Just another day in Awesometown. Unless you want to take a picture in Bridgeport.

By Venturan — John B.

Note: this is a guest column submitted to SCVTalk by Valencia-based photographer Laurie Sachs of Laurie Sachs Photography.

Yesterday ugly, obtrusive signs stating:

Image not recoveredbridgeportsign.jpg

showed up at the corner of McBean Parkway and Newhall Ranch Road as well as various locations leading into the Bridgeport community. Local photographers led by Yoti Telio started a grass roots campaign on Facebook to make sure residents, city officials, and media outlets were aware of the situation.

After the shock wore off the first question was “can they really do that? Isn’t Bridgeport part of the paseo system?” Late in the day KHTS spoke with city of Santa Clarita Communications Manager Gail Ortiz who confirmed:

“According to the Conditions of Approval for Bridgeport and the development agreement for the lake and the park around it, there is a right for public access … We’ve heard rumblings from some of the residents of Bridgeport that they would like it to be private and think it is, but it never was built to be completely private. The public has a right to be there.”

Living in L.A. County, the land of postage stamp sized yards and chain link fences with “no trespassing” signs everywhere, open space with public access is precious. One of the main features bringing families to Valencia is the touted 30 miles of paseo system we have to enjoy. As a resident of Valencia since 1973 I’ve seen the growth of our community first hand. Neighborhoods have popped up and been seamlessly incorporated into the surrounding community. When Bridgeport was first proposed local residents were surprised someone wanted to build homes so close to the Santa Clara river, but that community was ultimately welcomed too. Now Bridgeport would like to opt out of the surrounding community because they are annoyed with photographers. Really?

Would the city have allowed a gated fortress with no public access and a 50 foot tall lighthouse we can see but can’t touch to be built in the center of town? Likely no. Would it be ok if residents of Northbridge decided they didn’t like bicyclists passing their houses and declared their section of the paseos private? Yeah, no. In my camera bag I carry a little piece of paper called the “The Photographer’s Rights” just for such situations:

The reality is photography is legal in all public spaces or areas visible from public spaces unless a particular law or ordinance prohibits it. The Bridgeport HOA deciding we’re a nuisance is not such an ordinance. I deserve to enjoy the open spaces of my community whether I have a camera in my hand or not and you the community deserve to have your family beautifully photographed in your open spaces too. Get over it, Bridgeport.

Image not recoveredIMG_3917-copy.jpg

Comments (54)

DamageincAugust 12, 2010 at 1:05 pm

Protests are in the works, if they wanted less attention on their community I believe they just achieved the opposite result.

mikeAugust 12, 2010 at 1:13 pm

I love it! Nice post, Laurie.

RtotheMAugust 12, 2010 at 1:24 pm

Love the post. It would be interesting to know how many Bridgeport residents don’t support what the HOA is trying to do.

SharonAugust 12, 2010 at 1:37 pm

Good for you. Laurie! Great article.

SCV SageAugust 12, 2010 at 1:50 pm

Methinks the signs violate several City codes, including sign ordinance and conditions of approval for the development. Laurie you should call City code enforcement and file a formal complaint to have them take those signs down now!

BrianAugust 12, 2010 at 1:57 pm

Would these be the conservative elite keeping out the riff raff?

ReaderMamaAugust 12, 2010 at 2:09 pm

First it was the ducks and geese, now it is people they’re trying to get rid of! Who runs their HOA?

TameraAugust 12, 2010 at 3:30 pm

Why do they have to be “conservative” elite Brian? Perhaps it’s the “liberal” elite trying to keep out the riff raff conservatives.

BrianAugust 12, 2010 at 5:36 pm

Liberals in the SCV? We wouldn’t act like that even if there were more than a couple who could afford Bridgeport.

GangFangAugust 13, 2010 at 9:24 am

I’m with Tamera here, stretching this into a right vs. left issue is too rich, even for my cranky blood.

Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogAugust 12, 2010 at 2:05 pm

Please don’t remove the sign before I’ve had a chance to be photographed with it though! Suck it Bridgeport! Here comes the attention wagon, destination YOU!

BrianAugust 12, 2010 at 2:36 pm

What is this LACC Section 602 P.C. they cite? I can’t find it on the Google. Attention Wagon! Now that’s funny!

Your Web GuruAugust 12, 2010 at 2:51 pm

It’s actually CA Penal Code 602 PC regarding criminal trespass on private property. The legal definition of trespassing in California is: -entering someone else’s property with the intent to damage that property, -entering someone else’s property with the intent to interfere with or obstruct the business activities conducted thereon, -entering and “occupying” another’s property without permission, and -refusing to leave private property after you’ve been asked to do so. They’re just being snooty and pretentious. I guess it’s cheaper to put a sign up as opposed to poisoning perpetrators, as they did to the coots a few years ago.

BrianAugust 12, 2010 at 3:17 pm

So if it’s not LACC, the sign is void, right? If there is no LACC Section 602 P.C. then the sign is just litter!

Your Web GuruAugust 12, 2010 at 3:26 pm

That’s all I’ve found. I checked LA City and County sites and LA Superior Court sites yesterday and there were no references to the penal code as shown on the sign. The only thing I found was the CA trespass code which is 602 PC. I could just have been looking in the wrong place. Any law-talkin’ types or cops want to chime in, feel free.

mikecAugust 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm

it should be los angeles county code.

Tim MyersAugust 12, 2010 at 2:50 pm

If residents of an HOA succumb and decide to live under the fascist heel of their HOA board, so be it. But when they try to impose their will on the broader community that’s WAR brudda!

