
CLOSED OFF: Attorney Robert Garcia, right, and Tom Freeman are leading the fight to preserve access to recreational trails in the Santa Monica Mountains. (Lawrence K. Ho / LAT)
Source of this article - Los Angeles Times, May 10, 2006.
Gated communities and recreational users are fighting over the closure of pathways on private land in the Santa Monica Mountains.
![]() CLOSED OFF: Attorney Robert Garcia, right, and Tom Freeman are leading the fight to preserve access to recreational trails in the Santa Monica Mountains. (Lawrence K. Ho / LAT) |
![]() FREEDOM FIGHTERS: Attorney Robert Garcia, left, and Tom Freeman are in the vanguard to keep hiking trails in the Santa Monica Mountains free from closed gates that would prevent access. (Lawrence K. Ho / LAT) |
"This is part of an overall trend by which wealthy enclaves
think they can simply take over public parks, public beaches, public trails," he
added. "We're not going to allow it."
Los Angeles City Councilman Bill
Rosendahl, who represents the area, declined to comment on the dispute. Through
a spokeswoman, he issued a statement: "We are working with all parties to try
and find an amicable and mutually beneficial resolution to the issue and I'm
hopeful that can be accomplished."
But few on either side predict harmony
soon.
In February, the Canyonback Alliance filed a lawsuit accusing the
city of Los Angeles of illegally allowing developers to erect gates on Stoney
Hill Road in the Mountaingate development.
Frank Mateljan, a spokesman
for Los Angeles City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo, said the road is not public and
does not lead anywhere.
In other instances, however, the city has sided
with recreational users seeking access to the land.
In 2004, the city
attorney's office refused to allow residents of "the Crown," a 70-home community
of multimillion-dollar houses atop a ridge overlooking the ocean and the
Sepulveda Pass, to put a gate across Canyonback Road at Mountaingate Drive. The
gate would have blocked vehicle traffic into the community.
Now, the
pillars remain hinge-less, much to the annoyance of many in the
neighborhood.
They say they are bothered by car alarms and dog excrement
as dozens of people drive into their neighborhood to walk their dogs at the
trail at the far end of the development. They also complain that teenagers on
their way home from hiking have jumped the fence and used the homeowners'
association swimming pool. They are worried, they say, that a wayward cigarette
could ignite the hillsides.
"For all these reasons, I'd like a gate,"
said Lois Goldberg, who has lived in the area for nine years.
Sentiment
in favor of the gates is so strong in the neighborhood that one woman who does
not want them refused to give her name. "Do you want me to be hanged?" she
asked.
Another battle is looming. Developer Castle & Cooke is hoping
to break ground on seven new houses in an area bisected by a popular
trail.
This time, the developer has agreed to keep access to the trail
open by giving an easement in perpetuity that would allow hikers to pass through
the development.
Access groups say that's not good enough. They say that
a few years from now, homeowners in the new development will be clamoring for a
gate of their own, and they want the trail moved so it skirts the development.