Here we go again with Modesto trying to annex Salida's land

The land that Modesto's Costco sits on used to be in Salida's tax base. When Modesto annexed it into their city, they agreed to split the sales tax with Stanislaus County 50/50. Can you imagine just how much money Salida would have in tax revenue alone just from Costco? And that doesn't even take into account the other retail stores on that land. Then in 2009, Modesto annexed the land that Kaiser Hospital was built on which removed more tax base from Salida. The loss of tax base has hurt Salida to the point of having to contract out for fire coverage. And the wheels are in motion for it to happen again.

I wrote about the proposed Scannell warehouse project in 2024, but at the time, it was being developed through Stanislaus County. According to a March 5, 2025 article in the Modesto Bee, the developer chose to apply to the city as a "quicker route to get the project approved and built." Why?

Perhaps the developer thinks the project will receive utilities more quickly than they would through the county. But they may have forgotten that every single Measures A & M vote to extend sewer service north of Kiernan into Salida Community Plan area has been voted down by Modesto voters. See the red area on the city's map here.

Another reason to push for a "quicker route" might be the rationale to get it built before anyone notices it and fights it. Many people note the empty Jack Rabbit warehouse on Kiernan and Tully, not to mention the many other warehouses sitting empty in the region. And the commercial environment for another sprawling Scannells warehouse is an unfriendly one at the state and community levels. Legislation was introduced to inhibit new warehouses in California. Scannells has had similar warehouse proposals rejected in other states. Additionally, a new California law slated to begin in 2026 could impact this Scannells project due to neighboring Gregori High School and nearby homes.

You can respond to the Notice of Preparation by March 27, 2025 and watch the March 20th online scoping meeting from 3-4pm. It's also recommended to attend the Salida Municipal Advisory Council meeting on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 at 7pm at the Salida Library Community Room. 

Development in Salida should mean tax revenue for Salida

 (NOTE: These comments were shared during public comment by Katherine Borges at the Tuesday, August 8, 2023 Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors meeting.)

Several years ago during the time I served as Chair of Salida MAC, I asked former Public Works Director, Matt Machado for sidewalks in downtown Salida and his reply was, “If we do it for you, we have to do it for everyone.” I will note here that the Airport and Robertson Road communities are now being given sidewalks by Stanislaus County.

There's a development project currently progressing that is slated to be built on land within the boundaries of the Salida Community Plan. The Scannells warehouse project which would be built on the northwest corner of Kiernan and

Dale. Another project along Pelandale called “Kiernan Business Park South”. Dave Romano is the lead on both projects, and it may have slipped his mind that he signed a development agreement in 2007 for the Salida Community Plan area project which is still in force until 2032.

The Salida Community Plan requires a programmatic EIR and these are my supervisor's comments from the March 2022 Supervisor board meeting regarding the Salida gas station project. To quote Terry: “It's wrong to treat one applicant and all other applicants one way and all the people who've come in here and this one a different way. This initiative requires that a programmatic EIR be prepared prior to the development within the amendment area. It doesn't say “may”. It doesn't say the county has the discretion to ignore this in favor of one developer.” End quote. That needs to apply to Mr. Romano as well.

The development pressure on Salida is strong. There was also a housing developer who was considering a project within SCP lands. The biggest sticking point with developing within the Salida Community Plan has always been the programmatic EIR because at the time the initiative was passed, it was just one developer who was going to oversee the whole project. Dave Romano is not going to want to pay for the whole thing if he's not developing the entire area. So the solution here is for Stanislaus County to do the EIR in-house just like you did for the Crows Landing Industrial Business Park. Remember the “If we do it for you, we have to do it for everyone”?

Additionally, Crows Landing Industrial Park and even Kiernan Business Park South both have Community Services Districts and the county will need to create one for Salida too because if these projects were only county developed, then you would be creating another county island like Beard Industrial Park which will NEVER be annexed into the City of Modesto. Salida deserves the revenue from any development. If Salida had the tax sharing from previous lands like Costco that were annexed out of our districts, then we would have had the funding to keep our fire department. If we had the tax revenue from Costco, we could install our own sidewalks and not have to wait years while the county installs sidewalks everywhere else first. If you want development in Salida, then do the EIR and CSD. It is what the Salida Community Plan calls for and it's the right thing to do for the Community of Salida.

