LUCERNE >> The Lakeside Campus in Lucerne of Marymount California University closed its doors almost overnight one day last week, without informing the public. According to District 3 Supervisor Jim Steele, neither students nor faculty and staff — nor the county, for that matter — were given notice prior to the closure. Lake County, which owns the building, currently finds itself deciding what to do with the structure and their agreement with the college.
The University called the historic Lucerne Hotel or Castle home of its Lake County campus for less than five years.
“I think what happened here speaks for itself,” Steele said. “I was not informed that Marymount was moving out and so when they did, it was kind of a shock.”
Marymount California University President Lucas Lamadrid has not released a statement explaining why the University left without a warning and did not respond to an interview request. But the reason why the Lucerne campus closed is attributed to “poor enrollment,” as the school had just over 20 students at the Lucerne campus, according to an email from the President to the Press Democrat.
Students will have the option to continue their studies either online or at the institution’s Southern California campus in Palos Verdes — about 8 hours away from the Lucerne campus.
“We will continue to wait and would also like to hear from them (the students),” Steele said.
For now, however, the County is invested with what will become of the Lucerne Castle.
On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors met during their weekly meeting and discussed “not looking to any formal action from, but rather some guidance.”
Since the public found out about the school’s departure, the county has been contacted by a number of educational and religious groups interested in the structure. Emails have detailed the use of the Castle for disaster recovery for fire victims, for example. Members of the community have taken to social media, too, to share their ideas. An art colony, homeless center, and Veteran’s home were among the many suggestions.
Those seriously interested have announced to the county that formal proposals are in the works.
In response to accepting, if at all, proposals, District 2 Supervisor Jeff Smith said, “As everybody knows, we are fighting some financial battles, so I think we should be open to anything and everything, including the sale of it. I don’t want to see us have to put out any more money on the castle. If we have proposals out there, we will look at them and make some decisions within the next 90 days. The latest by the end of the year.”
District 1 Supervisor Moke Simon suggested to give an appraisal for the facility and find out what the asset is worth before accepting proposals.
Steele said he would like to see one owner handle the situation. “It would be great if we can sell it (the Castle) and have them take care of it. It’s an expensive building and an old building. It’s been wet recently since it has broken pipes. That’s a concern as to what that’s going to bring to us.”
The County has pushed further discussion on the cost of keeping and leasing it for their next meeting in July.