Kim WhiteAugust 12, 2010 at 2:55 pm

Thanks Laurie for posting my picture of the sign and writing such a powerful article. I noticed this sign when I was meeting someone to take a picture of it and basically tripped over it! I was stunned and disappointed at the same time. With my cell phone I quickly took the picture and posted it on FB. Thanks to all of SCV and Yoti for moving so quickly to spread the word about this outrage that Bridgeport is doing. I’m hoping that with everyone’s comments through FB, KHTS, SCVTALK.com and other Blogs that have been running this sign comes down quickly so that all families can share in the beauty of Bridgeport and get back to the foundation of what SCV truly is….a giving community to all! I’ve created a FB group page called NOT WELCOMED N BRIDGEPORT” and love to invite everybody to join and post their comments and their own personal Bridgeport pictures that they cherish!!! There is power in numbers and Bridgeport should see the alienation they are truly doing through the families they touched for so many years! Thanks for the Support SCV!!! – Kim White

ChrystalAugust 12, 2010 at 3:02 pm

I understand both sides of this issue. I also come from a professional photography background. From an ethical point of view if someone’s home in my photograph I would seek permission. In the above photograph the home has windows showing in the photograph. Residents in that building may feel uncomfortable with that. It is possible to have the same photograph sans the building. The grounds are beautiful there at Bridgeport, almost begging to be photographed. I think that photographers can be present without causing a problem. Be respectful of one another. If the photographs are being taken all hours and nearly every day, yes that’s a problem. If it’s an occasional photo shoot then the residence are being selfish. I don’t think that name calling will do anyone any service. Don’t judge the entire Bridgeport community based on the signs. I have found it’s rare that everyone is on board with these type of actions. Hoping this resolves in a honorable manner.

CCAugust 12, 2010 at 6:16 pm

Then they should have taken the issue to the city.

Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogAugust 13, 2010 at 10:01 am

Nope, it’s not likely that it’s everyone, which is why it’s up to the residents who don’t agree to stand up to their HOA. Otherwise they will get the lumped together flack.

BrianAugust 12, 2010 at 3:20 pm

Let’s kick them out of the city and let them pay their own bills for everything. Newhall Ranch and McBean Pkwy? Toll roads for non residents! Get your fast pass! I’m thinking of Bugs Bunny munching a carrot, “You do realize, (munch, munch) that this means war! (Nose tweak, big sloppy kiss and run!)

Tim MyersAugust 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm

Since they now appear to be in violation of the development agreement can we go in and start tearing the houses down?

Your Web GuruAugust 12, 2010 at 3:51 pm

I call dibs on the Lighthouse! I heard that’s where they stuffed the poisoned ducks!!

Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogAugust 12, 2010 at 4:15 pm

I get the Bridge!

cashAugust 12, 2010 at 4:07 pm

The sign if fine if they drop the no photography wording. There is probably a liabilty issue and they are trying to protect themselves. The “no photography” is unnecessary and only fuels the fire. At least they have not gated the community.

JulieAugust 12, 2010 at 4:13 pm

Can we please refrain from “guessing” the political affiliations of the HOA people? Liberals can be a-holes too, you know.

Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogAugust 12, 2010 at 4:16 pm

Good point Julie, it’s not really relevant what side of the political spectrum the A-holes are on… Each side has plenty to go around in my opinion.

Matt DennyAugust 12, 2010 at 4:48 pm

I think I’m going to request that the Summit HOA modify the signs at Summit Park to include the phrase “Residents of Bridgeport Will Be Deported From The Park”. How would that come across, do yout hink?

BrianAugust 12, 2010 at 5:40 pm

Your papers, please!

joeAugust 12, 2010 at 4:58 pm

That’s the point though, the sign is absolutely not ok. They were approved for construction based on that area being accessible by the public. They cannot now decide to gate it or threaten punishment for trespassing when that area was zoned for public access. I would bet the majority of Bridgeport residents are not in agreement with the HOA’s actions and that this is a result of a few homeowners making a stink. The HOA should have at the very least done it’s homework. Per the city they are in violation for putting up such signs and they have no legal grounds for doing so.

ErikAugust 12, 2010 at 5:17 pm

I’m a Bridgeport resident and don’t support the sign. I’d be surprised if anybody here cares that much about your average photo shoot (casual or professional) by the lake. It’s worth pointing out, though, that during this last prom season things got pretty disruptive, much more so than in past years. When a hundred or so people suddenly descend on your neighborhood, double- and triple- parking wherever they please, it gets annoying fast. The sign is an overreaction, but whoever is involved in scheduling mass photo shoots at Bridgeport might consider doing a little outreach to the neighborhood first…

Kim WhiteAugust 12, 2010 at 5:26 pm

The sign does NOT reference professional photography….it says “NO PHOTOGRAPHY”….that means u as a parent can’t take a pic of ur kid playing w/the ducks! This is not @ a photo biz stand point. This is 4 everybody!!!!!! This sign alienates every1 who wants 2 visit the area and take a special picture…Prom, 1st baby’s steps, Weddings, engagement….any special moments or just a quick snap shot of grandma who just came in town! This is bigger than a couple local photographers wanting a nice backdrop!!!!

markAugust 12, 2010 at 6:09 pm

Completely agree with you about the proms. Any of the local parks require a permit for large gatherings and that should be no different. Anyone not following parking laws should be towed or fined. I am sure the sherrifs dept could address that issue. For the record every neighborhood with a pretty outdoor area is inundated with prom kids but we don’t all respond by trying to ban the community at large.

