Sweetwater school district’s weird, failed real estate deals

As recall, the purchase was an arms length transaction. I believe the Ratner Family Trusts openly marketed the property which had been a clothing manufacturing plant when we still made things in this country.
— February 9, 2013 1:37 p.m.

Sweetwater school district’s weird, failed real estate deals

Chula Vista was never in. The District wanted millions of dollars in Tax Increment Funds from the CV Redevelopment Agency. The deal they proposed would have CV more heavily invested in the District's projects by orders of magnitude than the District itself. You can go to Youtube and watch a meeting of the Agency as they are given a presentation by the District. It is in three segments starting with; WWW.youtube.com watch?v=2dS6FL01fve. The comments by the agency members and staff will leave you confused and angry at that which was so clear to the City but so obscure to the District. It is axiomatic that the people who put a plan together become emotionally invested in it and are not the best source for evaluation of that plan. Keep in mind, the District deperately needs a new Administrative Center. In California there is no mechanism for financing non-classroom buildings save the General Fund. The goal was laudable, they just went a couple of bridges too far. Lest we get too involved in the blame game, remember that this was done in our name and we are responsable for picking up the pieces. It is in everyone's best interests to find a successful outcome to this situation.
— February 9, 2013 11:40 a.m.

Sweetwater school district’s weird, failed real estate deals

The "L" St. site is not a good one for residential use for a number of reasons. Current planning wants walkable neighborhoods with easy access to groderies and other services. The Bay Front development has as its main connections to Chula Vista "H" and "J" Streets. "L" Street has no direct access due to the overpass. Additionaly, the train tracks and freeway are not conducive to quiet healthful living. So lets recap, "L" Street has no convenient services, is isolated from both the Bay Front and the City Core, and has the environmental issue of the transportation modes adjacent. On the other hand, CV needs job opportunity. The site is presently zoned for industrial/warehouse and commercial uses both of which will be in increased demand when development on the Bay Front finally comes to fruition. Resedential uses, as a rule, cost a city more in services than they receive in property taxes. so Chula Vista should concentrate on higher density residential in the City core, thus building a population that will support the restaurants and stores we would like to see along Third Ave. Chula Vista should not allow density islands such as might be created by higher density residential at SUHSD's "L" St. and 5th Ave. sites.
— February 9, 2013 8:48 a.m.

Sweetwater school district’s weird, failed real estate deals

The concept of a Soccer facility on the "L" St. property has merit. It would bring some nice amenities to western Chula Vista. The Arena could host other events such as concerts, revivals, and graduations. The location would present some traffic issues with the configuration of the present on and off ramps but there could possibly be a trolley stop added at "L" St. that would operate only during an event. The biggest impediment to the project is the $30M plus the District has in the land. No sports venue will support such a crushing land cost. The devil is in the details but the concept is good. A school distrioct should not act as a land speculator or developer and they would do well to divest themselves of this Albatross even if they take a haircut on the deal. Educators may make good Board members but they rarely have the skills to act as Developers. The K-12 Charter makes me vervous as there may be the temptation to over price the land under that in order to lower the cost of the sports dirt.
— February 8, 2013 7:32 p.m.

Sweetwater school district’s weird, failed real estate deals

On 12 Oct 2004 the then City Manager of Chula Vista sent a letter to the Sweetwater Board through Dr. Brand that stated the Cities misgivings about the purchase of the "L" St. property that in pertinent part states;...we cannot assure the District that we can be a "partner" until later this year...I belive it is important that your Board understand that they may be committing to expend $28M on a piece of property before they have reached agreement with the City. There are obvious risks involved in such a decision; however, your Board can choose to assume such risk with full disclosure of our position."
— February 8, 2013 7:11 p.m.

Calexico Superintendent Resigns When Raise Denied

Fragale's quote,"I will not work from now through June for $1,300 a month, and I don't think anyone out there would either" is the epitomy of arrogance. Ninety percent of the parents in his district would love to make that much. Both Fragale and Brand are just hired hands, and as such they are fungible.
— September 14, 2012 7:32 p.m.

Dust Devil Settles in Southwest High’s Dumped-Dirt Debacle

SDCOE was asked to provide an emergency waiver from public solicitation for bids to remove the dirt pile. At that point the cost was thought to "possibly exceed $100K. The dirt was impounding water on the field and a health hazard due to the creation of mosquito breeding habitat. It also made the track and field unusable. The SDCOE approval was limited to waiving the formal (Competitive) bidding process. All of that was rendered moot once the soil tests, necesary to remove the soil, showed slightly elevated levels of hydrocarbons, pesticides, and lead. At some point the District decided to treat the soil as contaminated in spite of the fact that the lab tests found "quantified values are below regulatory health risk guidlines" and the costs jumped to $500K. The 25 May 2011 minutes of the Southwest FAC meeting 3.2 b reflect the following; "Coach Esposito is trying to beautify our football field. This measure was approved last July by central office. All dirt was donated..."
— July 29, 2012 3:46 p.m.

Public Input Stifled at Sweetwater's Board Meeting

I questioned why, when my PRA request asked for..."all communications relating to the soil in whatever form...from consultants and contractors" I didn't recieve the soil report. I received the answer today from Ms.Boyd, an attorney with Stutz Artiano et. al. one of the Districts law firms. She says,"Because your request only sought "communications," these reports were deemed unresponsive and were not produced to you". Now I ask you, in what parallel universe does a report not meet the definition of a communication?
— July 27, 2012 9:51 p.m.

Public Input Stifled at Sweetwater's Board Meeting

It is clear to me that the Board violates the Brown act when they do not allow public comment at a public meeting. I also believe that a "reasonable man" would find that 60 seconds does not meet the public comment requirement either. The bylaws properly allow the President some discretion in the management of a meeting but the arbitrary manner in which they conduct a meeting is indefensable. The other three sat like bumps on a log Monday night when public comment was moved to the end of the agenda and again when the time was shortened to a minute. I told them at the meeting that they would be mistaken if they thought they could get away with it and I will be making a Brown Act complaint. I will avail myself of all remedies allowed under the law.
— July 26, 2012 10:17 p.m.