I'm a little puzzled on this one guys simply because it goes against everything that I've heard about course changes in the UK. Here changes seem to be more along the death by tinkering variety, I don't know of any club with a long term plan for the course (could be that I’m new to all this).
I do know of a course that if it surrendered 2 goodish holes (but both par 3 on a very short course) and their clubhouse, they would get in return 2 new holes, a new club house and a practice area (none at present) and for the first time all 18 would be on the same side of the road. The membership rejected it because as a bunch of old guys they didn't want the disruption (it was a 3 year program).
What you appear to be saying is, a few individuals within the club ran the place down (presumably by cutting back on green staff and repairs) to make the case for a complete rebuild. Then the vast majority of members voted for this.
Things must be very different in the USA. If I'm right in the methods they employed then the club must have been running an increasing surplus and all the members when voting would have known that substantial increases in dues to meet construction costs were on the way? Plus for a time they would't have any course. Can a few individuals fool most of the people because of their own plans? Am I missing something?