49 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mary Brennan's picture
Joined: 03/01/2008
Posts: 34
No more housing till 2014?

Well, I hope the naysayers on development are satisfied.  No more housing on land that has been vacant for 30 years.  The argument that the RMDCC was not against development goes begging.  We were so close in Nov, 2007,  so they pulled in the Federal Government!  Now we will be made to pay for all necessary upgrades to water plant, roads, and parks, all alone, without the help of the 1500 owners of the expected new homes.  Plans and dreams of a completed community are lost due to a self righteous group bent on "saving" our wonderful Rancho Murieta.  Sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for.  What a downright shame...........

Group visibility: 
Public - accessible to all site users
Candy Chand's picture
Joined: 08/15/2007
Posts: 304
Developers

Ms. Brennan, people who have followed closely knew the developers wouldn’t break ground for many years. Developer talk of being in a hurry to construct was nothing more than posturing.

The 2007 agreement you seem to think was a sign they were close had a provison before signatures which stated none of it was binding, but merely opened up future talks. Note: the "agreement" was released just before the county hearings as "evidence" pesky infrastructure details had beens smoothed out locally. So much for developer sincerity in agreements.

The developers are merely adapting to a crashing new-home construction real estate market, as is all of Sacramento County, and much of the nation.

In addition, the developers knew they weren’t going to build for years, when they pushed their projects through at the local (county) level last December. I was told about their 5 to 7 year minimum start date several months before the final county hearing. The developers just tried to keep "reality" quiet from 4 supes.

I’m proud of CSD for finally seeing they were being strung along by developers, whose line "the proverbial check is in the mail" has gone on for close to 7 years.

Bottom line: The developers have finally admitted what many of knew all along-- they have no intention of building anything in Murieta for many years. Their most recent admission? 2014


Please note, although zoning stays in place, developer maps expire after 3 to 5 years. After that time-frame, they must go through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process at the county all over again (as Lakeview and Riverview had to do twice).

As many who attended the county hearings know, the developers argued they could not wait for proper cumulative review, particularly of the river, even after citizens, environmental groups, state and federal regulators, including the former Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, insisted such review was necessary under CEQA.

Developers claimed they couldn’t wait because they were in a hurry to build. Most of us knew that was simply not the case. As a condition of approval, a drinking water plant (which developers need) must be completed (not started) before builders can pull a single housing permit (even for a model home).

The cost to developers for their required water plant? 12 million. The timeline to build that plant? It takes 18 months to 2 years to construct, after funding (and developers haven't paid a dime towards those funds yet). Ultimately, the plant project, which is a requirement of their approval, continues to remain on ice.

In addition, at the time of the county hearings, the Real Estate market was already in a near free-fall, with supply/demand inventory out of kilter. In fact, fairly recently, Forbes claimed it wasn’t just the loan crisis, but developers' in Sacramento County who overbuilt, along with speculators, who were driving our county's lead in a national ailing market.

As a wise correction to protect home values (by not adding to inventory) substantial new housing starts by most developers anywhere in Sacramento County are unlikely to occur for years.

With all things considered, many who followed closely felt Murieta developer claims of a swift building start were nothing more than an attempt to pressure 4 supervisors last December into skipping proper review, giving them their local map entitlements.

Such a timeline, if admitted by developers during the hearing process, would have provided plenty of opportunity for proper CEQA analysis. By the way, if you're thinking this number just came up, Murieta is a small town. Several of us heard the 2014 number thrown out long before the December hearings.

In the meantime, as years continued to pass, the cost of the developers required plant jumped from 10 million to 12 million. I believe CSD has made a wise choice to cease negotiations with these builders, rather than continue to pay our attorney to dialogue with them without any results. The bottom line is, developers still won't commit to funding, and CSD is keenly aware the price of that infrastructure may go up significantly by the time developers are finally ready, if ever, to move forward.

FYI: I am busy writing a manuscript and rarely follow the postings anymore. So, if you have any questions for me, feel free to email me at PatCan85@hotmail.com or call my cell at 955 2027 and I will try very hard to respond as quickly as possible.

