|
gregory_huey
Mar 28, 2014, 7:28 AM
Post #1 of 10
(8607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2006
Posts: 149
|
Hello All,
I heard a nasty rumor this evening at a local climbing gym that after the recent injury at the quarry, "the city" is "shutting the quarry down", and that a land-owner had recently showed up to tell people it was private property and they had the leave. Is this (or anything remotely similar) true?
(Apparently I need to specifically ask for replies only from either quarry locals, or those with direct knowledge of this particular incident)
|
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
Mar 28, 2014, 4:21 PM
Post #2 of 10
(8477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
gregory_huey wrote: Hello All, I heard a nasty rumor this evening at a local climbing gym that after the recent injury at the quarry, "the city" is "shutting the quarry down", and that a land-owner had recently showed up to tell people it was private property and they had the leave. Is this (or anything remotely similar) true? (Apparently I need to specifically ask for replies only from either quarry locals, or those with direct knowledge of this particular incident)
I highly doubt it, but I'd talk to Louie Anderson as he is the go to source of info for the quarry. his username on here is socalbolter so just send him a PM.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Mar 28, 2014, 6:22 PM
Post #3 of 10
(8455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
If the rumors turn out to be true, can you please send an e-mail to the Allied Climbers of San Diego? Thank you!
http://www.alliedclimbers.org
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Mar 30, 2014, 12:24 AM
Post #4 of 10
(8333 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
This issue has been at a slow simmer for a long time. It's been debated on this site before. Like it or not, the owners have a right to their property.
We will see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
gregory_huey
Mar 30, 2014, 12:34 AM
Post #5 of 10
(8330 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2006
Posts: 149
|
Hello,
I of course do not debate the right of the property owner to control their property. However, I was under the impression that the owner did not mind climbers - since not only do we not litter, but we also periodically clean up the property and help the police catch people who do illegally dump there. I thought that we had developed a good relationship with the owner?
So, my question is this: has there been any recent, dramatic, decisive change in this situation? and, have other parties become involved, such as the city? Perhaps because of the recent injury and helicopter evac made issues more high-profile?
(This post was edited by gregory_huey on Mar 30, 2014, 1:00 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Mar 30, 2014, 12:49 AM
Post #6 of 10
(8325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
I'm not Louie.
|
|
|
|
|
Fred20
Apr 1, 2014, 8:39 PM
Post #7 of 10
(8154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2012
Posts: 50
|
hope it's not shutdown, some pretty cool climbs there, despite the fact that it's a dump and we had ATV's shower us w/ some rock fall in Feb.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 1, 2014, 11:34 PM
Post #8 of 10
(8132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
socalclimber wrote: This issue has been at a slow simmer for a long time. It's been debated on this site before. Like it or not, the owners have a right to their property.
It's not quite that straightforward. California law provides for recreational access to private property under certain conditions. It would be up to a judge to decide, as I understand it. Here, for example, hikers prevailed over property owners for access to the El Prieto trail.
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Apr 1, 2014, 11:47 PM
Post #9 of 10
(8130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
Yup, Jay is correct. It's a can of worms. The problem will be that if the owner decides to exercise his rights of ownership, somebody would have to take him to court.
This is why I love people talking about law suits. What they fail to understand is that they are EXPENSIVE!
|
|
|
|
|
td
Jul 15, 2014, 1:10 AM
Post #10 of 10
(7490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2003
Posts: 63
|
That link to the legal case is interesting reading; however it's not clear whether the same precedents apply to the Riverside quarry. You will notice that they divide the history into several eras, the most important being pre- 1972. In that case the court found that the trail had a historic and overt "implied public dedication." In addition, it was shown that the land was used "for a period of time in excess of five years preceding March 4, 1972, for public recreation purposes." Can that be shown for the quarry? If not, I would not put any eggs in a legal basket. Instead, the likely best path is through relationships with the land owner, the county planners and supervisors, and options such as the Access Fund land conservation campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
