voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... 'Most Likely' No Broker
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

'Most Likely' No Broker

Published: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:16 PM PDT



I've had a worry for a few days about the city's plan to sell some of its real estate as a way to raise money for the short term.

Mayor Jerry Sanders has said he plans to work with brokers on the sale. In other words, rather than having a public auction, the Sanders administration would hire real estate agents to represent the properties and try to get the best deal for the city.

But I was worried: It seems that local and federal government agencies are interested in buying a few of the properties. For instance, the Centre City Development Corp. is thinking about purchasing the World Trade Center. And the U.S. Border Patrol is interested in purchasing a city-owned property right on the border (the Border Patrol currently rents it).

So would a broker really get into the middle of a deal between governments and pull out a fat commission?

After all, the World Trade Center is appraised at $18.1 million. If a broker charged the city a, let's say, 5 percent commission to sell it, the broker would walk away with $905,000. If the property was sold to CCDC, that'd basically be like the city selling a piece of property to itself. CCDC is little more than a city department in charge of redeveloping downtown.

Would a broker really get such a fat commission for doing little more than facilitating an interdepartmental exchange of assets?

Probably not, I'm told.

Jim Barwick, the director of the city's Real Estate Assets Department, said the city would likely not use a broker to facilitate a sale of property to another government agency.

"Most likely, anything sold to a government agency would be a direct sale, meaning only the two parties to the sale would be involved in the transaction," Barwick said. "If we determined we can sell the property ourselves for the value fixed by an appraisal, we would never bring a broker into the transaction."

But, he cautioned that nothing has been decided yet and a possibility still exists that the city might use a broker to sell properties.

This is something to keep an eye on. If a broker were to get in on some kind of deal between the city and CCDC to transfer property, it would be a nice helping of gravy for the broker but a big waste of money for the city.

-- SCOTT LEWIS




9 Comments so far on this story...

The stupidest thing the City can do is sell ANY property to another gov agency for less than full market value. To get full value the property MUST be marketed thoroughly through the commercial real estate community. If another agency puts in the best offer-fine-sell-and pay a full commission. There is a reason you hire professionals-to get the highest price possible. Having said that-the higher the price-the lower the commission. No one pays a 6% commission on any property over 1 million dollars. Over 2 million the commission should drop to 4%. 2-10 million is a 3% commission. 10-20 million 2%.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 29, 2007 10:28 am

No one gets a 5% commission on an 18 million dollar deal-more like 2% max. I had a listing for 7.5 million that paid 2%.

Posted by Bill Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 29, 2007 10:34 am

The point about saving the city money if another government or government agency buys a property is well taken. However a good agent can also help the city achieve higher net proceeds should such a government/agency not be the buyer. Clearly it's in the interest of the city to work with skilled agents in the case of a non-governmental party buying the property. Here's a way the city can do both and serve the interests of the tax payers best: For those properties where there is likely interest from government, permit bidding for a 120 day period. Then have the properties appraised but don't permit the appraiser to see the bids. If the bids equal or exceed the appraisal, sell the properties to the bidder. If the bids fall short, list them with an agent who knows how to market, and how to negotiate!

Posted by Bruce | reply to this comment
May 29, 2007 10:54 am

Maybe the city can start selling all of our wetlands sense some of our council members and mayor don't seem to understand that wetlands ARE water. Great article in todays UT... check it out link

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
May 29, 2007 7:11 pm

Before CCDC buys a building they need to pay back my City all the money they owe!!!!!!! As for brokers and sale of property that's an easy one. All property should be put up for public auction with a minimum bid. If it doesn't sell during auction....the agents get a go at it.

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
May 29, 2007 7:11 pm

If the CCDC has the funding for the World Trade Center (an asbestos-filled dump of a building), then it should first consider assuming the debt service on the PETCO Park bonds. After all, PETCO Park was sold to the voters as "the key" to downtown redevelopment. With all the tax increment funds being generated, CCDC should do more than purchase a building that should be sold to someone who can refurbish it or raze it and build something useful in that space. If CCDC is involved, then the taxpayers pay for the purchase AND the remodeling or re-building. It's time these games involving CCDC stopped and they did what they were set up to do. In the alternative, it should disappear.

Posted by Buddy in Mission Valley | reply to this comment
May 29, 2007 10:24 pm

Did the city really pay $20 million for an acre of park land that it can't buy because it belongs to the federal governmemnt? The way I read it is that the redevelopment of the Naval 14 acre parcel is leased land. Did Billy Bob Henry the Flunkie collect a commision on that sale as well? I did'nt know you could sell leased land if you do not own it.

Posted by Frank Nitti | reply to this comment
May 30, 2007 5:06 am

Norman, regarding the link, one point in the article linked, charter changes require a vote of the people.

Posted by Gloria | reply to this comment
May 30, 2007 8:55 am

Frank Nittiwit- so you cannot sell leased land??? Really???? Tell me Franky-what is a "ground lease"?????????????? Better not tell that to the people that own the lease that the ground the Empire State Builing sits on.....

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 30, 2007 9:53 am


Reader feedback
  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
4415582

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.


Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed



MOST POPULAR STORIES:



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.