Front Page  »  

SLO County supervisor blocks plan to take property by eminent domain

August 21, 2024

By KAREN VELIE

San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Debbie Arnold voted Tuesday against taking a man’s property by eminent domain in order to complete the Bob Jones Trail from the Octagon Barn off South Higuera Street to Avila Beach. A vote that has at least temporarily halted the proposed project.

And while all five supervisors support the project, supervisors Arnold and John Peschong have voiced objection to using eminent domain for recreational projects. Taking property through eminent domain requires a 4/5 vote.

Ray Bunnell has repeatedly refused to sell a portion of his land for the project.

Noting her steadfast support of property rights, Arnold voted against condemnation. Supervisor Peschong recused himself from the vote because of a conflict of interest. Bunnell donated $1,750 to Peschong in 2023.

The state awarded San Luis Obispo County $18 million to complete the Bob Jones Bike Trail from the Octagon Barn off South Higuera Street to Avila Beach. However, if the county is unable to start construction on the project by March 2025, it will lose the $18 million grant and will also have to pay back a previous $2.3 million grant, which it has already spent.

 


Loading...
Subjects:     
Related:


37 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I do not support eminent domain. Should just be called “land grab”.


Also, let’s get rid of property taxes.


31

As long as reparations to the indigenous and all races of ill forgotten who lost all land and life and built this country; are considered by the 1✓ who benefit off us. Agreeeeed. California was once Mexico, was once native. Let us not be Gaza or Israel arguing over rights we have no right to because of a sheet of paper.


-46

Kevin is obviously exaggerating for comedic effect (no one on this site would know comedy if it plowed through their skull).


He’s right though that the “property rights” time changes when you realize we wouldn’t have highways if not for “land grabs”. If you’re consistent about that – and think we should tear them down and stop all new road construction, fine. But don’t be a hypocrite, pull the log out of your eye.


-11

There’s already a completed route that takes hikers, cyclists and runners from SLO to Avila. This existing route pre-dates the Bob Jones Bike Trail and has served users for decades. I rode and ran on this path in the 1970’s and 80’s. Many use it today. The unnecessary and duplicate path represented by the Bob Jones Boondoggle isn’t required to traverse the Brunnel property because the original route does just fine. It’s called Ontario Road.


46

Not everyone likes biking on what drivers treat as a highway with the traffic and many unsafe conflict points. Almost no one uses it because it’s dangerous.


-13

Hyperbole and false assertions about Ontario Road. Real cyclists and runners utilize it routinely to access Avila and the rest of south county.


6

I’m really not, there have been at least four injuries to bikes/peds in the last 5 years I believe, and a death a few years before that – it’s not safe to have cars and bikes share such a fast moving road.


Something people miss is that I don’t believe we should build bike projects for hardcore “real” cyclists, I think we build them for commuters, families, and less confident riders. I have do doubt that you and Lance Armstrong are perfectly comfortable riding fancy road bikes at high speeds and don’t want a slow bike path/lane. But ordinary riders don’t like being near cars – and most people on this site agree, they don’t want bikes near them either.


-5

My question is was Ray Bunnell offered a fair market value for his property or did they think they would just go straight to eminent domain? As others have stated there’s way more to this story then what’s being told,this situation stinks of a supervisor or supervisors being way out of line.

Debbie did something right by standing up for property owners.


47

Unsurprisingly you’re not being told the whole story.


The County has been offering Bunnell way above market value in negotiations for years and he has consistently refused because he is convinced the homeless will camp on his small random stretch of highway (preposterous – the homeless congregate near where people and resources/handouts are).


This has been a super-majority goal for years and one person and one Supervisor is all it took to destroy the project – minority rule in SLO it seems.


I’m curious if the commitment to property owners would have been as consistent if bulldozing housing in a inner city to make way for a highway was the project at hand, if so there are many people waiting for a mea culpa.


-6

Isn’t this something that should have been resolved prior to carving the trail R/W in stone based upon an assumption that the land can simply be taken by eminent domain at any time. They had to have known early on that this would eventually come up, and resolve it then instead of now.

