Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor:

This Tuesday our city council is considering spending over $2.4 million for less than one acre of land in downtown, (includes the old Comet Cleaners), that is on the tax rolls for $584,880. To add insult to injury, the item is listed on the consent agenda, indicating to me that some on council do not even want to discuss the issue before the vote. Why are we paying ribeye steak prices for hamburger meat property during a time of fiscal and economic crisis? Our city council just opted to utilize the maximum property tax increases allowed by law to increase our property tax payments and now want to spend this exorbitant amount of money on a bus parking lot and an old dry cleaners which is plagued by environmental issues that place an unlimited liability on the city for remediation? I would say that we, the taxpayers of this city, are literally being taken to the cleaners on this deal and it feels like yet another sweetheart deal for someone or a very select few with influence at City Hall.

I am a resident of downtown and an active investor in downtown commercial real estate for the past 12 years. I own a real estate brokerage and property tax consulting firm specializing in commercial real estate, so I am speaking as someone who has an in-depth experience in this specific market.

While on city council, I was a proponent for the city to acquire property in our downtown, but only in the right location and at the right price. Real estate is all about the right location at the right price at the right time. These properties have none of those qualities. At the ultra-premium price that the city is considering paying, (which equates to paying $375,000 for a 50’ x 120’ single family home lot, yes, just the dirt not the house), the city is buying property whose location doesn’t justify the price being paid. Someday, maybe, but right now, definitely not. These properties are located on a one-way street plagued with chronic speeding and an uphill hike to the square.

Assuming, however, that we are paying the “right” price for these properties the question remains for what purpose, how much more will we spend, and when will we see the benefit? All of these questions need to be explained to us, in public, not behind closed doors in executive session.

We have a growing city and all the things that come with it to pay for: public safety, mobility, needed social services and a growing staff of professionals at City Hall. This decision, if taken, will remove these currently undervalued properties off our tax roll and we will be funding land that will most likely sit idle for years before any meaningful use can be achieved, if ever. Wherever the funding is to come from, this still represents a wasteful use of taxpayer funds. Paying way too much just because the money is there is never a winning strategy, not even for a city government. This transaction has not been fully explained to us, the taxpaying public, and it is an unreasonable price to pay for any property located in a less than optimal location. Don’t take us to the cleaners. Vote no on this deal.

Scott Gregson

San Marcos