Already mired in a development delay of epic proportions, Matt Osgood and his controversial plan to put several dozen luxury homes at the eastern gate of the Gaviota Coast recently have run into an entirely new financial roadblock. According to public documents, the Orange County-based Osgood missed a roughly $3.1 million mortgage payment last May and, as a result, was served with a notice of default in early December from his primary creditor, First Bank. In short, unless Osgood can figure out a way to renegotiate his $63 million loan and/or come up with some serious cash by the March 12 deadline, he runs the very real risk of the historic Naples property going into foreclosure.
“We will have to wait and see, but it certainly looks like this whole thing is starting to crumble,” said Naples Coalition lawyer Marc Chytilo this week, pointing to a decision made by the county’s Board of Supervisors four months ago to rescind a portion of Osgood’s hard-earned development approvals, a series of lawsuits swirling around the debate, and the recent financial woes.
Fully acknowledging the less-than-ideal fiscal turbulence currently rocking his 71-mansion vision for Naples, Osgood was confident on Tuesday that his issues with First Bank would be resolved. Balking at notions of bankruptcy or even possible foreclosure, Osgood opined, “This doesn’t put Naples at risk. … In fact, I would say this is fairly common in these current financial times. It might take three days or three months, but we will get this thing restructured.”
To him, the aforementioned money crisis ravaging the country, the loss of property value in Santa Barbara County (Osgood figured this week that Naples had lost 30 to 58 percent of its value), and, of course, the publically popular vote by the Supes last October basically to erase the coastal portions of the development approvals and permits all suggest that a restructuring was in order for his massive loan, even without the missed mortgage payment late last spring.
According to Osgood, he not only is in “ongoing negotiations” with First Bank as the deadline approaches, but he also recently worked out a restructuring for his other Naples-specific loan (this one for about $18 million) held with a “private individual.” “It is hardly ever a smooth process,” added Osgood.
Though Osgood said it isn’t necessarily related to the default situation, real estate firm Kerry Mormann and Associates began advertising late last week two configurations of lots for sale at Naples. In and of itself, Naples lots on the market is far from new news—not only has Osgood repeatedly threatened to start selling off individual lots if things don’t work out in his favor, but Mormann and Associates have, on previous occasions, offered up various incarnations of Naples listings—but the timing of the newest properties does seem to be more than mere coincidence. Specifically, two chunks are on the market: The 110-acre coastal bluff is priced at a cool $55 million, and a 90-acre “horse facility” property at $15 million.
As for the project itself, with its future tossed into an unprecedented state of limbo thanks to the Board of Supervisors’ vote to take back the coastal part of their approval, things, at least in Osgood’s words, “still have a long way to go.” While the inland area development approval still stands, it has not yet begun to move forward as the California Coastal Commission is slated to hold a hearing, sometime this year, on the lot mergers required to make it a reality; Osgood’s once-upon-a-time approved plans for the coastal potion of his several-hundred-acre property essentially are back to square one.
For their part, both Chytilo and the folks from the Environmental Defense Center (who are representing the Surfrider Foundation in the fight against development at Naples) relished the apparent money trouble currently facing the developer. “We thought the thing was financially unstable from the beginning,” stated Chytilo, “and this only confirms that belief.”



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace






Previous Month



Comments
Awwwww, I hate it when that happens!
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2010 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
May the walls come crumbling down hard and fast. Go Home OC.
Upper_State (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2010 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One reason the Central Coast took four of the top spots in a recent poll of well-being in America is the fact that there is still open coast, and that some of those beautiful spaces have not been fenced off from the 'little people' or smeared with playpens for the uber-wealthy and their elite pals. Thank goodness the Supervisors had the sense to protect the Gaviota edge from OC-ification. May there be at least one responsible banker who thinks of the Gaviota environment and investment for future generations rather than funding this money-grubbing blight any further.
anemonefish (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2010 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Although I bear Mr. Osgood no personal ill will I think his project is ill conceived. For those members of the community who do NOT want to see our environment ruined keep in mind that this project is down but definitely not out. It's good to write on these message boards but if you really want to help save Naples check out the various websites and organizations that are struggling to preserve Naples and the rest of the Gaviota coast.
www.sbsurfrider.org
www. savenaples.org
www.gaviotaaction.org
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2010 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ol, Jack Morehart was one smart guy,,,you have to know when to hold 'em,,and know when to fold 'em.
oldtimer (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2010 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All 1 has to do is look @ the development in Ellwood just east of Sandpiper: DESERTED! They built 30 or so units there, only 10 @ most are occupied. When are these out of town developers going to get the hint? :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2010 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Congratulations" to the objectionista for wearing Osgood down. I still am wondering if any of you understand private property rights. Perhaps you don't own any???
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2010 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wait, do you mean that if someone doesn't own any property, they can't possibly know what they're talking about?
You get sillier and sillier......
Clearly, though, this is not a good development for that area of land.
Native1 (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2010 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So here is my question: Is Osgood's desire to develop this land based on his need to make a living or to improve the lives of those who live in this community?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2010 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whose land is it? I'll propose, as I have before, that those who are so intent on preserving this land in its current state should create a land trust, raise money, and buy the land.
And excuse me, Native1, but I do believe that many people who don't own property have a rather different view of the rights of those who do; it's obvious all over this state. And calling me silly does nothing to establish your credibility or demonstrate your ability to argue a cause.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2010 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't really have anything to prove, JohnLocke.
I'm not really concerned with whether or not you think I can argue my "case" because I don't really have one. I'm just commenting on the ridiculousness of your wannabe elitist statement about owning property.
If you really wanted to make the point that non-property owners can hold differing views of situations, then why not make that point articulately and without the inflammatory tone? Clearly, you did just that in your response to me, so you are capable.
Don't try and backpedal here. Your comments were silly, I just called ya on it.
Native1 (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2010 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My comments stand.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2010 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
John, I totally agree w/ you on the property rights issue. A person should have the right to do w/ their property as they please given the fact that after all, it IS their property.
The problem lies in how what they do will affect things outside of their property.
When you have a development such as the 1 proposed by Mr. Osgood, the services needed will cause some influence that goes beyond the boundaries of said development.
I think that's what any logical folk will go by. As I stated, I am for property rights. The problem goes beyond the property :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2010 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree, hank, but it seems that the system of special interest groups (and the politicians who cater to them) and cheap fees to file lawsuits effectively tilts the landscape (no pun intended) in favor of the objectionista in California making a balanced decision virtually impossible. In this case, 300 homes on 22,000 (1 home per 73 acres) acres is visual blight? Even with public access to now inaccessible beaches thrown in? Seems to me that granting this deal and removing once and for all the possibility of a Newport Beach style (houses stacked up as far as you can see) development some day in the future would be a good deal for all. But the objectionista always seem to take an all or nothing posture. It's worked so far, but the future - who knows - CA is such a mess and so far in the hole financially that it may do currently unthinkable things to raise money. There's already a move afoot to repeal CEQA.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2010 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We need to protect property rights - If the development plan was going to hurt the environment, then it shouldn't have gone forward. This protects everyone's property rights, not just the owner of the property in question. This definition of protecting property rights was lost during the Industrial Revolution when industry colluded with government and had them impose "regulations" on industries rather than doing what the Constitution mandates, which is protecting private property rights.
If there is a watershed on your property, you may own it, but that doesn't mean you can alter it. Altering watersheds have effects that can travel both upstream and downstream to the shore, including decreasing sediment flow which can cause beach erosion.
It is unfortunate that there are so many regulations that prevent people from developing their property in responsible ways.. but at the same time we need to have a better perspective on how to develop within our environment.
Property owners who live on the coast or choose to live in an area that forces travelers onto their property (because they cannot go around their property) should come to expect travelers on their property. This is just part of reality. Be respectful of those trying to reach the coast. This can easily be done by fencing off a trail on the edge of the property, which will actually help to protect your property. I know that is what I would do if I owned Naples, I would ensure access to the beach because the reality is people are going to use it. In fact, if the city and county didn't have so many regulations, I would setup a parking lot on my property near the coastal access point I created and would charge reasonable fees to beach goers when there is a swell coming through, and I'd probably just keep the lot open to the public for free the rest of the time.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2010 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Another thing, I hope any houses built are at least 100 yards from the cliffs.. and the beach access points remain natural rather than having staircases.. Otherwise they are going to want to build sea walls in the future.. very destructive...
Also, those cliffs are SOOOOFFFT..... Those houses would crumble into the sea quick.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2010 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Osgood looks OLD!!! I bet he wishes he never heard the word "Naples".
oldtimer (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2010 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess we shouldn't be so rough on Osgood...after all, he has to put food on the table doesn't he?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2010 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)