≡ Menu

A statement from Scott Holder

I try to make a practice of not responding to negative or insinuating comments on blogs, but I am writing this for the group so you can all know my role in our efforts to save the golf course.  If an outsider were to read the blog posts, and even better see the emails that are floating about (which include my name), they more than likely would come to a number of conclusions.  I don’t need to list those conclusions but they leave a taste of Scott Holder being “the enemy” for lack of a better term as opposed to someone trying to preserve what we all have invested in – the City of San Ramon.  To those of you who have been involved from the beginning I apologize as some content of this post is common knowledge.  Others in our group have joined many weeks after our initial meeting and we welcome you to the group.

Before I get into a timeline of events and explanation of my actions let me first clarify a few things:

  • I never had any contact whatsoever with the Ronald Richards prior to June.
  • I have made no deals with the Ronald Richards
  • I have not been offered anything whatsoever from Ronald Richards and if I were I would immediately decline and end any conversation
  • I have not “negotiated” anything whatsoever
  • Each and every one of my actions has been what I deem to be in the best interest of our community
  • I am open to discussion with anyone on the issue and you can either call me or email me which will be far more productive than blogging

I had concerns about the future of the golf course all the way back to December when Tree City LLC purchased the course.  Many were in denial the golf course could possibly close but reality began to set in when the ownership made the decision to close the pool on April 29.

My wife and I rented the Community Center and invited as many as possible via Nextdoor to attend our first meeting which was held on May 6.  My estimate was we had approximately 225 neighbors attend.  At that time it was clear the ownership wanted to develop the property but no one had any idea to what extent.  There were members of our group who wanted to immediately begin a media campaign against the owners.  I did dissuade this as the bottom line was we did not know their plan.  As much as it angered all of us we needed to realize they owned the property and had every right to close the pool.  What we did not know was what the next move would be and what plan did the owners have for the property.

Near the end of the first meeting, I asked the residents in attendance if the group would agree for me to reach out to the CEO of Western Golf Properties to attempt to meet with the course owners and try to find out what plans they had for the property.  (Western Golf Properties has been hired by the owners to run the everyday operations of the course)

On May 10, I contacted the CEO of Western Golf Properties and requested he pass on a message to the ownership of my desire to speak with them.  After approximately three weeks of his claiming to have passed on my message without any response from the ownership, I knew I was receiving a runaround from him.  I called both Ronald Richards and Michael Schlesinger on June 2.  I left a voice mail for Richards but was unable to leave one for Schlesinger due to a full inbox.

Ronald Richards returned my call on June 3 and we agreed to meet.  Richards was not agreeable to meet with me unless we could have a frank and open conversation without either of us using said conversations against the other after the fact.  I agreed to and signed an agreement with Richards and here is the wording from the agreement: “No statements of any kind from this meeting may be used by either party in any subsequent litigation, city council meetings, or planning meetings.  The citation of any statements or documents would be a breach of this agreement and subject either part to damages, sanctions, or exclusion.”   On June 7, I traveled to West Hollywood and met with Richards.

Since that time, I have had several conversations with Richards and have openly spoken of these conversations at our meetings and in other correspondence.  My goal was that of a fact-finding quest to obtain any information as to what the owner’s plan was for the property.  On August 30, that plan surfaced when it “was leaked” from Richards office.  The site plan illustrating 255 townhomes and two apartment buildings is absurd; however, we now know the plan.

At our meeting last week, I voiced my opinion that we should have representatives from our group sit down and discuss the plan and I stand by that opinion.  This issue may very well be a lengthy drawn out process which may or may not end in our favor.  I for one want to get to the end of this knowing I did everything I could possibly do to have this end with the best possible outcome for our community.

In this same meeting, the overwhelming majority agreed that conversation with the owners could be beneficial.  It’s not “negotiating,” it’s conversation, and there is a huge difference.  None of us (and YES including me) has any authority to negotiate; the final decision rests with our city council.

