The original deadline for the relocation of Lower Topanga residents has been extended to December. However, many are still fighting the move.
By Tracy Marcynzsy/Special to The Malibu Times
The latest chapter in the Lower Topanga Canyon relocation saga involved an altercation between a Topanga resident and a Pacific Relocation Consultant agent that resulted in the agent filing a police report against the resident, alleging assault with a deadly weapon.
The altercation is perhaps a more extreme case in the Topanga Canyon relocation since the acquisition of 1,649 acres of the Lower Topanga land by the California Department of State Parks in August 2001. The incident is evidence of the hard feelings of residents who are being forced from their homes in order that the state park can be developed. The original deadline for residents to move was July 1. It was later extended to December when it became clear that not all the households had received their offer of comparable housing and entitlement offers.
Of the 73 households occupying the state land, 50 have accepted relocation settlements averaging $80,000 and have moved or are in the process of moving from the neighborhood.
“Things are going very well there,” said David Richman, property manager of Pacific Relocation Consultants (PRC). But “we’ve had several situations where residents don’t like to hear what they’re being told, creating a tenuous situation for communicating with them,” he added.
While the remaining households have received their entitlement offers, which includes offers of comparable housing and the amount of monetary compensation to which they are entitled, along with a notice to vacate in 90 days, the majority of them plan to stay as long as possible, forming a “hard-core resistance” against relocating.
“The people who haven’t moved are those who want to stay in the neighborhood,” said Bernt Capra, co-chair of the Lower Topanga Community Association. “They are not giving up their Malibu residence.”
“Every year is precious,” Capra continued, adding, “Some people were happy to move. That’s the exception. Many were fearful that the state might run out of money, so they took what they were offered [rather than stay and fight].”
According to Capra, 25 to 30 residents have filed grievances with attorney Craig Dummit to appeal the relocation, and as long as the grievance process is going on, they can ignore the December deadline.
Dummit, who won Crystal Cover residents in a similar situation 20 more years to remain in their homes, said he is meeting with officials from the attorney general’s office on Wednesday to schedule dates for both general and individual grievance hearings.
“The process could take several months,” Dummit said.
The attorney says he foresees residents remaining in their Topanga Canyon homes until around next summer.
While many people watching the relocation process from the sidelines say the Topanga residents are getting a good deal with lots of money and an opportunity they wouldn’t have had to buy a house, the Topanga residents are mourning the loss of a lifestyle they say cannot be replaced.
Many claim they are not being treated fairly and equally in the relocation process.
“An older couple with one of the nicest houses on three acres was offered less than someone with a plywood home who shared a kitchen and a bathroom,” said Scott Dittrich, a lower Topanga Canyon resident and co-chair of the Lower Topanga Community Association.
“The entitlements were done in stages,” Dittrich said. “The first ones were good enough to get people to leave, and the following ones weren’t as good. Someone from the state came down and said they were being too generous.”
According to Capra, agents of Pacific Relocation Consultants revisited houses and changed the number of bedrooms. The entitlement amount is based on the number of bedrooms residents have, and what a similar residence costs, minus the amount of rent currently paid, times 42 months.
“You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game here,” said Capra, who, along with the other residents, has called for “fair and equal treatment.”
While all residents have to move, a few businesses that were granted historical landmark status are allowed to stay. Jenny Wiley, owner of Wylie’s Bait and Tackle Shop, will be allowed to keep her business at PCH and Topanga Canyon, but she is being forced to leave her residence, which is connected to her business.
“They have not been very nice,” Wiley said of PRC.
“There are so many things that are going on that aren’t right,” added Wiley, who has recently decided to join the group filing grievances against the state to appeal the relocation process.
“I am very, very unhappy-even the way they served me,” Wiley said. “If we have to leave, I’m going to leave with the cameras rolling.”
“[PRC] and the state are working hard at trying to meet the needs of the residents,” Richman said.
However, Dittrich said, “The average settlement of $80,000 sounds great until you try to do something with it.”
He said most of the neighbors were unable to stay in the neighborhood because of the high cost of housing in the area. Some former residents have moved to Culver City, Mar Vista, Santa Monica, Simi Valley, Oregon and North Carolina. A few have moved to trailer parks along PCH, and only one, Dittrich, who did not rely on the settlement money to move, purchased a house in Malibu on Rambla Pacifica.
“The housing market in Malibu, Topanga and the Palisades is super, super competitive,” Dittrich said. “If they make a fair offer, people will leave. Most feel, ‘my lifestyle is going to be terrible, why should I leave?’ “
Dummit said, funding to build, buy or refurbish replacement housing must come from the project funds earmarked for the state park.
“But they [State Parks] have opted not to do that,” said Dummit, who said officials have decided instead to pay individual residents a differential for renting.
“The average house in Malibu costs $1.4 million,” Dummit noted.
These are some of the issues to be addressed at the grievance hearing scheduled for sometime in October. The two stages of the grievance process involves first a general grievance listing the legal aspects of the relocation process, then allows each individual residents’ specific grievances to be heard.
As for meeting the December deadline to vacate, Richman said, “Probably not. Everything does not always work to plan. There are delays and appeals filed.”
In the case of the Topanga resident who had charges filed against him by the PRC agent, he was upset because the agent would not count one of his rooms as a bedroom, as it was previously designated by PRC.
Craig Michael Collins said he asked the agent, Konstantin Akhrem, to leave his property several times, and when Collins told him to “get off my property,” he said Akhrem answered, ‘This isn’t your property, it’s the state of California’s.’ “
According to the police report filed by Akhrem, Collins “verbally and physically threatened him with a garden hoe,” causing him to “fear for his life,” when Akhrem visited the Collins’ home to drop off corrected “notice of eligibility” paperwork.
According to Collins, who admits to picking up a garden hoe, but denies swinging it-“even if I wanted to, I couldn’t because of my shoulder injury,”-Akhrem showed up at his residence unannounced two times and made Collins and his wife uncomfortable.
A court hearing is schedule for Oct. 28 in Malibu.
Collins said the community should be concerned about the current turn of events.
“The city of Malibu needs to really wake up,” Collins said. “Our community is being taken over by the Coastal Commission and the state. They are taking our rights to exist away from us. I’m not sure the people of Malibu are aware-they really need to know what’s going on.”