Is it possible that if the Golf Course owners can’t convince the homeowners to provide a subsidy, the Golf course could shrink from its present form to either a 9 hole course, or modified to an 18 hole short course? This writer had a discussion with Charlie Gibson yesterday and he indicated this would be his preference if the subsidy fails to materialize. According to Charlie, the concept would be to close the back 9, a possible cost savings of over $400,000 in water, maintenance, etc. The front 9 in whatever form would continue to operate along with the pavilion. That’s where Charlie apparently stands, at least at this writing.
Some goods, some bads in this proposal. Your thoughts.
Okay, the back nine would close and save considerable operating costs. The bigger question for all of us is what happens to the vacated golf course property. From everything I understand, some portion of it would be developed into homes. And, this option would not prevent additional closure and development from taking place in the future. I definitely feel that there is nothing good about this option for all homeowners.
I would hope that a good majority of the property that surrounds the back nine is too close Dry Creek to develop (get County approval).
Yes, I am engineer, majority of golf courses are pretty much within 100-year flood plain. Any grading may negatively impact flooding zone. That’s why “Woodrodgers” (Design consultants) did great design job to accommodate ball golf courses, wetland restrictions, and flood plain all together.
Charlie doesn’t care about the golf course. As soon as he sells his home, he will do whatever it takes to make a quick buck. If he close the back nine, the front nine closure would be soon to follow. I don’t understand why he doesn’t just sell the golf course. I’m sure he could easily sell it for double or a lot more than he paid for.
Totally agreed. This is same game he played at rocklin Lincoln and Davis. If we do sudsidize this time. Next time he will ask for more
If play is minimal now just think of shrinking this course down in size. Antelope Greens is a short executive course down the street, attracts newbie golfers and older seniors. Not a money maker at all.
Close half the golf course?
Hard to believe this plan truly pencils out. The revenue from a nine hole course would be half of his 18 hole revenue, and the amount of play would also most likely be significantly reduced. Does the driving range stay?
The impact on the newly installed gates would also need to considered. If his real motivation is to primarily operate a pavilion for outside events, then how would access to the pavilion be controlled and at what additional cost and/or benefit to the community?
Isn’t it true that a portion of our land is used by the golf course? If the homeowners on the back nine moved there fences to the original property line, how much room would developers have? (if no longer a golf course, then those few feet should revert back to owners property).
Not sure without going back to our paperwork how many feet it really is per home.May not make a difference.
Fifty feet I believe. At least that’s ours.
If the owner abandons the golf course I will be moving my fence back immediately and landscaping that 50 feet of easement.
Me too!
In 1974 Ray Kroc spoke to the students of the University of Texas at Austin. Mr Kroc the founder of McDonalds asked the students “what am i in the busines of?”. After waiting a student finally said the hamburger business. Mr. Kroc said ” Ladies and Gentlemen, im not in the hamburger business, my business is REALESTATE.
Today worldwide McDonalds owns more realestate than the Catholic Church in some of the most expensive cities in the world.
I would not be interested in providing a subsidy without reviewing financial statements. Also, I find it difficult to believe that the Charlie and his investors would walk away from their investment. Approximately $200k per year shouldn’t make a material difference to his operating cash flow. Lastly, what do we get for our money? An interest in equity or free green fees might be a good start.
Not a thing. He wants to use this excuse to squeeze money out of us one time 2nd time 3rd time. Then he will sell golf course 5 times what he paid for which was less than a couple million since he got it at foreclosure price
What’s the loan on the property? I am sure he can sell it as a shortsale or let it go back to the bank. I think It was bought as a foreclosure from the bank in the past (remember when it was a private course?). A subsidy is only a temporary patch. I am sure he will be asking for more money in the future.
Some thoughts on our golf course owner, Charlie Gibson. He has announced he will be reaching out to homeowners of Morgan Creek for “financial assistance” to maintain Morgan Creek golf course. This could end up going in several different directions, if we let this happen. After Charlie obtained Sunset Whitney golf course in Rocklin, he up and closed it!! Here are some things we should all know.
• He bought Sunset Whitney in 2011 for 2.5 million. He threatened to and then did close the entire golf course. The course was closed for two years while it became a totally dried up eye sore. The city of Rocklin purchased the land for 5.8 million. A nice profit!!
• Charlie and (silent investors) purchased Morgan Creek Golf course at a fire sale price between 2.1 – 2.5 million during the housing crisis. This included all buildings and equipment!!!
• Homeowners approved selling the lots just north of the golf course last year. I’m estimating Charlie pocketed at least $400,000 or more for that parcel of land.
• Charlie might not know how to run a golf course but is excellent in taking advantage of homeowners in golfing communities. His past history is very clear on getting golf courses on the cheap, let them get run down, then reach out for money. He then proceeds to threaten homeowners if they don’t agree to his demands.
• He recently moved up to Serrano Country Club in El Dorado Hills. This is a very exclusive golfing community and those homes are a lot more expensive than at Morgan Creek.
• It is rumored he has had at least two potential investors wanting to purchase the Morgan Creek course. Remember, he got Morgan Creek at an unbelievably low price.
• Homeowners would be much better off, if he just sold the course and went away!! He doesn’t want to sell because he knows he’s sitting on a gold mine. He wants to disrupt lives, break up the course and sell parcel lots.
• I trust Charlie about as far as I can throw him. He obviously has no respect for the homeowners within Morgan Creek. He showed us his true colors with the callus way he handled his business with the City of Rocklin, in regards to Sunset Whitney course.
• We need Charlie to open up his books and let us see his financials. How much is he paying himself and family members?
• I believe our best interests would be for him to SELL. He could sell and make a huge profit. Remember he bought the course on the cheap. I’m guessing he would make at least $5.0 million or more if he sold.
Right on. You are so correct
great points
My backyard is surrounded front 9, shall I be happy and walk away now because back 9 is none of my business? No way! we community bond together as one whole piece. Please be careful of trick like this may make us break up and lower our voice. We, every residence are bonded
I don’t know if this is true, but the rumor I heard is that Charlie Gibson’s silent partner is the individual/family that sold the Century theater chain a while back and has deep pockets. I also heard that this partner has a separate division for real estate development in his/their organization. If that’s the case, then the MO Charlie is currently following fits his past actions at other golf clubs and does not bode well if we cave to his demands for financial support, which I am guessing is just the first step for real east development in our beautiful community.