CCAugust 12, 2010 at 6:19 pm

Thank goodness for Bridgeport. They always manage to bring a smille to my face. Lol

Yoti TelioAugust 12, 2010 at 6:23 pm

Most of the citizens in the Bridgeport community share your thoughts its the Board of Directors of your HOA that you elected that make the executive decisions for your community that now make executive decisions on your behalf much like government. Some Board Members feel empowered with their positions and sometimes make irrational decisions that make themselves feel all strong and mighty. The Bridgeport Sign is such an example. Ill informed & ill judged decisions that affect the comfort of living of all local hard working surrounding neighbors sick and disgusted. That is why HOA Boards elect to have insurance for Board Members who sometimes get out of line and get sued for GOOD Apparent Reasons. When I moved to this community many moons ago in the early 90′s the Valencia Paseos were a BIG Draw for me. As a small business owner working less then a mile down the street from Bridgeport the “No Trespassing” & the thought of being prosecuted under California Civil Code 602 for walking around the lake personally offended me. I did not know about the NO PHOTOGRAPHY clause underneath the sign until a Facebook friend Kim White posted the image of the actual sign on her wall ans status. Naturally being a professional photographer and knowing the laws associated with photography I had to CRY FOUL… I was born in an Eastern European country called Romania. prior to legally immigrating to United States I lived in a country where there were no freedoms, people were persecuted daily and everyone lived in fear. Those that didn’t were reported missing by their loved ones shortly after they were usually picked up for interrogation. Bridgeport Board of directors needs to realize that the local community is not out to get them or destroy this beautiful landscape but only try to enjoy the scenery along side them. I along with other professional photographers in this valley subscribe to the strict PPA (Professional Photographers of America)code of ethics which amongst many things states that we as professional photographers while on location assignments are to create images and leave only footprints. Not everybody with a camera is a professional photographer just like not every person with a pen and paper is a writer. That in itself is a challenge. Sometimes we all tend to generalize groups and place individuals in broad categories so we can better manage and address them. I am quite honestly proud to say that fellow local professional photographers I know and call friends would never( and I know never is a very strong word ) behave the way the Bridgeport Board of Directors have implied to the city(per the KHTS news story). I appreciate and Value the Bridgeport Community and its man made Beauty!

CCAugust 12, 2010 at 7:12 pm

Kudos

joeAugust 12, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Completely agree with you about the proms. Any of the local parks require a permit for large gatherings and that should be no different. Anyone not following parking laws should be towed or fined. I am sure the sheriff’s department would be happy to address that issue. For the record every neighborhood in town with a pretty outdoor area is inundated with prom kids but we don’t all respond by trying to ban the community at large from public areas.

CherylAugust 12, 2010 at 6:41 pm

Does this mean my son can no longer walk through Bridgeport on the way too and from school now that we don’t live in that particular HOA anymore? And may residents take pictures? I mean, the sign’s a little ambiguous on that, dontcha think? Oh yeah, are residents allowed to have guests? ‘Cause that’s not real clear, either.

BrianAugust 12, 2010 at 7:52 pm

Are you texting or taking pictures with your cell phone? Has anyone contacted the sheriff to see if they would respond to a call regarding picture taking? So much criminal activity in Awesometown. Sightseers and picture takers beware!

Samuel AdamsAugust 12, 2010 at 7:55 pm

Who is the management company that works with the Bridgeport HOA? They are supposed to know the laws and guide the board, does not look like they did that. This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen.

KLBAugust 13, 2010 at 7:16 am

According to Bridgeport’s website it’s Valencia Management Group. The association manager is Tina Nakamura @ 661-964-1524.

SamAugust 13, 2010 at 7:06 am

The city should address this as there are some Bridgeport homeowners/agents listing their homes for sale with pictures of the “lake”.

Yoti TelioAugust 13, 2010 at 10:08 am

Dear Kim Thank You for the kind words on my Facebook profile regarding the front page story in the Signal Today about this topic but I don’t deserve all the credit. It was the entire community that united itself in the belief of a common concern of losing something so many of us have been enjoying for so many years. It was YOU who first discovered this injustice; it was you who took a photo of the sign with your cell phone. It’s people like Carl Goldman & Carol Rock at the Hometown station KHTS that first broke the story in the media and disseminated the news in their daily news blast to 1000’s of Santa Claritans. It was people like Gail Ortiz the spokeswoman for the City of Santa Clarita that set the record straight. It’s the local blogosphere that noticed the chatter on my Facebook profile that ran with the local discussions. Its SCVTalk.com that offered a forum for concerned citizens to have a voice and be heard. Its other local professional photographers . The same ones that respect the Bridgeport Community and always conduct themselves in the most professional manner when they are on Bridgeport property that were hurt by the hurtful statements made by the HOA regarding their nonprofessional behavior. Its fellow professional Photographer Laurie Anderson Sachs that wrote a beautiful piece about this issue and the rights photographers have Its the editors ,writers and YES photographer at “The Mighty Signal” that believed that my grassroots movement was newsworthy to research ,photograph and inform our community on. It wasn’t any one thing or any one person it was the community I am proud to work, play and live in that made the TRUE difference. It was warm hearted Americans that got fed up with unfair representation by their HOA. It was residents that live on the lake in the Bridgeport Community that had the courage to speak up and disagree with their HOA. Sometimes when we vote people into HOA office much like politics and government they do not do or act the will of the people. All this was made possible as a result of the will of the people that simply got fed up with Gestapo style tactics of enforcing laws without first doing their research.

mikeAugust 13, 2010 at 10:40 am

yes!

