Ah, the delicious irony. [UPDATE: to get the full savour of how wonderful this is, right here is a little background.]
It looks like Dave Golonski is planning on retiring soon to Orange County, and has gotten worried all of a sudden about things like gifts of public funds and the fair market value of public properties– at least down there. This letter was printed in the OC Register, and we got tipped off about it today:
My name is Dave Golonski, and my family owns property in the beautiful city of San Clemente. I am familiar with the process the city is going through to revitalize North Beach, as I am in my 18th year serving on the Burbank City Council and have participated in numerous similar processes. I would like to make a few points regarding the current revised proposal.
The San Clemente City Council began this process with a set of expectations. Those expectations were communicated to the community and I believe formed the basis for the community’s support for Measure W. What is before them now does not in any way live up to those expectations.
Here’s a significant example (from the staff report): “The ENA (Exclusive Negotiating Agreement) anticipated that LAB would acquire both the triangle and the Marblehead site. It also anticipated that the sale of the property would be based on a fair market value established by an appraisal performed by a qualified MAI appraiser.”
The appraisals were in the range of $6.25 million and the city is now considering accepting an unknown amount, no less than $1 million, that even their economic forecasters project is likely to be the $1 million floor. This is not because the land value has decreased but because the project’s financial viability cannot support a fair market value payment.
Another glaring gap from the original expectation is who will be paying for the parking required for the project. Originally, the expectation was that LAB would provide the parking, and now it seems that San Clemente’s public Beach Parking Fund will be picking up the tab.
I could go on, but I think anyone familiar with the current term sheet proposed for this project can see that the citizens of San Clemente will be picking up a substantial portion of the tab for this private development. The staff report projects one-time city costs in the $4.5 million range, with ongoing costs just shy of $120,000. This is not what was presented to the citizens when they voted on Measure W, and I suspect if these figures had been presented, the project would never have received the support of the community.
In summary, the project is upside down financially and the City Council is considering bailing it out using taxpayer funds. I know they have reached a “tentative deal” and probably feel that they must follow through. That’s not how the public process works. They have every right to reject this project after considering all the public input. That’s exactly what they should do.
To approve this project will raise serious questions regarding constitutionally prohibited gifts of public funds. Public funds can only be expended for a “public purpose.” Under the “public purpose” doctrine, public funds may be expended only if a direct and substantial public purpose is served by the expenditure and private individuals are benefited only as an incident to the promotion of the public purpose (California Housing Finance Authority v. Elliott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 575, 583).
It’s clear from the record that the City Council is planning to use public funds to make up the financial gap for this private project.
Dave Golonski
Burbank
Hey, at least they’ll be charging more than $100. And some more fond memories, anyone?
What an ass. I hope someone reads that letter the next time “staff” recommends approval of an upside down development.
Wonder if there is any way the taxpayers of Burbank can reclaim the old police block worth a few million dollars that was gifted to Cusamano for $100. Looks like that project qualifies right down to the public parking that was lost to Cusamano according to 18-year councilman golonski.
Maybe he’d be much happier if San Clemente decides to sell their land to that Cusumano family for $100?
What a hypocrite. It’s a wonderful double standard he’s setting for a community that he’s obviously going to be bailing out on.
Thanks Semi,
Maybe some folks can take turns reading the “Golonski Memo” to the City Council on Tuesday.
It should become MUST reading, as it is a pretty good “road map” of how Good Ole Dave’s policies have been applied in Burbank, over and over, again.
Golinski gifts that “keep on giving” to the other folks “bottom lines” and “keep on taking” from us.
The “new home” of Galpin Ford still sits as a pile of concrete “nuisance” that Code Enforcement should get after Ford Motor Credit to abate.
When some opposed this “give away of taxpayer funds” they were mocked and ridiculed.
Now we have the “guide book” from the Berkeley graduate himself, thanks to you,sir.
Somebody sent it to me. They found it first.
The Cusumano situation is identical to what San Clemente is now claiming– that the demands of the city, and the declining market, have made it necessary to lower the cost of the land to the poor developer.
That is exactly what Golonksi told us over and over again was the problem back then, and why he was “proud” of the $100 downtown deal. Galpin was also a major giveaway– er, “incentive.”
There’s no way that Golonski can reconcile this letter with his own actions in Burbank. Of course, he doesn’t give a damn, either.
In this heat, I was expecting a kinder and gentler Semi!!
The weather must have been “nicer” in San Clemente this weekend, or “Corona del Golonski”.
Golonski is the poster child for perfidious politicians. He firmly believes that he is smarter than everyone else and that nobody sees what he is doing behind “closed doors.”
Why would anyone believe that his 18 years of service (more like self service) have been for the benefit of the people of Burbank.
People are not just paying taxes anymore, but attention. The lights are on…brighter that ever.
Well said ‘Nuts,
Let’s not forget his campaign theme: “Experience Counts”.
Ask the employees who’ve been stiffed by Dave over the years.
Ask the cops who “trusted Dave”.
Check your utility bills, then your wallet–
NOW answer if experience counts–
For whom?
Greets to the blog.
Is it possible Mr. Golonski is kicking off his San Clemente City Council Member campaign?
He makes splendid display of his bio and credentials; adopts a populist position on a class warfare issue right out of the gate – waxes wise, the civic sage, man of the people riding on white steed to nobly protect Clementine’s imperiled interests. Cue O Fortuna.
