Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop, Staff Writer., 2/109/14. "Council wants Kimco to explain intentions."
 |
| Linda Mar Shopping Center |
| Fairmont Shopping Center |
O'Neill's letter, addressed to regional manager Steve Naval, begins by thanking Kimco for its interest in Pacifica by managing the shopping centers that provide critical services and goods that every community needs and by providing gathering spots for families. However, the letter goes on to state the citizens of Pacifica are concerned about the number of vacancies in both shopping centers. Those vacancies impact Pacifica's financial health and reduce the number of first jobs available for local youth. The vacancies also give the impression Pacifica has poor business conditions." Read article.
Reference - KIMCO Realty. Linda Mar Shopping Center, Pacifica/Nicole Hauscarriague, listing of tenants, pdf pages 5. Fairmont Shopping Center/redevelopment underway/Nicole Hauscarriage, listing of tenants, pdf pages 5.
Related - Fix Pacifica reprint article - Pacifica Tribune/Jean Bartlett, 8/7/12,"Round Table Pizza Linda Mar closed." Note photographs. Linda Mar Shopping Center from City of Pacifica listing. Fairmont Shopping Center by CoStar, face page to City Feet.com.
Submitted by Jim Wagner
Posted by Kathy Meeh
20 comments:
no one from chamber bothered to testify. asleep??
It's a tear-down, but with the poop pit on the way who will invest?
MIke O'Neill suggested at the meeting, you can hear it on the PCT26 tape, that the City Council or perhaps Pacificans in general cash in our IRAs to
buy Linda Mar Shopping Center.
How much are the parasites at KIMCO asking for this property?
O'Neill suggests making LM a co-op? Big old hippie. What more proof do we need that Pacifica is a hippie town? Always was and always will be.
748 what are you talking about? The property is owned by Kimco Realty, not the City. We all know that, right?
Which leads me to believe Councilmember Mike O'Neill might not have made such a leap into such uncharted speculation as you describe. Besides, Coouncilmember O'Neill has both a financial and real estate background, and he is no hippie.
Ms. Meeh, talking about what 540 said. What r you talking about?
948, without reference to 540 comment prior, maybe its the embellished language without substantial detail that confuses your 748 comment. What do you think?
And did Councilmember Mike O'Neill state or suggest "that the City Council or perhaps Pacificans in general cash in our IRAs to buy Linda Mar Shopping Center"? Short answer: NO!
That's what I'm talking about. Kimco controls these business locations. Pacifica has poor business conditions, (thanks again NIMBIES). The Kimco leases are high cost for small business proprietors.
Got solutions? At least at City Council, Councilmember O'Neill opened the discussion of what accountable role the City may assume. No one else on City Council did, he's a hero! Finally a reasonable city inquiry MAY develop, (this issue is not new).
Empty storefronts should not be good for any shopping area, and clearly these vacancies are not good for city tax revenue. A fair "good neighbor" first step inquiry of Kimco might be: please explain your game plan rationale, so that the City understands what you're doing.
Actually it is rumored that Lucky will close when the lease is up. Safeway and Lucky have merged.
Actually a couple more stores are in danger of closing also.
I don't know if this is true or not, but Burlingame was having similar issues a free years back when Kimco threw out some businesses, including a very popular restaurant we used to frequent. I was told by a staff member that Kimco made money on empty buildings through some sort of tax cleverness, and in conjunction with not needing to maintain them the profit was increased. Doesn't seem possible, but who knows with corporate lawyer?
If you are one of the business owners in Manor and you own the business, if you were to retire and then have difficulty leasing the building, this ordinance would have directly impacted you. To go after KIMCO and burn the small business property owner is not good.
Kathy, let us know what you think: scroll to 1:41:00 on this page:
http://173.13.163.130/Cablecast/Public/Show.aspx?ChannelID=5&ShowID=2435
Common 926, City Council voted to move forward with a low impact inquiry of Kimco.
I saw the entire City Council meeting live 2/9/15, and I'm not interested in playing games with you. Get a name (your real name), so that we know how you're thinking. Can't do that, why?
Kathy, if you think I'm putting Mike on the hot seat for making a wisecrack, you are partially mistaken. There is something to what he said, that I thought you'd catch on to.
The center was for sale. There were no buyers. How can the City make the center more palletable for another owner to take over? As the gentleman from Fairmont Mail Center said, we are not going to get anywhere with KIMCO, thebest we can hope for is that a more responsible owner takes over these "plazas" as Sue calls them.
Maybe as Mike hinted...Pacifica could get some skin in the game? If not buying the centers, Masterplanning them for redevelopment by others?. The 1960s shopping centers are functionally obsolescent. Make it a real civic center by moving City Hall and a larger sized Library there instead of Palmetto. Build something grand like Santana Row, Westborough Square and Centennial Village in South San Francisco. Imagine! Something Big and Bold on the coast at Linda Mar! Out of the box thinking is needed because noone is going to buy the center if all the surfers and stoners park there.
As an aside, I think it's high time to stop anonymous posting on this blog!
Common Sense said, "Masterplanning them for redevelopment by others?" The city has never been willing to do that. It wouldn't do that when the quarry was in a redevelopment area, it won't do that for the old wastewateer treatment plant site, it will never do it for an existing commercial development like a shopping center. It takes courage, guts, and vision. This city has never had that and never will.
Kathy, Councilperson O'Neill did in fact - tongue in cheek -- suggest that local Pacificans purchase Linda Mar shopping center from Kimco, as it has been on the market, increasing concern that local businesses will be further forced out of the market if another owner comes in and increases rents (which is in the listing that rents are quite low).
Anonymous Common 1212, etc. you did not bring up the attempt of Kimco to sell their property prior, nor was it part of our discussion. No buyers, property didn't sell, transaction didn't happen. Hence, mind reading projections of nonexistent financial transactions may be more your specialty.
Sure the city could "master plan" developing these shopping centers which they currently do not own. Great idea! Kimco, or the next property owner, is probably waiting for that phone call and invitation. (The city may want to use the Beach Blvd project, previously Vreeland Beach Blvd City Hall, as their design and accomplishment reference.
142, so? "Co-op" (one word, one sentence) was hardly a serious component of the city councilmember's Item 6, and Item 7 discussions (2/9/15). And that single "co-op" comment in no way affected the direction of the city council conversations, nor did the word-idea affect the action Items.
In other words, similar to creative idea comments that may appear in all our conversations, "co-op" was a tangent without traction. Meantime, Anonymous 540, 748 got a little stuck on the word "co-op", and created an extended fictionalized drama (as described in my 1058 comment).
City Hall better not mess with Kimco or they will buy city hall and evict them.
Oh yeah, send a letter. I'm sure Kimco will turn the other cheek about that giant poop pit the city is planning. Couldn't find a buyer fast enough. Get used to empty storefronts. Kimco makes money regardless.
Post a Comment