Thank you to all the people who continue to contact the RMDCCC to offer their volunteer support.

Candy Chand

Wilbur Haines's picture
Joined: 08/07/2007
Posts: 474
Economics

Thanks, Mary, for starting this forum.

I'm not sure this can be laid entirely at the feet of RMDCCC. They didn't make the economy and real estate market go south, didn't make R&B become insolvent and unable to pay its share under the deal that fell apart.

Dave Huddleston's picture
Joined: 08/07/2007
Posts: 11
Silent majority

Mary,I think you are right on. However, don't blame a few activists for this problem. Blame the silent majority here in Rancho Murieta that let them get away with this.

No schools, no modernized and updated North Entrance, a Country Club operating at a loss and losing members every month, no new shopping center, a utility staging area right on the main road, and 40 year old infrastructure requiring capital improvements. Not to worry though, we simply all need to cough up an additional $ 600 per month to replace the revenue lost through no-growth.

And if you think property values are low now, just wait. As we increase our " taxes " ( RMA and RMCSD); Resales will be dismal.

So, again, don't blame a handfull of activists, blame and shame on the rest of us. But, we still have our turkeys.

Marklin Brown's picture
Joined: 08/12/2007
Posts: 196
Housing

Now maybe RM can look at how to save itself without depending on development. If that can't be done, then the quality of life will eventually be sacrificed for the dependency on development.

 

As far as the RMDCC, please don't give them all the credit.

 

 

Mary Brennan's picture
Joined: 03/01/2008
Posts: 34
development 2014

Candy;

Your letter points out exactly what I have been saying for years.  These homes should have been built 4-5 years ago when the market was great.   But you all stopped it.  I am sure you are very pleased with your accomplishment.   As I said "What a shame."

Candy Chand's picture
Joined: 08/15/2007
Posts: 304
Ms. Brennan, I am fairly

Ms. Brennan, I am fairly certain (by the volume of calls, emails and support at hearings) the majority of the community knew darn well the developers were bluffing their way through much of the process. Apparently, reality just hit a few folks who didn't see it coming.

As far as I'm concerned, CSD made a wise choice to finally walk away from negotiations with developers who after almost 7 years did little more than string them along, never coming up with the required funds to move forward.

In the meantime, watch for a detailed investigative report coming in Sac Bee. Maybe then, you'll grasp the bigger picture of what's been going on behind the scenes with Murieta developers.

Or, maybe you'd prefer to trust them forever...

Candy Chand

Doug Lewis's picture
Joined: 08/08/2007
Posts: 165
Ms Chand I have to agree

Ms Chand I have to agree with Mary.  Is it really fair to say that your groups efforts over the last many years was solely an attempt to oversee and guide proper development rather than to stop it?  Your stall tactics played a large role in keeping things in limbo until the economic downturn succeeded in doing the job for you.  You have put rocks on the tracks for many years and now blame the train for derailing!  I realize there were many complex issues related to development, but  now your blaming the developers for not committing to build the infrastructure as a reason we must pay for it .  Why would any developer pay for and or build infrastructure in a community before being granted permission to build there.  Last year I said we had  all better be willing to pay for the infrastructure upgrades ourselves if development is not allowed.  Now we will pay the bill ourselves at a time when families are struggling to keep their homes.  When you speak for everyone, please be willing to pay the bill for everyone.  There is a vast difference between oversight and total opposition.  While oversight allows for compromise, opposition does not.  Not trying to put all the blame on RMDCC here but I do feel your actions did play a part in the situation RM now faces.     

Doug Lewis

 

Doug Lewis

Jeanie LeBlanc's picture
Joined: 05/03/2008
Posts: 4
Mary, it wasn't the RMDCCC

Mary, it wasn't the RMDCCC who sat on the CSD board as directors when we were hit with a huge Cease and Desist Order. You were a director though!

The RMDCCC does not control the world's economy. Developers are going broke all over, especially in Sacramento County. Almost everything the RMDCCC warned us about has come true.

Also, your comments at the federal hearing asking the Corps why they were here came off like you were telling the federal government to mind their own business. The Corps is required to protect the river. The federal government doesn't care if you want a pool (which you felt the need to tell them all about).