Rick LottAugust 13, 2010 at 10:28 am

Maybe they just don’t want photographic evidence that they were dumb enough to build an artificial lake in the middle of a desert community that requires low-flow shower heads and water saving toilets.

maddieAugust 13, 2010 at 10:41 am

i’ll be there all weekend taking pics. ha-ha, hope your not to pissed off ,but ****off

Kim WhiteAugust 13, 2010 at 11:09 am

Yoti, Amen brother!!!! I broke down n tears this morning driving my kids 2 school when some1 texted me a picture of the front page of the paper 2day. My kids thought I had lost my mind! I quickly turned it n2 a lesson 2 them 2 never b scared 2 st…and up 4 what they believe in. 1 person sticking there neck out by posting some picture on FB can turn n2 an amazing group of people all standing up 4 what they believe in. I’m very happy u saw my photo, reposted it and everybody got aboard and quickly got 2 work in fixing this wrong doing! I think as much as Bridgeport was trying 2 keep people out….it brought the community closer 2gether! I met people like the people u mentioned through this injustice! I got the opportunity 2 meet u, get private emails from people n the community that’s I’ve never met! I love SCV & its people like u, folks @ KHTS, SIGNAL, Gail, Laurie, Carol & the other plethora of people thru all the blogs, threads….that have made an impact on my heart!!!! ♥ I’m proud 2 live here! – MUAH SCV

Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogAugust 14, 2010 at 2:05 pm

You make a great point Kim, this issue may seem small, and I know I have had some fun with it, but people getting together and getting the word out can make a difference. It’s a hard road to make change, especially from a grass roots beginning but in the end it is really satisfying to see people bonding over a common cause. I hope that things like this ultimately embolden people to continue to tackle larger and larger issues and not just take things lying down and assume they can’t create change. Thanks for your effort to bring this to people’s attention.

ThomasAugust 15, 2010 at 2:06 pm

Can you give us a lesson in all the abbreviations you just used? :>)

really Bridgeport?August 14, 2010 at 12:02 pm

My goodness. Dont these people have anything better to do? Or bigger ducks….errr I mean fish to fry?

Brenda ButlerAugust 16, 2010 at 8:02 pm

Yes! My husband and I sheepishly sneak a walk around the lake on our, not too often, date nights. There has only been one time when we actually saw anyone else using this beautiful path. We would always snicker, “everybody is away earning the money they need in order to live here.”

ChrisAugust 18, 2010 at 7:57 pm

For the past two years, I too have been sheepishly walking around Bridgeport Lake because the beauty of it takes my mind off the fact that I am getting my much dreaded daily exercise. I get mesmerized by watching the ducklings swim with their moms, the bunnies, ducks and geese crossing the walkway, the turtles bobbing in the water, the view of the mountains, etc. I swear my blood pressure drops 20 points while I’m there. Seeing as how this paseo is positioned so close to peoples homes, I make it a point to be as quiet and non-intrusive as possible. I purposely leave my cell phone at home and when I bring a walking partner with me, we walk in silence and save our conversation for after the walk. If I bring my dog, which is rare, I pick up after him. While I do not agree with the no photography sign, I can understand how it got there. During one of my morning walks, I saw a party of twenty dressed up teenagers gathering next to the bridge to have photos professionally taken. Unfortunately, they were loud and roudy. I remember thinking these people were going to get busted and sure enough, they did. I’m willing to bet if they had kept their voices down, stayed together as a group, and got their photos done quickly, security would not have to have been called as no one would have noticed they were there. I wonder if having a policy requiring all professional photography to be scheduled with the HOA would help matters. This policy could require a representative of the HOA, or security, to be present at the photo shoot to monitor noise levels, assure homeowners privacy, as well as inforce the time limit, say :45 minutes or so per scheduled shoot. To minimize intrusion on the neighborhood, photo shoots could be restricted to say a three hour time frame one day a week. If that time frame is booked, either schedule for the following week or get your photos taken elsewhere. To offset the cost, the HOA could impose a flat fee to the party being photographed. This policy would not pertain to the general public/non-professional photographers who are taking photos of their children petting the ducks. As with many things, the loud folks who have a sense of entitlement and lack respect for other peoples space ruins things for everyone. Just because this paseo is open to the public, does not mean it’s a free for all public park. Common sense and common courtesy would have prevented this whole mess in the first place. BTW, I am not a homeowner at Bridgeport. I am simply a renter in Valencia.

Kim WhiteAugust 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm

Bridgeport’s “NO PHOTOGRAPHY” Sign – WILL BE CHANGED!!! Kim White Tonight, I sat in on the Bridgeport’s HOA meeting. David Barlavi was there to discuss a letter he drafted to the HOA from his law office about options they could take towards their crowd problem and welcome the community. He got as quick as introducing himself and was asked to leave as he wasn’t a homeowner. I remained there as I was with a homeowner and manage to talk about this sign issue. Bridgeport had some very valid concerns about their reasoning for the sign and admits that the sign they posted wasn’t meant to come off the way it did to the community! They actually welcome families to come and enjoy and take a picture of their son or daughter chasing the ducks. It was more of a knee jerk reaction to a buildup of years of frustration. It seems through listening to the HOA board and the homeowners at the meeting that commercial photographers, senior prom photo seekers (students and parents) have been bold enough to park in people’s driveways, on “top” of the grass with their cars and set up photo shoots in people’s yards. It seems this problem has been going on for several years and has been getting progressively worse. Six years ago they placed a “No Trespassing Sign” at the lighthouse wall to try and elevate this problem. Yet, regardless if it was placement of the sign or people didn’t take it serious the problem continue to grow. The board thought is was funny that they had a “No Trespassing” sign for years and nobody made one issue of it. As soon as they placed “No Photography” sign … they got noticed and feels that they got the message out that they mean business about their community! It was stated that through the emails they have received about this issue…they’ve had a 10 to 1 ration in favor of the recently posted signs (not confirmed if those emails were from Bridgeport residents or the community at large). One spunky board member woman confronted the rest of the board and said, “I suggested to add Commercial to the “No Photography” signs a few months ago and you shot my idea down”. I’m sure the board wish they listen to her suggestion now. All of the commotion and concerned citizens brought it to the attention of the city. In the cities investigation they learned that some of Bridgeport’s original signs are out of compliance and or have placement issues; the HOA is working quickly to get in compliance with the city. It seems that Bridgeport did make a sincere effort to ask for the people who they were noticing were making the most crowd issues by sending letters to the local schools. Their letters comprised of letting them know that the community was a private and that during prom season the community was being over taken by photo opportunities and it was ruining their grounds. They did state that they neglected to send those letter to local photographers and are now thinking they should do that as an effort. There was allot of talk from the homeowner floor on how they felt the signs should be changed. The board position at first for very matter of fact and bold statements like, “NO TRESSPASSING”. The homeowners actually wanted to take a different approach by letting the public know what was compliant. They wanted more welcoming signs to encourage people to enjoy the paseo and educated people to stay off the lawn and pier. There was also some chatter about making professional photographer get permits to use the grounds and that money would go to the HOA to help with landscape. Also was suggested to control the parking they give parking passes to permit holders to park at the club house and then people could walk to their photo area of choice. At the end of the meeting a HOA board motion was made and passed to change the signs and work with the city to be in compliance with them. Additionally, the homeowners voice was heard and a more friendly sign revision is hopefully to be adopted. The new proposed sign will say something like: Lawn & Landscape Bridgeport Residents Only No Trespassing Commercial Photography by Permits contact Valencia Management (661)###-#### I asked the question, “when will these signs be changed”….they stated by the next board meeting! Thank you to all who played a part in this issue. Your voice was heard and you made a difference!!!!

