gtmarin wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

jklm wrote:










Shuster is building another 12-13 story building behind Oakman on Second Street that will connect to the empty lot on Marin jet to the north of O'Hara's. It's quite dense. I thought he had already tried but failed to entice the condos on the corner - but I guess they're trying again. All three buildings will share 115 parking garage on the ground level.

OK, so my information wasn't too far off. But, I had heard that the parking structure was supposed to hold 160 cars. Regardless, I think the point of trying to acquire the properties along LMM Blvd would be to protect the views of condos in The Oakman and to control what development or businesses go into that strip of land. It is a very narrow strip of land and they couldn't possibly get that many units out of them, especially if they have to build setbacks at 4 and 6 stories. It should also be pointed out that the units starting at the 7th floor should have windows facing directly West, so they would want to protect those views.

I don't think they can put windows on the West fa?ade as you suggest because this borders the property line. If that property line dissolves by buying our building, I imagine Shuster could change the architectural plans.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

jklm wrote:










Shuster is building another 12-13 story building behind Oakman on Second Street that will connect to the empty lot on Marin jet to the north of O'Hara's. It's quite dense. I thought he had already tried but failed to entice the condos on the corner - but I guess they're trying again. All three buildings will share 115 parking garage on the ground level.

OK, so my information wasn't too far off. But, I had heard that the parking structure was supposed to hold 160 cars. Regardless, I think the point of trying to acquire the properties along LMM Blvd would be to protect the views of condos in The Oakman and to control what development or businesses go into that strip of land. It is a very narrow strip of land and they couldn't possibly get that many units out of them, especially if they have to build setbacks at 4 and 6 stories. It should also be pointed out that the units starting at the 7th floor should have windows facing directly West, so they would want to protect those views.

jklm wrote:










Shuster is building another 12-13 story building behind Oakman on Second Street that will connect to the empty lot on Marin jet to the north of O'Hara's. It's quite dense. I thought he had already tried but failed to entice the condos on the corner - but I guess they're trying again. All three buildings will share 115 parking garage on the ground level.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Since there wouldn't be any units on the first floor, you are talking about 20 to 25 units

OK, my assumption was 135 ft and 2 or 3 times that many units.

bodhipooh wrote:
Since there wouldn't be any units on the first floor, you are talking about 20 to 25 units

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Indeed, it seems like the stakes could be high. But, let's not get confused. Shuster already has a building in place (The Art House JC) and their second one (The Oakman) is nearing completion of the basic shell. They don't NEED to have the places along LMM Blvd to complete their current project. And, given the narrow strip that it is, I think that 8 units would be a fairly large chunk of what they could possibly build. Also, given what they are asking for condo units at The Oakman, I do think that giving away a unit in said building (and, free of maintenance, with a car spot on top of that, as FAB suggested) I do think that is UNREALISTIC.

How is 8 units a large chunk of a 135' tall building, even with the setbacks mentioned? Forget the parking etc and just do the numbers on the buyout. We're not talking about "giving away" anything. It would be in lieu of a buyout plus an above market premium. I have no idea about the actual numbers, but lets say that comes to 200k under what he could have sold it for, and the deal ultimately costs $1.6m extra on top of the (presumably) $4m or so a straight market rate buyout would cost. That get's spread as a cost among the dozens of other units in a structure that large.

gtmarin wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
They seem absolutely absurd and there's a 0% chance you get anything close to that. You can demand an above market premium, maybe something as high as 100% what your property is appraised at. A one time big cash payment, and some time to look for a new place but that's it.

Yes it's a huge pain to move and find somewhere new but that's why you demand as high a cash premium as you can get. It is a very good problem to have.

The only way the lunacy in FABs post might even be considered (instead of getting you laughed out of the room) is if the developer's project truly cannot go up without your property, AND it's just you or your family. The OP stated he has 8 units in his building. Think there's a chance in the world that the developer gives away 8 of their largest new apartments for free? Never mind the other nonsense he posted such as exempting you from all maintenance fees for life.

So the short answer to your question is not in a million years.


Quote:

SRhia wrote:
Just for my future reference, are the following reasonable to ask for if a developer ever asks to buy my unit/building?

Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Tell the developer they can have your apartment for nothing with 3 conditions

1. You get one of the largest new apartments that includes a car park
2. They pay for rent elsewhere while it's being built
3. A clause that states your apartment is exempt from any complex maintenance fees / levy

You basically said what I was thinking when I read FAB's post, but I was just trying to be polite! 100% premium, however... hmm?

bodhipooh wrote:
Indeed, it seems like the stakes could be high. But, let's not get confused. Shuster already has a building in place (The Art House JC) and their second one (The Oakman) is nearing completion of the basic shell. They don't NEED to have the places along LMM Blvd to complete their current project. And, given the narrow strip that it is, I think that 8 units would be a fairly large chunk of what they could possibly build. Also, given what they are asking for condo units at The Oakman, I do think that giving away a unit in said building (and, free of maintenance, with a car spot on top of that, as FAB suggested) I do think that is UNREALISTIC.

JCMan8 wrote:
They seem absolutely absurd and there's a 0% chance you get anything close to that. You can demand an above market premium, maybe something as high as 100% what your property is appraised at. A one time big cash payment, and some time to look for a new place but that's it.

Yes it's a huge pain to move and find somewhere new but that's why you demand as high a cash premium as you can get. It is a very good problem to have.

The only way the lunacy in FABs post might even be considered (instead of getting you laughed out of the room) is if the developer's project truly cannot go up without your property, AND it's just you or your family. The OP stated he has 8 units in his building. Think there's a chance in the world that the developer gives away 8 of their largest new apartments for free? Never mind the other nonsense he posted such as exempting you from all maintenance fees for life.

So the short answer to your question is not in a million years.


Quote:

SRhia wrote:
Just for my future reference, are the following reasonable to ask for if a developer ever asks to buy my unit/building?

Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Tell the developer they can have your apartment for nothing with 3 conditions

1. You get one of the largest new apartments that includes a car park
2. They pay for rent elsewhere while it's being built
3. A clause that states your apartment is exempt from any complex maintenance fees / levy

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Even a 100% premium on your existing property would be hard to fathom, but perhaps within the realm of possibility if the project is truly stuck without your property. In this case, it is a building of 8 units. Imagine the incredible (impossible) cost of giving away 8 units (which could be a large chunk of what they could build there, given that they only have three floors for apartments) or even paying a 100% premium on market value.

If the below is indeed true, then there's a WHOLE lot more at stake for the developer. It might even be worth giving them a unit instead of cash if that makes the deal happen. After all, would an equivalent new unit really be worth that much more than the existing one plus a premium?

Quote:

jklm wrote:
Shuster can't build higher than six stories on Marin between First and Second. according to the PAD RDP. If he can get the corner lot (your home) your building will become a 10 foot set back at 4 stories and another setback at six stories to his 135 ft tall building.

bodhipooh wrote:
Even a 100% premium on your existing property would be hard to fathom, but perhaps within the realm of possibility if the project is truly stuck without your property. In this case, it is a building of 8 units. Imagine the incredible (impossible) cost of giving away 8 units (which could be a large chunk of what they could build there, given that they only have three floors for apartments) or even paying a 100% premium on market value.

jklm wrote:
Shuster can't build higher than six stories on Marin between First and Second. according to the PAD RDP. If he can get the corner lot (your home) your building will become a 10 foot set back at 4 stories and another setback at six stories to his 135 ft tall building.

JCMan8 wrote:
They seem absolutely absurd and there's a 0% chance you get anything close to that. You can demand an above market premium, maybe something as high as 100% what your property is appraised at. A one time big cash payment, and some time to look for a new place but that's it.

Yes it's a huge pain to move and find somewhere new but that's why you demand as high a cash premium as you can get. It is a very good problem to have.

