Gary Ingram posted this info yesterday under Monday’s Open Session, but it is new and seems worthy of our discussion:
Word on the street and on the door of the Riverstone Auction Office is that the auction has been canceled. No sales = no tax increment. Let’s discuss the ramifications for LCDC and the city’s plans for downtown redevelopment using Riverstone TIF.
Comment by Gary Ingram — July 30, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
I’ll pull up this comment from Susie too:
Comment by mary — July 31, 2009 @ 8:48 am
Who didn’t see thia coming?
Comment by Eric — July 31, 2009 @ 11:14 am
Yes, John Stone’s huge tax credit given on the sale of the ‘pond’ was based upon a timed condo sales threshold. I do not recall the specifics. There may be more time and perhaps not a lot more needed in total sales.
But, how would you like to be one of those poor slobs who paid full price for one of those units? Now they can’t give them away. When will the bankruptcy shoe drop? Hope Stone had construction bonds to insure vendor payments or the lawsuits will follow hot and heavy. Once Riverstone goes upside down so will the maintenance component on that concrete lake and the city will have to pick up the tab for all the green scape maintenance years sooner than planned. What a mess!
Comment by Wallypog — July 31, 2009 @ 11:54 am
Ooop’s that should have read, “the DONATION of the pond”. ;-()
Comment by Wallypog — July 31, 2009 @ 11:55 am
I thought this news would generate more comment. Mayor Bloem has said that accelerated downtown redevelopment was the expected result from the tax increment that would come out of of Riverstone. (Notes from the annual LCDC meeting held at the Jewitt House, early 2008) So my observation goes begging for a response.
It is possible that the auction was canceled altogether not only because of no interest presently, but because the economy is showing some signs of recovery and they are hoping for a return to a healthy marketing environment for this particular lifestyle. Lots of risk here, but the taxpayers should never have been forced to help it along with a promise of a future windfall of revenue to the city. What evidence is there that the city would ever reduce taxes in that scenario. More than likely they would increase spending.
Comment by Gary Ingram — July 31, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
Gary, another possibility is that some other company bought the condos for time shares or vacation rentals. That’s one of the rumors going around town but I have no idea if there’s any validity to the info. Has anyone else heard that?
Comment by mary — August 1, 2009 @ 7:30 am
The story in the Los Angeles Times might interest some in time shares or vacation rentals. I do not think that these units are material for fractional ownership.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — August 1, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
You can be certain that if Stone needs to rezone the place for timeshares that it will happen without question.
Comment by Wallypog — August 2, 2009 @ 6:15 am