The World Will Know

I am going to take a charitable approach right now, because I want to present the most upbeat interpretation of events I can manage. Our positivity makes it easier for the other players in this drama to be creative and flexible—and kind. So let me spin the events of the last nine and a half years in the most positive light I can imagine.

Dawn's Early Light

What if it really is a coincidence that four different obstacles to our property access were set up within about one year? Let’s resist the appeal of a conspiracy theory for a while, just to see what we come up with.

The new owners of Oasis Park had their reasons for closing our access over their existing road. Maybe they were a little nervous about getting their new venture going.

Maybe the Metrolink office misplaced the permit for the Briggs Road railroad crossing, and so closed one of the at-grade crossings that have a perfect safety record (not all of them do) kind of by accident. We were happy and grateful when Norm Hickling reported recently that a member of Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich's staff has found that permit.

A Bad Sign at the Railroad Crossing

Maybe at about the same time, Los Angeles County officials decided that the best thing to do with a tax-delinquent parcel of land was to slip it quietly and very cheaply to a state conservation agency with a history that some find controversial. Maybe it is normal for one governmental body to sell things to another governmental body at an 80% discount. It would be wasteful to do otherwise. Unfortunately the far end of Briggs Road passes through that property.

Maybe California Fish and Game officials got mixed up when they threatened to arrest any Briggser who put a tire into the Santa Clara River, or to fine any minnow-killing Briggsman $2000 per fish. Maybe they were just having a bad day, and their more reasonable treatment of other Santa Clara River crossings could really apply to Briggs Road residents as well.

Whitewater in Soledad Canyon

Got the picture? Now let me tell a famous story—famous in the Briggs Road Community, anyway.

Once upon a time, after enduring their lack of proper access for four years, after receiving promise after promise from Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich that he would work very hard to restore our access, and after winning the court case that county officials told us we would have to win first, the denizens of Briggs Road got fed up and restless, and began calling the office of Supervisor Michael Antonovich’s deputy, Norm Hickling. Mr. Hickling’s response was to ask, “What the heck do you people want?” In stingier days I might have poked fun at Mr. Hickling for an incredibly silly question, but maybe that would not be fair. Supervisors and their deputies have two million people to look after, and it might not be reasonable to expect them to keep track of a little neighborhood to which they had made—and broken—several promises.

We told Mr. Hickling that we wanted out and suddenly our hills were alive with surveyors and their trucks and equipment. We were going to get a new road, a wonderful straight and level road that would be our very own. There were some glitches, such as a cliff in the path of the roadway, but we were pleased and hopeful that these little problems could be worked out.

Our present route is neither straight nor level

Then came discussions with Mountains Conservancy and Recreation Authority, the state outfit that had bought that last parcel on Briggs Road at a stupendous discount. To summarize a bit, the conservancy attorney refused to grant an easement, even becoming verbally abusive to advocates of the community.

The entire project came to an immediate halt. The conspiracy theorists among us—most of us—chose to believe that the conservancy attorney was working under the instruction of her agency, that the conservancy and the county were working hand-in-glove (as they have been known to do), and that Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich’s office had simply come up with a plan that made them look good while still denying residents access to blacktop at either end of Briggs Road.

Norm Hickling told me in a recent telephone conversation that this impasse is now near resolution. The argumentative attorney is no longer with the conservancy, and more reasonable heads are prevailing. The diehard conspiracy theorists among us don’t believe it. They believe Los Angeles County to be inextricably bound up with the Mountains Conservancy and Recreation Authority. But I am very tired of that negative analysis, and prefer to believe that we really are near a breakthrough.

In that telephone conversation Norm also told me that a creative solution to the river crossing was under discussion, and assured me that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife was much easier to deal with than our conspiracy theorists have made them seem.

Okay. I want to believe Norm. He comes across as a very kind and caring man, especially if I choose to trust what he says. I am troubled that a recent news story by our local radio station KHTS has quoted him as reluctant to be optimistic, but anyone who helps supervise two million people has clout and help and resources beyond my poor imaginings. I believe with all my heart that Norm Hickling can make this thing finally happen.

When we from the Briggs Road Community tell our story to others, the most common response is, “They can’t do that! Isn’t that illegal?” And so, in order to tell our story in the most believable way I can manage, I refuse any credence in conspiracy or skullduggery. The most I will say about hidden agenda is to note the peculiar coincidence of events. I will tell, in other words, the most believable story I can manage, while still telling the truth.

Mr. Norm Hickling has demonstrated what I believed he could do all along. He has shown that he is capable of creating change, and that he is strong enough to publicize that change. I have immense respect for him for that. But you must understand this: there are folks around here who impute trickery to Norm’s actions. They insist on believing that the four besiegers of the Briggs Road Community are in tight cahoots, and that when one blockage fails, county officials will erect another one, until we all fall down. Some folks expect a disappointment of the nature of the Great Survey.

Join me, if you will, in the belief that Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich and his deputies have the will and the power to accomplish what they said they would from day one. Join me in the belief that they are, and have been, sincere.

Red in the Morning

I can think of a dozen ways that Mr. Antonovich’s office, in the capable hands of Mr. Hickling and others, can negotiate and persuade our way out of this encirclement. I will not yet state any of my ideas, so that all of them will be available for ownership by the real movers and shakers. I have total faith, and absolutely no doubt that a supervisor of Los Angeles County can break the Briggs Road Landlock.

And so know this: if through some equally creative turn of events legal access for the Briggs Road Community is once again delayed, in the hope that we will once again be lulled to sleep for another seven years, we will know for certain that we were foolish and naïve to believe again. And the world will know, this time.

This time, the world will know.

Which Crossing is Okay?

We need a bridge!

            It’s time for another guessing game here on Save Briggs Road! Which of the river crossings shown below have escaped condemnation by the powers that be?

            All but one of the photographs below were taken in Soledad Canyon, not far from the location of our desired crossing.

      1. It is not unusual for a culvert-based crossing to wash out during a period of heavy rain. This photograph depicts the remains of such a crossing. Prior to the washout, what was the status of this crossing?

      2.  This bridge enjoys a bit of notoriety for its novel construction. It features the traditional culverts, with a garnish of railroad ties marinated in creosote. The crossing has gone the way of all such structures after a heavy storm, with the culverts slipping and rolling downriver, and the railroad ties steeping in the wet sand.

      3.  Is there such a thing as over-building a crossing?

4.  Here vehicles cross over the frothy flood via a railroad car bed. Note the safety railing at the sides.

5.  This picture was taken during construction of a culvert bridge, four days after its predecessor was wiped out. (We've been waiting almost ten years for the privilege.)

6.  Is it more environmentally sound to anchor the culverts in concrete, or is it better to allow the swollen river to push aside all obstructions? We know of a case where the river undermined a concrete barrier and left it buried forever at the river bottom.

Another View

Now for the scoring. If you judged only one of these bridges to be allowed to stand until the next flood, you get only one point, for not understanding how things work in Soledad Canyon.

In fact, however many of the bridges you judged to escape censure by the authorities, that is your score. Yes, the perfect score on our quiz is six. Not one of the photographs presented here represents a forbidden crossing.

What, then, constitutes a forbidden crossing? A crossing to be used by the residents of the Briggs Road Community is, by some strange definition, in violation of the edict set by the people-in-charge. We are not aware of any other type of crossing to run afoul of the authorities.

You may have noticed that I did not divulge the location of any of these bridges. That is because it is not our wish to have any of them or their descendants condemned. The point is this: What’s the Big Deal? If every one of these bridges is allowed to stand until Mother Nature takes it out, what is so special about a crossing accommodating the Briggs Road Community? Over the years we have cooperated in the creation of several such crossings, none worse than the worst on display here.

One last thought: Allowing the Briggs Road Community to cross the Santa Clara River benefits every single party involved in this struggle, be it a governmental agency or private interest—assuming that each is being honest about its intentions. I am not at liberty to spell out each of those benefits, but certainly there is no harm in suggesting what a bundle of good will and good press would settle on the shoulders of every involved member of Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich’s staff. 

It should be all right to point out that re-opening the much shorter access to Soledad Canyon Road takes our traffic off of the many more miles that run directly through Conservancy holdings. 

