Interesting Story

[qualtrough]

Thought this story might be of interest given the Thai connection. BTW, I used a constant dollar calculator to find that $49,500 in 1964 would be the equivalent of $328,127 in today's dollars, so the island wasn't exactly cheap even back then.

Man in Thailand selling last private island in San Francisco Bay

By MICK ELMORE, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

If you've ever wanted to own a piece of San Francisco Bay, now's your chance. Red Rock, the only privately owned island in the bay, is up for sale.

But it is well beyond most pocketbooks.

David Glickman, a Bangkok-based gem dealer and attorney, wants $10 million for the 5.8-acre, uninhabited island in the shadow of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.

"It's time to sell. I'm not going to live much longer. I'm almost 78. My wife is Thai, highly educated, and I'd like to leave her in good finances," Glickman said.

Red Rock Island, which gets its name from the reddish-brown color of its soil, was privately purchased in the 1920s. After a few owners, Glickman, then practicing law in San Francisco, bought it sight unseen in 1964 for $49,500.

It is located about 8 miles north of San Francisco's famed Fisherman's Wharf at a point where the San Francisco, Marin and Contra Costa counties converge.

"At the time, I thought I'd sell it. The island has a good spot for a marina, and it's in the bay, so the marina would be useful," he said. "But each time I thought I was going to sell it, something happened to make it worth more money."

Since then, a number of ventures — everything from hotels to an oil drilling project — were proposed but not followed up amid concerns about approvals and costs. Glickman put the island on the market in 2001 but had no takers after would-be buyers couldn't arrange the financing.

With the island made up mostly of stone, Glickman has talked about setting up a makeshift quarry on the island and selling the stone for prices ranging between $16 and $19 a ton. He envisioned stripping a million tons off the top of the 179-foot-high island and leaving a shortened one behind.

But he would rather sell it, given the myriad of local and state approvals required for any commercial enterprise and the fact he now lives on the other side of the world.

Any new owner who wanted to develop the island would also have to spend extra money and go through an approval process involving state agencies in one or more of the three counties that have jurisdiction over the island.

In 2001, the California Department of Fish and Game was part of a consortium that considered buying the island to protect the bird life, using compensation from an oil spill to pay for it. The island is the only significant piece of land in the San Francisco Bay for which there is no underlying protection and sea birds and migratory species land there.

Approaching his 78th birthday and settled for good in Thailand, Glickman said he decided to try one last time to sell the island and ensure a comfortable legacy for his family. But he has so far refused to drop the asking price or consider donating it for conservation purposes.

"I'm not forced to sell it. I mean, it can't burn down, no one can steal it. So I'm under no pressure," he said, adding that the price works out to be about $1.5 million an acre. "Where can you buy land for that in San Francisco?"

He also has fond memories of owning a piece of the bay.

"The first time I went to the island, I was so excited I jumped out of the boat and ran down the beach. The people with me said I looked like a child who just bought his first island," Glickman said.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n.../n104750D63.DTL

© 2007 Hearst Communications Inc. | Privacy Policy | Feedback | RSS Feeds | FAQ | Site Index | Contact

[backflip]

"I used a constant dollar calculator to find that $49,500 in 1964 would be the equivalent of $328,127 in today's dollars, so the island wasn't exactly cheap even back then."

Your perspective is completely wrong. Try looking at the situation like this: would you spend $328,127 TODAY, to buy an asset that is worth $10 million? Of couse you would. Even if the asset in only worth $400,000 - spending $328,000 would make it a good deal.

[samran]

$10 million? Tell him he's dreaming.....

[TheChiefJustice]

Samran, you might want to tell him yourself:

http://www.scottmurray.com/a_life_well_lived.htm

[samran]

Samran, you might want to tell him yourself:

http://www.scottmurray.com/a_life_well_lived.htm

ahh, you missed the joke... don't worry.

Recommend you watch a movie called 'The Castle'

[TheChiefJustice]

Ah, yes, now I get it, Samran. I very much enjoyed The Castle! A lovely Aussie movie.

[steveromagnino]

$10 million? Tell him he's dreaming.....

are you gonna sell him ya joustin' sticks?

[qualtrough]

"I used a constant dollar calculator to find that $49,500 in 1964 would be the equivalent of $328,127 in today's dollars, so the island wasn't exactly cheap even back then."

Your perspective is completely wrong. Try looking at the situation like this: would you spend $328,127 TODAY, to buy an asset that is worth $10 million? Of couse you would. Even if the asset in only worth $400,000 - spending $328,000 would make it a good deal.

Sorry, but your interpretation of why I posted that figure is completely wrong. My intention, which I should have made crystal clear for people who are not the sharpest knife in the drawer like yourself, was to point out the relative value of $49,500 in 1964 because that sum seems relatively small nowadays. However, thinking of what that sum would be in today's terms allows one to realize that it was no small sum back then. That's all, nothing more. Absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it was a good deal, not that I even mentioned or implied that.

Edited June 21, 2007 by qualtrough

[backflip]

"the relative value of $49,500 in 1964 because that sum seems relatively small nowadays. However, thinking of what that sum would be in today's terms allows one to realize that it was no small sum back then"

You are as dull as the leading edge of a bowling ball, and I'm not sure you understand what you are posting. Sure, $50K seems like a small amount now. If you're familiar with real estate prices in the SF bay area, $400K is not a lot of money now - even for a barren 5 acre island. Except for the fact that economic fundamentals are beyond your comprehension, what's your point?

[qualtrough]

"the relative value of $49,500 in 1964 because that sum seems relatively small nowadays. However, thinking of what that sum would be in today's terms allows one to realize that it was no small sum back then"

You are as dull as the leading edge of a bowling ball, and I'm not sure you understand what you are posting. Sure, $50K seems like a small amount now. If you're familiar with real estate prices in the SF bay area, $400K is not a lot of money now - even for a barren 5 acre island. Except for the fact that economic fundamentals are beyond your comprehension, what's your point?

Jesus, what is wrong with you? I posted the constant dollar info so people would be able to realize what the original purchase sum would be in today's dollars. I never said, nor implied, that this was or wasn't a good deal, repeat: never said nor implied that, so stop accusing me of that. Thank you.

[samran]

$10 million? Tell him he's dreaming.....

are you gonna sell him ya joustin' sticks?

yeah but they are in the shed with the 'pul-pit'. To get to them, I'll have to move the Torana to get to the Falcon which is behind the Commadore which is blocking the shed....

Ah, the serenity....