The developers and the few who support them have no facts to back up their stamens (except a whiny wish list). The RMDCCC has environmentalists, scientists the state and the federal government backing them up. Even the Attorney General agreed with them! Maybe you should consider they might be right, even if it hurts your ego to admit it.

As for the so called "silent majority", speak up. Let's hear what you have to say!
Jeanie LeBlanc

Myrna Solomon's picture
Joined: 07/31/2007
Posts: 427
Mary, I think you are out of line

 Myrna Solomon Dear Mary, when I heard you at the Corps meeting, I was very saddened to hear you attack the people on RMDCCC personally, and in doing that, you lost credibility with me personally. I also hear you again blaming everything that has happened on RMDCCC instead of the developers themselves. To me this is like a man who beats up a woman and than says,"if she only did what I told her to do, I wouldn't have had to hit her". I am thrilled that the developers won't be here for several years, and although you believe that they would have been the "goose with the golden egg", I have no confidence that they would have been any different than all of the other developers that have built here that promised all kinds of things and never delivered on any of them. Obviously, you are entitled to your opinions, I do however, have a problem with people who attack the person instead of the issue. I also would rather pay more money to CSD than allow another developer like R&B to come here and do what they were allowed to do. There is a large vocal segment of this community that HAS supported RMDCCC and IMHO I don't believe that there is a silent majority who doesn't. I hope it isn't always about the bottom line.

 

Myrna Solomon

Mary Lynn Walthers's picture
Joined: 10/14/2007
Posts: 3
See ya

I'm glad developers are leaving town so we can finally have time to sort out the real consequences of their projects through quality environmental review. We've had enough of developers false promises and enough of developers smoke and mirrors.

ML

Mike Burnett's picture
Joined: 07/31/2007
Posts: 183
The voice of reason

Mary,

Thanks to you and Jay Schneider for being the voice of reason at the USACOE Public Hearing.  "Why are you out here" were my sentiments as well.  We all know that Candy and her team lobbied heavily with the same file of BS that got her no where at the county.  Jay was great, when he spoke purely from memory of the water use affecting the Consumnes flows to rebut the "Professor" who said "I haven't looked at the study in years".  Still that didn't stop him from using erroneous information compiled by college students to attempt and make a point that the Consumnes is showing years worth of erratic flows.  Wouldn't he think it worthy to first do a study of impoundments (and there are many) or redirecting river flows from the headwaters to the point they were measuring?

That meeting was like being at the Zoo and seeing all the exotic animals prance before us.  Why don't these people worry about their own back yard.  To imply that these projects would impact the Consumnes was incredible at the least.

We need to hear more from the silent majority to shout down these development opponents and see thru their veil of rhetoric.  Responsible development, give me a break.  No one from the RMDCCC has said what responsible development is and they don't know. 

Any cost impacts to the residents of RMPUD and it affects everyone, not just RMA, can be laid squarely at the feet of a handful of RMA residents.  They have identified themselves many times over.  I don't blame the residents that have bought into their story, because just like a used car salesman, it sounds good for the first five minutes.

One of the first things you learn in business, "never bring your boss a dead cat without a shovel".  And please don't tell me the shovel is new Master Plan, because anyone who is following this debate, knows that is just another dead cat.

Candy Chand's picture
Joined: 08/15/2007
Posts: 304
Mr. Burnett and Mr. lewis

Michael, I found it interesting that Jay challenged Dr. Fogg, a UCD PhD of Hydrology  Dr. Fogg  is a leading expert on the Cosumnes. His research was used in the Supreme Court case at Sunrise Douglas. My understanding is, the info Jay offered actually shows the river is worse than we thought, if his info is accurate at all. 

As someone said recently, where are the developers expert witnesses? A handful of developer supporters attempt to challenge state, federal and scientific experts as well as environmental attorneys,  and their only ammuniition is they want development for the money it will bring. They certainly have a right to their opinion, but they  offer no facts, no science no CEQA/NEPA legal arguments.i Nothing. 

