Marina Towers to go before Oceanside council this summer

By: DAVID STERRETT - Staff Writer | Tuesday, March 6, 2007 12:24 PM PST ∞

This summer Oceanside City Council will again vote on a controversial agreement that would allow homeowners in the Oceanside's Marina Towers, a 17-story condominium complex overlooking the Oceanside Harbor, to purchase the acre of city-owned land where the building sits.
JAMIE SCOTT LYTLE Staff Photographer
Order a copy of this photo
Visit our Photo Gallery

OCEANSIDE -- A contentious proposal to sell an acre of city-owned land to homeowners in the 17-story Marina Towers condominium complex will go back before the City Council this summer, the homeowners association president said Monday.

"We are in the end phases of negotiations," said homeowners president Jules Briskin, adding that the association plans to provide comments on a draft sale proposal to city staffers in the next couple of months.

The council voted 3-2 last March to sell the property on Harbor Drive, with its scenic ocean views, to the condo owners whose building sits on top of it. Briskin said the association's lawyers have spent the last year working on details of the deal that could generate between $74 million and $250 million for the city.

City Attorney John Mullen said Oceanside is waiting for the draft comments and that he won't know when the issue will go to the council until he sees what changes the association wants to make to the lengthy sale proposal.

Briskin said the major terms of the deal haven't changed and call for the homeowners to pay the city $1.2 million once the deal is signed and 3 percent of the sale price for every condominium sold over the next 60 years.

The towering complex built in 1975 features 67 condominiums. The homeowners association pays the city $57,000 a year under the terms of a 60-year lease that runs through 2036. Once the lease runs out, the city could take ownership of the condominiums.

Residents who have opposed the deal say that the city shouldn't sell valuable property located near the harbor, but supporters say the site could generate millions for Oceanside.

The association representatives have said owning the land will allow them to secure loans they need to improve the aging building that has outdated elevators, plumbing and electrical systems.

The deal with the city also calls for the association to spend $500,000 to improve the outside of the building, and Briskin said the upgrades will include new facade and coat of paint on the white stone tower.

Briskin said the deal will also provide the city with more money each year to pay for services and facilities because of the proceeds from the sale of condominiums. Based on past sales record and an assumption that people sell homes about every nine years, about seven condominiums will be sold each year, according to the association.

The roughly 1,500-square-foot condominiums all have ocean views and have sold in the last year for between $725,000 and $950,000, Briskin said.

If seven condominiums are sold for $900,000 apiece each year, the city would receive about $190,000 annually from the proceeds. Briskin said the money should increase, because the value of the condominiums will increase with the improvements.

"This is a partnership," Briskin said of the deal. "We will prosper and the city will prosper."

But not all city officials or citizens believe the deal will benefit Oceanside taxpayers.

Councilman Rocky Chavez, who voted against the deal last year, said that any time the city sells public land it should go to an open bid.

"I would like to see if we went on the open market, what the price would be?" Chavez said.

Briskin said that separate assessors for the city and homeowners association have valued the land with the lease at between $2 million and $3 million, and the city would receive much more than that under the deal.

But Chavez said the city should receive a better price for the piece of beach front property right off Interstate 5.

Former Councilwoman Shari Mackin, who also voted against the deal last year, has adamantly opposed selling the land.

"The land is much more valuable than what the city is willing to settle for," Mackin said. "It's a windfall for the investors and not the citizens of the city."

Mackin said the homeowners association should have spent more money maintaining the building, and she wants to see the city renegotiate the lease with the association.

Briskin said he expects Mackin to lead opposition to the sale later this summer. He said that last year Mackin was a "one-councilwoman stumbling block to the deal" when she pressed city staffers for documents and records.

Councilman Jack Feller, Councilwoman Esther Sanchez, and Mayor Jim Wood voted for the deal last year, and new Councilman Jerry Kern said during his campaign in the fall that he supported it as well.

"There is the potential to make millions off property that now makes $57,000 a year," Wood said Monday. "As a business deal it seems reasonable, but that doesn't mean Oceanside is stealing the farm."

-- Contact staff writer David Sterrett at (760) 901-4067 or dsterrett@nctimes.com.

Next

More Stories

Tags:

Bookmark and Share

Ads by Yahoo!

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

Beach Girl wrote on Mar 5, 2007 9:08 PM:Just another give away by this council. Why?

Public Property-! wrote on Mar 5, 2007 9:32 PM:Our grandparents would characterize this as "selling the farm to pay the mortgage"; it is a bad deal for the people of Oceanside. It would be as if the federal government decided to sell Yosemite or Yellowstone, to fund the war.