I would like to think there are others who want a voice in the process now and agree waiting until there are public hearings at City Hall is far too late for us to be involved.

Making statements when you have never met me or haven’t been to one of our meetings is counterproductive and needs to stop.  We may not agree but I will respect your opinion.  You know where I stand and if you want to discuss further as I stated earlier give me a call.

Scott Holder

{ 45 comments… add one }
  • Linda Gow September 29, 2016, 8:09 am

    Well said. I for one, very much appreciate all of your efforts on our community’s behalf.
    Thank you!

  • Eve Ridgers September 29, 2016, 8:17 am

    I appreciate your willingness to step forward and help our group! Keep up the good hard work/research. I know our neighborhood community is going to be better for it.

  • Jim Goddard September 29, 2016, 8:42 am

    I would like to thank you as well, Mr. Holder. I appreciate you stepping up and advocating for the community in this difficult situation.

    • Corey October 1, 2016, 2:59 pm

      If you’re signing an NDA — and meeting with the individual alone — I will never understand how you can pretend to assume the best interests of the residents of San Ramon. If one were fully open and transparent, one gets a better understanding of what residents are concerned about — and at no point would a private meeting be held with an attorney without such an understanding. There are formal, open channels to have real conversations about this topic.

      • Admin October 1, 2016, 3:10 pm

        Please be aware that Scott went to LA to meet with Richards with the full knowledge and consent of the community who was present at the meeting. An NDA is qutie routine; it just means that he could not use anything he learned in litigation or before the City Council.

      • Farrokh Khodadadi October 1, 2016, 11:53 pm

        Thank you for your sound sensibility, your rational comments are refreshing.

  • Brian September 29, 2016, 9:23 am

    Thanks for your efforts Scott. The reality is there’s nothing to negotiate or discuss with the developer. There’s NO zoning for homes. If he wants to discuss his ideas he can go to the city, which won’t go anywhere. My two cents, is nobody other than a lawyer or the city should be having one-on-one conversations with him. It’s not anyone’s place to have those private discussions. If the developer has something he wants to say he can come talk to everyone in a public forum, let him make the effort. Big deal if he shuts down the course, it’s not ideal, but he has every right to do so and it’s much better than the alternative.

    • Bernard September 29, 2016, 10:24 am

      Well said Brian. I fully support this approach. I actually changed my mind after the meeting and now think that we should not put ourselves in a position of even engaging the discussion with these guys as long as they haven’t submitted anything to the planning commission. At best, Richard will show us what he wants us to see but there will be no guarantee on what the real plan is until he goes to the city.
      Richard keeps saying he’s trying to work with the community but the reality is that he does not. Many of us bought into that False statement that has been well relayed by the media. I do think we are actually helping his cause by making the first move and approaching the guy. I rather having the golf turns yellow that having any housing. But again, this strategy is contingent to the city keeping the zoning as is…and to me, it remains a big question mark. They are many ways for a developer to influence planning votes which worries me the most.

      • Admin September 29, 2016, 11:06 am

        I had a conversation with the reporter who has been covering the golf course matter for East Bay Times. I corrected the statement where he quoted Richards as saying he was “trying to work with the community.” There will be more articles soon. Also, everyone should be aware that Ronald Richards reads this blog.

      • Jim September 29, 2016, 12:31 pm

        In my opinion, Brian and Bernard are right on point. Any discussions with Richards would only be to his advantage. Our efforts to stop any development should be directed at gathering resident support, communicating our anti-development message to the City Council and Planning Dept. members (via letters and telephone calls) and getting our message out to various media outlets. Thanks to all for your continued efforts.

    • elizabeth October 2, 2016, 2:54 pm

      Brian, I agree with you completely. At this point there is nothing to negotiate about. If the new owner has something to tell us, he should do it in a public forum and we should be given plenty notice to be able to attend – let him make the effort!!!!

