1980 REG MTG MIN MAY 20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Dear Sirs: I am the owner of a parcel of land at 290 Fogg Street, Colton. I understand there is a problem concerning its future use, however, I admit I am at a loss to understand why such a problem exists. My husband and I purchased the home in the Spring of 1965, one month prior to the birth of our son. Mr. Pribble was shot to death in 1975 while on duty as a Sheriff's Deputy. Following his death, my son and I remained at the old place for two years until I was no longer able to cope with the repairs and upkeep. I was able to purchase another home in Colton and hoped to keep the old place rented to supplement our income. Unfortunately, the tenant left without notice, having allowed the place to fall into even greater disrepair. I have been ordered by the city to demolish the residence. At the time we purchased the property in 1965, we were told it was zoned for commercial and light industry purposes and that a permit for residential additions or rebuilding would be impossible. We were told that even in the event of destruction by fire, the residence could not be rebuilt due to the zoning. CO To the best of my knowledge, that situation still exists. Therefore, once I a) have complied with the city's demolition order, the land will be worthless as Q residential property. Mr. Steve Yazell has offered me $25,000 for the parcel and intends to use it for commercial purposes, the use the city has obviously intended for it, by virtue of its zoning for the past 15 years that I know of. It is for this reason that I fail to understand the city's objection to its proposed use by Mr. Yazell. My son is a native and lifelong resident of Colton. I am a native of San Bernardino as was my husband. I have lived in Colton 20 years and was em- ployed here for 22 years. My husband died in service to this county. We lived for 12 years at the Fogg Street address, along side the paint factory, Griffin Wheel, East Crane Service, Ray's Wrecking Yard, Zappa Construction and Hub City Dismantlers, among others. We understood we lived in a "commer- cial" area and I assume all other residents are also aware. In a few years, my boy will be 18 years of age and certain funds that are now alloted to me for his support will cease. In view of rising costs of living, I must look to the sale of this property as a necessary source of long-term income. Now, I am told that the sale of this property may be prevented by residents who object to this land being used the way the city says it should be used. May I point out that this parcel is bounded on the south by a paint factory and Griffin Wheel, on the west by a railroad bank and tracks, on the north by a street and vacant land, and on the east by a residence, the occupants of which do not resist the business proposed by Mr. Yazell. I am certain you realize that if I am unable to effect the sale of this parcel for commercial use, the property will be less than worthless; it will be an expense to me inasmuch as I will be required to pay taxes, insurance and weed abatement costs. I have had no indication from the objecting residents that they intend to match Mr. Yazell's offer. If they wish to purchase the land, they can keep it in early tumbleweed if they wish, or do whatever the city will allow. Meanwhile, I am forced into a position of losing this income opportunity, thereby making any subsequent dealings extremely difficult if not impossible. The City Council (although the city has already dictated the zoning of the land) is tell- ing me that based on the wishes of a few Colton residents, two other Colton resi- dents are not allowed to enter into a fair business agreement. The Colton City Council is telling me that I am not allowed to secure the future income from the sale of this property but that, instead, I must pay to keep the land vacant to satisfy others. While the thought is distasteful to me, many friends have suggested',I sue the city for my potential losses. I am not certain the city is solely to blame and I have not yet investigated this avenue of compensation, however, at this point it seems I am being unjustly treated inasmuch as the land is properly zoned for Mr. Yazell's proposed use, he has made and I have accepted a reasonable offer for the land and we both have done our utmost to follow the rules and regulations set by the city. 401) MAY ) 0 1980