Cal HSR, L.A. MTA To Buy LAUS

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
WhoozOn1st

WhoozOn1st

Engineer
Honored Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
4,281
Location
Southern California
I suppose time will tell how all this works out viz Amtrak...

Rail board plans to buy Union Station

"The price tag for Union Station is confidential, but the bulk of the money is expected to come from the MTA. Negotiations with private equity firm TPG Capital, which is buying the property from Colorado-based ProLogis, are winding up. A deal could be concluded by late February, said Roger Moliere, MTA's chief of property management."
 
Sorry.....Cal HSR, L.A. MTA all greek to me as is TPG, LAUS and so many other abbr. >>>>>guess thats why I'm not an ENG/
 
PJRACER said:
Sorry.....Cal HSR, L.A. MTA all greek to me as is TPG, LAUS and so many other abbr. >>>>>guess thats why I'm not an ENG/
Click to expand...
Well then...

"Cal. HSR" = California High Speed Rail

"L.A." = Los Angeles, California

"MTA" = Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

"LAUS" = Los Angeles, Union Station

"TPG Capitol" = Texas Pacific Group Capitol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WhoozOn1st said:
I suppose time will tell how all this works out viz Amtrak...

Rail board plans to buy Union Station

"The price tag for Union Station is confidential, but the bulk of the money is expected to come from the MTA. Negotiations with private equity firm TPG Capital, which is buying the property from Colorado-based ProLogis, are winding up. A deal could be concluded by late February, said Roger Moliere, MTA's chief of property management."
Click to expand...
While public ownership is a positive sign, there seems to be a bit of a smell coming from the process, which the article failed to address. Why didn't the MTA buy LAUS directly from ProLogis? Instead, ProLogis jst sold to TPG Capital, which is now going to sell to the MTA? Sounds like flipping at its slimy capitalist best! Wonder how much TPG Capital is trying to inflate the price from what it paid to ProLogis (sale might not even be final yet)!? I wonder how the PR types are going to spin the tale if MTA pays a dollar more for the property than TPG paid to buy it?
 
Woah woah woah woah, since when is the price tag for a GOVERNMENT expense that's non-military black-ops yaddda, considered "confidential?" Sounds like wool is being pulled over public eyes...
 
LA Resident said:
WhoozOn1st said:
I suppose time will tell how all this works out viz Amtrak...

Rail board plans to buy Union Station

"The price tag for Union Station is confidential, but the bulk of the money is expected to come from the MTA. Negotiations with private equity firm TPG Capital, which is buying the property from Colorado-based ProLogis, are winding up. A deal could be concluded by late February, said Roger Moliere, MTA's chief of property management."
Click to expand...
While public ownership is a positive sign, there seems to be a bit of a smell coming from the process, which the article failed to address. Why didn't the MTA buy LAUS directly from ProLogis? Instead, ProLogis jst sold to TPG Capital, which is now going to sell to the MTA? Sounds like flipping at its slimy capitalist best! Wonder how much TPG Capital is trying to inflate the price from what it paid to ProLogis (sale might not even be final yet)!? I wonder how the PR types are going to spin the tale if MTA pays a dollar more for the property than TPG paid to buy it?
Click to expand...
You seem to be very quick to judge this as a case of "slimy capitalism" then again you also seem to believe that so called "public ownership" is a good thing. To me it looks like a case where the Gov. was to inflexible (or stupid) to make a bid faster than this other company. This seems like a common thread in California, a private company has been successfully running a facility so instead of working with them when changes are needed they decide to waste public money and buy them out. That 30M could have been used to buy more train sets (from another evil capitalist company) instead it just adds to the list of properties that need to be maintained by public funds, and more property taxes are lost.

Enjoy your public building LA we call know they city and the state has a windfall of money to pay for it. :wacko:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LA Resident said:
WhoozOn1st said:
I suppose time will tell how all this works out viz Amtrak...

Rail board plans to buy Union Station

"The price tag for Union Station is confidential, but the bulk of the money is expected to come from the MTA. Negotiations with private equity firm TPG Capital, which is buying the property from Colorado-based ProLogis, are winding up. A deal could be concluded by late February, said Roger Moliere, MTA's chief of property management."
Click to expand...
While public ownership is a positive sign, there seems to be a bit of a smell coming from the process, which the article failed to address. Why didn't the MTA buy LAUS directly from ProLogis? Instead, ProLogis jst sold to TPG Capital, which is now going to sell to the MTA? Sounds like flipping at its slimy capitalist best! Wonder how much TPG Capital is trying to inflate the price from what it paid to ProLogis (sale might not even be final yet)!? I wonder how the PR types are going to spin the tale if MTA pays a dollar more for the property than TPG paid to buy it?
Click to expand...
Because ProLois sold a package of real estate properties to TPG. LAUS was not one the TPG wanted to keep. There is little doubt that this was planned in advance and is very common is commercial real estate.
 
