Compromise Ends Fight to Acquire Trail System Land

A 15-year fight to create an interlinking system of riding and hiking trails throughout the county ended in a compromise Wednesday when the San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted to require dedications of land for trails only from major subdividers.

Proponents of the trails system sought a mandatory dedication policy that would require trail easements from all property owners who sought county development permits of any sort in order to link miles of unconnected trails to form a countywide system for hikers, bicyclists and horseback riders.

Supervisors also rescinded mandatory trail requirements written into community plans in the San Dieguito, Ramona and Sweetwater areas and instructed the county staff to cease requiring small property owners to dedicate trail easements in those areas.

Under the newly adopted plan, only property owners who subdivide their land into five or more parcels are required to provide trail easements.

Several rural property owners protested the mandatory dedication proposal, saying they were being unfairly singled out and forced to give up part of the property without compensation.

Several property-rights advocates, who criticized the supervisors Wednesday, threatened legal action. Tom Tanana, an attorney for Worried Homeowners Organized and Angry, said that no one, not even major developers or landowners, should be required to give up land without compensation “just for the pleasure of an elite group of hobbyists.”

Tanana said the supervisors’ action was illegal and unconstitutional. He cited a number of federal and state court decisions that upheld property owners’ rights over governmental agencies in land-acquisition cases.

Barbara Hutchinson, leader of WHOA, pointed out that trail acquisitions in the Ramona, San Dieguito and Sweetwater areas have been going on illegally for five years or more. She called the trails acquisitions “a vulgar and violent violation” of the U.S. Constitution.

But Supervisor Brian Bilbray argued that the policy of requiring trail dedication from major developers seeking county development permits was not land condemnation.

“We’ve tried to send the message that we don’t want the little guy burned on this issue,” he said. “The government is giving a subdivider mega-rights to do something with his land that he was not allowed to do when he bought it. In return for those rights, we are asking a (trail) dedication.”

Trail advocates had fought for a linking system of trails for outdoor enthusiasts countywide, while WHOA and other property-rights groups had argued that the county should not require property owners to give land without receiving fair compensation. Both sides expressed dissatisfaction with the supervisors’ compromise.

Supervisors ordered an investigation into actions of the county planning staff after hearing Ramona resident Harold Enloe tell of being required to pay for county permits and to dedicate a trail through his land in order to build a bedroom addition on his rural home.

Enloe said that, when he applied for a building permit, he was required to pay $450 in fees to the county, put up a fence and two gates, then buy two county signs for marking the trail through his property at $50 each. Then, Enloe said, he received a bill for $50 for county legal fees, which he refused to pay.

“I just want to know how I can get my money back,” Enloe told supervisors Wednesday.

Supervisor George Bailey said actions may have been taken by the county staff that were not authorized by the Board of Supervisors, and he asked that Enloe’s situation be investigated.

County planning staff members said trail dedication requirements placed on Enloe and other small property owners were the result of enforcing local community plans that called for mandatory trail dedications by applicants for any county discretionary permit.

The county trails plan first adopted in 1976 called for mandatory dedications “when legally entitled to do so.” By 1982, 46 miles of riding and hiking trails had been acquired. Property owners opposed the requirement, however, and the policy was changed to allow voluntary offers of trail dedications.

Only 2.5 miles of trails were added during the next five years under the voluntary dedication system, prompting riding and hiking groups to demand that the county return to the mandatory trail dedications in order to link the bits and pieces of dedicated property into a countywide trails system.

Horse interests have contended that the county government had the right to require dedication of right of way needed to complete the trails system when the owners required any type of county building permit. Limiting the requirement to developers of five or more lots would leave the envisioned trails system with gaps or “roadblocks” that would render the system virtually useless to trail riders and hikers, proponents said.