183 replies to this topic

[benning]

I made the same offer a few pages back, remarkably the people expecting developers to sell their land below market value were unwilling to sell me their house under the same conditions.

sorry, not under the same conditions. Under the same conditions that developers are facing now, I would gladly sell below market value, but to a worth cause, not to bish or even Dave.

[benning]

Now, as far as the developer's 1/3 requirement of fees - that's state law, and the 1/3 was legislated by your representatives, and further negotiated between the BIA and the school districts WHO SIGNED THE AGREEMENT.  The state recognizes that there are 3 funding sources for schools - 1/3 developer, 1/3 property owners, and 1/3 state allocations. 

If you don't agree with this formula, instead of bashing the developers, why not approach your elected officials and have them increase the developers' share, or maybe the property owners' share, or maybe even the state's share.  At the same time, ask your school districts to manage what money they do have better than they have been.

Let's not forget that the 1/3 property owner element and the 1/3 state allocation element you mentioned above hinge on a bond passages-- by no means a 'given'.

I believe that the developer 1/3 cap was part of a statewide bond whereby the developers agreed to support the bond if the measure included this cap.

Changing state law is one way to do it, yes. However, parents and school districts don't and never will have a lobby that is any where near as strong as the BIA's. Another easier and more direct option would be for us to take local action (through developer agreements and *shock* exploration of solutions based on altruism).

Regarding voluntary contributions and below market land sales: the Parker Development Company website touts how they 'give back to the community'. Well this is just another way they could possibly do it, and frankly, it's more directly beneficial to the community. I don't mean to bash developers, I just think the paradigm needs shifting.

[benning]

It's just plain naive to expect any business to sell any asset below market value out of altruism. (Not saying that you've advocated that dave, but others have).

Expect, yes. Suggest, no.

[benning]

[attachmentid=497]Here's that ball of twine

Kansas is a nice place... you should visit it sometime.  It has the biggest ball of twine ... plenty of wheat fields... and the lovely metropolis of Wichita. 

[Terry]

Changing state law is one way to do it, yes.  However, parents and school districts don't and never will have a lobby that is any where near as strong as the BIA's.  Another easier and more direct option would be for us to take local action (through developer agreements and *shock* exploration of solutions based on altruism). 

A lobby not as strong as BIA????? I think parents and school districts have the California Teachers Association stumping for them. Too bad the CTA is not the model of integrity it should be. Maybe even less than your impression of the BIA.

[benning]

A lobby not as strong as BIA?????  I think parents and school districts have the California Teachers Association stumping for them.  Too bad the CTA is not the model of integrity it should be.  Maybe even less than your impression of the BIA.

CTA doesn't care as much about school buildings as salaries, class sizes, etc.
They pick their battles. Although powerful, can't count on them too much for this one.
I didn't say BIA doesn't have integrity. I think they're doing a fantastic job.

[DrKoz23]

[attachmentid=497]Here's that ball of twine

That picture brings tears to my eyes. Thanks for the memories.

[tessieca]

Now why the City and School Board did not also lock in an agreed price at the time, I do not know. Perhaps Tessieca can tell us.

1) No money back then with no bond. 2) The site is not for all of Parkway as Terry suggests; it is for Phase II. 3) Phase II was not being built so there were no kids to serve. 4) When the district did an appraisal in anticipation of purchase, Parker ignored it, fully expecting, I assume that the land values would continue to inflate.

Come on people, if Parker had agreed to sell at the then-appraised value, the district would not have had to start condemnation. Condemnation only occurs when there is an unwilling seller.

School or no school... the developer will make the sale.

Don't be naive. MANY new subdivisions were told exactly where there new school was going to be built. We bought our home in Natoma Station with the sellers pointing to the empty property that was supposed to be a school in a year or so. Only AFTER purchasing did we find out that the district did not own the land and the developer was asking an extraordinary price despite the presence of slickens. Talk to the disgruntled Los Cerros buyers who thought there site would be next to Livermore Park. Or go back even further and talk to those who had issues with the land purchase and building of Oak Chan. Elliott subdivisions are the only ones who have avoided this issue in Folsom, and that was by being reasonable, by seeing the value in having schools in neighborhoods, and by ensuring that those schools could be built. I'm sure they would be happy to share with Parker how they could do that and still make a good profit.

