Comments by rennergizer
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on April 26 at 9:08 a.m.
The County needs to put $650k for each of the Osgood lots they are blocking. I would bet that Mr Osgood is ready to launch his suit for essentially taking his property, and egnoring the courts ruling. California Supreme Court already ruled on that case. They need at least $50-$100 million to pay Mr Osgood for their interference. I cant wait to see how the tax payers feel about paying that money to Mr. Osgood, and then he still gets to build his project out. Very smart County Board Of Supervisors. Does the previous Supreme Court Decision mean anything to you??? It should. Obviously your to stupid to see it. Enjoy the tax raise
Posted on March 4 at 7:29 a.m.
Well now were back to 200+ lots. I would bet the developer starts selling lots immediatly. There will be far more homes at SBR now. You always have to be careful what you wish for. No more beech access, That is for sure. More tax payers dollars spent on lawsuits. Super, Lets celebrate.
Posted on February 21 at 6:49 a.m.
The MOU is 7 years old. It was supposed to be done in good faith within 2 years. The stall tactics from the county backfired. Mr. Osgood had no other alternitive, but to protect his rights. It would not suprise me if he reinstated his multi-million dollar law suit. Probably cost the county over 100 MM. Oh well, this unfortunatly is a time when governments dont seem to care how much of tax payers money they spend. Mr. Osgood will most likely end up with a huge judgement, and building the same project as agreed to. What a waste of time and money. If I were in Mr. Osgoods shoes, and spent over 10 years and millions of dollars trying to come to an agreement with the county and community when legally he did not have to, I would be pissed. I would bankrupt the county in court. Enjoy the higher taxes. In 5 years, I will enjoy asking the question, Was it really worth it????
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on February 15 at 3:53 p.m.
I think the issue has been fought out. At least according to the California Supreme Court Decision. The only way to overturn that decision I beleive is to try and stop the sales, and building via the US Supreme Court?? Tough to deny personal property rights in this country. You might try Cuba. I beleive that when Mr. Osgood bought the 230+ legal lots, he then became the owner of them. I do not beleive the Naples Coalition nor the Surfriders of EDC became the owner of the 1,100 acres. I am also pretty sure that all that oppose these personal property rights, have not turned all of their personal property, and houses over the the Naples Coalition, EDC or the Surf Rider association. The California Supreme Court Decision Will Stand, and the only thing that this board has acheived is a far denser project that will be backed by the California Supreme Court, and any other federal court in this land. This is a country that was founded on personal property rights, and freedoms. It is a free market society. If someone does not like a project, then raise the money and buy Mr. Osgood out. It should not be too tough to raise a couple hundred million to get rid of him. I would like to see how many of the people that are against this project, are against their own personal property rights? If so, prove it by turning all of your personal property and houses over to the board of supervisors, the EDC, the Naples Coalition, and the surfriders association. Dont be a Hypocryte. Let me know how many of you actually do this. Oh, you wnat to keep your houses, and personal property? OIC, you just want to take someone elses property, much like a dictator in Germany did in the 30's. Interesting Times.
Posted on February 9 at 12:54 p.m.
The only thing this has avheived is instead of 16 lots, you now have 50 on the south side of 101. I would have preferred 16. Smart move. It will be fun watching the county spend 100 million of tax payers dollars to try and overturn a California Supreme Court decision in the US Supreme Court, especially since the US Supreme court beleives in personal property rights. In addition, SBR project creates new jobs. Oh thats right, the haters are against new jobs, and a good economy. They had a similar experment in eastern europe. The guys name was Lenin, and the country was UNION SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC. Never read about somany people in one county that dislike The American Way. Lets See Now, HMMMM, You beleive in freedom of speech, but you are against personal property rights, unless its yours?????WOW
Posted on December 13 at 9:15 a.m.
Bimboteskie,
No temper here. Just the facts. Let me know how you would feel if you spent millions on a property, and a group of haters tried to stop your legal use of the property. Then you see death threats in a local publication, because you are exercising your legal rights. Let me know. I will say that if anyone wrote threats against me, I would find them, and give them the opportunity to follow through on the threats. This is getting out of hand. This is America. Remember the Freedom thing???? Mr. Osgood followed the law. And by the way, my last name is Renner. People need to worry about their own lives, not everyone elses. I am sure if the surfers were willing to work with the builder, something could be worked out. It is when they oppose, and try and take what they want, is when the door shuts. I would bet the door is currently shut.
Posted on December 6 at 11:52 a.m.
Trails were offered up during the planning commission meetings. Osgood tried to work with everyone. His job is not to please people that have not spent a dime on his land. I would bet that Osgood does not trample through all of the Anti-SBR peoples homes and Properties. Let the man develop his property. He has waited over 10 years. His land, his money. His right to build it out. Last time I checked, private property does not mean people suing him can use the trails.
Posted on December 2 at 12:29 p.m.
Not sure if this is america or not??? If someone buys a piece of property that has legal lots on it, I would think they should be able to build. What I see this saying is that individuals want to take the property by eminent domain. WoW. I thought only the government did that?? How about raising the money to buy the property?? Oh, I see. They dont have the money. Oh well, free markets and freedom wins again. See ya in France
Posted on November 1 at 10:58 a.m.
Hey Keith,
Do you own Santa Barbara County? Learn how to spell none. You don’t tell people to get out of a county. Not you’re right. Hitler did that in Germany. Do you homework and read what happened to him. In case you did not know, the USA is a free market society. That means that individuals or companies are allowed to make as much profit as the free market allows. Judging from your comments, I would guess that you either work for a company, or have a business that attempts to make as little profit as possible. Naples is not yours. Santa Barbara is not yours, California is not yours. You do not have the right to tell someone to leave their own property. Judging from your comments, this concept could be a little difficult for you to grasp. You might want to read the constitution, or better yet, read the California Supreme Court decision on Naples. Stay miserable.
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on October 29 at 12:56 p.m.
The county acted very corrupt. Hence the state issued the development permit. Osgood now can start his development. Corruption in the county has been overturned.
On Naples Plans Hit Major Snag