Oakmont’s March Toward Exclusivity
In 1963 H.N. Berger bought 1,527 acres of land near Annadel from rancher Joe Coney. What had been a hop yard was to become a retirement village, a concept that had caught on across America.
Berger, a developer from Sacramento, knew what he wanted to offer the public. There were single family homes, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. One golf course was added to the first 600 homes, with a second one built over subsequent years.
Oakmont celebrated its half century existence in 2013, and since then the solidly middle class aura of its demographics has undergone changes, subtle to begin with, but more and more pronounced as homes are beginning to sell in the million dollar range.
Oakmont, located in the fabled Valley of the Moon, has become a coveted destination for well-to-do people. If a home is not yet remodeled, they are likely to sink in several hundred thousand dollars to upgrade and modernize it.
Along with the rejuvenation of houses, the community is faced with the rehabilitation of its public facilities. The three community halls have to be rebuilt, as was the case already with the West Recreation Center. On the drawing board lies the East Rec; further down the line the CAC and the Berger Center await a remaking.
These projects cost money, lots of it. For example, the East Rec was not too long ago projected at $700,000. Today the price tag stands at $2.3mm with potentially further increases.
Several more millions of dollars will be required for the CAC and Berger projects. Add to these plans the financial needs of the Golf Club, and the picture becomes worrisome for many residents.
The dues necessary to fund these enterprises, are being currently disseminated to the residents. An increase of $9 has been adopted for 2018 with another $11 proposed for 2019. And every year thereafter further extensions are being proposed.
What was once unthinkable, might be happening, namely a monthly contribution to the OVA of $100 in just a few years. For many people, it does not matter. They point to other retirement communities where fees are higher than ours. For others, many of whom have lived here for decades, a sizable monthly dues increase is a major burden. The question is being asked whether cost containment is a concern at all for our leadership?
It is easy to look back and lament that all this rehabbing and rebuilding should have happened much before and at lower costs. But this is the reality with which we are confronted at this time. The community at large will have to come to terms with how to serve the new arrivals and their means and those who have lived here for decades and whose worries center around their livelihood.
Oakmont’s new prestige comes associated with both benefits and drawbacks. How to balance these opposite dynamics will demand goodwill and solid judgment by our elected leaders.
It is quite obvious that the present BOD, management and real estate interests here in Oakmont are fueling a push to change the “culture” here at the Village. They are doing what they think is right to change to some people’s perception of our community as “Croakmont,” the place where old duffers go to die. I didn’t understand what all the fuss was about pickleball when we moved here, but watched, as the financially prudent, just elected board was hassled and threatened out and replaced with the former BOD operatives cut off meaningful communication and started laying out their visions of the future. From what I can tell, they are setting up for better heeled, more physically active, sports-minded residents. Since so many of the older middle class people who have been here for a long time have not the time or energy to be involved in Community politics, It was easy to appeal to sports enthusiasts that without a BOD that would promote sporting activities, the “older folks” would resent paying for things (like the half million dollar pickleball extravaganza that was so controversial…) and soon would want to start closing the golf courses. Easy pickins!! (like saying that bringing back coal would make the country GREAT again).
For all I know, they might be right, but as a small business owner for many years on and off, I do understand financial prudence. This does not look prudent to me. Somehow the people in charge are willing to bet that their vision is correct with the whole community’s money…
The Social Security administration raised the age limit for full retirement. If you turn 62 in 2018, your full retirement age will be 66 years and four months. Full retirement age will continue to increase in two-month increments annually until it reaches 67.
In Oakmont the age for residents is 55 years. At this age, many of our new residents are still fully or part time employed. It seems obvious that Oakmont would benefit in also raising the resident age from 55 to 60 to help maintain the status. At present we are seeing an influx of younger/wealthier/working residents that appears to be the momentum for ‘Spending Dues’ with little regard for residents who have paid dues for decades and now are only are able to use limited amenities.
Will our current BoD serve the best interest of ALL our residents or just their favorite vocal minority in the golf community???
I agree with you, Donna. The Valley of the Moon is an irresistible magnet for younger people, who wish for modern and updated facilities.
Good cost management and cost containment practices with all our planned projects is a must.
Further moving up age restriction is a novel idea, worthwhile to be looked into. We are all living longer.
I think our disenfranchised older residents need a special committee or someone whose platform includes advocacy for their interests. Everyone here is paying the same dues. Many people are fortunate enough to be able to use all of the facilities to their greatest potential. But a substantial number get very little beyond a free movie every Sunday for their money. There are plenty of recreational opportunities that could be offered to target the less active folks. But because they are not represented their interests get brushed aside in the conversation about priorities for the future. Sooner or later if were lucky will all get there. Should be part of the long range plan right?
