From the Desk of Ted Owens

Sep 26, 2006:

 

Milan Wight

xxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxx  CA xxxxx

 

Re: The Stock Trail Road

 

Dear Mr. Wight,

 

(Some unimportant BS is skipped)

 

Nevada County does not own the property underlying the road easement. 

 

Owens, with no factual basis, is labeling the old road as an “easement” and then makes an obvious statement about easements, which is that the underlying ground belongs to another party. Of course, that is what an easement is—it allows one party to use another party’s land. But Owens is playing games here. By labeling the road an “easement,” Owens is able to bamboozle others, and you can probably guess where he is going with this first statement--if not, you'll soon see where he goes with this as you read further down in his letter.

After researching many documents and discussing it with many experts, we see NO evidence that this road was ever an “easement” as Owens would have us believe. The road (and the dirt under it) has always been owned outright! In the early years (mid-1800s) it was a county road, owned by Nevada and Placer Counties. Then in 1861, when the Central Pacific Railroad incorporated under the name Dutch Flat And Donner Lake Wagon Road Company, they began purchasing various segments along the route. A year later, the US government granted to the Central Pacific alternating 1-mile square sections along the future railroad, with one of those sections just west of Donner Lake--yes, the very section the old road passes through (and the very section that the railroad sold to the Cadjews in 1987). Then, in 1871, when the CPRR no longer needed the DFDLWR, the CPRR “deeded back” the road to the counties that previously owned it. Then in 1909, the state of California “in accordance with the provisions of the State Highways Act of 1909...does hereby take over and lay out (this county road) and declares it to be and adopts it as a State Highway.” Then, in 1956, the state relinquished the road to the two counties. Never once is the word “easement” used in all these historical records.

There would have simply been no reason for the counties, and then the Central Pacific RR to take title of the road in the form of an easement, with some other party owning the land. Who would that have been?! The state, the counties, the US government, or the CPRR owned all the land in this section of old road during the second half of the 19^th century, with very limited exceptions, and those were not easements. And the language of the State of California's 1909 Act to "take over, lays out, declares it to be and adopts it as a State Highway" clearly meant business and leaves no room for any notion of easements.

An easement was never created, otherwise Owens would be able to show when the road become an easement and the parties that created the easement and why they created an easement. Owens can show nothing but lies.

Finally, the recorded relinquishment document from 1956 never uses the word "easement," but does use "the existing State highway right of way" (vol 219, page 209, Official Records, Nevada County).

Of course, Owens' and Cadjew's fictional view of easements, attempting to blow away the property rights of easement owners, would never hold up in court. But that matter is moot since the road is not an easement.

March 2010 update: The State of California sent a letter in 1917 to private party who built a flume under this same road on the other side of Truckee. Caltrans told them they must remove the flume. So much for Owens's lie that the state and county don't own "the dirt under the road." See the letter in the Documents page.

 

There exists no County road upon the property.

 

This statement is another outright lie by Owens. As far as the road “existing,” the physical road still exists after all these years and always will regardless of the drivability of the road. There also exists an official California survey, found in late 2005.

Speaking of “no road exists,” a year before this letter, Owens made another ridiculous claim that 2/3 of a mile of this road had recently been washed out and that “it no longer exists.” This is in the Sierra Sun.

As far as the “no County road” part, the County does own this road, otherwise, on what grounds did Ted Owens himself lead a fierce fight in early 2006 in a County Board of Supervisors meeting to abandon the road with letters to Caltrans asking if they would allow it?!

Is Owens' usual County business abandoning roads that are not County roads? And if there was no County road, why would Caltrans write to him telling him the County could not abandon the road? This guy must really think the public is stupid.

 

The County has never maintained the property nor does it bear any liability for activities on the property. 

 

This statement is correct! (since 1909). However, Owens is again trying to throw the public off here. He knows that the State of California’s law that establishes stock trails specifically exempts counties from both maintenance and liability if the state ever “relinquishes” to that county a stock trail. This trail was relinquished in 1956 to Nevada and Placer counties.

And with this gold mine of an exemption from maintenance and liability, why would Owens and his cohorts be pushing to move the trail far away from its historical location, when such a move would remove it from stock trail status. We believe it is because Owens and owner Cadjew never intend to build the “alternate” trail—unless we are to believe the Cadjews would pick up the tab for liability insurance on this new trail on their property? Along with the CEQA report that Caltrans also has required? Along with the cost of construction? Right.

 

Liability are the concerns of the rightful owners of the land in question, Frank and Julie Cadjew. 

