Michael Mullenniex

Michael Mullenniex is a Reader contributor. See staff page for published articles.

Visduh Oct. 27, 2013 @ 10:04 a.m.

So, let's get this straight. Stuck in the Rough (henceforth "Stuck") is complaining of a financial hardship in owning the golf course. But in response to "trespassing" and vandalism (probably graffiti) it now fences the ENTIRE property right to the property lines (as determined by their "survey".) How much did that cost? Plenty, I'd guess. And to what avail? Is someone walking on the unmaintained course doing any harm? Fencing the clubhouse would be a reasonable step, and would have been a simple and cheap expedient toward keeping it secure. If anyone had any doubts in regard to this operation, they should be laid to rest now.

What was not mentioned about these encroachments is that Stuck, about a week ago, ran a full page ad in the Mill (aka UT) bewailing the encroachments and accusing several of the homeowners that are leaders of the group opposing Stuck and their plans, of having them. The ad was carefully worded to avoid libel, but it insinuated that supporters of the homeowner group might want to examine the motives of those leaders. I'd say they further insinuated that those encroachments were a really big deal. As I suspected at the time, nobody was getting away with anything significant, and the encroachments were generally insignificant.

I'd go even farther to suggest that when such homes were built fronting on a golf course, the idea was that the yards of the homes would just blend right in to the course with no obvious delineation, and that the club ownership of the time cared not a whit about such things. Now Stuck is using this fence to intimidate the homeowners, hiring an attack-dog lawyer to put muscle on them.

While I don't claim much legal expertise, I have for many years heard of a legal doctrine called "hostile and flagrant occupancy" which recognizes that if one person is using and/or occupying the property of another for a long time and without trying to hide it, he gains the rights to the property, in effect making it his own. In this case, if that old common law applies here, Stuck has no right to complain, nor to put the fence where those encroachments are located. Is some attorney able to further explore that idea?

5

Visduh Oct. 28, 2013 @ 4:24 p.m.

You are overlooking the fact that the homeowners were willing to consider a redevelopment plan that didn't fill the entire course property with homes, and retained a small nine-hole course. Stuck was having none of it, and wants to, despite the property having been zoned for a golf course and only a golf course, develop the whole thing. The city has to make a decision about the land use, and would rather walk away from the whole thing. Or in other words, the mayor, mealy-mouth Sam and most of the council, want to wash their hands of the matter. The homeowners insist the city to enforce the zoning and conditional use permits that were granted back in the 60's.

If Stuck wanted to compromise It could. But instead, while claiming to be losing their shirts on the property, Stuck puts up a fence, hires an expensive lawyer to send bullying notices to the homeowners, and finds the money to pay for a weird full-page ad in the UT. Sorry, somethings don't add up here, and Stuck doth protest too much.

1

Visduh April 11, 2014 @ 7:21 a.m.

Schlesinger must be desperate. After trying to associate with some of the bigwigs in San Diego, presumably in hopes of getting his way, he's at it again. This attempt to make life miserable for the neighbors of the golf course may just further enrage them. There is absolutely no reason to "fertilize" fairways that have been allowed to die for lack of water over the past many months. He claims that the course was a money-loser and that he was suffering financial hardship, but he's found the money to fence off the course (the excuse being "trespassing" and "vandalism" to the club house) and have an attorney harass homeowners whose landscaping may have encroached a few inches or feet onto the course.

Just why he thinks that getting involved in the SD mayor's race would have some effect on Escondido is not clear. He obviously knows the difference.

A far more productive approach would have been a compromise with the homeowners, who were willing to negotiate. But his stance was that he wanted the whole loaf, and that was that. It will be most interesting to see how this plays out.

1

Visduh April 12, 2014 @ 8:56 p.m.

Disagree. The whole concept of that development was that the course was a course, was a course. The use permits for all of that development were based on the uses as it started off. Literally any joker could come along, regardless of the popularity of golf, and claim that the course was no longer viable, after buying it up. You aver that the promises were in no way legally binding. The homeowners claim otherwise. I'd bet with them, not you. If Schlesinger had been willing to talk a bit, who knows what the homeowners would have accepted and paid for. There was room there for a win-win solution, and this yo-yo insisted upon his absolute "property rights", which do not exist, and no land owner has anything like a "perfect right to use it how they want." It mystifies me as to how anyone thinks that land use regulations are an abuse of power when they go back in US history to the very beginning (1620.) You make another curious claim, nonsensical, that " if you buy property, any restrictions that are not codified at the time of purchase and disclosed to you cannot later become your problem." Actually it is the buyer's burden to learn of any such restrictions. That's why we have title insurance and people who make a career of searching out land use covenants and restrictions and making up abstracts of title passage. No, jno, your understanding of common and statute real estate law are off the mark.

You may be Schlesinger's sock puppet, or maybe just a confused citizen, but his juvenile "stink them out" move, or something out of Animal House, reflects very badly upon him, Stuck, or whatever new partnership du jour name he's come up with. If anyone were to take these efforts seriously, they would have to ignore some highly unseemly behavior from a property developer. I'd not trust him to do anything right, and would advise anyone to avoid his developments.

1

Things to do

What do you mean you’re bored?! An anti-ho-hum compendium.

Jetpack America Want to feel like Superman? After a training video and in-office instruction, strap on a jetpack and take to the air. During the 15- to 60-minute ride, the water-jetting pack can go as ...

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close