Several weeks ago I finished playing tennis on one of the upper courts at the East Rec. After the match, I noticed that all six of the new pickleball courts were full, PLUS there were spectators, picnics, and many folks having a good time. BUT I had not heard any “noise” or evidence of people while I was playing tennis. I thought about all the money wasted on the pickleball fiasco when in the end all it took was the Oakmont Tennis Club giving up 2 out of 8 tennis courts, (which are seldom used after 11 a.m.) Who is minding the store?
“I think our disenfranchised older residents need a special committee or someone whose platform includes advocacy for their interests.”
We are, after all, a retirement community, therefore, it makes sense to be aware of those neighbors who live in seclusion, dealing with illness, loneliness and financial concerns. Steve Spanier’s effort at outreach is a first and important step to assist senior in need of a helping hand.
Hi Yvonne, there is now a committee (as a result of 2030) to study the needs of Oakmont in terms of “Aging in Place”, which seems to consist of very concerned and committed Oakmont people. However, many suggestions seem to fall by the roadside as OVA finds impractical or other, or a liability! It seems that taking care of, checking on, elderly people who live alone is too much of a liability!
If you have ideas be sure to forward to Aging in Place committee c/o OVA! thanks,
Sandra
Locating pickleball onto underused tennis courts was a no-brainer for many opponents to the BOD scheme. Special interest groups represent a lot of power, and it took courage by Ellen Leznik and her board to cancel the expensive project behind the Berger Center. We saved money and a piece of much usable land.
That is true Yvonne and what happened to ‘Ellen Leznik and her board’? Ellen was ridiculed and shouted out of office, Ken was the victim of a hate crime and later resigned and the final Pres., Gloria Young had a mental meltdown and moved on. Amazing that what Ellen’s board initiated got done at all (and not just the PB facility but also action on the Reserve Study).
Yes, Jim, you are absolutely right; it was an ugly, ugly period in the annals of Oakmont, redeemed by Ellen et al. We owe them our gratitude.
While the result today may be acceptable to many its very ironic that you NOW find the noise to not be a problem and brag about it. Let’s go back to how the entire argument started, and it wasnt funding because the initial project was very inexpensive. The noise…I watched a video where dear beloved Gloria brought a friend (elderly woman) who cried about the noise. She lived adjacent to the courts. Really cried and tugged at heartstrings. And then there was the woman who lived next door on laurel leaf (Lynn?) who absolutely had to sell her home because of the noise. And the noise that would make the Berger unusable and blah blah blah. And then the sun lovers… oh the noise and the zen space is gone. Once over $150,000 was added to mitigate noise and a study was done and expensed, still not enough, even though it was known that noise was not an issue. Then there was the chlorine toxicity man who claimed the noiseproofing would poison outdoor swimmers because the air would have more chlorine toxins in it. So y’all took a very small, inexpensive project and blew it up with engineering reports, fights, appeals, legal threats and made it expensive. And you are proud of that? Again, the brouhaha over the outcome regardless of where the facility was placed would have died down quickly as the community progresss to more important issues, yes progresses. The newly created croquet andnlawn sports club, gathering steam at 83 members and counting (in less than 2 weeks) will be demanding shared use of the lawn bowling. We all spent over $120,000 to fix that piece of sod along with a huge monthly annuity we budget for and why shouldn’t that be shared like tennis has to share? It can easily be split in half! Party on!
Michele – Where did you get the idea that building 4 courts behind the central pool was going to be (in you words) “a very small, inexpensive project?” Also, the over $100k in development costs can be traced to Planning Dept. requirements, very little was a result of ‘fights’ and claims by opponents. I’m sure the irony of your false narrative appeals to you but it’s simply not true.
The pickleball conflict was solely based on the argument: ‘Instead of paying to build a costly PB facility, would it not be financial prudent to simply convert a few underutilized tennis courts for pickleball? Everything else was superfluous.
So Michele, instead of believing what sounds good, you should have done some research (the record is clear), you would have then written; “So y’all tennis club folks took a very small, inexpensive project and blew it up with engineering reports, fights, appeals, legal threats and made it expensive.’ You would have been correct.
But Jim,
I did research and watched many of the community’s speaches during the open mic of the meetings.
