Subscriber Comments for
The Hot Springs plan remains stalled while new concerns emer...

Comments in order of when they were received | (reverse order)

COMMENT 328012	2012-10-05 07:36 AM
Well this explains the sudden attention here on the issue. I wonder to what lengths Woody's arguments in the comments section will go this time around. Don't get me wrong I support conservation and preservation of this parcel but the fiercely antagonistic approach by Mr Jackson leads me to question his motives. For example, is he setting himself up as the arbiter and gatekeeper for the preservation of the mineral rights? Or is he asserting "squatter's rights" for access to the spring even though it's been private property and access to it has been by illegal, but unenforced, trespass?
COMMENT 328013	2012-10-05 07:37 AM
The deed from the 1800's stipulates that the water company gets 50% of the water. The remaining 50% should be allowed to flow providing habitat as it always has. That ALL the water is now going to pesticide laden lawns is an environmental crime. I've enjoyed many a hot soak over the years, sorry to see its' demise.
COMMENT 328023	2012-10-05 08:06 AM
@012 Public discussions would make this obvious and clear to everyone exactly what each persons ulterior and exterior motives are. The lack of transparency regarding the springs on the behalf of LT for SBC and the USFS is a very legitimate concern. The springs unmanaged will lead to the next Tea or Jesusita Fire. Locked pipes has not lessen fire danger and will not succeed in that. For many years the springs were controlled and managed by Chumash. For many years the springs were controlled by the hotel era. For many years the springs were managed by Montecito Creek Water Company. It is worthy to look at the success and failures of either and publicly come together and talk.
RED CREEK	2012-10-05 10:37 AM
I am glad that Jackson is speaking up and forcing the issue here. "Since the '90's" is very little time in the scheme of things, for the water to be 100% claimed by the District. Many of us grew up enjoying the hot springs, and the animals and plants downstream probably benefited even more.
COMMENT 328082P	2012-10-05 10:37 AM
I see no ulterior motive on the part of Mr. Jackson. He has been consistently calling for transparency and community involvement. What the public doesn't know about, and what Mr. Jackson has been vigilant in his attempts to bring to light, are possible backroom deals between SB Land Trust, its donors, Montecito Creek Water Company, and possibly the Forest Service. The Land Trust's handling of this resource has been markedly different from their stewardship of other lands, and this arouses suspicion. And rather than accusing him of criminal activity, consider that his motivation appears to be that the springs be opened once again for public enjoyment and benefit as they have been for centuries. The environmental benefits of a natural free-flowing stream and fish are a very legitimate concern as well. I, for one, support this and agree that the water issue should be decided before handing the land over to a Federal bureaucracy under the VERY recent "status quo" of the springs being totally locked down for the benefit of a few estate holders who may also be Land Trust donors or have other conflicts of interest. Follow the money.
COMMENT 328023	2012-10-05 11:14 AM
There is no issue of trespass on the land, there have been easements and letter of agreements to support hiking on all of the land including the springs itself for years. Many of the local spring enthusiasts support the continuing cat and mouse game of pipe intrusions to dissuade the remaining public from enjoying what had been allowed since the first humans entered the area until after the '64 fire when the water company illegally took all the water. Woody makes the valid point that lack of management is what creates the probability of the next Tea or Jesusita Fire. A mile of tempting pipe is impossible to police. Shooting the messenger is a common tactic to eliminate greater community dialogue.
COMMENT 328023	2012-10-05 05:02 PM
@012 You are correct it is indeed unenforceable trespass and any judge will throw out a citation if one could even be issued! Why? For nearly 50 years MCWC has not built a case of issuing citation. Montecito Creek Water Company knew it was on tenuous ground anyway because originally it capped the springs without permission by the owner. So the USFS and donor is about to walk into the middle of an attractant nuisance and they will need to manage it rather then make the public criminal. How many police will be kept up at the springs? None. Maybe we should deputize the donor if he is so adamant that no one ever enter the springs again.

29% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.

EDHAT COMMENTS POLICY