The battle to finish the Santiago creek bike trail that currently ends under a bridge, just south of the Main Place Mall and Memory Lane, in north Santa Ana, took an interesting turn today as various letters and emails that were requested by the bike trail proponents were emailed by Santa Ana City Clerk Mary Huizar to an email list of media, bloggers and trail supporters. I loaded the documents into Google Documents and you can see them for yourself at this link.
What this all boils down to is a belief by the handful of residents who don’t want the bike trail that they would be better off by denying public access to the trail, with a fence. There demands are a bit tough to make out by pay special attention to the letter sent to the City of Santa Ana by their attorney, Mark Rosen. You remember him, he was an elected member of the Garden Grove City Council and he is Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido’s lawyer, which strikes me as a bit of a conflict of interest. But there he is now representing the NIMBY neighbors.
If I understand their argument correctly, they don’t want a paved bike path to run by the creek behind their homes as paving the current unsafe dirt path would result in some brush and trees being cleared. That might be true but as I understand it the trail proponents would be okay with a dirt trail. That said, the current trail is almost impossible to navigate, in the 1.5 mile stretch behind the Fisher Park homes. It is strewn with rocks, too narrow and partially blocked by the aforementioned brush and trees, and Edison equipment.
The NIMBYs have made it clear that they will not negotiate. They don’t want the public to safely access the trail, period. Rosen does not mince his words in his letter – he even calls out State Senator Lou Correa for supporting the completion of the trail.
Mark McLoughlin
Rosen also mentions one of his clients, Janelle McLoughlin, who is married to Rancho Santiago Community College District Trustee Mark McLoughlin. He ended up on the RSCCD Board after Al Amezcua was compelled to resign, when Amezcua allegedly got caught living out of the Area he was representing. He had registered to vote at his law office instead of at his home in Morrison Park.
The McLoughlins actually teamed up with Amezcua when they worked to recall former SAUSD Trustee Nativo Lopez. The same folks riled up about the bike trail were angry because Lopez wanted to open a public school in their area. While the recall focused on ESL, it was really about stopping the building of that school. Now the same coalition wants to stop the bike trail.
McLoughlin is in a bind here as he is a friend of Mayor Pulido and I suspect Pulido is going to end up supporting the trail completion. For McLoughlin his NIMBY position is a big time risk – it makes him look like an elitist and that won’t help matters when he runs for reelection.
Attorney Mark Rosen
Rosen’s letter also mentions the danger posed by fires in the creek – that allegedly are set by homeless men. He also mentions men having sex in the creek and alleges that this activity is spilling over from nearby Santiago Park. The problem is that our police and fire men cannot safely access the Fisher Park creek area – because the dirt path is subpar and unsafe.
I don’t understand why these people are so against bike trails. Or why they rather shut out law abiding residents and their families. But at least the NIMBYs are offering to pay for the fence they want installed. Of course they should. If the land is private then they should do what they want – but if the City can negotiate a clear path that would be better for all of us.
From what I understand, Correa says there is funding in place to finish the trail. So let’s finish it already! Click here to sigh a petition to finish the trail.
Tilly’s Life Center’s (TLC) recently raised over half a million dollars to support their youth…
On November 25, 2024, at approximately 1:46 PM, Fullerton Fire and Police personnel responded to…
OCFA fire crews responded to two significant vehicle accidents in Garden Grove last Friday, requiring…
On November 24th, 2024, at approximately 1:00 a.m. Newport Beach Fire Department units NE63, NT63,…
‼️UPDATE‼️ Earlier today, our robbery detectives arrested November 20, 2024, #WantedWednesday suspect Izaya Cuellar (35)…
Late Friday night, police officers responded to Balearic Park regarding a vehicle doing “donuts” on…
This website uses cookies.
View Comments
"Nice idea Anciano “I would suggest an Adult Tricycle lane on Sycamore street running south to Civic Center“"...... Hmmmmm
I would propose to ban Adult Tricycles because they are dangerous and easily tip over in a turn.
Many havily white-bearded persons riding them, without a helmet, ingured themseves and their craniums.
3 wheel bikes are fun to ride, but it is true they are not built for speed.
All tricycles are dangerous, that is why they are very slow speed.
