Residents could receive an average of $80,000 each for relocation costs.
By Matthew L. Nestel/Special to The Malibu Times
Lower Topanga residents, facing an eviction deadline of July 1, are not leaving without a fight and have hired a prominent litigation attorney, who has won previous extensions in eviction cases, to represent them against the state.
The California Department of State Parks purchased 1,659 acres of land in the Lower Topanga area in August 2001 from LAACO, Ltd. where approximately 50 residents live and many landmark businesses, such as the Reel Inn, Wylie’s Bait and Tackle Shop and the Malibu Feed Bin, are located. The purchase will complete State Parks’ dream to have a public park extending uninterrupted from the mountains to the sea.
State Parks also recently released its final Draft Interim Management Plan and draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which outlines management of the area for two years, until a final plan is in place.
Structures that house some of the businesses and are deemed of historical significance will be allowed to stay. However, the residents have been told they must go.
The residents hired attorney Craig Dummit to represent them. Dummit moved to Topanga Beach in 1968 while attending law school at USC, was involved in the battle to extend the stay of residents at the beach in the ’70s after the state had bought land there.
“Since there were no other lawyers around, they hired a first-year attorney in me to keep them there one more summer,” Dummit said. “They stayed six years. And some of the people that moved, did so to Lower Topanga Canyon.”
Dummit has been at the front lines of these types of high-profile battles; namely the well-documented and long-winded legal epic of Crystal Cove State Beach.
Orange County’s historical land at Crystal Cove was sold in 1979 by the Irvine Company to the state of California. Residents were finally granted a 20-year extension, which expired this year.
“My role was to keep the people there when they got their eviction notices,” Dummit explained. “I didn’t technically negotiate the 20-year stay. That was for the political consultants.”
Attorney Frank Angel previously represented the tenants at Lower Topanga, but his specialty was more in land acquisition. The Topanga residents pursued Dummit for nine months.
Topanga local and co-chair of the Lower Topanga Community Association, Scott Dittrich, said of Dummit, “We’re really elated that we could get Craig Dummit. We think Frank Angel did a great job as well, but it’s the right time for Craig to come in. He fortunately was available.”
Dummit is not against the goals set by State Parks so long as its dealings with the tenants are conducted justly.
“In the most general terms, since these people have to sacrifice their homes and lifestyles for the greater public good, I guess it is my job to make sure the state treats them fairly,” Dummit said. “And that the state doesn’t make them sacrifice unnecessarily.”
The contents of the Draft Interim Management Plan range from a thorough appraisal of the land’s natural wealth and goes into depth about the history and controversies stemming from the state’s acquisition and soon-to-be implemented plan. The document is available at various spots including the Malibu Library, or it can be accessed on the Internet at http://ssc.team.parks.ca.gov/topanga/.
A final plan and an EIR is due in May, and a July date has been set to implement the highest priority actions of the plan. A January 2003 deadline to open a trailhead and parking to the public concludes the list. These dates cover the provisioning of the Topanga Creek Watershed for Wetlands replenishing, the preserving of state and federal endangered species that are found in Topanga Park and management policies to be instituted.
Several goals are detailed to represent the guide of the Interim Management Period, including: protecting rare, threatened and endangered species; providing support facilities for the park’s visitors; safety as far as access; and following the National Register of Historic Places policy regarding the sustaining and understanding of historical and archaeological resources.
The document also made mention of the ramifications of removing residents from the land, quoted as an “unavoidable significant disruption of an established community.”
As of yet, the residents have not been given alternatives to their current housing mandated by the California law. However, residents have been informed they would receive an average of $80,000 each in relocation funds, depending on the size of property they live and other factors. According to Dummit, funds tallying almost $7 million have already been allocated and are ready to be awarded.
Dummit brought up contingencies regarding housing relocation.
“In situations where it is determined that there is not comparable housing within the financial means, the Last Resort Housing statute is utilized,” he said. “Based on project funds, the state has to either purchase or build affordable housing to replace the affordable housing that they will be eliminating.”
Dummit perceives the relocation funds as an easy out in dealing with the residents.
“They are trying to buy them off and throw money at them and not comply with the more difficult provisions,” Dummit said.
The payouts exceed by three years of what is usually provided. According to Steve Capps, assistant deputy director for State Parks, the entitlements are “unusually large because housing in that area is so expensive and what the [the residents] are paying is so low.”
The basic formula to determine how much a renter would receive is the difference between their old rental payments and the current comparable rent costs in the area, multiplied by 42 months. Moving costs are paid separately.
“Our position is essentially, there is no present necessity for anybody to move … I have had several experiences in past situations where we have been able to achieve reasonable and fair treatment for the people that are being disadvantaged for a public project. Sometimes the state will to do it voluntarily, or sometimes they need advice from the courts.”