Letters to the Editor June 15, 2019
Half truths and inaccuraciesDear Editor,
Responding to Karen Oswald’s guest editorial, “Oakmont Golf Cents and Sensibility” dated May 15, 2019, Oswald has accused others that do not share her view of using scare tactics and criticized the efforts of the OGC and OVA stating, “This campaign to hold Oakmont residents hostage continues to fly in the face of reality. She further states, “Designed to instill fear, the continual rhetoric that OGC ‘could be bought by a developer who would build homes on the golf course land causing traffic, construction noise and falling property values’ is unrealistic for many reasons.” Karen, why not tell that to the folks in the Wikiup subdivision north of us?
The Wikiup golf course was privately owned, then went fallow and was purchased by developers. Per the Press Democrat in 2018, the zoning was changed, and the developers submitted a plan to build a total of 98 homes with eight accessory units on 15 acres. As reported, the neighbors were on board until they understood the density of the build-out. Now, the neighbors are objecting to the density and must work through planning to have their voices heard. We in Oakmont could find ourselves in the same situation.
Also note that as indicated by the number of homes for sale and the days on the market, this sale of the OGC assets has and continues to influence Oakmont real estate.
Oswald quotes Santa Rosa City Councilman John Sawyer as saying the Oakmont golf courses have an “open space in perpetuity” designation. I [spoke] to him and John stated, and I quote, “I do not remember making any statement about the past or future of the Oakmont golf courses.” He further stated he was not aware of any “perpetuity” designation and referred me to the City of Santa Rosa Development and Planning Department. After a visit to City Planning and then a call to Kevin King, marketing and outreach coordinator with the city, it has been verified that there is no “perpetuity” designation and in fact, the zoning could be changed with city council approval and revision to the general plan. Zoning changes are not uncommon, and land is repurposed. So, anyone saying differently is incorrect. Those who like our village’s green space, take heed!
Oswald attacks the Oakmont Golf Club’s self-assessment of over $185,000 as “hardly a significant sum.” Maybe in her world that is insignificant, but for a group of folks to self-assess without expectation of any return in my view is not only honorable, but also outstanding stewardship.
Purchasing the OGC assets is all about the land, not 36 holes in the ground. And if not golf on that land, what is the best use? I want Oakmont to have a big part in determining that.
The sale of the OGC assets is going to be tricky enough. Let folks voice the facts without being accused of engaging in fear tactics. We all want the best for Oakmont.
Keep dogs on leash or fenced in OakmontDear Editor,
I have been walking my 15-pound dog daily since I moved to Oakmont in 2015.
In 2018 I noticed a huge, eight to 10 times, increase in dogs being allowed to run at me and my dog. I always try to pick up my dog as I do not know which dogs are friendly and which are not. Invariably the dog’s owner will assure me that their dog is friendly. My dog has been attacked twice. Nine visits to the vet. With both attacks the owner stated that their dog was “friendly” and had never attacked a dog before. Given the two attacks by “friendly” dogs, I put no credence in the “friendly” claim.
So far, 2019 is shaping up to be worse than 2018. There are more and more incidents of dogs leaving their yards or garages to run at me and my dog. It is also happening to others with small dogs. No matter the size, your dog is in danger running in the street. Let’s protect all the dogs, big and little.
Oakmont has a new pet policy. Rule number three clearly states, “Dogs may be allowed outdoors only with secured fenced yards or on a leash at all times.”