  • Farrokh Khodadadi September 29, 2016, 12:19 pm

    Thank you for the efforts you’ve vested in this, and in case it has not been said already, I know I speak for everyone when I say that we all appreciate the value you add, and how fortunate to have our former police sergeant live in the community.
    There’s no doubt that your intentions come from heart, I don’t suspect any ill-formed agenda, and I guess that any objections to your approach are likely result of anxiety and desire for transparency. This will be long fight and we ALL shall learn to play well together in our sand pit. Everyone wants to make more friends in this process, but some might hit a bump or two along the way. Please be patient as we all get to know one another, our approaches might not be in unison but our hearts are aligned.
    Having said that, I echo Brian and Bernard’s comments. Based on personal experience of negotiating as a community group with another developer who developed a San Ramon hillside against the wishes of our community, some lessons learned are hard to forget. These developer types, are juggernauts who only understands one thing, $$[money]$$ .
    Nothing any of us can say individually, or as a small work-group will sway them. His sole motivation is 9-digit $$$ profits, his family doesn’t live here, he doesn’t care about San Ramon. Only one thing block his bulldozers from excavating the green views of your home, and that is an official denial from the CITY to rezoning application, period! Everything else is just a momentary glitch or delay, but ultimately without that denial, those greens will be turned into condos and parking lots.
    So as a community, we must understand that the only basket we should bear our eggs in is the one which has San Ramon City written on it. On that note, your experience and relationships from working in the city, is an invaluable asset to our cause. We need your leadership to help us navigate our way around the city! We must explore every means available, exploit your knowledge and relationships with our city, to get the upper hand on the developer.

  • Ron Pugh September 29, 2016, 12:19 pm

    Scott, thank you for your efforts. Rather, a HUGE thank you for your efforts. Your work has helped organize this group to where it is today.

    I would like to mention that signing an NDA with Richards may have been a mistake on your part. At the time, it seemed like the priority was getting information. Perhaps that was the right priority at the time. However at this point, it may be best for you to recuse yourself from leading the efforts going forward. That suggestion is not personal, but you are now in a possible unintended position that may not be advantageous to the group. Just food for thought.

    Thanks again Scott for your tireless efforts. You have my information from the meetings if you want talk.

  • Bill O September 29, 2016, 1:24 pm

    Scott, thanks.
    I guess the question is what is the ” best possible outcome for our community”?

    The choices in my opinion are:
    1) Keep the golf course SCSR
    2) Open space
    79) 255 town houses and 2 appartment buildings

    You fill in 3 thru 78.

  • Gene Bucciarelli September 29, 2016, 1:49 pm

    Scott has taken this on contributing enormous amount of time and money. I appreciate his efforts as we need a point person that galvanizes our effort to reduce the impact of the home construction plans, whatever they are. Together we can have an impact on the city counsel and the planning department.

    Thanks Scott

    • Brian September 29, 2016, 3:37 pm

      There are no “home construction plans”, the land is NOT zoned for housing. Period. This is why we elect city council members…to represent and defend our position as a community. The focus should be on making sure we elect the correct city council members who don’t support changing the zoning. Beyond that there’s no need to focus needless energy on isolated communication with a developer who can’t develop anything.

  • Laura September 29, 2016, 4:36 pm

    Thank you Scott. You were instrumental in forming this group. I appreciate your efforts, hard work and patience.
    Thank You

