For 15 years, the Barron Park donkeys, Perry and Miner 49er, have lived rent-free in a pasture adjacent to Palo Alto’s Bol Park and the Matadero Creek Bridge. Now, James Witt, the property owner, said he will have to charge the donkeys rent.
Volunteers who care for the donkeys will have to come up with at least $3,500 a year — and up to as much as $7,000 — to foot the bill, according to a contract between Witt and the donkeys’ owner, the environmental nonprofit Acterra.
Witt said he has shelled out more than $100,000 in property taxes over the years for the single-acre parcel. He approached head donkey handler Bob Frost early this year to ask the community to cover the tax bill.
An eight-year agreement was reached and includes a provision that will allow for two donkeys on the property, even if Perry or Niner were to die and another donkey were brought in.
The changes have some Barron Park residents concerned about the future of the beloved donkeys, however.
Donkeys were once a part of the landscape in Barron Park, where Stanford physicist Cornelis Bol had a pasture. After his death, some of the land became part of the 13-plus-acre Bol Park, which was dedicated in 1974.
Witt purchased his land in 1998 from Joor Bol, the heir.
“I bought this property from the Bols because they couldn’t afford to keep it. I’m not going to allow that to happen to my son — that he would have to sell the property because he can’t afford to keep it,” he said.
Working out the new contract raised some issues, namely who owned the donkeys and whether the pasture was intended to remain undeveloped forever.
Although the 1998 sales agreement between Witt and the Bols was to have included a deed restriction stating the pasture would remain “in perpetuity,” no deed restriction was ever filed, according to Richard Whitmore, a retired attorney and Barron Park resident who helped put together the new rental agreement. Donkeys were not mentioned in the sales agreement, either.
But the recent contract has clarified the donkeys’ ownership. While Witt believed he owned the animals, since he had hosted them at no charge on his land, volunteers with the Donkey Project, who care for the animals, disputed that claim.
“We disagreed, but did not feel that we could rationally argue that Barron Park Association or the Donkey Project owned the donkeys — in part because the Donkey Project does not appear to be kind of legal entity that could own something,” Whitmore said.
But Acterra, which has managed donations for the donkeys since 2002, was the logical alternative owner. Acterra also carried liability insurance to cover the Donkey Project. Witt agreed to name Acterra as the donkeys’ owner, and Acterra agreed to cover Witt under its liability insurance if someone were to sue for injuries caused by the donkeys, Whitmore said.
“If we had not negotiated an agreement, there would have been no legal obligation for James Witt to keep the donkeys on his land, although he never threatened eviction of the donkeys. He did mention his interest in leasing out the land as a pasture for horses,” Whitmore said.
But some Barron Park residents were dismayed by the agreement. Winter Dellenbach, a longtime resident, said she has “serious questions.”
“I question that it was legal and that there was any authority by Acterra to sign a contract involving money to be paid over years that involves people who aren’t signed onto the agreement. What happens to the donkeys if we can’t make the payments?” she said.
Debbie Mytels, Acterra’s interim executive director, said retired executive director Michael Closson signed the agreement, but she was just learning about its implications.
“I know he met with several people, but not the whole neighborhood. I gather some people in Barron Park are uncomfortable with the arrangement,” she said.
Acterra has been the fiscal agent for the Donkey Project for many years and has an agreement to hold the funds. But Mytels conceded she “doesn’t really, truly know” if they have the right to make contracts for the Donkey Project. “If we have to bring this matter to an attorney, I guess we will,” she said.
Witt said he is doing what he can to keep a little bit of Barron Park history alive, and he would like to be actively included in fundraising efforts. He is putting together a book of drawings that children have left in the donkeys’ mailbox, which is affixed to the pasture gate, and he plans to sell the book as a fundraiser, he said. He also has a collection of paintings, and he is considering offering one for auction. Residents have had a fundraising meeting, but he was not invited, he said.
“There’s something about the simplicity of the donkeys, about when life made sense. It resonates with people in a way that brings them back to a time when the world wasn’t off its hinges,” he said. What he likes most about the donkeys is the reaction of the children, he said.
Mytels said there are many ways to help the donkeys.
“There’s room for lots of creative approaches, I’m sure. We’re trying to do what we can. We are very willing to work with the community,” she said.
Witt said the estimated $100,000 that he’s paid in taxes is based on the one-acre pasture and does not include the rest of his property, nor property improvements.
As of Sept. 1, a $3,500 first-year fee was initiated. In succeeding years, the fee will be $3,500 plus any Donkey Project income (after expenses) over $500 up to a total of $7,000, according to the agreement.
