4 Comments

1. Waterwatecher says:

   Friday, Jan 3, 2020 at

   Maybe not such a good idea to make agreements with these folks. They don’t seem to keep there promises, That’s why there was that tree sit in Stevenson Ranch – developer promise not kept. Now Tejon. I wonder how the Center for Biological Diversity, California Native Plant Society and Wishtoyo will make out. They took 15 million to settle on Newhall Ranch, Sort of strange with all the endangered species there. Now that they get this money they have agreed to submit letters saying they don’t oppose any of Fivepoint/Lennar’s projects in the SCV.

   Reply
2. jim says:

   Saturday, Jan 4, 2020 at

   Don’t confuse the “tree sit” in Stevenson Ranch for the issues herein. They may be distantly related as in “protecting the environment” but the Tejon Ranch is a whole ‘nother thing.

   Much like the Bixby Ranch properties along the California coast, these properties go back in history (whether or not you like it) and come with specific and important restrictions and grants.

   As for “promises” made for these large (thousands of acres) ownership properties in California, I’m not a lawyer or licensed realtor so my only thoughts are my own.

   Unless the State of California is willing to buy out the current owners (at a reasonable price) all of these lands continue to be privately owned. That prevails even if the current owners do not intend to maintain or manage the properties as other people wish them to do so.

   Would it be a wonderful thing if all of the Tejon Ranch properties could be restored to their native conditions and preserved for the controlled and managed use for all of Californians? Absolutely!

   But if that is what you want then you need to besiege Governor Newsome and the State Legislature to make that happen.

   It’s not like we’re talking about pristine native eco-culture here; much of the property has been a working ranch for more than 120 years. Plenty of this information is available online. And don’t start me on Edward F. Beale!

   I’m not pitching an argument for or against Tejon Ranch and it’s business concerns regarding development of parts of that gigantic property. That’s a lot of square miles of private property.

   However, it seems to me that unless there is a groundswell of public opinion (not likely – most folks haven’t a clue what or where it is), changes will be up to the Counties involved, and the politicians affected, not to mention the landowners (corporate these days; no more Spanish Conquistador stuff)whose job it is to make a profit.

   If more than 1% of Californians know who or what Tejon Ranch is I would be surprised. If 2% care whether or not the two developments were approved I would be equally surprised.

   I know that we are not in the same world as California City out in the Mojave desert where a developer scammed people into buying lots of flat desert land back in the early ’60’s by promising a thriving and vibrant real estate market.

   This is not that. The rules have changed enough so that is unlikely if not possible anymore. But property rights haven’t changed that much, and the right to develop a property still exists in California. It’s a lot more expensive now, and a lot more political than back then.

   Back to the beginning; I would love to see the entire Tejon Ranch become a marvelous example of historic Californeo land holdings, with protected but still accessible access…within limits. Much of the agricultural property cannot be easily restored to pristine conditions. But maintaining some of it as historic (and useful) farming could be an important historic resource.

   The highlands are mostly unscathed (at least so far under the current global warming scenarios) and could become a wonderful resource for those hardy enough to spend time in and traverse a wonderful part of California.

   As for why Helen was booted out, I don’t know. I’ve only been on one trip through Tejon Ranch (maybe my last, I don’t know – even though I don’t belong to ANY groups) so her knowledge is greater than mine.

   I would be remiss if I didn’t note that when big money is at stake, legal processes can certainly engender situations wherein nobody ends up happy: owners, users, and non-specific “stakeholders”.

   I do believe that if Tejon Ranch and it’s supporters, antagonists, and all the other political aspirants cannot come together with a plan to both serve the property owners needs AND ensure access to the wonderful landscape and ecology, then all that wonderful land will be just there. Without us.

   Reply
3. RonK says:

   Sunday, Jan 5, 2020 at

   I too have been banned from visiting Tejon Ranch. I signed a petition opposing the housing projects there about 10-years ago. I totally forgot about it, but when you sign up for a tour the apparently they do a background check. Like Helen, I am not an activist and have never protested anything in my life (and yes, I am old enough to remember Vietnam.)

   What I think is unfair about this situation is that the State of California paid the developers $16 million for a conservation easement which is supposed to allow some sort of public to access the property. But, the Tejon Ranch Company still owns the land, so they can choose who gets to go and who doesn’t. Apparently, they have decided that anyone who ever did anything in opposition to their projects can never have access to the land. I think this is petty. And whatever happened to free speech?

   If this was truly private property I wouldn’t have a problem, but since my tax dollars were used to pay for public access to the site, I think this terrible.

   Reply
4. Jack Tuszynski says:

   Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 at

   What I do not get is where are the reporters when you need one. Will someone please tell us exactly how much property tax Tejon pays for those cow dung pastures? I pay $600/year for an empty 2.5 acre lot next door. $600 x 15,000 (grapevine) 20,000 (centennial) 3500 (village) = alot more than $15.8 in taxpayer dollars that Tejon is being gifted. Tejon Mountain Village was given the green light eons ago. They are using the term “tentative building lots” to put the lots on the market for a developer without paying tax on “building lots”. Everyone else who holds onto a lot and waits for a golden opportunity to sell has to pay property tax. The money they pay consultants and lawyers to prolong these environmental issues is chump change compared to what they would pay in property tax. So one could say it plays into their strategy to jerk around. They have one project up for sale and two in the down the line basket.

   Reply

Leave a Comment