"I will carry a bill to insure the the continuing operation of the equestrian center, Fair and Marketplace," said Assemblyman Van Tran at the end of a nearly 3 hour hearing attended by over 300 members of the public troubled by the sale of the Orange County Fairgrounds. The informational hearing held in Costa Mesa on November 9, 2009, was called by Assemblymembers Jose Solorio and Van Tran to both educate the public about the sale process and to get public comments on the sale process.
It should be noted that all members of the Fair Board present at the meeting and CEO Steve Beazley left the hearing room when public comment started.
During the meeting, both Assemblymembers asked questions about the sale that generated unclear answers from staff and the Fair Board. The issues were lack of an appraised value for the property, conduct of the Fair Board, and who has final authority to sell the property. Also during the hearing, the potential for the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 derailing the sale was brought up.
Assm. Solorio was "gravely concerned" about the lack of an appraised value for the property. Typically, when a piece of real estate is prepared for sale, an appraisal is done by the selling side to determine a selling range. In residential real estate, the selling agent "runs comps", which is finding out what similar homes have recently sold for, and the mortgage lender will order a formal appraisal to confirm the selling price. To date, no appraisal has been done on the Orange County Fair and Events Center (OCFEC.) Both Bob McKinnon, Supervising Real Estate Officer, Office of General Services, and Steve Beazley, CEO OCFEC, argued that the uniqueness of the property meant there is no comparable sale to available, but there are industry accepted techniques for use in such a situation for dealing with such issues. Selling any piece of property without an appraisal is suspect practice, at best.
Assm. Solorio brought up issues of the conduct of the OCFEC Board of Directors. Many members of the public have been questioning if the conduct of the current Fair Board is in the public interest or their own interest. A key issue is the alleged lobbying of the current Fair Board for the sale of the property so a private foundation made up of Fair Board members can buy the property. Assm. Solorio asked CEO Beazley if the Fair Board hired any lobbyist or attorney to press for the sale of the property. Beazley replied that Dick Ackerman was hired, not as a lobbyist or attorney, but as a consultant to try to get information from the Department of General Services regarding the sale. Under current state law, it is illegal for a former Legislator to lobby for 12 months after leaving office. Senator Ackerman was term limited out in 2008 and his former seat is now occupied by Mimi Walters. If Ackerman lobbied on behalf of the Fair Board, he is in violated the law.
Explanations of the sale process left both Assem. Solorio and Tran unsatisfied. Assm. Solorio questioned the purpose of having sealed bids, followed by an auction of all qualified bidders. "Doesn't this encourage people to low ball the value?" he asked General Services Director McKinnon. Both Assemblymembers also questioned the process outlined in ABX 22, which is not crystal clear on who has the final authority to determine a selling price and perfect a sale.
Issues surrounding the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, which created the Fairgrounds by transferring the surplus Army Air Base in 1958, were brought up. The Act, provides that all property conveyed under the Act must continue to be used for the purpose as conveyed or the property reverts back to the Federal government. Assm. Solorio stated that he will have staff research this item and come back to him because he sees this law as a potential stop to the selling process. Gus Ayer at OC Progressive, unearthed this potential roadblock to the sale.
I am sorry that I had to leave before the end of public comments for another event. Your article doesn't clarify or comment on the title. I can only assume the title means what ii says and that Van Tran is again showing his incompetance as a lawyer and a legislator. The only way such a bill could have any force is if the sale was stopped and the land remained under state control. Any state law restricting usage of a specific piece of property not belonging to the state would be in violation of the state Constitution.
Posted by: Ken Arnold | 11/09/2009 at 02:37 PM
Near the end of the meeting, Assm. Van Tran made that statement, which I double checked with others in the room to make sure I heard it correctly. We want to be able to hold him to his word.
This proposed bill would not stop the sale, but put more somewhat acceptable conditions on the sale. The goal is to stop the sale and let the Fairgrounds be the Fairgrounds.
The requirement for these items can be included in any property transfer documents - it does not need to be a law, it only needs to be recorded with the deed. This would be very similar to when you buy a property with an HOA - the HOA is included in the deed covenant, and you agree to the HOA when you buy the property. It is common to put in conveyance deeds for a gift to a public entity that the land will revert back if the use is changed from the original intended use.
Posted by: Publisher | 11/09/2009 at 03:50 PM
Yes. Something like the way you state it may work, but it could still be removed by future legislatures, and possibly in court or by other means.
Posted by: Ken Arnold | 11/09/2009 at 08:47 PM