And surely there is no need to mention the importance of having a secure and reasonable access route for Briggs Road residents. That's only right.

The Railroad Crossing, The Barricade, The River, and The Conservancy

When I wrote “Yay for LA County,” I meant "Yay" for LA County. I did not mean “Yay” for Briggs Road.

Los Angeles County officials did accomplish something difficult. I complimented and thanked them for it. Then I laid low for a while, reluctant to spoil the moment.

The difficult thing that the County of Los Angeles pulled off was to reverse an unjust policy that had stood for ten years, while saving face and allowing it to look like that accomplishment was a win for the Briggs Road community. Legitimizing the railroad crossing was not difficult. It was easy.

Friends write and ask, “Is it over at last?” No, my friends, you must read very carefully. It is not over. We could well be just the butt of a cruel joke. A month ago we were a railroad crossing, a private parcel, a river, and a piece of state land away from the legal access that even Norm Hickling says he believes is right.

Now we are a private parcel, a river, and a piece of state land away from that legal access.

We are just ten feet closer. Though legally permitted to cross the next private parcel, we are physically barred from it by a barricade we dare not touch. When we ask Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich’s deputy, Norm Hickling, to enforce its proper removal, he changes the subject. And the barricade is still there. What a token of good faith, of truth, it would show us if that barricade were to be caused to be moved! It’s illegal, right now! Norm talks of future adjustments of our easement, but right now, now, that barricade should not be there. What is the message given by its continued existence?

We are just ten feet closer to Soledad Canyon Road. We still have to cross the Santa Clara River. Los Angeles County officials can wring their hands and plead that the river crossing is up to the State of California, but all LA County has to do is say to the State of California, “Move your arm, honey, and snuggle up closer.”

The Mighty Santa Clara River

First of all, there is extreme variability in levels of enforcement regarding disturbances of that delicate river. Stay in touch, because we’ve got some doozies for you.

Second, the State of California and the County of Los Angeles are intricately interconnected in this matter. Forgive me, but it reminds me of two malignant cancers intertwining, with disastrous consequences for the host. We have a lot for you about that, too. (If I were a conscientious office-holder in either the state or the county, I would be very worried right now that the two cancers will devastate one another. I’d ask a conscientious office-holder, if I could be convinced I had found one. I’d love to be convinced that Norm Hickling is one, but he has to prove himself. We’ve been here before, you see.)

Third, come on! Given all of the above and all the facts about the magnitude of Los Angeles County and the power of her supervisors, do any of us really believe that Los Angeles County officials have no influence over the crossing of a tiny stream? Heck, even disregarding all of the above, who in their right mind would believe that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife would ignore recommendations from a Los Angeles County Supervisor who represents two million people, in the most populous county in the nation?

Yes, now we are only ten feet closer. And at the other end of that torturous dirt track, we must pass through a parcel of land that was deeded over from Los Angeles County to another state agency for—not even a song—a gesture! More on that, too.

Beautiful, huh? Could you blame someone for wanting to steal it?

            This is going to get interesting. This current post is just the barest of outlines of things to come.

The railroad crossing is legitimized. Now for the private parcel, the river, and the state parcel.

So tell your friends to tune in and read these next blog posts. And, if you are new to this blog, please understand that this is a running story. You need to read all of it from the beginning in order to fully understand the history and the issues.

Thank you to all of you who are following: in the county, in the nation, and around the world! 

Yay for LA County!

The railroad crossing that has been landlocking Briggs Road residents for the past ten years has been recognized by Los Angeles County as a legitimate crossing. Norm Hickling, deputy to Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, made the announcement at a community meeting in Agua Dulce Monday night, February 10, 2014.

Sunrise at the Three Sisters

It is the first encouraging move toward the result for which our community has been struggling, namely to be able to drive to our homes by a legal route of reasonable distance and construction. For a decade our path to our properties has been neither legally our own nor of a truly manageable length or condition.

Is the End in Sight?

I promised I would say it and now I will. My hat is off to you, Mr. Hickling. From where we sat it appeared that Los Angeles County was locked into a position from which it could not gracefully extricate itself. We do not know enough about the actions of other players, but Norm Hickling is exhibiting the kind of grace and sophistication that seems to elude so many public figures—and thank you for that, sir.

I want also, at this point, to give Norm all the credit he is due. And I most certainly do not want any undeserved credit given to this blog. Norm Hickling was making promising statements before I made a single post. It was his remark that he was working on the railroad crossing that first encouraged me to begin this blog. You see, we had been bitterly disappointed before, and I decided to do anything I could to prevent that from happening again. Others in the neighborhood pitched in with the same resolve.

One Giant Step for LA County

But stay with us! Things have looked almost this good before, then come to naught. And, though we are inclined to believe that this time it could actually happen, we have determined that it isn’t over until it’s over—until we are actually driving out over the lovely concrete railroad crossing and the beautiful Santa Clara River.

Our Next Hurdle: Crossing the Santa Clara River

There are kinks still to be worked out. Our drive home is not yet guaranteed. We will report on our progress as fully as we can in future posts.

Stay with us! And we love those comments! Keep ‘em coming!

More on the Peculiar Email

In the study of logic two statements are said to be logically equivalent if they are both true (or both false) under the same set of circumstances. And if one statement is the contrapositive of the other, then the two statements are logically equivalent. In symbolic terms, the statements “If A then B” and “If not B then not A” are contrapositives.

Let me give you an example from real life. The statements “If you are granted a building permit then you must have legal access” and “If you do not have legal access you will not be granted a building permit” are contrapositives. Therefore the two statements are logically equivalent.

Our legal research assures us that Los Angeles County has the right to deny a Certificate of Compliance, and thus a building permit, for a plot of land that does not have legal access. We have called the county offices, without identifying ourselves, and been assured that absolutely no Certificate of Compliance will be issued without legal access.

Any office that issued a building permit for any parcel along Briggs Road must have believed that Briggs Road had legal access.

Mr. Novak says, in that peculiar email: “One point about access that is important to bear in mind:  according to Building & Safety records the property-owners you represent have “official” access off the back (other) road, the one that is essentially impassable. Our building officials checked the records, and all of the owners pulled their permits identifying the other road as their access.”

You see, in order to be logically consistent, he had to say that. Otherwise there is a big problem about having issued all those building permits. But in order to say that, he had to say something else that was even more untrue, and imply yet another untruth after that.

Whatever kind of access Mr. Novak imagined the Department of Building and Safety imagined the property owners had, and whatever the word in quotes “official” is supposed to mean, the Briggs Road community does not have legal access out the back way. We have very tentative physical access, but have been informed rather abusively that our access is not legal.

So whose mistake is that? Building and Safety when they approved the permits? The alleged researchers at Building and Safety when they informed Mr. Novak that we had access the back way? Or could this all have been a convenient fabrication?

And, again my question: suppose all of this is simply a web of unfortunate but innocent errors. This email was sent less than a month after the first closure of our access. Mr. Novak is gone now, but why would the County of Los Angeles perpetuate the error and even compound it with other obstacles?

But wait! There’s more!

Mr. Novak admits that the back way is “essentially impassable.”

WHAT ABOUT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT?! The Fire Department would never ever ever sign off on an access road that was “impassable.” In fact, their requirements are very explicit and quite strict—and the back way fails because there are many hairpin turns, many grades are too slippery and steep, and the road is too narrow almost the entire way. 

And you don’t get a Certificate of Compliance without the Fire Department.

There is NO WAY our neighborhood acquired building permits based on the back way. In reality, one of our first neighbors to successfully land a building permit remembers very specifically riding back and forth with a fire department official over the front, traditional route. That official declared our front access adequate for fire protection and it was on the basis of his approval that subsequent Certificates of Compliance were issued. There was none of this nonsense about the back way being official. It was probably never even mentioned.

So we are the victims of a big shift in policy, it would seem, but with no explanation, no redress, no compensation. How can one explain that? I wrote a poem:

L is for the land that we have learned to love so well,

I is for our isolation,

A is for the access that we crave, legally implied, and

R is for the railroad and riparian crossings in our way.

