register |  login
› LAKEWOOD
Loading Ad
Visit Other Hubs:
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower
RECENT STORIES

Lakewood land swap: an appraiser weighs in
Contributed by: Frank King on 12/14/2006

There have been many stories regarding the upcoming ballot for the land swap. Most of the proponents stories are based on self interest or erroneous information. Many include what they call facts. Some are, most are not. In the Dec 14 issue, Mr Sargent refers to the appraisal stating the values of both parcels were equal. When the City asked for an appraisal, they asked for a park land for park land appraisal. Naturally, they got the answer they wanted, they are equal.

As a CPA, we often have to assign values to properties for tax purposes. Typically, we assign 15% of the cost to the land. The million dollar houses scheduled for the existing park land would have an assigned land value of $150,000 per lot, $600,000 per acre or $13,680,000 for the 22.8 acre parcel. The house in the existing gulch (new park area) will sell for $400,000. Their assigned land value would be $60,000 per lot, $360,000 per acre or $8,208,000 for the parcel.

Quite obviously, they are not equal. Basically, your city gave Carma an approximate $5,000,000 windfall. Last November, the city asked for and got approval to accept Open Space Funds. These funds could very easily have been used to purchase the parcel or they could have required an equal trade.

I agree the gulch should probably be desingated park land, however, I cannot support the city's attempt to pander to the developer by giving them an instant $5,000,000 profit. All other arguements aside, this swap doesn't make economic sense and I ask you to join me in voting NO for the swap. Tell the city that you want fair value for your park land and no special treatment for the developer.

Frank L King CPA


SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above story



Current Rating
Based on 11 user ratings.

Talk Back : submit comments to the story

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

Showing 1-6 of 6 comments
Submitted By: Rita Bertolli
posted on 2/17/2007 @ 5:27:46 PM
Rated Story
We prevaied, 57% AGAINST the swap Jan 2, 2007.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Ken Parks
posted on 12/15/2006 @ 5:26:26 AM
Rated Story
Mr. Jones: While I vote in my hometown I can express my opinion whereever in this fabulous country that I choose to, as you may also. Lakewood is the 4th largest city in the state; not a walled sanctuary where no one but its residents may express. I don't wish to silence the author, just to point out the fallacy of his reason, as Scott Miller and Don Ferega also have done. If accusations were the truth, your reason would make sense. I simply believe that the majority of citizens in Lakewood will trust and uphold the unanimous decision of their fine city council who they elected and appointed to serve their interests. That they voted twice on this measure without dissent is of note, as are my 25 years of dealing with campaigns and public information.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Donald Ferega
posted on 12/15/2006 @ 1:12:41 AM
Rated Story
Are you a professional Real Estate appraiser Mr King?
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Curtis Jones
posted on 12/14/2006 @ 9:24:58 PM
Rated Story
Interesting run of the numbers, thanks for doing that Frank. As for your response Ken, just because the city council voted for it (twice! as you put it) doesn't mean it's the right thing. This is why we have the ability to force elections on things that are actually bad deals for city citizens (which you are not from what your profile says, so why would anyone actually want to believe you?)
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Scott Miller
posted on 12/14/2006 @ 7:37:22 PM
Rated Story
It seems that you have included the the costs of entitlement, engineering, grading, utilities, curb and gutter, walks, paving,donating park land, developing common space and park land, offsite improvements, city fees and development requirements, bonding, interest expense, etc. in your land costs. In other words, you are using developed lots for your analysis, which grossly inflates the numbers in favor of your political leaning. You are also making some assumptions about density that favor your intended outcome. Not what I would expect from a CPA. Your analysis would only have credibility if you used raw land values.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Rita Bertolli
posted on 12/14/2006 @ 1:58:53 PM
Rated Story
For documents on the land swap, go to www.lakewoodvoter.com This is about pure corporate greed.
[Report as objectionable]
Showing 1-6 of 6 comments
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

Frank King

Lakewood , CO

Frank King has posted 2 stories and 2 comments since joining on 11/22/2005. Frank King 's average story rating is 3.
SAVE AND SHARE THIS STORY
STORY RSS FEEDS
WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available all over the Front Range and with home subscriptions of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post? All you have to do is register, then post a story or column, start a blog or tell everyone what events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.

ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

This YourHub.com community is produced by The Denver Newspaper Agency
Web Development and Channel Analytics provided by Indigio

terms of use //  privacy policy
the staff //  advertise //  help & faq
buy photos