Laguna Seca Accounted for $84.4 million in Direct Spending in 2018

[MysterYvil]

Just so you know, I have lived here on the Monterey Pen all my life. I’m quite familiar with the history. The Bishops/LGCC were never allowed to develope because when they finally presented their plans it just happened to coincide with the drought of 1976.

Pasadera was developed decades later because the Lombardos (who owned it at the time) swung a deal with the county similar to Clint Eastwood’s offer when his Tehama Club was approved. They traded the land at Rancho Canada inCarmel Valley (which is now a park/hiking trails instead of a golf course) and given the go ahead for Pasadera.

The complaints coincide with developement on and near Highway 68, San Benancio, Corral di Tierra, Los Laurales Estates, and even Boots Road, the area where Wayne Rainey lives, which were all developed in the late 80s, early 90s. Mostly it started with traffic issues at Laguna Seca events, but they included noise as well. As traffic issues ebbed and flowed, they continued about the noise. Many new residents claimed they weren’t told what’s Laguna Seca was when they purchased homes. Most people on the Peninsula welcome the events, whether at Pebble, or Laguna Seca.. you learn to adapt when you live in area that is built on an amusement economy like tourism, but a lot of these newcomers had no reason to.

I know Mike Weaver, we met in the 80s. He attends every BoS meeting. He bristled when I called him a NIMBY, and I said it jokingly when he announced he was running for the BoS, and that was when we worked together. Yeah, he’s a NIMBY, especially after he completed his house in Corral de Tierra, in the late 1980’s.

I see a pattern, do you?

Why bother with facts? The suck-ups who don't live here will just continue arguing for the sake of arguing, and continue hoping to someday strike it rich themselves.

 

[Archimedes]

Just so you know, I have lived here on the Monterey Pen all my life. I’m quite familiar with the history. The Bishops/LGCC were never allowed to develope because when they finally presented their plans it just happened to coincide with the drought of 1976.

Pasadera was developed decades later because the Lombardos (who owned it at the time) swung a deal with the county similar to Clint Eastwood’s offer when his Tehama Club was approved. They traded the land at Rancho Canada inCarmel Valley (which is now a park/hiking trails instead of a golf course) and given the go ahead for Pasadera.

The complaints coincide with developement on and near Highway 68, San Benancio, Corral di Tierra, Los Laurales Estates, and even Boots Road, the area where Wayne Rainey lives, which were all developed in the late 80s, early 90s. Mostly it started with traffic issues at Laguna Seca events, but they included noise as well. As traffic issues ebbed and flowed, they continued about the noise. Many new residents claimed they weren’t told what’s Laguna Seca was when they purchased homes. Most people on the Peninsula welcome the events, whether at Pebble, or Laguna Seca.. you learn to adapt when you live in area that is built on an amusement economy like tourism, but a lot of these newcomers had no reason to.

I know Mike Weaver, we met in the 80s. He attends every BoS meeting. He bristled when I called him a NIMBY, and I said it jokingly when he announced he was running for the BoS, and that was when we worked together. Yeah, he’s a NIMBY, especially after he completed his house in Corral de Tierra, in the late 1980’s.

I see a pattern, do you?

The pattern is that you're continuing to ignore that fact that property owners have legal rights well before they actually develop a property. The property has value in terms of future use, and neighboring property owners can't infringe upon that. That's why they have nuisance statutes, including those specifically related to noise. Just because the land wasn't already developed doesn't mean neighboring properties had the right to assume it would never be developed and infringe upon those property owners' rights. That land was not going to stay farm land forever and everyone knew that, regardless of what it was at the time. The idea that race tracks can be built and all the property around it can immediately undevelopable or unpleasant to live on with no consequence is laughable. Race tracks, luckily, don't have that right, and that's why tracks all over the world have noise limits at this point.

The issue in question with Laguna is/was simply whether the noise studies that were required by law and that were performed were flawed. I also live here and have been coming here for decades. There is no arguing that the track is incredibly loud on an unrestricted track day and that noise carries for miles. The question is whether that was contemplated and disclosed when the original surveys were done.

Honestly, you don't hear much protest these days down here, so it's probably moot at this point. I do think they should crack down on the folks cheating the sound booth though.

 

[Archimedes]

Why bother with facts? The suck-ups who don't live here will just continue arguing for the sake of arguing, and continue hoping to someday strike it rich themselves.

Actually, I live about 12 minutes from Laguna. And money's not a problem. I could buy any of the McMansions I wanted in Pasadera, but it's pretty much a failed development right next to a race track. I'm shocked anyone is buying into that development.

 

[Junkie]

The pattern is that you're continuing to ignore that fact that property owners have legal rights well before they actually develop a property. The property has value in terms of future use, and neighboring property owners can't infringe upon that. That's why they have nuisance statutes, including those specifically related to noise. Just because the land wasn't already developed doesn't mean neighboring properties had the right to assume it would never be developed and infringe upon those property owners' rights. That land was not going to stay farm land forever and everyone knew that, regardless of what it was at the time. The idea that race tracks can be built and all the property around it can immediately undevelopable or unpleasant to live on with no consequence is laughable. Race tracks, luckily, don't have that right, and that's why tracks all over the world have noise limits at this point.

