CXLVII - Is this the 'Final Countdown' in Arizona?

[Shwan]

For more clarity, the yellow outline is my proposed Coyote site and the red is what ZOM currently has fenced for construction. To the best of my knowledge they do not own any of the area outlined in yellow, with the exception of the portion outlined in red and yellow.

Right on you are correct I fixed my original post after rereading I was wrong on the corners so Meruelo could get that little piece maybe but something else caught my eye about the purchase.

The land is on a commercial ground lease from the State of Arizona that commenced July 7, 1993, and terminated July 6, 2092. The State of Arizona was represented in the sale by brokers Beth Jo Zeitzer of R.O.I. Properties and Don Arones of Cushman & Wakefield.

Makes me wonder if the that little bit on the NEC is also on a lease since ZOM collected all of 4 parcels on a Chapter 7 buyout.

Does anyone know who owns the rest of the Yellow outline?

 

[Coyotedroppings]

Right on you are correct I fixed my original post after rereading I was wrong on the corners so Meruelo could get that little piece maybe but something else caught my eye about the purchase.



Makes me wonder if the that little bit on the NEC is also on a lease since ZOM collected all of 4 parcels on a Chapter 7 buyout.

Does anyone know who owns the rest of the Yellow outline?

My research with the state shows it as privately owned, but in fairness the ZOM portion was a part of that…. so???

 

[Shwan]

My research with the state shows it as privately owned, but in fairness the ZOM portion was a part of that…. so???

So I think I figured it out based on your f40 post because it was driving me up a wall. After checking Vizzda I couldn't find anything for that parcel after seeing that patch you mentioned on the state trust map saying it's private.

You mentioned the perpetual easement signs on your recon that go through the parcel.

Well, about that:

33-271. Definitions

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Conservation easement" means a nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations for conservation purposes or to preserve the historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural aspects of real property.

2. "Conservation purposes" means any of the following activities which yield a significant public benefit:

(a) Preserving land areas for outdoor recreation by, or the education of, the general public.

(b) Protecting a relatively natural habitat of fish, wildlife or plants or similar ecosystem.

(c) Preserving open space, including farmland and forest land, if the preservation is either:

(i) For the scenic enjoyment of the general public.

(ii) Pursuant to a clearly delineated federal, state or local governmental conservation policy.

3. "Holder" means either:

(a) A governmental body empowered to hold an interest in real property under the laws of this state or the United States.

(b) A charitable corporation or trustee of a charitable trust, the purposes or powers of which include retaining or protecting the natural, scenic or open space values of real property, assuring the availability of real property for agricultural, forest, recreational or open space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality or preserving the historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural aspects of real property.

4. "Third party right of enforcement" means a right granted in a conservation easement to enforce any of its terms granted to a governmental body, charitable corporation or charitable trust, which, although

A conservation easement’s purpose is to preserve the conservation values of that land (such as agriculture, open space, wildlife habitat, etc.) and is governed by a Deed of Conservation Easement, or an agreement between a private landowner and a qualified entity, which is generally a land trust. The landowner donates or sells the development rights of that land, and the value of these are determined by a qualified appraisal. A conservation easement limits subdivision of the land and what can be done on that land. Certain activities are still allowed and some residential and agricultural buildings might be permitted in “building envelopes,” but not the subdivision of that land into smaller parcels. Preventing subdivision helps keep family lands in use for activities like farming and ranching.

So that land is technically private, but it's in control of the state land trust as the sign says, and I seriously doubt they'd give it to Meruelo to build a giant arena on it.

Coyotedroppings is 100% correct again and I'm way wrong here!

 

[Coyotedroppings]

So I think I figured it out based on your f40 post because it was driving me up a wall. After checking Vizzda I couldn't find anything for that parcel after seeing that patch you mentioned on the state trust map saying it's private.

You mentioned the perpetual easement signs on your recon that go through the parcel.

View attachment 812027

Well, about that:




So that land is technically private, but it's in control of the state land trust as the sign says, and I seriously doubt they'd give it to Meruelo to build a giant arena on it.