Not necessarily a give away wrote on Mar 5, 2007 9:36 PM:This deal is complicated by the fact that the Marina Towers is occupied by a lot of seniors who would be very sympathetic if the city tried to evict them as it appeared those against the deal were headed toward. As long as the ciy gets a legally binding deal on the 3% on every sale deal the city will make lots of money. They must assure that trusts and other things will not interfere with the city's profit taking.

Count to four wrote on Mar 5, 2007 9:43 PM:Sorry Council Member Chavez the score looks to be 4 to 1 to sell. I also think it would be a shame to sells this asset, just renegotiate the lease to market rates. If the Marina Towers was in private hands they would not sell this potentially upside revenue stream. In addition, if the City sell the Towers it will loose the future control of this parcel perhaps forever.

More homework expected Mayor Wood! wrote on Mar 5, 2007 9:49 PM:"There is the potential to make millions off property that now makes $57,000 a year," Wood said Monday. "As a business deal it seems reasonable, but that doesn't mean Oceanside is stealing the farm." Nice quote Mayor, how much could the City make at the end of the lease if we do not sell. Present value $50 million times 3.5 percent compounded for 30 years, I can wait.

Observer wrote on Mar 5, 2007 9:59 PM:Wonder if this could turn out like the deal with Corky McMillian in San Diego. Is presented as a great thing for the city and in the end the city gets zero. Some substiantial percentage of the condos will never change hands as they are in trusts. Guess who gets the "shaft".

Cha Ching wrote on Mar 6, 2007 5:42 AM:Stupid, just plain stupid. The deal is a bad one for Oceanside. Mackin hit the nail on the head, "It's a windfall for the investors and not the citizens of the city." If it wasn't for her, we wouldn't have even known what the city was planning to do.

Oceansider wrote on Mar 6, 2007 7:10 AM:This is one issue on which Mackin was absolutely correct, as is Chavez: this sale is an absolute giveaway of valuable public beachfront land. The onus for building maintenance was always on the HOA, based upon the terms of their current lease. The city doesn't need to sell this land. Renegotiate the lease. That'll satisfy the "banks" so the HOA can get a loan. Otherwise, the city won't see a nickel from future sales. Let's see the figures on how many of those condos are already in trusts, and so, won't ever be sold. If YOU owned a beachfront condo, would YOU sell it, or would you use a trust to pass it on to your heirs?

facts wrote on Mar 6, 2007 7:13 AM:the marina towers is in private hands. the city dosent own the building, they own the land underneath. that is what is being sold, not the building. there is no good reason not to do this.

spending habits wrote on Mar 6, 2007 7:14 AM:shari is the last person i would take advice from on how to manage my funds and spend money.

Defeating the 3% wrote on Mar 6, 2007 7:52 AM:If the owners transfer the property to a trust the beat the 3%. If they transfer to a corporation they defeat the trust. What about operation of joint tenancy, does that defeat the 3%. How well thought out is this scheme. Sounds like Corky at Liberty STation in San Diego, Corky made millions, City gets nothing.

Kim wrote on Mar 6, 2007 9:28 AM:Some people on the Oceanside city council flunked math 101, investments 101 and government 101! Public assets belong to the public and have to be managed by the public! Public process exists. Use it!

MIKE THE MARINE..... wrote on Mar 6, 2007 9:39 AM:Bonnie Dumanis, San Diego county District Attorney, recently announced that she has set up a new division in the DA's office to fight white collar crime. I'm asking DA Dumanis to check into the aspects of this give-away of public assets to a few favored people. Local attorney Leon Page has pointed out that this is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and that the profits from the sales in future years will not be there. This certainly parallels the Corky McMillan case in San Diego!!!!!

Avoiding the 3% wrote on Mar 6, 2007 11:12 AM:Transfer to a corporation avoids the 3% in the future. Is that possibility been considered. if I owned a condo there I would transfer it to a corporation and when time came to sell I would sell the corporation, no transfer of property occurs, city loses 3% of the sell, forever. Corporations do this all the time, that is why property tax is artificially low on corporate property, there is never a transfer that triggers a reassessment at current value.

MIKE THE MARINE'S WIFE.................... wrote on Mar 6, 2007 11:50 AM:Yes to "Avioding the 3%" Local attorney Leon Page pointed that out in an Op-ed story,some time back ...before the NCTime's ask him NOT to tell the truth and stop writing his good Op-Ed for the NCTimes???

