Carnegie/Connolly Ranch access easement in court
- Thread starter Brewster
- Start date
This is the suite by the Connolly ranch vs State Parks that cut off PUBLIC access to part of the east end of the Carnegie SVRA. The Connolly ranch has an easement agreement with Carnegie so that they can get access to their ranch from Corral Hollow Rd. The Connolly ranch claims that their has been damage to the easement property by the SVRA users and employees.
Ride on
Brewster
CORVA
This case has to do with whether or not the spillway (part of the easement) can still be used by SVRA users and employees. I believe the court allowed Carnegie to build another spillway adjacent to the existing spillway for its own use. Pretty sure the Conally's are suing for 250k to fix the existing spillway that is now in disrepair.
Think I got this right, did I Brewster?
Think I got this right, did I Brewster?
I don't know about Carnegie building another spillway. You are correct about $$ being in the suit to repair the current spillway. There are additional items in the suit, like mud going into the Connolly ranch property and motor vehicles recreating in the SVRA disturbing the tranquility on the Connolly property.
Ride on
Brewster
CORVA
The Deanster
Well-known member
Hey Brewster, do you have a link to this?
I searched and found an interesting case from 1984. Apparently the Connolly's filed an appeal to a ruling on an (the?) easement they had for men, cattle and horses for driving cattle.
They sued saying they should be allowed to use motor vehicles, ride motorcycles and do recreational horseback riding on the easement because they'd been doing it. They lost because it was ruled that they were riding the motorcycles in a clandestine manner, sneaking onto the land. How ironic :rolleyes
CONNOLLY v. MCDERMOTT
I searched and found an interesting case from 1984. Apparently the Connolly's filed an appeal to a ruling on an (the?) easement they had for men, cattle and horses for driving cattle.
They sued saying they should be allowed to use motor vehicles, ride motorcycles and do recreational horseback riding on the easement because they'd been doing it. They lost because it was ruled that they were riding the motorcycles in a clandestine manner, sneaking onto the land. How ironic :rolleyes
CONNOLLY v. MCDERMOTT
A link to which, the current easement case or the one you mention?
Easement case, yes.
We may not get any further information on the juries verdict until mid Jan. when another court hearing is scheduled. I checked with the OHMVR Division and they cannot comment on an open case.
Ride on
Brewster
CORVA
The Deanster
Well-known member
I meant the current case. The link to the one I saw is in my post.
Go here: https://cms.sjcourts.org/fullcourtw...searched=false&PageNumber=2&TotalRecords=111&
Click LOGIN and you will be presented with over 400 document entries. And then click VIEW to see them.
Brew a big pot of coffee before you start reading them.
Ride on
Brewster
CORVA
Last edited:
The Toe Cutter
Well-known member
Facebook post said jury ruled in OHV’s favor. True?
Diana of CORVA posted this on the Carnegie Forever FriendFace page:
CARNEGIE LAWSUIT DECISION –
On November 21, 2019, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, Stockton Branch, rendered a jury verdict in favor of managed OHV recreation at the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA).
The jury’s verdict found the California Department of Parks and Recreation Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division’s environmentally sound OHV program – for both casual trail use and permitted motorized events – at Carnegie SVRA did not substantially interfere with the Connolly Ranch’s use or enjoyment of its land.
We at Silicon Valley Offroad are... speechless and thank you for your work!
The Toe Cutter
Well-known member
Yes that’s what I saw, but the last court docket entries are jury instructions. Nothing about a verdict ???
Damador announcement:
https://ama-d36.org/d36/carnegie-lawsuit-decision-christmas-present-for-carnegie-riders/
https://ama-d36.org/d36/carnegie-lawsuit-decision-christmas-present-for-carnegie-riders/
this is the D36 announcement:
STOCKTON, CA (Dec. 12) – On November 21, 2019, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, Stockton Branch, rendered a jury verdict in favor of managed OHV recreation at the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA).
Jerry Fouts, AMA District 36, Sound Testing Off-Road Motorcycle at Carnegie SVRA
The jury’s verdict found the California Department of Parks and Recreation Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division’s environmentally sound OHV program – for both casual trail use and permitted motorized events – at Carnegie SVRA did not substantially interfere with the Connolly Ranch’s use or enjoyment of its land.
STOCKTON, CA (Dec. 12) – On November 21, 2019, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, Stockton Branch, rendered a jury verdict in favor of managed OHV recreation at the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA).
Jerry Fouts, AMA District 36, Sound Testing Off-Road Motorcycle at Carnegie SVRA
The jury’s verdict found the California Department of Parks and Recreation Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division’s environmentally sound OHV program – for both casual trail use and permitted motorized events – at Carnegie SVRA did not substantially interfere with the Connolly Ranch’s use or enjoyment of its land.
Last edited:
Join CORVA please.
Just got this publiished in the “Independent” ?
https://www.independentnews.com/mai...lwV7Tf27fK2nk73lxareEdZHj9Xsd3lQqyJIs327VDE7w
A number of weeks ago, you ran a feature article decrying Gov. Newsom’s vetoing AB-1086. Your writer lamented the Governor’s seeming endorsement of the Carnegie SVRA expansion and vowed that conservationists would continue the fight against off-roaders.
As evidence of the damage these outsiders to the Tri-Valley were causing, your writer talked about using the surveying powers of Google Earth to view the well-used trails within the Carnegie SVRA. Just look at that erosion your author bewailed, after 30-odd years of use, it’s visible from space!
After having to read such breathless prose, I was a little surprised that it had been allowed to go forward. In hindsight, however, I’ve now come to the conclusion that if space-based voyeurism worked for your feature article, it could also work for this response letter.
