One of the toughest parts of writing this column every week, while also holding down a real job and raising a family, is finding something interesting to write. Then sometimes a story just falls right in your lap.
In June I wrote about the Great Housing Project — excuse me, The Great Park in Irvine. The former El Toro airport will soon be a 9,500 home project.
Not exactly what the voters of Orange County were told when they voted down the airport use and voted for the Great Park. Part of the project will be a $1.2-billion park. I said billion.
It was kicked off in July with a $4.6-million balloon attraction. The tethered balloon is designed to give rides up to 500 feet over the future development. It was built and subsidized by the Great Park Corporation, which owns the land and collects the development fees from the home builders supposedly to pay for its construction and operation.
In July it was explained to the public that the balloon rides, which would cost $20 for adults and $15 for children, would be given free to the public for about six months.
The cost to operate the ride was $1.6 million per year. With some corporate sponsorship revenue — and there hasn’t been any so far — the balloon ride would take approximately 60,000 visitors a year to break even.
The project is on target to get the 60,000 balloon enthusiasts. The problem is that it drew that many because the rides are offered for free.
As I have said previously, nobody in his or her right mind would expect a family of four to take a 10-minute ride up 500 feet and pay $60.
Well, guess what? None of the Great Park directors, except for Christina Shea and Steven Choi, ever expected to get any revenue for the balloon rides. In fact, this week, Chairman Larry Agran made it very clear that he never expected and or wanted any revenues from the balloon from “individuals and families.” He thought it would ruin the whole experience of the park if people actually paid for the ride.
I’m wondering when the balloon ride was first brought to the board, with the $20 charge, why Chairman Agran never mentioned that he would never, ever support any charge for the ride. Maybe he knew that if he said that, the $4.6 million expenditure would never be approved.
What I just described to you was just background for what happened last Thursday at a special meeting of the Great Park Corporation.
On a 7-1 vote they agreed to never charge any fee for the balloon. To add insult to injury, they added additional days of operation and night flights for free. This raised the cost of the whole operation from $1.6 million to $4.2 million per year. And it’s all subsidized by the Irvine taxpayers, despite the fact that only about 30% of the riders are from Irvine.
That is not all. As part of the same vote, they approved an additional expenditure of $11.5 million for a 5-acre lawn, a larger parking lot, visitor tent and lighting for night flights.
Add it up, and they have spent $16.1 million to build and expect to spend another $17.5 million over the next five years to operate a balloon ride. That’s correct — $33.6 million for the ride.
While other parts of Orange County, including Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, are trying to figure out how to pay for basic needs like road repair, soccer fields and better school facilities, Irvine is blowing $33.6 million on free balloon rides.
To paraphrase a famous quote, “Just look how expensive it gets when it’s free.”
Friday, November 30, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Activists Have the Real Power in Elections
“The world belongs to the activists.”
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is fond of saying that whenever we talk politics.
Whether we were discussing a recall campaign or fighting the half-cent sales tax the county supervisors put on the ballot to pay for the county bankruptcy, it was always clear to Dana that the activists usually won in the end.
No matter how good the idea or candidate, in America, the most votes win. It may not be a perfect system, but it beats the heck out of all the others.
It took the residents of South County three elections and a supervisorial race to stop the airport at El Toro.
When you count the final tallies for votes, money and passion, they were clearly more active than the rest of the county. They put the final nail in the coffin by getting an anti-airport supervisor elected in North County, thereby flipping the 3-2 majority in their favor and forever ending the debate.
Elections have consequences. That activism put us in the horrible situation we have now at John Wayne. Since that vote in 2002, passenger travel is up 28% to 8.4 million. At this rate it will pass the 10.8 million cap before 2011.
Activism is not always at the ballot box. Most times it is just people in the community who are concerned about local issues.
The fact is, most people are not active in their community and, therefore, they give control over to the people that are. Sometimes for the better; sometimes not. It is amazing how small of a group, even two or three people, can change the outcome for everyone.
Here in Costa Mesa last week, we saw how much of an effect activist citizens had by speaking up at a council meeting. Right or wrong, they had a tremendous effect on the city’s future direction regarding park land, skate parks and even model trains.
Speaking of parks, Costa Mesa’s Eastside residents should keep their eyes on Brentwood Park. Brentwood is a small pocket park just west of Santa Ana Avenue on Monte Vista.
Costa Mesa recently paid $3.5 million to buy a 1.2-acre closed preschool to increase the size of the park. The Eastside has been short on park land since it was subdivided in 1906 by Stephen Townsend of the La Habra Land and Water Company.
That area has less park land per resident than almost any other area in the city. The city wants neighborhood input and will soon put out a request for interested citizens to get involved in the planning of the enlarged park.