Acterra and the Donkey Project will pay for care and feeding and other expenses and will pay Witt for reasonable upkeep, such as maintaining pasture fences and housing for the donkeys. Having a sliding scale for payments would protect the donkeys if donations don’t reach $7,000.
Witt and Acterra will each have a fundraising website for the donkeys. Witt reserved the domain name BarronParkDonkeys.com.
“He said he did so because he thought there should be a more active effort to raise funds, and he predicted that such an effort would generate significantly more money than prior efforts,” Whitmore noted. “To make sure that Acterra/Donkey Project were part of the effort, Acterra reserved the domain name BarronParkDonkeys.org. We agreed that both websites would have links to Acterra and that we would cooperate in the fundraising.”
On average, $3,720 is raised annually for the donkeys, he said.
Acterra is working to set up an online page for donations to the Donkey Project. Currently, supporters must mail in donations.
It seems a shame that anyone has to pay large taxes on this agricultural parcel being used for non-profit housing of Niner & Perry. Isn’t there a CPA/lawyer out there who could figure a way out of this? Does everything always have to come down to money?
Is there a 501 (c) (3) organization for tax-deductible charitable contributions?
This “agreement’ was made and signed by the landowner and a non-profit with no knowledge or consultation by anyone in Barron Park but for a couple of people. Most Donkey Handlers were only told of it Sept. 15 after the fact. It is a bad deal for the donkeys and us, but not for Jim Witt.
Here Jim has been given the rightl, in the name of the donkeys, to raise thousands of dollars for himself each year. I have never heard of such an arrangement and wonder if it is legal under CA charitable giving laws. It shouldn’t be.
He parks big trucks and stores other stuff next to the donkeys in their pasture, and an attorney says we can’t stop him from doing this since it is his property, though we are now paying him rent for it. That is crazy. Part of any agreement should have been that the pasture is only for the donkey’s use. And the pasture size and features should have been described – who is to say Jim can’t make it smaller in a year? The trucks drive in and out of donkey paddock gate now onto the public pedestrian and bike path (not a public or private road). This can’t a be legal us of the bike/ped path.
And who is Acterra to negotiate and sign an agreement with Witt. They don’t own the donkeys, nor does Witt. Show the bill of sale. There is nothing in the fiduciary agreement with Acterra that says they have a right to contract or own the donkeys.
The pasture has little value except to the donkeys. The land cannot be built on and can’t be subdivided. Witt mentioned renting garden patches – where would the water come from? And not to board horses – too small and local boarding places provide daily care and feeding – what BP people do now for free. Fair market rent should be redetermined thru a non-biased process/person based on all relevant factors.
And we in BP shouldn’t be simply informed after the fact that we are now responsible to raise over $50,000 over the next 8 years. That hardly engenders trust.
What happens to the donkeys if we don’t make the rent? This question has only been met with silence.
The donkeys need to have a secure future here in BP, not subject to any one person’s demands. There may be a trade-off giving him something of value in exchange, through land use alternatives or other possibilities.
the reduced property tax angle has been worked to death over the years
” That Dog don’t hunt”
Yes Acterra manages the tax deductible 501C for collecting donations to the donkey fund
we are looking for volunteer help with making donating easier i.e. web design qr coding and such
as of now donation should go to Acterra / donkey fund
http://www.acterra.org/
Donkeys Rule! Only in Palo Alto could donkeys be considered a liability and their future decided by the almighty dollar! What a country!
What a city! What a county!
from Wikipeida on Shrek: Donkey was modeled after Perry (born 1994), a real miniature donkey from Barron Park, Palo Alto, California.[2]
To address / correct some comments made above
the barron park association was aware of this process / agreement
the agreement includes several protections for the donkeys including pasture use etc.
the donkeys are far more protected with an agreement than without
its wrong for someone who has not read the agreement to slander the parties involved
cant we all keep a good thought and a kind word
for a tradition that goes back to the 1950’s
when we used to feed the donkeys our grass clippings ?
It’s sad that a developer such as Witt, who has made millions off selling homes in the area (including Barron Park), refuses to give anything back to the community that has done so much for him. He should be ashamed for even raising the issue. If he were a man of real character, he’d donate the pasture land (make a lot line adjustment with the park if necessary) to the city and have it be considered part of Bol Park. Maybe they city would even name the pasture after him and then people could start to forgive him for the ugly creations that he’s putting up in the neighborhood.