That land and the easement is to the NE of the land/parcel we’re discussing, as I pointed out in my F40 post. Having had an extensive ranching background and working with Az State, BLM & U S Forest Service land, I can assure you that there would have been signage up on the parcel in question, making the extension of the perpetual conservation easement clear. There was no signage for easement on, or in the direction of the property in question. In my experience that is a bit unusual, but with a freeway in its path, it has to end somewhere.

In short - the easement does not run through the parcel.

Edit: I’m sorry you went through the research for this, but I clearly stated that the easement does not run through the parcel, in my F40 post.

 

[Shwan]

Edit: I’m sorry you went through the research for this, but I clearly stated that the easement does not run through the parcel, in my F40 post.

Absolutely don't be sorry, I'm in quest of the truth and we're just eliminating the possibilites here. I sincerely appreciate your wealth of experience in this matter!

I have a better hypothesis now though.

So we know the Land Trust Map says it's private, and I'm dead wrong on the easement, so your comment here led me to another path which I think gets us a lot closer to the truth of the matter.

My research with the state shows it as privately owned, but in fairness the ZOM portion was a part of that…. so???

Let's go check the one place I know would have up to date information if that place was private property in our glorious county of Maricopa.

The Parcel in question is currently owned by the Arizona State Land Department, according to the County Assessor. This info seems to be up to date as well given that the parcel to the NW is owned by the right dudes (ZT 56TH STREET AT 101 NE OWNER LLC - ZOM).

So what's going on here? Well, the Deed information from the assessor shows us that Sonoran Desert Land Investors LLC purchased this land (Sale 53-110227) from the State of Arizona in 2006 with financing from the State for $33.4M.

So what happened? Bankruptcy! Case No. 2:16-bk-05493-MCW.

The Arizona state land trust is listed as a creditor in the filings, claiming the certificate of purchase.

and the bankruptcy plan involved giving back the land by rejecting the Certificate of Purchase:

So, it appears the deed/certificate of purchase was indeed returned to the Arizona Department of Land Trust and it is no longer private land, but the map simply has not been re-updated to reflect that.

I would also imagine if this were to be sold again in 2024*, it'll be through land auction as the value of the land is much more than $33M, but who knows maybe Meruelo has a trick up his sleeve to get this land by some cheap means.

 

[Coyotedroppings]

Absolutely don't be sorry, I'm in quest of the truth and we're just eliminating the possibilites here. I sincerely appreciate your wealth of experience in this matter!

I have a better hypothesis now though.

So we know the Land Trust Map says it's private, and I'm dead wrong on the easement, so your comment here led me to another path which I think gets us a lot closer to the truth of the matter.



Let's go check the one place I know would have up to date information if that place was private property in our glorious county of Maricopa.

View attachment 812115

The Parcel in question is currently owned by the Arizona State Land Department, according to the County Assessor. This info seems to be up to date as well given that the parcel to the NW is owned by the right dudes (ZT 56TH STREET AT 101 NE OWNER LLC - ZOM).

So what's going on here? Well, the Deed information from the assessor shows us that Sonoran Desert Land Investors LLC purchased this land (Sale 53-110227) from the State of Arizona in 2006 with financing from the State for $33.4M.

View attachment 812117

So what happened? Bankruptcy! Case No. 2:16-bk-05493-MCW.

The Arizona state land trust is listed as a creditor in the filings, claiming the certificate of purchase.

View attachment 812118

and the bankruptcy plan involved giving back the land by rejecting the Certificate of Purchase:

View attachment 812119

View attachment 812120

So, it appears the deed/certificate of purchase was indeed returned to the Arizona Department of Land Trust and it is no longer private land, but the map simply has not been re-updated to reflect that.

I would also imagine if this were to be sold again in 2024*, it'll be through land auction as the value of the land is much more than $33M, but who knows maybe Meruelo has a trick up his sleeve to get this land by some cheap means.

Pandora's box! After reading your morning addition , I did find a state map that would indicate it is state land, maybe they should update everything..... it's been a while.
I am somewhat curious as to where East of Epicenter came in to play, but honestly tiring of this rabbit hole.

All this would explain delays. It will be interesting to see if there is any legal wrangling that could avoid auction, but lets face it, I may have unintentionally created a red herring! I don't see how this ever gets done if an auction is required, at this juncture..... just don't see the NHL being that patient.

