Questions I'm thinking about include:
- What are the long-term and short-term costs, benefits, advantages and disadvantages of having the city own the station?
- Are there precedents we could learn from: small cities owning or declining to own important historical landmarks? Burlingame and the bus terminal?
- How much is the historical society paying Caltrain to lease the station for the museum, and how would this be better or worse if the city owned the station?
- Are there insurmountable barriers (legal, financial, etc) that would prevent this from happening in the long term?
Points of view I think I've heard so far (in the Daily News article and in the snippets of discussion I managed to tune into on Monday night) include:
- Galligan: we should work toward a long-term view of taking ownership
- O'Mahoney: we shouldn't have to pay for the upkeep (from the article and the meeting)
- Nagel: it may set a costly precedent (I think I heard this during the meeting apologize in advance if I misinterpreted)
- Baylock: it may not be possible (from the article)
- Cohen: need more info in order to evaluate the proposal (from the article)
What are your thoughts on this?
- Written by Ian
I look forward to some pro-Galliganite telling us how you buy something that isn't for sale.
Posted by: al | June 24, 2005 at 04:07 AM
If it isn't up for sale, why is Mr. Galligan suggesting the city purchase the train station. I called Cal Train and asked about the various closed train stations along the rail corridor. According to Cal Train there are two other closed stations that are being leased to the local city. Cal Train has never sold a station to a local city, but they are willing to engage in a conditional lease agreement so the building can be used. Cal Train knows that several of the stations have a historical value and they are willing to help support the local history. I asked the Cal Train representative why Cal Train will not sell their property he said these stations are part of the right of way and Cal Train does not know what the future holds but there are plans to expand the number of tracks, so they want to maintain control over the property.
Posted by: Raymond | June 24, 2005 at 03:29 PM
How can the city buy something that isn't for sale? Anything is negotiable. The Supreme Court ruling yesterday basically gives cities broad use of eminent domian.
How is the city to build a centennial plaza if they do not own the property?
Posted by: Smith | June 24, 2005 at 05:08 PM
I didn't get the impression he was saying buy it now?, just that it is in the city's long-term interest to take ownership. If this is the case, there may be things we can do in the short term which would better lay the groundwork for an eventual purchase or transfer. This may be even more important if we think that taking ownership may involve the use of eminent domain a history of paying for capital improvements may weigh in the city's favour if it ever came to that.
Raymond good info from Caltrain. Seems to me that their position is an example of why we may prefer city ownership. If we want to use it for a museum, but Caltrain decides they would rather close it or move it (e.g. for a future track expansion), I'd prefer local control. Also, I'm a bit surprised to hear that the station is on the track right of way is the station closer to the tracks than the donut shop?
Posted by: | June 25, 2005 at 06:34 AM
"I asked the Cal Train representative why Cal Train will not sell their property he said these stations are part of the right of way and Cal Train does not know what the future holds but there are plans to expand the number of tracks."
Can you imagine if caltrain tore down the station for more tracks? Based off this statement alone the city needs to buy the station.
Posted by: Walfredo | June 28, 2005 at 05:53 PM
Then wouldn't the land around it need to be purchased, as well. I sure don't see that as anything JPB would consider.
Posted by: Jenn | June 28, 2005 at 06:21 PM