McCainiac wrote on Sep 18, 2008 7:53 PM:almost 10acres on the 15 for 5.2 why talk about inside trading and a good fleecing.I bet 2-1 the land gets rolled in the next year for close to 7mil.

NotBad wrote on Sep 18, 2008 8:42 PM:Most cities are lousy at making profitable investments at all, so I say kudos to former city manager Lori Moss who knew a good thing when she saw it and had the courage to initiate the purchase. By the way, she got a lot of bad mouthing at the time for the gutsy stand she took in promoting that purchase on behalf of the city.

SameO SameO wrote on Sep 18, 2008 9:03 PM:No use fighting city hall on the used car dealership (which would then make the 4th?). You can bet the sale of the land guaranteed the uses. Murrieta, land of used cars and fast food.

Questions wrote on Sep 18, 2008 9:05 PM:Who, in the city, watches over the investors for the city?

Who makes the decisions, which investor group makes the city's investments?

It just seems odd.

Are these revenues going back into real estate locally, maybe in some unknown boomtown somewhere?

Are they putting them in stocks...in todays market?

Or...do they divide it into banks, are they insured for only a 100,000 at each bank just like us?

I know this sounds odd...but even my investment groups tell me where they are going to be making my next investment.

No Kudos Due wrote on Sep 18, 2008 9:08 PM:Kudos to Moss for WHAT? Furniture Row, the Orchard, Village Walk? All give aways to the developer and most all evidenced by print in this very newspaper. What wasn't printed will be out soon.

Whoa wrote on Sep 18, 2008 9:53 PM:Cool. A used car lot. I live in a low incum apartmint in Murrieta, and I've been collecting beer cans and cashing them in to saiv up for a used car. Sometimes I hitch a ride to Temecula to luk at the car lots, but they have almost nuttin but new cars. Now I'll be able to walk to shop for a car I can affurd. On my way to look at cars I can grab a fast fud burger and hang out at Wal Mart for a while. The people at Murrieta City Hall have made this all possybul for me an all my naibers in thiz low and ultra low incum town.

Zygo wrote on Sep 19, 2008 2:20 AM:No use saying anything about a used car lot as others have already said it. But, what I have a problem with is the extended stay motel. You might want to check with some other cities on problems with extended stay type motels. I have trouble envisioning a Hilton Garden next to a used car lot and an extended stay motel.

oh my wrote on Sep 19, 2008 5:52 AM:nobody should be surprised at this. redevelopment agency turns speculator. neat trick in this economy. i recall the purchase of this property by the city. i was suspicious then as i am now about the motivation. always meant to be a flip? maybe now they will throw some money into infrastructure in other redevelopment areas? think again.

To the Reporter wrote on Sep 19, 2008 6:26 AM:Dig deeper and you'll find out why the City (Moss)was stopped from selling the property years back.

Hmm wrote on Sep 19, 2008 7:36 AM:All for development with the hotels and restaurants as long as they are sit-down ones, not fast food. The CarMax is a good idea, it's just a bad spot. Isn't there room near the Auto Mall?

To Questions wrote on Sep 19, 2008 7:56 AM:If you live in Murrieta, here are the answers to your questions:

Who, in the city, watches over the investors for the city?

YOU DO.

Who makes the decisions, which investor group makes the city's investments?

YOU DO.

It just seems odd.

IT IS VERY ODD.

Are these revenues going back into real estate locally, maybe in some unknown boomtown somewhere?

DEVELOPERS POCKETS.

Are they putting them in stocks...in todays market?

DONT ASK TOO MANY QUESTIONS "questions"

Or...do they divide it into banks, are they insured for only a 100,000 at each bank just like us?

JUST PAY YOUR TAXES, "QUESTIONS", AND BUY MORE USED CARS.

I know this sounds odd...but even my investment groups tell me where they are going to be making my next investment.

