Bank moves to foreclose on RPV's Terranea resort

Full story: Daily Breeze

The Terranea Resort hotel has 180 degree views of the ocean from its blufftop perch.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of78
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Don Diller

Sun Valley, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

3

3

2

I think a good question to ask right now is: Why didn't RPV have a contingency plan in place in case something like this happened?

A followup question would be appropriate: Were they misled during the tax holiday negotiations?

In my opinion, this mess, the destruction of irreplaceable ocean views and priceless public access, is all a result of giant egos. The developer for sure, to a lesser degree members of a small town city council caught up "in the deal" selling OUR ocean front heritage to balance the books, and wanting get off by being part of a huge financial scheme. What more can we say when the lawyer hired by the city is reduced to wishing for "something magical to happen"?

RPV has been played like a cheap tin whistle by the big boys from out of town.
Another RPV Resident

Redondo Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Don Diller wrote:
I think a good question to ask right now is: Why didn't RPV have a contingency plan in place in case something like this happened?
A followup question would be appropriate: Were they misled during the tax holiday negotiations?
In my opinion, this mess, the destruction of irreplaceable ocean views and priceless public access, is all a result of giant egos. The developer for sure, to a lesser degree members of a small town city council caught up "in the deal" selling OUR ocean front heritage to balance the books, and wanting get off by being part of a huge financial scheme. What more can we say when the lawyer hired by the city is reduced to wishing for "something magical to happen"?
RPV has been played like a cheap tin whistle by the big boys from out of town.
I am not following your logic at all. What more do you think the city could have done differently here? The $8 million the city offered (and for which the owner could not meet the conditions that he proposed) is tiny in comparison to the over $300 million debt on the property. True the city is out $150,000 it may not get back but the city is not out the $8 million and has sold nothing to anyone. The property was and is private property and the city had no ability to buy it or to finance a "contigency plan." Any new owner of the resort will need to satisfy all the conditions of public access and public amenities imposed on the current owner. Without the resort development, the property would have remained as it was or been developed as private homes with less public access and fewer views. It seems you have not even been there to see what the resort has to offer or you would not say what you say above.
Raze it

Torrance, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Raze this white elephant and make it a park.

Shame on the bumpkins on the RPV city council who were conned.
Educate yourself

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Raze it wrote:
Raze this white elephant and make it a park.
Shame on the bumpkins on the RPV city council who were conned.
It's private property! RPV can't afford to buy it and make it a park.
Sam

Pasadena, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

These things happen and are happening all over. The banks do not want ownership of the property. To manage and run a resort is very specfic. I highly doubt the property will be sold at auction, the only reason the banks filed a NOD is to protect their interest legally. The first loan is going to be restructured and sold to another bank and the second will be restructured. Watch and see.
A boy from da hood

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

1

RPV can afford anything. Well, almost anything (Terranea)....lol
Sam

Pasadena, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

4

2

1

Darling Raju, why don't you purchase the property, God knows you can afford it.
Sam

Pasadena, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

3

1

1

Also the reason you can't sell the Trump properties is because they are overpriced POS's. No one in California wants to sleep in a basement.
kma

Newington, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RPV sure made a wise decision to forgo collecting (non-existant) hotel taxes ;<O I hope they are smart enough not to let the new owners keep this benefit that only hurts RPV. These clowns should have let Trump do his thing!
westside steve

Van Nuys, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Aug 27, 2009
 
As I commented back in spring: RPV should only do the deal assuming they will never get any of the tax "holiday" revenue. It amounts to an unsecured debt, which zeroes it out during bankruptcy re-structurings.
Still, if it could operate, it might be worth considering for the other tax revenues and economic stimulus it could generate. The Writer is correct, trade& professional meetings and wedding receptions will avoid advance bookings at Terranea like the plague until things are settled: and they are a significant revenue stream for such properties.

“cracker-barrel philosopher”

Since: Jan 08

Wilmington/Carson/San Pedro

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Staff reports are generally not frivolous documents. They generally show good information and documentation that supports the conclusions in the reports. They also offer expertise and guidance to politicians who are confronted by all kinds of thinking and influence. That doesn't mean politicians have to rely solely on staff reports. But, I think they need good reasons to ignore them. RPV ignored their staff report on this development and they failed to show good cause for doing so. The recent events are evidence of that.
SoCal

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anyone been to Terranea? It's a complete cluster-F. Food service was a disaster, even getting a dring in the lobby bar was a train wreck. The place is so horribly managaged that I can't see how it will survive.
SoCal

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

1

kma wrote:
Hey, with all the Asians moving in to RPV apartments someone could convert the hotel into an apartment building. They don't don't need multi-room apartmens - one room with a sterno stove will work just fine ;<)
Nice to see the KKK is alive an kicking in CT. Moron.
No Sympathy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Aug 27, 2009
 
Can someone break it down for me?

