SAN JOSE — Some downtown San Jose business people claim a transit agency seeks to shove them out of their locations with insufficient compensation ahead of BART station construction, court papers show.
The dispute centers on a three-story retail and residential building in downtown San Jose property, according to documents that are part of a lawsuit filed by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, or VTA, which seeks to seize the property through an eminent domain proceeding.
The property owner claims that VTA failed to properly appraise the property’s value — the VTA estimator thought the building was two stories high when in fact it is three stories — and is attempting to force out the site’s tenants before they have secured new locations to operate, court documents assert.
The building in question has addresses that range from 29 through 31 East Santa Clara Street in San Jose, according to the legal filings.
Norman Matteoni, founder and partner with San Jose-based law firm Matteoni O’Laughlin & Hechtman, argues in papers filed with the Santa Clara County Superior Court that the tenants need at least until November 2023 — or even later — to vacate the site. Matteoni also demands that the VTA undertake an accurate appraisal.
In an interview with this news organization, Matteoni also noted that the BART project in downtown San Jose and a nearby neighborhood has begun to suffer from multiple delays.
“VTA felt that it needed the property by sometime in September because it had to start doing demolition work,” Matteoni said. “But now it may play out that possession won’t be needed until the first of the year, given the way VTA construction is happening. Construction continues to be delayed.”
Transit agency officials say VTA hopes to resolve the matters under contention.
“VTA is in negotiations with the owner,” said Bernice Alaniz, a spokesperson with the transit agency. “We will be as accommodating as we can regarding timeline while considering the overall project schedule and needs.”
A convenience market and a clothing store operate on the ground floor of the building. The second floor is used for storage and the third floor is a residence. The building totals 9,000 square feet and includes a basement, court papers state.
VTA needs the building as a secondary entrance for the underground station whose main entrance will be at approximately 41 West Santa Clara Street about a block away. This is for the BART Downtown San Jose station. VTA will tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street in this area.
One of the major points of dispute is that the VTA botched the initial appraisal of the property, according to the legal filing.
In addition to an assessment that the building was only two stories and not three, the VTA appraiser also stated that the building had been burned by a fire. In reality, the fire took place a few years ago in the adjacent building, which has addresses that range from 17 through 25 East Santa Clara Street.
“The appraiser used as the basis for his appraisal a building containing 6,534 square feet when the building is more than 9,000 square feet, excluding the basement area,” Matteoni stated in a court filing on behalf of the property owner and the tenants on the ground floor.
The inaccurate estimate for the building’s size produced a proposed property payment that was far below the correct value of the building.
The VTA appraiser believed the building had a value of $400 a square foot, although that estimate was based on the incorrect presumption that the building was empty and had been gutted by a fire.
“9,000 square feet would produce a value of $3.6 million, far in excess of (the appraiser’s) conclusion of $2.6 million,” Matteoni wrote in the court papers.
The merchants on the ground floor do have their eye on a potential new site for future business operations, according to Matteoni.
But before that can occur, the property owner requires just compensation for the building to be grabbed by the VTA through the eminent domain proceeding, court papers state.
“There is a site that is tentatively identified for relocation,” Matteoni said in the interview. “The site that has been located would be suitable for both of their businesses.”
Source: www.mercurynews.com