I would like to comment on some of the points that Mark Lindsey has made here. First, I will say that I do not personally live in Santa Ana, but that really shouldn’t be an issue. There are quite a few people that want to build this bicycle trail that live in cities other than Santa Ana (Shirley Grindle, Mark Lindsey, John Moore).
Now, on to my comments…
Mark Lindsey:
“There are many options such as the City could place a path down the 15 ft wide portion that the city owns but that would require removal of trees as the existing path travels along sections of both private and public property.”
Nope. This information is incorrect. I suggest that everyone here view the ACTUAL property maps, and you’ll see that the current bicycle trail under the freeway ends right onto PRIVATE PROPERTY. Has anyone approached the landowner(s) to ask if they are interested in selling their plot of PRIVATE PROPERTY to build a bicycle trail? A bicycle trail that has absolutely no benefit to them, whatsoever? Oh, my mistake, I’m now remembering that the landowners should give up their private land for the “inclusive needs of the many”. “Needs” is a strong word to use here, Mark. I’m not sure I would go that far. This is a bit juvenile, don’t you think?
Mark Lindsey:
“Also, some homeowners extended their fence lines into/over the city owned property so they would need to pull their fences back from the city owned portion.”
Now wait just a minute here! Mark, if you have such a high regard for property lines, why are advocating so strongly to violate the property lines of some property owners over others? What makes their ownership less valid than anyone else's?
Mark Lindsey:
“Permanently fencing it off so no families has access except those who live along this section of the creek is not fair to the other people who live in these neighborhoods or adjoining communities. It will be a bad reflection of these neighborhoods to be so exclusive towards others. As most of us learned in Kindergarten, there is enough room in the “sandbox” in the playground for all of us to play. Not everyone will be in the sandbox at the same time.”
I've read all the materials from the public info request(s), and I've seen nothing that talks about fencing off the entire Creek (and in fact, let's get real, even if someone had the hair-brain idea to fence off the entire Creek, it couldn't ever happen because the Santiago Creek is a flood control channel). Building a fence along a private property line is a much different thing than fencing off public access to public space. But, that kind of clarity in definition isn't really what Mark Lindsey seems to specialize in, is it? Building a fence along your property line isn't sensational, but if you add just one small lie, something that's a routine activity for the average homeowners can be made to sound evil. If there's room in the sandbox for everyone, Mark, why do you have fences around your private property in Orange? I bet you probably even have locks on your doors and windows! Your property isn't sitting open in the sunshine, welcoming in anyone who'd like to visit and use it as they see fit. I can't get up on Sunday morning and decide to go have a stroll and a picnic in Mark's yard. And if I tried, I'm willing to bet I'd have the Orange PD on me quicker than you can say "malicious mischief." The property owners in the Creek are already being far more generous than Mark is - and the way Mark shows his gratitude is to call them greedy and demand that they hand over their property to him and his friends?
Does anyone here have children? Anyone? Why do I ask? Well, all I read in Mark’s statement is: “It’s not FAIR!” It reminds me of the Violet Beauregarde character, and her famous quote of, “I want it NOW!” in one of my favorite childhood movies "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Mark, regardless of what YOU think is FAIR, people/families own the land that you and your shady, villainous cohorts want to pave over.
I think everyone really needs to take a step back and take a good look at what these people are proposing. They are banding together to FORCABLY TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY AWAY FROM HOMEOWNERS. At what point is this considered criminal conspiracy? Because the definition of criminal conspiracy an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future. I’m no lawyer, Bruce Bauer (anyone see what I did there?), but I believe that stealing land from someone who holds the DEED is a crime. But maybe you can give me a better definition Bruce…since you ARE a lawyer…hmmm…a lawyer that is working to steal land from people who legally own it…someone else is looking a little shady, too…
Mark Lindsey:
“This is probably my last comment on this blog. I prefer more face to face (am new to this social media). Signing off to take the Dog out for a walk on the creek today (I clean up after him), will be watering a couple of new Oak trees, and a bike ride on the official sections of the trail. Will be seeing smiling faces and will be sharing with them stories such as above. None of the existing official trails would exist if it was not for good people having the courage and stamina to make it happen.”
