Debbie Arnold did the right thing. Bad planning sunk the Bob Jones trail extension | Opinion

First, allow me to thank Supervisor Debbie Arnold for her much-valued service to San Luis Obispo County. For 12 years she acted as a strong voice in support of conservative principles and we are all better off to have had her on the board, fighting the good fight against the overreach of government. She will be missed.

But not by The Tribune. In the latest attack by the Editorial Board, “Debbie Arnold’s final legacy: Killing the dream of a bike path from SLO to the sea” they once again castigate Ms. Arnold for the “far-right position” of protecting private property rights. So, let’s step back: What’s this all about?

For decades, bikers like me, heading to Avila and South County, have pedaled out of town via the south end of Higuera Street until we cross under Highway 101, turn left on Orcutt Road and start on the Bob Jones trail near the SLO Creek bridge. I’ve done it dozens (hundreds?) of times. As have thousands of other bikers. It works, it’s there, it’s safe and no additional tax dollars of mine is required.

Of course, The Trib plays the danger card stating “Cyclists (have) pointed out how dangerous — even deadly — it is to ride on unprotected roads” as opposed to paths without traffic. Duh. That fact has not stopped the thousands of riders over the years using the existing route. Nor does it dissuade riders from pedaling on Highway 1, Los Osos Valley Road and the hundreds of back country roads sprinkled throughout the county, not to mention our city streets. So why mention it here?

The dream of another link to the Bob Jones trail on the east side of 101 has been tossed about for years. The city, county and state and multiple agencies have all gobbled up our tax dollars in support of the project. And we’re now told, we’re close to the end. But then reality arose. A private landowner, holding title to a critical segment of the route has said no. He’s not selling, at least at the price offered. The Trib states, with certainty, that the landowner has been offered “ample compensation.” Evidently not.

Additional sins of the landowner are that he “doesn’t even live there,” as if that should somehow mitigate his rights. Further, Ms. Arnold, states The Trib, insists on “supporting one property’s owners dubious ‘right’ to hold on to a small piece of land.” As if the size of the property has any significance in eminent domain situations. It doesn’t.

This extension of the Bob Jones trail has been in the works for years. Millions of dollars have been spent on planning this project and oddly, no one at the front end thought of asking the property owner the simple question: “How much to buy this piece of land?” And when the answer came back “not for sale” it was disregarded by all.

Ponder this. For a decade or more this landowner has known this project wants, nay, needs, his property. Everybody knew it. So, if the various actors in this merry dance had asked the above question at the front end of the planning, perhaps there would have been a different outcome at this stage. But now, he knows he alone holds the last piece of a very expensive puzzle in his hands. He no longer just owns a thin slice of land. Due to the mismanagement of the other players, he now holds the keys to the castle.

I’ve read his written comments to the county and he cites several legitimate concerns, which evidently have not been addressed to his satisfaction. Nonetheless, it’s his land to do with it as he wishes. One option is he can sell it, if the price is right. But he has consistently said no.

In my view, the fault here is squarely on the various entities — government and private — who ignored this obvious, self-created, dysfunctional situation. They, all using our tax dollars to keep this dance alive, are the ones that should be castigated by The Trib. They are the entities who lacked the foresight to clarify, up front, what may need to be purchased. The fault in this situation does not lie with Ms. Arnold nor the landowner.

I can hear the lament already: “But we’ve already spent X dollars. We can’t allow the time, effort and cost just go to waste.”

I’d love to hear how much that X dollars is.

The Trib states that Ms. Arnold refused “to apply a legitimate governmental function because she believes private property rights are sacrosanct above all else.” Note, we’re not talking about a freeway here. Step back and consider. If the county, or any other level of government can exercise the power of eminent domain to force a sale of one’s private property over a bike path, I’ll say it again — a bike path — then where is the limiting factor? Can government randomly grab your home if they deem that a neighborhood “needs” a park?

I say no. Or at least, I hope not.

Gordon Mullin is a retired financial planner with a degree in economics. He lives in San Luis Obispo.

This story was originally published August 28, 2024 at 8:50 AM.