Transparency requests on the Salida Sheriff Substation

Stanislaus Board of Supervisors Public Comment - Tuesday, March 29, 2022

I'm here today because I did not receive a reply to an email that I sent to Tom Boze last week requesting the consultant's report on this project. 

6,000 sq ft od space available
in Salida Library

Having lived in Salida for nearly thirty years, I remember when our sheriff substation was in a modular building in downtown Salida, and then moved into the remodeled Bank of the West building in 2003, which is now La Familia Market. The substation was closed during the recession, a main reason cited was the high cost of rent on the bank building; if I recall correctly, it was $10,000 a month. At the August 2021 Salida MAC meeting, Sheriff Dirkse mentioned the two key options for a substation: the first being the 6,000 sq feet of unused space in the Salida Library building. The remodel of that old Brunners building was $6.3 million back in 2003. Sheriff Dirkse stated that the other site, the Salida Fire Dept Station 12 does not have the square footage needs to occupy further in the future. Sheriff Dirkse stated that the county is in the process of hiring a contractor through GSA to do a site assessment on both facilities. He stated and I quote, “We have to get that estimate before we have an honest conversation.”

Quite frankly, I did not have much of an opinion on where the substation was located until I received an email on March 15, 2022 that reported an arrest for prostitution on March 13, 2022 in the 4900 block of Sisk Road which is the site of two hotels. Further online searching turned up a bust by Turlock PD of a prostitution ring at the same address in February 2021. I asked a sheriff dept employee which hotel had sex trafficking and the reply was, “All of them”. The hotel closest to the library is a 430 foot walk from my house so I have no words for how horrifying what is going on just feet from my neighborhood.

Salida Library
Sheriff Substation April 2022

There's a small substation already built in the Salida Library which even has signage but has never been staffed. Perhaps if it was staffed, THAT could deter human trafficking and prostitution at these two hotels.

Both Sheriff Dirkse and Chief Pat Burns stated at Salida MAC at two different times that the lease for the property would be for 99 years yet this agenda item states only a two-year lease with a further option of two years. This 2-4 year lease was never mentioned at Salida MAC nor was there any presentation given by the General Services Agency comparing the two sites. Where is the contractor's report that Sheriff Dirkse mentioned? It's not attached in this board item. You are using public funds for this and you should be 100% transparent. The Salida Community deserves to know all the aspects of why a leased site is being chosen over a large site already owned by the county? Salida already has a history of having substations closed due to a lease so we should be able to have answers to all of our questions before this item is passed today. The MAC should not be bypassed.

This item should be pulled and a presentation given at Salida MAC by GSA and the Sheriff on why this site was chosen and explain the disparities of the lease terms.

_________________________________________________

Stanislaus Board of Supervisors Public Comment - Tuesday, April 25, 2022

It's been a month since I was here and requested the General Services Agency report on the site locations for the new substation in Salida. I was going to reserve my opinion on a site until I saw the report, and since you are using public monies, I still expect a report to be produced even if you are the ones who put the cart before the horse. I also expect a response as to why both Sheriff Dirkse and Fire Chief Pat Burns said the terms of the lease at the fire station was $1 a year for 99 years but the board item you passed stated $1 a year for 2 years with an option for 4 years. What do you five know about this lease that the public doesn't? What will happen after 2 years? Is the lease going to go up? Is the county buying the land? The county also needs to do better with respect to communication. The dedication of the substation at the fire department was not announced in the Bee nor on any county websites other than a new substation page just two days prior. Notices were not mailed either. Salida MAC did not post it on their page or to Next Door. The only place I saw it posted to and it was after the fact, was Terry's campaign website. Appearances matter so you need to be transparent and produce a General Services Agency report that addresses all of these issues and THE COUNTY needs to improve communication with the community. The onus is on county employees who are paid to be public servants, not the unpaid volunteers who serve on MAC councils. Also want to point out that you need another substation sign or a banner at the back of the fire station that you can view from the freeway ramp. And have the deputies park the car there too. Right now, a little brown sign in the front and hidden cars isn't deterring any criminals from what they don't see.