The park already has a tot lot but no other amenities like a basketball or tennis court that would be of any recreational use to anyone over the age of eight. If history and human nature follow its normal course, the only people that will be interested enough to show up will be the neighbors.
Nothing wrong with having next-door neighbors give input, but if other Eastside residents don’t show up, I expect the neighbors will win by default, making the additional land into unusable open space for the benefit of them. I can’t blame them, but I do not think the city paid $3.5 million to expand a green belt around a dozen homes.
Getting involved is good for you and your community. Remember, “The world belongs to the activists.”
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is fond of saying that whenever we talk politics.
Whether we were discussing a recall campaign or fighting the half-cent sales tax the county supervisors put on the ballot to pay for the county bankruptcy, it was always clear to Dana that the activists usually won in the end.
No matter how good the idea or candidate, in America, the most votes win. It may not be a perfect system, but it beats the heck out of all the others.
It took the residents of South County three elections and a supervisorial race to stop the airport at El Toro.
When you count the final tallies for votes, money and passion, they were clearly more active than the rest of the county. They put the final nail in the coffin by getting an anti-airport supervisor elected in North County, thereby flipping the 3-2 majority in their favor and forever ending the debate.
Elections have consequences. That activism put us in the horrible situation we have now at John Wayne. Since that vote in 2002, passenger travel is up 28% to 8.4 million. At this rate it will pass the 10.8 million cap before 2011.
Activism is not always at the ballot box. Most times it is just people in the community who are concerned about local issues.
The fact is, most people are not active in their community and, therefore, they give control over to the people that are. Sometimes for the better; sometimes not. It is amazing how small of a group, even two or three people, can change the outcome for everyone.
Here in Costa Mesa last week, we saw how much of an effect activist citizens had by speaking up at a council meeting. Right or wrong, they had a tremendous effect on the city’s future direction regarding park land, skate parks and even model trains.
Speaking of parks, Costa Mesa’s Eastside residents should keep their eyes on Brentwood Park. Brentwood is a small pocket park just west of Santa Ana Avenue on Monte Vista.
Costa Mesa recently paid $3.5 million to buy a 1.2-acre closed preschool to increase the size of the park. The Eastside has been short on park land since it was subdivided in 1906 by Stephen Townsend of the La Habra Land and Water Company.
That area has less park land per resident than almost any other area in the city. The city wants neighborhood input and will soon put out a request for interested citizens to get involved in the planning of the enlarged park.
The park already has a tot lot but no other amenities like a basketball or tennis court that would be of any recreational use to anyone over the age of eight. If history and human nature follow its normal course, the only people that will be interested enough to show up will be the neighbors.
Nothing wrong with having next-door neighbors give input, but if other Eastside residents don’t show up, I expect the neighbors will win by default, making the additional land into unusable open space for the benefit of them. I can’t blame them, but I do not think the city paid $3.5 million to expand a green belt around a dozen homes.
Getting involved is good for you and your community. Remember, “The world belongs to the activists.”
Friday, November 9, 2007
City Plans Aid Renters
Tuesday’s Costa Mesa’s City Council meeting went long into the night with a three-hour debate on a skate park at Lions Park, followed by a debate to reopen the Fairview Park master plan for a dog park or another skate park. One issue was an appeal of the Planning Commission’s forbidding an Eastside apartment to convert to a condo.
It was clear not everyone understood the condo conversion issue or how it affects property owners’ rights.
For decades, property owners nationwide have tried to convert apartments into condos. It is not a complicated business model to buy apartment buildings for $200,000 per unit and convert them to condos that sell for $450,000 or more. Even with extensive upgrades costs, the profits are sizable. This is what was happening until the condo-conversion moratorium, now over, here in Costa Mesa.
During the last two years, unlike the rest of the county, Costa Mesa had a surge of applications for conversions. This started with the city’s thinking that it could turn renters into homeowners.
To achieve that goal, we allowed condo conversions to be granted without the units adhering to current standards. Most people at the time thought we would get some 20- or 25-year-old apartments whose standards would be close to current. Nobody expected applications from ’50s and ’60s properties, which were way out of standard.
Because the city had no real code, the decision to approve a conversion was at the complete discretion of the Planning Commission and city council with no guidelines to follow.
Besides health and safety issues of older properties, the city was getting applications for ’60s projects that had 40% less parking than was needed. These parking codes were set in a time when families had one car. Now, families have two or more cars. Neighborhoods that had older apartments had no parking for residents. People would have to drive around the block several times to find a space. Single-family residences close to these apartments had cars from apartment residents who lived blocks away.
Over time these issues usually take care of themselves. As buildings get older and lose their economic value, developers buy these properties, raise them and build new homes or condos with adequate parking in their place.
Remember that every other city in the county would never allow a conversion unless the property was up to current standards.T
o help bring more homeownership without hurting neighborhoods, the city adopted a condo-conversion ordinance that would allow apartments to be converted with standards between the old and new ones. Except for health and safety issues, a property could be approved if it met minimum standards. For example, when you figure in guest parking on a two-bedroom unit, the existing standard is 3.5 parking spaces per unit. If it is a conversion the ordinance now allows 2.5 spaces per unit. What will not be approved are older properties that sometimes had 1.5 spaces per unit.
Some may say that it is impossible to bring a 1962 property up to 1985 standards, let alone 2007 standards. That’s the point. When an apartment building was built in 1962, it was built as an apartment, not a condo. The owners of the property have an apartment building not a condominium project. Not allowing an under-parked, over-crowded apartment building from converting to a condominium is not taking away any of the owners’ property rights — they never had that right.
Property owners should know that the city will not hurt their values by prolonging the economic life of a building that, in any other city, would be torn down to make room for a new development. On the other hand, we need to have flexibility to rehabilitate older properties. The new conversion ordinance does both.
It was clear not everyone understood the condo conversion issue or how it affects property owners’ rights.
For decades, property owners nationwide have tried to convert apartments into condos. It is not a complicated business model to buy apartment buildings for $200,000 per unit and convert them to condos that sell for $450,000 or more. Even with extensive upgrades costs, the profits are sizable. This is what was happening until the condo-conversion moratorium, now over, here in Costa Mesa.
During the last two years, unlike the rest of the county, Costa Mesa had a surge of applications for conversions. This started with the city’s thinking that it could turn renters into homeowners.
To achieve that goal, we allowed condo conversions to be granted without the units adhering to current standards. Most people at the time thought we would get some 20- or 25-year-old apartments whose standards would be close to current. Nobody expected applications from ’50s and ’60s properties, which were way out of standard.
Because the city had no real code, the decision to approve a conversion was at the complete discretion of the Planning Commission and city council with no guidelines to follow.
Besides health and safety issues of older properties, the city was getting applications for ’60s projects that had 40% less parking than was needed. These parking codes were set in a time when families had one car. Now, families have two or more cars. Neighborhoods that had older apartments had no parking for residents. People would have to drive around the block several times to find a space. Single-family residences close to these apartments had cars from apartment residents who lived blocks away.
Over time these issues usually take care of themselves. As buildings get older and lose their economic value, developers buy these properties, raise them and build new homes or condos with adequate parking in their place.
Remember that every other city in the county would never allow a conversion unless the property was up to current standards.T
o help bring more homeownership without hurting neighborhoods, the city adopted a condo-conversion ordinance that would allow apartments to be converted with standards between the old and new ones. Except for health and safety issues, a property could be approved if it met minimum standards. For example, when you figure in guest parking on a two-bedroom unit, the existing standard is 3.5 parking spaces per unit. If it is a conversion the ordinance now allows 2.5 spaces per unit. What will not be approved are older properties that sometimes had 1.5 spaces per unit.
Some may say that it is impossible to bring a 1962 property up to 1985 standards, let alone 2007 standards. That’s the point. When an apartment building was built in 1962, it was built as an apartment, not a condo. The owners of the property have an apartment building not a condominium project. Not allowing an under-parked, over-crowded apartment building from converting to a condominium is not taking away any of the owners’ property rights — they never had that right.
Property owners should know that the city will not hurt their values by prolonging the economic life of a building that, in any other city, would be torn down to make room for a new development. On the other hand, we need to have flexibility to rehabilitate older properties. The new conversion ordinance does both.
Friday, November 2, 2007
City Trying to Throw Us a Curve
Tuesday night’s joint Newport Beach City Council/Planning Commission meeting had a verbal presentation of The Irvine Company’s plans for future development of Fashion Island and Newport Center.
Though some might disagree, on balance, The Irvine Company has been a good steward of the development and management at Newport Center. The problems in the presentation started only when it tried to explain the development of the city hall project.
A rule of thumb in business is that if something that shouldn’t be confusing is, someone is trying to confuse you.
That’s how I felt when I walked away after the presentation The Irvine Company (TIC) made for their “non-expansion” expansion of Fashion Island. The confusing part was not the adding of 420 high-rise condos or the 278,000 feet of office space to be built instead of the previously approved 195-room hotel.
It was trying to understand how a new 72,000-square-foot city hall, which needed three acres of land to be built anywhere else in town, now only needs a little more than an acre.
The lack of land needed seems to be explained in The Irvine Company’s statement: “ guarantee use of required parking spaces to exclusively serve the City Hall.” By using TIC’s parking structure, the city would not have to buy the additional land needed for parking.
