Giving away city parkland to private interest

twobits
Guru
Posts: 7964
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Giving away city parkland to private interest

Post by twobits »

zebrawoman wrote:

From the city's own site:

What if Trio doesn’t make any profit?
The agreement with the City requires Trio to pay a percentage share of the total revenue – not profit – meaning the City and taxpayers are paid first.


That website also says the vendors will be paying market value for the leased lands. In total it is about 14,500 sq meters or about 3 1/2 acres. The lease rate is just under 90k/yr for this 3 1/2 acres plus property taxes. Taxes however are moot to the discussion of market rates of leases cuz taxes and operational costs are always an extra to commercial triple net leases.

So, what we need to figure out is what the value of the asset is in order to determine a fair market value for that lease. The following is a cut and paste from the City's own website contained in a PDF file. It is about the discussion of acquisition of the South Beach Dr properties for the expansion of Skaha Park.

During the 2010 Parks Plan review (which was never officially adopted by Council), these properties were
taken out of the acquisition plan. The draft plan states:
P – 11A Park Acquisition and Sale Recommendations:
Skaha Park
o Complete the purchase of the Elm Street Properties
o Abandon the expansion to the west and change the OCP from parkland to Single Family
Residential and sell City property at the end of Sudbury
It was determined that the purchase of the remaining properties would be in excess of 25 million dollars.Those involved in the Parks plan review thought those resources would be better utilized elsewhere in the
City.


The properties being abandoned for consideration of acquisition are seven homes on South Beach Drive that occupy a footprint of less than one acre. And the City themselves valued that footprint on the beach at 25 million dollars. So for ease of math, if we are looking at say only 3 acres at the Marina, and only value it at 20 million per acre, it would still come to some 60 million dollars in value. Return on investment (fair market value) is easy to calculate from here. Annual lease rate divided by asset value give you ROI. 90k divided by 60,000,000 is a return of .15% on the asset! Let's make the 3 1/2 acres only worth 10 million. That would be .9% return on the asset. One would have to go down to a valuation of 4.5 million to get a return equal to a GIC. Fair market value my *bleep*! I'll bet the vendor of the ice cream/hot dog concession stand down there in a 500 sq ft brick shack paid the City 10k yr year to be able to sell dilly pops and dogs. So how in lord's name is 90k/yr fair market value for 3 1/2 acres of some of the most prime beach/lake front in the entire Okanagan? Perhaps even BC. Perhaps even Canada.
As to percentage of revenue vs. profit....the devil is in the details. And we have no details as we are not privy to the proposed agreement. I'll float you this though.....if it is based on gross revenues and not net profits, how long are the lessors going to operate in the red before the whole business becomes a choice for the City to seize or sue and deal with the creditors Trio might leave behind. And I will guarantee you that being on City Parkland, any Finacers of Trio's plans are going to make sure their butts are covered.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 25224
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Giving away city parkland to private interest

Post by fluffy »

Heal the sick, feed the hungry, care for the weakest among us, and always pray in private.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 5373
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Giving away city parkland to private interest

Post by Drip_Torch »

fluffy wrote:http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/supporting-our-council-and-their-proactive


"In fact the more water in the area with the water slides I think is probably a better chance of penticton not getting burnt by the forest fires around us."

Seriously, don't know how I missed that angle - I'll have to rethink my position on this and get back to ya.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save ... skaha-park
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
XT225
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3306
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: Giving away city parkland to private interest

Post by XT225 »

fluffy wrote:http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/supporting-our-council-and-their-proactive


This is why the Mayor and council (with their minds made up long ago) don't want it going to referendum..they know that they would lose to the Majority and Democracy would be served. How awful that would be!