DamageincAugust 12, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Protests are in the works, if they wanted less attention on their community I believe they just achieved the opposite result.
mikeAugust 12, 2010 at 1:13 pm
I love it! Nice post, Laurie.
RtotheMAugust 12, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Love the post. It would be interesting to know how many Bridgeport residents don’t support what the HOA is trying to do.
SharonAugust 12, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Good for you. Laurie! Great article.
SCV SageAugust 12, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Methinks the signs violate several City codes, including sign ordinance and conditions of approval for the development. Laurie you should call City code enforcement and file a formal complaint to have them take those signs down now!
BrianAugust 12, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Would these be the conservative elite keeping out the riff raff?
ReaderMamaAugust 12, 2010 at 2:09 pm
First it was the ducks and geese, now it is people they’re trying to get rid of! Who runs their HOA?
TameraAugust 12, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Why do they have to be “conservative” elite Brian? Perhaps it’s the “liberal” elite trying to keep out the riff raff conservatives.
BrianAugust 12, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Liberals in the SCV? We wouldn’t act like that even if there were more than a couple who could afford Bridgeport.
GangFangAugust 13, 2010 at 9:24 am
I’m with Tamera here, stretching this into a right vs. left issue is too rich, even for my cranky blood.
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogAugust 12, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Please don’t remove the sign before I’ve had a chance to be photographed with it though! Suck it Bridgeport! Here comes the attention wagon, destination YOU!
BrianAugust 12, 2010 at 2:36 pm
What is this LACC Section 602 P.C. they cite? I can’t find it on the Google. Attention Wagon! Now that’s funny!
Your Web GuruAugust 12, 2010 at 2:51 pm
It’s actually CA Penal Code 602 PC regarding criminal trespass on private property. The legal definition of trespassing in California is: -entering someone else’s property with the intent to damage that property, -entering someone else’s property with the intent to interfere with or obstruct the business activities conducted thereon, -entering and “occupying” another’s property without permission, and -refusing to leave private property after you’ve been asked to do so. They’re just being snooty and pretentious. I guess it’s cheaper to put a sign up as opposed to poisoning perpetrators, as they did to the coots a few years ago.
BrianAugust 12, 2010 at 3:17 pm
So if it’s not LACC, the sign is void, right? If there is no LACC Section 602 P.C. then the sign is just litter!
Your Web GuruAugust 12, 2010 at 3:26 pm
That’s all I’ve found. I checked LA City and County sites and LA Superior Court sites yesterday and there were no references to the penal code as shown on the sign. The only thing I found was the CA trespass code which is 602 PC. I could just have been looking in the wrong place. Any law-talkin’ types or cops want to chime in, feel free.
mikecAugust 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm
it should be los angeles county code.
Tim MyersAugust 12, 2010 at 2:50 pm
If residents of an HOA succumb and decide to live under the fascist heel of their HOA board, so be it. But when they try to impose their will on the broader community that’s WAR brudda!
Kim WhiteAugust 12, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Thanks Laurie for posting my picture of the sign and writing such a powerful article. I noticed this sign when I was meeting someone to take a picture of it and basically tripped over it! I was stunned and disappointed at the same time. With my cell phone I quickly took the picture and posted it on FB. Thanks to all of SCV and Yoti for moving so quickly to spread the word about this outrage that Bridgeport is doing. I’m hoping that with everyone’s comments through FB, KHTS, SCVTALK.com and other Blogs that have been running this sign comes down quickly so that all families can share in the beauty of Bridgeport and get back to the foundation of what SCV truly is….a giving community to all! I’ve created a FB group page called NOT WELCOMED N BRIDGEPORT” and love to invite everybody to join and post their comments and their own personal Bridgeport pictures that they cherish!!! There is power in numbers and Bridgeport should see the alienation they are truly doing through the families they touched for so many years! Thanks for the Support SCV!!! – Kim White
ChrystalAugust 12, 2010 at 3:02 pm
I understand both sides of this issue. I also come from a professional photography background. From an ethical point of view if someone’s home in my photograph I would seek permission. In the above photograph the home has windows showing in the photograph. Residents in that building may feel uncomfortable with that. It is possible to have the same photograph sans the building. The grounds are beautiful there at Bridgeport, almost begging to be photographed. I think that photographers can be present without causing a problem. Be respectful of one another. If the photographs are being taken all hours and nearly every day, yes that’s a problem. If it’s an occasional photo shoot then the residence are being selfish. I don’t think that name calling will do anyone any service. Don’t judge the entire Bridgeport community based on the signs. I have found it’s rare that everyone is on board with these type of actions. Hoping this resolves in a honorable manner.
CCAugust 12, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Then they should have taken the issue to the city.
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogAugust 13, 2010 at 10:01 am
Nope, it’s not likely that it’s everyone, which is why it’s up to the residents who don’t agree to stand up to their HOA. Otherwise they will get the lumped together flack.
BrianAugust 12, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Let’s kick them out of the city and let them pay their own bills for everything. Newhall Ranch and McBean Pkwy? Toll roads for non residents! Get your fast pass! I’m thinking of Bugs Bunny munching a carrot, “You do realize, (munch, munch) that this means war! (Nose tweak, big sloppy kiss and run!)
Tim MyersAugust 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Since they now appear to be in violation of the development agreement can we go in and start tearing the houses down?
Your Web GuruAugust 12, 2010 at 3:51 pm