_________________________________________________

Stanislaus Board of Supervisors Public Comment - Tuesday, May 24, 2022 

I'm back for some updates: foremost, it's been two months now since I've requested the consultant's report that the county paid $25 thousand for. I did receive a “I don't think I can give it to you” or “it might be heavily redacted”. I am requesting the redacted version then. When Sheriff Dirkse visited Salida MAC, his words were “when the report comes in, we'll take a look at it” but he did not say, “But not you Salida.” It is preposterous to think that the county is not going to let Salida see what our substation will look like ahead of it being built. Also, the issue of why the county would choose a site they do not own over a site they do own still needs to be addressed. As I mentioned in my last comments, appearances count and it appears that the county is trying to hide something. Besides not releasing a document that public money was spent to produce, the Salida Fire Dept went through and purged people from their agenda subscription list including a current MAC member and when I inquired to the reason why, I was told that we were purged for being “inactive”. The fire department cancels half their meetings and they were the last entity in Salida to have in-person meetings yet we're the “inactive” ones. Put yourself in my shoes: county won't release substation consultant's report and the fire department purges their agenda subscriber lists – it looks like you're colluding to hide something. So if you're not trying to hide something, you can easily demonstrate your transparency by releasing documents that should be public.

So I formally request that a substation presentation be given at Salida MAC and that Salida MAC be added to the Planning Department distribution list for Early Referral Consultations if it has not already been done. 

How will the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors vote on piecemeal development in Salida?

On Thursday, February 17, 2022, the Stanislaus County Planning Commission voted 4-2 to deny the proposed Salida gas station project. The primary reason cited was the planning department had bypassed the Salida Municipal Advisory Council (Salida MAC) when the project had changed in several ways. The project went back to Salida MAC and was voted against (5-0) on Tuesday, February 22, 2022. It now proceeds to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 6:30 pm. 

Now that the project title has changed to recognize this would be the first development project of the Salida Community Plan (SCP), I don't think the county realizes how encumbered this project will be by the SCP. The SCP was passed as an initiative; the county does NOT get to cherry-pick what they abide by in it. My comments below to the Planning Commission mention several of these articles in the initiative. 

Good evening Planning Commissioners,

As reflected in the project title change, the county has now acknowledged that this project has become the very first development project under the updated Salida Community Plan, SCP for short. Our community plan was a 2007 initiative that Salida voters were supposed to get to vote on, but it was pulled off the ballot and passed by three county supervisors, including our supervisor at the time, Jeff Grover. If you ask anyone who lived in Salida in 2007 who planned to vote on the initiative, most will express resentment that their vote was taken away from them, including other residents right here in this room.

I was one of them. I barely paid any attention to local politics until Modesto moved to annex Salida in 2012. But I did plan to vote no on the SCP – Salida Now as it was called then, because 2007 was the start of the recession and I had neighbors who couldn't sell their homes so why did we need a development plan that included 5,000 new homes to compete against?

In about 2014, I printed off and read the entire SCP, and I have now come to appreciate certain aspects of it. For instance, page 4 of Exhibit B item E states “Ensuring that the Salida Community Plan Amendment Area is in HARMONY with existing communities.”

I met with Baldev “Paul” Grewal on April 3, 2021 and I gave him a list of 4 things that would help his project: 1. Will the gas station close at night? He asked me if the pumps could stay on and I said he needed to ask the neighborhood. 2. Safety – crime, gas, hydrogen. - Now I don't know why this project was approved when the project next to it was denied based on not having enough water for fire suppression because Vizcaya's well is shut down for being over the limit in arsenic. There's much more about water supply requirements in the SCP ordinance but that's for county counsel and staff to review as reading and adhering to the SCP is way above what they pay you to be here tonight. As for hydrogen, there has not been any communication or community education on the safety of hydrogen fuel. The closest hydrogen station to us is at Harris Ranch so there's nothing in this county to base experience or policy on. And as for crime, the security detail proposed in the project is for the storage units and not for the 24-hour convenience store. Third – a Community Facilities District which the Salida Community Plan states on Article II, Section 2.09 “Funding Districts. Prior to the recordation of any final map, the Applicant filing such map shall petition County to form (or annex into, as applicable) community facilities districts or other such financing districts solely burdening the applicable portion of the Project Site." But I do not see any mention of this CFD in the Planning document that is part of this passed initiative. And lastly, I asked Paul to put it in writing which obviously, none of it is, or it would be in the Conditions for Approval. So I feel this lack of harmony shown towards Vizcaya and the Community of Salida is setting this project up to be another Larsa Hall or Fruit Yard. The County is a complaint driven system after all, and it would be so much easier if the applicant would meet with the community BEFORE one spade of dirt is overturned since they will be suffering the ramifications of this destined to be torn down gas station.

