Home › News › Local News
Who will buy land won in La Conchita case?
Farm will be sold if a buyer can be found
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsThe land that came crashing down on La Conchita in 2005 and killed 10 people now belongs, in a sense, to the survivors of that landslide. The farm above the seaside hamlet will be sold as part of a legal settlement, and the money will be divided among 36 people who were injured or who lost their homes or their loved ones in the slide.
But what, exactly, did the plaintiffs win? The owners of La Conchita Ranch Co. are more than happy to be rid of the property, their lawyer said. Experts in agriculture and real estate say the land will be a bear to sell, given its history of landslides and the possibility that the next owner could be sued if there's another serious slide.
"If you offered me that ranch for free, I would not farm it," said Harold Edwards, the CEO of Limoneira Co., the county's largest avocado and citrus grower.
The La Conchita Ranch property is 700 acres, most of it prime farmland covered with avocado and citrus orchards. According to the standard per-acre pricing model for agricultural land in Ventura County, it could be worth about $50 million.
That's without the landslide factor. The actual price will be much lower, said Lynn Osslund, a commercial real estate broker in Camarillo who specializes in agricultural properties.
"If I were a buyer, I wouldn't want to touch that with a 10-foot pole," she said.
When Bill Thompson heard about the settlement — which also includes $5 million in insurance payments — his first thought was that it was too big. Thompson was the jury foreman in the civil trial, and, he said, the jurors would probably not have awarded damages equal to the value of the entire property.
But in the ensuing days, he's changed his mind.
"Now I think I wouldn't want that property for free," he said. "If there's another slide, even if they do everything a reasonable person would do to make it safe, a clever attorney is always going to come up with some argument, and there's always some chance of liability, no matter what."
Quick sale anticipated
The plaintiffs are happy with the settlement and think they'll sell the land quickly, according to their lead attorney, Anthony Murray of the Los Angeles firm Loeb & Loeb.
Murray said he's already heard from "six or seven" people who are interested in the property, including both farmers and potential developers.
"We think that we will be able to sell it, and for a decent return," he said. "There's no doubt that it remains an unstable slope, and it's fairly obvious there would be some discount, as compared to property that is not unstable. Of course, any buyer will have to take that into consideration."
Murray said he thinks the property will sell for "somewhere in the tens of millions of dollars."
The hills and canyons just inland from La Conchita have been eyed by developers before, he said, and they could accommodate either scattered estates or a denser cluster of homes.
But there are regulatory hurdles to any development on the coast, and the La Conchita property's history and geology would make it even harder to build on. Any development plan would have to include work to terrace and stabilize the hillside, Murray said.
The property could be farmed again, too, he said, as long as the new owner takes the steps that La Conchita Ranch Co. did not take to divert runoff and stabilize the hillside.
There's a common perception that irrigating the orchards contributed to the landslide, but, Murray said, that's not really true. The plaintiffs in a 1995 lawsuit that stemmed from an earlier slide tried and failed to establish that irrigation caused that slide; the recent lawsuit was about rainwater runoff, not orchard irrigation.
"It's not inherently dangerous to farm," Murray said.
Irrigated farming opposed
The residents of La Conchita aren't convinced. While taking his trash out on a recent evening, 30-year resident Bob Hart said he doesn't want to see any more irrigated farming on the ranch property.
"There's room back there for a whole community," Hart said. "They could really build something nice. Or, they could go to cattle ranching. Just nothing that entails heavy watering."
His comments were echoed by four other La Conchita residents, though none would give their names.
People in La Conchita, they said, are generally happy about the settlement, and they hope the eventual owner will do something to stabilize the hillside.
That's not impossible, according to geologists who have studied La Conchita. The jury decided, based on experts' testimony, that La Conchita Ranch Co. should have done more to prevent a slide.
"With enough time and money, anything can be stabilized," said Randall Jibson, a researcher with the U.S. Geological Survey. He did not testify in the recent trial, but his reports on La Conchita were entered into evidence.
Jibson said both written records and geological evidence show that La Conchita has suffered a major landslide about every few decades, going back hundreds of years.
