Ord 3973 review today

LeeVW
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:16 am

Re: Ord 3973 review today

Post by LeeVW » Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:57 am

Sorry Sal, I forgot to answer your question:

"Has their purchase of the lands surrounding your friend's land been reflected in the DAG for that area?"

I'm not sure, as I haven't see the DAG for that area. My friend ended up calling the assessor's office, and they are the ones who told him that most of the land is now BLM land.

PITD,

I see it all the time too. It doesn't bother me when people go nuts in a true OHV area, but it really gets to me when they rip it up in Limited Use areas. I think that's the nitty gritty of why we lose so much land to Wilderness designation. They (a certain pair of Senators, to be more precise) would rather lock out ALL vehicles than restrict sensitive areas to street legal vehicles only. Those of us who actually travel in the desert can understand the difference, but those who control the desert have no idea. Government at its finest!

Lee

Sal
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Ord 3973 review today

Post by Sal » Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:42 pm

go here to see who's really pulling the strings in San Bernardino county:

http://www.recallcalifornia.com/mitzelfelt.htm#ilinks

what do you suppose could be their interests?
Last edited by Anonymous on Fri Mar 26, 2010 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed colors in post

User avatar
Stanley
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:14 pm

Re: Ord 3973 review today

Post by Stanley » Wed Mar 24, 2010 6:21 pm

I guess you are a little fizzed up Sal. Not suprising. So you are going back to the same old tactics are ya. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sal
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Ord 3973 review today

Post by Sal » Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:36 pm

Young Homes Rancho Cucamonga
Cadiz Inc. Los Angeles
Majestic Realty Co.City of Industry
Service Rock Products Victorville CA
American Housing Group, Inc Victorville
Real Estate Investor Desmont Properties
Mitsubishi Cement Corp. Lucerne Valley
LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC Upland CA
Avenal Finance LLC Rancho Cucamonga
United Engineering Group California Phoenix AZ
Winchester Properties IV, LLC Thousand Oaks CA
Burrtec Waste Industries Inc.Fontana CA
Watson Land Company Carson CA
Texas Industries Riverside Cement Dallas TX
American Realty Capital Advisors Inc.Laguna Hills CA
Belshire Environmental Services, Inc.Foothill Ranch
Citizens Water Resources, LLC Victorville CA
FORBES STEEL INC.Phelan CA
Hendon M. Harri Thousand Oaks CA 91362-Real Estate Springfield LLC
PENNHILL LAND COMPANY, INC.Newport Beach
Pyramid Building and Engineering Inc Hesperia
Geo-Logic Associates Claremont
California Steel lndustries, Inc. Fontana CA
Everett L. Hodges San Clemente CA 92673-President Havasu Water Co
ICO Development, LLC Los Angeles CA
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Los Angeles CA 90071

Above is just a partial list of contributors to Mitzelfelt's campaign. It's all about development.


Would developers be able to build on pristine lands as easily as lands already impacted by OHV use?

That's the big question here
Last edited by Anonymous on Fri Mar 26, 2010 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed Rainbow colors in post

Brew
Posts: 344
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:43 am

Re: Ord 3973 review today

Post by Brew » Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:52 am

Sal wrote: Would developers be able to buiild on pristine lands as easily as lands already impacted by OHV use?
That's the big question here
Could it be that the "pristine lands" are private property, and not BLM land?

Brew

LeeVW
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:16 am

Re: Ord 3973 review today

Post by LeeVW » Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:03 am

To the best of my knowledge, the only commercial entities who wish to develop OUR public lands are the so-called "green energy" interests. They want to take over pristine BLM land, blade it clean (killing untold numbers of plants and animals), carve out hundreds of miles of desert for the transmission lines (resulting in further habitat fragmentation), and then CHARGE us for the little bit of power they generate.

Lee

Sal
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Ord 3973 review today

Post by Sal » Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:14 am

Brew
Before development can proceed, it must be shown that lands are not better used as watershed, wildlife habitat for threatened species, or open space. Not all private lands can be incorporated into mega-neighborhoods without proper oversight and approval==just look at the ongoing controversy over solar farms and power corridors.

When it can be shown that the lands in question are already impacted and of no use as the above, then it is easier for developers to obtain permits.

In the desert regions, there are overlays of laws pertaining to air quality, availability of water, protection of scenic resources and wildlife habitat even on private property--that was one of the proposed selling points of the West Mojave Plan--that developers could know in advance what was to be required of them. For every acre developed, investors are required to purchase x amount of wildlife habitat and donate it to the Dept of Fish and Game.

Sandman
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:06 pm

Re: Ord 3973 review today

Post by Sandman » Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:37 pm

I had a conversation with my step daughter yesterday who works for a local city government. This girl is a straight shooter and I asked her about Supervisor Mitzelfelt. She told me that unlike many politicians, he is very involved on the local level and spends a lot of time talking to people. I do agree that with the point that it's intrusive for the government to charge $155 for a simple family gathering where a few OHVs are being ridden. The rest of the ordinance still stands so if riders are becoming a neighborhood nuisance, there is legal and civil recourse. With the caveat of reviewing how the changes are working out, property owners and residents who are experiencing problems are free to document them and have a conversation with their elected officials. Good neighbor relations are based upon mutual respect and it's always a wise thing to know your neighbors.

The OHV leadership is talking about a serious effort to increase education efforts to help alleviate problems as well. It's not an easy job and we will never achieve 100% compliance but people are beginning to realize we must protect our recreational opportunities by promoting responsible recreation or face increasing restrictions.

I also agree with Lee 100% on the give- a- way of our public lands to private commercial interests. Previously disturbed lands along power corridors are ideal locations for solar farms and there is a lot of fallow farmland in the central valley that is suitable. Power companies generate plenty of $$$$$, I say let them purchase their land like everyone else. I didn't get my land for free from the BLM, I bought it with my hard earned pay. Nobody is giving away electricity that I've heard of. Why should the taxpayer give them a free ride while we all have to pay for the product?

The corporate give a way is a major threat to our recreational opportunities and desert ecology. Also, the proposed expansion of the 29 Palms Marine Corps base is totally unnecessary in my opinion. There are plenty of training opportunities available nearby at Fort Irwin, China Lake and elsewhere. The way I see it, the Marine Corps saw the expansion at Fort Irwin and decided if the Army can have more, they deserve it too. Our armed forces are more coordinated in these modern times and they should conduct joint operations utilizing lands held in common by our military.

The Johnson Valley OHV area is way too important to lose. We simply cant afford to give up an inch. The voice of the citizen can prevail if enough people speak up. Now that the Ord 3973 change is behind us, it's time for all parties to work together to help preserve and protect legal OHV recreational opportunities before it's too late. If we think illegal OHV use is bad now, just wait and see what happens if they close Johnson Valley to the USMC and we lose Stoddard Valley and El Mirage to energy developers.

User avatar
Stanley
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:14 pm

Re: Ord 3973 review today

Post by Stanley » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:09 pm

Sandman, I didn't think you had this in you.

"The Johnson Valley OHV area is way too important to lose. We simply cant afford to give up an inch. The voice of the citizen can prevail if enough people speak up. Now that the Ord 3973 change is behind us, it's time for all parties to work together to help preserve and protect legal OHV recreational opportunities before it's too late. If we think illegal OHV use is bad now, just wait and see what happens if they close Johnson Valley to the USMC and we lose Stoddard Valley and El Mirage to energy developers."

I have been thinking the same thing and didn't post it thinking I would be called a crackpot. ALL parties need to step up to the plate to try and keep these area's open. If not, there are no other places for the local So-Cal folks to ride off road. They could go to Ocotillo or Plaster City but the drive time is too much and it is also under attack at this point. Common sense would be for all the groups to try and work this out. If the area's are lost, it could get real ugly. I am sure Sal will come up with some off the wall response to this.

desertrider
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:39 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: Ord 3973 review today

Post by desertrider » Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:56 am

I could not agree more Sandman, I'm glad to see you taking the high road, unlike some of the others.
We/I (FOGR) have made several attempts to get cow involved in the Johnson Valley issue to absolutely no avail, I meant to bring that up at the BOS meeting, but lost my train of thought.
And also in the early years of the ord. made several attempts to work with them,also in vain.
I believe most of the leadership of cow has an agenda and coexisting with their neighbors is not on it.

Mark
FOGR Secretary
http://www.friendsofgiantrock.com

Post Reply