A recent post concerning a fund raiser meeting for Jack Duran generated lots of strong comments, pro and con. That’s a good thing. It was also a reality check.
We have a republic form of government, not a town hall style democracy. We don’t get to vote directly for issues. We elect representatives to do that for us. Usually it works pretty well: Case in point, Morgan Creek land use if the golf course should close. So what does that mean? Like it or not we need to rely on our elected representatives to make the ultimate decision. In this case, and at least until 2019, that’s Jack Duran and our issue is now.
So how do we insure Jack is on our side, only 3 ways; appeal to logic, votes, and money. Many of you seem to view politics as an ugly partisan business. Perhaps it is. But for now, Mr Duran is the incumbent and we need to support him to get what we want. Realize it, or not, in our small district we control over 1,000 votes. That is significant. We are also a relatively affluent community. To get his attention we need to address all three. That is the intent of announcing the fund raiser. We hope you’ll come and make your voice heard. This blog provides the information. In the end it’s your decision.
But what about His opponent, Bonnie Gore, in the upcoming election? If someone wanted to sponsor a fund raiser for her, we’d be happy to announce it on the blog. The point is, to preserve our community we must be political. Like it or not, that’s the way the system works.
Comments welcome.
Well said!
I’m with the committee. We need Jack Duran’s support from the board of supervisors if it takes a donation I’m in. That’s the way it’s played.
Well said!
Very interesting dialogue from this group. Many are unwilling to support a subsidy for the current golf course owners, largely based on uncertainty and assumptions around one of the owner’s intentions and an unwillingness of the owners to provide detailed financial information. Yet, the same folks are advocating paying a political incumbent who is being asked to consider an issue that is not on the table and who we don’t know if he is aligned with our interests. And speaking of our interests, any reference to a “unified voice” in this blog is ridiculous. Many of us are fine with paying a subsidy and don’t agree with those who are against it. Having said that, it’s a moot point as the proposed subsidy will not be submitted as the owners are fed up with uncooperative residents who seem to know much more about running a golf course than the current owners. Good luck to us all when new owners are in place.
Eric. How many are fine with supporting the course? Your only the 2nd voice I’ve heard in support. Again by the owners admission it’s a failing business. Let it close.
Can someone post the financials or details of the original course owner/operators? Did they file for bankruptcy protection? If yes, was it more than once? Who was the original ownership group and why did they sell? Do we know who else bid to purchase other than the current ownership group?
The owners of the golf course is Morgan Creek LLC, owned by Joesph Syufy and Charles Gibson. And no, they did not file for bankruptcy. And the owners did not supply financial information to the Board to support their subsidy request (hence the overwhelming negative response at the HOA meeting). The golf course is a privately owned business therefore we don’t have the financials to post.
So any comments submitted to this site are read and “approved” before being posted? Who is the designated censor? How is this an open forum if comments are screened before publication?
267 comments have been submitted to this blog since we went live. Of those, 266 have been posted. Only one was rejected because it singled out a particular person and contained vulgarity. This forum will remain open as long as people are civil and throughful in their responses. The blog managers reserve the right to block anyone who doesn’t follow these guidelines. There are 2-3 MCHC members who monitor this site. Hope that answers your questions.
In response to Eric, Where were you at the HOA meeting, when all comments made totally rejected the owners request for financial assistance without proving a need. Homeowners approached by Mr Gibson were faced with threats of course closure and/or development of the property and destruction of home value if they didn’t provide financial support to the golf course owners. Not exactly the best way to build trust and influence your potential customers. No wonder we are seeking other alternates to his threats.
@Eric you must have missed the last HOA meeting or failed to speak up because there was a show of hands for who supported the subsidy and not one, out of 150 raised their hands.
@New neighbor. There are several of us monitoring this site and approving comments. So far only one comment was not approved and that was because the writer called out someone specially, and used a highly derogatory term that would be deemed inappropriate by anyone’s standards. So far, people have been, by and large, civil even when in disagreement.
@Eric – There is a difference between supporting a political lobbying effort and blindly giving money to a failing business in the form of a subsidy. Many of the people on this blog asked for financial data before they would consider the subsidy. Charlie was unwilling to open his books. Your argument is flawed in my opinion. With that being said, you have every right to support a subsidy. If you and the majority support it, I’m betting the HOA board will set up a vote. Based on the poll that was taken by hand at the last meeting, there aren’t many other supporters though, so Good luck!
@All – is this really a failing business? How do you know without seeing the financials?
Is it failing or just not making as much money as Mr. Gibson and his partner(s) would like?
I am of the opinion that an unwillingness to be transparent on this issue suggests that there is something to hide, whether that be profits, over paying of staff who are also family members (including what he may be paying himself), funding items not usually funded by a golf course such as “company” cars, subsidized loans for family members or financial impropriety. I am not saying any of this is true and none of it is illegal, except maybe the last item. All of them are legitimate things you can do if you own a business and you are entitled to do some or all of them to help your family. However, you cannot expect non family, non golfing, or unwilling residents to contribute to any of these things without a full disclosure of the financials of the entity.
We know because the owners told us so, LOL. That is their announced reason for requesting a subsidy. If not for that, we’d probably all be fat, dumb and happy instead of working so hard to defend our community.
I was at the meeting and my understanding was that we voted down a subsidy “IF” the owners were not willing to show us the financials. I didn’t understand it that we were voting down a subsidy. I would absolutely pay a subsidy if it would keep the golf course open AS LONG AS I could see the financials to determine that’s the only route to keep it open.
Before the golf course owners withdrew their proposal that had stated uncategorically, that they would not “open their books” for financial review buy the HOA. It’s all moot now since their proposal is off the table.
The fundraiser event sounds great. And I would like some more details regarding the process.
How much would we need to collect to save the course from being developed into housing? I know it’s all kind of arbitrary but if we could at least have some milestones that would be helpful. For example, what amount do we need to obtain to reach 85% success rate?
If the golf course owner already talked to the county about rezoning into residences, what does it take for him to get it approved. I notice that west Roseville has too much new development already and not enough core infrastructure /functions to support the residents daily living standards. Like baseline marketplace will not happen because retailers shun from investment. Schools are closing and not really being replaced. I also don’t see a whole lot new employment opportunities in town. Would that be factors that the city would consider to allow developer to build ?
@LI – There’s no magic milestone that we can point to. And we are in the process of getting more information regarding potential rezoning hurdles and will update everyone in mid-June with our findings. Please join us this Thursday evening. We need to show the county Supervisor that we have a lot of people who are against redevelopment and will fight to keep the golf course operational.
I think the original ownership was Morgan Creek LLC. Interesting to read about the liens filed on that group for not paying its contractors.
“In July 2004, several unpaid contractors filed mechanics’ liens against the real property on which the golf course was being built. As a result of this and other issues, Citicapital gave notice of a Loan default and opportunity to cure. The Golf Club, through its members, failed to take any action to cure the Loan default.”
This is all before the current ownership group?
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1260070.html
Those were the previous owners. The current ownership group is comprised of Charlie Gibson and Joe Syufy.
@Phil – we pulled their Dun & Bradstreet reports and there are no defaults, late payments, liens or bankruptcies. We can’t repost the D&B reports here because they are paid subscription service and prohibit sharing with non-subscribers.
To Just Browsing – soon after the Board meeting where the subsidy proposal was discussed, Joe Syufy and Charlie withdrew the proposal. It is now rumored that they are selling the golf course and it is in escrow. Unfortunately, we have no way of verifying the rumor or knowing who they might be selling the course to. Hope for the best!!!