I call dibs on the Lighthouse! I heard that’s where they stuffed the poisoned ducks!!
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogAugust 12, 2010 at 4:15 pm
I get the Bridge!
cashAugust 12, 2010 at 4:07 pm
The sign if fine if they drop the no photography wording. There is probably a liabilty issue and they are trying to protect themselves. The “no photography” is unnecessary and only fuels the fire. At least they have not gated the community.
JulieAugust 12, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Can we please refrain from “guessing” the political affiliations of the HOA people? Liberals can be a-holes too, you know.
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogAugust 12, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Good point Julie, it’s not really relevant what side of the political spectrum the A-holes are on… Each side has plenty to go around in my opinion.
Matt DennyAugust 12, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I think I’m going to request that the Summit HOA modify the signs at Summit Park to include the phrase “Residents of Bridgeport Will Be Deported From The Park”. How would that come across, do yout hink?
BrianAugust 12, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Your papers, please!
joeAugust 12, 2010 at 4:58 pm
That’s the point though, the sign is absolutely not ok. They were approved for construction based on that area being accessible by the public. They cannot now decide to gate it or threaten punishment for trespassing when that area was zoned for public access. I would bet the majority of Bridgeport residents are not in agreement with the HOA’s actions and that this is a result of a few homeowners making a stink. The HOA should have at the very least done it’s homework. Per the city they are in violation for putting up such signs and they have no legal grounds for doing so.
ErikAugust 12, 2010 at 5:17 pm
I’m a Bridgeport resident and don’t support the sign. I’d be surprised if anybody here cares that much about your average photo shoot (casual or professional) by the lake. It’s worth pointing out, though, that during this last prom season things got pretty disruptive, much more so than in past years. When a hundred or so people suddenly descend on your neighborhood, double- and triple- parking wherever they please, it gets annoying fast. The sign is an overreaction, but whoever is involved in scheduling mass photo shoots at Bridgeport might consider doing a little outreach to the neighborhood first…
Kim WhiteAugust 12, 2010 at 5:26 pm
The sign does NOT reference professional photography….it says “NO PHOTOGRAPHY”….that means u as a parent can’t take a pic of ur kid playing w/the ducks! This is not @ a photo biz stand point. This is 4 everybody!!!!!! This sign alienates every1 who wants 2 visit the area and take a special picture…Prom, 1st baby’s steps, Weddings, engagement….any special moments or just a quick snap shot of grandma who just came in town! This is bigger than a couple local photographers wanting a nice backdrop!!!!
markAugust 12, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Completely agree with you about the proms. Any of the local parks require a permit for large gatherings and that should be no different. Anyone not following parking laws should be towed or fined. I am sure the sherrifs dept could address that issue. For the record every neighborhood with a pretty outdoor area is inundated with prom kids but we don’t all respond by trying to ban the community at large.
CCAugust 12, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Thank goodness for Bridgeport. They always manage to bring a smille to my face. Lol
Yoti TelioAugust 12, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Most of the citizens in the Bridgeport community share your thoughts its the Board of Directors of your HOA that you elected that make the executive decisions for your community that now make executive decisions on your behalf much like government. Some Board Members feel empowered with their positions and sometimes make irrational decisions that make themselves feel all strong and mighty. The Bridgeport Sign is such an example. Ill informed & ill judged decisions that affect the comfort of living of all local hard working surrounding neighbors sick and disgusted. That is why HOA Boards elect to have insurance for Board Members who sometimes get out of line and get sued for GOOD Apparent Reasons. When I moved to this community many moons ago in the early 90′s the Valencia Paseos were a BIG Draw for me. As a small business owner working less then a mile down the street from Bridgeport the “No Trespassing” & the thought of being prosecuted under California Civil Code 602 for walking around the lake personally offended me. I did not know about the NO PHOTOGRAPHY clause underneath the sign until a Facebook friend Kim White posted the image of the actual sign on her wall ans status. Naturally being a professional photographer and knowing the laws associated with photography I had to CRY FOUL… I was born in an Eastern European country called Romania. prior to legally immigrating to United States I lived in a country where there were no freedoms, people were persecuted daily and everyone lived in fear. Those that didn’t were reported missing by their loved ones shortly after they were usually picked up for interrogation. Bridgeport Board of directors needs to realize that the local community is not out to get them or destroy this beautiful landscape but only try to enjoy the scenery along side them. I along with other professional photographers in this valley subscribe to the strict PPA (Professional Photographers of America)code of ethics which amongst many things states that we as professional photographers while on location assignments are to create images and leave only footprints. Not everybody with a camera is a professional photographer just like not every person with a pen and paper is a writer. That in itself is a challenge. Sometimes we all tend to generalize groups and place individuals in broad categories so we can better manage and address them. I am quite honestly proud to say that fellow local professional photographers I know and call friends would never( and I know never is a very strong word ) behave the way the Bridgeport Board of Directors have implied to the city(per the KHTS news story). I appreciate and Value the Bridgeport Community and its man made Beauty!
CCAugust 12, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Kudos