Sure, given his history, it’s enough to make buzzards wretch, but might we be looking at some savvy transition management? I mean to say, not bad work, actually. And if true, that wouldn’t be a disagreeble development.
I could get behind this.
Is it likely he leaves before his term is up? If so, who do you think would be some good candidates? Who is running for council anyway?
Don’t forget the 2ooK they gave the comedy club for remodeling a new restaurant that failed because of bad planning and developer giveaways.
I’ve always been confused why the city thinks pedestrians would want to walk down that skinny sidewalk from San Fernando, or deal with the stupid parking lot that has a bunch of Ross reserved spots, just to go to MacGrill or any of the businesses on that side. Stupid. At least Barney’s is connected to the theater traffic, so it’s not as bad- but that staircase baffles me as well.
They didn’t just give them the money, it is secured by property that the owner of Flappers put up. They go under, they lose a “HOME”. Watch the Meeting again and tell me I’m wrong.
You’re right, and Bric told them it was ill-advised.
Thank you semi, you have an excellent memory. Bric indeed try to talk the owners out of securing a loan with the equity in there home (Believe the lady owned the property, the boyfriend was along for the ride) and I have to respect the advise of someone’s knowledge in the Restaurant biz and a “Successful Business Owner”. If I remember the owners of Flappers are getting the rent for basically 1/2 price for 3 or 4 years and then it reverts to something like 20 Grand a month, no way. Look at the old Rib place on San Fernando that went bottoms up and then two more Restaurants came in and how long did they last. Only time will tell but they will incur the same problems the Macaroni Grill did, parking.
The City encouraged that rib place to relocate from their cozy little site over on Victory, and then– kaboom.
Much of the problem there can be blamed on the kid-landlords, of whom Burbank has many. These are the ones whose parents have the now-fancy properties, so the kids get realtors’ licenses in order to skim off the cash.
It’s been happening all over Burbank. Tony Roma’s had been doing OK, but then the kid-landlords wanted to almost double the rent, to something like $30,000 a month. So Roma’s said hell no and the rest is there for all to see.
Bric is impressive on these small business matters– I do admit.
Landlord greed is responsible for most of the big vacancies downtown. Look what happened to that little coffeehouse on So San Fernando. The City could care less– years ago they actively harassed Grounds Zero out of town so that they could pave the way for a Starbucks.
They also hassled the bagel place so much (later Kellys II) that the wife of one of the partners actually committed suicide over their misfortunes. A police wife she was too, I believe.
The same with Laemmle theaters– any possibility of that chain coming to town was squelched in favor of the much-inferior AMC remodel job.
Remember all those “art theaters” they promised us? First they were going to be separate, then in the Mall, then they were nowhere to be found.
Business as usual– Burbank gets the crap, but San Clemente gets the concern.
Couldn’t remember the Rib Place, Tony Roma’s, thank you. I’m old school when it comes to dining in this town and the surrounding area’s. Never one to dine at Corporate establisments, thats why I liked the Blarney Stone on Hollywood Way, Damons in Glendale back when it was on Central, and probably one of the finest that shut down maybe 20 years ago, Sorrentino’s. When I read and hear what places charge for rent today I look back and think I payed $22,500 for my home I still live in today, wow. For the record and I’m glad you admit your impressed with Bric on small business matters, that’s why I voted for him. I hope he runs again, he does bring a business sense like Dr Gordon to the Council, something they lacked for many many years.
There was another BBQ place after Tony Roma’s that only lasted about a year with that incredible rent.
Besides Gordon, Bric is the only one up there who ever asks any detailed questions.
Yes, Sorrentinos– and the China Trader, too. My level was more Barrons though– or the old Don’s on Glenoaks.
China Trader, Mandarin at it’s finest. You must have grown up on the hill side commenting about Don’s, don’t forget Vern’s. Thanks for the friendly discussion, I enjoy your blog, just report the truth and keep it on a positive level and please stay away from the profanity.
Watch it again, indeed.
As with many businesses, their loan can be secured by their home.
Check to see if the “Burbank Transaction” is secured by anything. It’s not on the video.
They claim that their “bank loan” is secured.
Right, the bank loan was independent. But the whole deal was flimsy, and Burbank wasn’t doing them any favors by helping them get caught in that web.
How many things have we seen over the years like this, Dixie? Even Vern Michel couldn’t make a go of his home-made stage, right next door to the record shop.
Too,
I hope you read Dixies comment below I pay very close attention.
Like the Chinese place that wanted the $1 book store soon to be Halloween super store but the Golonski didn’t want a buffet on the mall. They didn’t want a cent from the city.
It was strange how Redevelopment went nuts at the idea of a Chinese buffet in the old Sav-On location. It would have been fine.
Instead, they knocked all of the fast food places off of San Fernando, despite their success and need– and replaced them with piss-elegant losers.
If the San Clemente city council meetings are televised I hope someone gets the video footage of Mr Golonski speaking before that city council.
All the sweet developer deal give-aways that Golonski has promoted here in Burbank makes me really wonder why what’s good for Burbank isn’t good for San Clemente.
Maybe San Clemente should build a Cusamano Plaza or a Comedy Club, all at tax payers expense. Golonski thought it was great for Burbank so why isn’t it great for San Clemente ?
Golonski should do us all a favor and move to San Clemente.
Only when his Mother-in-law says he can.