[ad_1]
Concept for the BART station entrance in downtown San Jose, West Santa Clara Street between North First Street and North Market Street.
SAN JOSE — Two downtown San Jose entrepreneurs say the foreclosure-or-no-foreclosure adventure of powerful transportation has hurt their businesses and left them in dire straits.
The Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority is seeking to take ownership of two parcels on East Santa Clara Street between North First Street and North Second Street, claiming it needs land for a component of the BART station in downtown San Jose. .
VTA had filed separate lawsuits seeking to foreclose on the two properties. One was located at 17 East Santa Clara Street and the other was located at 29-31 East Santa Clara.
A residential tower was planned for 17th East Santa Clara, but that has now stalled due to VTA’s changing priorities.
The minimarket at 29 East Santa Clara may be forced to close as owner Amanuel Quereta is forced to find a new location a block or two away for his grocery business. do not have.
“The way VTA harmed me, ” he said.
In both real estate cases, VTA disclosed in court documents in November that it was abandoning efforts to seize the respective properties through eminent domain litigation.
“Plaintiff Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority hereby waives the foregoing entitled proceeding to acquire the property,” VTA said in court papers filed in two separate lawsuits in November 2023. Stated.
This means that VTA has decided to abandon any separate attempts to acquire the property.
VTA also used the same rationale in two separate lawsuits over properties located at 17 East Santa Clara Street and 29-31 East Santa Clara Street, court filings reveal. there was.
“The project’s design innovations indicate that construction of the project’s second main building at Downtown San Jose Station will not be necessary, thus eliminating the need to acquire real estate,” VTA said in each prominent domain lawsuit. said in court documents.
This news organization reached out to VTA for comment on each property.
“VTA does not comment on matters related to ongoing litigation,” a VTA spokesperson said in a preliminary response to separate requests for comment about the two properties. Both cases are pending in county court.
Both property owners say VTA is hindering their respective businesses’ economic opportunities and business prospects.
Case in point: VTA’s legal threats have resulted in the proposed housing development being closed down to new housing developments, said John Domingue, attorney for real estate entrepreneur Loida Kirkley, who was proposing to build a 26-story, 200-unit residential high-rise. He says he is facing a problem. 17 East Santa Clara.
“This development process started a long time ago,” Domingue said in an interview with this news organization. “Roida (Kirkley) was doing everything in her power to develop this. It shouldn’t have happened, but the city development permit process has come to a complete standstill.”
When Kirkley tried to move forward with the development process with San Jose city planners, city officials repeatedly pushed back, advising Kirkley that VTA was in control of the situation. As a result, the city has stymied development efforts, Domingue said.
“VTA disrupted the development process,” Domingue said. “Things stopped because of VTA.”
As for the site at 29-31 East Santa Clara, Quereta’s property includes an AK’s Square grocery store and other street-level retail stores, as well as residential buildings on the upper floors.
“VTA has been telling Mr. Quereta for several years that we want his property and that he needs to find a new location on the market,” said Mr. Quereta’s attorney, Norm Matteoni, after the Feb. 22 court hearing. told this news agency.
Keleta eventually found a location and signed a five-year lease for retail space at 33 South First Street, around the corner from AK’s Square Market’s current location. He purchased furniture and other equipment for his new grocery store.
The existing AK Market remains open on East Santa Clara Street, at least for now.
However, Keleta has made it clear that he will not be able to operate both stores once, and perhaps before, South First Street Market opens.
The Department of Transportation now hopes to restore the status quo with respect to the adjacent land as it existed before the eminent domain litigation began.
Keleta’s attorney, Matteoni, argues that his client lost economic opportunity due to VTA’s abandoned investigation.
Similarly, Mr. Kirkley’s attorney, Mr. Domingue, believes his client missed an opportunity to develop residential towers at a time when housing is sorely needed in San Jose. Current interest rates and construction costs are much higher than they were before VTA’s prominent domain search began.
Additionally, Ms Keleta said Mr Kirkley at one point approached him about purchasing his land so that both properties could be used to develop a residential tower. Now, the outlook for that purchase and effort is uncertain at best, Kirkley and Keleta believe.
At least once at the East Santa Clara 29-31 property, Quereta found a tenant for one of the housing units.
Before potential residents could move in, VTA kicked them out of signing leases and threatened them with eviction, citing a prominent domain lawsuit active at the time, Keleta said. .
Keleta said VTA has also been constantly pressuring her to exit the property and business on East Santa Clara Street.
“VTA tried to force me to leave,” Keleta said. “Hurry up, hurry up, get out,” he said.
[ad_2]
Source link