 

[Boris Zubov]

Pandora's box! After reading your morning addition , I did find a state map that would indicate it is state land, maybe they should update everything..... it's been a while.
I am somewhat curious as to where East of Epicenter came in to play, but honestly tiring of this rabbit hole.

All this would explain delays. It will be interesting to see if there is any legal wrangling that could avoid auction, but lets face it, I may have unintentionally created a red herring! I don't see how this ever gets done if an auction is required, at this juncture..... just don't see the NHL being that patient.

Forgive me if these have been previously covered, but how long is the process for a state auction & is state land exempt from a public referendum?

 

[Coyotedroppings]

Forgive me if these have been previously covered, but how long is the process for a state auction & is state land exempt from a public referendum?

I would think it varies, but this link should give you an idea of time and most importantly the ramifications of the auction process and how easily it could south.

AZ state land sales are up this year. A peek inside how these auctions work

Demand is up for Arizona's state land. The Arizona State Land Department is projecting more than $300 million in land sales for the next fiscal year. That’s up from last year by a good chunk and it’s adding up to thousands of acres of sales. Angela Gonzales is a reporter for the Phoenix Business...

kjzz.org

 

[PredsHead]

Pandora's box! After reading your morning addition , I did find a state map that would indicate it is state land, maybe they should update everything..... it's been a while.
I am somewhat curious as to where East of Epicenter came in to play, but honestly tiring of this rabbit hole.

All this would explain delays. It will be interesting to see if there is any legal wrangling that could avoid auction, but lets face it, I may have unintentionally created a red herring! I don't see how this ever gets done if an auction is required, at this juncture..... just don't see the NHL being that patient.

This might just be something like a record that wasn't updated but I noticed something on the parcel in question. It seems to have a different address listed on the Maricopa County parcel viewer than all the other state land I saw in the area. Most everything else seems to use 1616 W ADAMS ST PHOENIX AZ USA 85007 as their address, but that parcel uses 8800 N GAINEY CENTER DR UNIT 350 SCOTTSDALE AZ USA 85258. The Phoenix address seems to be the State Land Dept main mailing address, but the Scottsdale one seems to be an office building but I didn't get anything for that suite number when I googled it.

 

[aqib]

While most of this video consists of whining about the vultures circling over the Coyotes, Craig Morgan does site the end if the first quarter as a deadline:

 

[Llama19]

While most of this video consists of whining about the vultures circling over the Coyotes, Craig Morgan does site the end if the first quarter as a deadline:

Refer to the summary of time line 'announcement' dates posting: forums.hfboards.com/threads/cxlvii-is-this-the-final-countdown-in-arizona.2930845/page-62#post-193260135

 

[aqib]

Refer to the summary of time line 'announcement' dates posting: forums.hfboards.com/threads/cxlvii-is-this-the-final-countdown-in-arizona.2930845/page-62#post-193260135

I wonder what this February 8th date Morgan was talking about?

 

[Llama19]

I wonder what this February 8th date Morgan was talking about?

Just another false flag deadline...that will come and go...

 

[PredsHead]

I wonder what this February 8th date Morgan was talking about?

Its the date of the next Arizona State Land Department Board of Appeals meeting. That group would have to approve any application for an auction and then set the date for that auction. If you scroll down on the link attached it will show the meeting dates and will eventually have the agenda for the next meeting in detail. We should know a day or two before the 8th whether or not there is an application listed in the agenda which would match something close to the type and location of a parcel the Coyotes would be looking at.

Reports & Notices | Arizona State Land Department

 

[Voight]

I remember reading these threads years ago when the Glendale gong-show in court was going on, we all thought relocation was imminent. Yet here we are, still.

I hope if my team ever goes into dark times again with ownership issues they get as many chances as the Phoeni-zona Coyotes have had. I guess it's obvious by now, as long as there's a sucker willing to own a team where they are they aren't going anywhere unless they give Gary the "R" word.


I thought the Islanders playing at Barclays was bad, this takes the cake. I couldn't believe they allowed it, really

 

[Shwan]

That group would have to approve any application for an auction and then set the date for that auction.

Nothing like walking into an auction where everyone else knows your company's solvency absolutely depends on you winning it.