  • eleezeh September 29, 2016, 4:55 pm

    Thanks Scott for trying to help and more importantly for serving our city as police sergeant for many years. I know we all want our voices heard but our voices should be heard through our city council. Nominating people who can talk to Richards is not the right path. I too changed my mind after the meeting last week, even more after reading Richards Wikipedia. He is not a regular lawyer he is very well know criminal lawyer in Beverly Hills and what you can call a shark.
    Also I have to agree with Ron signing NDA was not the right move. Depending on what that NDA said you have promised not to disclose any information from your meeting with Richards. So anything you say is against your signature. So not only you have put yourself on the line but this might also back fire for this community. Speaking from experience having dealt with NDA’s in my business for 20 years. We should not sign anything with this group it is not our place.
    Also we have city council to represent us with this group. We should work through them and make sure whom ever we chose will vote against this development. We need to elect a city council that will work with the community keeping the zoning the way it is and will not cave in. If we need to have a team it should be worked through the city and not a group of people.
    At the end I know we all live in San Ramon and this can impact everyone, but I beg of you to be realistic and do not think about golfing and the golf course as a hobby, think about the 100’s of families who have investments around the golf course. Their lives will get impacted more than anyone if buildings go up. A dead golf course can be remade, however if houses are built you cannot turn this into a golf course later down the road. Once this golf course is gone they will go after others courses in this area since it is a prime area. I know San Ramon schools and traffic will get impacted too, but the biggest impact is to the people living on the golf course.
    Stay the course to me means we will not negotiate and rezone, we will stay the course to fight this developer from invading our community.

  • Rebecca September 29, 2016, 6:24 pm

    How many people are at the city council election meeting? I’m here now. It’s pretty empty. I hope more people come because this is instrumental in staying our course.

    • Eleezeh September 29, 2016, 6:39 pm

      I am heee

    • Admin September 29, 2016, 8:26 pm

      I was there too. Maybe we could get Stay the Course t shirts so we can all recognize each other!

  • Renae Wilber September 29, 2016, 11:07 pm

    Hi Rebecca,
    There are numerous people in the community who can’t make these meetings; thousands of us who have children and grandchildren and other obligations/responsibilities that make it difficult if not impossible to attend the meetings. Not so sure I would be welcome with toddler(s) in tow. But, we are still on board out here in cyber land. However, I genuinely trust that the elected City Council members are going to represent what is best for our community, especially since they follow us on social media and we send emails and messages to them. (I do)…I do deeply thank you and others who can take the time and effort to attend the meetings, voice our various concerns, and have a physical presence at the meetings. Much appreciated. Renae

    • Rebecca September 29, 2016, 11:32 pm

      I didn’t mean to imply it was wrong to not be there. I was just hoping more people would come. I apologize if you thought I was being snarky or demanding. From the discussion it seemed pretty clear to me who was educated about the topic. It was recorded so it can be viewed later if desired.

      I certainly wouldn’t want to bring my toddler. I’m fairly sure the citizens of San Ramon would thank me for not bringing her. She’s quite loud.

  • Renae Wilber September 30, 2016, 8:47 am

    No need to apologize at all Rebecca. I didn’t think you were being snarky whatsoever…I just wanted to make sure you know that I for one appreciate your being there, and that I hope you are not discouraged that there wasn’t a big turn out, because I’m pretty sure many of us are out here wanting to offer support! Mainly, just so you who are putting so much time and effort into this know you are not small in number and that you don’t stand alone. Thank you again!!! p.s. Loud toddlers are often our future leaders. 🙂

  • Brian September 30, 2016, 9:18 am

    After more careful thought, I agree with Ron and Eleezeh regarding Scott signing the NDA. Scott, by signing you decided to put yourself in a compromised position. You can’t benefit the group given your signature on that NDA. Regardless, there’s nothing for you or any other individual or group to discuss with the developer. Please leave those discussions for the elected city council, that’s there job. From what I understand you were a tremendous asset to San Ramon as a police officer, and thank you so much for that, but you are over stepping the boundaries by having one off conversations with the delveoper’s lawyer and signing a NDA.

    • Admin September 30, 2016, 10:41 am

      Brian, while anyone can play Monday morning quarterback in this situation, I think it might be useful to understand some of the context. The sale of the golf course was consummated in January. The word began to get out in April. In May, Scott organized a meeting–and paid for the space out of his own pocket. There was a consensus at that time for him to meet with Richards to get an idea of what his plans for the property were. He managed to arrange a meeting with Richards in Los Angeles (again, at his own expense). Richards refused to enter into any kind of discussion unless Scott signed a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). This simply means that Scott would not be able to use knowledge he gained in that conversation in litigation against Richards or in the City Council. Absent that NDA, there would have been no discussion at all.

