Let’s face it, Island residents are gaga for open space. The City could probably tack the words “open space” onto just about any proposal and most of us would swoon into submission. And therein lies the danger. In our eagerness to preserve open space, we risk making deals that are not in the City’s best interest, fiscally or otherwise. At worst, we risk outright exploitation.
This past week the Open Space Commission voted to ask Council to support an open space purchase that just might represent one of those “sucker deals”. The land in question is a 1.8-acre area of mostly lawn at Manzanita Bay, currently occupied by a 1970’s rambler, known as the “Williams” property. It is part of a larger parcel being sold by the Williams family. As part of the deal, developer Kelly Samson would purchase the 10.8 acres, with 9 proposed building sites, which surround the waterfront lot. The City would also acquire rights to an adjacent 5.2 acres of tidelands. The cost to the City – $1.7 million for the land, including $300,000 to Samson for an easement on an unbuildable adjacent parcel. Samson will pay $3.3 million for his purchase.
A Truly Exclusive Beach
What advocates for the purchase have failed to make note of is that the tidelands are accessible only at very low tide, at which time the area, rather than being a sandy beach like Faye Bainbridge State Park, is a mudflat. While there are surely some Island residents who enjoy mucking about, how many of them will be inclined to do so in the shadow of Samson’s proposed development?
The purchase has been described as an “opportunity to protect (an) unspoiled marine habitat”, but the tidelands do not need to be purchased by the City to be preserved – they are already protected.
A Lot of Fine Print
So you love mudflats and you are ready to sign on the dotted line. You might want to first take a closer look at the terms of the sale and then ask yourself who exactly is benefiting here?
The City will be restricted as to what it can do on property it owns. For example, in order to preserve views, not only will property owners in the Samson development be able to prune and limb trees on City property, but the City will be prohibited from planting trees with mature height exceeding 12 feet. The City must grant Samson a utility easement for any utility purposes that Samson “deems necessary”- including water, waste water and drainage. The City will also grant Samson an easement through the property to access the boathouse and to allow for the possibility of a private dock. At least one acre of the property must be subject to restrictive covenants dedicating it to public use and recreational activity in perpetuity, which effectively leaves the entire City property forever unmarketable.
Two’s a Crowd
Another potential burden on the city’s use of the property, depending on your point of view, is the vintage house on Samson’s portion of the acreage that will be donated to the City. This removal will cost the City an estimated $50,000 up front, at which time the City will begin to incur significant maintenance costs to restore and maintain this old building along with the existing rambler.
The city will then have two single-family homes on the 1.8-acre park. Will the lot retain its “park-like atmosphere” and spaces for “picnicking, hiking and large group gatherings” once it contains two houses and a carport and is surrounded by luxury homes?
Will that be Cash or Credit?
You might be surprised to hear that the City doesn’t have $1.7 million dollars sitting in a bank vault looking for a purpose. The funding method proposed for this purchase is Councilmanic Bonds (think municipal credit card). The City doesn’t have to ask the voters to approve the spending, but at the end of the day it’s the taxpayers that are ultimately liable for the debt. The debt service on just this open space purchase would be $136,000 per year.
Who Exactly is in Charge Here?
So how did this purchase go from the Williams family offering to sell the 14 acre parcel to the City, to the City agreeing to buy the 1.8 acre piece under Kelly Samson’s terms?
We know that the Open Space Commission determined early on that there was no way that the City could afford the whole property, but what happened next? It does not appear that the property was ever put on the market, nor does it appear there was an open call to potential developers, investors or benefactors in the community to partner with the City in the purchase. But somehow, behind closed doors, the deal evolved into what is now before the City Council.
The Council will decide whether or not to fund this purchase at its next meeting on August 29th.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
This article points out a disturbing truth. It seems that Kelly Samson has his fingers in a number of pies and gets all the goods before others have a chance. How did he obtain this proporty if the oppportunity was initially set forth behind closed Council doors?
It looks like the same scenario occurred with Government Way. That was government owend and should have gone to similar hands, which could have made it real affordable housing for, e.g., our City police, firemen and teachers.
Disclosure or use of such information may well be a violation of the BI Ethics Code, which is now in effect with members who can act.
Time for an investigation?
READ ON............ There’s more to this story than even revealed by TruthSeeker. Having put a few more pieces together, it looks to me like someone is trying to pull a fast one on our City. See what you think.
