Trinidad Rancheria Chairman’s Response To Letter To The Editor Related To Access To Trinidad Harbor
Welcome to our letters to the editor/opinion section. To submit yours for consideration, please send to [email protected]. Please consider including an image to be used–either a photograph of you or something applicable to the letter. However, an image is not necessary for publication.
Remember opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect that of Redheaded Blackbelt nor have we checked the letters for accuracy.
Earlier, a letter to the editor was posted here: Letter to the Editor Warns Access to Trinidad Harbor in Jeopardy, Asks for Comments to Be Sent to Coastal Commission
That prompted the following response:
[Background Image from By Johnny_Spasm ]
The Trinidad Rancheria would like to urge anyone concerned with public access to Trinidad Harbor to read the California Coastal Commission’s staff report before submitting comments. The report can be found here: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/#/2019/3.
The Rancheria has no desire to keep the public from accessing the harbor. The staff report clearly spells out that the Rancheria must coordinate on “any future changes in public access” with Commission staff. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, who will process the fee-to-trust application, has also issued a consistency determination that describes the Rancheria’s intent to maintain existing public access.
The CEO of Trinidad Rancheria has been wildly misquoted. She has never stated that the Rancheria can do what it wants with their harbor properties once they are put into federal trust. Nor has she stated that the laws of the California Coast Act (not Commission) will no longer be adhered to. This is completely false. The Commission staff report distinctly addresses concerns related to public access.
Finally, the Trinidad Rancheria does not “hate” anyone who accesses the harbor. Quite the contrary. The Rancheria welcomes outdoor recreational enthusiasts, like Mr. Self, and finds his assertion to be extremely mean-spirited and based in fear.
For more information please contact Shaunna McCovey (707) 677-2739.
Garth Sundberg, Chairman
Trinidad Rancheria
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Where is the original letter? OK, got it. Thanks.
grazie!
Then enact it all into your laws! Just adopt the Coastal Act, word for word into your Rancheria constitution!
“The staff report clearly spells out that the Rancheria must coordinate on ‘any future changes in public access’ with Commission staff.”
“Coordinate!!???” What does that mean outside of the Coastal Act? Under the Rancheria constitution/laws, it meansnothing right now. Members only.
“….a consistency determination that describes the Rancheria’s intent to maintain existing public access.”
“Intent???!!!” Again, what does this mean outside of the Coastal Act? Under the Rancheria constitution, nothing right now. Members only.
Get real, ditch Sundbergs.
Here here!
Thank you Mr. Sundberg
🕯Good information Kym thank you.
Ok… so what do they want the federal designation for ?
Redheaded Blackbelt quote is 100% accurate. The harassment of kayakers is 100% accurate.
The land being put into trust allows TR the opportunity to change access.
At this point it’s all words. They’re not referring to a contract that’s binding and upholding access, they’re referring to a staff recommendation letter from The CCC in which they say they will keep access open and bring it up with the CCC if they do decide to change it. The wording is specifically “intent to allow access” that is not a garantee.
If TR would adhere to California Coastal Commission law, this wouldnt be an issue as access is garanteed by state law. The only reason they want to put it into federal trust is to get around those state laws which protect access and environment.
Again the Yurok Tribe, Tsurai Ancestral Society, City of Trinidad, HARP all oppose this move.
Ask yourself why?
Has anyone from TR given a reason as to why they want to put the land into trust or are they just bobbing and weaving addressing me and my comments? It’s a smoke screen folks. Don’t believe it.
I challenge TR to make access garanteed contractually in a legally binding document, and to adopt CA coastal access and environmental law into their constitution.
Seems like a day use fee is win win
their launch fee is $35. they do have to pick your boat up and send it down a rail line, but still $35 seems high. its one of the reasons I don’t fish much out of Trinidad. I wonder what their day use fee will be? private lakes in CA have outrageous day use fees and there are very few of the them. I would assume it will be $10-$12. the restaurant will take a significant hit unless its worked like the restaurant at the Airport and they cover parking.