 

Funny, we were just mentioning this. Now you can see how Owens is thinking he can fool the public by twisting and turning the real facts. No, Ted, liability is NOT the concern of the Cadjews, and they are not the “rightful owners of” the road.

 

The Cadjews are saddled with protecting their assets, their property and minimizing liabilities from those who would trespass.

 

Now you can also see how Owens is loading up more BS. The Cadjews job of protecting their property is not any different than what any other owner needs to do—there are many ways to do that. But Owens’ statement “minimizing liabilities from those who would trespass” is just another deception, based on his above-noted lie about liability, and his lie about trespassing on a public road.

 

The County of Nevada's only interest is in that of a "stock trail" right-of-way, the location of which is debatable. 

 

Here, Owens is apparently claiming that a “right-of-way” that can never be used (due to the Cadjews’ barricade) is a county “interest,” whatever that means—but just don’t mistake it for a public county road folks!

The location is not debatable. Or is homebuider Ted Owens planning to debate an official California State survey done by the highway department in 1915 to modern standards, which has been plotted using a surveying company’s computer and a GPS system, and aligns with the current visible trail on the property? Ted Owens' reply to the GPS survey: "GPS isn't accurate" (yes, he said that, after he tried to block a legal GPS survey and warned us that the Cadjews could sue the survey company involved, which is not true).

 

Furthermore, I believe the record clearly indicates the sole purpose and basis for acceptance was for "stock trail purposes only". 

 

This statement shows Owens’ lack on legal knowledge, or simply his blatant deception of what he knows to be true. In no document or record anywhere in the state archives or in any state law does the classification of “stock trail” limit other uses of the previously-used state highway. Again—there is no such legal limitation on stock roads. And Owens has failed to find one after years of trying, yet he continues to make this claim.

Secondly, there is also no document or record anywhere which states the relinquishment to Nevada County was for “stock trail purposes only”! The transfer of the road to the county in 1956 states: “Relinquished as Stock Trails.” Ted Owens fraudulently adds the word "only" to support his false claim, along with the word "purposes." The state of California needed to designate the relinquishment "as stock trails" for several legal reasons: it was required to allow the exemption from liability and maintenance discussed above, and to assure the state that the road would be available for use as a livestock-moving road. And maybe most importantly, it precluded the Counties of Nevada and Placer from voting to abandon the road without Caltrans' approval, as Owens tried to do in 2006. Owens has used his deceptive re-wording of the relinquishment to mislead other politicians and law enforcement.

Our group doesn't need to rely on lies and distortions. We have numerous Caltrans documents from the 1930s 40s and 50s that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the state was well aware of many other uses of the stock roads than stock movement, and in fact, completed repairs to the roads so they could be used by the general public.

But this discussion about “use” of the road only comes into play (but still would have no legal basis) if Owens is able to convince others of his fabricated claim that the road is an “easement.” He has been blabbering on for years about how the “use of the easement for one purpose cannot be changed.” He has spread this lie far and wide. The reality is this is not an easement and therefore the road has no pre-set “use” restrictions as an easement—but again, this notion of pre-set use for an easement is entirely an invention of that great legal mind, Ted Owens.

And if that all that weren’t enough, if there were ever to be proof that this section of road was an “easement,” we can shoot down any “use” restriction with this: Any imagined restriction limiting the use of the road to only livestock movement was invalid decades ago after multiple other uses of the road were acquired as a result of continuous public use for many decades—easement by prescription. Again, we’re talking about a 63 year period from the time the old highway was replaced by Highway 40 until 1989 when the Cadjews blocked it. That time span was more than enough to establish rights by prescription, superseding any imagined narrow use rights Owens and Cadjew claim. In fact, that easement by prescription would have occurred during the decades that the Central Pacific (Southern Pacific) owned the land—prior to 1987 when the Cadjews purchased it from Southern Pacific.

Before we leave this sentence from Owens, look at the bigger issue here. We have a county supervisor who is trying his best to twist a few words around so that he can have a basis to take an historic road from public use! Instead of looking for reasons to keep the road, he is looking for any and all ways he can screw the public out of this road! 

 

During the past 51 years, no Board of Supervisors action has expanded the use of the right-of-way to include recreation as you describe.

 

This statement is another sham. No action was needed in those 51 years to “expand” the use of the public road because no one has ever asked for an "expanded use" because it was never needed! The expanded use idea is a hoax conjured up by Owens. But one thing can be said for those past Board of Supervisors—not one of them during the past 51 years has stooped to such a blatant disregard of their obligation to the public in an attempt to reward a friend with a valuable public asset as Supervisor Ted Owens has. 