      I think it is a mistake to assert that Scott’s usefulness to this group is over because he agreed to the NDA. The fact is that there are only two possible courses of action at this point–Richards applies to the City Council for a rezoning, or that he try to get a referendum on the ballot to amend the General Plan. Either one will take literally years, unless he has already done a lot of the paperwork, including the EIR. As far as I know, he hasn’t.

      There are four candidates running for City Council–two incumbents and two challengers. From the candidates’ forum last night, it is clear to me that there is no support for a rezoning among ANY of the candidates. It would take a 4 out of 4 vote among the Council members (Dave Hudson has to recuse himself) to change the zoning. That leaves a ballot measure for the citizens of San Ramon to vote on. That won’t happen before next year.

      There is a great deal that we all can do in this matter–starting with making sure the residents of San Ramon are aware of what is going on, and that they recognize how any building on the present San Ramon Golf Club would have a negative effect on all of us–not just those 350 homes agains the property.

      Scott has been an important part of our community for decades (I’m not sure how many realize he was San Ramon’s first Chief of Police). He has demonstrated by his actions that he has been and will continue to be an invaluable resource.

      FINALLY: I think it is highly unlikely that anyone other than our elected officials will do any negotiating with Ronald Richards’ group. There is no proposal on the table at this time, and so there is nothing to negotiate.

      • Caryl Taraldson October 2, 2016, 3:51 pm

        I was at the meeting and two candidates seemed rather uninformed generally, compared to the other two. One was talking about how she supported “sustainable development” and green spaces. Was she talking about the golf course? Was it her general view? What is “sustainable development” to her? Not much time was allotted for follow-up questions so I have no idea what she meant by this, but it is consistent with some development and thus re-zoning.

  • Eve Ridgers September 30, 2016, 10:25 am

    I counted 300 people at our first meeting that Scott Holder graciously organized and ran. And if I remember correctly, he asked if he could represent us and try to reach out to the man we are speaking about now. We agreed as a group and there was nobody who raised their hands to say otherwise. Scott has been very honest and open and has run everything by us first. I appreciate and value his leadership in this matter.

  • eleezeh September 30, 2016, 10:52 am

    Eve I hope you understand what and NDA means. NDA is a non-disclosure agreement which means whatever was discussed between Scott and Richards cannot be discussed with our community and used at any point. We do not know what was discussed in that meeting. If Scott decides to talk about the issues he has breached a legal agreement and depending on the document it might jeopardize him and us. Even if some voted early May for Scott to go and talk to the owners, signing an agreement was not the right thing to do, and I don’t think the San Ramon people voted for Scott to sign an agreement with the lawyers. That is why we need to involve our city electors. We are civilians with no legal background and any meeting with the owners can jeopardize the cause. No one doubts the transparency and the devotion that Scott has to this community, however these types of deals are not simple and need people with more knowledge around landing and zoning to discuss matter with the owners.
    I think at this point as a 25 year San Ramon resident I do not want anyone representing me with the owners other than the city officials that I have elected. I am sure after last week’s meeting and the recent posts lots of people agree with me.

  • Brian September 30, 2016, 11:21 am

    Everyone plays Monday morning quarterback, that’s how we learn. We can’t change what happened but we can make adjustments moving forward based on what we’ve learned.

    Are you saying signing a NDA was the right move? Did everyone at the original meeting know Scott was going to sign a NDA and therefore have to legally remain silent about what was discussed in that meeting? Scott holds information that he legally can’t share. How is that helpful to our community?

    What was known at that original meeting is very different than what is known now. This isn’t a civilian issue to tackle with private meetings with the developer. TRUST our voted city council members to do their jobs and IF the developer has anything to say he can say it to them.