MattW said:
Woah woah woah woah, since when is the price tag for a GOVERNMENT expense that's non-military black-ops yaddda, considered "confidential?" Sounds like wool is being pulled over public eyes...
Click to expand...
Negotiations and pricing details are held confidential in almost all real estate deals UNTIL the sale is completed. Since this is real estate the transaction will become public record.
 
leemell said:
LA Resident said:
WhoozOn1st said:
I suppose time will tell how all this works out viz Amtrak...

Rail board plans to buy Union Station

"The price tag for Union Station is confidential, but the bulk of the money is expected to come from the MTA. Negotiations with private equity firm TPG Capital, which is buying the property from Colorado-based ProLogis, are winding up. A deal could be concluded by late February, said Roger Moliere, MTA's chief of property management."
Click to expand...
While public ownership is a positive sign, there seems to be a bit of a smell coming from the process, which the article failed to address. Why didn't the MTA buy LAUS directly from ProLogis? Instead, ProLogis jst sold to TPG Capital, which is now going to sell to the MTA? Sounds like flipping at its slimy capitalist best! Wonder how much TPG Capital is trying to inflate the price from what it paid to ProLogis (sale might not even be final yet)!? I wonder how the PR types are going to spin the tale if MTA pays a dollar more for the property than TPG paid to buy it?
Click to expand...
Because ProLois sold a package of real estate properties to TPG. LAUS was not one the TPG wanted to keep. There is little doubt that this was planned in advance and is very common is commercial real estate.
Click to expand...
I'm more than willing to see what comes out the negotiations. But there have been several cases in Southern California of private groups buying land/buildings they know are being eyed by public entities, esp. colleges, and making what can only be called a windfall profit. So I remain suspicious but I'll be hopeful.

As for the critic of public ownership, I have no apologies for believing that certain properties should indeed be public, esp. those with historical and cultural value. Too many private concerns see nothing but the dollar sign, and have been too willing in the past to tear down significant cultural and historical landmarks--still usuable as well--in order to maximize their profits. If the critic wants to argue that everything and anything must be based solely on profit potential, that's an argument I believe a lot of people are willing to have.
 
LA Resident said:
leemell said:
LA Resident said:
WhoozOn1st said:
I suppose time will tell how all this works out viz Amtrak...

Rail board plans to buy Union Station

"The price tag for Union Station is confidential, but the bulk of the money is expected to come from the MTA. Negotiations with private equity firm TPG Capital, which is buying the property from Colorado-based ProLogis, are winding up. A deal could be concluded by late February, said Roger Moliere, MTA's chief of property management."
Click to expand...
While public ownership is a positive sign, there seems to be a bit of a smell coming from the process, which the article failed to address. Why didn't the MTA buy LAUS directly from ProLogis? Instead, ProLogis jst sold to TPG Capital, which is now going to sell to the MTA? Sounds like flipping at its slimy capitalist best! Wonder how much TPG Capital is trying to inflate the price from what it paid to ProLogis (sale might not even be final yet)!? I wonder how the PR types are going to spin the tale if MTA pays a dollar more for the property than TPG paid to buy it?
Click to expand...
Because ProLois sold a package of real estate properties to TPG. LAUS was not one the TPG wanted to keep. There is little doubt that this was planned in advance and is very common is commercial real estate.
Click to expand...
I'm more than willing to see what comes out the negotiations. But there have been several cases in Southern California of private groups buying land/buildings they know are being eyed by public entities, esp. colleges, and making what can only be called a windfall profit. So I remain suspicious but I'll be hopeful.

As for the critic of public ownership, I have no apologies for believing that certain properties should indeed be public, esp. those with historical and cultural value. Too many private concerns see nothing but the dollar sign, and have been too willing in the past to tear down significant cultural and historical landmarks--still usuable as well--in order to maximize their profits. If the critic wants to argue that everything and anything must be based solely on profit potential, that's an argument I believe a lot of people are willing to have.
Click to expand...

I agree with this and that was the source of my worry when I first read that LAUS was being sold to an entity with no other connection than financial. ProLogis was at least a spin off of UP.
 
Guest_LA Resident_* said:
I'm more than willing to see what comes out the negotiations. But there have been several cases in Southern California of private groups buying land/buildings they know are being eyed by public entities, esp. colleges, and making what can only be called a windfall profit. So I remain suspicious but I'll be hopeful.

As for the critic of public ownership, I have no apologies for believing that certain properties should indeed be public, esp. those with historical and cultural value. Too many private concerns see nothing but the dollar sign, and have been too willing in the past to tear down significant cultural and historical landmarks--still usuable as well--in order to maximize their profits. If the critic wants to argue that everything and anything must be based solely on profit potential, that's an argument I believe a lot of people are willing to have.
Click to expand...

Granted, private companies can be callus when it comes to historical buildings. That is what a NHL status and other certifications are for (which I believe LA station has). I dont buy the argument that "the best way to preserve a building is by having a government entity own it." If that is the only way to save a valued structure, so be it, but that dose not seem to be the case here.

also one grand station a city wants to destroy.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Central_Station

Edit--

My bad leemell :eek: I screwed up when I was trying to cut down on all the quotes! Can you forgive me? :blush:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gratt said:
leemell said:
I'm more than willing to see what comes out the negotiations. But there have been several cases in Southern California of private groups buying land/buildings they know are being eyed by public entities, esp. colleges, and making what can only be called a windfall profit. So I remain suspicious but I'll be hopeful.

