Front Page  »  

Grossman gets initial council support for Dalidio ranch development

April 2, 2014

dalidio landAfter San Luis Obispo rancher Ernie Dalidio fought a multi-decade battle to develop his property and lost, developer Gary Grossman, by most indications, will gain relatively speedy approval for a residential and commercial project he has proposed at the location.

On Tuesday night, the San Luis Obispo City Council voted unanimously to instruct staff to begin working on development agreements with Grossman, who now owns the former Dalidio ranch located between Highway 101 and Madonna Road. Grossman plans to build 46 acres of housing, a hotel and convention center and commercial office space on the San Luis Obispo Ranch.

The property is located in county jurisdiction, but the council indicated initial support for annexing it into the city.

“This project belongs in the city,” Councilman John Ashbaugh said.

But, Ashbaugh and Mayor Jan Marx, especially, expect Grossman to return with a plan that includes more agricultural and open space than currently proposed. Grossman’s current plan calls for leaving 56.5 acres of the 131.3-acre property as agricultural and open space.

Previously, Marx voted to restrict Dalidio’s development of the property after she helped run a secretive electoral campaign also aimed at limiting the San Luis Obispo rancher’s use of his property. In 2010, the California Fair Political Practices Commission fined potential business competitors of Dalidio, Tom and Jim Copeland, $80,000 for campaign law violations they committed while trying to sabotage the development.

On Tuesday night, Marx said she did not want to rehash the controversy.

“We do not need to go back to the bad old days,” Marx said.

Unlike Dalidio, Grossman has considerable political clout. Grossman has already donated more than $14,000 to the 2014 election campaign of recently appointed County Supervisor Caren Ray.

He has also donated recently to Supervisor Adam Hill. Ray, Hill and Chairman Bruce Gibson, each Democrats, form the current board of supervisors majority. They are aligned politically with the Democratic city council majority of Marx, Ashbaugh and Councilwoman Carlyn Christianson, who formerly served as Hill’s planning commissioner.

Councilman Dan Carpenter, who tends to vote against the council majority, indicated the most support among council members for Grossman’s project.

“It’s an investment,” Carpenter said. “He has the vested right to have a return on his investment.”

 


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


26 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Oh please people take the pink ribbon off your eyes. If you think Gary Grossman is the only developer to make contributions to elected official, then you are being stupid. Madonnas are no different.


The fact of the matter, we should want this project if it’s a good project or not and meets the city’s ordinances. Mr. Grossman needs to ditch the commercial part to make sure there is enough open space.


0

Seems all you have to do is donate to the correct election campaigns to get the right

investment returns on your money.

Seems like the key word is MONEY!!!!!!


0

I always love when someone is guilty (this means you Marx) and don’t want the unpleasantries of the truth, past or not, to come up and remind them and others what a P.O.S. they truly are.


0

Wheres all the nimby’s and everybody else that fought E.D. on this,funny there is no big uproar,this guy will most likely demo the old house and the Historic barn from the buggy racing days, I’m sure he won’t be preserving anything.


0

“It’s an investment,” Carpenter said. “He has the vested right to have a return on his investment.”


Well, I couldn’t agree more. I was entitled to a return on my investment in Enron stock, too, Danny boy. Whatcha going to say about that?


0

Boy what an apples and oranges argument. They own the property. Hence they have a tangible asset. In investing you are holding the asset along with MANY and will never truly own said asset. You are just making money on potential profits. Hence your entitlement is none existent with no profits or company gone and then no profits.


Don’t get me wrong Enron was a P.O.S. but not same as here.


0

I want to make sure I’ve got this straight; If I make an investment I’m automatically entitled to a profit? Really? All I have to to is make an investment, good or bad, and I’m entitled to a return on it? If I buy property not zoned for housing, I’m entitled to a zoning change and guaranteed return? Where do i sign up for this? Isn’t that called speculation?


0

Boy I thought I made it easy enough but I guess not. My comment about entitlement was in reply to the original post. No DUH on how stocks work. Point no profit……stock value declines…………profit, stock value increases. But AGAIN if it all crashes or the company is GONE you are left with NOTHING!!! The property owner has an asset to sit on that can come back in value. Hijinks was saying he was entitled to a return, I.E. PROFIT (money made) on his investment. If you make money what do you call it?????


To your comment about property, yes you aren’t entitled BUT as I have stated here before, (on this case) back in 1988-1989 the city asked to pump water under Ernie’s property. In return he asked for consideration on building. Then the city proceeded (after they got what they wanted) to screw him for the next twenty years. So does that help????


0

If you need any more proof that most politicians are nothing more than prostitutes just keep these names in mind when voting. This is why we hate politicians!


0

get elected and feel the love!


0

Marx ix a Marxist!


1

No, no, no. She’s Groucho in drag. Look carefully.


0

You are so right. And like Groucho once said….”Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” That’s so her.


0

Groucho was one sharp smart cookie tripped on LSD and played classical music on his guitar!


0
1 2