River Access Denied
As of this morning the gate across the road allowing access to the river has been permanently closed. It will be 99 degrees today and unless you are willing to walk half a mile down the dusty road with your children, chairs and umbrella it looks like the river is not an option today or ever.
I am very disappointed that CSD is helping facilitate this denial of access to residents such as myself who have been using that road for the last 25 years.
CSD patrols all property within the District, including that owned by the Pension Trust Fund. PTF pays CSD a significant amount of money for their Security tax. We have no choice but to provide Security for property owners within the District 's boundaries.
As Mac and Myrna point out, this is a major loss for the respectful and law abiding river goers. I hope it deters the problem half as effectively as it deters responsible community members. I don't understand how this happened with so little public conversation. Or maybe I just am not aware of the ongoing debate? Did we have no choice? Thank you Mac and Myrna for speaking up. Such a bummer for our families!
If you look at the signage, it is absolute, it does not say walking and bicycles are OK. This so far has been granted verbally, hence may be withdrawn at any time. All the BMX trails, hiking trails, lake perimeter and perhaps even the lakes in time, may be in jeopardy. Is not our rules of access to the lakes the same as the rest of the open space? We will loose right of easement by lack of use in time and this may be by design.
Attorney time? Ideas?
The big question we should be asking is, WHY, what's their angle? Im betting a few dozen or so large acreage/parcel homes, and you can't do that if you have people running all around the back areas. Do you have any idea how much river front views sell for $,$$$,$$$ ? If you look at a RM map, there isn't a single river lot, but there's plenty of room for it high and dry.
I just got done reading the security logs and noticed CSD is doing an outstanding job of policing the just now closed parking lot at the river. Yes, this is the same parking lot that we residents have been using for the last 30+ years to access the river. Not one of the entries in the log mentioned anything untoward or illegal going on except cars and carts driving past the now permanently closed gate and parking in a parking lot.
Imagine the audacity of us residents wanting to take our kids to the beach when its 100 degrees outside. Yes, we are the people security needs to be going after.
This is not about four wheel drives and teenagers or vandalism. The locked gates don't prevent any of that since we have miles upon miles of roads that can be reached by simply driving behind Calero or Chesbro to four wheel or cause all sorts of mayhem if you are so inclined. This is about restricting access to the river. My understanding is no RMA property actually touches the river and in order to get to the river you must cross PTF's or someone else's property. Now how valuable do you think riverfront homes with exclusive access would be to the property owners? Enough so it makes sense to start restricting access so the residents of RM get the idea we don't have a right to go to the river. Start with limiting vehicles and you stop 90% of the residents going down there. Wait a year or two and deny access via walking or biking and that eliminates the other 10%.
The Cosumnes River has always been advertised as an amenity to the residents since day one by every land-owner and developer. That is until PTF decided to sell the property. Classic bait and switch.
I'm saddened to see that RMA and CSD don't seem real concerned with limited access to the river and PTF plain doesn't seem to be talking with anyone. Maybe the long-term solution to access to the Cosumnes is RMA purchases the land along the river for all residents. Come on RMA and CSD - get inventive start engaging the land-owners and don't let this natural wonder and beauty of the Cosumnes River be taken away from us.
There is one and only one reason the PTF has put up back area signage and gates to their property and that is their legal liability should someone get injured while trespassing. They are a deep pocket that anyone injured could find a sympathetic (for a fee) lawyer to help them get some “free money”. It is the same reason health care is so expensive as extortion to settle plays a huge role. We are not on a loser pays all costs system (YET) so it is easy to squeeze tens of thousands of dollars out of a deep pocket. If an individual owned the river front, would they allow everyone to use it? I doubt it. Yes, the best solution is for RMA to be the owner and add the river to its parks with appropriate rules of use and consequences for violators.
I suggest those interested do a Google search of "Prescriptive Easement". Makes for an interesting read.
http://www.eskridgelaw.net/what-is-a-prescriptive-easement/
Steve - RMA resident
Do we have any attorneys that would like to look at the easement to the Cosumnes River on the north being limited from vehicle traffic to pedestrian? It seems to me thirty years of vehicle access (passenger vehicle and golf cart) on a road to a parking lot being suddenly limited to pedestrian and bike only limits the easement rights we have established over many years. Can an easement be limited by how it is accessed?
Mack,
I'm not an attorney but I hope a GOOD one will take a look at that question and determine if "we the people" have any rights anymore with regard to river access. I for one, support the idea of purchasing the land around the river so it won't ever be taken away again. That, in my view is a far more valuable use of our funds than an aquatic center.
I don't know if it is related but a recent ruling by a federal court judge in Sacramento in the Moonlight Fire lawsuit against Sierra Pacific, that a land owner could be held libel for damages for an incident that occurred on their property, even if they were not responsible for the act not the participants, may make any landowner very leary of allowing any one on their property. Sierra Pacific had been a good steward of their lands and allowed public access for hunting, fishing and recreation but may be rethinking that policy for their 22 million plus acres of land in light of that ruling.
I have lived here for 25 years...and in all that time....the PTF has NEVER cared about the liability issue pertaining to the roads that go to the river....until now that is...So why are they so worried about it now?? There is a house being built across the river which is owned by Stan Van Vleck Jr...he has a huge NO TRESSPASS sign, and clearly from the security log, the kids in our community have been tresspassing onto his property, which they have been doing for the 25 years I've been here. In my humble opinion, I believe there is a connection between the house being built, and the PTF putting up gates to block the roads to the river. This is too much of a coincidence for me to ignore.
I have known about this for a while, and until today, it hadn't dawned on me to ask this question......unless the PTF is paying OUR SECURITY to patrol the beach area, why are they doing this for the PTF?? It is our security, not PTF's.... Clearly we as a community didn't have any say so when the PTF decided to put gates up, and BTW, their decision was based on a few kids driving on neighbors land....so all of us who enjoy the river will be inconvenienced and penalized by this....I wonder if the neighboring property owners put pressure on the PTF to do this?....
Myrna Solomon