 

For Nevada County to move to open the "stock trail" right-of-way in the manner you suggest, an extensive CEQA process would be required. 

 

This statement is wrong. This “stock trail” road has been opened to the public for multiple uses from 1926 to now. It was able to be used by the public for 63 years from 1926 to 1989, when the Cadjews blocked one mile of the road. There is NO CEQA process needed since nothing has changed during the past 18 years other than illegal blockage. The Cadjews’ placing of signs and boulders to prevent public access does NOT cause any change that would necessitate a CEQA report. This is yet another lie and scare tactic from Owens.

Furthermore, the county has NO authority to “open” the old road since the road was never legally closed—only illegally closed! --by a private party! We are not asking the county (and Truckee for its section of the road) for anything other than to follow through on their duty to provide law enforcement to enforce the right of the public to use this road.

 

Willingness of the property owner would be required, a funding source identified for CEQA review, funding identified for construction standards and ongoing maintenance, address of liability and relief of taxation for property occupied by the trail for public use. 

 

Wrong-Wrong-Wrong-Wrong-Wrong-Wrong. As noted in the previous answer, this is not a CEQA situation. It does not need any construction nor maintenance. It does not need liability insurance as noted earlier. There is no tax relief since it is NOT on Cadjew’s property. And lastly, a public county road needs NO willingness from an adjacent property owner! None. And the idea that the public is required to “negotiate” and "compromise" with the Cadjews to allow use of a public road is outrageous and will never happen! Blocking the road for 18 years does not convey to the Cadjews any legal stature that would give them any point from which to negotiate!

 

It is not unrealistic that a half million dollars could be expended (again, not the County or the taxpayers), and still not be complete.

 

More lies from Owens. The road was complete in 1989. The road is complete today. The road is in the same status in every way as it was in 1989. The road is open to the public and always has been!

 

CEQA identification of cultural resources, such as old road traces would not likely result favorably for intensified recreational use upon the very resource CEQA aims to protect.

 

More lies from Owens. The road was complete in 1989. The road is complete today. The road is in the same status in every way as it was in 1989. The road is open to the public and always has been! Owens acts as if the Cadjews were acting as agents of the state in during the past 18 years by blocking the road, setting it up to be re-approved by the state via a CEQA process. Utter Nonsense!

 

In similar cases, CEQA findings have led to the recommended mitigation of constructing alternative trails. 

 

Here we go again with the sham “Trade The Trail” proposal. For all the reasons listed in the other part of this website.

 

The alternative trail proposed in this case, would be limited to hiking only and upon a new alignment. 

 

Of course, because you, Owens, would grant your old buddy Cadjew title to the old historic trail. It would be gone forever with homes in its place if you had your way. But that “aint gonna happen.”

 

These controls by location and by design, are less impactful and reduce concerns of the Town and the USFS.

 

Owens is referring to his ludicrous alternate trail plan “controls.” Controls to keep the public off the historic road. By the way, what right does this hack politician have in giving himself power to place "controls" on the public? This "big-brother government" from a Republican!

And Teddy, just what were the specific “impacts” and “concerns” that the Town of Truckee and the USFS had on the historic road, and how would they be any “less” if it were moved ½ mile away running along the backs of 20 homes on Washoe Street? Isn't the only "impact" and "concern" that you really care about is how it affects your friends the Cadjews?

And since the sham alternate trail supposedly merges back into the historic trail at the point where the Cadjew property meets the USFS land, just how would the “impact” be any different on USFS land? Can Owens get any more full of crap than this?

 

In closing, it has been my goal to meet the needs and desires of all concerned...the public, trail enthusiasts, historical integrity folks and the above all else...the property rights of the owners of the land itself. 

 

Read that again—“and above all else…the property rights of the owners.” Even in the unlikely event that Owens can prove this road was an “easement,” property owners cannot restrict an easement owner. In this case the "easement" owner would be the county, and Owens is one of five responsible for seeing that the county’s ownership rights are enforced--whether the road is an easement, which it is not, or an owned right-of-way, which it is. But he is doing just the opposite and has been since 2005.

Since the right-of-way is owned by Nevada County and the Town of Truckee and the State of California, whatever the Cadjews may like or not like is irrelevant—whether the road is this old Highway 37, or old Highway 40, which also passes through their land, or Interstate 80, which also passes through their land.

Our advice to the Cadjews: Sell the land, give it to the Truckee Donner Land Trust, or live with the roads—since all three were there when you bought the land.

 

It has been my sincere hope that you would have embraced such a compromise.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ted Owens

District 5, Nevada County                        Return to Home Page