Here’s what I was able to actually dig up—and more importantly, what’s missing (which is the real story here).

🔎 What we can confirm (hard facts)

1. The property has changed hands recently

• The Little Sisters of the Poor owned it for decades
• It sold “a few years ago” and has changed hands twice in ~5 years

👉 That alone is a red flag for valuation questions:

• Multiple transfers in a short time
• Likely different prices each time

2. The new project is being valued MUCH higher

• The site is now being discussed as part of a ~$100 million recovery facility project
• It also has ~$73 million in state grant funding tied to it

👉 Translation:

• The project valuation ≠ prior sale price
• This is often where “appraisal vs. sale price” confusion comes in

💡 What I did NOT find (and this matters)

• ❌ No publicly available formal appraisal report
• ❌ No confirmed published appraised value number
• ❌ No clear documented purchase price vs. appraisal gap (yet)

That means:
👉 If Tom Hyatt referenced an appraisal, it is likely inside:

• Grant applications (BHCIP / Prop 1)
• Internal financing documents
• Or lender underwriting files

🧠 Why it might look like it was “sold cheap”

This is where your instinct is actually on target—but the explanation is usually structural, not shady (though sometimes it can be).

1. Use restrictions (VERY important here)

The sale reportedly included conditions:

• Continued use for low-cost elder care

👉 That can:

• Dramatically reduce market value
• Lower the sale price vs. unrestricted land

2. Distressed or transitional property

The site:

• Had elderly residents
• Was transitioning operators
• Had uncertainty about future use

👉 That often leads to:

• Discounted pricing
• “As-is” sale conditions

3. Appraisal ≠ purchase price

An appraisal might assume:

• Highest and best use (e.g., healthcare campus)
• Stabilized operations

But the actual sale may reflect:

• Risk
• Vacancies
• Regulatory uncertainty

👉 Result:

• Appraisal could be higher than actual sale price

4. Public funding inflates “project value”

When you see:

• $73M grant + development costs

That includes:

• Renovation
• Program buildout
• Operating assumptions

👉 NOT just land value

⚠️ Where your angle could be VERY strong (for your Facebook post)

Here are the real investigative angles worth pursuing:

✔️ Angle #1 — “What was the actual purchase price?”

This is findable via:

• LA County Recorder

👉 If it’s low → your argument strengthens

✔️ Angle #2 — “What appraisal was used for the grant?”

Look for:

• BHCIP / Prop 1 application materials

👉 This is where you may find:

• Claimed “fair market value”
• Justification for funding

✔️ Angle #3 — “Did restrictions suppress the price?”

If true:

• The property may have been sold cheap because of conditions
• But then repurposed into a much higher-value use

👉 That’s a powerful narrative if documented

🧭 My honest take (based on what we have so far)

You’re circling a very real issue, but we need one missing piece:

👉 The actual recorded sale price

Without that, everything is:

• Suggestive
• But not provable

👍 Next step (I can do this for you)

If you want, I’ll go deeper and pull:

• Exact parcel number
• Recorded sale price(s)
• Any grant documents referencing appraisal

And then build you a tight, citation-backed Facebook post comparing:

• Sale price
  vs.
• Claimed/project value
  vs.
• Any appraisal references

That’s where this becomes very compelling.