Sound protection, loss of vision of mountains towering over the valley and my favorite, chlorine toxicity, were all items that were given to the city as part of the permit fight. So yes, lots of cost was added to the project to manage these points, and it was done. Reading posts from SM y’all even listed dollar amounts spent on experts to address the complaints.
I didn’t imagine that elderly woman crying in front of the board when Gloria introduced her. I didn’t imagine Terry Ozwuld professing that, with the sound barrier that he so loudly fought for, swimmers would be overcome with chlorine poisons. I did not imagine people standing at the mic and professing their zen moments would be destroyed. I watched it. I didn’t imagine the woman next door to the central speaking of “her backyard”. I watched it. You obviously have your position but to create a false narrative and totally ignore the facts at the time is wrong.
There was financial concern as well, naturally, everyone has different tolerances for investments, but a large dollar amount was spent and proposed to accommodate these specious arguments on sound, poison pools and other things. Continue to ignore it, but the invoices and numbers prove it’s true.
You are correct Michele, there was a lot of fear mongering by opponents of the pickleball project (I agree, the bit about Chlorine was a real whopper). But none of these warnings had any impact on board members. Despite the complaints, they (four boards I believe) kept approving funds for development, while not knowing what the completed project would cost.
But here’s the thing. It was the city Planning Department that was calling the shots and they couldn’t care less what Kerry Oswald and the rest had to say about the pickleball project. The Planning Dept. was only concerned about any complaints coming from homeowners living near the proposed pickleball facility. And those homeowners did complain, which triggered the public hearing that eventually caused a six month delay and caused the planning dept. to require the project include an 8 ft. sound wall.
And so while there was much ‘sound and fury’ against the project made during ‘open mic’ it had no impact on the decisions of the pickleball ad hoc committee, the OVA or the planning department.
Nor did these pickleball complainers add to the cost of the project. I know that seems hard to believe but the only development cost (which totaled slightly over $100k) directly related to those opposing construction of the courts was the $1500 the board approved to pay to have design and engineering consultants attend the city council hearing on the appeal of the planning department’s approval of the permit. The appeal was filed by opponents of the project (former board president, Ellen Leznik – one of the leaders of the pickleball dissenters – filed the appeal along with the $700 fee).
So who’s to blame? Certainly the boards – from John Taylor’s board to Andie Altman’s board, which made the irresponsible decision to order construction begin one day before election votes were counted. But I hold the leaders of the tennis club chiefly to blame. If they hadn’t been so selfish but more enlightened they would have accepted the growing popularity of pickleball (after all, the game is often called ‘tennis for old people’) and simply made it part of the club – Oakmont’s Racket & Paddle Club” and none of what happened would have occurred.
I commend you Michele for wanting us to remember the mistakes of our insane pickleball battle; certainly there are lessons to be learned. In fact, an issue will soon be before this board that will test how well they have learned from the past.
Do you know what that issue is? Here’s a hint: Bow Wow.
The pickleball battle will keep reappearing as long as the present BOD continues their agenda and campaign to push Oakmont upmarket. It will be Berger II, cost over runs on present projects and once the borrowing for development precedent has been set, this will be the way to finance all of the grand schemes that are floating around the heads of those who feel that they were “elected to lead, rather than govern,” and have slimy ways to avoid conformation by anyone beyond their “ball boy” chosen committees. The lack of discussion and limited access to information makes them look like dictatorial crooks, not stealing for themselves, but stealing for a vision that is a gamble at best – At the whole communities expense. I don’t mind paying a bit more to bolster reserves and do a fine job of remodeling and bringing our facilities up to ADA specs, but this borrowing to be competitive with places like the Trilogy Vinyards in Brentwood will eventually affect older Oakmont residents and people on fixed incomes. See Trilogy here:
https://www.trilogylife.com/communities/california/vineyards/
All for what? Watch the OGC situation closely. Another potential precedent-setter. When will it be the Tennis Club or other anointed sports and activities that need some sort of OVA support. And all will most likely be engineered in ways that do not require community approval (by keeping costs spread out in order avoid a vote)… NOT FAIR!!! Want to see what vision we eventually be paying for? It almost sounds like a real estate move – Make the present residents pay for upgrades that are designed to attract people who will be willing to pay more in the future – at zero expense to the people in the business. We are being sold this as “Oakmont will shrivel and die if we don’t massively upgrade” and heaven forbid we even talk about the future of golf! Like a wedding; Something old (golf), something new (Berger II), something borrowed ($$$$) and something blue (the older residents who won’t be able to afford to live here anymore)…