Michael Mullenniex

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

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 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