The long, strange, and controversy-riddled road of Matt Osgood’s development dream for the Naples property took yet another twist this week as a foreclosure sale for the historic Gaviota Coast parcel was announced. According to the notice filed with County late last month, some 1,035 acres of Osgood’s holdings are scheduled to be sold to the highest bidder next week, Thursday the 13th, at 1 p.m. in front of the Santa Barbara Courthouse. “There is no way to know with certainty what will happen next week,” said Naples Coalition lawyer Marc Chytilo before adding, “but it does seem like the walls are beginning to come down.”
With his 72-mansion plan narrowly approved by the County Supervisors in October of 2008, Osgood has had anything but an easy time moving forward with the vision in the 18 months since. First, a newly comprised Board of Supervisors, one with Doreen Farr presiding over the 3rd District rather than Brooks Firestone, has essentially worked to dismantle portions of the controversial approval and then, last May, Osgood defaulted on a multi-million dollar payment on his massive loans taken out to purchase the property. According to the notice of sale, it is the latter that are responsible for the tentative auction. Specifically, two loans - one for $63 million and the other for $18 million - and a failure to make proper payments, now have Osgood owing some $78.4 million. As per protocol on such things, Osgood must either come up with the dough or declare bankruptcy if he wants to stave off next week’s sale.
Despite the recent developments, Osgood, in an interview with the Independent on Thursday afternoon, said things are not as bad as they appear. Chalking the notice of sale up to “intramural sports” between him, his investors, and the banks that carry the loans, Osgood opined, “There is a whole bunch of behind the scenes workings that will make [the auction] irrelevant.” When pressed for details on the presumed financial developments betwixt himself and his lenders, Osgood declined to elaborate saying only that the public sale was “likely not to happen.”


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






Previous Month



Comments
Go home OC
Upper_State (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2010 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He's a tricky one and anything could happen but looks like there is hope for the Gaviota Coast. Get involved and help save it. This is a key moment in our local history.
Check out:
sbsurfrider.org
savenaples.org
gaviotaaction.org
http://www.edcnet.org/
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2010 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks, Noletaman. those sites give a lot of history and background on this subject. The history of the original town of Naples and recorded land plats is very interesting. Walker A Tompkins covered it in his histories .
bajamama (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2010 at 12:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We can't let this massive project happen.
Let's focus on the importance of communitarianism here in Santa Barbara CO, and encourage Osgood to... donate it as a place that everyone can enjoy...a public park...?
:P
In a perfect world.
P.S. We can't let this happen!
dane (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2010 at 1:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Moneycito East. The environmental impacts developing Napels would be the same as anywhere else except we childishly are here first. The entitlement to build was obstructed and rights denied. But still it would be great to create an urban limit line roughly where it unofficially exists today. Too bad a compromise to transfer development rights into the urban core wasn't explored.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2010 at 6:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hate these a-holes that will try to turn a profit on anything...we need to send a clear message...NO Walmart...NO crap developers..NO Osgood...
I like the donation as a land trust idea.
Protect and preserve.
NOT develop and destroy....
grrrrrrrrr...
Blast this greedy-dreck-of-the-earth-drat-monger...
back to whatever planet he came from...
Was I too harsh? ...naaaa.
emenzies (Elizabeth Menzies)
May 7, 2010 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a high stakes game of chicken. The second-to-last thing the investors want to do is take title to 1000 acres of weeds; but the puzzle is: what is the last thing they want to do? Mr. Osgood's gamble has gone south, and it is just a matter of how many life preservers get sucked down in the vortex.
Steve_Johnson (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2010 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
...loved your post, "Emenzies"!
CalGalSB (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2010 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I share the opinions of Upper_State & Emenzies and I appreciate Noletaman's contibution to the discussion by providing information for those who are currently not involved, to go ahead and do so. To express your opinions on a messageboard about a serious matter such as this is a good way to vent and connect with others who share your opinion but, to really get involved and do your part to make a difference is the way to go if you really feel that strongly on the matter. Don't let that "I'm but only one person, what kind of a difference can I make?" frame of mind influence your decisions on the future of the Gaviota Coastline or anything else in your life. Stand up for what you believe in....you'll be surprised at how many others feel the same way you do. Not only will you be making a difference but, you'll be inspiring others to get involved as well. Lets stand together as a community and stop these people from trying to ruin what we've worked so hard to preserve.
TheosOnTheNose (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2010 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ethan knows what and where he will be next week Thursday at 1300 hrs.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
May 7, 2010 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
betwixt? I've heard of "informal Fridays" but maybe the Indy has "mangle English" Fridays instead. Sheeeesh.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2010 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Old news. Much to the dismay of the objectionista, Osgood has come up with funding.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2010 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)