Candidates for re-election, Jess Talamantes and Bob Frutos will soon suggest to voters we need big developments to balance our budget. But what happens after these large developments are finished? Well, naturally a much higher demand on city services like our water, power and refuse collection. Imagine when “I Heart Burbank” is completed. One thousand new apartments across the street from Burbank High School. Aside from the increased traffic in the area, imagine just the water requirements for all those toilets! How can increased strain on our infrastructure save us money? The answer is easy – it can’t. What we need on the city council are people who look out for the bottom line of the city not their developer friends. Case in point: Talaria. The council had an opportunity to sell land to the developer at the fair market value of close to $4 million. What Jess and Bob did was vote to sell the land for $1.2 million. That’s 2.5 million dollars we could have used right about now. Bad decisions won’t balance the budget.
The sale price of the city’s property — which an appraiser valued at just under $1 million on the low end and $3.7 million on the high end — was another point of contention Gordon raised during the council’s discussion.
He argued that because the land is critical to the developer’s plans, “it’s absolutely worth every penny” of the nearly $4-million valuation.
The $1.2-million purchase price represented a steep discount of around 70% because of the irregular shape and location of the plots, which include part of Avon Street, an alley and a strip of land on the proposed site, according to city staff.
City Manager Mark Scott cautioned against setting a precedent of selling such “remnant” properties for the maximum appraisal price, but said it was up to the council. He said staff opted for a public discussion of the sale price knowing it might get “awkward.”
Gordon said he would have considered a discounted price, just not as steep as what staff proposed. However, the council did not opt to seek a higher sale price.
“If there ever was a giveaway, that’s a giveaway,” Gordon said.
January 22, 2017 at 8:04 pm
David, I have the appraisal. It took me six emails and several months to get our ex-city manager Mark Scott to allow me to have it. Why? Because, he knew what was in it….something the city council members NEVER saw. The appraiser made it crystal clear no less than 3 times in the report, that if the 3 parcels (Cusumano needed to get the Talaria deal done) were sold independently at different times then the low price, approx. 400k per parcel (1.2 million total) was the fair price. BUT, IF they were to be sold all 3 at the same time, to ONE ENTITY for the purpose of a development, then the price of 3.7 million was the price to charge for all three. Again, the council members never knew this. And, we know why….staff was helping there darling developer get if for the reduced price. You might want to add that to your copy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 23, 2017 at 6:59 am
In addition, the Council granted Talaria an “exceptional” status which allowed for 20% more density – a developer’s dream. Later, theCC members who voted for this openly acknowledged that the criteria for exceptional status was unclear. They cited that in particular the designation of the area around Talaria was considered a transportation hub but clearly it does not appear to be such as compared to the other two in Burbank- the Metrolinks downtown and at the airport. They openly admitted the criteria were vague and instead of erring on the side of caution and directing staff to come back with more precise criteria, they gave Cusumano wanted they wanted. Two CC members who voted in favor were given campaign contributions a couple months later by Cusumano.
Here’s an excerpt from an e-mail from Mark Scott to me in October of 2014 right after the approval vote:
“Again, we all appreciated your sincere concerns. I understand your arguments about inclusionary housing. I have only been in Burbank 15 months and this is the first residential project of any size I have seen……and maybe first since the new General Plan was adopted. I think it is clear that some of our code provisions are unclear and require further definition. I feel that the “exceptional project” language falls into that category.”
Even the City Manager felt the language was bad. Yet, two and half years later, nothing has been done to change that language. Burbank 2035 General Plan is a disgrace and needs to be thrown out. It’s not a vision. It’s a pathway to West LA-ification of Burbank.
LikeLiked by 1 person