GET INVOLVED "QUESTIONS" OR QUIT ASKING
"QUESTIONS"

oh brother wrote on Sep 19, 2008 8:09 AM:SCANDALOUS!I don't think this is the the purpose of redevelopment agency? Real estate speculation? Someone needs to relive the purchase of this parcel. They blighted it to buy it cheaply for I think for multi family?

The truth wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:01 AM:Boy, some of you folks have active imaginations! The City bought that land so that they get control of it in case Wal-Mart wanted to expand their existing site into a Super Wal Mart. The thinking at the time was that if they didn't, the city would simply sell the land and use the money for other projects in the Redevelopment Area which could include road projects, flood control upgrades, buying land for parks and yes, affordable housing if it was needed. It isn't without challenges because it is essentially split down the middle by a natural seasonal stream. So all you ridiculous conspiracy mongers can move on to the next issue and just admit that this was an astute move on the City's part. Perhaps they can use this money in the Redevelopment area and free up some money to buy the Bear Creek Airport site for a big park on the west side of town, you know, the one the city didn't buy in 2000 for $390,000. Now there is something to criticize.

Great News wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:18 AM:You can never have enough used-car lots; they help the underprivileged. As for fast food, we could use a taco shop or burrito place. I personally like the Nails & Spa places too! Murrieta is coming right along!

Go Murrieta wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:20 AM:Walmarts, used car lots, fast food joints, furniture stores (the ones that haven't gone out of business); it is a virtual paradise! Throw-in a high-end luxury hotel like the Ritz Carlton to accomodate all the tourists for Alpaca Farm Days and you've got an oasis! I think I'll stay in Temecula.

Old News wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:26 AM:At the time the property was purchased it was no secret Moss was ready to make a later sale of the property if it were of benefit to our financial interests. That only makes sense. Would it do any good for the city to be chained in a way that made it impossible to exercise a profitable option? Absolutely not.

to The Trooth wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:34 AM:You sed "more affordable housing"!! Yay for mor affordable housing. You have no idea how menny of my relutives are waiting to muv to Murrieta. Sum uv them just need muney to rent a trailur and sum are just waiting to get out on paroul, and sum are waiting for the brilunt city ufficials to bild mor cheap units.

I need a car wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:36 AM:This is fantastic news! Words can't begin to express how joyful I am that Murrieta has, once again, decided to bring more mediocracy to this town. A used car lot? Are you kidding? How is it this town thinks they are going to lure a high end hotel when everything here looks like a dump to begin with and then they choose to add a used car lot? Maybe they should look at how other towns make themselves work. And the first one they should look at is Irvine. The rednecks running the city council need to get a serious clue....

Oh Temecula... wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:41 AM:... people in glass houses should not throw stones - especially people who live in Hootersville! :)

If I were part of Planning... wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:59 AM:I would have wanted the WalMart corner and that area to have big businesses on them. Similar to what appears along the freeways in San Diego.

I'd want to be using the build-up of buildings along the freeway to "reflect" or "advertise" economical developement success in the area. Instead of repeating what Temecula already has I'd have played off the success of Temeculas' dealerships and hotels and parlayed it into skyscrapers.

Just Pipe Dreaming

oh boy wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:09 AM:Great. A used car lot will grace the western horizon when looking from the Golden Triangle. That glow of gold just took on the dull hue of rust. The next logical step is to turn the triangle itself into a landfill. If I had a billion dollar project in mind for the best piece of land I could find in Southwest Riverside County, would I want it overlooking a used car lot? Of course not. Murrieta is downgrading its possiblities. Short Selling its own future. Ever want to know what short selling does to an economy? Take a look at wall street today. The government is in the process of outlawing it, and our local government should be similarly policed by the tax paying citizens. Murrieta City Hall: Stop selling us short for redevelopment doles from the state. Stop selling us short for purposes of your own selfish bureaucratic featherbedding.

Check coming wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:24 AM:The story says the "city" made $1.3 million profit; does this mean I can expect a refund check or reduced taxes?