 

It certainly appears to me that there were alternatives to this R/W. Did they consider going under the freeway at Higuera Street, and taking property on the other side? Possibly the freeway R/W is wide enough to put the trail on Caltrans R/W for a short distance. Maybe some sort of structure would resolve this. For example, elevating the trail adjacent to the freeway for a short distance might be viable. Maybe go around Mr. Bunnell’s property by taking land from some of his neighbors. The route would be longer, but it would certainly be more scenic. You can do pretty much what you want if you have enough money, and with $18M, they certainly have enough money.

 

I agree with slocorruptionhater. We are not getting the complete story. I doubt the county is trying to take all of Mr. Bunnell’s land like this article implies. I suspect they just want a narrow strip along the freeway, and want to pay a pittance for it. There may be other concerns which are not immediately apparent. Maybe the freeway frontage is important to Mr. Bunnell, and he doesn’t want to lose it without just compensation. Maybe such a taking affects the area of his remaining land to the point that it would in some way limit future development.

 

We don’t know enough about this to reach any conclusion other than that the County really screwed this up by kicking the R/W can down the road for years, and allowing their arrogance to cause them to believe they can do whatever they want whenever they want to whomever they want with impunity.


44

My understanding is that one of the issues was the concern of possible damage to his property by the homeless. It should be noted that he Welcome Home Village for the homeless was originally slated for lower Higuera and was being built specifically for the homeless that lived in the nearby creek. It’s it much of a stretch to think that they might haves moved on to Bunnell’s property.


17

1. The Village is not being built there anymore, so if this was the issue Burnnell would have changed his mind – it’s clearly a cover.

2. I find it confusing why the homeless would choose this small stretch of bike path many miles away from any civilization as their campsite – you don’t see encampments in the middle of rural ranch land because the homeless want access to the Shelters, convenience stores, and other people. I think blaming imaginary encampments is again, a cover.


-10

Almost all of the BJ Trail is a creepy trash-strewn encampment. Bunnell’s family residence would be negatively impacted. The Bunnell’s have eyes. They can see the LOVR Exit, cut fences, and garbage clogging the creek like we all can. Utilize Ontario Road and make a crossover right there, as we’ve used it for years.


45

As you said, the article is far from the whole story. The County only wanted 0.16 acres, a barely visible slice that bordered his land, he was offered fair, independently assessed compensation, and the County also offered other mitigations such as making him a 8 foot climb resistant fence and making the underpass bridge usable by his Ranch vehicles.


We know enough, Bunnell stonewalled the county, bribed one Supervisor (if we use the CCN definition of bribe) and is going to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and destroy a high priority project 20 years in the making.


-9

I wish the article delved a little deeper into the facts. Bunnell and the County have been in negotiations for a long time. 80% of the land in question (mostly adjacent to South Higuera) is already encumbered with easements. There aren’t any feasible alternatives to the Bob Jones trail alignment. So, the right of way will be acquired at some point, and I think Bunnell should be compensated justly. The disagreement is on the value. That $1,750 donation to Peschong will bring good returns to Bunnell.


18

With the County out 20 million dollars, I think the project is dead for at least another decade. If Bunnell thought he could hold out for an even higher price than he was offered, he is maybe the world’s worst negotiator.


-5

Sounds like Ray wants a bigger piece of that $18 million. County planners might have worked that out prior to blowing $2.3 million that the taxpayers are now on the hook for.


21

blowing much of the $2.3 million on employee compensation and consultants, plus they likely have already budgeted and planned to spend much of the $18 million on compensation and if they loss that they will have to cry for more money to back fill the raises they have already given out.


23

Ray doesn’t need s**t, he’s got a boatload of money. He just wants to enjoy quality of like in his home town, just like I do.


14

life…


8

Walk the Bob Jones Trail one time and then get back to us. It has been taken over by the un-housed who have destroyed the fencing and set up permanent campsites in full view. There is trash and defecation everywhere. No amount of money is enough to have that in your back yard.

The County needs to figure out a plan to end this.


21

Thank you Debbie for standing up for property rights.


87

Seriously. Upvote x100.


18

Excellent, Debbie. Take someone’s property to facilitate a recreational use? I think not. You stand for the people. Keep up the good work!


73

Why spend $18 million to extend the homeless highway and at the same time degrade neighboring property values? The money already spent can be written off as an expensive lesson learned. Local cyclists and hikers go elsewhere where it is clean and safe.


54
1 2