Lawsuit over the Sale of Capitola’s Surf and Sand
It seems that another greedy landowner is itching to sell his prime mobile home park, and that’s stirring up a storm of controversy
[From SantaCruzSentinel.com ]
They’re suing the city of Capitola, claiming in federal court in San Jose that the city has illegally taken the underlying value of their 4-acre property by not allowing them to subdivide it and sell off the parcels.
That’s a pretty long article, and I encourage you to read it…and also, read the comments that people have made about the article, too. Where do I come in on this?
It’s a really complicated issue. In principal, I’m against rent control. In practice, I can see how it’s necessary to add balance to the housing mix, that there are benefits to welcoming people from the broad social strata of life into a community. I don’t know that it makes the best sense to reserve prime real estate like the Surf and Sand for this purpose, though - I have to ask myself, is a rent-controlled mobile home park the “highest and best use” for this parcel of land?
For those of you from out of town, here’s a handy link that shows the location:
Google Maps Location of Surf and Sand Mobile Home Park
It seems to me like this land could be much better used as some kind of medium density, upscale condo complex, for example. But what to do with the existing residents, or what about ensuring that Capitola is a place for all kinds of people, not just those who can afford to pay market price to live here?
Until someone comes up with an answer to those questions, I suspect the Surf and Sand Mobile Home Park will stay much the same kind of place it is today, for better or worse.
What do you think?
Blog Entries
Hey Seb,
I read your quote above: “It seems that another greedy landowner is itching to sell his prime mobile home park”. I’ve known Ron Reed for over forty years. I knew his father too. Alot of adjectives come to mind when I think of the Reed family. Greedy isn’t one of them though. I’m wondering…. how long how long have you known him? If you’d like to meet him….call me, I’ll be happy to arrange a meeting.
Why is it his lone responsibility to provide affordable housing with far below market rents? And how affordable is it when 45 year old single wide homes are listed for over $545,000.00. Hmmmnnn the standard commission on listing mobilehomes is 10%; which would yeild a commission of over $50,000. At Mr. Reed’s currently controlled rent of $325.00/month it would take about 13 years to earn $50,000. And Mr. Reed is the greedy one??? It appears the profits from the sales of the homes and real estate commissions could subsidize the affordable housing need; but I suspect we won’t hear any such advocacy….someone else’s ox being gored and all.
So let’s see who currently profits from the status quo:
1. Park Owner - Hardly
2. Selling Resident: Big time profits and gains on the sale of very old housing stock. They take their gains and move to Nevada or Arizona
3. Real Estate Agents: Oh yeah….love those commissions on the inflated values of the old trailers.
4. The City of Capitola: They include Mr. Reed’s property in their affordable housing quotoa and thereby qualify for CDGB grants which are only available when the City complies with State mandated affordable housing minimums. Neat deal… pass rent control…. get the cash. Read the article… why would the City spend over $500,000 in legal fees in the defense of the ordinance?
Sounds to me like the guy just wants off the downward spiral of indentured service.
Oh yes, I too am a real estate broker… and a second generation park owner too.
See you at the rotary Auction tonight!!!
Comment by longtimeresident
January 31st, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
Hey longtimeresident, thanks for posting!
I had my tongue-in-cheek when I wrote the bit about the “greedy landowner” - I don’t know if he’s greedy, and in principal, I’m on his side, greedy or not. Thanks for weighing in, I’m sure you’re one of the most qualified people in the area on this subject!
Comment by Administrator
January 31st, 2008 @ 6:12 pm