Bug wrote on Mar 6, 2007 2:35 PM:This deal is going to be approved, so all the squawking in the world will not prevent it. The votes are there ~ like it or not.

ErehwonNam wrote on Mar 6, 2007 2:35 PM:If the condo owners want to show that they are truly negotiating in good faith, they should have no problem amending the governing documents of the HOA to stipulate that any sale or transfer of individual units after the city sells the land (at market price) will automatically give the city their 3% cut. If they aren't willing to agree to that, then you know something fishy is afoot and the city council should say NO to the deal. How about it, HOA? Willing to put your money where your mouth is?

Bug wrote on Mar 6, 2007 3:29 PM:Shari Mackin. Are you kidding??? That's the same person that abused her Oceanside City credit card and now she is all qualified to weigh in with financial advice for Oceanside??? She was so mixed up during her short stint on the City Council that she couldn't even report to the Council how she'd voted at Sandag. Even Wood withdrew his support for Mackin and supported George McNeil instead. Gimme a break.

Larry wrote on Mar 6, 2007 3:37 PM:The Council's position to sell the land at below market price to the condo owners, rather than re-negotiating a lease is a very bad deal for the City. Transparency, please!

Old Timer wrote on Mar 6, 2007 3:51 PM:The federal government has rules for disposition of surplus property that require advertising and sealed bids. Oceanside should follow similar procedures to arrive at a price fair for all.

Bocky wrote on Mar 6, 2007 4:46 PM:Trusts, and corporations, have been used to avoid taxes by the rich. Those people, in Marina Towers are rich! Not poor folk. I do not mind giving a helping hand to the poor and needy. But Feller's sellouts have gone too far. Iam sure a grand jury is talking about the back room deals.

I thought... wrote on Mar 6, 2007 5:57 PM:the council asked all the attornies to come back with a deal that protected the city from trusts and the corporation scam. If they have figured that out --sell. If not, don't. I personally think the Mayor Mr. Wood is an honest man and will not be a part of anything that is shady. I had a friend who had to deal with him about a child abuse issue and they say he is a caring man who is fair and honest. I cannot understand some of the comments made about him. He seems to be a good mayor and compared to the last mayor, he is a great mayor.

Mackin supporter wrote on Mar 6, 2007 7:01 PM:Move on Bug, Mackin never abused the city's credit card. Get back in your plane and fly off to Never Never Land where that crock was originated. She was the best thing that ever happened to this city, and she was the one, not Rocky who told us about this scam.

My 2 Cents wrote on Mar 6, 2007 7:24 PM:To I THOUGHT ... "He seems to be a good mayor" ... sure, if you don't live in his jurisdiction. To MACKIN SUPPORTER ... Yes she did. Accept it, get over it and move on. I'm not saying that makes her comments irrelevant on other topics, but let's try to keep it in perspective. Bringing the Marina Towers issue to light is the ONLY thing she seems to have done. To THE CITY ... only an IDIOT would give up this land under the proposed deal. Please ... PLEASE tell me you're not all so blind!

Sell the Towers, wrote on Mar 6, 2007 8:49 PM:I agree with the Mayor, sell the Marina Towers. The Tower's Homeowners Association has analyzed the deal for us, we will make millions. In addition, the Tower's Home Owners Association said they will; start maintaining the Towers, fix up the ugly facade, screen the ugly antenna on the roof, and not sue the City. Wake up Chavez, can't you see a good deal when it is right in front of your space. Even Sanchez, who is a diehard beach environmentalist, thinks we should sell the Towers.

2 Cents wrote on Mar 6, 2007 9:14 PM:I do live in Oceanside and we have only one mayor, Jim Wood. There is only one jurisdiction so maybe you do not know as much about Oceanside as you presume to know. He was a excellent cop, a great councilman and is a good honest mayor so quit trying to judge us all as blind because we do not necessarily agree with everything you say. I learned a long time ago that there is always more than one side to every issue.

Thomas wrote on Mar 4, 2008 8:39 AM:I have noticed one thing to be a constant in every one's comments..MONEY and how the city should not sell because of how much COULD be made...GREED is running a muck and these people against the sale are looking out for there own agendas not the city's! The choice to lease the land in the first place was bad judgement on the builders part, let's not continue this childish game any longer. Sell the land with the 3% stipulation of further sales and exclude any trust's or corporate sales to sidestep this avoidance issue. Stop thinking like a thief,and put your hands back into your own pockets not others.

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos

Advertisement