The Calistoga public deserves a second point of view to the one as it appeared in your recent article regarding the current provisions of the Urban Design Plan in connection with the Gliderport owned by the Merchant family.

Mr. Merchant inaccurately represents that the UDP mandates that he build “at his own cost” what the city would like to see as public amenities on his property. He maintains that the land-use provisions in the UDP for such amenities amount to “extractions” which make his property “undevelopable.”

What Mr. Merchant refuses to acknowledge is that the gliderport he actually purchased is just that: a gliderport. Its value is worth fewer millions of dollars than the fingers on one hand. The UDP makes no demands whatsoever on this land at its current use, nor does it impact its value.

Understandably, Mr. Merchant would like to see this value increased by developing it, a change to which he has no “right” as such. On the other hand, the various development options each add significant value to the property but at the same time impact the city in profound ways not only in terms of traffic all the way to the city limits, but also in terms of parking (well beyond the added demand generated by direct occupants and users), general infrastructure demands, change in the dynamics of the commercial core, workforce housing balance and loss of view sheds which are a significant city asset.

The question one needs to answer is whether the Merchant property in its current use is more or less valuable than the one developed along the lines the UDP envisions after one subtracts the cost of the associated land-use provisions which will also benefit the Calistoga public at large. It is not difficult to speculate on this subject because only recently a platinum buyer deemed that these so called “extractions” left a residual land value which is multiple times higher than its current one as a gliderport.

Mr. Merchant ultimately rejected this buyer, holding out for even more. Nevertheless, this does not seem to support the assertion that the property can not be profitably developed — to the tune of several hundred million dollars — in a way which also addresses the long-term needs of the city so that it remains attractive to residents and visitors (clients) alike.

One must also take into consideration that there is so little to do in Calistoga for its visitors, that they use events and facilities — and spend dollars — elsewhere in the Valley. The addition of substantial parking, an event center and a design accommodating housing and more commercial activities around a small plaza along the Lincoln Avenue frontage would greatly add to the attraction and therefore value, of the development itself.

The fundamental question Mr. Merchant must answer is whether he would prefer the gliderport version to which he is entitled, or the development version as it is proposed but to which he is not entitled. If it is the latter, as would be the choice of any businessman, one can not simultaneously talk about “extractions” when they end up adding multiple value to his property. There ought to be a reasonable perspective to self-interest.

While the rhetoric of the “high expense of doing business in Calistoga” may make the headlines, the facts, especially for this particular property, do not support the assertion. The tax-paying citizens of this town have made an enormous infrastructure investment so as to add tremendous value to this and other properties. This investment can not benefit the landowners alone. It must be recouped and keep paying off while at the same time, it must safeguard the interest of the community to the mutual benefit of both.

 George Caloyannidis is a resident of Diamond Mountain Road, and one of the authors of the proposed Urban Design Plan.

Print this story   |   Email this story | Browse today's articles in this category: Previous |