By Melody Cervantes Sunset Park
My husband and I are the owners of the property being sold to Step Up On Second 1826 Pearl Street and felt that, with all of the negative information going about regarding this particular transaction, the facts should be correctly reported. We have spoken with the tenants on every occasion with any updates as they have come to our attention. We spoke in great detail to the tenants of 1828 Pearl St. before the property went into escrow, and they entered into a written contract to receive $40,000 in compensation, should they need to relocate due to the sale. The required amount by SMCC is $8,050.
We could have never anticipated the path that this would take. This sale has caused our family tremendous stress and hardship.We feel the buyers (any buyer for that matter, not just Step Up On Second) have an obligation to inform a seller that they have a history of causing such a disturbance in people’s lives and the community when they go to purchase a property, especially when they are required by the city to notify the neighborhoods.
I understand the notifying the neighborhood part was required by the City of Santa Monica’s funding process, but it should also be required to notify the owners that there is history of neighborhood meetings and rejection at every project Step Up On Second proposes. Owners should be given the option to be a part of that.We should not be dragged through and become unwilling participants over what next is going to happen — worrying about what other friend your child is going to lose at school because their parents think we made some horrible decision agreeing to sale to this buyer. Where was the concern for the sellers and their families, and what they would possibly have to endure for months?
We, as sellers, are obligated to disclose every minute detail to the buyer that we feel would cause any issues. Shouldn’t a buyer have to disclose issues they have encountered in the past, those they full on know and expect this time as well?
We could not turn this buyer away because of the organization that it is. It was made clear to us that if we denied this buyer we could face a discrimination lawsuit. Any other seller would have lapped up the opportunity to have such a promising buyer for their property in today’s market — $30,000 over asking, no loan contingency or loan applications, all cash offer! We have had to endure several horrible months of community disruption, council meetings, public meetings and such. I am certain that members of the community felt they were not informed, but as the sellers, we feel we were definitely not informed to the extent this nightmare would create for our family and the neighborhood we had grown to love.
Our children have attended Will Rogers Learning Community and John Adams Middle School since kindergarten and first grade. We have friends that won’t even speak to us any-more, as if there was some way we could have prevented this whole thing. We could have never prevented something we weren’t notified was a possibility.
In an ordinary sale of real estate, if an ordinary someone offers you full price, even more than full price, you can say no without giving justification. We have the same concerns as others regarding the placement of this project, however, with the discrimination laws as they are, we were faced with very few options.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 19, 2006. Read the original PDF.