With that in mind, please allow me to wrest control of the aforementioned article’s space surveying apparatus and slew its’ viewing azimuth west of the SVRA. If you do that, you’ll come to a series of huge scars in the landscape that far exceed the changes wrought by a few dirt-bike tires. These scars are open-pit mines associated with cement manufacturing in Pleasanton, and they are definitely also visible from space. Through the years, these pits have grown deeper to provide the resources necessary to transform the Bay Area under layers and layers of concrete. But wait! Even in this transformation there are signs of life. Via our space oculus, we can also see what looks like sun-bathers, boaters and barbecues. The public recreation areas at Shadow Cliffs Park showcase how creative minds have created a popular attraction in response to such changes.
Now, if industrial-scale erosion can be harnessed to produce enjoyment, isn’t it reasonable to assume that environmental impacts at Carnegie SVRA can also be mitigated enough to allow off-roaders a chance to enjoy themselves as much as those people using Shadow Cliffs?
While we ponder that question, it might be useful to examine some of the assumptions upon which this article was founded. This article seems to suggest that it would be wasteful to expand Carnegie because of declining demand. What isn’t revealed in this argument is that ever since 2003, OHVs have been faced with California Red Sticker and Green Sticker season rules that prevent dirt bikes manufactured after 2005 from being ridden at the SVRA for six months out of every year! If I told you that your post-2005 automobile couldn’t be driven on California roads, don’t you think that might impact use? Maybe you should consider just how OHV usage statistics at SVRAs are being skewed before reaching any broad prognostications.
Another factor to consider is the expansion of the number of four-wheel OHVs across the nation in the past decades. Speaking of those enthusiasts, did you notice that in recent Tesla CyberTruck advertising there was a presumably all-electric quad OHV in the bed of that electric truck? Don’t you think that Tesla thought about the expanding quad-market when they made their advertising decision? Maybe future stories for this paper will consider this growing segment of relatively “green” enthusiasts who are now embracing electric OHVs that could work well at Carnegie.
Wrapping up, just remember how we all collectively felt when the many years of funding that had been earmarked to expand BART into Livermore was unilaterally “reprogrammed.” Please keep this scenario in mind as you promote taking action against OHV enthusiasts—many local—who have throughout the years paid increased SVRA and red/green sticker tag fees to fund initiatives like the long-awaited expansion at Carnegie.
Just got this publiished in the “Independent” ?
https://www.independentnews.com/mai...lwV7Tf27fK2nk73lxareEdZHj9Xsd3lQqyJIs327VDE7w
A number of weeks ago, you ran a feature article decrying Gov. Newsom’s vetoing AB-1086. Your writer lamented the Governor’s seeming endorsement of the Carnegie SVRA expansion and vowed that conservationists would continue the fight against off-roaders.
As evidence of the damage these outsiders to the Tri-Valley were causing, your writer talked about using the surveying powers of Google Earth to view the well-used trails within the Carnegie SVRA. Just look at that erosion your author bewailed, after 30-odd years of use, it’s visible from space!
After having to read such breathless prose, I was a little surprised that it had been allowed to go forward. In hindsight, however, I’ve now come to the conclusion that if space-based voyeurism worked for your feature article, it could also work for this response letter.
With that in mind, please allow me to wrest control of the aforementioned article’s space surveying apparatus and slew its’ viewing azimuth west of the SVRA. If you do that, you’ll come to a series of huge scars in the landscape that far exceed the changes wrought by a few dirt-bike tires. These scars are open-pit mines associated with cement manufacturing in Pleasanton, and they are definitely also visible from space. Through the years, these pits have grown deeper to provide the resources necessary to transform the Bay Area under layers and layers of concrete. But wait! Even in this transformation there are signs of life. Via our space oculus, we can also see what looks like sun-bathers, boaters and barbecues. The public recreation areas at Shadow Cliffs Park showcase how creative minds have created a popular attraction in response to such changes.
Now, if industrial-scale erosion can be harnessed to produce enjoyment, isn’t it reasonable to assume that environmental impacts at Carnegie SVRA can also be mitigated enough to allow off-roaders a chance to enjoy themselves as much as those people using Shadow Cliffs?
While we ponder that question, it might be useful to examine some of the assumptions upon which this article was founded. This article seems to suggest that it would be wasteful to expand Carnegie because of declining demand. What isn’t revealed in this argument is that ever since 2003, OHVs have been faced with California Red Sticker and Green Sticker season rules that prevent dirt bikes manufactured after 2005 from being ridden at the SVRA for six months out of every year! If I told you that your post-2005 automobile couldn’t be driven on California roads, don’t you think that might impact use? Maybe you should consider just how OHV usage statistics at SVRAs are being skewed before reaching any broad prognostications.
Another factor to consider is the expansion of the number of four-wheel OHVs across the nation in the past decades. Speaking of those enthusiasts, did you notice that in recent Tesla CyberTruck advertising there was a presumably all-electric quad OHV in the bed of that electric truck? Don’t you think that Tesla thought about the expanding quad-market when they made their advertising decision? Maybe future stories for this paper will consider this growing segment of relatively “green” enthusiasts who are now embracing electric OHVs that could work well at Carnegie.
Wrapping up, just remember how we all collectively felt when the many years of funding that had been earmarked to expand BART into Livermore was unilaterally “reprogrammed.” Please keep this scenario in mind as you promote taking action against OHV enthusiasts—many local—who have throughout the years paid increased SVRA and red/green sticker tag fees to fund initiatives like the long-awaited expansion at Carnegie.
Last edited: