Part of the Bay Area News Group

NUMMI News

By Matt Artz
Tuesday, July 13th, 2010 at 8:14 pm in Uncategorized.

The City Council is discussing plans to turn the former NUMMI site and much of the surrounding land into a Redevelopment Area. Two interesting tidbits.

1) Toyota is supposed to put the  vacant northern and southern parcels on the market in “the next two days.”

2) The NUMMI site is assessed at about $1 billion, which equates to the city getting $1.5 million a year in property taxes. But about half of that valuation is equipment and machinery, some of which Toyota has already shipped off to other plants. And Tesla bought the plant for just $42 million. Put those together, and Fremont could be getting much less in property taxes in a couple of years.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • http://fcnisbacon.wordpress.com/ Marty

    I’m not sure if commercial RE follows Prop 13 for residential, but the fact that the plant changed ownership invokes a reassessment event to current market value, which if what you say is true (current value of $1 billion), then F-mont should be a’ight.

  • skumar

    The northern NUMMI parcel is were Diaz and Wasserman proposed to build the A’s stadium. Hopefully these two have dropped the plan and are no longer wasting taxpayer resources on such folly.

  • RescueBlues

    (Re: #1 Marty): The usual way commercial properties get around that is by having a commercial entity (holding company) own the land. The owner of the land doesn’t change, just who owns the holding company. Or alternately the new “user of the land” just leases it from the holding company. It’s one of the complaints some people have about Prop-13 — homeowners eventually die or move, but these commercial real estate holding companies can live forever.

  • http://fcnisbacon.wordpress.com/ Marty

    Thanks for the clarification. I’d say that the price Tesla paid is less relevant than the actual assessment from when Toyota was the owner of the holding company. Do I have that correct?

  • RescueBlues

    I doubt the city or state will see a change in the assessed value so your statement is correct. Of course the assessment for the property as held by the owner-of-record (GM, NUMMI, Toyota, a holding company, etc. ??) could go back a long way (base-year potentially back to 1975, 1% tax limit, only 2% increases/yr). I have no info on the owner or assessment on the NUMMI land but am assuming that the current “owners” (Toyota, Tesla, ??) would have done whatever they could to pay as little as possible in taxes before inking the deal.

  • Bystander

    Transfers of majority ownership in the holding company triggers the Prop 13 reassessment tax, FYI. States are highly incompetent, but not entirely stupid.