The issue in question with Laguna is/was simply whether the noise studies that were required by law and that were performed were flawed. I also live here and have been coming here for decades. There is no arguing that the track is incredibly loud on an unrestricted track day and that noise carries for miles. The question is whether that was contemplated and disclosed when the original surveys were done.

Honestly, you don't hear much protest these days down here, so it's probably moot at this point. I do think they should crack down on the folks cheating the sound booth though.

wasn't it an artillery range before? I can't imagine a track being louder than that.

 

[clutchslip]

The pattern is that you're continuing to ignore that fact that property owners have legal rights well before they actually develop a property. The property has value in terms of future use, and neighboring property owners can't infringe upon that. That's why they have nuisance statutes, including those specifically related to noise. Just because the land wasn't already developed doesn't mean neighboring properties had the right to assume it would never be developed and infringe upon those property owners' rights. .......

So, YOU or anyone else doing anything, particularly purchasing REAL property, have no requirement for due diligence to protect yourself? You are guaranteed whatever it is that you want, even if the property has suffered from neighborhood stress previously? Yep, this is why America is going to shit-in-a-hand-basket.

To repeat, the place was a damn artillery range before it was a race track. It was a race track for decades and NO ONE COMPLAINED. A man lost his brother, because his brother was an dummy and the man went nuts on the Laguna Seca track. Now YOU and other esteemed residents come along and think that you are more special than everything that has happened before you. If you are so damn stinking rich, why don't you go somewhere else where it is QUIET? Oh, and stop bitching like a spoiled little kid about things that you IGNORED when you made your decision.

 

[Johndicezx9]

The pattern is that you're continuing to ignore that fact that property owners have legal rights well before they actually develop a property. The property has value in terms of future use, and neighboring property owners can't infringe upon that. That's why they have nuisance statutes, including those specifically related to noise. Just because the land wasn't already developed doesn't mean neighboring properties had the right to assume it would never be developed and infringeupon those property owners' rights. That land was not going to stay farm land forever and everyone knew that, regardless of what it was at the time. The idea that race tracks can be built and all the property around it can immediately undevelopable or unpleasant to live on with no consequence is laughable. Race tracks, luckily, don't have that right, and that's why tracks all over the world have noise limits at this point.

The issue in question with Laguna is/was simply whether the noise studies that were required by law and that were performed were flawed. I also live here and have been coming here for decades. There is no arguing that the track is incredibly loud on an unrestricted track day and that noise carries for miles. The question is whether that was contemplated and disclosed when the original surveys were done.

Honestly, you don't hear much protest these days down here, so it's probably moot at this point. I do think they should crack down on the folks cheating the sound booth though.

But it wasn't exactly farmland... it was an artillery range, and the developers from ages ago are long gone. Property only has value related to environment around it, and nothing is permanent. Again, people placed their bets, and then made an effort to control the game when they didn't like something that already well established. Today's customers should have no surprises. You want neighbors that don't have to answer to anyone? Move next to an army base, a school, or a church. In elementary school in Monterey in the early 70's we could hear and feel loud classroom shaking artillery booms throughout the day. They didn't answer to anyone.

The big issue was optics: A small group of residents, in newly developed (at the time) areas, that knew a track that we now know brings in money that benefits the entire area was there, became very vocal. Their complaints were heard, and addressed. Unfortunately, the flip side was it impacted events and track income. That $85 million is what's pumped into the economy, not the track. If the track isn't there, the area loses $85 million. The NIMBY's do not benefit the local economy nearly that much. Potter listened to them, they probably emboldened him, but it cost him his job and solidified community support for Laguna Seca/SCRAMP.

Yes, it had the smell of the people that move next door to an airport only to complain. I would not move close an airport, and it is probably something that would come up in research. :dunno (I have a friend in Del Rey Oaks whose back yard butts up to airport quite close, but you never hear anything... weird.)

Yes, complaints have quieted down, except for the occasional event traffic issues. In the 80's the Army refused access on many of the roads we now use. One way in, one way out. That changed as Ft Ord was slated to close in '92. Anyone remember the 90 USGP? They did the same thing, but on the North South Road and refused to let traffic out on Hwy 68. Same issue, different road. John Koczinski was arrested for blasting past the cars waiting to depart as they wouldn't let him go down to 68.

The traffic complaints were legitimate, and still are, but have improved with the different routes that are no longer restricted. It's not great, but it is better, especially during car week, but it's everywhere, and you learn to adjust accordingly.

Pasadera was a shady deal, as was Tehama*. The Pasadera home prices there were propped up by sales between company execs, finance company execs, etc., but they seem pretty accepting of Laguna events, especially during car week when they have the Legends of the Autobahn show.

Bottomline: Give the track the chance to make its money, within reason, of course. X number of non restricted days, X number at lower level, X at an even lower level, and no more Christian Rock Festivals. They were the worst of the worst.


*If you watch Clint Eastwoods "Unforgiven" the County Supervisor that pushed for Eastwood's land deals (Sam Karas) has a bit part in the bar scene. Sold out for SAG card... :facepalm

 

[LongGoneJohn]

Hah. Fuckin rich people....

 

[Cali]

"But the noise! The noise!" - ...folks buying properties near a known, pre-existing, loud venue.

Same for airports requiring us to do noise abatement departure procedures. Did they not know there was an airport there prior to moving in? :wtf