When an arsonist destroyed the Gualala Community Center in February, 2023, it set off a rebuilding process that is deeply dividing our community. It began with a very ambitious concept that swiftly became unrealistic with rampant inflation and a lack of government support for the high cost. Then followed the special interest phase, in which Pay 'N Take volunteers, especially the ones in the used clothing store, felt that they were disrespected by not being included in plans for the new building. They formed a "steering committee" which sprung a new design on the Community Center board at a May, 2025, board meeting.
I was a spectator at that meeting, a Community Center member interested in the rebuilding project which seemed to be coming apart. The steering committee handed out a schematic of their plan which about a month later became this:
I immediately sized it up and commented to the assembled multitude - about 60 or 70 people, I guess - that it was a camel, a horse built by a committee. Its first of many deficiencies was its L-shape, with the partitioned offices in the angle of the L, cutting off any way of using the spaces at either end together. Apparently that was because its designers wanted a patio, an unnecessary vanity that was never a consideration in the rebuilding process - wasted space that causes more wasted space.
In the near future a better place for the used clothing sales store could be the current Annex building which now houses household goods, and the household goods - which have already outgrown the Annex- could move to a new 4,800 square-foot metal building ($250,000 cost) on adjacent Community Center property.
The second glaring deficiency is that their Main Hall is 440 square feet smaller than the old Main Hall, built 70 years ago when the population of this area was less than one-fifth of the present population.
The third is that, even with the most optimistic assumptions, their plan will cost at least $300,000 more than their available financing of $3,300,000 - $1.8M from insurance, $1M from Coastal Seniors - who have better things to do with their $1M - and $0.5 from a mysterious donor - "Show us the money!" Their cost projections also include large savings from using volunteer labor and services and receiving large discounts.
Volunteer savings are commendable, and "Build Local" has great appeal, but if construction of a flawed building at a cost two to three times that of a more flexible Butler building is their product, the bottom line is wasted space, time, and money.
The Build Local plan: a building that doesn't meet the Community Center's rebuilding objectives of providing a large community gathering space quickly and economically, and a building that wastes half its space for its lifetime.
Large, fast construction, economical
A friend mentioned a metal building, known colloquially as a "Butler" building. Another friend did a cost analysis that confirmed that a Butler building could be built quickly and inexpensively. This inspired me to gather information for a 7,500 square-foot building:
| Viking Metal Building Costs | |
| Building, 75 x 100 | $ 113,413 |
| Contractor installation | $ 87,367 |
| Insulation, 6" R 19, enclosed roofs, all walls | $ 17,245 |
| Insulation instalation | $ 6,200 |
| Raised wooden floor | $ 250,000 |
| Fiber cementr wall panels, 4900 sq ft | $ 49,000 |
| Drywall, 4900 sq ft | $ 98,000 |
| Suspended ceiling, 7500 sq ft | $ 150,000 |
| Professional grade kitchen | $ 300,000 |
| Utilities | $ 25,000 |
| Heating | $ 20,000 |
| $ 1,116,225 |
On September 2, 2025, Gualala Community Center (GCC) mailed a ballot to choose the design to replace the Main Hall destroyed by arson in 2023. However, on August 25 the GCC Board admitted that the election was “totally invalid” but then released a draft ballot to all GCC members which contained only two options and excluded an inexpensive, quickly built, metal building option.Unbelievably, only two days after their “confession”, the GCC Board’s termed-out Directors met with two carryover Directors and selected as new Directors the same four who had been improperly elected. What an "Alice Through the Looking Glass" moment!Improper election followed by improper selection equals proper GCC Board?On Sunday, August 24, the day before the GCC Board admitted a “totally invalid” election, the GCC Board informed me that a source of funds for rebuilding that I had listed could not be displayed because I had no written agreement with the donor agency. On Wednesday, August 27, I was told to have such a written agreement by 3pm the next day, August 28, or it would not be on the ballot. However, a letter from the donor dated August 29, 2025, proved that the GCC Board had no written agreement until Friday, the day after the deadline they set for me. Nor did they when the draft ballot was sent to GCC members on August 25, without a metal building option.The California Corporations Code, Section 5511, provides that election invalidity is decided by a court - the existing board cannot unilaterally declare an election invalid and choose new members. This must be determined through a court process under Section 5617.The GCC Board knowingly violated its bylaws and took actions that could result in a violation of their fiduciary responsibility to members.
