Home › News › Local News
Dispute on the other side of the tracks
La Conchita, railroad in tussle over communal strip of land
Joseph A. Garcia / Star staff La Conchita resident Jack Oren, near a garden he and his wife tend, says the railroad has cut off his beach access.
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsResidents of the hard-luck beachside community of La Conchita call it the "great railroad robbery."
The Union Pacific Railroad has fenced off the track-side land used for generations as the community's main street, community park and impromptu common front yard and blocked access to the ocean in a move the local Coastal Commission office says is likely illegal.
New "no trespassing" signs have been posted on the strip, and a gate has been installed across a drainageway leading down to the beach — a square culvert used for years by people to crouch down and scuttle under the tracks and oceanfront Highway 101 to reach the water.
The gate was quickly pried off its posts by persons unknown, undercutting the La Conchita community leaders who have for years sought to lease their side of the 1,200-foot-long, 40-foot-wide strip of land. That vandalism means those talks are off, a Union Pacific lawyer said.
"The railroad wishes to proceed with its plans to remove vegetation from the property, including palm trees," Union Pacific attorney David M. Pickett told townspeople in a demand letter sent in late June. Pickett noted "the recent vandalism to the chain on Union Pacific's gate" and gave La Conchita residents 30 days to remove trees, shrubs and grass planted over the years to beautify and reduce dust on the railroad's land.
Union Pacific spokeswoman Zoe Richmond in Sacramento said the railroad has federal safety rules that require its right of way to be kept free of trees or bushes that might fall on the tracks or block engineers' sight lines toward crossings or places where trespassers might be on the rails.
Strawberry truck moved
Longtime La Conchita fruit stand operator Ray Gann has had to move his strawberry truck off the highway-adjacent railroad land and into an unused gas station because of the new fence.
"This time, Jesse James is working for the railroad," he said.
The coastal hamlet of La Conchita was devastated on Jan. 10, 2005, when the rain-soaked bluff that towers over it gave way, killing 10 residents and damaging or destroying 33 houses. The 40-foot-wide strip of vacant land between the town's main street and the Union Pacific track served as a temporary morgue, mobile command center, Red Cross feeding station and emergency parking lot for more than a week.
Since then, the strip had reverted to its prior use as an overflow parking lot, school bus turnaround and fruit stand site. Part of it has been landscaped with grass, banana and palm trees and benches.
We planted grass on it'
"We have used that strip for 60 years without any complaint from the railroad," said Mike Bell, a La Conchita activist who has lived since 1983 in a house that fronts the strip, tracks, railroad, freeway and ocean, in that order.
"We planted grass on it decades ago because our kids were getting allergies and asthma from the dust and weeds that the railroad was growing," said Karen Oren, another volunteer. "And after that last slide, we needed a meeting place, and this was as far from the slide that we could get."
Birthday parties for La Conchita kids were held in the track-side park because parents did not want all of the small community's kids at any particular house should another landslide rumble down the bluff, Oren said. The nearest public meeting area, school or library is in Carpinteria or Ventura.
Stepchild of Ventura County
As of late June, the parklike garden along the track was fenced off with a hand-railing-type barrier. A Union Pacific spokeswoman said the final configuration of the fence, and ultimate removal of the landscaping, is up in the air.
"We are continuing to work with agencies to try to come up with a solution," said Richmond. "We think the local government agencies may be able to work out a lease for the land."
Fat chance, said local residents. Ventura County has erected a sign at the entrance to La Conchita proclaiming it an unsafe area, and residents and the county have just begun a trial over residents' claims that what they call a botched landslide prevention effort after a 1995 landslide led to the deadly 2005 slide.
"La Conchita is the stepchild of Ventura County," Bell said. "We are not expecting any help on this." County Supervisor Steve Bennett, who represents the west county, was not available for comment.
Lindsay Nielson, a Ventura College of Law real estate professor, said the railroad company is a quasi-public utility and has the overwhelming upper legal hand. Any possible right to usage of the land, by virtue of a long-running, continuous public trespass, ranks below a railroad utility's property rights and federal laws, he said.
"You can't threaten these railroad people," Nielson said. "In 2005, their tracks here were submerged in mud, and they are not very happy with La Conchita and its people."
The Ventura land-use lawyer has seen the railroad spar with other people, like the Faria Beach residents who complained that a railroad crossing that was in use for 70 years was closed off last year by Union Pacific.
Near Carpinteria, the railroad is in a fight over a fence it has built near Santa Claus Lane to prevent sand from blowing onto the rail line. The fence prevents beachgoers from crossing the tracks, a possible violation of the state Coastal Act, a state official said.
The state Coastal Commission office in Ventura has entered into the La Conchita fray, as it considers the drainage culvert "to be the only accessway to that beach that does not involve people with surfboards running across four lanes of U.S. 101, with traffic going by them at 65 miles an hour," said enforcement officer Pat Veesart.
"We believe that fence and gate require a coastal development permit, and we've contacted the county and asked them to take enforcement action," Veesart said. Although a permit could be legally granted to Union Pacific for the fence and the landscaping removal, Veesart said, closing the beach accessway under the tracks "would be contrary to the state's Coastal Act."
Access a question mark
"Are people driving up from Ventura to crouch under the tracks and run down to the beach?" he asked. "Maybe not, but it would be our recommendation that public access be maintained."
Ventura County's Planning Division is not sure if the Coastal Commission beach access laws override the Public Utilities Commission's railroad regulations, which would allow Union Pacific to close the culvert.
The county is in charge of enforcing state coastal access laws in La Conchita and is evaluating the legal issue, Nancy Butler Francis, the division's manager for land use permits section, said in an e-mail.
That leaves La Conchita's beach access a question mark, and its main street narrowed roughly in half, with the dirt strip next to the pavement off-limits.
"The school bus can't turn around, we have no place to park, and we get tourists in here stuck with RVs that can't turn around," Jack Oren said. "They cut off our beach access; I've been using that for 40 years."
Berry salesman Gann said his business has dropped a little bit since he gave up his high visibility location perched on railroad company land.
"Life was sure a lot simpler before the railroad company discovered we were growing grass along here, instead of dust and weeds."
Posted by shaver_one on July 5, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Corporate interests, once again, rears its ugly head.
Posted by NothingButTheTruth on July 5, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just perhaps Union Pacific railroad is looking at how lawsuit happy La Conchita residents are and feel they need to cover themselves. Also, since IT IS railroad property, they have a right to control its use. Could you imagine the hue & cry if the railroad plopped down equipment, etc on the property of La Conchita homeowners? What I really think helps the County in their lawsuit is the utterly stupid remark: " because parents did not want all of the small community's kids at any particular house should another landslide rumble down the bluff, Oren said." Yeah, well WHERE do those SAME children SLEEP at night? The next time a child dies in a landslide at La Conchita, the parents (if they survive) should be charged with child endangerment. They state they admit knowing it is a dangerous place, but choose to put their egos above the safety of their children. That is really being under the influence of stupid!
Posted by Adam_Monroe on July 5, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am so sick of hearing these La Conchita people whine about every little thing...
They need to shut up and move somewhere else already...then have the county go in there and raze that whole unsafe, pointless block of real-estate...
If I see or hear anymore nonsense about that little community, I am going to drive over there myself with some hiking boots and a water hose......
Posted by alloyz25 on July 5, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree, these sue happy residents have made the railroad consider that one day someone might be hurt during one of the birthday parties held on railroad property, and with the help of scumbag lawyers another disgusting lawsuit arrives. My suggestion is with Adam_Monroe, kick these squatters out and bulldoze the entire $h*t-Hole to the ground!
Posted by Will on July 5, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Once they leave La Conchita 90% of them will probably end up in the Ventura River encampment. Wait a minute...we should move the encampment to La Conchita.
Posted by pmotherat on July 5, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe that is exactly what "they" want. To get everyone to move from La Conchita so "they" can bulldoze the homes and put a public parking lot there and charge admission, VIA the under rail access. Another not so free beach for the use of the public. Remember when "they" redid surfers point to encourage use. Yea, the same one thats floating away with every wave. The one "they" want to redo again to enlarge the lot you have to pay to go into ........ for the publics benefit, of course....... NOT ! ! !
Posted by NothingButTheTruth on July 5, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, maybe "they" see dead people too! Just like La Conchita residents see "deep pockets"... and to heck with putting their children in dangerous houses... to sleep during the night... as the rain pours down on the cliff above. Obviously La Conchita residents believe their children are... "expendable"... just as long as the adults get "their way".... oh, and yeah, some of that money out of the deep pockets of the County, Union Pacific and the La Conchita Ranch Co.
Posted by keepin_it_real on July 5, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"We planted grass decades ago because our kids were getting allergies and asthma from the dirt and weeds." Hello!!! They were obviously already living is a dangerous situation as it was. If they were that concerned, why didn't they move. It is one thing to put yourselves in danger, but the kids? That is just wrong. It is a suicide waiting to happen. I agree with the other post saying these parents should be charged with child endangerment. I think the county should look into that.
Seems like we are all on the same page here. Hopefully the jury will be as well. What a waste of the taxpayers money. Declare it a disaster area and plow it under.
Posted by mother on July 5, 2008 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Adam_Monroe, how bad is your life that you feel compelled to make a joke about going and killing people? It seems that is what you're implying. The lawsuit right now is about 10 people that died three years ago that were not allowed to leave that day- the only exit to La Conchita was blockaded by the county from 8 am onward and everyone was told to go back to their homes by the county. No one was crying about the crushed houses. 10 beautiful, kind, talented hardworking and loving people died that day. The residents of La Conchita paid 20 million dollars in taxes to the county in the ten years between slides even with all their nest eggs and property values reduced to nothing and that day their lives were not even recognized as something worth protecting- they were not allowed to walkaway and protect themselves. You can say that they shouldn't of lived there in the first place, but the county sure didn't mind collecting taxes from them. All of the homes, save one or two, in La Conchita were bought before the first landslide in 1995 at a premium price and with no warning of being in a geologic hazard zone. For most people everything they own is in their house and after that first slide their expensive and mortgaged homes were suddenly worth nothing. I'm sure you can afford to pick up and move and pay two mortgages- the mortgage company doesn't care. NONE of the families of those that died still live there. Almost all who died, tried to leave that day, were told to go back to their homes by officials and perished in them. Money is not more important than life, but apparently if you're working class you pay taxes to protect people richer than yourself and your life isn't worth that much and that's socially acceptable. It must make you feel very powerful to joke about the deaths of people that for some reason you see as lesser than yourself. I'm sure you're a very important and wise person. Your hatred must also make your senses very keen. That pecking order logic makes life so warm and beautiful! Thank you for your genius.
Posted by scott on July 5, 2008 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
aw shucks my illegally parked berry stand I payed no rent for had to be moved . give us a break close this commnity down use emminate domain to move these people off this death trap once and for all. it is not fit for living as anyone who drives up or down the 101 can see. If you people want the hill fixed pony up the cash don't expect everybody else to pay for your chioce to live in a geological hazard zone.
Posted by Adam_Monroe on July 5, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You're very welcome mother! Anytime!
Now if you'll excuse me, I must going...I am going to be performing in the world's smallest violin recital...
Posted by Tom_Johnston on July 5, 2008 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are a lot of really mean spirited things being said here..things not necessary to a discussion of whether or not the railroad does or does not have a right to do what it has done.
Whether it truly needs to after so many years of neglect speaks to me more of a policy decision that an actual safety need.
There is not that much difference between the people of La Conchita or their choices than that of the thousands who live in fire-prone canyons in the southland.
The folks in La Conchita just aren't rich or celebreties or any of that..heck they are just regular folks...and for what its worth...the geology of the area...hills slide down sometimes.
La Conchita a few years ago, maybe your neighborhood soon.
Posted by keepin_it_real on July 5, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom_Johnson, I understnd what you are saying, however there is another difference between the people of La Conchita and people who live in burn areas. People who live in these burn areas don't go suing or blaming any one else when their house burns down. They rebuild again or move out of the area.
There were "Danger" signs put up at La Conchita and they were also notified in writing and they decided to ignore them.
If you go to the beach and there is a sign that says "danger enter at your own risk" you go swimming anyway and get hurt or worse, you have no one to blame but your self.
I also tend to agree with the other post in regards to Union Pacific, they may be afraid because of the lawsuit going on, if something happens on their property, some idiot lawyer will get their hands on it and find some way to sue them too.
I am sorry people lost their lives and homes I really am. I also understand they couln't afford to leave, but under the circumstances how could you afford not to.
Posted by NothingButTheTruth on July 6, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom,it's not that people are being mean spirited, they are just tired of the La Conchita residents claiming someone else caused their problems and now are lawsuit happy. Yes, I'm sure who ever (likely a La Conchita resident) pried off the gate the railroad put up will be first in line to SUE the railroad if something happens to them. That cliff has been there many years and anyone who CHOSE to build there WITHOUT getting a geological survey BEFOREHAND must have suicidal tendencies. And yes, as keepi_it_real said, those who choose to build in brush and tree laden areas take a similar risk and should NOT blame ANYONE ELSE either. These people made serious errors in judgement in choosing to build there and YES it was an expensive error. But, what really rankles MANY of us is La Conchita residents total disregard for the safety of children who have no choice but to obey their parents and live a life of danger. While we all feel a degree of sorrow for those who lost their lives and property value... it didn't have to happen if they'd used better judgement. Loss of property value is no excuse for continuing to place children's lives in danger. And I do not believe for one New York minute that ANY of those people were "ordered" back to their houses... and if they had been told not to inhabit them, the attitudes they display tells me they would have balked. Let's hope the jury sees through these lawyerly allegations.
Posted by KenInIowa on July 11, 2008 at 11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The land is private property protected by Federal Statutes. For example, who ever tore off the gate from the culvert, commmited a felony in most states.
Case history before Federal Courts have decided that regardless of any history of trespassing, the Railroads have a right to hold and use their property as they see fit according the Federal law. If that means erecting a fence, it is well within the rights of the Railroad to do so.
I have seen cases where local and state authorities have tried to over-ride Federal Railroad regulations, and failed.
Best bet, lick your wounded egos, and build an overpass to access the beach. It is probably the safest alternative, and probably cheaper in the long run. Lawyers who practice before the Surface Transportation Board or Federal Railroad Administration are quite expensive and I have known cases like this to go on for years.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.