residents’ move
The area is already open as a state park, despite the presence of hangers-on. Demolition of homes is set for some time in the future.
By Tracy Marcynyzyn/Special to The Malibu Times
The 47 residents remaining in their Lower Topanga Canyon homes, despite efforts to relocate them, will likely be staying longer than most people had anticipated, based on information brought to light during a recent general grievances hearing.
Since the California Department of State Parks’ acquisition of 1,649 acres of Lower Topanga land in August 2001, several of the 73 households in the area have resisted relocation, holding on through first a July 1, and now a December deadline to vacate.
The remaining residents who filed grievances with attorney Craig Dummit, an expert in relocation rights, are planning to hang on as long as legally possible. The first general grievances hearing, which took place Dec. 3, boded well for the residents.
According to Dummit, testimony given by David Richman, property manager of Pacific Relocation Consultants (PRC), the company hired by State Parks to relocate more than 100 people in Lower Topanga in order to create a state park, revealed that the Department of Parks and Recreation did not have in effect either the guidelines or the rules and regulations required by the California Relocation Assistance Act to enact a relocation plan.
“Parks and Recreation has never done a relocation plan,” Dummit said, noting that relocation plans are often overseen by general services, rather than through parks and recreation departments.
“Pacific Relocation Consultants didn’t know that Parks and Recreation doesn’t have a rules and regulations program,” Dummit added. “They made a rookie mistake.”
“No statutory or case law authority exists which has, or would allow, a government entity to commence a relocation assistance program without first adopting its own Rules and Regulations for implementation of the Relocation Assistance Act,” writes Dummit in a court brief.
According to Dummit, the law does not allow adopted guidelines or rules and regulations to be applied retroactively. He believes this fact will buy the residents of Topanga Canyon more time to live in and enjoy their Topanga homes.
“The relocation will start all over again with housing surveys,” Dummit said. “If not during these hearings, it’ll be ordered by the courts. The statutes are pretty clear.”
Dummit also raised additional objections to the manner in which members of the long-standing Topanga community were displaced. These included several instances of failure to follow the procedures and requirements set forth by the Relocation Act, such as developing a housing and relocation plan after adoption of guidelines and rules and regulations; failing to consider competing demands for comparable replacement housing; not establishing the manner in which residents’ grievances will be heard; not forming a relocation committee with local participants; and not including a review by local housing and planning agencies, nor a comparison of existing replacement housing information.
The hearing will continue on Dec. 13, and a ruling should be made by the end of the year, according to Dummit.
While most of the Lower Topanga Canyon residents have moved, accepting an average settlement of $80,000 to relocate, those in the 27 remaining households point to the lack of comparable housing in the area and claim they are being forced to give up a lifestyle.
“The people that have come out well have basically left, and those who couldn’t stand the pressure, but those who weren’t treated equitably and who can stand the pressure are still there,” said Scott Dittrich, co-chair of the Lower Topanga Canyon Community Association, and former resident of Topanga Canyon.
“There have been some unfair offers and tremendous inequalities, and people are very unhappy,” he said.
In addition to residents, several businesses will have to leave, except those that have been given historical status.
According to PRC’s property manager, David Richman, home businesses are being addressed by the PRC.
“Relocation benefits for businesses are pretty clear,” Richman said. “It’s kind of cut and dry on how it is determined.”
According to Richman, relocation law allows business benefits to be calculated by either a tax return, with a maximum of $20,000 relocation settlement, or by actual moving expenses, plus $1,000 in searching costs and up to $10,000 for reestablishment.
Despite the presence of the hangers-on, the Topanga area is currently open as a state park, with only the houses being off-limits. State Parks officials have been cleaning the area, removing hazardous waste and towing out abandoned vehicles.
Plans for demolishing homes are set for sometime in the future. Richman said a few of the houses may be spared, one having historical significance.
He sees the “possibility of two more years,” before the relocation is completed, but depending on what happens in court, “it might resolve itself quicker.”