Wife says man blamed Stan Kroenke in suicide note

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Elmgrovegnome

Legend
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
22,770
The families should have seen this coming when the property was up for sale. Blaming Stan is typical sensationalism by the reporter, and a way to get more sympathy for the Gofundme.

Sure it sucks for the residents but that is a precarious living situation for older people. By their age they should know that there are no guarantees in life and that life is not fair.

From my dealings with rich folks, I found that many can't comprehend just how poor some people are because money always seemed so easy to come by for them.

I bet Stan has plans to develop it and he is no spring chicken himself.
 

Pancake

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
2,204
Name
Ernie
If you buy a house that's parked on someone else's land your taking a foolish risk IMO. Yes Kreonke is being a scrooge but these people need to look in the mirror too.
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #23
I ran evictions for our company for a few years...

There's the law - which I'm sure he is well within (TX eviction laws allow pretty short eviction timelines).

Then, there's the ethical/moral piece.

Each case got looked at individually based on the situation.

Elderly... military... handicapped... all of these had to be looked at from an optics/right-thing-to-do perspective.

I am certain he has the right to evict them... but is it the right thing to do?

Admittedly, I do not know all the facts, but I wonder what it really would have cost him to just let them stay there... at least for a longer time that what they have. Maybe provide some assistance (I know... he doesn't have to)

Like I said, when we evicted, we paid attention to the optics and tried to be compassionate wherever possible.

I see stories like this and it makes me sad... sad for those people and sad he owns my favorite team.
 

Mackeyser

Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
14,435
Name
Mack
What I think people misunderstand is that ranch was for sale for a LONG time (wasn't it something like 20 years?). It was locked in extended court battles and the asking price was SO HIGH that it was considered by some as unsaleable and the plot too large in today's market.

It would have been reasonable for any of those folks who contacted an attorney to have been given advice to not panic and that these things take years...decades to decide, even. And even after a sale, the disposition of land assets can take a very long time.

We all know that one can be technically right and morally wrong under the law.

If what Stan Kroenke was doing was moral, there would be no issue with speaking about it to the press. It's when these companies in finance, real estate, product liability, etc cower under the awning of "technically legal, but morally wrong" that they lose credibility.

The man made a choice and I mourn that unfortunate choice. But think...when the Rams moved how upset people were. And that was Stan moving the TEAM. Anyone who's been evicted, especially from a long time home and especially if not due to lack of financial diligence... that's a huge shock to the identity. I'm not trying to make excuses for the guy, but at least I want to show some empathy.

We identify as Rams fans and some as St. Louis Rams fans and when they moved, well...we just went through that. Fans IDENTIFIED as that. How much more does a person become attached to their long time home? A place they've gone to live the rest of their lives?

Push come to shove, I'll always tend to have compassion for the human beings and their struggles as opposed to organizations, be they the NFL, corporations, governments, etc.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,827
Name
Stu
@LesBaker give it a rest. You jump on anything where you can point your finger at Kroenke. Frankly - I'm getting tired of reminding you of the rules regarding the part in your post I deleted.

As to the story. These apparently are very old mobile homes in a "park" that was allowed to become basically a shit hole. He is attempting to clean up the lake shore.

The Waggoner Ranch is a historic ranch and it just so happens that Kroenke was the only one to submit an offer that would keep the ranch in tact. Other offers had the ranch being split up into several parcels and developments. My guess is that this mobile home park would have been history no matter who bought the property.

Rather than this historic production cattle ranch going the way of so many others, Stan's plans are to keep it in production and actually enhance the facilities. Sorry - but part of that is getting rid of a bunch of 40 and 50 year old trailers.

I was in the Mobile Home industry for a few years. Most parks have age limits on homes, time limits on sites, etc... Standard contracts make it known that the lease is a temporary agreement. Generally also, there is a 3 month window for people to move their homes from a site when given notice. It appears Kroenke gave 6 months - August 2 through January 31.

As to the notion that he is kicking out a bunch of elderly and vets, I fail to see how that is either relevant or based in fact except for a couple of cases. And 61 is elderly? Hell - I guess I'm almost elderly. And @VegasRam is being read his last rites as I type this. :snicker::shades:

Just curious though... how much time should he give these people? Should he just leave the trailers there indefinitely? Is that what would make him a great guy? Nah - the guy can't do anything right because he is a rich guy who cares not about anything but money. It's not possible that he is trying to restore that land to its former glory.

Sorry but most of the time housing blight is removed, there are people being asked to leave their homes. That is the real fact here.
 

JackDRams

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,524
Name
Jack
I ran evictions for our company for a few years...

There's the law - which I'm sure he is well within (TX eviction laws allow pretty short eviction timelines).

Then, there's the ethical/moral piece.

Each case got looked at individually based on the situation.

Elderly... military... handicapped... all of these had to be looked at from an optics/right-thing-to-do perspective.

I am certain he has the right to evict them... but is it the right thing to do?

Admittedly, I do not know all the facts, but I wonder what it really would have cost him to just let them stay there... at least for a longer time that what they have. Maybe provide some assistance (I know... he doesn't have to)

Like I said, when we evicted, we paid attention to the optics and tried to be compassionate wherever possible.

I see stories like this and it makes me sad... sad for those people and sad he owns my favorite team.

Your likely evicting people for non payment of rent. He's evicting people because he needs the land for something else. Ethics has nothing to do with this. If these people are in the way of his plan, they have to go. Otherwise he never would have bought it. Yeah sure, I'll buy your property for my plan but I'll wait until the tenants die off. Doesn't work that way. Your comparing apples to oranges here.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,827
Name
Stu
If what Stan Kroenke was doing was moral, there would be no issue with speaking about it to the press. It's when these companies in finance, real estate, product liability, etc cower under the awning of "technically legal, but morally wrong" that they lose credibility.
Stan and actually most people in his position wouldn't speak to the press about internal matters. The owner of the parks I oversaw didn't when they cleared out a section in one of their parks in Telluride. What is the point? He wasn't going to discuss everything they were doing and what their plans were as there was potential for the public (generally people who have nothing to do with the property or its use) to put road blocks in his way even though he wasn't really doing anything wrong. He got rid of several poorly designed sites and ugly trailers, improved the sites, the leaky sewer and water system, and put in roads. Yes. Some people lost their trailers. That is a sad side effect. But the area is way nicer now and there isn't raw sewage surfacing and running into the creeks or water free flowing into septic systems.
 

Billy Baroo

How about a Fresca?
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
1,212
Eviction notices went out beginning of August stating they must move by 1/31/17. That's 6 full months, which is more notice than most renters receive. I'm sure extensions could/would be granted, as they usually are. More than a fair time period to get things in order. It's not Stan's problem that he couldn't afford to move. Obviously, this wouldn't even be a blip on the radar if Stan wasn't landlord. These things happen every day. Meh.
 

Mackeyser

Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
14,435
Name
Mack
Stan and actually most people in his position wouldn't speak to the press about internal matters. The owner of the parks I oversaw didn't when they cleared out a section in one of their parks in Telluride. What is the point? He wasn't going to discuss everything they were doing and what their plans were as there was potential for the public (generally people who have nothing to do with the property or its use) to put road blocks in his way even though he wasn't really doing anything wrong. He got rid of several poorly designed sites and ugly trailers, improved the sites, the leaky sewer and water system, and put in roads. Yes. Some people lost their trailers. That is a sad side effect. But the area is way nicer now and there isn't raw sewage surfacing and running into the creeks or water free flowing into septic systems.

I'm not so much disagreeing with you as more agreeing with @JackDRams .

This wasn't about improving a bad situation like abating raw sewage or eviction due to non-payment.

This seems to be about strict land development. Considering the location, you've got to be looking at a resort or golf course...or both.

Maybe it's because my last move was so traumatic that I feel for anyone who's forced to move.