I guess I won’t be receiving a response then? Oh, that’s just too bad, isn’t it? I do hope that you’ll reconsider, because I have another question for you. Mark, can you tell us how many privately owned residential lots were acquired to build those wonderful trails you speak of? Can you produce one single private landowner in Orange County who willfully surrendered their residential property for the building of a public bike trail?
Look, I think it’s great that you clean up your dog’s mess when you take him out. I think that’s fantastic. That means that you go through the tremendous effort of complying with the minimal restrictions of the law. Should we give you applause for that? What I don’t think is fantastic is the woman who I’ve seen down in the creek on several occasions, wearing her designer track suit (complete with matching red visor) walking her dog OFF leash, taking her little nature hike right onto PRIVATE PROPERTY and watching her little pup leave his deposits for the homeowners to clean up. That’s what I don’t think is so fantastic.
Mark Lindsey:
"Lets pull together and be the “Light of the World”. Fences to keep public out of greenways creates more darkness in society. North & South OC has been opening up more of their open spaces/greenways. Why should we do the opposite in Central OC?”
Is that comment meant to be a joke? Because I actually LOL’d. The “Light of the World”? Darkness in society?! Are you kidding me right now?! Honestly, Mark, it's wonderful that you believe so strongly in this ideal of communal land ownership. But unfortunately, comrade, that's just not the way the system works in our society. What you and your bike buddies do on public land is up to you - that's what that space is for. But when you cross onto private property and start dictating what should happen there without the consent of the owners, you're just wrong.
Hi Friend of Santiago Creek,
Obviously you did not read the attached letter to this blog demanding the City to Fence off the Creek. Go read it. The City was forced to do this study thanks to a powerful lawyer representing a powerful homeowner.
If you are having difficulties viewing it, then go to another news article at http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/01/santiago_creek_bike_trail_floral_park_rosen_pulido_bauer.php
I and many other friends want to be able to enjoy the creek. The city does own propery (15 ft wide path) along this creek. Go to http://www.neighbors4trail.org
Society would be better served if people had more passion for the right thinks (inclusiveness) and less passion for the wrong things (exclude others from being connected in the community).
Gosh, Mark Lindsey, what a nice, socialistic view of your utopian world. Redevelopment agencies are dead. So, why should private property owners be required to give up their property for the common good?
I seriously doubt that anyone claiming creek property has a legal right, however. Just because some moron fenced their property all the way to the creek bed, doesn't mean it belongs to them. Let's take a look at tract maps before we determine that private property needs to be seized.
The city owns enough land to build the trail on without taking anyones property.
Hi Folks,
Cook is right, the city owns a 15 ft wide section (take a look at the parcel maps above). Ignore the "proposed path as that is more resembles the current existing foot path" and I do not know who created it. To the best of my limited knowledge there is not offical proposed path yet but I am sure there are lots of options.
In regards to comments made about me in my earlier postings, I am actually Christ Centered True Blue American who is purpose driven and believes in Democracy. As such I am very involved in Church, Community, and etc. This creek trail is a sociopolitical issue. Religion is part of Society especially for those of us who live our faith 24/7. Thus, when we face conflicts, it helps to ask ourselves what is right for the greater good and to draw from and share the "good words" to draw parallels with the real world and current events.
IMHO, finishing this trail to connect the neighboorhoods from the East to the West and vice versa will join our communities together. Not by car but by foot and bike which allows for better interaction - physical, mental, and spiritual health.
Come see for it yourself from Santiago Park up to Villa Park. If it was not for efforts for good people similiar to myself, this trail system along the creek that families are enjoying would not exist. Nor would they exist elsewhere in OC.
Putting up fences to keep people apart only hardens the hearts of many.
Okay, I am getting off my soapbox.
LoL (as in Lots of Love) not the other LoL directed to me earlier. Everyone has a right to their own opinions which is part of what makes the USA great to live in.
I see what you did there, Mark. You’re very good at distracting people from the true issue at hand. Just for the record, the main issue that I addressed in my previous post was that of Private Property.
But, if that letter is really what’s distracting you, I’m happy to shed some light on what it actually says.
The letter spoke of a meeting that was held in response to a prior meeting, which was held some time in September. The letter references a fencing feasibility study that Gerardo Mouet was engaged in at the time of the September meeting. Let me break this down. In early August, Mouet told members of the public that he'd been assigned this task by the City Manager.
So, let me see here…Mark Rosen originally met with the city in September, and then had a follow-up meeting in October. The time lines just don’t seem to match up to support your claim. Mouet was telling citizens that the City Manager had charged him with this study prior to the first week of August. Mark Rosen initially met with the city in September, and then had a follow-up meeting in October.
Quick question that you might be able to clarify for me: Does Mark Rosen have a DeLorean stashed somewhere so he can magically jump months into the past and retroactively make these types of demands? I’m just not sure that I believe that Mark Rosen somehow twisted time, space and reality and forced the city to engage in this study BEFORE his first meeting with them on the subject. It’s much easier to believe that the attention was brought to the city about this area from the trail proponents secretive meetings with city officials in the summer of 2011. My guess is those clandestine meetings are the real reason that the City Manager called for the study in the first place.
So now let's talk about point two: fencing.
You claim that the letter calls for completely fencing off the creek. But, when reading the actual letter, we find that Rosen writes very clearly:
"...To recap, we would like the end of the bike trail to be under the bridge like the River Trail that has all emergency key/codes at the gates. We would like a high fence around Jack Fisher Park with the same locked gates for emergency access and the same No Trespassing No Loitering signs that appear on the west side."
Now, you can argue up and down that the residents east of Flower don't deserve the same protections, services and/or considerations from their public servants that the residents west of Flower receive. But, I’m not sure why it’s so terrible to ask for equal treatment on, literally, both sides of a street. Why is the west side access to the creek fenced and locked, anyway? Why aren't you fighting a campaign against the high-powered West Floral Park lawyer who's erected those fences and is keeping that gate locked?
Rosen doesn't command the city to build fences. He doesn't demand that his client’s wishes be fulfilled. He doesn't wield this power you claim he has to get the job done no matter what the city thinks. He states that this is what he and his clients are asking for. What's wrong with stating what you want and then asking if you can get it? So far as I can tell, the city hasn't built any fences along the creek border of Jack Fisher Park, so how has this request broken community connections or excluded members of the community? I told a waiter that I wanted passion fruit iced tea at lunch today, and he told me they only had regular tea. Does that make me evil for asking for something I wanted and then didn't get?
As I stated in my previous post, the bike trail under the 5 freeway currently ends at the property line of a privately-owned lot. But, that doesn't concern you, as the trail proponents aren't interested in private property, right? So if that property line was fenced, it doesn't pose a problem. Even our good friend Art Pedroza advocates fences along private property lines right in his blog, so I know no one has an issue with that. The idea is to use the City-owned property in the creek bed that runs out from under the 5 freeway for the trail. I see nothing at all in Rosen's letter that talks about fencing that off. And there's no way that could be fenced, as it would be a barrier to flood control, as I pointed out before.
In short, I see your lies and raise you a couple of truths. You might also want to talk to your psychiatrist about these time-travel delusions you're having, the odd feelings of anxiety over citizens asking for equal treatment from their municipal leadership, and the fact that you seem to need to project your feelings of confusion and misunderstanding on others around you. These might be symptoms of some larger health problem. In the mean time, you might want to give serious consideration before operating any heavy machinery, motor vehicles or your bicycle.
I just want to clear up some inaccurate information. I walked the dirt trail inbetween Fisher Park and the 5 on 1/24/2012. It is easily accessed, safe and fun. Anyone of any age and physique could pass through. The comments about it being unsafe, subpar and almost impossible to navigate could only come from someone who has obviously not walked it.
Thank you
I agree with you OC Ped...every time that I have walked and jogged it, it seems very safe. A few low hanging trees that are easily avoided with a duck and weave (I have the same issue on some of our SA sidewalks too!). The only area that seems a little out of line is by the 5/Broadway end when the dirt path turns into basketball or larger sized boulders bedded into the trail. It would be nice to have that section worked a bit, but overall, seems to be a good trail.
Question I have asked a few times with no response (maybe Admin can help): Why is it that the petition above and some of the other websites use a graffiti laden section of the 5/Broadway/Main overpass area as their lead picture of what is wrong when that section is not in the dirt section and I can't see paving it changing that area? Seems very misleading to me...