Hey Nelsy wrote on Oct 18, 2008 3:11 PM:You forgot to add that is's goal is to obtain, half a million CONTIGUIOUS acres...that's right, touching or continious acres in Southwest Riverside.

Oh, and that, that property will not be allowed any human contact.

There are trails... wrote on Oct 18, 2008 3:56 PM:....and they will continue to be there. This is a great purchase for the City. Instead of the 900+ tract homes, they community gets open space left in it's natural form. It's funny how all the politians are taking credit for this. I recall the driving force that stopped the tract homes being a local group of residents.

Wow wrote on Oct 18, 2008 5:03 PM:The City of Murrieta actually preserved some land instead of letting apartments be built on it. Maybe there's hope.

Sounds good to me wrote on Oct 18, 2008 7:52 PM:I think this is great. Whomever is responsible should get citizen of the year. This will be a treasure for our future to enjoy.

Wait Wait Wait wrote on Oct 18, 2008 10:40 PM:This wasn't done by the city, or for the city. It's habitat bio-diversity land.

This is part of the MSHCPlan, within the RCIP...unless Murrieta is going to try and get some different "agreement" with the Feds...I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that meeting.

This is not where the trails are near Los Alamos Rd. It is true that some of the residents of that area stopped from having houses put on that property, a long time ago...but these are not the same properties.

This is the southeast side of Hogsback, along Warm Springs Creek.
Part of the "agreement" for the openspace within the MSHCP with the Federal Fish and Wildlife is that there is no human contact. The "No Contact" rule is to prevent "harm" intentional or not.

And that is "harm," as discribed in the Endangered Species Act...walking past, away, or in any view of the wildlife can cause harm because the animal could change it's path, out of fear, on it's way to get food.

View of the land, from behind the fences is what the humans will get.

The only trails that will be available will be with a "Ranger Rick" in Santa Rosa...or some other possible and rare ride "walk" along with a Ranger on these properties.

This is all part of the 10a permit the county got over the SK Rat...you know...where we have to replace 50 acres for every 1 of the 4400 acres of "take" Riverside County got.

Oh, you probably don't remember, because it was before either Temecula or Murrieta were CITIES.

This isn't an act of kindness, it's the law...a Federal Law at that.

Ya Trails...LOL wrote on Oct 18, 2008 10:42 PM:Trails built and made by and for the animals.

Blowin in the Wind wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:47 AM:The purchase was actually by the Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA), not the city. Further, land acquisition is made possible through "donations" of land by developers as mitigation for land they are improving or through outright purchase with funds gained from developers through in-lieu fees again to mitigate "impacts".

So,rightfully bestow credit where it is due; to the development community. Not to come city or politician.

GREAT ARTICLE wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:57 AM:And, I think his brings a balance to all the homes that have been built in the last 10 years.

Thank you wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:08 AM:Winchester 700 LLC is owned by a family partnership of long time farmers of this valley and I just wanted to thank them, for allowing the RCA to purchase the land as openspace for the same gain they would make if the properties were to be developed.

In this time of traffic, trespassers, fence cutters, and continuious litter and dumping filling the fields, I personally can understand why farmers have turned developer.

R U Kidding wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:38 AM:Winchester 700 LLC is based out of Palos Verdes, hardly farm country. Furthermore, they pushed hard for the development of 900+ homes. The only reason those homes did not get built is due to the efforts of a local resident that lives in that area. Now that the economy is down and their is a surplus of homes they decide to sell the land to the RCA.

Ever met any wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:32 AM:Have you ever met any of the fanatics that make up the lead element of these pseudo-idealistic organizations? I have. Most of them care about nothing except their own agendas, and - in most cases - those agendas are purely political.

RE R U Kidding wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:40 AM:And what, you think Farmers are dumb? Of course they sold thier land when the prices were still high...wouldn't you?

It's not like the new residents like the smell of fertilizer, or dust from discing, now do they?

There go the Bread prices.

JEEZ wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:05 AM:I never said "farmers are dumb." Also, this land was never farmed (no need to worry about fertilizer or discing). That is the reason the conservation authority say it is so valuable to the habitat, it's undisturbed!

Palos Verdes wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:14 AM:Maybe their lawyers are based in Palos Verdes, but this longtime farm family is local. From he mid 1800's now that's what I call longtime local.

Can you blame them for trying to develope their land? New farm equipment is expensive, and look at all the new regulations...water, environmental concerns... Good For Them.

Developers don't run the farmers out of town...it's the new neighbors and the trespassers.

Not Kidding wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:50 AM:I don't think you understand. The farm family is definately local. It was the people they paid to form, work it through the process and represent the development that were based out of Palos Verdes.

I don't think the people of this country understand what it takes, or how much land it takes to support a farm family when what they produce is grain. And in this area, the crops are dryland farmed, meaning they have to have good rainfall to get a crop.