As for the critic of public ownership, I have no apologies for believing that certain properties should indeed be public, esp. those with historical and cultural value. Too many private concerns see nothing but the dollar sign, and have been too willing in the past to tear down significant cultural and historical landmarks--still usuable as well--in order to maximize their profits. If the critic wants to argue that everything and anything must be based solely on profit potential, that's an argument I believe a lot of people are willing to have.
Click to expand...

Granted, private companies can be callus when it comes to historical buildings. That is what a NHL status and other certifications are for (which I believe LA station has). I dont buy the argument that "the best way to preserve a building is by having a government entity own it." If that is the only way to save a valued structure, so be it, but that dose not seem to be the case here.

also one grand station a city wants to destroy.. http://en.wikipedia....Central_Station
Click to expand...

You hosed up the quotes, I did not say that!
 
Gratt said:
Guest_LA Resident_* said:
I'm more than willing to see what comes out the negotiations. But there have been several cases in Southern California of private groups buying land/buildings they know are being eyed by public entities, esp. colleges, and making what can only be called a windfall profit. So I remain suspicious but I'll be hopeful.

As for the critic of public ownership, I have no apologies for believing that certain properties should indeed be public, esp. those with historical and cultural value. Too many private concerns see nothing but the dollar sign, and have been too willing in the past to tear down significant cultural and historical landmarks--still usuable as well--in order to maximize their profits. If the critic wants to argue that everything and anything must be based solely on profit potential, that's an argument I believe a lot of people are willing to have.
Click to expand...

Granted, private companies can be callus when it comes to historical buildings. That is what a NHL status and other certifications are for (which I believe LA station has). I dont buy the argument that "the best way to preserve a building is by having a government entity own it." If that is the only way to save a valued structure, so be it, but that dose not seem to be the case here.

also one grand station a city wants to destroy.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Central_Station

Edit--

My bad leemell :eek: I screwed up when I was trying to cut down on all the quotes! Can you forgive me? :blush:
Click to expand...
Again, no disagreement. In many cases, there are private developers clever enough to figure out a way to make a handsome profit without resorting to the easiest way out with historic structures, which is to demolish and build tacky replicas at the worst!

But with magnificent monuments like LAUS, which at one time was considered obsolete, government intervention may well be justified. Just think why San Francisco seems so much more livable downtown than LA. LA destroyed many a salvageable buildings in the centre city post WW II.
 
San Francisco is reltively easy to travel about downtown on public transportation, but as for livable? Only if you have plenty of money or are willing to live either really small or in one of the suposedly non-existant bad areas.
 
LA Resident said:
Gratt said:
Guest_LA Resident_* said:
I'm more than willing to see what comes out the negotiations. But there have been several cases in Southern California of private groups buying land/buildings they know are being eyed by public entities, esp. colleges, and making what can only be called a windfall profit. So I remain suspicious but I'll be hopeful.

As for the critic of public ownership, I have no apologies for believing that certain properties should indeed be public, esp. those with historical and cultural value. Too many private concerns see nothing but the dollar sign, and have been too willing in the past to tear down significant cultural and historical landmarks--still usuable as well--in order to maximize their profits. If the critic wants to argue that everything and anything must be based solely on profit potential, that's an argument I believe a lot of people are willing to have.
Click to expand...

Granted, private companies can be callus when it comes to historical buildings. That is what a NHL status and other certifications are for (which I believe LA station has). I dont buy the argument that "the best way to preserve a building is by having a government entity own it." If that is the only way to save a valued structure, so be it, but that dose not seem to be the case here.

also one grand station a city wants to destroy.. http://en.wikipedia....Central_Station

Edit--

My bad leemell :eek: I screwed up when I was trying to cut down on all the quotes! Can you forgive me? :blush:
Click to expand...
Again, no disagreement. In many cases, there are private developers clever enough to figure out a way to make a handsome profit without resorting to the easiest way out with historic structures, which is to demolish and build tacky replicas at the worst!

But with magnificent monuments like LAUS, which at one time was considered obsolete, government intervention may well be justified. Just think why San Francisco seems so much more livable downtown than LA. LA destroyed many a salvageable buildings in the centre city post WW II.
Click to expand...
I'll think about it. :eek:hboy: :rolleyes:
 
George Harris said:
San Francisco is reltively easy to travel about downtown on public transportation, but as for livable? Only if you have plenty of money or are willing to live either really small or in one of the suposedly non-existant bad areas.
Click to expand...
The more that you talk about the Bay Area, the more sure I am that you know nothing about it.
While I wouldn't call living in San Francisco inexpensive, you don't need "plenty of money" to live in a nice place. Certainly, it's not cheap to rent anywhere in the Bay Area, but as long as you're not trying to get a yard or palatial digs, it's not that hard.

I have a penny-pinching acquaintance who lives in a very comfortable apartment (except for the two-story walk-up, in my opinion) in a nice section of the Haight. And yes, it has a kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, and living room. He only has "plenty of money" because he's not spending it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top