This plan should have gone back to Salida MAC after planning dept changed the title because these and other questions as pertains to the plan should be addressed ahead of time. The two previous MAC members who had conflicts – one a real estate agent that works for the company representing the land, and the other who works for the county which stands to benefit from a 200% discount on a drainage basin, should have conflicted themselves out. The county employee has since resigned from MAC and two seats were filled in January. If it had gone back to MAC now, then a legitimate vote could have been taken and not this nonsense of split votes by conflicted members. One of you even cited that the MAC vote weighs heavily on their decision about the project, so I hope you will take these biased machinations into consideration because the request was denied that the project be taken back to the MAC BEFORE the planning commission meeting. It is now slated to go to MAC next week, so any vote they make will not be heard tonight by you. What should have happened is it went to the MAC next week, then went to Planning Commission's March 3^rd meeting. Because when it comes down to it, who stands to gain the most from this project besides the landowners? The county does. The county gets their discount basin and the county gets the tax revenue from the development. And the county has scheduled the votes in their favor for you to not to consider an un-conflicted MAC vote.

The SCP has a provision for the Board of Supervisors to consider a range of land uses intended to allow flexibility, but that loophole does NOT preclude the applicants from the SCP fee in Exhibit A page 10 section 21.66.110 nor the aforementioned CFD. In fact, Exhibit B item 17A states “adopting this Ordinance without alteration.” and just below that in Section B item 1. “This initiative will protect the quality of life of the County's citizens by Discouraging sprawl by locating a mix of land uses adjacent to existing communities.” And in Exhibit B, section D “Approval of this initiative does not constitute a part of, or encourage, piecemeal conversion of a larger agricultural area to non-agricultural uses.” Simply put, I ask you to put yourself in the shoes of residents of the Vizcaya neighborhood. Would you want a gas station less than 500 feet from your un-gated neighborhood? Would you want flammable materials less than 500 ft from your house when water suppression could be an issue because your well is shut down? I was reminded of this again when American Recycling burned this week and they had water suppression issues. How does anything about this gas station improve the quality of life and harmony of the community?

Why build a gas station just to tear it down? Part 2

Stanislaus County Public Works presented a proposal at the Tuesday, October 26, 2021 Salida Municipal Advisory Council (Salida MAC) for Stanislaus County to purchase 2.2 acres of land for $100K from Grover Family Trust. The reason given for purchasing the land by the county employee is it will be, "...maintained by public works as a storm drain basin but it's not going to be allowed to have something built upon it so that it would ultimately have to be torn down at the taxpayers' cost."

Wait. WHAT?!? You mean like the gas station, storage units and other development planned for the parcels adjacent to Pirrone Court also owned by Grover Family Trust and would be torn down when the Hammett Road overpass is improved?

At the September 2021 Salida MAC meeting, Stanislaus County Planning Department gave an update that the gas station project is on hold while the developer looks for land to mitigate for the threatened status species, Swainson's Hawk, which is currently foraging on the land.

Um....Hello Stanislaus County - how about doing the same for the gas station parcel and leaving it as forage for the hawk for THE VERY SAME FREAKING REASON CITED FOR BUYING THOSE OTHER TWO PARCELS?!?

Updated Nov 2, 2021: The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors approved the purchase of the aforementioned 2.2 acres at their Tuesday, November 2, 2021 meeting. 

READ: Why build a gas station just to tear it down? Part 1

Why build a gas station just to tear it down? Part 1

A Public Records Act Request has revealed the shocking information that Stanislaus County planners and leaders know the proposed gas station and storage (PLN2019-0079) to be built next to the Vizcaya neighborhood would be torn down to make way for the expansion of the Hammett Road interchange. In this email exchange dated December 7, 2018 between former Stanislaus County Deputy Director, Miguel Galvez, to Stanislaus County Planner, Kristin Doud and copied to Stanislaus County Planning Director, Angela Freitas, Galvez writes, 

"The Grover family is interested in developing their property by the Hammett Road overcrossing. They would like to develop a service station on the 9.6 ac. parcel (APN 003-014-007), it would be temporary until the property is taken for the development of the new interchange."