I dunno.
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #31
As to the notion that he is kicking out a bunch of elderly and vets, I fail to see how that is either relevant or based in fact except for a couple of cases. And 61 is elderly? Hell - I guess I'm almost elderly.
Assumption: These people have been on that land for most of - if not all of - their lives. They are probably pretty poor. Basically, once they are evicted, they have no place to go. And. yes, at age 60 and poor, that's a tough nut. So, flip it... you are one of them. You're 60 years old and have lived there all your life. Again, Kroenke doesn't owe them anything... neither did the Wagoner family... but they seemed to figure out a way to make things work for the benefit of all.

Just curious though... how much time should he give these people? Should he just leave the trailers there indefinitely?
I'm guessing they had been there already for a very long time. How did the Wagoner's deal with that? (BTW, I do not believe they sold because not developing around that lake did them in.)
How long? I dunno... but I'd advocate longer than the minimum prescribed by law.

Nah - the guy can't do anything right because he is a rich guy who cares not about anything but money.
C'mon 503, you're better than that. I'm not saying he can't do anything right. He absolutely does one thing right - he makes money! But there's more to life than money, IMO. Help me here.. I tried to find this out but failed... how much has Stan Kroenke given to charity?

It's not possible that he is trying to restore that land to its former glory.
Of course that's possible.It's also possible he'll clear that land and build luxury homes (not too far away from a decent sized city - Wichita Falls). In fact, given his livelihood, that's more probable than him restoring it to it's former glory.
Answer this honestly: Two years from now, what do you think will be on that lake - just nature or homes?

http://www.texomashomepage.com/news/local-news/lake-diversion-residents-are-being-forced-to-leave
One other thing... and we can debate whether these stories are being "sensationalized" or not.

But, the way he handles these things. "Most residents found out about the lease termination when a notice was posted on the community bulletin board Thursday. And Friday they received a certified letter with the same notice"

Just think there was/is a much better way to handle this... I guess I;m just a softie. If I were in their shoes, after all those years, I'd hope I'd be treated with more flexibility when it came to having to leave.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,827
Name
Stu
This wasn't about improving a bad situation like abating raw sewage or eviction due to non-payment.
You could be right but being that some of the trailers were 50 years old so I'm not so sure. Most of the aging mobile home parks I've seen had serious issues with their septic/sewer systems. One of them was built on 220 acres and we had to go in and completely replace a failing system of septic tanks and replace it with an actual sewage treatment facility. We also had to drill a new well and reservoir system as requirements had changed through 5 different government agencies. The water was fine but the new laws made it so we could not continue to use the water for sections of the park unless we had additional water. That meant removing several homes where trenches needed to go, removing homes from the bank of Deep Creek, establishing set backs from the creek, and installing several new sites to help pay for the work. 40 homes had to be removed and due to the age restrictions, they couldn't be moved to other sites.

The improvements to the park cost $3.5 million and were required in order to continue operations. In this case, there were enough sites and a sufficient ROI to justify the improvements. Several other properties however, were simply repurposed. You see, much like the sites are considered long term temporary use, so are the codes and laws allowing parks to operate. There is some grandfathering but not when it comes to environmental issues. Some of that is mandated by the state but federal laws also come into play.

I don't know the actual condition of the facilities on Kroenke's land. But being that 50 year old trailers were allowed to occupy sites, I can't imagine the place had been updated in decades.
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
40,549
This seems to be about strict land development. Considering the location, you've got to be looking at a resort or golf course...or both.

At least 3 people have pointed out he's wanting to let the land "return to it's natural state" and that he's the only one to put in a bid to buy the whole thing that others wanted parts of it to develop.
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #34
At least 3 people have pointed out he's wanting to let the land "return to it's natural state" and that he's the only one to put in a bid to buy the whole thing that others wanted parts of it to develop.
So a guy who's reputation is to develop land pays millions of dollars to "restore it to it's glory"?

Please tell me that sounds at least a little fishy (pun intended).
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
40,549
So a guy who's reputation is to develop land pays millions of dollars to "restore it to it's glory"?

Please tell me that sounds at least a little fishy (pun intended).
Until he proves otherwise in this instance anybody would be making an ASSumption to guess otherwise. Personally I wouldn't be shocked if he didn't develop some of it in some way. But for now we have what's been said and done.
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #36
Until he proves otherwise in this instance anybody would be making an ASSumption to guess otherwise. Personally I wouldn't be shocked if he didn't develop some of it in some way. But for now we have what's been said and done.

