SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
August 15, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

It’s Official-The Bridgeport Signs are a Land Grab!

My personal reconaissance of the area now confirms that the Bridgport HOA’s no trespassing signs are nothing more than a blatant land grab in direct contravention of the development agreement between Newhall Land and Farming (“NLF”) and the City of Santa Clarita that resulted in the building of the Bridgeport Tract.

When I first heard about the signs I held a very slight degree of sympathy for the Bridgeport HOA, because I personally witnessed the scores of people associated with weddings and proms tromping around the grassy area in front of the iconic lighthouse at the corner of McBean Parkway and Newhall Ranch Road, obviously having some negative impact on the landscaping, but a viewing this morning during one of my walkabouts in Valencia revealed a more sinister purpose.

The signs shown so eloquently in a previous entry, upon a personal viewing, would do nothing to prevent the “abuse” of the landscaped corner.  They are too small and not even visible from the street so that a wedding party of 100 could show up for photographs, spend an hour, and protest legitimate ignorance to any responding sheriff’s deputy.

However, the small signs, perched right at the entrance to the lake paseo system made public through the aforementioned development agreement, seem designed to discourage legitimate foot traffic through the lake paseo, an illegal land grab by the HOA to make the public paseo private.

City spokesperson Gail Ortiz last week acknowledged the illegality of the signs and stated the City would take action, yet the signs remain as of this morning, so further action must be taken.  In the Middle Ages when a noblemen defied a sovereign the King would raise an army, lay siege to the rebel noble’s castle, and hang them from the walls once the castle was taken.  Bringing up seige engines and burning the Bridgeport lighthouse to the ground is probably too much for 2010, but what about K-bars over the limited entrances to Bridgeport, denying the residents egress to the street system since they sought to seize the paseo footpaths?  Seems like a fair exchange, since they can use their “private” paseos to walk in and out.

It’s Official-The Bridgeport Signs are a Land Grab!

Comments (13)

  1. AndyAugust 15, 2010 at 11:06 am
    Would the Sheriffs really show up if I started taking pictures there? Looks like it’s time to set up my 4×5 camera in that park!
  2. Wendy LanghansAugust 15, 2010 at 11:39 am
    I predict the signs will be a topic for discussion at the board meeting next week.
  3. Jim FarleyAugust 15, 2010 at 3:10 pm
    “Seems like a fair exchange, since they can use their “private” paseos to talk in and out.” Not only to “talk” in and out but also to “walk” in and out. As a serious walker and cyclist around this area I’ve never really used the paseos around the lake. Are the paseos around the lake public just as all the other paseos in and around Bridgeport, Northbridge, etc are? If that is the case the Bridgeport HOA is completely out of line with the sign postings. Good information here Tim.
  4. Timothy MyersAugust 15, 2010 at 7:44 pm
    Jim: Thanks for the edit. One enters the lake paseo at the Community Center and exits it near Bridgeport Elementary, a nice walk around the Northern edge of the slew. NLF made it public in perpetuity as a condition of the development. Signs have always prohibited biking, skating and skateboarding: It is solely a foot paseo.
  5. Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogAugust 16, 2010 at 9:37 am
    The great thing about these signs is that I was previously unaware that those were even public walkways and had never visited them before… but now that the signs are there the resulting discussion has made this a destination of interest for me. Thanks for the Invitation Bridgeport, mighty kind of you! I had the opportunity to gather a group of local hooligans and *shudder* theater types and go take pictures there last Friday at midnight, we had a great time and will be making return visits
  6. navigatorAugust 16, 2010 at 10:38 am
    I wonder if the NO TRESPASSING warnings include the ducks and geese.
  7. Tim MyersAugust 16, 2010 at 11:51 am
    Navigator: Remember during the coot kerfuffle when the Bridgeport resident wrote an LTE stating that there was a waterfowl preserve at the Bouquet Reservoir and the coots should “respect” private property?
  8. navigatorAugust 16, 2010 at 11:59 am
    Wasn’t that about the same time they were calling “Have Gun Will Travel?” Now that I give it some thought my shotgun and I could make a few extra bucks ridding them of unwanted waterfowl and the Woodlands of bunnies. I suppose I’d need to be a little more clandestine about pedestrian traffic. I could lure them in with a trail of disposable cameras!
  9. Tim MyersAugust 16, 2010 at 12:16 pm
    Be vewwy quiet! I’m huntin’s wabbit!
  10. scvtruthsquadAugust 16, 2010 at 10:39 am
    Perfect place to leave a geocache, so thousands of people can stop and try to find the item that is hidden…would’nt that be fun.
  11. Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogAugust 16, 2010 at 3:28 pm
    Now that is hilarious. You should definitely follow through with that. If I had any idea how to do it I would take on the task myself.
  12. CoastalSageAugust 16, 2010 at 3:22 pm
    For those who have forgotten, California’s Government Code requires that for every Development Agreement a city enters into, they are MANDATED to annually hold a public hearing to determine whether a developer is complying with a development agreement. In 2002, we did California Public Records Act Requests, for copies of all of the Development Agreements the City of Santa Clarita ever entered into. It turned out they NEVER had had any of the annual public hearings on any of the Development Agreements, except for the Development Agreement for Porta Bella (Whittaker Bermite) which the City Council members thought they terminated for the developer’s non-performance. After winning a contested hearing in the Phoenix bankruptcy court, where the judge said he could not compel the City to allow a third party developer to “assume” the obligations under the defaulted development agreement, the geniuses hired as the City’s attorneys and senior City staff decided to sign a settlement agreement, effectively reinstating the terminated development agreement (a benefit to Whittaker Bermite’s owners) without Whittaker Bermite’s developer releasing its claims for the money value of the Metrolink parking lot and Golden Valley Road right of way which were promised to the City as part of the Development Agreement package. So as to the Bridgeport “open space”, folks should not be surprised if (1) it turns out that the City staff never bothered to get public easements recorded to bind the HOA as successors to Newhall Land’s promises in the Development Agreement and (2) it turns out that the Development Agreement has expired, destroying the promises of public open space easements. In Santa Clarita, through a combination of developer-pandering City staff intent and City staff neglect, developers’ promises frequently do not come true.
  13. Tim MyersAugust 16, 2010 at 3:50 pm
    That would be a bummer in the summer!

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support