How much money does the city have at risk of losing (aside from the foregone tax revenues)?

$150k or $8m?

What are the economics of the tax rebate deal? Did the city agree to forgo collecting the occupancy taxes to the tune of $8m to assist in financing the project? Does the city have $8m receivable due from the resort?
M Richards

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Fairness dictates that we look at some realities.

To kma, the city of R.P.V. will probably be owed some $240,000 in current TOT revenues by the end of August. I hope the resort placed those funds in an escrow account so the city will get that money.

As long as Terranea remains open, the 10% TOT will still be owed UNLESS we voters vote in November to raise the TOT to 12%.

The former Long Point Project that warped into Terranea started over 12 years ago. Had anyone thought we all would be in the financial pickle our country has been in, Mr. Lowe and his backers would have ended this long ago.

Technically, Corus held the Project in a default mode prior to the vote to approve the now-ended T.O.T. Rebate Program. The C.C. was read a letter prior to their vote notifying them of the technical default that then, seemed to be just a minor matter to them.

Now we should worry that paychecks of workers don't start bouncing like ping-pong balls. If you are a vendor of Terranea or have other interests in the Resort, you may wish to worry, too.

With both the primary and mezzanine lenders foreclosing on the Project, if one hasn't visited the site by now, and one still wishes to, you may want to take your camera soon, lest you find chain-link fencing thrown up around the property.

I am not feeling comfortable that any new entity may wish to keep the site open during these particular times, if it closes within my predicted timeframe. It could just be best to mothball the site for a period of time until it can come back in a stronger economy.

But I am not rich, so I really don't know if the wealthy, the folks the Resort was really built for, can save it from closing down.
Orkys Revenge

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

7

4

1

Bring back Marineland!
the watchdog

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

this is confirmation of the boondoggle this building was...luxury resort...great. so bill gates and his buddies would have a place to hang on the peninsula when they fly their private jets into LA for a quick meeting. what a joke...i hope this place falls into the sea where it belongs...why wasn't a park built there where the taxpayers could enjoy the view? oh yeah...because a park cant charge $600 a night for a 200 sq ft room!
M Richards

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

I have not visited the property on Long Point in years and I haven't toured Terranea.

But I am not of the socio-economic class of folks the Resort was intended to serve. I don't drink alcoholic beverages and I certainly do not need to eat expensive food that I know I can be served at other great restaurants in Rancho Palos Verdes that fit more with my character.

Walking along public-access trails would be fine, but we do that at Trump already. There are many trails and pathways along our coast that we can enjoy without walking along Long Point.

I do think the city will not be able to collect the monies it spent so far on the Project. Our city will probably not be able to recoup any funds to maintain P.V.D. South along the slide area that was more impacted due to construction traffic from Terranea.

The Council members who voted for the T.O.T. Rebate in the first place will end their terms either this December or in just two years and they are not able to stand for reelection.

We can judge who we might vote for in the future by learning what the current candidates for the two seats up for a vote in November think about the Project and its issues.
such a shame

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

4

1

1

I just rode my bike around the peninsula the other day and was shocked at the blighted coastline. It used to be such a scenic, gorgeous stretch of road along the ocean. Now, that area is just an ugly patch of grotesque buildings. Too bad. And, now what? Soon to be a vacant, bunch of decaying buildings??? Why, RPV, why did you not have the foresight to keep the land as it should be-a very rare parcel of gorgeous nature to be enjoyed for generations to come. Instead of being recognized as the city with a vision to maintain a real piece of native California, you now are nationally known as one who gave into temptation and now have a royal mess on your hands. Good luck with that one.
Don Diller

Sun Valley, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Aug 27, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Another RPV Resident wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not following your logic at all. What more do you think the city could have done differently here? The $8 million the city offered (and for which the owner could not meet the conditions that he proposed) is tiny in comparison to the over $300 million debt on the property. True the city is out $150,000 it may not get back but the city is not out the $8 million and has sold nothing to anyone. The property was and is private property and the city had no ability to buy it or to finance a "contigency plan." Any new owner of the resort will need to satisfy all the conditions of public access and public amenities imposed on the current owner. Without the resort development, the property would have remained as it was or been developed as private homes with less public access and fewer views. It seems you have not even been there to see what the resort has to offer or you would not say what you say above.
Actually I have been there, twice. The first time was a complete disaster, the second time not much better. And, to tell the truth, I liked it empty. At least then you could enjoy the view.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of78
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••