And Mr. Lewis, it’s hard for me to feel sorry for developers who played hard-ball for over 7 years, compromising on virtually nothing of substance, and now find themselves in a serious financial predicament. They may have won a small county battle, but they lost the big environmental war.

Quite frankly, I don’t even believe the 2014 start date number. I imagine it will be years beyond 2014 before any substantial projects move forward. And I don’t believe those projects, when they do come online, will look anything like what were previously proposed. I also believe we will see a shift in land owners, in some cases, with some developer property going back to the banks.  Hint: Watch the recorders office closely

A while ago, one of the Murieta developers called to apologize for something his company had done to my family. Without going into details about what occurred, I will say this:. This Murieta developer VP made a comment that astonished me. He told me he regretted that one of the developers (who was leading the pack at the time) had convinced all the other Murieta developers to play hard-ball with citizens and to refuse to compromise on anything -- from terracing, fencing, wildlife, and cumulative review. This leading developer had convinced the rest, they could win hands down, so why work with citizens? In the end, the other developer VP regretted going along. It wasn’t that he liked us, mind you, but he realized their bad choice wasted years, and caused all the developers to fall into hard economic times. Together.

As far as infrastructure, I’ve said it before, but I’ll try again. The developers have no intention (never did) of paying for our existing infrastructure problems. Our bills for our infrastructure were never to be paid for by developers. The projects they were supposed to pay for are projects they need to build their projects. Whether the development occurs or not won’t make any difference to our existing problems.. (For example the Rio Oso Tank needing refurbishing). Developer roads, their water plant, etc are projects they need. If you’re waiting for developers to bail us out of maintenance issues on our own existing infrastructure, be aware, they have never claimed they’d pay a dime towards fixing our problems. Why should they? As we all know, there’s no free lunch.

If developers had spent a little more time obeying state and federal NEPA and CEQA laws, instead of thinking they were above those laws, because they’d done lots of "fundraising for supervisors," they might not be in the position they’re in now.

If I believed in Karma, I’d say this is failry good evidence it exists.

Candy Chand

Marklin Brown's picture
Joined: 08/12/2007
Posts: 196
The Voice of Reason?

Why is preserving RM as it is unpalatable to some of the residents? I would never have moved here if I had been aware of all the development in the pipeline. Then to find that the real master-plan was to have the developers pay for all the upgrades to take care of past short sightedness and future expansion... that was the voice of reason. (And then to find out the developers were not a party to fixing current problems, that was pipe dreams).

Now we hear from past defensive directors that their personal master-plan was upset. How many residents need a community pool, for instance? And where will the water come from to fill it? Hope the corp will look the other way when the umpteen development projects along the Cosumnes are built?

It looks like there were some well intentioned folks that wanted their way, their vision, as it were. That has been pretty well squashed. Aside from sour grapes and disappointment, there is a need to justify a lot of controversial and not very ethical maneuvering that we naturally expect from developers.

 

I hope the dead cat was the developers and the corp will be the shovel.

Mike Burnett's picture
Joined: 07/31/2007
Posts: 183
How can you believe what you write

Candy,

What is wrong with making money!  You write books for a living and sell them to what, make money?  What is wrong with a landowner (PTF in this case), who bought the land on behalf of their investors with the intention of building a development to make money?????  What is wrong with a builder who bought the developed plans to make money?  What is wrong with having enough residents to support the amenities like the Rancho Murieta Country Club, Equestrian Center, and Airport to make money?  These were all planned amenities and you can't separate them from your anti-development actions.

I hate to be the one to tell you, that we live in the US.  We do not live in a communistic or socialistic society.  People like you do not get to tell others how they can or will make money. 

Personally, I don't believe anything that you say or write, because you greatly distort any semblance or reality.  I have not read any of your books, but you must be a fiction writer.  You come out with both guns blazing publicly threatening lawsuits to anyone standing in your way and then cite instances of being the victim?  Sorry, you don't get it both ways.  Once you put yourself out there you are no longer a victim.  You simply reap what you sow.

I don't know when the developers will begin to break ground, maybe in one year or maybe in twenty.  What I do know is that it has been people like you that have caused a huge burden on our community by meddling in things you don't understand and misrepresenting that you have all of Rancho Murieta PUD behind you. 

The community had a plan to complete development.  In the MBA, 2002, the developers reduced the number of houses planned to be built by approximately half.  The developers during the town hall sessions back in 2003 were listening and making concessions.  They had already agreed to terracing and changing the fences to be consistent within RMA.  They were considering suggestions to make the changes to the street alignment and house setbacks when you publicly stated "I am not here to negotiate with you, I am here to shut you down".  Immediately following this public statement by you, the town hall meetings stopped.  So tell me how this type of action is working to negotiate any concessions. 

I believe you had a Freudian Slip and spoke what you meant.  You are opposed to any development in RMPUD.  You don't represent me and I believe you misrepresent a majority or residents in RMPUD.

Matt McGuire's picture
Joined: 07/29/2007
Posts: 63
Don't sink to their level

Candy,

I would not even respond to these posts.  You have  Burnett calling you a liar and personally attacking you.  Don't sink to their level.

We both know for every person that disagrees with the RMDCCC there are at least 10 more that support it.  You have done a great job.  Ask yourself, does dealing with these people help the RMDCCC in any way?  I know it's tough not to respond, but they don't want to make it about development they want to make it about you.

Please remember that there are many of us that support you and the other RMDCCC members.  We appreciate your time and effort. 

Matt

Marklin Brown's picture
Joined: 08/12/2007
Posts: 196
Candy

She doesn't need to defend herself, and no one else has to either. Her thread through all that I am aware of was sensible development which may be a misnomer and a oxymoron together.

There really hasn't been sensible development since they landed at Plymouth.

 

And Burnett, what's with that ICON you portray yourself on the threads? Downright scary if you ask me.

Doug Lewis's picture
Joined: 08/08/2007
Posts: 165
This isnt about what

This isnt about what infrastructure developers would have been responsible to build.  Its about roof tops.  More rooftops equals more revenue.  The long term plan for RM was based on a buildout which would support the infrastructure.  When houses arent built, that cost must be carried by exsisting homeowners.   Take the present water tank refurbish situation.  That cost is being born by  owners in both the north and newer south sections of RM as our rates are increased across the board.

   If there is a plan out there that allows us to thrive at reasonable cost without any future growth, please put it on the table.   And for those who feel that the housing slump is a blessing that has prevented development, just imagine what the area around us will look like in 6 or 10 years.  Do you actually believe that county codes are going to favor less density, and less low income housing (apartments) 10 years from now.  I guess we will have to gamble  that Sac county still sees RM as a unique community and not just a suburb of Anatolia 10 years from now.   

Doug Lewis

 

Doug Lewis

Candy Chand's picture
Joined: 08/15/2007
Posts: 304
Mr. Burnett

Mr. Burnett,

 

As could be predicted by almost anyone, you just exhibited another vicious display of hostility over developer plans which continue to implode. I guess I should take comfort in the fact some things never change—you are still your usual “charming” self.  

Candy Chand

Jeanie LeBlanc's picture
Joined: 05/03/2008
Posts: 4
Not Worth A Response

Candy,

You have put yourself out in the public eye time and time again. It takes courage to stand up for what you believe in. Much more courage than it takes to sit on a computer and generate email after email after email attacking what other people are doing.

They don't deserve a response from you.

Mike Burnette, how's the view from the CHEAP seats you seem to hold season tickets on?

Jeanie

Myrna Solomon's picture
Joined: 07/31/2007
Posts: 427
short and sweet

 I totally agree with Matt. When someone starts attacking the person instead of the issue, that person looses my respect totally and I stop reading what they are saying. Candy, most people like me will just tune people like Michael out, so don't worry that his bad behavior is working.  If people moved out here expecting to have shopping centers like they do in Elk Grove or Folsom, they were misguided or not informed. Instead of blaming our water problems on RMDCCC, how about looking at maybe putting the responsibility with the Developers AND CSD and the  questionable Management of our water district. This seems to be a pattern from some of blaming everyone but the people responsible. Oh well, they certainly won't stop on my account!!

