Hockey School Land Deal = Election Issue

[Giants Head]

Council on Wednesday morning held a special meeting and agreed to sell a large block of property on Eckhardt Ave to a developer for about half of what they paid for it. The unnamed developer will construct a building with commercial on the bottom and dormitories on the other upper floors that the Hockey School will use for housing students. Buying high and selling low is an interesting approach for a city with the financial problems that Penticton has. What do you think. Will this become a major election issue next month or not?

[fluffy]

I'm thinking that this is the currently empty block of land just west of the main entrance to the SOEC? The paper said the lots were bought for 2.3 million prior to construction of the SOEC, and are now being sold for 925 thousand, less than half. Yeah, this could stir up a hornets nest for sure. The Hockey School has been a proven winner for years but the article held little info on just what the justification was to sell the land at such a bargain price.

[twobits]

I'm thinking that this is the currently empty block of land just west of the main entrance to the SOEC? The paper said the lots were bought for 2.3 million prior to construction of the SOEC, and are now being sold for 925 thousand, less than half. Yeah, this could stir up a hornets nest for sure. The Hockey School has been a proven winner for years but the article held little info on just what the justification was to sell the land at such a bargain price.

The devil will be in the details. Let's hope that there is some good rationale and city benefit in this project that transcends the land price. All commercial real estate prices have dropped dramatically since the peak but that is a prime location next to the SOEC that I would think would not have been hit so hard. I'm hoping there is some kind of ongoing revenue stream that comes to the city as a result of the project or a profit sharing agreement.

[clouseau]

I think the biggest mistake here is allowing the developer to be unnamed. Eventually the devloper’s name will become public. Trying to hide information from the public is NEVER a good idea, and more so when taxdollars and land deals are involved. Things are sometimes hidden for a reason, and typically not a good one from my experience.

[XT225]

The City is in a financial mess and appears that they will do anything to make that debt look less before the election day. Vassalaki voted against the sale (and I agree with him this once); the city could hold onto it until better times but chose not to. This could bite them you know where. I Agree, too, that the purchaser should be disclosed. What have they got to hide? Likely a numbered company anyways..lol. Was this the big good news announcement re hockey that was talked about last week?

[clouseau]

I am a tad curious how this deal came about. Was the land tendered for sale ? Was it listed publicly for sale as the Munson property ? How was the price arrived at ? Why is the developer not being disclosed given all of Penticton’s past history with developers? There is a big difference between someone like Jimmy Pattison and Mel Reeves and we do not know who this developer is – why ? These are the questions that need answers. At least from my perspective.

[XT225]

I am a tad curious how this deal came about. Was the land tendered for sale ? Was it listed publicly for sale as the Munson property ? How was the price arrived at ? Why is the developer not being disclosed given all of Penticton’s past history with developers? There is a big difference between someone like Jimmy Pattison and Mel Reeves and we do not know who this developer is – why ? These are the questions that need answers. At least from my perspective.

Good points, clouseau. I never saw the land put up for sale. What if someone with tons of bucks (ie: twobits...lol) wanted to buy it. Where was it listed? Perhaps Julius Bloomfield or another realtor could enlighten us? So much for "transparency" at City Hall. Their actions speak for themselves. We will remember this on Nov 19th.

[Giants Head]

It is hard to believe that the city wanted to sell this piece of property but did not put a Forsale sign on it. There must be at least 10,000 cars a day going past this location.

[hoot]

Posters with questions regarding this sale should watch the video minutes of last nights council meeting.

On the Penticton city website. http://www.penticton.ca/EN/main/city/ma ... /2011.html

It appears that the property has been radically changed because of the widening of Eckhart Avenue and from what I could see council is getting at or around assessed value for it.

( Litke's presentation was thoughtful and had some good points. )

Seems like the city originally paid over the odds for the property in the first place as a means to an end.

[Julius Bloomfield]

I am a tad curious how this deal came about. Was the land tendered for sale ? Was it listed publicly for sale as the Munson property ? How was the price arrived at ? Why is the developer not being disclosed given all of Penticton’s past history with developers? There is a big difference between someone like Jimmy Pattison and Mel Reeves and we do not know who this developer is – why ? These are the questions that need answers. At least from my perspective.

Good points, clouseau. I never saw the land put up for sale. What if someone with tons of bucks (ie: twobits...lol) wanted to buy it. Where was it listed? Perhaps Julius Bloomfield or another realtor could enlighten us? So much for "transparency" at City Hall. Their actions speak for themselves. We will remember this on Nov 19th.

Hi all, the city is not obliged to tender a property any more, they do however have to follow a protocol of getting appraisals and putting a notice in the paper proclaiming the proposed sale. I didn't see the notices but I am sure they were there...somewhere. I didn't see any marketing on the property and it was not listed to my knowledge.