Witt has plenty of other places on his large parcel of land where he can store the trucks and other garbage that he currently stores in the donkey pasture. The city should fine him for driving on the bike path. Maybe the city should classify the pasture as “blighted” and integrate it into the park that way.
if antonym knew witt they would know about the projects he has contributed to barron park school and terman and about his many years of volunteer work with the city of palo alto currently entering his third year on the DCAG committee
donating the the pasture would not be allowed as it would make the remaining parcel non conforming and i have no desire to have anything named after me
people that know witt know he has work hard over the last 15 years maintaining the pasture including building sheds providing water, building a new gate , fencing and on and on
the items stored in the pasture are not garbage they are materials that we recycle into the homes we build
i dont consider the homes i have built “ugly creations “ i will let the neighborhood judge my homes over many years i will say i take pride in my reputation for being a quality builder who stayed true to his neighborhood and i’m proud to have planted hundreds of trees in barron park and disposed of tons of garbage left behind by others
I agree with Winter that there should have been greater transparency about this before the fact rather than after. Maybe this was in the BPA news before yesterday but I just searched my email and I don’t see any sign of it. I don’t know whether or not this is a good deal or not. Winter seems to think it’s not. Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to have this aired at a BPA meeting so that people could participate in the decisions before the fact rather than trying to decipher it after?
Honestly I find it ironic after all the lengthy fulminating emails I have received about Maybell from BPA based on the city’s lack of supposed transparency over the senior development and the behind the scenes relationship with the “developer” [a nonprofit PAHC] who benefitted that now we have a behind the scenes deal conducted by BPA that obligates us to raise a large amount of money and pay it to (wait for it) a developer.
Without reviewing the documents it is impossible to know whether this is the best deal that could have been obtained for the community or not. Maybe all is fine and in good order — but it is a bit worrisome that the ED of the organization that made the agreement is not herself even sure that the org had the authority to make that deal.
The Donkey Project is NOT part of the Barron Park Association (BPA). The BPA advertises various donkey-related activities and fund-raising, similar to what it does for other neighborhood activities. It was the leadership of the Donkey Project that decided when and how to inform the public of what was being done.
At the time the Bols sold the property, the BPA considered becoming the owner of the donkeys, but the problems with getting insurance were insurmountable.
Although some BPA Board members were also donkey handlers, it has always been explicit that those are separate activities.
Disclosure: I was a BPA Board member throughout this period. I am also one of the volunteers that feeds the donkeys (since 1996, Sunday at approx 5pm), but I had no role in the negotiations (other than providing recollections of what happened during the sale) or any of the preceding legalities.
Thanks for clarifying Doug that BPA is not a party to the agreement and apologies that I misunderstood that. I think my confusion is probably symptomatic of the problem with the lack of information and involvement by the neighborhood.
I do have one questions though — if BPA is not a party to the agreement then how is it that BPA ended up obligated to fundraise in the contract per this story: “Volunteers from the Barron Park Association who care for the donkeys will have to come up with at least $3,500 a year — and up to as much as $7,000 — to foot the bill, according to a contract between Witt and the donkeys’ owner, the environmental nonprofit Acterra.”
I presumed that BPA was consulted since it is obligated under the contract. Is that not the case? If not, how can the contract bind BPA? Ordinarily that is not how contracts work. Is it an error in the story?
Thanks in advance for any info you can provide.
MLD
Michele, the statement that volunteers *from the Barron Park Association* would be responsible for the rent is in error. It falls to those caring for the donkeys, not necessarily the BPA. Thanks for pointing that out.
mld
a slight inaccuracy in the article
there are some folks on both the barron park association and donkey volunteer project
the barron park association has no responsibility for the fundraising
we believe ( in the past ) people contributing to the donkey fund assumed a portion of those dollars went to providing the land
in the past they did not
now a portion does i think thats a good way to look at this
the entire neighborhood can be involved going forward by contributing to the donkey project through acterra
http://www.acterra.org/
Thanks Jim and Jocelyn for clarifying. Can you clarify (anyone?) this provision:
“As of Sept. 1, a $3,500 first-year fee was initiated. In succeeding years, the fee will be $3,500 plus any Donkey Project income (after expenses) over $500 up to a total of $7,000, according to the agreement.”
Does “expenses” include food, veterinary bills, and other upkeep of the livestock? Or is the community now required to give the first $7K to rent, and then raise an additional amount for food?
The article goes on to state: “Acterra and the Donkey Project will pay for care and feeding and other expenses and will pay Witt for reasonable upkeep, such as maintaining pasture fences and housing for the donkeys. Having a sliding scale for payments would protect the donkeys if donations don’t reach $7,000.”