Myrna Solomon

Myrna Solomon

RM.com's picture
Joined: 06/19/2007
Posts: 27726
Less heat, more light

This has been a hot-button topic for years, and there's no problem if you're passionate about it. Here's a friendly warning that the thread is walking the edge of personal attacks, which is not where we should be. Please focus on the issues, not the people involved.

Teresa Field's picture
Joined: 08/13/2007
Posts: 110
Murieta Growth

I think the anti-growth comments are very off base.  It is not a "silent minority" of "activists" trying to save the beauty and richness of Rancho Murieta.  There are many common citizens such as myself that are concerned about the rampant development that was proposed here. 

We are already seeing the impact of too quick and overzealous South development in housing foundations that are cracking and oak groves that are not being replaced.  And developers have yet to address their proposed non-compliance regarding the removal of additional oak groves and the impact of more housing on the flow of the Cosumnes River.  What comes across to me is that you do not care about the natural beauty and resources of Murieta.  Rather, previous comments indicate an interest in the possible man-made facilities that developers can promise and possibly deliver to this development. 

I would much rather have my children enjoy the banks of the Cosumnes then have a community pool and a dried up river.  I am not against adding new homes, but I am against doing it in a way that is unplanned.  Current growth plans focus on short term desires for more homes, profits, and possibly but not guaranteed additional developer provided benefits.  And yet there are many long term impacts that have not been addressed including the impact on the river, trees, and peaceful living here in Murieta.  Not to mention, I have found that the developer added pools etc, are only sufficient to meet the additional people they are serving with their new homes.  A new pool wil not serve the current population plus 1500 more families.   

Having moved previously every couple of years, I have seen the impact of overgrowth.  The beautiful San Ramon valley, previously a rural suburb to San Francisco, is now flooded with people, cars and development.  Granted, they have their pools and developer built waterfalls, but they also have congestion everywhere they go.  Similarly, the Phoenix, Arizona area is now a mass of cars, pollution, and congestion of people. 

If Murietans want a developer funded lifestyle, they can easily find it close by in Elk Grove and El Dorado Hills.  We are lucky to have an hour commute to the city and yet remain small enough to know our local store owners, shoppers and neighbors.  We can walk or drive golf carts around because there are few people on the roads.   And we actually get quiet and darkness at night instead of the hum of the city.  These other suburbs with all of the various resources, shopping centers etc are now cities.  They are not the nature reserve, rural suburb that we are so lucky to have.  Thank goodness that these will not be taken away in the short term.  With slower, planned growth, Murieta will continue to remain the community the majority of us value and love. 

Ivy Applebaum's picture
Joined: 08/22/2007
Posts: 14
Murieta Growth

Candy ,  and all the others on this marvelous blog:

My husband and I love Rancho Murieta.  What a unique and wonderful island in an ocean of hustle and bustle,  often with angry people on the roads, rushing here and there.   We moved to Rancho Murieta for peace,  quiet and tranquility.  We came from a community in Folsom where there were non-enforceable CC&R's , other than by suing your neighbor.   That neighborhood is having obvious growing pains ,  angry residents and lots of frustration.  It is easy to see how that came about.  Many residents did not want anyone trying to control them,  they each wanted to direct life driven by their own sense of right and wrong.  A small community lost its cohesiveness despite the fact that many people tried to provide stability and caring.  We understand that where-ever people congregate as a community, there will naturally be differences in opinion,  sometimes strong ones.  We thrive in this country by debating and attempting to control our future.  It has been part of our heritage.  My husband and I are not surprised to see this debate rage  over the future of a rather small and beautiful area of the world.  I am glad that there are people like Candy, Teresa, Myrna,  M.J., Marklin, Matt, Mary Lynn, Myrna ...and so many others,  to stand firm on their beliefs in such a positive way.  Some people  on this blog seem bitter,  mad, angry individuals.  Life is too short for this type of bickering.  We personally know Candy.  She is not against growth.  She and  many others we have spoken to in this community want  controlled and appropriate growth.  Water is such a critical resource and must be dealt with carefully,  not recklessly.  The serene and natural setting all around us can disappear in a heart beat.  Not simply by  developing the land,  but also  by high density living.  In the past year,  the number of auto and home thefts here  have already  risen,  more police calls and helicopters than ever before.  That is not what we want for anyone who cares about the wonderful place we call home.  Controlled and thoughtful development by people who care.....that is the true beauty of Rancho Murieta.     