***

I hope you are all reading the many comments we are receiving. Apparently there are a lot of people out there with knowledge and experience and ideas that surpass our own. And I have to say this: if the officials of Los Angeles County and the State of California are ever able to stand up and admit that a wrong has been done and to actually correct it, I, for one, want to be one of the first to acknowledge their courage and conscience. It must be an extremely difficult thing to do; witness how few in politics are able to concede errors in judgment.

But it would be so much more pleasant to have things go that way than into some of the other outcomes our readers have suggested.

Being Reasonable

Within the last several days a few people have commented on my restraint in this blog and in my online radio interview with Jeff Rense. One, Mr. Rense, complimented me on it, while others may have wished I would be more forceful. I am sure there are many with an opinion one way or the other, and since I have been wanting for some time to talk about it, this seems to be the right time. I’ll get back to Mr. Novak’s email in another post.

Every morning I wake up saying to myself, “What if they actually mean no harm? What if they have a perfectly honorable agenda and we are unavoidable collateral damage?”

I want to believe that the people running Los Angeles County, the California Department of Fish and Game, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (or Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority—take your pick), and Metrolink (aka Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCCRA) and aka Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA)) are all decent and empathic people who are horrified at the thought of hurting their subjects. Maybe they are doing the very best they can to unravel our access problem. Maybe two of the organizations just simply cannot open up our access, for whatever legal or idealistic reasons, and expected the other two would be more open minded. I want to believe that the decision makers in these agencies are ethical and caring, but stuck in some kind of principled dilemma.

I said I wanted to believe that. I did not say I did believe it. I mean, for our legal access to be shut down by four separate entities all in the same brief time span? What, they just accidentally happened to be on the same schedule?

But I do want to leave the door open to the possibility that this is all a sad, decade-long misunderstanding. Because if it is, and I come on like gangbusters, it will be as hard for Messrs. Antonovich and Hickling, Fish and Game, Metrolink and the Conservancy to back off honorably as it was for Johnson to quit Vietnam.

Also, if it should be the case that those folks have been carelessly wrong-hearted, I would like it to be as easy as possible for them to have a change of heart. Being screamed at does not make it easy to give in to the screamer.

And, finally, just in case all these players are in it for their own gain, whether egotistical, dogmatic or financial, the world will know. And the world will recognize our tone as reasonable and their actions as unconscionable.

Works for us.

By the way, speaking of numbers, I stated a month ago that we were dedicated to assisting Michael Antonovich in case he was engaged in a quest for fame. This blog had enjoyed some three thousand pageviews and was perused around the world in ten different countries. I will not list the countries this time, because there are more than twenty-five of them, and our pageviews have almost doubled. I’d give a number, but it is changing too fast. 

Not bad considering that we started all this only last November.

And I just want to say, in case our international readers get the wrong idea, that this is not an example of American democracy in action. The five incumbents on the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors are known as the “five little kings.” Each one “represents” a couple million people and is so difficult to unseat by election that they are now subject to term limitations. The head of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (why do these organizations have so many aliases?) is also beyond the reach of the people and never has to stand for election. 

This is not how America properly works. The America we love and take pride in has a system of checks and balances that are meant to prevent this sort of bullying, a system of laws—which by the way prohibit actions like those taken against us—and elections. Some people’s human nature leads them to seek and exert unreasonable power over their fellow citizens, but please understand: this is not the American way. Nobody’s perfect.

Just OPEN (RATTLE) THIS FREAKIN’ (RATTLE RATTLE) GATE!!! RATTLE RATTLE RATTLE.

There. Is that better?

A Misleading Email

In September 2004, the month after Briggs Road residents were closed out of their homes by a private LLC landowner, one of our neighbors received an email reply to the question, “As the County did issue… Certificates of Compliance, doesn’t some right of access exist to the property owners?”

The reply appears to be replete with errors, which is surprising because it came from one of Michael D. Antonovich’s deputies, Paul Novak, who was Planning Director for the County of Los Angeles at the time.

Our copy of the email is barely legible. In the belief that our access difficulties would be short-lived, we did not retain digital copies of the email. All we have is this copy of a scan of the printout of the original.

