A blog about Kern County, Politics, and Religion & Faith.
About rightthinking


Member Since:
June 21, 2006
Last Signed In:
August 23, 2008
Profile Views:
5826
Blog Views:
45166
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Cops on cell phones? It's part of their job
McCarthy won't quiet down, luckily
Vegas' plan to run good news all around
The people will decide the same-sex marriage issue
Fireworks lovers are their own worst enemy
Duck attack horrible, but tragedy is in youths
He gave her the White House for celebration
Recalls should be last resort, not first
Barnett's views shouldn't be fodder for obsessive media
High school district admits Bible blunder
Archives
June 06
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
More archives
June 06
May 06
April 06
March 06

February 06
January 06
December 05
November 05
October 05
September 05
August 05
July 05

Blog Roll


Ask The Californian
Editorials
Entertainment
Eye of Bakersfield
Faith Forum
Fired Up!
Inside Sports
Neighbors
Right Thinking
Sound Off
Talk of the Town
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


rightthinking - > Right Thinking -> Your druthers don't mean much if the land isn't yours
Your druthers don't mean much if the land isn't yours

A couple of blocks from my home, a mere five-minute walk away, lays an 80-acre parcel of land that will soon fall to residential development.

I’m not especially happy about this, as I, my family, my dogs and my neighbors have spent several years jogging, walking, dirt biking and otherwise enjoying the property and its wide open spaces.

If I had my druthers, the land would stay as is.

Since I haven’t invested sweat, dollars or my financial future into the land, my druthers don’t count for much. In fact, unless its owners plan to build a feedlot, rendering plant or a county dump on the property, my druthers don’t mean zip, nor should they.

Those were my thoughts as I read a recent community response to the draft environmental impact report on The Canyons project, the beleaguered northeast Bakersfield residential development still struggling to find approval. The development’s EIR is now in the public comment stage.

Some of those comments are doozies.

Take, for example, comments submitted by the Southern Sierra Fat Tire Association,a  group of local mountain bike enthusiasts. The Fat Tire folks say they find the EIR “inadequate” because it fails to address the “significant recreational resources” in the area that would be impacted by the development.

The cyclists go on to cite “resources” like the annual Kern River Trail Run, the popular Mr. Toad’s Wild Run and the myriad hiking, biking, bird-watching and fossil-collecting opportunities that abound in the hilly area.

Problem is the land on which these folks have been hiking, biking and bird-watching isn't theirs and never was. Ownership is apparently irrelevant to the biking and bird-watching bunch, who inexplicably believe that years of trespassing entitles them to some sort of squatters’ rights to the property; to dictate how the property, or at least substantial portions of it, should be used.

It’s true the property’s owners have granted permission for some of the aforementioned events to be held on their property, a neighborly act that’s bitten them on their collective hinders.

“We always appreciated the fact they came and asked us, so we’ve worked with them since 2005,” says Robert Kapral, The Canyons project engineer. “We even gave money to sponsor some of their events.”

Property owners also exceeded expectations in terms of protecting and providing “adequate recreational facilities and parkland,” according to the draft EIR, a point the Fat Tire folks even acknowledge in their submitted comments. It’s just not enough.

Nor, apparently, are the two miles of class one bike paths or the nine miles of improved trails that will run through and around The Canyons development.

The cyclists want their events, their bike rides, their Mr. Toad’s runs to go on as they always have, on the same hallowed ground. But, hey, they’re reasonable people, as interlopers go. If unlimited access is no longer possible, all they want to know is how property owners plan to make it up to them.

When I asked one Fat Tire official how he thought the community impact might be mitigated to his satisfaction, he said it wasn’t his job to make such suggestions, but was sure the loss of recreation land “could be mitigated in a form we can all agree on.”

How magnanimous.

I’ll be sad when homes start to go up on the property I’ve long used as my own personal playground. But I possess neither the right nor the arrogance to tell the owners what to do with their land. So when the time comes, I’ll pack up my dogs, my bike and my binoculars and find another place in this big wide county to play.

I suggest the Fat Tire folks and their friends do the same.

Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by rightthinking on Saturday, February 23, 2008 at 04:59 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 104 times
6 comments from 6 users

1

posted by airqualityguy on Feb 23, 2008 at 06:08 PM

Where else are you going to play?

