Perhaps a "knock-down" will help to figure this out. :-) Sorry could not help myself.

Obviously Mettler must not be getting his share. Probably the only reason he'd oppose it. You suppose he's got any connection to Wilson? Hm?

Is the federal courthouse in Fresno owned by the federal government?  If there is no hard time on the lease, I can see the GSA try to move out to the southwest again in less than the forecasted 30-40 years.  It sounds like GSA is playing politics on this one and trying to appease Mettler or whoever vouched to have it downtown.  Are they still going to complete it or is this stalling completion? 

Or......perhaps Mr. Mettler is once again taking on the good 'ole boy network who is attempting to rape the taxpayer out of millions of dollars in wasteful government spending to a private denizen.   But hey "nooneisabovethelaw" taking shots at Mr. Mettler, when you lack the intellectual capacity to understand what is truly taking place, is always convenient.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to Mr. Mettler and his cause if he wasn't a professional real estate developer.

PoliticalJunkie...my experience has been, usually, when somebody has a gripe, politically, about any action, it's because their own cause/interest has been ignored or passed over.

Mettler is involved in real estate. You suppose he's got Wilson for a client, somehow? They're both buddies of Jackie Sullivan....it's their own "good ol' boys" network, only they're on the outside looking in...after their own interests.

Somehow I don't think any of that particular crew is all that cognizant nor particularly interested in saving taxpayer monies. Otherwise they wouldn't spend their time debating and determining that yes, indeed, we should put up signs in every public chamber that "In God We Trust."

Mettler doesn't seem to have any problems with taxpayer dollars going to his interests.

Wilson is a real estate attorney, no less. This is starting to sound more and more like sour grapes masquerading behind a facade.

PoliticalJunkie: you wouldn't be Chad Vegas, by any chance? Your profile is the right age and previous posts would appear to put you in that category...

Speaking of masquerading behind a facade...

Isn't Ken Mettler building Chad Vegas a house?

Or perhaps being a real estate developer gives him the needed expertise to see this for what it truly is, a disservice to the taxpayer.

However, you continue you to spout slanderous accusations about Mr. Mettler without knowing a single thing about the issue at hand.  Here's an idea, before you starting making malicious accusations of Mr. Mettler, research the issue.

But I guess that would be way too hard, don't let logic get in the way of your mindless bashing of Mr. Mettler.

and Chad Vegas? Once again you continue with these baseless claims and false accusations.  No I am not Chad Vegas. I am, however, one of the 70,469 Kern County Residents that voted for him.

Saw a bit on one of the local T.V. stations last night. Nobody else seems to find this odd or out of line but Mr. Mettler.

Please do tell if you have some "info" P.J.

This is about the private property rights debate that was stirred up the New London decision (homeowners lost a legal bid to keep homes taken from them by a government who then sold the land to a developer).

The decision in favor of the goverment  backed up the existing public right to take private property through government power, sell it to a separate private entity (usually a developer) for conversion into a public-interest project such as a mall or (in this case) a building to be rented to a public agency.

I'm not going to argue the right or wrong of New London.

But the New London decision brought that government power into the limelight and shocked people. Conservative activists have used it as a rallying point for political mobilization — just as Mr. Mettler seems to be doing.

Fact is the city of Bakersfield has been doing this kind of thing commonly for years — usually through the redevelopment agency which can pull in new tax money from revitalized properties:

• The new movie theater near McMurtrey Aquatics Center — the city acquired the land through it's government powers and sold it to developers.

• The Food Maxx at Union and California — city bought the old Bakersfield Inn (half of it anyway), cleared the land and sold it to developer Lee Jamison for nothing to help support the location of a grocery store in southeast Bakersfield.

• Bakers Street — there is a redevelopment project there that is waiting to kick off. Land was pulled together by the city and will be transferred to a developer to complete a rebirth of the historic Old Town Kern area.

• Asian-themed' shopping center on Union Avenue — if I remember clearly another city clear and develop deal similar to Food Maxx up the street.

As for the courthouse — if the property is transferred to a private owner it goes from having a $0 presence on the tax rolls to having a value on the rolls equal to the improved value of the property. Will it make up for giving away the intrinsic value of the property now? Don't know.

Thanks JBurger.

According to Donna Kunz, the city didn't actually buy the land near for the movie theater. It did for properties near the theater, and one could credibly argue there was an implicit threat that the city would use its eminent domain power if anyone didn't sell.

Mettler has made a big deal out of redevelopment in the past; the courthouse angle is new, but Mettler's focus on redevelopment projects isn't.

I covered the whole City Center project from the beginning and the threat of emminent domain was very clear to the property and business owners who I interviewed repeatedly.

As for the ownership of the property — it is my clear recollection  that some of the parcels being used for the movie theater and its parking lot were acquired by the city and transferred to the developer through a deal that allowed the city to buy the land back if the project did not go forward.

I reviewed the property records on the parcels and remember that they backed up my memories. I'll pull those records for you again James .

As I suspected, the city of Bakersfield sold at least five properties to D W Sivers Co. in 2002 and 2003 (Dennis Sivers was a Portland enterprenur who  original City Center vision guy Ray Olmschied found to fund the project).

The properties run along the south side of 13th Street between N Street and O Street. Actually they run along what used to be 13th Street. That section of the street doesn't exist anymore because the theater itself is being built right on top of its former alignment.

Purchase price of the properties: $559,000.

And the threat of emminent domain was more than an "implicit" threat. I found a story I wrote back in the day where property owners in the area were preparing to hire emminent domain attorneys as the city prepared to pass resolutions of necessity — the first step in emminent domain proceedings.

If memory serves the deal with Sivers was a transfer of property for the same price the city paid for the land. So the city didn't really profit from the deal — but didn't lose money either.

And if the theater is profitable, the redevelopment agency will make money.

The whole process is flawed.  Redevelopment has only served to benefit a wealthy developer.  Remember the fiasco about Price Club on Rosedale a number of years ago?  The city gave money to entice a rich chain store that eventually was bought out by Costco.  They would have come into town anyway, and anyone with half a brain would have seen that.  As for Mettler, he is nothing but a blowhard positioning himself to run for a higher office.  Just what we need, another dingledorf but his one who can boast beating up a teen and destroying campain signs.  Bakersfield deserves better than this.