Sorry. Perhaps it would be helpful to retype a portion.

Subj:      RE: Agua Dulce Homeowners

Date:     9/17/2004  9:20:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time

From:    PNovak@bos.co.la.ca.us

…

CC:       NHickling@bos.co.la.ca.us, …

One thing to bear in mind about the certificates of compliance is that they do not “confer” access. The certificates merely reflect a County determination that the property in question is a legal lot consistent with the State of California Subdivision Map Act (SMA). A legal lot does not necessarily have access—regrettably, there are many lots in the County and in other jurisdictions that do not have legal access.

I have read the 100 plus pages of the Subdivision Map Act of California, and I could find nothing that required a lot to have access for its map to be accepted as legal. What is required, though, is that the parcel meet the requirements of the county.

Specifically, “Section 66411: Each local agency shall, by ordinance, regulate and control the initial design and improvement of…subdivisions for which this division requires a tentative and final or parcel map.”

And from the LA County Regional Planning website: “Major issues involved in the evaluation of proposed tract maps include: … Availability of adequate access… to serve the proposed development.”

Item 6, on the County’s Land Division Application Checklist is “Affidavit of Easements.”

Do you believe that a five-and-a-half mile long course of torture by automobile, open only at the whim of an eccentric state agency, constitutes “adequate access”? It will not take many trips over that bone-jarring track to convince you that it is not at all adequate.

If you don’t have adequate access, you don’t get map approval. Isn’t that the clear implication?

But let’s back up a bit, cut the bad guys some slack, and re-examine what Regional Planning says on the web page:  Adequate access is a major issue involved in the evaluation of proposed tract maps. Those are the exact words, reorganized a bit, cut and pasted from the very website.

Is it possible that Mr. Novak meant that adequate access is a major consideration in the approval of a map, but is not an ironclad requirement? I have been working on this particular post for a very long time and do not want to mess it up with a sloppy interpretation, so let’s be super accurate and give Mr. Novak the benefit of the doubt.

       The best I could find in the LA County Code was: 

21.48.100 Access to property.

The advisory agency may require as a condition of approval of a tentative minor land division map that the subdivider produce evidence that the property as divided will have access to a public street or highway.       

It says “may,” but I am assured by folks in the business that they actually always do require access.

So, sure, if you want to split hairs and be a bit of an ass about it, the Subdivision Map Act doesn’t confer access, but in conjunction with Los Angeles County ordinance and actual practice, it requires access. What’s the difference? It looks like having a legal map comprises a pretty strong affirmation of access.

And you need map approval to get permission to pay for a Certificate of Compliance, and you need that for a building permit. And the houses up here—the newer ones anyway—have building permits.

So okay, maybe Mr. Novak made a mistake. Director of Planning but, you know, to err is human. And maybe, to use his words, there are, regrettably, many lots in the County and in other jurisdictions that do not have legal access.

Briggs Road is a County easement. Long ago, when establishing that easement, the County left off the parcels at the ends of the road where it meets the blacktop—most likely as a strategy to avoid taking any responsibility for grading or maintenance. And the fact-checkers should have discovered that—if they really did any checking at all. That could explain a mistake.

Regional Planning expressly considers adequate access a major issue, apparently a very high priority. The Director said that lack of adequate access is regrettable. Somehow the County failed, for whatever reason, to ensure that many lots would have adequate access. Regrettably.

But what are we to make, then, of the fact that our adequate access is cut off by public agencies?  Worse yet, what are we to make of the fact that sitting on the board of the most intractable public agency cutting us off from the world, Metrolink, is Mr. Novak’s boss, Michael. D Antonovich?

And even worse, that obstacle was created after we (and Mr. Hickling) received Mr. Novak’s email.

And Fish and Game slammed the river shut after we received Mr. Novak’s email.

And LOS ANGELES COUNTY sold the parcel at the other end of our road for a PITTANCE to the Mountains Conservancy, a CALIFORNIA agency, after we (and Mr. Hickling) received Mr. Novak’s email.

That is regrettable.

What part of this was a mistake?

Or do you have a better theory? What do you think? Write us a comment.

I will take up with Mr. Novak’s email again in the next post.