39 thoughts on “Home

  1. Annie Adams

    Done…..Right on!

  2. Mike West

    For those who agree that “the need to increase population density is imperative,” I say DO NOT PAVE OVER THE GREEN SPACE WE HAVE LEFT!

  3. Janyce Singleton

    Just. Visited the greater Los Angeles area and lived for 20 years in San Jose. Please, please do not let them turn us into one of these godforsaken places! We all know it is “just about the $$$”.

    • James Pridemore

      We hear you loud and clear Janyce but we need the support of our neighbors.

  4. David Tully

    PLEASE * PLEASE * PLEASE don’t let this happen in our community. I moved out of Folsom to get away from the money hungry council members who are building on any piece of dirt they can find there. When I moved up here to Serrano, one of the selling features was the old golf course which they closed down a year after I moved here. Now they want to build more homes when we are in dires straits with water?? It’s bad enough Folsom voted in to annex south of 50. So please everyone let’s knock down this horrible idea in our community.

    • Jim Pridemore

      David, you are not unlike the majority of people who moved here for the same reasons. The onus is on us to act together to stop the proliferation of homes at the heart of our community. That space can be better used to promote the health of our children and all who live here. Thank you for your comments.

    • Joe Momma

      I did the exact same thing. I moved from Folsom after buying a house there in 1988 because it was becoming overdeveloped. I bought into Serrano, in 1998, under the assumption, that the golf course, etc. would stay the same because that’s what was the draw. The openness of the area and the quiet neighborhoods. Parker got greedy when the housing boom hit and wanted to build more homes. Now, since the bust, he’s going a different direction by wanting to build out high density development. That is in direct contradiction of his plans from when he first started up Serrano. They should have never closed the golf course or driving range. But, I think they wanted to force people to join that snotty club up the hill so they could stick their hands deeper into our pockets. Well, it all backfired on Parker Development, et al.

  5. John C. Leichty

    those who use and see golf courses here , and as value of the area and their investments need to organize and not be shy about it ,
    as the few , like politics , depend on the many to keep out of it and end up with what they give you ……….. , actually the same exists for the entire El Dorado Hills Area ……………. like apartments in town center , that eventually will give a close place for restaurant and service workers to live , that is noble , that iwill come to that eventually when people move in and out , but the company bidders own umits in other areas that went that curve and are now becommin county subsidized placements , that always happens in the long run but they don’t care as they profit regardless ……….. water , density , traffic ………….. the golf course effort is correct , but get a hold of your local board members here , and your county supervisor , and let them serve the people here ……… no matter what anyone says ” wise discrimination is when you choose to live in an area that good for your entire family , schools and all , no matter who or what you are , and that comes with a cost you pay for ” …………… thanks for the start , yours in exspanding that reality , …. John

  6. Jim Pridemore

    Thanks John, talk to your friends and neighbors, we need the support of all of the County!

  7. Candace Maloney

    I love that green space. Please keep it.

    • Jim Pridemore

      I could not agree more!

  8. Sharmee

    Thank you for including us. We moved to Serrano 11 years ago and one of the best things we liked about Serrano was the open golf course space. We were really shocked to hear that it could be turned into a housing area. Jim, who actually owns this piece of property?
    It would be really nice if there was a recreation club or a sports complex built here. The country club is way too expensive for majority of Serrano home-owners.. EDH CSD is really good but gets crowded at times.

    • Jim Pridemore

      Sharmee,

      Thanks for your comments I hear echoed by many who live here. The property is owned by Parker Development, the company that created Serrano. You and I are thinking alike when you talk about recreation or sports complex. Stay tuned.

      Thanks again.

      Jim

  9. Matthew Bakes

    This is a travesty that this piece of property might be zoned for housing! I am fed up with these developers who don’t give a darn about more polutiin, traffic,congestion etc. Lets stop the madness!

  10. Joel Miller

    I like open space but do not want to pay $100 yr for another park that I do not use. How will the park space be paid for?

    • Jim Pridemore

      Joel, thank you for your comments. Aside from parks, are there other amenities that could draw you to the property, such as the Symphony?

      Regards,

      Jim Pridemore

  11. Lana young

    Do you have signs we can put in our yard to show our support for no rezoning?

  12. Joel Miller

    Jim probably not retired no kids, already paying for 2 park assessments

    • Jim Pridemore

      Joel,

      Understand. I am retired and paying Mello Roos and other assessments also, as are many. I hope people realize the Vision is not just a “park” but includes other features as a Symphony, improved Senior facilities, meeting rooms, bocce ball, and many other amenities that should appeal to the spectrum of needs in the community. Additionally, by stopping the development of over 750 low, medium and high density homes, it reduces noise pollution, air pollution, traffic and congestion for those who have to work. Individual property values will be negatively impacted because building homes on this site is taking away the great appeal, open space, from many of the people who moved here in the first place. That could lead to a class action lawsuit against the developer and a lot of angry people. That is not what this community needs. The developer will reap the benefits of the losses suffered by each homeowner because of this loss in value.

  13. Tom Holt

    So here’s my take on this. Absolutely agree on “No” on measure E – no rezoning. But the real question here is what to do with the space. The proposals I see are for expensive projects to reuse some or all of the land for sports fields, arenas, concert halls, and the like – and some people even want to repurpose the old golf course as a…..golf course?!? Any of these projects will cost money, but leaving the land in its wild, undeveloped state doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s agenda. I see no harm in developing the lower (south of Serrano Parkway) for some community purpose, but leave the northern part alone. And if we do develop community services, let’s try and do it in a budget neutral way – no one here wants increased costs – HOA fees and MR are enough already.
    When it comes to the vote, if people see -Measure E = no cost, alternate plans = $++ , then you know the result.
    So my question is, if it’s “No” on measure E, what’s the “Yes” in support of?

    • Jim Pridemore

      Tom,

      Thank you.

      “what to do with the space?”. I have had several people say they want no development. The problem is that someone would have to buy the property from Parker Development for a hefty sum of money…in the millions, and then do nothing but maintain it. Who would want to do that? If no one buys the land, we all know what is going to happen, Parker Development will follow his plan and develop the land with low, medium and high density housing, along with a sports field next to highway 50. Many believe that would be disastrous for the intersection of EDH Blvd and Serrano Parkway, along with the noise, and pollution. Once we see how people react to a “resident centric” vision as opposed to a “developer centric” vision, we should see overlaps where some agree. The rest will have to be sorted out. That is where compromised will be made that could possibly be a win-win for both parties. To answer your question, “Yes” means you support Parker Development’s plan.

      Thanks Tom. I hope I answered your questions, if not, hit me again.

      Regards,

      Jim Pridemore

      • Kelley Nalewaja

        However, I am possibly confused. If the land is not zoned for density housing (or any housing) how does the land in its current zone have much value to a developer? If the Supervisors reject a re-zone, there is not much they can do right?

        • Jim Pridemore

          The land is currently zoned open space/recreational. The developer wants the Board of Supervisors(BOS) to rezone it so he can develop it with 763 high, medium and low density housing. More money for him, degraded quality of life for us. A NO vote on Measure E will send a message to the BOS that we, the people, do not want the property rezoned. Unfortunately, if the BOS decide they want to rezone the property they can do that it is a done deal. We will replace a valuable open space resource with 763 homes. Sad, but true. In my opinion, which is shared with others, if the people vote to keep the zoning as is, and the BOS decides to rezone it anyway, they are at risk of being unseated at the next election because they are working against the voters.

  14. Kelley Nalewaja

    I would like to know if you have any formal statements of position from the current Supervisor, and the Candidates for the upcoming seat election. This would be a deal breaker for me on deciding who to support. I will be at the Town Hall and posted on Facebook. I hope others will do the same.

    • Jim Pridemore

      I don’t know of any formal statements of position from the current Supervisor. Verbal statements from him are dubious. You could write to him or even schedule an appointment to let him know your position.

  15. I agree with Mr. Holt – let’s consider leaving the land as open, undeveloped space. As I have previously pointed out, El Dorado Hills still has relatively dark skies (for being so close to a metropolitan area). Several of us in the area do serious astro-photography, and would like to keep the skies dark. Leaving the land open accomplishes this, but building a lighted sports field would significantly degrade the current sky conditions. Dark skies are just as much a resource of our community as open land. Let’s keep them that way!

  16. non-resident but interested

    I don’t live in EDH but I’ve seen the signs, so I dropped in and took a look at the website. How about opening up the golf course again and promoting foot-golf as well like they do at Haggin Oaks.

    I am of the opinion that he (or the company) has the right to do with the land as they see fit. The course has been closed for how long? 10 years? Has anyone that is posting in this thread lived there for over 10 years? It’s been pretty well known since the golf course closed what the intent of the land was for, hasn’t it?

    I suppose my opinion could be changed, though I have no iron in the fire so my personal opinion has very little value concerning this issue. I don’t even know how it works, but how would Parker development be compensated for the land if they are not allowed to do with it as they wish?

    • Jim Pridemore

      Thanks non-resident, for dropping in. At the moment, we are gathering input for our Vision. Foot Golf has not been mentioned but Disc Golf has. What is Foot Golf. The company does have the right to do as they see fit within the zoning regulations of the property. Right now, the golf course property is not zoned for housing, civic or commercial. Regarding your question about the intent of the land when Parker purchased it. In my opinion, everyone has suspected he wanted to build houses there. If the land does not get rezoned and no one buys the land from him, I guess he is stuck with the property. He could develop it within the zoning guidelines, after he gets approval from all the government agencies after they look at his plans. He bought the property so he owns it.

  17. Mike

    So hopefully everyone is noticing Parker is NOT posting any YES ON E signs anywhere. Please understand your NO vote and my NO vote can in the end mean nothing even if NO wins! All it takes is for the paid off politicians to turn their backs on us and approve the rezone request anyway. John’s comments below about contacting your supervisor and other politicians with a voice is actually equally if not MORE important than the vote itself! There is a reason folks that Parker is not fighting this, they think the Supervisors have their back!

    • Jim Pridemore

      Right on Mike

  18. In regards to the “non-resident” and thoughts of rebuilding another golf course. When Parker decided to close the Executive Golf Course, the community was granted a period of time to see if the community would play enough golf to justify keeping the course open. It did “alright” for a short period of time and play was increased but eventually – the numbers of golfers again got low and the course was closed for good. Let’s just hope this lackadaisical attitude doesn’t rear it’s ugly head again and allow Parker to run slipshod over the community and build all of the developments he wants. Many knew his plan was to “lie-low” and let people forget about the insult of losing the Executive Golf Course in 2003. Wasn’t he suppose to develop some recreational property back then when he closed the course? Please – Vote No On Measure E or that wait in your cars on El Dorado Hills Blvd. & the freeway is going to get “super-nasty” when all those hundreds of homes and drivers hit the streets. Rebuilding that Highway 50 Interchange one more time may be in the works.

    • Jim Pridemore

      Hugh,

      Thanks for you comments. This is the first I have heard of granting the community a period of time to see if play would increase. Is this after the effects of the neglect of the golf course, or while it was still in top condition?

      Jim

      • Jim – sorry – I had forgotten about this post. In regards to your question – it was in the process of “going downhill” after they decided to keep it open but again, really it was the lack of community support that sunk it. Although – no matter what the numbers were, I’m sure Parker still wanted to close it and built those apartments/townhouses there. What a loss that land just has been neglected winces.

  19. Matt Gugin

    El Dorado County Board of Supervisors is a proud subsidiary of Parker Development… Sad but they they vote shows this to true. They just voted to remove all of the oak retention requirements for development… All of it! Soon you can clear cut the land to build as many homes as you can fit and just have to throw down some acorns after you cut down the 300 year old oaks that used to be there. The BOS has no real interest in protecting our open spaces, despite what they publicly claim. The votes show the true intent. I hope that this rezone effort fails and the space remains as open land but there is too much money at stake and the BOS will cave in and likely approve it. This measure is sadly non binding….

    • Jim Pridemore

      Matt,

      Thank you for your perspective. The oak retention requirement removal is a sad statement from the BOS. Although Measure E is non binding, I hope it will pack some punch in dealing with the BOS in their disregard for the will of the people. It is all we can hope for, unless someone has a better idea!

      Jim

  20. Jim kerr

    When is the decision made? We voted no

    • Jim Pridemore

      The election is November 3.

  21. John m

    Jim, is there a history page on this site representing what was the vision and now the reality facing serrano? Wayne can assist I am sure. I would love to be able to refer folks back to your site. Although security needs work, for the site comes up as a threat and not protected.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *