Posts Tagged ‘pearblossom drive property’

pic

LOST IN CITY BOOKS: THE SMALL PIECE OF CITY PROPERTY ABOVE HAD A BASKETBALL COURT AND TENNIS COURT BUILT ON IT, WITH NO KNOWN CITY RECORD OF WHO BUILT IT.

Date: November 10, 2015 at 4:36:11 PM PST
To: asmelendrez@riversideca.gov, mgardner@riversideca.gov, cmacarthur@riversideca.gov, rbailey@riversideca.gov, azelinka@riversideca.gov, jrusso@riversideca.gov, jburnard@riversideca.gov, CNicol@riversideca.gov
Cc: arobinson@pe.com, cmacduff@pe.com

Subject: Comments to item 14, Oppose

November 10, 2015
Item 14 on CC agenda
Sale agreement for Tennis and Basket ball court on Pearblossom Drive.
Dear Council members,

I oppose this item.

It’s been three years since this issue first came to the council’s attention.
For the sake of the newest council members, let me recap some background not included in staff report.
As I recall from research three years ago, this property was set aside as park space by the builder of the housing development, down the cul de sac, and across the street back in the 60’s. At some point, apartments were built on both sides of the subject property by a different builder. At some point a single tennis court and basket ball court was built.

It appears the apartment property was sold in 06′, the new owner wanted to refinance in 12′ and discovered they really didn’t own the separate lot containing the tennis/basket ball court. They then approached city staff about obtaining title to this property and staff placed an agenda item before the CC to quit claim title for zero compensation to the city.

Here are some thoughts about this property:
-The tennis court is posted as being only available to residents of the apartment complex and not open to public use. The apartment owner advertises the tennis court and basket ball court as amenities to the tenants.
-As the property is owned by the city of Riverside it is doubtful that property taxes have ever been paid on this property by the apartment owners who are claiming to own it.
– The current and previous owners of the apartment owners have received the benefit of the use of this property for years without legal title or payment of taxes. Local city residents have been denied the use of this property for which the original developer of their tract had dedicated this property to the city for their recreational use.
-If there was a misrepresentation or fraud concerning the ownership of this property, the current owner needs to seek a remedy with the seller of the apartment property, the agents of the seller, and possibly with the title insurance policy every prudent purchaser of real property would obtain. If the current owner failed to do due diligence or purchase title insurance, it is not the responsibility of the city to make them whole.
-City staff appears to have not calculated the loss of property tax of which the city should seek to recapture.
-City staff has not estimated the damages to the city for loss of use.
-It is outrageous that it has ever been considered to gift this property to this private, for profit, investment group, who basically has stolen park land from the city.
-While the current proposal is to sell the property for $5K, it is still insulting. The apartment owners want to claim they made $35k in improvements to the property, but they have had all the tax free benefits of the use of that property for years.
-It’s upsetting that the city, upon discovering this ownership problem three years ago, didn’t attempt to compel the apartment owners into a month to month rental agreement, so as to reassert the city’s ownership and gain compensation for use of public property.
-There is a shortage of public tennis courts and parkland in the city of Riverside. Certainly, the city should be trying to recover enough funds from the sale of this property to replicate the resource to the benefit of the community it was originally intended, in a different location.
-If this property is to be disposed, it should be offered as a open bid. I belong to a public non-profit who would be willing to bid on this property. Perhaps that would be a fair way of establishing market value.

Site photos below.

Respectfully,
Kevin Dawson
ward two
Riverside CA

IMG_3312     IMG_3314     IMG_3317

CLICK ON PHOTOS TO ENLARGE

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”.  WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!