009-10-28T11:38:39.833-07:002009-10-28T11:38:39.833-07:00I attended this Council Meeting. You are incorrect...I attended this Council Meeting. You are incorrect when you state no answer was given as to why the City agreed to pay this price. It was clearly stated that the property owners owed that much on the property so would make zero profit. Also stated that they had not entered into any new leases, therefore losing rental income,anticipating the City would want this entire block, so as not to burden the City with the costs to buy out those leases. When you add appraised value plus lost rental income etc, the price is justified.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com