joeAugust 12, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Completely agree with you about the proms. Any of the local parks require a permit for large gatherings and that should be no different. Anyone not following parking laws should be towed or fined. I am sure the sheriff’s department would be happy to address that issue. For the record every neighborhood in town with a pretty outdoor area is inundated with prom kids but we don’t all respond by trying to ban the community at large from public areas.
CherylAugust 12, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Does this mean my son can no longer walk through Bridgeport on the way too and from school now that we don’t live in that particular HOA anymore? And may residents take pictures? I mean, the sign’s a little ambiguous on that, dontcha think? Oh yeah, are residents allowed to have guests? ‘Cause that’s not real clear, either.
BrianAugust 12, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Are you texting or taking pictures with your cell phone? Has anyone contacted the sheriff to see if they would respond to a call regarding picture taking? So much criminal activity in Awesometown. Sightseers and picture takers beware!
Samuel AdamsAugust 12, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Who is the management company that works with the Bridgeport HOA? They are supposed to know the laws and guide the board, does not look like they did that. This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen.
KLBAugust 13, 2010 at 7:16 am
According to Bridgeport’s website it’s Valencia Management Group. The association manager is Tina Nakamura @ 661-964-1524.
SamAugust 13, 2010 at 7:06 am
The city should address this as there are some Bridgeport homeowners/agents listing their homes for sale with pictures of the “lake”.
Yoti TelioAugust 13, 2010 at 10:08 am
Dear Kim Thank You for the kind words on my Facebook profile regarding the front page story in the Signal Today about this topic but I don’t deserve all the credit. It was the entire community that united itself in the belief of a common concern of losing something so many of us have been enjoying for so many years. It was YOU who first discovered this injustice; it was you who took a photo of the sign with your cell phone. It’s people like Carl Goldman & Carol Rock at the Hometown station KHTS that first broke the story in the media and disseminated the news in their daily news blast to 1000’s of Santa Claritans. It was people like Gail Ortiz the spokeswoman for the City of Santa Clarita that set the record straight. It’s the local blogosphere that noticed the chatter on my Facebook profile that ran with the local discussions. Its SCVTalk.com that offered a forum for concerned citizens to have a voice and be heard. Its other local professional photographers . The same ones that respect the Bridgeport Community and always conduct themselves in the most professional manner when they are on Bridgeport property that were hurt by the hurtful statements made by the HOA regarding their nonprofessional behavior. Its fellow professional Photographer Laurie Anderson Sachs that wrote a beautiful piece about this issue and the rights photographers have Its the editors ,writers and YES photographer at “The Mighty Signal” that believed that my grassroots movement was newsworthy to research ,photograph and inform our community on. It wasn’t any one thing or any one person it was the community I am proud to work, play and live in that made the TRUE difference. It was warm hearted Americans that got fed up with unfair representation by their HOA. It was residents that live on the lake in the Bridgeport Community that had the courage to speak up and disagree with their HOA. Sometimes when we vote people into HOA office much like politics and government they do not do or act the will of the people. All this was made possible as a result of the will of the people that simply got fed up with Gestapo style tactics of enforcing laws without first doing their research.
mikeAugust 13, 2010 at 10:40 am
yes!
Rick LottAugust 13, 2010 at 10:28 am
Maybe they just don’t want photographic evidence that they were dumb enough to build an artificial lake in the middle of a desert community that requires low-flow shower heads and water saving toilets.
maddieAugust 13, 2010 at 10:41 am
i’ll be there all weekend taking pics. ha-ha, hope your not to pissed off ,but ****off
Kim WhiteAugust 13, 2010 at 11:09 am
Yoti, Amen brother!!!! I broke down n tears this morning driving my kids 2 school when some1 texted me a picture of the front page of the paper 2day. My kids thought I had lost my mind! I quickly turned it n2 a lesson 2 them 2 never b scared 2 st…and up 4 what they believe in. 1 person sticking there neck out by posting some picture on FB can turn n2 an amazing group of people all standing up 4 what they believe in. I’m very happy u saw my photo, reposted it and everybody got aboard and quickly got 2 work in fixing this wrong doing! I think as much as Bridgeport was trying 2 keep people out….it brought the community closer 2gether! I met people like the people u mentioned through this injustice! I got the opportunity 2 meet u, get private emails from people n the community that’s I’ve never met! I love SCV & its people like u, folks @ KHTS, SIGNAL, Gail, Laurie, Carol & the other plethora of people thru all the blogs, threads….that have made an impact on my heart!!!! ♥ I’m proud 2 live here! – MUAH SCV
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogAugust 14, 2010 at 2:05 pm
You make a great point Kim, this issue may seem small, and I know I have had some fun with it, but people getting together and getting the word out can make a difference. It’s a hard road to make change, especially from a grass roots beginning but in the end it is really satisfying to see people bonding over a common cause. I hope that things like this ultimately embolden people to continue to tackle larger and larger issues and not just take things lying down and assume they can’t create change. Thanks for your effort to bring this to people’s attention.
ThomasAugust 15, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Can you give us a lesson in all the abbreviations you just used? :>)
really Bridgeport?August 14, 2010 at 12:02 pm
My goodness. Dont these people have anything better to do? Or bigger ducks….errr I mean fish to fry?
Brenda ButlerAugust 16, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Yes! My husband and I sheepishly sneak a walk around the lake on our, not too often, date nights. There has only been one time when we actually saw anyone else using this beautiful path. We would always snicker, “everybody is away earning the money they need in order to live here.”
ChrisAugust 18, 2010 at 7:57 pm