Yup, that's all we have. He's always been so up front and honest so we have that. :whistle:
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Until Kroenke comes out and officially explains this (if he does at all), then everything preceding it will be speculative arguing.
Is that the plan?

yay.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,827
Name
Stu
Again, Kroenke doesn't owe them anything... neither did the Wagoner family... but they seemed to figure out a way to make things work for the benefit of all.
The Waggoner family likely needed the income from the leases.

I'm guessing they had been there already for a very long time. How did the Wagoner's deal with that? (BTW, I do not believe they sold because not developing around that lake did them in.)
How long? I dunno... but I'd advocate longer than the minimum prescribed by law.
Not sure but I believe he did. I don't know how long would be considered long enough. It's a tough situation. I don't know that giving more than 6 months helps that.

C'mon 503, you're better than that. I'm not saying he can't do anything right. He absolutely does one thing right - he makes money! But there's more to life than money, IMO. Help me here.. I tried to find this out but failed... how much has Stan Kroenke given to charity?
That was directed toward a specific member with a history of attacking Stan. The other moderators are well aware of it.

As far as amounts given to charity, my understanding is that he is very philanthropic but I don't have a factual answer for you.

But, the way he handles these things. "Most residents found out about the lease termination when a notice was posted on the community bulletin board Thursday. And Friday they received a certified letter with the same notice"

Just think there was/is a much better way to handle this... I guess I;m just a softie. If I were in their shoes, after all those years, I'd hope I'd be treated with more flexibility when it came to having to leave.

I'd agree that it sounds that way on face value. Having been involved in a great many of these cases, it is unfortunately likely the way it HAD to go.

It depends on how the lease contracts are written. There are very specific methods for notice spelled out in each lease. If the lease dictates that notice of a general eviction or change of use is to be posted in the club house then they have no choice but to do that. For example: If the lease says that the notice has to be delivered by US mail, you have to do exactly that. You cannot go and hand it to the lessee. Doing so would constitute a defective notice and would be thrown out in court. Also, the lessee could have a case that by handing it to them, even if you mailed it as stated in the lease, you violated the terms. When doing eviction proceedings, you handle notices exactly how the lease states. If not, the lessee takes you to court, you lose, the court awards attorney and court fees, and generally 3 months free rent and the clock starts over. If you file again right away, the courts often will throw that out as retaliation. I've been through this many times. Several times we lost even though we did everything right and we were evicting a violent druggy. In cases where we were changing the use of the property, the notice requirement remained.

Answer this honestly: Two years from now, what do you think will be on that lake - just nature or homes?
I honestly don't know. He did a similar thing on one of his ranches in Canada that I know of and never built on the land. With what he has said he is doing with the ranch, I am going to honestly guess it will not be a site for new homes. And he has done exactly what he said with all the ranches I am aware of. If you have some where he has reversed course, I will stand corrected.

I don't know what his plans are for the property nor do I know if it is part of what is considered the Waggoner Ranch. But if he is taking an existing, run down housing area and creating an upscale lake front community, it's really hard to blame him. I mean, just because he has more money than God, doesn't mean he should be ok with having these dwellings on his property. Look at it on Google Earth.

I agree that it sucks for the people being evicted. I don't argue that it's a good situation for them. But I have to say - who the hell builds a home on leased land knowing the lease could end at any time? I would also have to say that it appears that many of these homes are shacks that make the place look like a shanty town. There is no way in hell most of what I saw could be built today.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,827
Name
Stu
So a guy who's reputation is to develop land pays millions of dollars to "restore it to it's glory"?

Please tell me that sounds at least a little fishy (pun intended).
From my understanding, he has done exactly that with his ranches in Montana and Canada.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,827
Name
Stu
Until Kroenke comes out and officially explains this (if he does at all), then everything preceding it will be speculative arguing.
Is that the plan?

yay.
Pretty much. I am just not willing to let a bunch of people bash the owner of our team without some challenges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.