    • Admin September 30, 2016, 12:02 pm

      As I read it, the NDA prevents Scott from revealing information in “subsequent litigation, city council meetings, or planning meetings.” That doesn’t mean that he is under some kind of vow of silence. He just can’t use whatever he might have learned at a City Council or Planning Commission meeting.

      I agree with a large number of people here with respect to allowing our elected officials to deal with this matter–when it comes up.

      We can reasonably assume that Richards’ group will operate as they have in other cities: close the course and try to convince the city to rezone. We already have that information. I think it’s a foregone conclusion that the golf course will close; Richards and his group have no demonstrated interest in running a golf course, even a profitable one, like SRGC. There are a number of steps which they would have to take even to begin the process of development. Even if Richards had poured out his soul to Scott and revealed his most secret plans, it makes no difference to the outcome, or what actions we might take.

      • Brian September 30, 2016, 12:39 pm

        Your last statement mirrors my comments all along…there’s no point for any civilian individual and/or group to have a meeting with the developer. Please explain how our San Ramon community benefited from Scott’s meeting with the developer?

        If the golf course owner has anything to say from this point forward the communication should go through the correct channels…city council. No more civilian conversations with the owner, stop indulging him with flights down to SoCal and the idea there’s something to discuss or negotiate. I look forward to the owner letting the golf course and watching him lose money.

  • donald corbin September 30, 2016, 1:16 pm

    scott shut up ! brian and bernard are right !you have no right to call or meet with mr richards nothing has been filed ! dont be a busybody !!!!!

    • Jim Goddard September 30, 2016, 1:42 pm

      Keep it civil Donald, please.

  • donald corbin September 30, 2016, 2:26 pm

    for scott to be a cop for 15 yrs you would think he would have enough common sense not to sign anything legal on behalf of anyone else just to satisfy his curiosity he should have got back on the plane and came home !!!

  • Admin September 30, 2016, 4:33 pm

    Folks, there is no place for uncivil conversation here. I have deleted the offending comments.

    Look. This is an emotionally charged issue. If we all work together, we can prevail. We have a City Council who has done an excellent job and, I’m sure, will continue to do so. We have a number of people who have put up time and money–and Scott heads the list. Keep in mind, please, that he went to L.A. with the agreement of the 300 people in the room–it wasn’t something that he ran off half-cocked to do. His signing the NDA is really a non-issue, as far as I am concerned; ultimately, the outcome is going to be in the hands of the City Council, and possibly the voters.

    There is lots of room for disagreement on this matter. But there is NO room to be disagreeable or uncivil. I read every response, and will moderate those that I find rude, disagreeable or inappropriate.

  • Chris September 30, 2016, 6:00 pm

    I do value Scott Holders contribution to the group. His initiative helped get this movement moving forward.

    I personally feel the NDA is a non issue. I do know what an NDA is and I am confident that this was not a sophisticated legal document signed by Scott. I am also relatively sure there are many ways to void this document. Old Roni Richards is an attorney and somehow I think having or asking Scott to sign a legal document without legal representation present would be a matter the California Bar Association would frown upon. I think it could easily be argued that Scott signed that document under duress. I am not impressed with Roni and his legal background of getting of scum bag criminals off and strong arming retirement communities. Enough time spent on that piece of filth.

    It is my opinion that the Stay the Course group should evolve into more of a community watch dog organization or a type of PAC perhaps. Staying current on elections and who is running and what they’re opinions are on the issues important to the citizenry of San Ramon such as the zoning of the golf course.

    This group we are dealing with operates under the assumption they can wait us out. Well, if we have an organization that takes on it’s own life and continues to operate whether any of us move away and as new home owners move in then they simply will never win.

    We hold all the cards and they hold none except for being master manipulators and liars. They are powerless unless we let our guard down and allow our city government to be controlled by people who would be friendly to them. The golf course is nice and I very much enjoy the ambiance it provides from my backyard but I find open space to be just as nice whether the grass is brown or not. They can not allow conditions to deteriorate or pull the same stunts as they did at prior courses because of our zoning and Nuisance Ordinance. Frankly, if they did and the City had to come in and clean the course up for them that is fine with me. They will bill the course for it. If the don’t pay the City puts a lien on it etc etc.

    I think these geniuses thought we cared most about the golf course and keeping it so they would have leverage to get some development out of it but they would be wrong. In the end I don’t care about the golf course and them closing it. I care about the open space more than any other issue. I think that is probably the opinion we all have when it comes down to it.

    My final statement to Roni when he reads this is: SUCK IT. YOU LOSE.

    • Bill O September 30, 2016, 10:24 pm

      Before retiring many of my customers and I myself signed many NDAs without legal representation.

  • Eleezeh September 30, 2016, 6:47 pm

    Wow! This is not about Scott or anyone. Anyone walking into a legal office of their own will which is what happened here, and signing a document does not need a legal representation. No one was under duress since the meeting was initiated and asked for by Scott. Unless you have read the agreement yourself and seen the fine print don’t be confident that thisbpiece of paper cannot be used against us later. Any signed document especially one created by a lawyer should be reviewed by your legal representative before you sign. We all have our lawyers review contracts when we sign, what makes this different. Scott is a law enforcement officer he should have know better or consulted with the 300 people who nominated him about the agreement signature.

    Also I am signing of this webpage, I thought this is a community page and every has the right to their opinion. It seems some members have been censored and therefore this isn’t not place for me to post. However I will continue my posts on next door as it has more readers and freedom of speech.

    • Admin September 30, 2016, 8:26 pm

      Eleezeh , I am not “censoring” anyone; however, when anyone’s input consists of being uncivil to other participants, I will moderate those posts. Out of many hundreds of posts, I have deleted the posts of exactly *one* person. If you saw the posts in question, I think you would agree with my decision.

      The purpose of this site is to be a way to disseminate information to all the people of San Ramon who have a stake in the outcome of the golf course matter. For anyone who decides that they don’t want to view this information, the answer is simple: just don’t visit. As new information becomes available, I will continue to post the link to Nextdoor, Facebook and other venues.

      STCSR doesn’t require registration, so you don’t need to do anything to avoid reading any of the information. If you subscribe to the post, you’ll get an email when it has been published. All you have to do is to opt out when you get that email (assuming you are subscribed) and you won’t get any further notifications.

  • Chris September 30, 2016, 7:51 pm


    Wow is right . As you said you have your right to an opinion as do I. Which I stated in a civil manner. I respectfully disagree with you and I am very confident in my opinion. You are certainly entitled to yours but it sounds like you don’t think others are entitled to their opinion if it differs from yours.

    So I guess you can take your toys and go home.

  • Ron Pugh October 2, 2016, 1:01 pm

    You know, I just read through this comment thread after being the one to first “float the idea” here that maybe it wasn’t a great to have signed the NDA. While I think it is necessary to have discussion, I wish we could all be more productive in those discussions.

    To Scott Holder, thank you again for your efforts (and continuing efforts) in this endeavor. My apologies to you for starting a conversation that appears to have gotten out of control here and on nextdoor.

    • Farrokh Khodadadi October 2, 2016, 6:04 pm

      You need not apologize for pointing out something rationally, others who lack much maturity took the thread down the wrong path.
      What worries me is to watch these folks clawing at each other’s throats instead of being civil, last couple of days has been very counter productive.

  • Caryl Taraldson October 2, 2016, 7:28 pm

    Maybe a new thread could be started on the candidates up for election?

    Then it would be great if Stay The Course meetings and/or the website could be used to keep people informed of what the city is doing that could effect the matter?

    Just some ideas. [Despite the fact that I know the concept of “ideas for others are great, but doing something yourself is better.” 🙂 ]

Leave a Comment