"This is an area that's particularly prone to these landslides," he said. "A property owner will be assuming a very high degree of liability if nothing changes on that bluff."
The only sure way to stabilize the bluff would involve excavating the entire slope and essentially moving it back, Jibson said. The cost would be in the tens of millions of dollars.
"It would be on such a large scale that the economics would be pretty daunting," Jibson said.
Another expert study that's still under way will propose a $100 million solution, said Richard Morton, La Conchita Ranch Co.'s attorney.
"It's just prohibitively expensive to fix it completely," he said.
Water diversion proposed
There are other, cheaper fixes, though they wouldn't completely eliminate the risk of another slide.
Murray, the plaintiffs' attorney, said the next owner will have to take "reasonable steps" to stabilize the hillside, or face the same liability that La Conchita Ranch Co. faced.
Reasonable steps would include the measures that the jury decided the ranch company should have taken, such as diverting the rainwater that runs down the slope, Murray said.
"We would certainly prefer a buyer who is committed to doing that," he said.
Whatever must be done, it won't be the plaintiffs who will do it, Murray said. Their aim is to sell the property, not farm it, develop it or stabilize it.
If the ranch sells quickly, the plaintiffs will never actually own it. It is being turned over now to a court-appointed receiver, who will try to sell it by Dec. 1.
If it's not sold by that date, a limited liability corporation controlled by the plaintiffs will take over and will continue to try to sell the property.
So, if the property does not sell by Dec. 1, it will pass indirectly through the hands of the La Conchita residents and property owners who lost the most in the 2005 landslide. If they don't have a legal obligation to try to stabilize the hillside, they should at least have a moral one, said Thompson, the jury foreman.
"I think they should do everything they stated the ranch should do," he said. "I feel like if they're being consistent, what we'll see is that all of that will get done."
Posted by handyhood on September 18, 2008 at 3:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good luck selling that piece of land. Whats funny is that now the lawyers are saying that every couple of decades the hill is known to slide. So why on earth would anyone continue to live under it? Anyone who does should live there at their own risk.
Posted by Freedom1 on September 18, 2008 at 4:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If this property doesn't sell by the transfer to the plaintiffs on December 1st and there is another slide which brings death and destruction to the community that now owns it who will they and their scumbag attorneys be suing? Themselves?
Posted by luv2sail on September 18, 2008 at 5:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hopefully the land will not sell by 1 December and then the losers, the plantiffs in this case, will have to take possesion of the property. Assuming it could be worth as much as 50 million that would mean that they are saddled with a 625k property tax bill.
Be careful what you wish for.
Posted by Freedom1 on September 18, 2008 at 6:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good point Luv2Sail! But I'll bet the day that happens their attorney will be back in court requesting that the state relinquish any property tax assessments - if he hasn't already done it.
Posted by cslaurie on September 18, 2008 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Of course it will sell, the attorneys need their 40 percent.
Posted by Franko on September 18, 2008 at 6:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There's room back there for a whole community," Hart said. "They could really build something nice. Or, they could go to cattle ranching. Just nothing that entails heavy watering."
Mr Hart-Please tell Mother Nature when to turn off the faucet during those El Nino years.
Posted by keepin_it_real on September 18, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And the idiots are still going to live there? That is just great. Keeping themselves and their families in danger. I hope we have a really big rainstorm between now and Dec 1, (I do not wish someone get killed or hurt) I don't wish that on anyone, but just to teach these guys a lesson. I hope the loose their a$$es and assets.
I don't think they will learn any other way. I hope they and their scumbag lawyers will not see a penny of that money. Those who have children and stay there should get child endangerment charges too.
And I can't believe someone else is going to be stupid enough to buy that ranch. That is yet to be seen. Will be interesting.
Posted by just_a_thought on September 18, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Murry said..."The plaintiffs in a 1995 lawsuit that stemmed from an earlier slide tried and failed to establish that irrigation caused that slide; the recent lawsuit was about rainwater runoff, not orchard irrigation."
If this was the case why were these people allowed to sue the land owner? Shouldn't they have been suing God for the rainfall? Also, if the slide was caused by the combination of unstable earth mixed with heavy rainfall, why was it solely the responsiblity of the landowner up above the slide to rectify the unstablity? Why were the landowners below the slide not responsible? After all, this article states that the blame was rainwater runoff NOT the farmers irrigation!
It is ridiculous that these irresponsible people were allowed to bring this suit against the landowner much less "win" the case. I, personally, don't see it as a "win" and hope they lose their a**es. At leaset they will be the ones responsible for any damage the next time that hill decides to shift due to rain.
Score:
Orchard owner - 1 La Conchita residents - 0
*Greed is a loser
Posted by keepin_it_real on September 18, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe they should have sued Mother Nature. "You can't fool Mother Nature."
Posted by lawabider on September 18, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
tried to post a few minutes ago and the site had an error -- what I said was, the potential future owners should insist on a "hold harmless" agreement from ALL La Conchita residents before they put their money into escrow... what a scam... you can be PAID to be STUPID in America -- just ask McDonalds!!!
Posted by Jacksprat on September 18, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What goes around comes around. these people now own the ranch which they claim cause the death. Reading the story on one will be willing to buy that land and take on that libiblity, so now these people who sued will own the land where more land slides will happen. They should never have been allowed to build on that tiny strip of land. So next winter with heavy rains, another land slide.
Posted by BeaHappi on September 18, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Dear Potential Buyers ~ please buy this amazing ranch from us. However, please note that if we have torrential rains that result in the hill sliding (again) and the slide damages or ruins our homes, that you will likely be sued by us."
Signed,
La Conchita Ranch Property Owners
(and their attorneys)
Posted by mtlm on September 18, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If this wasn't about money, why wouldn't they use the $3 million of insurance money left after attorney's fees to immediately address the rainwater run-off themselves? Even if they find a buyer by Dec. 1, with escrow and time delays they will face yet another rainy season before a new owner could do anything significant. It might also alleviate buyer's concerns and yield a higher sale price.
Posted by Aconcernedcitizen on September 18, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Since property taxes are late December 10th. I wonder if the La Conchita plaintiffs will be responsible for paying the taxes on the ranch this year.
I will be amazed if this property is sold anytime soon or at all. The plaintiff's own attorney stated the following: "There's a common perception that irrigating the orchards contributed to the landslide, but, Murray said, that's not really true. The plaintiffs in a 1995 lawsuit that stemmed from an earlier slide tried and failed to establish that irrigation caused that slide; the recent lawsuit was about rainwater runoff, not orchard irrigation."
If this is the case then the slide would have happened if NO ONE owned the property, what are the La Conchita owners prepared to do to prevent slides in the future? The liability is too great for any potential buyer to even contemplate the purchase of the property.
Posted by icanilluminateu on September 18, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That land is tainted. It'e essentially worthless. No developer in his right mind is going to take on the liability associated with that land. The La Conchita plantiffs just got ***ked and the the farm owners are lauhing.
Posted by whatsup805 on September 18, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If we have heavy rains this year and a slide happens...who is liable then?
I thought that area was deemed unsafe back in the 90's?
Posted by lawabider on September 18, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yes, whatsup, it was... the motto in our home is "if you don't listen, you're going to feel" -- too bad LC didn't listen the first time -- the lives lost in the second slide could have been avoided...
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on September 18, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think the farm owners are laughing, they are walking away from with 50 million less in their pockets.
Posted by icanilluminateu on September 18, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ReadMyLips-
The ranch was only making $150K to $200K profit on operations. They could never have sold the land because of the liability. By giving them (the plantifs) the land, they're getting out of the liability of ownership. They were quoted as glad to give up the land.
Posted by hitwatUaimat on September 18, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I just dont understand the mentality of the people who live in LC. Let me see I'm going to move my family into a community that is located under an unstable hill, which has been known for YEARS. Then I'm going to blame someone else for my own stupidity.
I also wonder if any insurance company is stupid enough to insure this piece of land. That would be just plain bad business.
**Yep it's the rainy season again, there goes another $5mil**
Posted by beachgurl on September 18, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I predict that alot of the hippie semi-vagrants that live in La Conchita now will wander back up into the ranch site and set up a really groovy commune.
Posted by Comments on September 18, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I feel really sorry for the familes who lost loved ones during the landslide. However, I do not agree with this lawsuit at all. The residents all knew of the danger and they all chose to stay. And, many are living there to this day. I realize that it's not so easy to just up and leave your home, especially in this economy. And, some of the homeowners might truly be stuck. However, there's NO excuse for renters to still be around. Shame on them.
I also find it appalling that they sued the ranch owner and took everything from him. How do they sleep with themselves knowing that? I cannot imagine why anyone would want to buy that property. The only way it would be even worth considering is if La Conchita were condemned and all residents were made to leave. The city needs to take this area over as uninhabitable.
The hypocracy of the LC residents now owning the property is astounding. I too hope that they wind up being landowners as of 12/1. I do not wish another landslide on them. I would however love to see them have to hold on to that land year after year, after year.
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on September 18, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
icanilluminateu-
That does not mean the land owners received the land for free 5-10-20 years ago. They paid for something and ended up forfeiting it.
I would never live in La Conchita, I had the opportunity to purchase a place there in 1999 when I went to work for a company in Carpinteria. I remember looking up at the hill and thinking "Nope, I'm not going to live here, that is a bad idea".
If only I would have purchased that house, heck I could have been part of the settlement. Or dead.
Posted by FedUp on September 18, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I predict that alot of the hippie semi-vagrants that live in La Conchita now will wander back up into the ranch site and set up a really groovy commune."
thats what I think as well. how many of those people are going to move their belongings up there, to live in a teepee or something?
I say demolish the homes, and put the prison hospital there! any time it rains, the employees are allowed to leave, the prisoners stay. let god take care of the rest.
Posted by lawabider on September 18, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, FedUp -- that's the best idea I've heard so far for that defective property! And the drug dealers in LC won't have far to be transported when law enforcement actually gets a clue what they're up to there... Condemn the property and put the condemned on the property... makes sense!
Posted by crazymind20082009 on September 18, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
love your thoughts FedUP. Again cost money to stablize the hill side.
I say just leave it, and let the residents move. The little piece of land does not ship bananas or produce out to the VC....All the resdidents were warned about the poperty and how the hill side was not a good place.
Posted by pumpiw on September 23, 2008 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The plaintiffs should just seek out a conservancy to give the ranch to with appropriate reservations to return the land to its native state and committment to preserve that state in perpetuity. In return, the new landowner gets a hold harmless from slides and damage. Or, is it really just about the money?
Posted by MusselShoalsResident on September 25, 2008 at 2:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope my fine neighbors in La Conchita haven't started spending that settlement money just yet. I have it on good authority that no one will buy the property since it is uninsurable, makes only a minimal profit even in the absence of litigation, and is essentially a liability.
La Conchita's lawyers at Loeb and Loeb will then keep ALL of the insurance money as a PORTION of their 40% contingency fees and have a lien on some portion of the ranch on top of that, though Loeb an Loeb will not have any liability themselves. [Incidentally, that is why your lawyers told you not to accept the insurance money when offered to you in settlement negotiations prior to trial ... they'd only have gotten 40% of it and now they get 100%.]
Still listening? Because it gets even better ... Ventura will take your lawyer at his word and assess the value of the property at the time of transfer to be "somewhere in the tens of millions of dollars." Of course you'll want to fight the county on that but no one will take your case because you have nothing to pay them with, as Loeb & Loeb has all the cash. By around this time next year your LLC will owe the County several hundred thousand dollars in back taxes. The County will foreclose but there's still no buyer.
Long story short, the lawyers get all the money, the government gets the property free of liability to you, and you get nothing. Same old story, really. Did you really think the Ranch Company would walk away from property worth millions if it were really worth millions, rather than just do a simple Bankrutpcy filing? Did you really think it would work out any other way???
Posted by socal2310 on October 6, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Excellent analysis MSR. A lesson for anyone: always accept the cash settlement. Better a smaller take of guaranteed cash than a larger take for projected proceeds of a sale.
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:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
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.
There are 29 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.