I agree that this is a private holding and they can do what they want...but it would be nice for the community if they would make the attempt to sell this to someone who will keep the course.
I can see if they don't want to make a go of things as they stand, but it does suck to take away a good facility to put more housing in.
I think you might have a different attitude if you held property in the area.
He proabably would but it wouldnt change the facts.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
The city absolutely has to interfere one way or another. That whole subdivision was designed on the premise that a golf course runs through it. The property tax and value are based exclusively on that perk.
Incidentally, the city lacks a golf course in the deep SW. Maple Ridge is SE, and Lakeview and Shaganappi are essentially innercity.This is a beautiful course and would be a jewel in the city's golf crown.
Either the city buys the course, or legislates that whomever buys it must keep it a golf course.
I worked at Shawnee in the pro shop for about 5 years. This was back from about 95 to 2000. Even back then there were rumours about them wanting to sell the course and turn it into a housing development.
Those sisters are positively evil. I can guarantee you they don't care about the course at all. Whatever or whoever makes them the most money is going to be who they sell to. I laughed out loud when I read that article and the BS that the PR person was spewing.
To be honest I am surprised they haven't completly run the place to the ground already. (Although it isn't from lack of trying). I think the only thing that has prevented them from selling already has been the members. That is one group of people I haven't seen represented in this case so far. These people have paid lifetime membership fees to join. What happens to them? I guess the evil sisters just plan to buy them out as well when they sell.
With a little love, care, and some money put into it that place could be hugely profitable. It isn't the city's best course by any means but it is a good playable track that is in a good location. I would love it if the city bought it and made it a city course, or at least whoever buys it keeps it a golf course. Before working there I was a junior member as well, I have played countless rounds of golf there and would hate to see it bulldozed.
I really hope the city, the public, the members, and the community fights them on the sale of that place.
Most of them are as misguided today as they were then though.
All of the houses that currently back onto the course were built on land that was part of the original golf course and was subdivided in 1982. At that time, there were caveats on the lots that the rest of the course would be protected for 10 years. It's been 30 years.
Most of them are as misguided today as they were then though.
All of the houses that currently back onto the course were built on land that was part of the original golf course and was subdivided in 1982. At that time, there were caveats on the lots that the rest of the course would be protected for 10 years. It's been 30 years.
Blood sucking family makes zillions developing an entire community around a huge green space.
A generation later when every nook and cranny has a giant house zillionaire family sells the very thing that gave all their original sales value, to make more zillions, and screw a few thousand unsuspecting souls.
Spineless city staff that would blow anyone who mouths the words 'multi family' cheers and swallows.
^ there is no reason to turn down the application. The only reasonable grounds to decline the application is traffic impact, but that has been studied exhaustively, and been found to not be an issue.
Neither can council send this back for more study, it's already been studied to death.
^ there is no reason to turn down the application. The only reasonable grounds to decline the application is traffic impact, but that has been studied exhaustively, and been found to not be an issue.
Neither can council send this back for more study, it's already been studied to death.
Probably true - though I doubt the city would happily entertain joe citizens that try to get rezoning and development permits that bugger their neighbours.
The flippant 'it was in the fine print' reponse is ######ed.
I honestly don't know how the actual proposal is going to reduce property values. If anything, it will make the community nicer, more accessible, and with more land available to the public.
The fine print expired 20 years ago. Since then, the owner should be able to do what they want, provided that it meets the zoning. Zoning can be changed, provided that it meets community standards, and the new proposal does that.
Meets community standards as determined by ... No one in the community?
I'll wager very, very few in the community would agree with you.
Which obviously doesn't matter to the city.
But in the end if this were simply an empty lot just now being developed I probably wouldn't care. Thems the breaks. It was't though, and it's the bait and switch that bugs me.
Meets community standards as determined by ... No one in the community?
I'll wager very, very few in the community would agree with you.
Which obviously doesn't matter to the city.
But in the end if this were simply an empty lot just now being developed I probably wouldn't care. Thems the breaks. It was't though, and it's the bait and switch that bugs me.
Show me one way in which the proposal does not meet community standards. It looks like it significantly exceeds community standards to me. Tones of trees, recreational areas, etc. it looks very nice. The trees behind existing houses will remain. Again, what community standard is missing?
As much as I don't like this and as much as I will miss the golf course being so close to where I live, I wouldn't worry about the "homogenization" that some of the posters mentioned back in '07. At least not in that area...
1) It's right beside a MASSIVE provincial park that is basically a full blown forest. So I don't think variety is that big of a problem there.
2) This plan will still leave quite a bit of green spaces.
I call BS on the traffic study though. The whole entire area is a complete gongshow in the winter. When it snows overnight, it can take literally an hour to get from the area around the course, onto Macleod. A drive that normally takes 2 minutes.
Personally I don't think Silverardo should've even been allowed to go ahead until the SW ring road is built.
Traffic concerns mainly. It's not too bad yet but 22x to Macleod is already getting bad and it's only going to get worse as Walden finishes up.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but originally, they weren't suppose to approve Somerset/Bridlewood/Evergreen until Sarcee was extended but then caved. So if city planners saw it back then, I'm obviously not that crazy with my Silverado suggestion.
Traffic concerns mainly. It's not too bad yet but 22x to Macleod is already getting bad and it's only going to get worse as Walden finishes up.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but originally, they weren't suppose to approve Somerset/Bridlewood/Evergreen until Sarcee was extended but then caved. So if city planners saw it back then, I'm obviously not that crazy with my Silverado suggestion.
this is true, they need to fix the traffic issues before adding more people to the south of fish creek area. ring road, and get rid of the lights at lake fraser gate, and do the overpass differently at shawnessy/midnapore (pipe dream i know, but that is the main way to get onto macloed from millrise/evergreen/shawnessey etc unless you go under macloed to st marys which is also backed up
__________________
GO FLAMES, STAMPEDERS, ROUGHNECKS, CALVARY, DAWGS and SURGE!