Mayor Jakubeit said he is aware of a petition of between 1,500 and 2,000 signatures of those opposed to the waterpark, in addition to a recent petition of about 600 names from those in favour.
glassmaster
Übergod
Posts: 1043
Joined: Jan 19th, 2010, 9:58 am

Re: Giving away city parkland to private interest

Post by glassmaster »

Many petitions have been signed based on misleading or false information. The misinformation and rhetoric (delivered as fact) on the Skaha Marina Development has been rampant. The heading of this thread is a great example of false information.
XT225
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3306
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: Giving away city parkland to private interest

Post by XT225 »

glassmaster wrote:Many petitions have been signed based on misleading or false information. The misinformation and rhetoric (delivered as fact) on the Skaha Marina Development has been rampant. The heading of this thread is a great example of false information.


Since you did not specify WHICH petition you refer to, one can only assume it could be either side. The letters on here and in the papers indicate (not that that's definitive proof) that more people do NOT want the waterslides (in that location) than those that DO. I would bet that very very few people are against the slides in general; just not when it involves destroying valuable parkland that will be difficult if not impossible to ever acquire in the future.
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 25224
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Giving away city parkland to private interest

Post by fluffy »

XT225 wrote:...just not when it involves destroying valuable parkland that will be difficult if not impossible to ever acquire in the future.


That seems to be the default position of the opposition and it is, at best, questionable. We are talking about a "best use" situation here, and at this point in time something that can provide both an economic stimulus and a tourist attraction is, to me at least, more important that the current usage.
Heal the sick, feed the hungry, care for the weakest among us, and always pray in private.
glassmaster
Übergod
Posts: 1043
Joined: Jan 19th, 2010, 9:58 am

Re: Giving away city parkland to private interest

Post by glassmaster »

Think about it. In a small corner of the park not taking up any beach space we can increase the usage 10 times. That's not requiring a rezoning hearing because it's already an approved use.

The splash park is great for small kids and will be preserved. The people hanging around the splash park will still be able to do that in the new location. But the watersides will be a great activity for older kids, teenagers and young adults. They need park space too.

That parks are only about green space is a red herring and not true. That parks are for people is true.

PARKS ARE FOR PEOPLE.
User avatar
Anonymous123
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4044
Joined: Feb 8th, 2013, 4:02 pm

Re: Giving away city parkland to private interest

Post by Anonymous123 »

Just don't let the Trio Group put an ugly building above the water and call it a restaurant.
We See
We Judge
We Get Muzzled
bob vernon
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4162
Joined: Oct 27th, 2008, 10:37 am

Re: Giving away city parkland to private interest

Post by bob vernon »

It always smells really bad when politicians sell or give away public property. And then do everything they can to shut down public disclosure and opposition.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 5373
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Giving away city parkland to private interest

Post by Drip_Torch »

Many petitions have been signed based on misleading or false information. The misinformation and rhetoric (delivered as fact) on the Skaha Marina Development has been rampant. The heading of this thread is a great example of false information


When I read through the various contracts it seems to me that Trio is taking possession of a fairly large tract of public land for their own commercial benefit. Sure, there is the revenue sharing agreement, but I don't see how you can say that portion of the park is still for the people. I would describe it as being for the paying customers.

The other thing I find somewhat troubling, about this whole thing, is the attitude of our Council and the supporters of the Trio deal. There was a rally planned to show opposition to this project and instead of seeing it as an opportunity to hear some concerns, one of which is there wasn't enough opportunity to hear concerns, a vocal minority showed up with the intention of shouting down any opposition. (There's nothing bold about bullying)

The mayor seems to think he was elected to make the tough decisions. Personally, in view of the Community Charter Act, principals of Municipal governance, I think he's oversimplifying things a bit. There is a legal framework in that legislation, that supports balance and certainty, and when tough decisions are made outside of that legal framework - we all end up paying.

So what are the facts? Heck, let's just start with just one...

What is the total area of public space that Trio's commercial operations will be benefiting from?
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
DblDwn11
Fledgling
Posts: 147
Joined: Oct 11th, 2011, 1:14 pm

Re: Giving away city parkland to private interest

Post by DblDwn11 »

I keep breaking a promise I made to myself not to return to this merry-go-round topic but here I am....

This property in question is currently and has been for some time, a commercial venture.