WHAT ABOUT THE PRICE? The City would acquire 1.8 acres of restricted property for $1.7 million while Mr. Samson would acquire 6 times the acreage (10.8 acres), without comparable contract restrictions, for just $3.3 million (not even double $1.7 million). That 10.8 acres would be acquired with full valuable, transferable building rights, while the City would also have to pay to move a 1895 farmhouse off of Samson’s land. And, yes, it’s true that the City would also acquire 6.9 unbuildable acres, including tidelands (read mudflats) and an easement with a ravine and stream. This doesn’t alter the fiscal “bottomline”. WHO'S GETTING A GOOD DEAL? Not the City.
WILL THE PROPERTY RETAIN ANY MARKET VALUE? The value of the property will probably plummet upon purchase due to the terms of sale since there won’t be many buyers for an acre of property that must remain park land forever. And the value of the remaining 8/10 of an acre would be greatly diminished since it is less than an acre in an area zoned one house per acre. Thus, should the City ever realize that it’s a bad deal, they’d never be able to recoup the $1.7 million price they paid for this property with its associated unbuildable tidelands, stream, and ravine. And, while the City might ask for a condition in the contract that would require Mr. Samson to purchase the City property for $1.7 million, adjusted for inflation, whenever the City wants to sell, a shrewd business person is likely to would resist such a request.
Note that the property’s value is further compromised by the grant of a permanent access easement through the City property in order, apparently, to assure that the Samson properties secure access to the existing boat house and an anticipated private dock.
WHAT'S THE "PERPETUAL" UTILITY EASEMENT ALL ABOUT? Does the City grant of “…a perpetual…easement for water, wastewater, drainage, and any other utility purposes to serve the Benefited Properties that Samson may deem necessary” mean septic fields and stormwater drainage facilities, which could include a detention pond? That’s how I read it, and I must ask why would we want somebody’s wastewater, septic fields, and storm water runoff on City property? The contract would further restrict the City’s opportunity to manage the increased water flow caused by increased upland impervious surfaces and the funneling of waste and storm waters onto park property by requiring that view corridors be protected, and that no new trees be allowed to grow to more than 12-feet within these “view areas” or 30-feet outside view areas. This is a huge land management loss for the City since substantial tree cover is invaluable for stormwater management.
IS THE CITY PAYING FOR A PRIVATE PARK FOR SAMSON PROPERTIES? That’s what it sounds like, looks like to me since the grants to the 10.8-acre Samson property are many and the incentives and opportunities for the community to use the site are few. It’s been suggested that at least the site could be used for events (weddings) in the 1895 home, but how? Parking is provided for only 12 vehicles in this residential area and should the City be using our tax dollars to cover the high maintenance costs of this old home for such events?
FINALLY, WHAT KIND OF DEVELOPER DO YOU THINK THE CITY SHOULD PARTNER WITH IF A SUSTAINABLE ISLAND IS THE GOAL? Easy, isn’t it—(1) a partner with a proven green/sustainable developer or one who commits to adhering to green building standards and (2) not a partner who’s currently suing the City (Samson’s Blakely Harbor dock litigation against the City is pending).
Our City Council will consider this proposal on August 29th. We understand the Williams’ have a tight time frame to sell the property, but that’s no reason for Council not to negotiate a better deal for us or to say “no”. Let City Council know what you think at Council@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us.
Anonymous said...
The last minute rush to get this done does leave a bad taste in one's mouth as do some of the terms of the transaction. However, we need to keep in mind that this is not the city's property. It is owned by the Williams family and they can sell to whomever they want, at whatever price they want under whatever terms they want. I am sure that if this transaction is rejected the family will proceed to sell the entire parcel to a developer, who may or may not be Kelly Samson. The important thing to keep in mind is that for $1.7 million the city would be acquiring 300 ft. of waterfront, 5 acres of tidelands (albeit smushy tidelands) and an historic building and site which is important to our Island's history. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. What Mr. Samson gets is between him and the Williams family. Better we have additional waterfront, open space and history than turn the entire parcel over to a developer that could negate that forever. Let us also recognize that this is a very generous gesture on the part of the family. They could have easily put the property on the market in order to get a much higher price. Instead, they chose to work with the city to preserve their homestead for our enjoyment.
Thank you Williams family!
Nosmas said...
It appears that the city is getting into the business of moving junk off of local developers' privately owned property in the name of historical preservation.
What was it that the City has agreed to pay to move the water tower on Wyatt? Something like $20,000? So it could become a prominent feature of the City Hall grounds? It was described as being in terrible shape and no-one knows how much rehab will cost. And then maintenance.
Now we are being honored with the gift of an old farm house in poor condition. We will pay $50,000 just to move it??? Then what?
I'm all for REAL historic preservation. Where has council been on the Ericksen district homes? The comp plan specifically mentions the community's wish to save those. But now they are doomed. That was an opportunity to have a small historic district that the entire community could share.