Let's see.  Take a ride out by Buena Vista and check out Green Acres; the LA sludge dump.  How about Buttonwillow and the world's biggest toxic waste dump.   There are dozens of modern factory dairies in our county to ride by also and watch the happy cows.  Sometimes you get to see dead cows.  You always get a nice smell and plenty of flies to swat too.  Hondo Chemical is nice to ride by.  The recycling dump near Arvin is cool.  There is the abandoned Brown and Bryant toxic site near downtown Shafter.  Oh, I forgot, the Target distribution center is beautiful!!  The Kern Wildlife Refuge is great but don't go to the north side because the Honey Pot sludge dump is over there.  What is really interesting is riding around the two prisons west of Delano.  I don't recommend the oil fields because of the occasional toxic fumes that can overwhelm the  unsuspecting.

When you think about it, there are not too many places as nice as the bluffs within a reasonable distance.

posted by PatFeelsAngst on Feb 23, 2008 at 06:29 PM

this is why we cant have nice things

posted by sagefever on Feb 23, 2008 at 06:49 PM

*smiles*~ so true PatFeelsAngst. As my dear Mom used to say"keep your things away,clean and ready to go". Or in this case stay. Hopefully.

 

posted by TomW on Feb 23, 2008 at 07:25 PM

Wow.  I'll miss Mr. Toad's.  Don't know why someone would want to build a development there now though.  Someone is looking for a huge tax loss.

posted by ChicoEsquela on Feb 23, 2008 at 08:47 PM

You have noticed that everything an Indian does is in a circle, and that is because the Power of the World always works in circles, and everything tries to be round..... The Sky is round, and I have heard that the earth is round like a ball, and so are all the stars. The wind, in its greatest power, whirls. Birds make their nest in circles, for theirs is the same religion as ours....

Even the seasons form a great circle in their changing, and always come back again to where they were. The life of a man is a circle from childhood to childhood, and so it is in everything where power moves.


Crowfoot, Blackfoot warrior and orator

posted by slowpOak on Mar 10, 2008 at 07:25 AM

In a recent editorial, conservative columnist Marylee Shrider focused on a letter submitted to the City of Bakersfield’s Planning Division in regards to the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for The Canyons, a proposed housing project in the Northeast. In the letter, the Southern Sierra Fat Tire Association, a local mountain biking group, stated that the DEIR did not adequately quantify impacts to existing recreation resources on the proposed project site and provided conservative estimates of current recreation levels.

Shrider criticized the comments on the grounds that “bicycle rides don’t earn property rights,” and characterized our group as arrogant interlopers, facetiously describing our willingness to participate with project planners in finding acceptable mitigations as “magnanimous.”
 

Shrider’s opinions, while not particularly well-informed (she admitted during an interview that she had not read the DEIR), are much appreciated by our group because we believe in the principles of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), passed in 1970 for the purpose of mitigating or avoiding the significant effects on the environment of proposed public and private projects. A key feature of the CEQA process is making the EIR available to the public so that individuals or groups may comment on the adequacy of the report, effectively providing a venue for public discussion and input.


So despite Shrider’s wishes, the State of California indicates that property owners don’t have unlimited rights when it comes to projects that will significantly impact the environment; they are required to include the public in the planning process and as a result some projects financed with private money on private land are shelved. If this were not the case, any homeowner could build a small nuclear power plant or copper mine in his or her own backyard.


Even Shrider recognizes that it is reasonable to limit the ability of landowners to build facilities such as “a feedlot, rendering plant, or county dump,” three examples that while stinky, might be more necessary for the local economy than the project in question. According to Shrider, what this foreclosure-filled city needs is one more housing development adjacent to numerous similar projects that have been abandoned by their owners due to the slow-down in the local housing market. The SSFTA respectfully disagrees.


If Ms. Shrider feels that she is qualified to evaluate the technical merits of the DEIR or of the letter our organization submitted, she is certainly welcome to send her own comment to the Division of Planning and it will be included in the final EIR. However, criticizing the SSFTA's letter while the project is still in the public comment period (the Division of Planning is accepting comments until February 29) is irresponsible and hardly the kind of dialogue that the State of California had in mind when it passed CEQA almost 40 years ago.
 

1

Leave a Comment
Ground Rules for posting comments:
  • No profanity or personal attacks.
  • Please comment on the subject of the post itself.
If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

To protect users from spam, please enter the text from the image on the left.
   

Our readers recommend: