Valley Commentary : Costly Plan for a Lancaster Hospital Needs Second Opinion : City agency would pay $11.1 million for land proposed for a county facility. Price far exceeds market value. And the site is located in a flood hazard area.

Pity the taxpayers of Lancaster and Los Angeles County--they’re about to get skinned again. County officials have determined that a county hospital should be built in Lancaster. An agreement has been entered into whereby Lancaster, through its Redevelopment Agency, will purchase 74 acres for the hospital for $11.1 million. The agency will sell bonds to raise the money, and the county will eventually repay the agency.

Unfortunately, the Lancaster Redevelopment Agency is proposing to spend far more for the land than any knowledgeable buyer would pay in today’s depressed market.

*

It would not be the first time this has happened. In 1992, the city paid $1.1 million for 22 acres of wrongly shaped real estate for a Joshua tree preserve at Avenue K and 48th Street West. That purchase was made without an appraisal at a price far in excess of what any knowledgeable buyer would have paid.

The new hospital might turn out to be a white elephant. Administrators of the Antelope Valley Hospital say existing facilities are grossly underused and question the need for this one. In light of this argument, county Supervisor Mike Antonovich has delayed action by the Board of Supervisors until a further study can be made.

Even if the need for the hospital is established, it should not be at the proposed location.

The property, at 30th Street West and Avenue I, is possibly subject to liquefaction and is in a flood hazard area. It consists of poor soil, so thousands of cubic yards of soil would have to be hauled in and compacted, at considerable cost.

County officials say the price is fair and is based upon a 1992 appraisal. But appraisals are just opinions of the appraiser, supposedly based on finding sales of comparable properties. The price and demand for land started falling in 1989-1990, and that trend continues. The 1992 appraisal is an opinion with which it is not only possible but sensible to disagree with. It does not reflect the Antelope Valley land market, and it ought to be tossed out.

The proposed price is $150,000 an acre. In my professional opinion as a realtor in the Antelope Valley for almost 30 years, specializing in land, given the use intended it would be extremely difficult to find a buyer who would pay as much as $40,000 an acre for that parcel, with its problems.

*

The owner of the property, Presley Development, has taken steps to build houses on the land. Unloading it on the taxpayers would give it a triple benefit. First, it would walk off with a fat price at a time of depression in the housing market. Second, it would no longer have to pay a significant share of the payments required as a result of the sale of certain bonds, called Mello-Roos bonds, which provided money for roads, water lines, sewers, street lights, sidewalks and more than half a mile of storm drain channel that was required before the Presley company could build homes in this area.

*

If this purchase proceeds, no matter how you slice this turkey it will be county taxpayers who will have to bear the burden of repayment for this folly, with interest.

Meanwhile, of course, the county cannot afford adequate police, fire and library services.

With a little effort the agency and the county could find better land at a fair price. Realtors and property owners would love to join in the hunt.