[twobits]

I am a tad curious how this deal came about. Was the land tendered for sale ? Was it listed publicly for sale as the Munson property ? How was the price arrived at ? Why is the developer not being disclosed given all of Penticton’s past history with developers? There is a big difference between someone like Jimmy Pattison and Mel Reeves and we do not know who this developer is – why ? These are the questions that need answers. At least from my perspective.

Good points, clouseau. I never saw the land put up for sale. What if someone with tons of bucks (ie: twobits...lol) wanted to buy it. Where was it listed? Perhaps Julius Bloomfield or another realtor could enlighten us? So much for "transparency" at City Hall. Their actions speak for themselves. We will remember this on Nov 19th.

Hi all, the city is not obliged to tender a property any more, they do however have to follow a protocol of getting appraisals and putting a notice in the paper proclaiming the proposed sale. I didn't see the notices but I am sure they were there...somewhere. I didn't see any marketing on the property and it was not listed to my knowledge.

I gleaned some info on this yesterday. It would seem that the only thing the city has committed to at this point is to sell the land. There is an agreement in place for the Hockey School deal however the land is now going to be subject to a public tendering to ensure a fair market value is recieved. In theory, an interested party could usurp this deal with a one dollar higher bid. I am not sure if the Hockey school (developer) has the option to match and I will try to get clarification. This would also perhaps explain why the developer has requested not to be identified at this point as they are not quite the owners yet.

In a way this is kind of a strange process and announcment but I think what is important is the taxpayer interest is being covered. If the actual market value is higher than two independant appraisals have suggested, we will find out shortly.

[XT225]

Why cannot the money from this sale go into the city "operating budget" rather than future capital projects as the Treasurer was quoted as saying in the paper yesterday? If the operating budget IS going to be 2 million short in 2012 (as many have stated) then why not beef that up NOW? Or, will the city cry poverty once again and lay off a bunch more employees to balance their books? Service will be out the window.

[twobits]

Why cannot the money from this sale go into the city "operating budget" rather than future capital projects

Because you should tackle the operating deficit with spending cuts or increased revenue or it will become a repeating structural deficit that will just be there again the next budget cycle. Using funds from a capital sale is not wise and should be reserved for future capital requirments. Your logic XT is why we need "business" people on council because if you do not understand these basic principles, you get into trouble very quickly.

[XT225]

Why cannot the money from this sale go into the city "operating budget" rather than future capital projects

Because you should tackle the operating deficit with spending cuts or increased revenue or it will become a repeating structural deficit that will just be there again the next budget cycle. Using funds from a capital sale is not wise and should be reserved for future capital requirments. Your logic XT is why we need "business" people on council because if you do not understand these basic principles, you get into trouble very quickly.

Normally you would be correct, twobits. However in todays state of Penticton's economy you need to look outside the box and use money wherever it is needed most. I can just see it....they will bring up the dumb Lakeshore improvement project again and there goes the money once more. Its these same "business people" you refer to, that got us into the mess in the first place -that is the bottom line. Out they go, November 19th! I'm certain that most people will agree.

[twobits]

Why cannot the money from this sale go into the city "operating budget" rather than future capital projects

Because you should tackle the operating deficit with spending cuts or increased revenue or it will become a repeating structural deficit that will just be there again the next budget cycle. Using funds from a capital sale is not wise and should be reserved for future capital requirments. Your logic XT is why we need "business" people on council because if you do not understand these basic principles, you get into trouble very quickly.

Normally you would be correct, twobits. However in todays state of Penticton's economy you need to look outside the box and use money wherever it is needed most. I can just see it....they will bring up the dumb Lakeshore improvement project again and there goes the money once more. Its these same "business people" you refer to, that got us into the mess in the first place -that is the bottom line. Out they go, November 19th! I'm certain that most people will agree.

I would not be thrilled with the funds being used for the walkway but if they were, at least it would remain as a capital asset on the books. Use those funds for an operating deficit and POOF, they are gone forever. At most it buys you one budget cycle before you will have to make the same decision you avoided by spending your capital. That is not thinking outside the box, it's called putting yourself in one and getting buried.

Let me put it in lay terms for you. Let's call your house and car your capital assets. Let's call your weekly lunch money spent at Earls's your operating funds. If you found your paycheque (revenues) did not cover your lunches at Earl's (expenses) would it be wiser to A) borrow against your house or sell your car (erode your capital base) in order to keep eating at Earl's for the next year, or B) would you brown bag it or eat at McDonald's (lower your operating expenses) or C) ask for a raise (increase revenues(taxes)). If you chose A) you continued to enjoy Earl's for a year but you are poorer for not having a car anymore or owing more on your house and your paycheque still won't cover lunch so you will have to make the same decision again. Continue operating like this and you will find yourself walking to work, no house, and the same paycheque. But at least you enjoyed nice lunches for a few years that made some really expensive compost.