You know there's a theme here. The developers got what they wanted in each case. I guess we're lucky the City didn't agree to pay for the demos on Ericksen.
Interesting discussion here. It brings to mind another "favor" of creating view lots on the crumbling Halls Hill for Kelly Samson, which incidentally made an active landslide area in the process. Just what are the priorities of the COBI - and why?
Why were groups with real money left out? Think Nature Conservancy, Land Trust, Trust for Public Lands, etc.? Perhaps there is "angel" money out there and the entire parcel could be purchased and dontated to the city. But, of course, no one was allowed into the "exclusive" circle. Has the city not yet learned that back room deals with developers (think Blakely Harbor) are a recipe for disaster? Nothing like dancing with the devil.
Looks like you were right on with the warning about the City being taken advantage of in these open space deals. The City's last open space purchase may have been overvalued by $700,000 (!) Check out the Islander blog at http://blogs.kitsapsun.com/kitsap/bainbridge
This is really sad. I wonder if these incidents will sour people on the whole idea of the city buying open space. :(
Owl-- did you see or witness the hearing on Meig Farm on BITV-12? Serious questions about the validity of the appraisal were raised, as I recall, by Councilman Stoknes. Councilman Knobloch was quite offended that anyone would dare to question his committee's due diligence on the appraisal.
Then there was the testimony by one of the proponents of the full-price-pay-the-money immediately crowd that the farm was the Garden of Eden in terms of its acquifer status and without it the island faced ruin and drought.
What is going on here? This is the taxpayer's money that is being spent like it was someone else's money -- oh, that's right, it is.
Perhaps the joint real estate interest corporation held by Kelly Samson and Tim Bailey on file with the State of Washington had something to do with this. It has been a matter of public record. Conflict of interest is an understatement.
Good job reporting this issue. I just watched the Council vote down this deal, for many of the same concerns you raised in your article. It seems to be a beautiful property that would be a mere shadow of itself if the deal went forward as now structured. Well done by both you and the Council.
A bittersweet victory for Island residents tonight. No doubt the Williams' sincerely hoped to see their ancestral home and land preserved as a park to be enjoyed by many. Unfortunately, the deal got out of the hands of the City and into the back room where it was manipulated beyond recognition for the exclusive benefit of Kelly Samson and Co. Thank you Councilpersons Stoknes, Snow, Knobloch and Vancil for saying "no" despite the heartfelt pleas of the well intentioned Williams family. Shame on you, Mr. Samson.
Yes, shame on you Mr. Sampson for shaking down City Hall. Of course, you do hang out with those that make a career out of shaking down government for their personal gain...Dennis Reynolds, Gary Tripp, Jeff Sneller, James Olsen. About time the Council found their backbone.
The full-court press by the audience was maudlin. Yes, the property was blessed and many had fine memories but that did not justify accepting the bargain struck. Also Andy Maron and the Committee chair briefing the sale were fairly unpersuasive. Their briefing reminded me of an announced 2-for-1 sale at K-Mart coming over the PA system.
Councilmember Tooloee was at his most unpleasant lecturing his fellow members for their opposition. Wow, what great comedy.
Little said about the 100% variance on the Meig Farm act-in-haste-repent-at-leisure purchase. It is now the leisure time and we want the $700K rebate.
If the Williams wanted to, they could have donated the property. Their call but in the end they did what they had to do -- sell the property was big money.
Further evidence of the Island's desperate need for a new news source: Rachel Pritchet's write up today on the failed open space deal. Somebody didn't do her homework.
http://www.blogs.kitsapsun.com/kitsap/bainbridge/
I find this scenario to be very bothersome. A land developer is able to get his foot in the door first because his business partner sits on the open space commission. Who decided that Kelly Samson should be approached? Why not another developer? Does someone on the open space commission benefit from Kelly Samson's purchase of the property?
Kelly Samson and friends are probably doing cartwheels. Now they don't have to worry about (1) the general public bothering the people who build McMansions on the site; and (2) any competing bids from other land purchasers because, thanks to the OSC, he has the right to purchase the property even if another purchaser comes along with a better deal for the Williams family.
I think this really stinks!
P.S.
The hearing examiner wouldn't allow Patty Dusbabek to hold weddings on her 9 acres because the neighbors complained. Why would the OSC think that the City could have weddings on 2 acres and not get complaints.
Why should Tim Bailey, the real estate agent in development league with Kelly Samson, be allowed to continue on the open space commission? Back dooe and underhanded manipulation of the citizen's good will and tax dollars is not exactly the community spirit we would hope to have on this island. It is probably also unethical.
Post a Comment