Pave everything wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:28 AM:I think we should cut down every single tree & bush and build. Car dealerships are a GREAT first-step. I would push for more housing developments too! I love Murrieta; all the top-notch roads, wide lanes, low taxes, and numerous parks & family oriented things!

Alpaca Farm wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:32 AM:Murrieta, otherwise known as "Alpaca Ville," should cancel the plans to build a used car dealership and build a HUGE Alpaca Farm! Instead of one-week a year, every day can be an Alpaca Farm Day! Maybe you can pair it with a tobacco-spitting festival or tooth-counting competition? Kentucky of the West. (insert "Deliverance" theme here)

I say they take the money.. wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:44 AM:...and buy forclosed homes.

To Mr. Trooth wrote on Sep 19, 2008 3:20 PM:While your comments are obviously a dumb attempt at trying to be funny and stereotypical slap at those that might need affordable housing, your stereotype is wrong, especially now. There are a whole lot of educated people who are part of the "affordable" market right now. In fact, one of the most vicious bloggers in the valley was one of the first to lose his home. I'll bet he's "one of them". So enough of your idiotic stereotypes Trooth, you're no better than those you mock. In fact, in some ways, you're a whole lot worse.

to to Mr... wrote on Sep 19, 2008 6:05 PM:You, 3:20, should not be leveling your haughty sounding insults at people you know nothing about. Calling 9:34 "dumb" is a reflection on your own arrogant attitude and pseudo intellectual garbage. How do you know 9:34 is uneducated? Why do you assume something like that? The fact that someone is not the best in the world with grammar and spelling does not make you superior in any way. Your post is certainly vicious sounding, and yet you seem to take some weird sort of smug satisfaction about another "blogger" who is losing their house. What kind of person would harbor the kind of sentiments and nasty attitudes you are expressing? And as for your snobbish bit about 'stereotypes', you have to be aware that given the context you are slamming the very poor who may indeed need to scrape the bottom of the barrel for a rental trailer. Or is it parolees your putdown is aimed at? Don't they need places to live too? I hope you catch a whiff of what comes out of your own post, because maybe that would straighten you out.

Another Thought wrote on Sep 19, 2008 8:03 PM:I agree with anyone who says Murrieta has already taken on an unfair taxpayer burden of an extraordinary amount of lower level housing. No other local community has been so burdened. The net result will be an ever more strained budget for city services. The fact that the county and state shell out some funds for such an overburden of low level housing does not offset the overall negative impact on the community budget and lifestyle.

TO to to Mr. wrote on Sep 19, 2008 8:09 PM:No..."to The Trooth" was an obvious spoof directed toward "The Truth" to which "To Mr. Trooth" pointed out the rudness.

I myself, being a horrible speller, know what it is to have my intelligence slammed for spelling and gramer mistakes. Which I often laugh off, because I recognize the lack of logic involved in spelling, without cute little jingles, and remember the level of my mathmatical ablilties compaired to the general public.

To toto wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:56 PM:OK, 8:09, lets assume it could be a spoof. But don't be so sure. I have an acquaintance from childhood who has a rare and extreme form of dyslexia which manifests itself in much the same kind of communication as we see at 9:34. As a result of this condition my old friend has always been ridiculed as "dumb" or "idiotic" in a manner such as we see in the absolutely insensitive and venomous post at 3:20. It is no small coincidence that my old friend has found himself confined to the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Also, I should mention that my old friend has the same kind of sympathetic attitude toward the poor and unfortuante in our society that we read at 9:34. In the future, let us not be so quick in our insults and accusations and assumptions.

