A relocation company has notified tenants and residents of Lower Topanga Canyon they must move out of their homes and businesses in order for State Parks to take over the land.
Acting as the middleman for State Parks, the American Land Conservancy (ALC) has hired Pacific Relocation Consultants (PRC) to relocate approximately 49 families and 10 businesses, such as the Malibu Feed Bin, Oasis, Reel Inn and the Topanga Ranch Motel.
In previous interviews, State Parks indicated it would not buy the land as long as it was occupied because it doesn’t want to deal with relocation.
“State parks should not be in the business of being landlord,” said Roy Stearns, deputy director for State Parks Communications. “I would hope the ALC would do it first — but there are still negotiations going on as to how this will work.”
The ALC has optioned to buy the 1,640-acre property, owned by LAACO, ltd. (Los Angeles Athletic Club) since the 1920s, for $43 million, with the goal of donating it to State Parks.
The curt relocation notice sent to the residents and businesses has caused uproar.
“It [moving] will kill these people, especially the older people,” said Scott Dittrich, a 30-year resident of the area and president of the newly formed Lower Topanga Community Association. “Old people can’t pick up and move again.”
The selling of the land by LAACO is not the problem, say tenants.
“There is nothing wrong with them selling the land,” said Dittrich. “The problem is State Parks is saying that they have to kick us out to have a park but we only occupy 3 percent of the land. There is no reason we could not co-exist.
“It would take up to three years just to get rid of the buildings and for the ALC to get a plan instrumented,” continued Dittrich. “They don’t have to get the people out until that time. It’s mean-spirited and unprecedented with State Parks acquisitions.”
Carol Winter, a resident who has lived in the area for 32 years, said she understands the particular position of LACCO. “They want to get rid of this land, it’s a pain on their side, but we are human beings and I want all the legal rights for the people, especially the elderly.”
Stearns explained that the ALC is acting as a middle man, which happens a lot with State Parks, because they can move a lot quicker than government entities with all its bureaucracy.
“If State Parks acquires land with tenants they become liable for relocation and then it [relocation costs] will be paid for with tax money,” said Stearns, emphasizing taxpayers will foot the bill if that is the case.
The timing of the letter sent by PRC on April 19, with short notice of meetings regarding the relocation planning process, has also angered residents.
Many did not attend the meetings scheduled for residents on April 25 (with an alternate date of April 27) and April 26 for business owners. They said the notice was too short and would not attend without their attorney.
“We were disappointed by the attendance,” said Julie Benson, spokesperson for LAACO, of the meetings. She said only 11 residents and two businesses total attended the three meetings. So now PRC has begun to contact people individually in an effort to get the relocation plan going, she said.
Although the option agreement calls for closing to occur by July 14, and State Parks does not want the land occupied when the transfer is made, Benson said, “That doesn’t mean the residents have to be gone by then. We expect the relocation process will be done by the end of the year.”
And the possibility of where residents would be relocated to is upsetting to some who have lived in the area for more than 30 years.
State law requires a relocation plan and benefits for eligible residents displaced by the sale of a property to a public entity, but it does not take into account comparable types of areas, e.g. beach proximity and scenic vistas.
“They think they can just move us to Pacoima or something,” said Dittrich. “The State Park system has become ruthless in how they try to deal with this,” he asserted.
Also causing concern, is the legality of relocation procedures and new leases drafted by LACCO just before the transfer, according to Frank Angel, an attorney representing residents.
“What authority does the ALC have to handle relocation?” asked Angel.
“In the past, they said they don’t handle it, but now all of a sudden they are handling it. The state has to do it,” he said. “They don’t have the full range of options, they can’t negotiate.
“To begin with, they have to give us some answers to some basic questions, such as whom did they receive the authority from? If they did, I think it’s illegal for the state to pass on this responsibility,” he added.
When LAACO asked tenants to produce copies of their leases, some of which are decades old, a few tenants could not find them and new ones were then issued.
“They are illegal,” said Angel.
The leases contain language where tenants would have to waive their relocation rights, explained Angel. “It’s unfair and unlawful.”
“The terms in the new leases give all sorts of pretexts to LAACO to get rid of people, introducing terms that are far beyond the earlier leases,” he further explained.
However, Benson said, the new leases gave tenants full relocation rights and benefits. She also said there were as few as six new leases issued.
Another debatable matter is what may be done with the land once it is acquired.
“The ALC has said that they have to make a 25 percent profit in any deal they make,” said resident Dittrich. “Where is the money gonna come?”
“There is obviously a development deal that will affect the area by PCH,” he added.
However, Stearns said: “If we get this land, and we do want this land, it will become a part of the Topanga State Park. That’s probably one of the largest acquisitions we have done in the last 20 years in the area.”
As for the businesses, “There may be some historic structures there that we may want to take a look at,” said Stearns.
“Before they start changing everything they better make sure it’s right because this is a uniquely charming place in Malibu and people may not notice it,” said Lloyd Ahern, a Malibu resident who owned a house on Topanga Beach before it was acquired by the state in the late ’70s. “But when it’s gone they will miss it.”