It consists of a marina, a asphalt parking lot and a couple of ugly cinder block buildings that you all are so fond of in the Okanagan.

For years, this has been a couple of commercial leases. No improvements have been done, no actionable plan was put forward.

Fast forward to present day. We have a company (Trio) that has put forward an actionable plan, has already improved the property and has plans to do more. They've done more in their short time then the previous lease holders did in the YEARS that they were there.

I realize a few members of this peanut gallery have issues with change. That is no reason to shut down a viable project.

If you can bear to look more then 1 year down the road, and take a long term view, this proposal has real potential to improve the south end of the city dramatically.

Open your mind. Hard task for some that need an axe to grind but for the good of your community....please do it.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 5373
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Giving away city parkland to private interest

Post by Drip_Torch »

DblDwn11 wrote:I realize a few members of this peanut gallery have issues with change. That is no reason to shut down a viable project.

If you can bear to look more then 1 year down the road, and take a long term view, this proposal has real potential to improve the south end of the city dramatically.

Open your mind. Hard task for some that need an axe to grind but for the good of your community....please do it.


Really? So anyone that asks a question has an axe to grind and is resistant to change?

(LoL... issues with change - I'm sure that's going to get some likes from the status quo crowd.)
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
twobits
Guru
Posts: 7964
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Giving away city parkland to private interest

Post by twobits »

glassmaster wrote:Think about it. In a small corner of the park not taking up any beach space we can increase the usage 10 times. That's not requiring a rezoning hearing because it's already an approved use.

The splash park is great for small kids and will be preserved. The people hanging around the splash park will still be able to do that in the new location. But the watersides will be a great activity for older kids, teenagers and young adults. They need park space too.

That parks are only about green space is a red herring and not true. That parks are for people is true.

PARKS ARE FOR PEOPLE.


Small corner of the park Glass? Seriously. No one I know objects to an upgrade of the current Marina and the associated asphalt. This proposal is far beyond that. And if there were not very viable alternatives to the part of Trio's plan that requires hard fought and paid for lands by generations of Penticton citizens.....I might actually concede some space. The reality however is that there is plenty of land available and also appropriately zoned for CT use.
And I will agree with your "PARKS ARE FOR PEOPLE". Where we diverge is definition of park. My definition is free to use by the taxpayers that use it. No admission fee's required. Like the splash park...owned and operated by the use of citizens and guests free of charge. Not a for profit enterprise leveraging some of the most valuable lands available in the City.

Where I personally have a conflict with my position is looking at other private enterprises with hard assets on city park lands. The easiest two to use as examples are Loco Landing and the Coyote Cruises launch facilities. And to be honest, I support those two examples.....hesitantly and carefully. How I reconcile the difference is a measure of and question of "How would those lands have been utilized otherwise?" Personally I see magnitudes of more public value with the Skaha Beach lands than I do with a few acres of land on the NE strip of land abutting the Channel.

What further befuddles me is market value being claimed by the City. Would anyone out there please show me a 2015 example of 3 1/2 acres of fully serviced, in city, paved road access, waterfront beach that can be leased for 89k a year plus property taxes? Wake up you tax paying minions cuz Trio is laughing their arses off right now. That kind of money would only cover two or three Orange Julius retail fronts.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
glassmaster
Übergod
Posts: 1043
Joined: Jan 19th, 2010, 9:58 am

Re: Giving away city parkland to private interest

Post by glassmaster »

As things sit today, we have a run down marina and boathouse at Skaha ... and a fair bit of concrete in place. 89K per year in lease payments (plus taxes) is far more than the zero dollars that land brings in right now. Our difference of opinion is due to what we each see as best use for the land. I see the master plan for a new marina, boathouse, restaurant, and waterslides as a big improvement to what is currently there. Unlike some, I don't mind if the development group makes money ... if they are successful, the city benefits in the profit sharing and in having a new vibrancy to the area. If the venture fails, the land reverts back to the city (but with an upgraded marina and boathouse).

Return to “North Okanagan”