Are the reasonable upkeep fees included in the rent or are these additional monies paid to Mr. Witt (on top of rent)?
It looks like from this story as if the community, which currently raises a total of around $3700 annually is now obliged to pay for (1) all food; (2) reasonable upkeep to the property (unspecified amount); (3) a minimum of $3500 in rent, and all fundraising over $3500 up to a total of $7000. The organization can retain $500 if less than $7500K is raised.
How much is currently spent annually on food/maintenance of the $3700 that is being raised?
Assuming all $3700 is expended annually on upkeep, this means [I think, who really knows without seeing the contract] that some unspecified organization [not clear who –Donkey Project, DBA, Acterra which acts as the fiscal sponsor for the Donkey Project — a tax and accounting formality that probably didn’t somehow create a full agency relationship] will have to raise more than $10K per year (first ~$7K goes to Mr. Witt, +$3K for food, + whatever Witt charges for upkeep). Is this right?
Without commenting on whether this is a fair price or not, I could be mistaken but that seems like a lot of money for Barron Park on a year-in-year-out basis. Right now the Donkey project raises about a third of that amount annually.
Ok, guys. Just as I was reading your post I received an email from BPA saying that there is a new addition to the agenda for this week’s meeting “ Donkey Agreement; Art & Gwen will answer questions; Proposal from Gwen for BPA contribution to Donkey Project (10 minutes)”
So, come on. Obviously some of you (Doug?) know more about how this is all going to play out than the rest of us.
BPA is going to end up paying for this. I’m not expressing an opinion on the substance of this — maybe this is the best possible use of $7K in BPA money every year that we can get. But BPA does do other things too. BPA is obviously going to end up footing this bill and it is reasonable for members to ask why there wasn’t greater transparency as the deal with Witt was being inked if we have to pay this much money every year.
Funny that my post was removed for simply suggesting that Witt give something back to the community after making millions from building ugly houses in the neighborhood. It contained nothing offensive, unless you have an interest in looking out for Witt (maybe because he advertises in the Weekly?).
**
Posted by anthonym, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, 2 hours ago
[Post removed by Palo Alto Online.]
artbuilder,
I can’t tell whether you are Witt or just trying to defend him. In some places you refer to Witt in the third person and in others talk about having no desire to have anything names after “me” and that you don’t consider the homes “you” have built to be ugly creations.
I’m sorry that you’re so defensive. Talk to your neighbors. Most wish that you would keep the neighborhood character the way it is and leave some of the fixer-uppers for entry level buyers. I respect your right to make money but if that’s your choice you should shouldn’t be so sensitive to criticism.
If anybody is unhappy with the Witt/Acterra agreement, then perhaps they could host the donkeys? No takers? Yeah, I thought so. What ever
happened to minding your own business?
RE: Michele Dauber “Obviously some of you (Doug?) know more about how this is all going to play out than the rest of us.”
Just to let people know that I don’t know any more and that the people I suspect might know more are unlikely to be participants here on TSF (and are unlike to become such).
I was surprised to see this issue on the BPA Board agenda for tonight. I have resigned from the Board (officially as of tonight, but effectively Labor Day weekend).
As a member of the donkey handlers, I don’t think I have seen or heard anything significant that isn’t already public (except personal comments of other individuals who are donkey handlers).
I know Mr Witt, and he has not built any ugly buildings. The overwhelming majority have been very traditionalist. I know of only two that were “modernist”, and one of them was built in the eighties!
Anger is being taken out on the wrong person. All you can do is blame the value of the land and the Santa Clara County Tax Asessor.
If you and you children enjoy the donkeys, donate to Acterra. Just google it!
Acterra is currently working with the Donkey Project to set up an online donation page for the donkeys. In the meantime, if you would like to donate in support of Perry and Niner, please mail a check to:
The Palo Alto Donkey Project
c/o Acterra
3921 E. Bayshore Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
News Flash! Two women lawyers from Barron Park with obvious political agendas start a story that the Barron Park Association is funneling money to a developer under the cover of preserving our iconic neighborhood donkeys. Gullible reporter with weak investigative skills and circuitous writing style pens news article that leaves “many questions unanswered.” Both women shout for more transparency!
Oh please.
The Barron Park Association web site has a Q&A everybody can read for themselves: http://www.bpapaloalto.org/2013/09/16/qa-on-the-agreement-between-james-witt-and-acterradonkey-project/ There’s a link to a copy of the agreement between Acterra and Mr. Witt. Unsurprisingly, the Barron Park Association isn’t part of the agreement because Acterra has been handling donations and liability insurance for our Barron Park donkeys for years. Read the archive of Barron Park Association newsletters on the web site and you’ll see that none of this news.