I have recommended that to TR on numerous occasions and I have no problem with a day use fee. I do have a problem with losing our right guaranteed in the California constitution and coastal act to access the ocean.
The issue is not a day use fee. The issue is TR will get to decide who can and can’t access the ocean, and will no longer be held to uphold California environmental law if the land is put into trust.
I thought the same about losing access of the Eel river, but guess what, they closed the spots that are privately owned and there is nothing I can do about it.
They should put in a boat ramp. Division of Boating and Waterways has $ for projects like this. No more picking up boats and loading them on a rail car and lowering them into the water. No more damaging boats. No more paying 3 hungover guys to work there. They could charge $10-$20 per launch and make way more money. Way more people would fish out of Trinidad. Plus people could fish past 4pm. People would also be able to fish and crab for the whole season. Past labor day they rairly launch boats and bottom fishing continues until the end of October.
Garth Sundberg is mean spirited – I know from first hand experience
If there arnt legal documents guaranteeing access forever than nothing will prevent them from stopping access. Their statement sounds like a big load of corporate propaganda. If there’s one thing I hate, it’s rich people trying to prevent commoners from getting to the beach. The rancheria has just joined the club of billionaires who want the beach all to themselves.
For those of you interested in the whole picture and all the facts: https://m.northcoastjournal.com/NewsBlog/archives/2019/02/28/trinidad-rancherias-plans-to-put-the-harbor-into-federal-trust-raise-concerns-as-key-hearing-nears
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_10
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 10 WATER
SEC. 4. No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose, nor to destroy or obstruct the free navigation of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such laws as will give the most liberal construction to this provision, so that access to the navigable waters of this State shall be always attainable for the people thereof.
CA Codes (hnc:130-135)
HARBORS AND NAVIGATION CODE
SECTION 131
131. Every person who unlawfully obstructs the navigation of any navigable waters, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
CA Codes (gov:66478.1-66478.14)
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 66478
66478.2. The Legislature finds and declares that the public natural resources of this state are limited in quantity and that the population of this state has grown at a rapid rate and will continue to do so, thus increasing the need for utilization of public natural resources. The increase in population has also increased demand for private property adjacent to public natural resources through real estate subdivision developments which resulted in diminishing public access to public natural resources.
66478.3. The Legislature further finds and declares that it is essential to the health and well-being of all citizens of this state that public access to public natural resources be increased. It is the intent of the Legislature to increase public access to public natural resources.
CA Codes (gov:25660-25662)
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 25660-25662
25660. On the application of any person interested, the board of supervisors may by ordinance declare all or any portion of any slough, river, or stream to be a public highway for the purpose of fishing therein, if it:
(a) Does not lie within or run through cultivated land lying within the county.
(b) Is stocked or supplied in whole or in part with fish by the state or counties.
(c) Has not been declared by law to be navigable and in fact is not navigable for commercial purposes.
From the time the ordinance becomes effective, the slough, river, or stream is a public highway for such purpose, subject only to the reservations contained in this article.
25661. If any owner of land adjacent to or across which the slough, river, or stream declared to be a highway for fishing flows does not consent to its use for such purpose with the right to pass along the banks for the purpose of fishing and on application refuses to grant the right of passage to the county by suitable instrument in writing, the board may contract for and purchase any such rights.
25662. If the right of passage cannot be purchased at a satisfactory price, the board may authorize condemnation proceedings to be commenced to procure the right.
The pier and harbor are used by the Rancheria as a commercial enterprise.
It has done so pretty impressively in the past but owning land as a business puts constraints on it use that residence or even subsistence doesn’t. A business has an agenda that very well might conflict with the very essence of sustainability.
There are not only how the land is used to generate income for those who depend on the income but taxes, exemption from regulation, enforcement, court jurisdiction, etc that raise conflicts with others. Maybe a whole harbor and its infrastructure IS too far to carve out of California’s control and place it in the control of a single entity hardly answerable to even the Federal government while it simultaneously can use Federal resources to wage its battles with its neighbors. There must be some limit to the power tribes can claim based on historical occupation if there is going to be room for non tribe peoples.