Independent Coast Observer "Open Space" submission
Gualala Community Center (GCC) members filled The Sea Ranch Del Mar center on May 13 to discuss the rebuilding project for the Main Hall destroyed by arson. I attended as a member interested in the progress or lack thereof, particularly because of the frequent use that community organizations such as Lions and Rotary made of it.
A group characterizing itself as a rebuilding steering committee labelled “Build Local submitted a design for an L-shaped building with over half its space allotted to the used clothing sales store and Coastal Seniors. I publicly denounced their design as a camel, a horse built by a committee, because having offices in the center of the L cut off the open spaces on either end from working together to accommodate large gatherings.
Among its many failings was a 2,100 square-foot gathering hall which was 440 square feet smaller than the one built 70 years ago when the local population was less than one-fifth its present. Some recent revisions to that first plan increased its square footage while reducing estimated cost, in itself a marvel of engineering and budgeting. Their slogan could be “You can have more for less!”
In 2023 the rebuilding objective defined by the GCC Board was to create a large gathering space at a reasonable cost as quickly as possible.
Knowledgeable contractors advised me that compared to the Build Local design, a very large prefabricated steel building could be built for less than half the cost and time and would fulfill the planning objectives. That’s why I ran for the GCC Board.
I ran to fill a GCC Director position and was notified that I had won. What were the vote totals? No one knew because not all of the votes were counted. What were the results for changing the GCC bylaws? No one knew because none of those votes were ever counted. Because of election irregularities I declined the Director position and sat in attendance as a GCC member only.
At the August 4 GCC Board meeting, prior to its being called to order, I presented a formal complaint that the election was invalid because voting was allowed by those with less than three-month memberships, a violation of GCC bylaws. From the California Corporation Code: An election of officers or directors that disregards the procedures outlined in the bylaws is an unauthorized act. It can be legally challenged by members, potentially leading to the election's invalidation.
The Code did not suggest that the election could be ignored and that the old GCC Board could select among anyone who was a member for at least three months to fill the GCC Board vacancies.
The GCC Board did not give a formal reply but continued with business as usual. I could not ethically participate in any of their actions because the election was invalid.
Then, on August 25, the GCC Board finally admitted that the election was “totally invalid” but at the same time released a draft ballot to all GCC members containing only two options and excluding an attractive, inexpensive, quick to build, metal building option. That option would save over a million dollars and provide a much larger Main Hall. The much larger Main Hall also provides flexibility for future use that the Build Local plan doesn’t. For example, a large, inexpensive building on now vacant GCC land would fill the expanded needs of the Pay ‘N Take household goods store and the used clothing store could be moved to the Annex building.
On September 2 the Gualala Community Center released an invalid ballot to GCC members to choose a design to replace the Main Hall destroyed by arson in 2023.
Unbelievably, only two days after their invalid election “confession”, the GCC Board’s termed-out Directors met with two carryover Directors and selected as new Directors the same four who had been improperly elected. What an "Alice Through the Looking Glass" moment!
An improper election followed by improper selection equals a proper GCC Board?
The law in this case is quite clear. The California Corporations Code, Section 5511, provides that election invalidity is decided by a court - the existing board cannot unilaterally declare an election invalid and choose new members. This must be determined through a court process under Section 5617.
On August 24, the day before the GCC Board admitted a “totally invalid” election, the GCC Board informed me that a source of funds for rebuilding that I had listed could not be displayed because I had no written agreement with the donor agency. On Wednesday I was told to have such a written agreement by 3pm the next day or it would not be on the ballot. However, a letter from the donor dated August 29, 2025, proved that the GCC Board had no written agreement until Friday, the day after the deadline they set for me. Nor did they when the draft ballot was sent to GCC members on August 25, again without a metal building option.
The August 27 GCC Board minutes noted my remark that I had been “railroaded” by the GCC Board since they gave me less than two days to provide my input and would not allow me to review the actions taken by the GCC Board during the period when its operations were admittedly invalid. It is ironic that they “appointed” me a Director but would not let me act as one. Therefore, as the GCC design choice ballot went out September 2, I mailed a Complaint to the California Attorney General Regarding A Charity Or Charitable Solicitation on California Form CT-9.
Because of the election bylaw violation, there has not been one minute since the new GCC Board “took office” on July 1, 2025, that any of their actions have been valid. The GCC Board knowingly violated its bylaws and that could result in a violation of their fiduciary responsibility to members.
The ballots the GCC Board sent to members are not worth their cost of distributing them.
