Scotts Valley could buy Suburban Propane land tonight

After 20 years of haggling, bickering and legal threats, Scotts Valley leaders tonight will consider buying approximately 1.5 acres owned by Suburban Propane for nearly $2 million -- a crucial step forward for the city's long-planned town center. Full Story
lee piazza

Pacific Grove, CA

#1 Jan 20, 2010
Why does Santa Cruz own two parcels of property in Scotts Valley?
Guv here to help

Santa Cruz, CA

#2 Jan 20, 2010
lee piazza wrote:
Why does Santa Cruz own two parcels of property in Scotts Valley?
Because the City of Santa Cruz used to own most of this area when it was Scotts Valley Airport. Now the taxpayer foots the bill while these bureaucracies operate like a “Banana Republic” to provide space for tenants ironically of the same name!
good move

Santa Cruz, CA

#3 Jan 20, 2010
those propane tanks have been an eyesore since I moved here glad they're finally going out.
yo head in the sand SC

Ripon, CA

#4 Jan 20, 2010
lee piazza wrote:
Why does Santa Cruz own two parcels of property in Scotts Valley?
A better question is why all the retail, especial new retail outlets, are going to be in Scotts Valley, Capitola and Aptos. Santa Cruz "leaders" are idiots to let all the sales tax revenue to out of town. The smaller cities and county are the beneficiaries. Plus, the population of SC must drive 5-10 miles each way to shop...there goes the air quality, increased traffic congestion, etc. The shoppers tend to eat and drink while hitting the stores, further robbing SC of revenue and jobs. I remember when Scotts Valley was a Greyhound bus stop in a coffee shop (and it was a brief stop to load and unload passengers), blueberry fields, and sand and gravel pits. Plus a nice litte airport so you didn't have to drive to Watsonville to use a private plane. Now look at Scotts Valley. In spite of themselves, they have much that Santa Cruz doesn't. In may ways I'm glad to be gone, despite SC being my home town.
incomplete

United States

#5 Jan 20, 2010
Bustichi said work could begin "as soon as six months or as long as five years,"

Nice, where can i get this Crystal ball, or do I just borrow his Realtor's? Or is this just another politician promise/ Sorry buddy, it could be as long as 10 to 20 years. And thats without using a crystal ball. Dont be blind to history.
Steve Hartman

AOL

#6 Jan 20, 2010
The city is "BUYING" the land? What a concept! Government is actually going to pay the property owner, as they should, instead of trying to steal the property outright. Isn't it grand to see how things are supposed to work in America?

Now the only question is: If the city would have done the right thing and bought the property to begin with, years ago, how much would citizens have saved in tax dollars?

Let's all just hope that the city is equally fair with the good folks at AmeriGas.
Hopeful

Carmel, CA

#7 Jan 20, 2010
Six months to five years? How long did the city of Capitola play around with Rispin Mansion before they realized that is was a no-go. Please, this project could span generations before it takes off, if at all.
Paid for with Bonds

Santa Cruz, CA

#8 Jan 20, 2010
It would be nice if the Sentinel posted the actual number for the acquisition. This is not a "nearly $2 million" purchase it is a $2.5 million dollar purchase buy the City paid for with Bonds the City Council issued without asking for voter approval.
The purchase is $1.9 million plus $600k for expenses paid to Suburban Propane which totals $2.5 million and that is not counting the high interest costs on the $2.5 million Bond.

This is the second time recently when the City Council has authorized debt in the form of new City Bonds without voter approval. First with the library now with the Suburban Propane deal. Guess who pays for the bonds? The tax payers of the City and this new tax was done without your vote of approval. Time for transparency in Scotts Valley!
RDA bonds

San Francisco, CA

#9 Jan 20, 2010
The previous poster is correct, these funds are secured through bonding, but he has not told you that the bonds come from the city's Re-Development Agency, NOT from the general fund. None of the costs for moving the propane tanks (it's about time!) or building the library take anything away from police, roads, parks, schools or any other general fund purpose.

Re-Development Agencies are set up for the exact purpose as their names imply, to re-develop property and areas that would benefit from public infrastructure projects like new roads, revenue-producing developments, a library, etc. These agencies have a guaranteed revenue stream of millions of dollars, enough to float bonds without needing voter approval. Why isn't voter approval needed? Because the amount of debt is relatively small and manageable given the guaranteed revenue streams that will be coming in for decades. There are clearly defined limits of how much debt can be incurred and what the city is doing fits well within those.

This is a perfect use of these funds. The city should have no higher priority after providing daily services of making the Town Center happen.
Bend Dover

Santa Cruz, CA

#10 Jan 20, 2010
When hall moniter Michael Shulman speaks no one listens.
incomplete

United States

#11 Jan 20, 2010
Bonds means it will ultimately cost 2x as much to pay off the bond. So SV residents are willing to spend 5 million to pay off this latest debt. May or may not be worth it. Its up to the SV taxpayers, who will foot this bill, to decide. But if SV residents are willing to swallow additional taxes, it will be spent as fast as the council picks their pockets.

Guess how this works out in the long run. SV will give this land to a developer for free to build the mall. SV will then give millions in tax breaks to big corporations to occupy the mall. Thats ok, the taxpayers wont mind or need to hear about those details. Tricky part is the high vacany rate for commercial buildings that will increase greatly when commercial real estate goes thru its foreclosure purge in the next couple years.

And yes Steve, it is nice to see property bought instead of stolen.

On the bright side, SV wont let their mall become a craphole like downtown Santa Cruz, yet...
The Party is over

Santa Cruz, CA

#12 Jan 20, 2010
RDA bonds wrote:
The previous poster is correct, these funds are secured through bonding, but he has not told you that the bonds come from the city's Re-Development Agency, NOT from the general fund.
Didn't you get the memo? The spending party is over! The SV City Council needs to learn that the taxpayers want to have a say before the City Council decides to issue more bonds. It doesn't matter one bit if the bonds are general fund bonds or RDA bonds the money still comes from the tax payers. When will this Council learn that the voters want to have a say before we are saddled with more City debt. If this bond issue had been put to the voters would it have been approved? Perhaps the Council should have found out the answer to that question before they decided to sell more bonds.

Put ALL bond selling to vote by the taxpayers.
Professor Pat

Placerville, CA

#13 Jan 20, 2010
Enuf of this blather about a town center...given the dismal economic future facing this country, let's think about the future use of the airport property in more realistic terms...how about we turn it into a giant dog park, replete with grassy knolls, ponds, doggie par courses, water fountains, etc., etc.?
Wescruz

Santa Cruz, CA

#14 Jan 20, 2010
Professor Pat wrote:
Enuf of this blather about a town center...given the dismal economic future facing this country, let's think about the future use of the airport property in more realistic terms...how about we turn it into a giant dog park, replete with grassy knolls, ponds, doggie par courses, water fountains, etc., etc.?
I agree. They ought to let it go to the dogs.
the right kind of dog that is. Our leaders are a dog of a different type.
RDA bonds

San Francisco, CA

#15 Jan 20, 2010
incomplete wrote:
Bonds means it will ultimately cost 2x as much to pay off the bond. So SV residents are willing to spend 5 million to pay off this latest debt. May or may not be worth it. Its up to the SV taxpayers, who will foot this bill, to decide. But if SV residents are willing to swallow additional taxes, it will be spent as fast as the council picks their pockets.
Guess how this works out in the long run. SV will give this land to a developer for free to build the mall. SV will then give millions in tax breaks to big corporations to occupy the mall. Thats ok, the taxpayers wont mind or need to hear about those details. Tricky part is the high vacany rate for commercial buildings that will increase greatly when commercial real estate goes thru its foreclosure purge in the next couple years.
And yes Steve, it is nice to see property bought instead of stolen.
On the bright side, SV wont let their mall become a craphole like downtown Santa Cruz, yet...
Your post contains a whopping falsehood. Who said the Council is going to give away the land? You know the danger of ASSuming.
fly n swine

San Francisco, CA

#16 Jan 20, 2010
Ya right. The council 'will consider' purchasing the land considering they've wanted to pounce on it for years. The article makes it sound like SV might not buy it. Ya, sure; and there's a new variety of pig that can fly.
Fashionista

Santa Cruz, CA

#17 Jan 20, 2010
Ann Taylor Loft & Coldwater Creek? Ugh! That's not going to make me spend my dollars on this side of the hill.
Longtime Local

Cotati, CA

#18 Jan 20, 2010
Progress! No matter how the naysayers want to perceive it SV is on the way to making itself the BEST place in Santa Cruz County. Why do people always have to find fault with improving things? No one cared when Mt. Hermon Rd. filled up with fast food joints. Not much is uglier or more unhealthy than that! Believe it or not SV will actually have a town center that we can all be very proud of. Thanks you council for moving things along!
Professor Pat

Placerville, CA

#19 Jan 23, 2010
Longtime Local wrote:
Progress! No matter how the naysayers want to perceive it SV is on the way to making itself the BEST place in Santa Cruz County. Why do people always have to find fault with improving things? No one cared when Mt. Hermon Rd. filled up with fast food joints. Not much is uglier or more unhealthy than that! Believe it or not SV will actually have a town center that we can all be very proud of. Thanks you council for moving things along!
Lol..."...SV is on the way to making itself the BEST place in Santa Cruz County..." More like the "armpit" of Santa Cruz County...why don't we just rename it "Campbell West" and leave it at that?
Crissa

Sunnyvale, CA

#20 Jan 28, 2010
Tanks are an eyesore...

...But cold houses are worse.

Personally, I'd rather have businesses that spend their earnings in the county like these fuel companies than ones that the profits all go out of state...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Suburban Propane Partners LP Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Getting ready to move: Suburban Propane builds ... (Jul '10) Jul '10 Council gettin th... 22
Getting ready to move: Suburban Propane builds ... (Jul '10) Jul '10 Wrangler 1
Scotts Valley buys gateway to new town center (Jan '10) Jan '10 Check the facts 33
Scotts Valley council clears path for move of p... (Jan '09) Jan '09 homer 93
Propane tank tussle could delay Scotts Valley T... (Dec '08) Jan '09 TaxPaynMeatEatn R... 35
Scotts Valley council clears path for move of p... (Jan '09) Jan '09 No Tanks Builder ... 21
Scotts Valley gas company makes another plea to... (Dec '08) Dec '08 Better business s... 12

Suburban Propane Partners LP People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE