In The News… Updated.

  • The Natomas Park Master Association’s decision to no longer allow renters of Natomas Park properties access to THE CLUB made the Channel 10 news today. The change had been brewing for some time and was subject of a recent vote by homeowners. An excerpt from the report: “The Natomas Park Master Association, which represents nearly 4,000 property owners, notified renters in a Dec. 5 letter that the association would stop issuing club membership cards to non-owners. Existing tenant membership would be allowed to expire, the letter said.”
  • The Central Valley Business Times today reported the state’s Department of Industrial Relations has leased 40,000 square feet at Opus West Corp.’s recently completed Gateway Corporate Center Building B in North Natomas. On Dec. 25, the Sac Bee reported the Opus West Corp. developer has decided to hold off on building out the office complex because of the recession.
  • A small item finally ran in today’s Sac Bee about the BORDERS bookstore closing in Natomas on Jan. 3. Of course, most area residents have known about the pending closure for weeks now. THE BUZZ wonders whether the Bee found out through its local sources or from reading SFWeekly.Com which reported the news on Monday in a story about an erroneous marketing e-mail which led BORDERS shoppers to believe the whole chain was shutting down.
  • The Sac Bee generated comments from readers for the positive story it ran on the Sac PD officers who put their own lives on the line to rescue residents of a Natomas apartment fire.
  • On Dec. 27, the Sac Bee reported on the sentence the young man behind the wheel of the car that took the life of Natomas resident Aman Kumar Khanna, 58. Khanna’s family it outraged over the youth’s one-year in county custody and deportation sentence, as are several others here in the neighborhood.


  1. Talk about dividing a neighborhood and community. Wow!


  2. I don’t know, paying rent does not mean someone is invested in the community. I kinda see the Club’s point. On a busy summer day, the Club pools can have literally dozens of guests that are not paying club members. They have to draw the line somewhere…

  3. I don’t live in Natomas Park, so this does not affect me. It seems the association is requiring the renters to follow all of Natomas Park’s rules, CCR’s etc, but it isn’t allowing them the benefits of living in the community. All because the pool gets crowded in the summer? Why should they invest in the community when obviously they are not wanted? Hardly seems fair.

  4. Sorry, I don’t buy the swimming pool argument. The news reports that a couple hundred renters will be affected. There are 4000+ homes in Natomas Park. I doubt it will make much of a difference.

    I do not live in Natomas Park and I do not rent. So the change will not affect me directly. I am concerned, however, because in a lot of ways Natomas Park represents all of Natomas. so, how will NP decision affect the entire Natomas community’s credibiltiy when we sit down and pressure the city and local agency leaders for the building of responsible inclusionary housing.

    The city and other local agencies may be less inclined to hear our concerns now that NP has enacted an anti-renter policy.


  5. That News10 story was completely one sided (shocking, I know) and they only contacted the HOA office at 3pm for a story that ran at 5pm. Not much of a chance to get our side of the story out. Trixie

  6. Renters are nasty, dont take care of their properties… and they don’t have a stake in their community.. and they have too many kids..

    yeah i’m stereotyping and generalizing… but i’m right for the most part…

    I say cheers to a two tiered system!

    and no that was not tongue in cheek

  7. The entire decision was a major scam. I sat in three club meetings about this discussion, in two of which residents commented in PUBLIC that they hoped that the exclusion of renters would keep out “those people” “low-income people” and one even said “maybe if there were less blacks I’d feel safer at the Club.”

    Then miraculously… the issue was not voted on for months and months. It was a huge public event, then vanished. Wording was changed on the ballot from how it was originally presented, with no further public meeting. I also know for a fact that the News10 article is WRONG- 70% of the people did not vote. 70% of those who voted, approved the measure. Yet we have no stats on how many voted or if the delegates made this decision.

    As a homeowner, resident AND property owner who rents out a home, I find the entire situation racist and appalling. I feel sick that I live in a neighborhood that purposefully chose to exclude “those people”.

Speak Your Mind