The Constitution Favors
Public Use
I am writing this letter to clarify some erroneous
impressions or statements that were made in Ms. Crawford-Hall’s article
(entitled “The United States Constitution”) that was published in the Valley
Journal on April 17, 2008. I am the attorney referred to in that article.
To begin with, there was no “set-up” or “staged” action
on April 12 when I rode down in the riverbed with not one, but two of my three
clients. My clients had been cited for hunter-trespass and shooting after
hours. Under the Public Trust Doctrine (embodied in Article X, Section 4 of the
California Constitution) the public has the right to access and use the land
within the banks of a navigable waterway, which according to the Santa Barbara
County Counsel the Santa Ynez River is. However, the public may not trespass
over private property to gain access to the riverbed. My clients informed me
that they had the written permission of a property owner in Buellton to enter
the riverbed through his property, and they drove their ATVs upstream to the
point where Highway 154 crosses the river. From there they used waders and
walked up stream. Everyone who knows me will tell you that I never take my
clients’ statements at face value, so I insisted that they show me the
permission slip and prove to me that they could ride the ATVs from Buellton
staying within the riverbed at all times. In other words, I told them to take
me along the same route that they had taken the day they were cited. I also
felt it necessary to take pictures of the route, for purposes of the one
client’s defense, whose misdemeanor complaint charges hunter trespass. Any time
I defend a client, I go to the scene of the alleged violation and take
pictures. There was nothing staged about my actions — it was me representing my
clients to the best of my ability.
Since I had heard that Ms. Crawford-Hall’s employees
threaten to detain anyone found in the riverbed adjacent to her property, I
made a courtesy call to the Sheriff’s Department the day before to let them
know that I would be in the riverbed for the purpose of taking pictures and
investigating the charges against my clients. No one, I repeat, no one at the
Sheriff’s Department gave me permission to do so. I believed I had the right to
be there since it was public property, but I wanted the department to be aware
of my presence in case they received a call. As for the statement in the
article that I “threatened” Ms. Crawford-Hall with legal action should her employee
call the Sheriff’s to cite us for trespass, that statement is absolutely false.
When her foreman said he was calling the sheriffs, I stated, “Please do. In
fact, I will call them too.” I then made a call to the Sheriff’s Department.
When the officers arrived, the foreman instructed my clients and me not to
leave, stating he was going to have us cited for criminal trespass. It was at
this point that I said to the foreman, “One should be careful about making
citizen arrests based on unfounded charges, since it could possibly expose the
person making the arrest to legal liability.” I never said I would file a legal
action against Ms. Crawford-Hall. That is not my style.
After hanging up with the Sheriff, Ms. Crawford-Hall
called a friend of mine and asked this friend to give me a message: “Tell Kay
that I’m going to find out where she lives, then come to her house and walk all
over her property.”
I respect many of the contributions that Ms.
Crawford-Hall has made to our community, but I must take issue with anyone who
believes he or she can arbitrarily interfere with the rights given to members
of the public by the laws of our state. I also must take issue with the
statement in Ms. Crawford-Hall’s article which implies that the “non-property
owning public feel that they should have access to everything.”
Not everyone is fortunate enough to own real property,
much less hundreds or thousands of acres of property; nevertheless, these
“non-property owning” members of the public are entitled to the same right of
access and use to public lands as the “property-owning” members of the public.
If one wishes to own premium real estate, such as beachfront property or
property with a navigable water source running through it, the price he or she
pays is to allow the public’s use of the adjoining beach or riverbed.
I was fortunate to grow up in Colorado and New Mexico
during a time when there were few fences in rural areas, and we could hunt,
fish, ride off-road vehicles (mostly motorcycles in those days), or walk on any
public land.
Today, for many individuals who live in towns, the most
practical place for them to ride their off-road vehicles is the riverbed. It is
therefore disturbing to see the rights of so many adversely affected by the
interests of so few. If there is a legitimate public interest in curtailing the
public’s use of the riverbed, that is one thing. However, if the public’s
interest is being curtailed due to the private interests of a few wealthy
landowners whose property lies adjacent to the river, that
is another matter. I am an optimist by nature and believe that the divergent
interests that exist between the public and the property owners can be
addressed in a respectful and non-adversarial way, if members of each are
willing to sit down and have productive discussions.
Kay
Kuns, Santa Ynez
Dear Editor,
This letter is in response to a recent letter from Thomas
Barrack regarding the controversy over the (Un)Happy
Canyon Winery.
Unfortunately his letter, which presents itself as
correcting erroneous reporting in your paper, is a pile of misinformation. Your
reporting was quite accurate — I will attempt to eliminate the confusion his
letter may have created.
The neighborhood is not opposed to the plans for the
winery. We are opposed to wine tasting on-premises by members of the public and
the huge parties-for-rent known as “Special Events.”
Apparently believing that repetition makes false
statements sound true, four times the letter writer declares that they are
entitled to more than they are asking for. However, the indisputable fact is
that under County Code (Section 35.42.270.C.2) this development is not an
entitlement, but “may be allowed” subject to approval only under a set of
defined conditions. The Happy Canyon residents are simply exercising their right
to express concerns over the conditions relating to the significant safety
issues raised by our substandard roads. Many of us feel that this is more than
a right: it is a responsibility we have to our families and neighbors.
Taking repetition to the limits, nine times the letter
states the winery will be “private,” and six times it states “not public.” This
sounds good, and if this were the case we would not be objecting because this
is what we are asking for. However, in the bizarre world of “Santa Barbara
County language,” these words provide no limit at all to the number of members
of the public who can visit this facility, including for wine tasting!
The Applicant is well aware of this gigantic loophole,
and its significance, and is actually trying to define members of the public
who belong to wine clubs as “business visitors.” When asked by the County
Zoning Administrator if they would agree with our reasonable request to close
this loophole, the Applicant declined. This makes us uncomfortable.
Mr. Barrack’s statement that the
neighborhood’s “petition had nothing to do with (his) plan” is pure hogwash. Everyone knows it was triggered by his development application,
and it has been used exclusively to support our written comments to the County
on his project. The reason it does not name his winery is that our concern is
for the cumulative impacts of the many wineries we expect; in fact, just while
his application has been in process, two more winery applications in Happy
Canyon were submitted to the County for approval.
He claims that “more than 25 of (his) closest neighbors
are supportive” of his proposal. However, to get to this total, he has counted
votes from 10 miles away, counted “no” votes as “yes” votes, and counted
multiple votes from people who voted two or three times! At least he is
accurate in saying that we have 140 legitimate signatures in opposition from
Happy Canyon neighbors, including some of the longest-term ranchers in the
Valley.
All of the above facts are part of the public record.
Every neighborhood has the right to bring up issues
related to development plans that affect the safety of their families, friends
and neighbors. Mr. Barrack characterizes our concern as a “campaign to
interfere with legitimate farming and ranching interests [that] is one of
entitlement and ‘citified’ arrogance and this is the pollution which will
damage our valley if left unchecked.” The tone of this, and
his disrespect for our free speech rights and his disregard for our safety, are
troubling to us. It should be troubling to every other neighborhood, too.
We welcome an open, honest and civil discussion of these
issues — in private, in public meetings, and in the newspapers.
Bob Field, Santa Ynez
Dear Editor,
In her “On the Ranch” column on April 10, Nancy Crawford-Hall
questioned why the County of Santa Barbara is funding weed eradication for
Santa Cruz Island, a federal property.
The county is not funding this project.
The proposal before the Board of Supervisors was to approve grants to
supply funding for invasive weed removal on the island. The county Agricultural Commissioner’s Office
formed and is leading a coalition of public agencies, non-governmental
organizations, businesses, and landowners called the Santa Barbara County Weed
Management Area, the goal of which is to conserve habitat and agriculture by
reducing the impact of invasive and noxious plants on all lands, public or
private. Under the umbrella of this Weed
Management Area, agencies and individuals can apply for grants which are then
managed by the county. On Santa Cruz
Island, projects are taking place on the side of the island privately held by
The Nature Conservancy and are funded by grants from various federal agencies
and non-governmental organizations, including the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, and the Center for
Invasive Plant Management.
Weed management projects are underway throughout the
County and we hope to start a new project along the Santa Ynez River soon. These projects benefit all of us.
William D. Gillette
Agricultural Commissioner, Santa Barbara County
Dear
Editor,
I just
returned from the candidate forum at St. Mark’s in Los Olivos.
All of the candidates except David Smyser attended.
Mr. Smyser said in a letter that this forum did not
fit into his schedule.
I find
that strange, since he is running for the office of Supervisor in the 3rd
District and one would think that a candidate would at least appear at a forum,
especially one that was changed to accommodate him. His complete utter
disregard for the voters in the Santa Ynez Valley speaks volumes at to what
type of person he is. He has just given the valley his raised middle finger.
This man has not earned and does not deserve the vote of any voter in this
valley.
Mike
Hadley, Santa Ynez
Dear Editor,
As presidential candidates and candidate’s husbands
proclaim their allegiance to “Indian Country,” one can only hope that the media
now realizes that the collusion of Indian gaming and our representative
government is not a benign tumor affecting small, rural towns.
It is an aggressive cancer and killer of democracy.
Evidence of the aggressiveness of this killer cancer was
re-exposed just weeks ago.
In meetings with community groups, Assistant Secretary of
the Interior Carl Artman said he fully supports
tribal interests and doesn’t care if Indian casino hosting communities are
“annihilated.”
This is not the first time that Mr. Artman
had made his agenda known.
In 2002, as tribal attorney for the Oneida, he told
citizens of Hobart, Wisconsin, to get ready to be “extinguished.”
Note that Mr. Artman is using
his position of authority and federal power to support tribal interests and not
impoverished Indian tribes.
Tribal interests were brilliant in using small communities
to quietly feed the Indian gaming cancer into a $27 billion industry that has
no accountability to the public. The media paid little attention, thinking
Indian gaming affected only small, rural towns.
Now the Indian gaming industry is the most powerful
lobbying group, surpassing the teacher’s union and trial lawyers as the largest
political contributor.
Ironically, only 11 percent or less of impoverished
Indians are benefiting from the $27 billion Indian gaming windfall.
Hundreds of Indian gaming communities stagger under the
weight of crime and corruption of tribal gambling and land expansion.
They watch, horrified, as the $100 million gambling entity
buys up their community.
Local and state politicians and local and state government
agencies tell communities there is nothing they can do because of sovereignty
or because tribal issues are controlled by the feds.
The state tells them negotiations for
more slot machines is none of their business.
The feds tell them they have no standing to oppose tribal
land expansion.
This cancer is spreading.
It is time to investigate the Department of the Interior
and all other agencies and politicians who support tribal interests and Indian
gaming.
Kathy Cleary, Los Olivos