Bad Government wrote on Sep 20, 2008 7:34 AM:Bottom line, no government should be involved in speculative transactions and Mr. Truth spelled it out quite clearly that was the intent. The purchase was made from borrowed dollars (bond money), so there is no cash cow winfall of 1.3 mil. At the time the 3.9 mil purchase was made those fund could of and should of have been put to better use, like roads and flood control infrastructure, when they were most needed. No folks, don't be fooled by Mr. Truth in his reasoning because he is same arrogant person that once sat on the city council.

to Bad wrote on Sep 20, 2008 9:07 AM:You just can't stand admitting that even the ghost of Lori Moss is generating more economic benefit for the city than the current administration. Those are real dollars being produced from her efforts, right now, compared to the current flood of paperwork, promises, posturing and gimmicks coming out of the present administration. A "20 year plan" - yeah, sure. Why not? After all, when it has been proven to fail, we'll all be either moved away, with fading memories of this long gone past, or dead. And the people who came up with this 20 year period of "wait and see" will be mere shadows as they have moved on to retirement at our expense.

Ridiculous wrote on Sep 20, 2008 9:19 AM:Same old people, same old nonsense. Sorry, but both "whoa" and "to the trooth" were mean-spirited attempts to sterotype those that need or want affordable housing. You know it and I know it. It's not just the on-purpose misspelling of words but the content as well. Now back to the issue. This was not a "speculative" transaction. It was a "no lose" transaction that needed to be made to keep some options open. There were no projects that were put on hold because this land was purchased. However, the profit from this land can be used to free up non-RDA money in the RDA area so that the city can purchase and control the Bear Creek Airport site, which can be used for a park and connecting our trail system. That purchase should have been consumated years ago at a bargain price of $390,000. Why are there no comments directed at that? (rehetorical question, because I think everyone knows the answer).

too too Ridiculous wrote on Sep 20, 2008 10:38 AM:The facts are these: You are a mean spirited ridiculer of someone whose ideas run counter to your own. The fact that the object of your hate speech has a grammatical disability is something you relish. The rest of your ideas I may or may not agree with, in whole or in part. However, your wicked arrogance in making assumptions of convenience when putting down another less fortunate human being make the rest of your arguments distasteful.

Bad Government wrote on Sep 20, 2008 11:09 AM:No "to bad", the ghost of Moss is behind in the count with giveaways to Orchard, Furniture Row and Village Walk. And to Ridiculous, doesn't a council nod take 3, or sometimes 4, yehs? You ought to know the answer to this one. And maybe there were no projects put on hold but certainly there were no new projects planned, except for maybe the Nutmeg/Washington signal, isn't that right? The arrogance of The Truth and Ridiculous are one in the same.

To bad government wrote on Sep 20, 2008 1:42 PM:I'm not quite sure what your point is on the voting requirements. If you are speaking in reference to the Bear Creek Airport site, it took four affirmative votes to close that deal. One Councilmember was conflicted out. One voted against it (guess who?) and, therefore, killed the deal and vuala, no park. There were also plenty of new projects that were planned and still are being planned. In fact, the City just came out with a whole bunch of them. Some of that funding is from the RDA. Another planned project being partially funded from RDA is the Los Alamos/I-15 overpass widening. The Jefferson Avenue widening from MHS to Juniper was also part of the RDA. Other streets around town square were too. BTW, what were the supposed "giveaways" to the Orchard, Furniture Row and Village Walk? Village walk is saving our sales tax behind right now. The Orchard had to put in millions of dollars of infrastructure that has made it possible for the Clinton Keith Bridge improvement to go forward. So what were the "giveaways"? Here is the answer. There weren't any. So E...I mean "Bad Government" learn what the heck you're talking about before you make the ridiculous and erroneous comments. And pardon me if you think laying a bit of the truth on you is mean-spirited, arrogant or makes me a ridiculer.

unveiled wrote on Sep 20, 2008 2:38 PM:Some of the arrogance we are being treated to is Seyartoesque in tone. It is too bad that the founder of that style could not have done without the sharp edge of his own chosen words, because he would have to this day retained the respect of many whose respect he lost.

