No Guts No Easement

If you go to the State of California Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy webpage, you will read there that “Through direct action, alliances, partnerships, and joint powers authorities, the Conservancy's mission is to strategically buy back, preserve, protect, restore, and enhance treasured pieces of Southern California to form an interlinking system of urban, rural and river parks, open space, trails, and wildlife habitats that are easily accessible to the general public.”

Their mission is to cooperate with other public agencies to secure land. There is nothing in there that says they will do it ethically, or even legally. It does not say that private ownership of land will be in any way respected. Yes, they could buy land back—from a huge, powerful organization—but there are other ways to push out the little people.

Early on in the course of our community being cut off from the world, a Los Angeles County official assured us that eminent domain was not part of the plan. We were comforted. Little did we know that this official was telling us that the spirit of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to be violated, that we would receive nothing for the loss of our property values, that we were to be besieged by the State of California until we gave up our property for nothing, because we would eventually give up paying our taxes for land we could not use. The Conservancy would buy our land back in a tax sale.

A friend told me recently to be careful, that the agencies cutting off this neighborhood’s legal access to the world were run by powerful, dangerous people.

Really? What might they do? Ruin my property values? Physically close off the only reasonable route to black top, a route that has been successfully acquired legally twice? Force me and my family to traverse five and a half miles of a rough and treacherous dirt road going out from and coming in to our property?

Should I worry that these dangerous people have worse tricks to perpetrate? I can only hope that, if I am taken out of the picture, another will take my place. The first time our easement was won in court was by folks of our parents’ generation. Our generation has won it, but only to be cut off by other means that some find very suspicious. Our children, and others of their generation, appear to be stepping forward.

Am I in some sort of danger? Surely there is a lot more bad stuff “they” could do. Maybe if "they" do something bad enough it will actually motivate a public official with competence and a conscience to actually do the right thing. But let’s hope that no more damage than we have already suffered is necessary.

Anyway, it makes you wonder: who else, besides the inhabitants of the Briggs Road community, might fear the actions of our besiegers?

Their mission statement does say that the State of California Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy works “Through direct action, alliances, partnerships, and joint powers authorities.”

Could it be that Michael D. Antonovich and his deputies, good men all, have been muscled into a very uncomfortable position by the much more powerful State of California? They have a lot to lose. I don’t know for sure, but I’ll bet anything that they still have access to their own front doors. What if they and their families had to drive a horrific dirt road in and out every day? That thought would be enough to frighten anybody. It sure upset us, anyway. And those guys have even more to lose.

Previously I argued that intelligence stood on the tripod of brains, heart, and courage. I claimed that it was not courage that was lacking in our besiegers. But could Mr. Antonovich and his deputies be motivated by fear? Is guts the missing component of character? Guts to turn around and tell California that “this is wrong and I’m not having any part of it?”

Of course none of us have any idea, but we do have a hard time accepting the possibility that Mr. Antonovich and his deputies are as humanly limited as all of this is making them appear. But maybe? Who knows? Anyway Occam’s razor suggests that it is highly unlikely that all of those people are motivated to strangle a neighborhood .

When the truth is withheld, as it is here, all sorts of theories spring up. Anything is believable. It’s only human nature. By not openly and honestly defending their actions, the City of Santa Clarita, the County of Los Angeles as represented by Mr. Antonovich, and the Conservancies run by the State of California all indicate that they have little confidence that their motives could stand public scrutiny.

On the other hand, if the City of Santa Clarita is really only about green space, and is willing to trash the property values of eleven families as collateral damage, then let that be acknowledged—and please, let there be one, just one public official with a conscience stand up and say, “But that is wrong.” My personal favorite is to see Norm Hickling turn into a hero. I hear from various sources that I should give up that hope, but I can still dream.

Similarly, if the State of California is really concerned with the well-being of all animals (except the human animal), and is willing to wreck the finances of eleven families as collateral damage, despite the laws of the land and common decency, then let them openly say so—and please, let there be one, just one national magazine or media outlet that has the guts and conscience to stand up and say, “This is not right.”

If anyone knows what altruistic goal Mr. Antonovich might be pursuing in so weakly pretending to defend this community, please tell someone.

If you don’t see another post here in a few days, call the cops. If they won’t do anything, come looking for me.