NOT ONCE has this information that the development will be demolished for the new interchange been shared at ANY of the county meetings held about the gas station project in Salida! WHY would Stanislaus County proceed with a project that not only would have a gas station, but a mini-storage, and other restaurants when all of it will be torn down for a freeway interchange? Would the business owners and corporations know in advance that their business investments on this land could be short-lived? At the Hammett Road Interchange meeting held at Salida Library Community Room on July 31, 2012, one of the hired consultants of the study said at 7:16 in the recorded meeting, 

"The problem is, any development, any significant development around the Hammett Road Interchange causes the Hammett interchange to fail in it's ability to service traffic, so it would need to be improved. The plan that we have done in here tonight, is the least impact way of making a long term interchange improvement to accommodate any development that occurs at the interchange."

At 5:44 in the recording after a discussion on whether the land could be developed or not, a man says, "The land should be acquired at fair market value." In the December 7, 2018 Galvez-Doud email, they discuss the zoning. A-2 is the zoning code for General Agriculture.

A second development project debuted in early 2020 known as "Lark Landing PLN2019-0131" which includes another gas station, car wash, convenience market, offices, fast food and TWO hotels on the land in front (west) of the Vizcaya neighborhood. This project is currently on hold, but again, if you look at the layout of the Hammett Road interchange, this land would also be taken for that along with the new Pirrone Rd. alignment. 

The only reason I can think of as to WHY Stanislaus County would follow through with these doomed projects is to insure the landowners receive a higher "fair market value" for their land by the state. A General Plan rezone is part of these development applications and built-out commercial land would cost the state more than if it were undeveloped or remained agriculture. 

A taxing annexation for Salida

If Stanislaus County succeeds in annexing our homes into taxing districts, tax increases are never going to end. Every so often, they will want to raise taxes as they have already been doing to the people in those taxing districts.

As if 2020 hasn't been a bad enough year already, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors is moving forward with plans to annex all of Salida into taxing districts. They call it a community service "assessment" (CSA) but that's just another word for "tax", and this is why it's subject to a Prop 218 vote. Following are the politics behind this tax and my thoughts on why I am against it.

The first tax to be voted on is known as CSA 4 and applies only to the Bristol Glen (aka Amberwood) neighborhood for their storm drain maintenance. For the CSA 4 tax to apply to all of Salida, Stanislaus LAFCO will have to approve Salida being annexed into Bristol Glen's taxing district and then registered homeowners will vote. The second taxing district that the rest of Salida will be annexed into is CSA 10 which covers park maintenance and the landscaping around the current CSA neighborhoods.

Following are my comments regarding the proposed tax annexation at the August 11, 2020 Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors meeting:

"I would like to request that agenda item C-1 be pulled and the following points are taken into consideration. To quote from page 2:

"In November, staff led a second meeting with the community and explained the rate increase process, benefits and costs, and why the increase was needed for CSA 10. County staff performed an informal poll of those that attended using comment cards. Based on 19 comment cards submitted, 10 were for the increase and 9 were against the increase. However, the most notable of responses, both verbally and written, for that meeting was a request that all of Salida pay for their "fair share" of the storm drain maintenance costs before considering raising the rate for CSA 10."

Let's begin with that quote "fair share". In 2013, I asked Matt Machado (former Director of Stanislaus County Public Works) how the storm drain maintenance in Salida was funded in neighborhoods like mine which are not covered by a CSA and his reply was "the gas tax". And here we are, seven years later and in the intervening time, we've had SB-1 and Measure L which are nice hefty increases to gas tax revenue. As was brought up at the Salida MAC meeting and also in the intervening time, the County decided to raid the CSA to pay for storm drain maintenance in my neighborhood as well as others not in CSA Districts, and this you spin as we are not paying our "fair share"??? That section of the agenda item should be stricken because it is nothing more than a biased opinion to further an agenda. If you don't wish to strike it, you can just as easily add my negative comment from the nine that were opposed so it's a more balanced and fair government document. (The Board of Supervisors adopted neither suggestion and the comment still stands in the document. They approved the tax unanimously to proceed onto the annexation process.)