The only way the lunacy in FABs post might even be considered (instead of getting you laughed out of the room) is if the developer's project truly cannot go up without your property, AND it's just you or your family. The OP stated he has 8 units in his building. Think there's a chance in the world that the developer gives away 8 of their largest new apartments for free? Never mind the other nonsense he posted such as exempting you from all maintenance fees for life.

So the short answer to your question is not in a million years.


Quote:

SRhia wrote:
Just for my future reference, are the following reasonable to ask for if a developer ever asks to buy my unit/building?

Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Tell the developer they can have your apartment for nothing with 3 conditions

1. You get one of the largest new apartments that includes a car park
2. They pay for rent elsewhere while it's being built
3. A clause that states your apartment is exempt from any complex maintenance fees / levy

SRhia wrote:
Just for my future reference, are the following reasonable to ask for if a developer ever asks to buy my unit/building?

Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Tell the developer they can have your apartment for nothing with 3 conditions

1. You get one of the largest new apartments that includes a car park
2. They pay for rent elsewhere while it's being built
3. A clause that states your apartment is exempt from any complex maintenance fees / levy

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Tell the developer they can have your apartment for nothing with 3 conditions

1. You get one of the largest new apartments that includes a car park
2. They pay for rent elsewhere while it's being built
3. A clause that states your apartment is exempt from any complex maintenance fees / levy

jklm wrote:
Shuster can't build higher than six stories on Marin between First and Second. according to the PAD RDP. If he can get the corner lot (your home) your building will become a 10 foot set back at 4 stories and another setback at six stories to his 135 ft tall building.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Tell the developer they can have your apartment for nothing with 3 conditions

1. You get one of the largest new apartments that includes a car park
2. They pay for rent elsewhere while it's being built
3. A clause that states your apartment is exempt from any complex maintenance fees / levy

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

gtmarin wrote:
My condo assoc was recently approached by a developer to buy our building. He's constructing an apartment building adjacent to ours and if he had our property, he could make a much larger complex. We are 4 stories, eight units. He's building is 12 stories and ? units. I think it's a long shot deal, but has anyone had experience with this type of situation? Stories? Advice? None of us are sure what to expect.

If the developer is motivated enough, you might be in for a windfall from an "above market value" sale. If you DON'T sell, don't expect much love or flexibility from this developer going forward. Any issues you may have with his development or the tenants therein, will likely elicit a yawn and/or little urgency.

Wow. So it's "sell or face the consequences"? Maybe he'll drink their milkshake.

tbo wrote:
Quote:

gtmarin wrote:
Quote:

heights wrote:
Would all owners have to agree to the sale, or can the one holdout who refuses to sell be forced to sell even if they don't want to ?

That was my question; If the developer owns a voting majority of the condo association, can he basically OUTVOTE the remaining holdout to cooperate? Anyone?

um..I think NO...Condo owners own their unit and can't be 'forced' to sell - condo associations can only vote on the common elements....so theoretically I guess they may be able to sell off the lobby and the hallways...but there must be a legal argument or something in the bylaws against that as well.

gtmarin wrote:
Quote:

heights wrote:
Would all owners have to agree to the sale, or can the one holdout who refuses to sell be forced to sell even if they don't want to ?

That was my question; If the developer owns a voting majority of the condo association, can he basically OUTVOTE the remaining holdout to cooperate? Anyone?

heights wrote:
Would all owners have to agree to the sale, or can the one holdout who refuses to sell be forced to sell even if they don't want to ?

gtmarin wrote:
My condo assoc was recently approached by a developer to buy our building. He's constructing an apartment building adjacent to ours and if he had our property, he could make a much larger complex. We are 4 stories, eight units. He's building is 12 stories and ? units. I think it's a long shot deal, but has anyone had experience with this type of situation? Stories? Advice? None of us are sure what to expect.

iGreg wrote:
You'll need to negotiate as a whole group with an attorney if you'd like a simplified payday, good luck getting all to agree to sell.