Does that mean that The Irvine Company is going to pay for the portion of the parking structure that the city uses? I don’t think so.
Calling around to people who have some idea of what would be negotiated in a development agreement with TIC, expect that the city will have to pay for construction of its portion of the parking structure and maintenance of the same.
So now it looks like the city will be paying for 280 spaces in a parking structure on land the city will not own. How do you think this affects citizens who want to visit city hall?
First understand that the parking on San Nichols Drive between Newport Center Drive and Avocado, where city hall is being proposed, is already “Controlled Access Parking.”
What is controlled-access parking? It’s parking for which you pay $1 for each 20-minute segment because you lost or forget to get your parking ticket validated before you got back in your car. TIC is planning an additional 206,000 square feet of office space in this same area.
Therefore, the city’s parking spaces will also have to be accessed controlled. So whenever you go to do anything at city hall, you will have to take a ticket. Just don’t forget the validation.
Of course, that does not include city staff or council — they get a card key to get in and out. Only citizens need to take a ticket.
Now compare this to the City Hall in the Park plan. Thursday afternoon I had the pleasure of talking to two proponents of the park plan: Bill Ficker and Ron Hendrickson.
Besides the fact that the citizens of Newport Beach already own the land, another major difference with their plan is that the “below line of site” parking structure they have planned would provide not only 280 parking spaces for city hall but an additional 120 much-needed spaces for the library.
In addition, the parking could also be used for the park. This parking would be open to the public with no parking tickets to lose.
What a concept: free parking when you go to the library, city hall or the park. Here’s a tough decision. Should the city use the several million dollars already budgeted for the parking lot in the park on city hall or should we just save it?
The reason I bring up these inane issues is that when you are being told that it costs more to build on land we already own than on land we have to buy, you have to wonder are the opponents of city hall in the park comparing apples to apples.Parking costs are just one of the issues with which they are trying to confuse you.
Though some might disagree, on balance, The Irvine Company has been a good steward of the development and management at Newport Center. The problems in the presentation started only when it tried to explain the development of the city hall project.
A rule of thumb in business is that if something that shouldn’t be confusing is, someone is trying to confuse you.
That’s how I felt when I walked away after the presentation The Irvine Company (TIC) made for their “non-expansion” expansion of Fashion Island. The confusing part was not the adding of 420 high-rise condos or the 278,000 feet of office space to be built instead of the previously approved 195-room hotel.
It was trying to understand how a new 72,000-square-foot city hall, which needed three acres of land to be built anywhere else in town, now only needs a little more than an acre.
The lack of land needed seems to be explained in The Irvine Company’s statement: “ guarantee use of required parking spaces to exclusively serve the City Hall.” By using TIC’s parking structure, the city would not have to buy the additional land needed for parking.
Does that mean that The Irvine Company is going to pay for the portion of the parking structure that the city uses? I don’t think so.
Calling around to people who have some idea of what would be negotiated in a development agreement with TIC, expect that the city will have to pay for construction of its portion of the parking structure and maintenance of the same.
So now it looks like the city will be paying for 280 spaces in a parking structure on land the city will not own. How do you think this affects citizens who want to visit city hall?
First understand that the parking on San Nichols Drive between Newport Center Drive and Avocado, where city hall is being proposed, is already “Controlled Access Parking.”
What is controlled-access parking? It’s parking for which you pay $1 for each 20-minute segment because you lost or forget to get your parking ticket validated before you got back in your car. TIC is planning an additional 206,000 square feet of office space in this same area.
Therefore, the city’s parking spaces will also have to be accessed controlled. So whenever you go to do anything at city hall, you will have to take a ticket. Just don’t forget the validation.
Of course, that does not include city staff or council — they get a card key to get in and out. Only citizens need to take a ticket.
Now compare this to the City Hall in the Park plan. Thursday afternoon I had the pleasure of talking to two proponents of the park plan: Bill Ficker and Ron Hendrickson.
Besides the fact that the citizens of Newport Beach already own the land, another major difference with their plan is that the “below line of site” parking structure they have planned would provide not only 280 parking spaces for city hall but an additional 120 much-needed spaces for the library.
In addition, the parking could also be used for the park. This parking would be open to the public with no parking tickets to lose.
What a concept: free parking when you go to the library, city hall or the park. Here’s a tough decision. Should the city use the several million dollars already budgeted for the parking lot in the park on city hall or should we just save it?
The reason I bring up these inane issues is that when you are being told that it costs more to build on land we already own than on land we have to buy, you have to wonder are the opponents of city hall in the park comparing apples to apples.Parking costs are just one of the issues with which they are trying to confuse you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
