Replies

If you want to see how Gov. works.

This is a email reply I got back from a person who works in this field when I forward him this post

In his email the person had the means and the abilty to fight back. And get whats due.

Santa Cruz considers eminent domain on long-empty downtown lot
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1292948/posts

It's sure better then the case I had awhile back in LA. The city took this guys property, which had a liquor store, deli, check cashing service & was Grossing $300K to $350K PER MONTH.

He had a big corner where all the trucks come off the docks unto Alameda St. & the semis could pull in & pick up a sandwich & a drink. The next closest liquor store was 3 mi. away, & this was the closest to the docks & a big marina for pleasure boats.

The city of L.A gave him a generous $79,000 Yes, that was it, they said since the land was zoned industrial that was all the land was worth.

The building would still be standing, but the new R/W line was 3 ft. from the front of the building & there was to be no access. They said he could do something with the building. It was a complex case since the Koreans who owned it just said give us our $500,000 relocation & loss of business amount & we go back to Korea.

The Koreans who had sold it, sold it for 2 million, $750K for the real estate, the rest for the business & inventory & the down payment had been $250,000, the rest only had the real estate as security. The buyers were just going to walk away with the relocation money & leave the sellers holding the bag. It took awhile to get the 2 Korean sellers into the case, but the atty did & they had to start a foreclosure against the buyers to be able to get to court..

We settled on the court house steps for $1,800,000 ,(Inc the business but no inventory) PLUS the $500,000 relocation fee, PLUS, the city had to buy two adjacent lots and pay for the construction of a new building on the two lots, AND provide access to the new property from Alameda St. The appraiser for the city was still saying., how can an industrially zoned property be worth that.

I asked the city Real Estate Dept. manager how they could justify using an appraiser like that. He said, "We love his work, we use him all the time" That is why cities using eminent domain get such a bad rap.

Now, here is the best part, 6 mo later I was at a legal seminar & had lunch with 4 attys, 3 from the City of L.A. I brought up that I had just been the appraiser on a big case against the city & they knew which one right away. One said she had been assigned the case but knew the case was really bad & got out of it. The city put a brand new atty on, (the city hired an outside law firm also), & the city attorneys office had a betting pool as to how big the city was going to take a hit when they found the case was going to court.

Also, think of all the other folks who's property was taken using this type of appraiser and who could not afford to go to court or who did not get a really good attorney (and of course that attorney hiring a really good appraiser on the case).

So that's what happens in many of these cases. Also, many cases in Redev. are not blighted at all, but they use that to cozy up to a particular developer.

This case does not seem like that however & in this case I agree with the city. I don't know what the lot is really worth, but $70/sq.ft. for an ugly looking hole in the ground does not seem out of line. PS The atty & the clients felt I did such a good job they gave me a $2000 bonus on top of the fee I billed-only the 2nd time in my career that has happened!)