YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Cities Should Reflect on Land Exchange

September 28, 1989

On the Glendora surplus property in Azusa (Times, Aug. 10):

I think Glendorans and Azusans were ill-served by the law firm that serves both cities with legal counsel. And the cities should reflect on what might have been.

I could have possibly had my water bill lowered because the Glendora Water Fund could have had $5 million added to it by selling the nine acres to the highest bidder on the open market instead of dealing privately with only one developer.

Azusans could have had open space for recreation had their city purchased the nine acres of land for the giveaway 1985 appraised price of $1.13 million. Or they could have provided low-cost senior housing.

Glendorans are the big losers. In spite of the verbal utterances of the three Glendora councilmen, the printed irrevocable option contract made in 1986 with Johnny Johnson calls for the purchase price of the exchange property (to) be the same as the purchase price of nine acres. What is the exchange property? It is a half-acre for a well site. No money will end up in the Water Fund. All the people should read that contract.

But kudos to Johnny Johnson, who will have a 67-home development, courtesy of two cities, who seem to have forgotten whom they serve.

Finally, to the ill-served citizens, we deserve what we get if we can't be bothered to pay attention to the actions of our public servants. For the few of us who did raise the red flag warning about this disgraceful transaction, it proves that there are not enough of us minding the store.



Los Angeles Times Articles