Desert Fashion Plaza Profit Potential


Palm Springs, California.  The City of Palm Springs has released details of its recently negotiated financing agreement with developer John Wessman covering the renovation of Desert Fashion Plaza. Wessman is the near-empty plaza’s owner and that central downtown site is viewed as a major stumbling block to the revitalization of the city’s oldest and singularly pampered shopping district. The financing agreement clearly proves Mr. Wessman is an extremely shrewd negotiator for he stands to receive $43 million in taxpayer funds as an incentive (a gift) to undertake major renovation work on a portion of his plaza property.

According to city staff analysis the cost of Desert Fashion Plaza’s Phase One development will be $81 million. It is stated development of the plaza has not previously occurred because it would not be a profitable enterprise. The projections for the plaza, following an $81 million redevelopment, would only return 4.7% as the annual net profit. The analysis states investors currently demand 9.5% returns before they will participate. The conclusion is that Mr. Wessman does not personally have sufficient funds to develop the plaza without outside investors and a 4.7% return is insufficient to meet their demands. According to the analysis the project will need a gift of city funds totaling at least $43 million in order to allow it to generate the 9.5% annual net return investors expect. It is believed downtown millionaires and other influential interests completely understand the issue and may have instructed city officials to do whatever it takes, pay whatever it costs and move as swiftly as possible in order to persuade Mr. Wessman to quickly undertake redevelopment of his plaza property. It is for that reason this agreement may have been negotiated and the new one percent Sales Tax hike ordinance enacted and placed on the November ballot as Measure J. The Sales Tax hike ballot measure money will be deposited  in the city’s general fund where it will be available to satisfy the $43 million required by the agreement with Mr. Wessman.

The financing agreement between the city and Mr. Wessman is completely one-sided and allows him the best of all possible options. His construction cost contribution will be $38 million and the city’s gift will cover the remaining $43 million. When completed his annual net return will be $4.7 million and the city’s share will be zero. A portion of the city contribution, $32 million, together with $2 million from Mr. Wessman will be deposited into escrow and paid out as construction proceeds. Mr. Wessman’s remaining $36 million will not be required until the city contribution has been completely used. When Phase One of the project is complete in 2015 it will be worth, based on actual cost, at least $100 million dollars. At that point if Mr. Wessman chooses to sell the property for that amount his profit will be $42 million. The city’s share of the profit (remember, the city contributed $43 million towards the costs) will be zero! 

The agreement with Mr. Wessman is a bad arrangement for Palm Springs and its taxpaying community. There is still time to change some of its terms and make it a bit more palatable. For example:
  • a stipulation that provides for the city to share in any profit from future sale of the property would seem appropriate; and
  • provide for the city to receive all of the Phase Two land that is being set aside for future development; and
  • re-examine the costly arrangement that relieves the parking structure, public restrooms and new streets maintenance costs from the developer and transfers them to the city.

These steps could eventually lead to the city recovering much, if not all, of its $43 million at a future date. A better solution, of course, would be for the city to get out of the gift of public funds business and allow Mr. Wessman to make his best deal with private investors.

Mr. Wessman is a smart, shrewd and determined developer and businessman. No better evidence exists than in the one-sided financing conditions he has extracted from Palm Springs city officials. He will receive huge sums of taxpayer dollars as a gift to develop property he owns that, when development ends, can be sold for almost double his actual investment. The only losers in this deal are taxpayers in Palm Springs and they lose twice. The first loss is the 1% Sales Tax hike they are being asked to pay. The second loss is in city officials’ credibility for that group clearly answers to money and influence while completely ignoring presumed ethical and fiduciary responsibilities to their taxpaying constituency. Some, who have cried out “Shame on them!” may have rightfully made that call.

Bond Shands
Palm Springs - September 6, 2011

- End -

Copies of this blog are available to all on the www.DesertObserver.com website
or to those on the Desert Politics & Elections email distribution list available by request from
politics@DesertObserver.com

  
Send requests for more information to the following:

Committee for No on Measure J
Renee DeVolt, Treasurer
1111 Tahquitz Canyon Way  - Suite 111

Palm Springs, Ca. 92262

pstaxpayer@gmail.com   |   www.DesertObserver.com

Visit us on our “Palm Springs Taxpayers” Facebook page.

www.facebook.com/PalmSpringsTaxpayers

 


Click here to view or download a PDF copy of this blog.

The Desert Observer Website

www.DesertObserver.com

The blog in this format is distributed via email to all who request to be included on the mailing list. Address an email to politics@DesertObserver.com to be added to the distribution list

 Note: In order to control SPAM the comment-awaiting-approval feature is in effect here. Comments left by actual viewers are not suppressed.

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
  • No comments exist for this post.
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.