I like it. Xavier can have a crazed desperation about him that might work to his advantage.

 

[PredsHead]

Nothing like walking into an auction where everyone else knows your company's solvency absolutely depends on you winning it.

I like it. Xavier can have a crazed desperation about him that might work to his advantage.

Yeah just looking at the history of auctions on the state website, it seems like they go one of two ways. Either there is a bidding war and the price goes through the roof, or there is only one bid. I wonder if the Mayo Clinic would be interested in that parcel to go along with what they own on the other side of the freeway. They might want to drive the price up if nothing else to protect the value of their land holdings.

 

[zacharytsmith]

The State Land Department can specify what the land must be used for as part of the terms of the auction. If they just specify "commercial development," it facilitates a bidding war and thus the chance for greater $ for the trust. If the Land Department says "this must be used for a sports arena," that rigs the auction in favor of the Coyotes, but invites a legal challenge that the trust is not endeavoring to generate the highest return. Land must be advertised for 10 weeks, so an auction cannot occur until April 2024 at the earliest.

If the Coyotes win the auction, the land must then be zoned for a sports arena (and ancillary development), unless the desired zoning already exists. If a zoning case is needed, that will take six more months, and (yes) a possible referendum on any rezoning decision. That is unlikely because Phoenix is so big--too many signatures are required.

But if a rezoning is required, construction cannot really begin until late 2024 at the earliest. Which pushes the team into a fifth year at Mullett, through 25-26. At least.

 

[Boris Zubov]

The State Land Department can specify what the land must be used for as part of the terms of the auction. If they just specify "commercial development," it facilitates a bidding war and thus the chance for greater $ for the trust. If the Land Department says "this must be used for a sports arena," that rigs the auction in favor of the Coyotes, but invites a legal challenge that the trust is not endeavoring to generate the highest return. Land must be advertised for 10 weeks, so an auction cannot occur until April 2024 at the earliest.

If the Coyotes win the auction, the land must then be zoned for a sports arena (and ancillary development), unless the desired zoning already exists. If a zoning case is needed, that will take six more months, and (yes) a possible referendum on any rezoning decision. That is unlikely because Phoenix is so big--too many signatures are required.

But if a rezoning is required, construction cannot really begin until late 2024 at the earliest. Which pushes the team into a fifth year at Mullett, through 25-26. At least.

Thanks for the summary.

 

[LadyStanley]

 

[LadyStanley]

 

[aqib]

I would say down the line when Footprint needs to be fully replaced the next arena will be built to accommodate hockey.

 

[Mightygoose]

And that would be the rationale to move the team if they can't figure things out quickly.

Has nothing to do with growing the game. Get a new business model and they can return

 

[Shwan]

The State Land Department can specify what the land must be used for as part of the terms of the auction. If they just specify "commercial development," it facilitates a bidding war and thus the chance for greater $ for the trust. If the Land Department says "this must be used for a sports arena," that rigs the auction in favor of the Coyotes, but invites a legal challenge that the trust is not endeavoring to generate the highest return. Land must be advertised for 10 weeks, so an auction cannot occur until April 2024 at the earliest.

The hero we need and deserve.

Robyn Sahid hinted that the next parcel(s) is for Homebuilding/Retail (edit: just realized she could possibly be talking about multiple applications) so that should bring a few heavyweights out to bid. That was a few months ago so things could have changed.

Currently, there are applications active at Vistancia in Peoria, Desert Ridge for retail and homebuilding as well as north Phoenix for commercial and homebuilding projects, she said.

Would love to see Meruelo try to rig this auction like that though lol. That was one of the more effective talking points by worker power, showing how Tempe rigged their RFI by requiring applicants to have a sports team for a sports arena so no other alternate projects could be brought forth.

 

[MNNumbers]

There is a thought that came to my mind, and I am not sure what to make of it, so I am throwing it out here for discussion.....

Does anyone else think that the NHL itself has reacted in an uncharacteristic manner to the news about Utah asking for an open expansion process?

There is a lot of speculation that this is an indication of something going down with the Coyotes, even from Freidman, who spoke about relocation again today. And, the NHL hasn't done anything to dispel the rumors.

This seems different than their usual way of responding.

Thoughts?