CSUS: Don't Shortchange Belmont
The announcement by CSUS that they have purchased the Davis Drive property for $11million dollars came as no surprise. What was surprising is I heard that, although CSUS paid $2 million less for the property, due to the increase in both construction and interest costs, CSUS is considering offering the City of Belmont less than last year’s final offer. How will this affect the City, the fire district and other agencies like the school districts, etc.
If this is the case, all of the citizens should shudder at this further attempt to buy and develop one of the prime properties of Belmont at rock-bottom prices — and it might be time to demand a referendum to settle the issue by the entire electorate of Belmont. Sadly, only 37% of Belmont voters exercised their right to vote in the election this month.
In anticipation of a CSUS proposal, I am reprinting the following from my earlier blog:
"I and many others who opposed the original CSUS proposal could become advocates for accepting a new proposal under the following conditions:
1. CSUS offers a solution to the burgeoning traffic problem on Ralston Avenue that will be exacerbated if their original proposal is implemented — a solution other then CSUS' lame offer to start classes 15 minutes earlier, which would just extend the Ralston Avenue congestion by15 minutes each morning. Also, rather than making a one-time contribution to another seemingly feckless traffic study, how about considering a CSUS bus to the campus from a collection area near Highway 280 or 92!
2. CSUS removes the potentially fatal financial ticking time bomb - the 2% annual increase cap to their payment in lieu of taxes. If inflation rises at a higher rate than 2% (as most experts expect), the cost to the City could eventually be greater then the CSUS payment, and the taxpayers would be stuck paying for CSUS, as well as losing tax revenue. This is potentially the most dangerous consequence of the CSUS proposal, and the cap should be the future contemporaneous rate of inflation. The proponents' argument that 2% is the amount of increases allowed under Prop 13 is not relevant because when private property is sold, the house and taxes are reassessed; CSUS will own the property and potentially be a tax-exempt financial burden, not a blessing, to the taxpayers of Belmont forever
3. CSUS must supply a financially-secure secondary guarantor of the promised annual payment to the City of Belmont. Because CSUS is a tax-exempt private business that can declare bankruptcy or fail to pay their annual commitment, the City has no tax-lien recourse that it would have with a default by a tax-paying owner. For those who dismiss this possibility, remember the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy in 2008.
4. CSUS chooses a less severe and a better environmentally-friendly plan to cut fewer mature trees on the Water Dog Canyon rim. Saplings are not replacements for mature trees for 50-100 years.
5. CSUS has responded somewhat satisfactorily to the noise level from their athletic field and pool during school days, however they need to submit a plan to enforce the noise-level restrictions during weekends – both noise-level and time restrictions."
I hope the Belmont citizens assume a proactive stance to demand that CSUS offer a fair-market present and future reimbursement to our City for their profiting from prime real estate and using costly City of Belmont resources. Don't forget that the City Planning and zoning rules will have to amended, probably spelling the demise of Belmont's only Executive Offices/Warehouse zoning.
Finally, CSUS is an ongoing business generating enough revenue to pay for the prime property and reimburse Belmont equitably for the loss of taxes and cost of services rendered. If not, the people must speak up loudly and clearly.
Edited by Elaine Burns