For the past two years, I too have been sheepishly walking around Bridgeport Lake because the beauty of it takes my mind off the fact that I am getting my much dreaded daily exercise. I get mesmerized by watching the ducklings swim with their moms, the bunnies, ducks and geese crossing the walkway, the turtles bobbing in the water, the view of the mountains, etc. I swear my blood pressure drops 20 points while I’m there. Seeing as how this paseo is positioned so close to peoples homes, I make it a point to be as quiet and non-intrusive as possible. I purposely leave my cell phone at home and when I bring a walking partner with me, we walk in silence and save our conversation for after the walk. If I bring my dog, which is rare, I pick up after him. While I do not agree with the no photography sign, I can understand how it got there. During one of my morning walks, I saw a party of twenty dressed up teenagers gathering next to the bridge to have photos professionally taken. Unfortunately, they were loud and roudy. I remember thinking these people were going to get busted and sure enough, they did. I’m willing to bet if they had kept their voices down, stayed together as a group, and got their photos done quickly, security would not have to have been called as no one would have noticed they were there. I wonder if having a policy requiring all professional photography to be scheduled with the HOA would help matters. This policy could require a representative of the HOA, or security, to be present at the photo shoot to monitor noise levels, assure homeowners privacy, as well as inforce the time limit, say :45 minutes or so per scheduled shoot. To minimize intrusion on the neighborhood, photo shoots could be restricted to say a three hour time frame one day a week. If that time frame is booked, either schedule for the following week or get your photos taken elsewhere. To offset the cost, the HOA could impose a flat fee to the party being photographed. This policy would not pertain to the general public/non-professional photographers who are taking photos of their children petting the ducks. As with many things, the loud folks who have a sense of entitlement and lack respect for other peoples space ruins things for everyone. Just because this paseo is open to the public, does not mean it’s a free for all public park. Common sense and common courtesy would have prevented this whole mess in the first place. BTW, I am not a homeowner at Bridgeport. I am simply a renter in Valencia.
Kim WhiteAugust 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Bridgeport’s “NO PHOTOGRAPHY” Sign – WILL BE CHANGED!!! Kim White Tonight, I sat in on the Bridgeport’s HOA meeting. David Barlavi was there to discuss a letter he drafted to the HOA from his law office about options they could take towards their crowd problem and welcome the community. He got as quick as introducing himself and was asked to leave as he wasn’t a homeowner. I remained there as I was with a homeowner and manage to talk about this sign issue. Bridgeport had some very valid concerns about their reasoning for the sign and admits that the sign they posted wasn’t meant to come off the way it did to the community! They actually welcome families to come and enjoy and take a picture of their son or daughter chasing the ducks. It was more of a knee jerk reaction to a buildup of years of frustration. It seems through listening to the HOA board and the homeowners at the meeting that commercial photographers, senior prom photo seekers (students and parents) have been bold enough to park in people’s driveways, on “top” of the grass with their cars and set up photo shoots in people’s yards. It seems this problem has been going on for several years and has been getting progressively worse. Six years ago they placed a “No Trespassing Sign” at the lighthouse wall to try and elevate this problem. Yet, regardless if it was placement of the sign or people didn’t take it serious the problem continue to grow. The board thought is was funny that they had a “No Trespassing” sign for years and nobody made one issue of it. As soon as they placed “No Photography” sign … they got noticed and feels that they got the message out that they mean business about their community! It was stated that through the emails they have received about this issue…they’ve had a 10 to 1 ration in favor of the recently posted signs (not confirmed if those emails were from Bridgeport residents or the community at large). One spunky board member woman confronted the rest of the board and said, “I suggested to add Commercial to the “No Photography” signs a few months ago and you shot my idea down”. I’m sure the board wish they listen to her suggestion now. All of the commotion and concerned citizens brought it to the attention of the city. In the cities investigation they learned that some of Bridgeport’s original signs are out of compliance and or have placement issues; the HOA is working quickly to get in compliance with the city. It seems that Bridgeport did make a sincere effort to ask for the people who they were noticing were making the most crowd issues by sending letters to the local schools. Their letters comprised of letting them know that the community was a private and that during prom season the community was being over taken by photo opportunities and it was ruining their grounds. They did state that they neglected to send those letter to local photographers and are now thinking they should do that as an effort. There was allot of talk from the homeowner floor on how they felt the signs should be changed. The board position at first for very matter of fact and bold statements like, “NO TRESSPASSING”. The homeowners actually wanted to take a different approach by letting the public know what was compliant. They wanted more welcoming signs to encourage people to enjoy the paseo and educated people to stay off the lawn and pier. There was also some chatter about making professional photographer get permits to use the grounds and that money would go to the HOA to help with landscape. Also was suggested to control the parking they give parking passes to permit holders to park at the club house and then people could walk to their photo area of choice. At the end of the meeting a HOA board motion was made and passed to change the signs and work with the city to be in compliance with them. Additionally, the homeowners voice was heard and a more friendly sign revision is hopefully to be adopted. The new proposed sign will say something like: Lawn & Landscape Bridgeport Residents Only No Trespassing Commercial Photography by Permits contact Valencia Management (661)###-#### I asked the question, “when will these signs be changed”….they stated by the next board meeting! Thank you to all who played a part in this issue. Your voice was heard and you made a difference!!!!