When the leased lands of the farmers of this area where developed, most of the farmers lost their availablity of land farm so as to provide for thier families.

Don't get me wrong, farmers own some of their own land but a good percentage is leased from people who live some place else and just have the property as an investment.

When the farmer looses most of his leased land to developement, what are their choices but to sell to someone who will develope , or have the land developed themselves.

When the new neighbors whouldn't let them develope there was only one other choice.

Facts wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:34 PM:Here is who you can thank for this deal finally being consumated - the economy. This area has been a contentious issue for the past 5 or 6 years. When the MSHCP was forumulated, this area was designated as a high value or critical habitat area. The problem was that the developer wanted way too much money for the property. Yes, there was some resistence by local homeowners (since they already had their homes right next to this land) but the driving force was the science that led to this land being deemed valuable as habitat and the agency (RCA, which administers the MSHCP) being steadfast in trying to preserve it. Now that the economy is tanked, lands like these are becoming available and the RCA can pick these lands up at a much better price. Way to go!!! If one person was to be given Kudo's for this, it would be former supervisor Tom Mullen, who helped make the RCIP a reality and then guided the RCA to being a successful and effective entity. Thanks Tom!!!

Bureaucrats partying wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:38 PM:I'm sorry, but much of this hoopla is really just the bureaucratic choir singing to itself. Like any other bureaucracy, be it military or socialistic-program oriented or whatever, the goal is to increase the power base and job security of those who are running the particular political sub-structure involved. They all toot the horns of their various causes, but it really all comes back to the interests of personal power, personal prestige, and personal pocketbooks. They, bureaucrats and their administrative leaders, of EVERY kind are cast in the same mold. It is the job of the public, over time, to keep them all under control.

More facts wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:39 PM:The County approved a specific plan for this land, several days before the City of Murrieta annexed it. This plan included high density housing. Where was Tom Mullen when this was approved? Smells fishy. Also, it was science, or the lack of science, that was being used to justify the "refinement" of the area. The landowner claimed to have science that proved the area was NOT valuable for habitat. This would have allowed the area to be removed from the MSHCP boundries. This was being done and had support of the Conservation Authority at the time. I'm not sure where Mr. Mullen was then. Of course, the developers claim was rebutted by the experts who study the specific areas habitat.

Fascinating wrote on Oct 19, 2008 3:40 PM:...the way they lavish praise on one another, and berate their opponents. Whether it be so-called environmentalists berating their "foes" the developers, or Nazis berating their "foes" the Jews, it is all so much of the same. History does indeed repeat itself. What tyrannical person or governmental power structure throught all of history has not been convinced of the righteousness of their own cause? Which among them has not fancied himself or itself an idealist, promoting noble ideas, and protecting the innocent? Not even one breaks the mold. They are all the same. All are self-deluded. All are self-righteous. All say, "Not us!" We are different. "It is obvious!" Yeah. Right.

Soap Box wrote on Oct 19, 2008 5:10 PM:Sorry...I'll stop ranting and venting, it doesn't change anything.

Thank you "Blog Master" for not printing some of my comments, as factual, perhaps too factual, as they were. At least I didn't use any profanity.

Mossman wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:06 PM:This area is a waste land and should remain as much. Let the animals squat on it,then it will have served it's purpose.

Soap Box wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:13 PM:Sorry just one more thing...as nicely as I can.

"The goal..." mentioned in the articule, puts every waterway, creek and stream in every part, including every city, of Western Riverside County in an untouchable environmental corridor.

Somewhere in the middle... wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:03 PM:...lies the truth. I live in the area and can say there has been a long history of residents not wanting to change their zoning that requires 2.5 acre minimum lot sizes. However, we are not anti development. Yes, we like our open space, but think quality development can do both, have 2.5 acres and mitigate for open space. The Winchester 700 group did not want to consider this as an option.

Again, I think there's a balnce between the two sides here. I, for one, appreciate some of the shopping centers and bussiness offices we have. If it wasn't for "developers," I don't know who would build such buildings. I certainly could not afford to do this!

One more thing more facts wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:14 PM:The few times I've been on here, it seems us Murrietians bicker and turn a positive article into a developer vs. the Poeple issue. I'm not trying to condemn freedom of speech. However, I just think we should count our blessings once in a while. I travel and work in the inner city. Good or Bad development, too much or not enough open space, we still live in a beautiful city compared to most!

AMEN wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:45 PM:I couldn't have agreed more with the last two posts.

Great article! Keep up the good work Nesly.

Quality wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:54 AM:Quality Information, Development, Science, Living.

CEQA~The California Enviornmental Quality Act

Please google- Roundtable Discussion CEQA

This will help answer questions as to the actions of Winchester 700, and others, while putting everyone on the same page...to find the "middle" acceptable ground.

Better information and education...a happier social environment.

aka soap box

Soap Box wrote on Oct 25, 2008 10:19 PM:Editor, is this a mistake? Why is this back in the news five days later?