My County Supervisor once told me that I was smart for not buying a Mello Roos home. (Mello Roos homes in Salida also have CSA taxes). I replied that it isn't because I'm smart, I did it on purpose because I didn't want the added taxes. When the people in CSA and Mello Roos homes purchase those homes, they agree to pay those taxes. They know what they are getting into. When we bought our home 27 years ago, the real estate agent did not say, "Well, you don't have these additional taxes on your home, but just wait, you will in 27 years."

Personally, the amount you want to tax us with isn't a big deal to me. I'm against this tax in principle. The principle being that we DO pay more than our fair share and we did not sign up for this. Another principle is that I think your timing is horrendous because other than the Great Recession, you're going to push a tax during the second biggest economic downturn of the 21st century. While the amount may not be a big deal to me, you are imposing this tax on low-income areas of Salida - the same sections of Salida you use for DUC (Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community) status in grants so that tax may be a big deal to a lot of other people in Salida." (NOTE: Salida as a whole is not a DUC, but the county obtained the storm drain grant for the Historic neighborhoods by grouping them as a DUC.)

I can't combat this tax alone so if you wish to help, e-mail me.

"I wouldn't have bought a house there" in Salida's Vizcaya neighborhood

My comments during the public comment period at the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors 9 am meeting on February 25, 2020:

”I wouldn't have bought a house there” are words that have haunted me since the January Salida MAC meeting. They were spoken by a county employee; an honest answer to a Salida resident who asked him if he would want to live near the various developments being planned around Hammett and Pirrone.

“I wouldn't have bought a house there” begs the question then – is that because we cannot trust the County to not allow development conducive to homes? Checking what is to be built in empty lots and farmers' fields around your home is not something most people think to do, myself included. When I purchased my home 27 years ago I did not check the county zoning to see what was going to be built in the vacant lot behind my home. I was absolutely horrified last year when plans were circulating for a 4-story hotel and that's not something that would have surfaced either had I checked then.

Several years ago, I had a conversation with Supervisor DeMartini about my neighborhood and he also honestly remarked, “They should never have allowed homes to be built there, it should all be industrial and commercial.” I was surprised when he said it, but the more I think about it, I have to agree. As I've mentioned in recent public comment here, I can hear Freeway 99, even with my windows closed – that's how close I am to it.

But it is what it is and there are thousands of homes on the east side of Salida. We've been pretty fortunate as long as I've lived there with one or two exceptions, the businesses built along Pirrone have been pretty quiet and not a nuisance to their neighbors.

But that will all change now if you approve the planned developments at Pirrone and Hammett. And here's why you should not: It is a stupid use of that land. The developer does not even have a gas station committed – he's trying to sell it to 7/11 or Circle K. There are gas stations at Pelandale, Kiernan and Ripon, we do not need one there too that will cause noise, light and air pollution on the Vizcaya neighborhood. The other projects include a fast food type restaurant, two hotels, and a mini-storage. I don't know how close the hotels are to the homes, but if they are close, that's a permanent invasion of the homeowners privacy. And a mini-storage on that prime freeway frontage location is an insane waste of land! We already have two mini-storage businesses in Salida and one is a ½ mile down on Pirrone.

Modesto has been complaining for years that they don't have anywhere to build a business park on 99 and here's this beautiful pristine area that would be perfect for that or even better, my husband's idea that he wrote to you in an e-mail about – create tourism with a San Antonio River Walk-type development. If you haven't already heard, Madera County is building one along the San Joaquin River. A San Antonio River Walk in Salida would bring much more tourism to the county than shooting pumpkins out of catapults or the Frank Raines ATV billboard currently up in Salida.

And that's nonsense that it was a “drafting error” and not included in the Salida Community Plan. Jeff Grover would not have been able to vote on the Plan if his cousin's land was included and oh, they just all of sudden call it a drafting error when after 13 years they haven't complained nor was it corrected in the County's recent General Plan update.

To sum it up, the buck stops with you – you are the ones with the binding votes. Put yourselves in our shoes and don't vote to make Salida just another ho hum gas station exit next to a neighborhood where you or your employees wouldn't buy a house there."