And, I have "shopped" many newer subdivisions over the years, specifically asking what school my children would attend. Sometimes you get the answer to call the district, and other times they'll just point out the schools and school sites nearby. This avoids a real answer, yet leads buyers to believe the closest school is where their children will attend, or that the nearby school site will really be a school soon.

[DrKoz23]

Don't be naive.  MANY new subdivisions were told exactly where there new school was going to be built.  We bought our home in Natoma Station with the sellers pointing to the empty property that was supposed to be a school in a year or so.  Only AFTER purchasing did we find out that the district did not own the land and the developer was asking an extraordinary price despite the presence of slickens.  Talk to the disgruntled Los Cerros buyers who thought there site would be next to Livermore Park.  Or go back even further and talk to those who had issues with the land purchase and building of Oak Chan.  Elliott subdivisions are the only ones who have avoided this issue in Folsom, and that was by being reasonable, by seeing the value in having schools in neighborhoods, and by ensuring that those schools could be built.  I'm sure they would be happy to share with Parker how they could do that and still make a good profit.

And, I have "shopped" many newer subdivisions over the years, specifically asking what school my children would attend.  Sometimes you get the answer to call the district, and other times they'll just point out the schools and school sites nearby.  This avoids a real answer, yet leads buyers to believe the closest school is where their children will attend, or that the nearby school site will really be a school soon.

Don't be naive!?! Maybe I should be making that comment to you. With how hot the housing market is in the Sacramento area... any developer has and still will be able to sell a house if a neighborhood school is not guaranteed. Like I said in a previous post... a school is a selling point... but not a deal killer if one isn't to be built!

There are plenty of young couples without kids who would purchase a home for slightly less if there was no neighborhood school.

There are plenty of retired people without any kids in the house anymore who would purchase a home for slightly less if there was no neighborhood school.

Schools are important to some people when moving into a house... but not for everyone. Not everyone is like you!

[tessieca]

The thing is, Koz, most people buying those large homes do, in fact, have or plan to have children.

AND, builders ARE using the schools as a selling point. You will not find them telling potential buyers that there will be no school close by or that they'll have to pass a couple of the schools they see on the map in order to find one with room. They're implying that there will be a school by placing a school site on their maps. They're implying that kids can go to a nearby school by showing the locations of the nearest schools on the maps. They say to call the district, but people don't because they assume that their kids will go to the nearest school.

[bishmasterb]

Tess,

I was told by the builder that there were impact problems with the nearby schools when we bought in the Parkway, Phase II. Perhaps that is the exception, but it's what I was told nonetheless.

Speaking of naivete, the only misinformed belief going around here is that anyone should be expected to sell their property at a time when it is not advantageous for them to do so.

[benning]

unless, of course, that property owner made an agreement to sell the site as a condition of approval for development.

[bishmasterb]

unless, of course, that property owner made an agreement to sell the site as a condition of approval for development.

Fine then, show everyone the agreement that the developer entered into with the school district. Where is it?

If there is a contract, and one of the parties is in default, then this matter should be resolved in the courts.

[Robert Giacometti]

Speaking of naivete, the only misinformed belief going around here is that anyone should be expected to sell their property at a time when it is not advantageous for them to do so.

Bish,

I have to agree with you on this one!

The biggest flaw in this sytem is that the Developer Agreement ( DA) is negotiated and signed by the City and unfortunately they sometimes don't include the necesary triggers for schools. Since there are no mechanisms in place to encourage the sale of land for school sites or conditions that if its not done building will cease, the Developer can sit on their land knowing the value is appreciating while they delay the sale. Problems arise when the progect is built out to a certain level that the school is needed and the neighborhood is upset about a lack of schools. I sense this is what occurred in the Parkway.

This is why it is so imperative that the S50 annexation have conditions ( triggers)in place to address these concerns so that this doesn't occur again.

[benning]

As a condition of approval for development, I believe the developer has to indicate a school site on the subdivision map. No site shown, no approval. But unfortunately, that's as far as it goes. So there is no 'contract' to sue them over, but there is an agreement that that's where the neighborhood school should go.