Mr Witt wants to be reimbursed for his property taxes on the donkey pasture. Acterra came to agreement to make that happen. Mr Witt deserves a lot a thanks for his work in allowing free use of and caring for the pasture and its infrastructure at his own expense over several decades.
Oh, Mr Witt is not a developer. He is a general contractor and builder of houses in the neighborhood. Both women, well I’m haven’t seen their contribution to the neighborhood. But we know both suck at math or are unable to comprehend a single page legal agreement.
Please Barron Park resident lawyers, don’t do this. Leave this one alone. Thank you.
Not surprised to hear it’s Witt….in fact I can’t stop laughing. My father, a man of actual strength and character, one who will stand for what’s right, unlike the vast majority of Shallow Altons, and Barren Parkers. When he decided to sell, he admirably decided to forego the million dollars + Witt would’ve paid him for our tear-down on a large lot. Instead he searched for another developer, anyone BUT Witt. And he did, a young developer, tryng to get started. And made him a deal, he took a financial hit to a) give someone a chance b) preserve some of the character of the neighorhood he’d spent his childhood in, and so had his 2 children. Witts homes had taken over, and total gentrification of Barron Park seemed eminent even way back in 2000, when we escaped. Witt doesn’t care about the residents of Barron Park, much less the wonderful donkeys. I’ve always liked those jackasses better than their human counterparts. Witt loves money. All he wants is your land, so he can stuff it full of ugly and stuff his pockets.
I can’t stop chuckling, of course its Witt. Charging rent for our donkeys. From one jackass to another, eh Witt?
exbarronpark
i dont find most palo altans shallow , sorry you did. i remeber 2000 i was building my 28th home not exactly total gentrification. also of note that was dot com melt down i was busy loosing tons of money when people realized pet.com was not making any profit
above all i’m a dad trying to insure my son does not have to sell and move out because he cant afford to keep the place
i dont think i ever met your dad
but i’m guessing we had things in common as i have lived here over fifty years
, i have worked hard to be true to my neighborhood
i tear down old obsolete homes , pay a lot for the best architect, and build homes i’m proud of, for young families who are smart enough to want to raise their kids here ,
i see prosperity as part of the character of barron park
Since this one acre parcel can never be developed but the owner still needs to pay prperty tax and becuase it is surrounded by the park ( formerly more of the Bols pasture ) it would bebetter to donate it to the park and let the Donkey group manage and care for the health of the animals with the City’s helpif neccessary.
We are not talking about a tremendous amount of money to maintain donkeys, and Mr. Witt probably would not be deprived of future income since the one acre Donkey pasture cannot be built on……..
we have looked at splitting the land off
this would have an unintended consequence tax wise
and the city wont allow it b/c of how it would impact the remaining parcel
also who would provide the , water , electric, and endless upkeep?
i have planted / watered dozens of trees to hide the ugly VA fence, built a shelter, two sheds a new gate done fence repairs, cut the weeds yearly
and helped when the smaller donkey was attacked three times and nearly killed by a vicious dog
It may be unreasonable, but when someone uses a term like “shallow Altans” which does not stick to the point and is meant to insult or cast negativity on a whole group of people … what value is that post? Can’t they just post again without all that stuff and say what they have to say? Can these posts be deleted with an explanation …. most people really do know better, they just think they can get away with it, but it sets a negative tone for the whole rest of the conversation. Please?
Yeah, and I don’t know whether her spelling of Barren (sic) Parkers was intentionally meant to convey the synonyms bleak and lifeless. I’m too late to see the portion removed. Can only imagine the spiral into bitterness.
Winter and all others – please investigate find a property, and provide us with the cost of renting such a property for boarding the two donkeys, and still have the donkeys accessible to the neighborhood.
I think you will find that the agreement Mr. Witt is offering is quite attractive, and beneficial to the community, compared to the alternatives.
And I’m appalled at the tone of what some are posting, especially the comments about what Mr. Witt does for a living. He provides a product, and it’s evidently in demand, otherwise the homes he built would not have sold.
Who gets sued when the donkey kills or injures someone?
“Who gets sued when the donkey kills or injures someone?”
That’s easy – everyone who has either money or and insurance policy!
Liability to Palo Alto could be many,many $ millions if the donkey kills or injures someone
epa is irrelevant in this
In case you think Sharon is being frivilous (!), take a look at this news report – Donkey attacks: Hungarian man brutally killed by two donkeys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6lokcRoedg
Could Palo Alto be next on this angry donkey killing spree?