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. <br><small><B> JAMIE SCOTT LYTLE </B> Staff Photographer</small> <br><A HREF="https://secure.townnews.com/nctimes.com/forms/photo_services/linkorder.php?des= Jamie Scott Lytle Staff Photographer / 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." target="new">Order a copy of this photo</A> <!— <br><A HREF=" ">More of this story</A> —> <br> <A HREF="http://www.nctimes.com/news/photogallery/" target="new">Visit our Photo Gallery</A> <br> <hr width="250">
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.
Posted in Local on Tuesday, March 6, 2007 12:00 am Updated: 9:09 am.
© Copyright 2009, North County Times - Californian, Escondido, CA | Terms of Service and Privacy Policy