Bad Government wrote on Sep 20, 2008 2:56 PM:Arrogance is no excuse for excuses. Village Walk will take a decade in sales tax receipts to make up for the giveaways; minimal street improvement, high dollar land sale for r/w and the switch in phase 3 development to multifamily. The Orchard cost the City 1 mil that was a surprise to all and that couldn't be explained in the books. I'm sure you read the Californian article, and yes you are are right, the reporter did not consult you. He shouldn't have to, it should have been in the books and a matter of record. Worse than poor management is that can be said. Furniture Row, no traffic mitigation fees for Los Alamos/215. Now the developer is crying over a deal made with the ghost writer; a deal which never should have made. And no this isn't E. I'm just a simple citizen against Bad Government.

Observer comment wrote on Sep 20, 2008 8:22 PM:It is obvious to me that 2:56 and like contributors this string were not "E". 1:42 et al are too quick to assume they have only one person in town who would disagree with some of their points and positions. That has often been a fault on each side of any given issue in the local blogs; and is, it seems, an unfortunate by-product of anonymous posts. Let us hope that through it all somehow logic prevails.

Originally Questions wrote on Sep 20, 2008 9:53 PM:I think I can answer the question as to why the Bear Creek Property wasn't purchased.

The RCIP wasn't completed until 2003...and in 2000, the property was being considered by the county, to force the city to make the property permanent openspace, (without any human contact including trails) to which the City Manager (SM) at the time, prior to LM, may have been(was)aware of. It would have been a poor choice to purchase property at any price that would have absolutly no human value other than visual by the city.

Bad Government: Great job pointing out the "There were no projects that were put on hold because this land was purchased." phrase...it hit me like a ton of bricks the same way it did you.

Another Thought: Are you kidding about the low income housing? The city has be slapped on the hand by the state HARD for not having enough low income housing, and the slap is based on the fact that they don't. Everytime a developer and the city plan to build some, "the people" scream not in my backyard. They build appartments, and they become CONDOS goodness sake.

There is a solution though. If the city were to purchase foreclosed homes and resale them or rent them, the low income housing would or could become dispersed throughout the city evenly, and not bring any property values down.
It's just an idea.



BTW>>>also To to to Mr.

Visions wrote on Sep 20, 2008 10:25 PM:With state mandated low income housing comes state rewards. Forfeit the rewards, dump the low income and attract high class development. It boils down to visions of the future.

to too sensitive wrote on Sep 20, 2008 11:32 PM:What kind of milque toast blogger is this who whines about the city getting a hand slapped? Is that the price to be paid by a community that dares get off its knees to the state's dole handler? If you are serious, you are pitiful. If we cannot survive and thrive without handouts from the state or county, then we are no more than a paid dumpsite for any undesireable need. I'm less concerned about apartments than I am about having someone like you, 9:53, within twenty miles of my back yard. Take your limp, sore wrist and cry about your social engineering ideas somewhere else.

Hands Slapped... wrote on Sep 21, 2008 8:33 AM:It wasn't just that the city wasn't getting getting any ....rewards.
The city was being fined for lack of low income housing, but now that they annexed MHS Mobile Home Park and surrounding area they'll be fine.

And good grief...by the time the market comes back arouond, everyone of these homes out here will be so far behind in green techlogy...it will all be "affordable housing."

way too much wrote on Sep 21, 2008 9:37 AM:To say that by any definition Murrieta has or had a "lack of low income housing" is regulatory trash talk. This city's problem is that those in charge of watching out for our interests have allowed (both passively and actively) Murrieta to be suckered - and yes, for "rewards" from big sugar daddy of a state housing authority - into an extremely high requirement for low rung housing, and all that comes with it. You can't sugar coat that kind of civic mismanagement and expect people to swallow it without wincing. The fact that our so called civic guardians have exposed us to the potential for such fines as you mention, and a future chained to an impoverished population, is a form of malpractice that should be punishable as a crime.