Search by keyword or six-digit Content ID


What's Hot

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Lakewood [Change Location]

Lakewood land swap: an appraiser weighs in


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

Guidelines: Be kind. Abusive commentary may be removed. If you believe someone has been abusive, please click "Report Abuse".

SUBMIT COMMENT
Talk Back : submit comments to the story

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.
Thank you! Your comment has been updated.
Showing 1-6 of 6 comments

We prevaied, 57% AGAINST the swap Jan 2, 2007.

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.

Are you a professional Real Estate appraiser Mr King?

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?)

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.

For documents on the land swap, go to www.lakewoodvoter.com This is about pure corporate greed.
Showing 1-6 of 6 comments