Would love to hear more from everyone,  Ivy

Beth Buderus's picture
Joined: 08/03/2007
Posts: 926
Thank you to the many

Thank you for the many who have stood up and backed the RMDCCC. There's really nothing more that I could add. Ivy, I'd like to echo your letter not only for myself moving here from the Bay Area but for our new neighbor who moved here a little more than a year ago from the urban sprawl known as Elk Grove. They are so happy to be here in this beautiful community and to the peace and quiet it it offers.

Richard Robinson's picture
Joined: 08/10/2007
Posts: 108
Ivy & Beth Amen

Richard Robinson

Ivy and Beth , you both have very elegantly said it all.  I appreciate the debate ( that is not personal), but I am very pleased with the reasoned result. We all benefit from proper planing. If our dues must go up in order to do it right that is the price we pay to live in this beautiful place.

Thank you

Richard Robinson

 

Jeff Applebaum's picture
Joined: 05/04/2008
Posts: 10
we all care

Jeff Applebaum

I am glad to see positive responses to my wife's comments (Ivy Applebaum).  I know there are many other residents in Rancho Murieta who feel the same way we do. 

 From personal experience,  I tried to bring unity and provide guidance to a community in which I lived in the past,  just like Candy Chand is doing for this community now.  It is a difficult and time-consuming effort.  I know.  I lived it for over a year.  It does take a toll when people target you because you are trying to make a difference and protect something you  love dearly.  I hope there are many voices that follow this message,  so we are all recognized as  "the vocal majority".    

 I know that everyone who takes  time to write their thoughts here is a concerned citizen of our community.  We all come from different points of view based on  prior  experiences in life.   We should treasure our uniqueness,  our differences.  I hope to have the opportunity to personally meet each of you who have contributed to this forum.  By living in Rancho Murieta, I am certain that we have much more in common with one another than we have differences. 

Sincerely, 

Jeff Applebaum's picture
Joined: 05/04/2008
Posts: 10
I agree whole heartedly

Jeff Applebaum

 

Is there any way possible to reverse the messages,  so that the newest one occurs 1st,  not last?   That way it is easier to keep up with the most recent information on the screen 1st.   Thanks.  Jeff 

Wilbur Haines's picture
Joined: 08/07/2007
Posts: 474
Yes

Jeff, just after the first post that starts the thread are three drop down lists, one of which toggles the order of the subsequent posts (newest first, oldest first). Set it to "newest first" and click "save" to make it "stick." The original intiating post definimg the thread will always stay on top, but if you set it to newest first the newest post will always immediately follow it instead of being way down at the bottom.

Tree Plumbtree's picture
Joined: 08/08/2007
Posts: 10
vocal majority

Jeff...here's another voice in support of what Candy and the other members of RMDCC are doing for our community. I wish somebody would go ask one of the home owners on the South who have been left high and dry by developers who did not build responsibly and who are now ignoring their promises to rectify the situations how many amenities it will take to make their current situation right. I seriously doubt a new swimming pool is going to solve the problems of a flawed foundation. But then again, those developers had the right to make money any way they saw fit and then walk away, right Burnette?

Candy, thank you sincerely for what you do. Please don't let the shills get you down.

Tree Plumbtree 

RM.com's picture
Joined: 06/19/2007
Posts: 27726
Side comment -- thanks, Wilbur

Thanks, Wilbur, for answering Jeff's question about how to order posts in the thread.  (The feature was added in response to suggestions by neighbors.)  One thing worth noting: The preference attaches to your membership, so you need to be logged in to see your preferences in action.

And for those who've kept the settings at "oldest post first," note that this thread is now on its second page, at least by the default settings.  Those same controls Wilbur mentions let you change the number of posts that appear on a page. The default is 30.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments

Your comments