I am happy to discuss property rights with you.

With regard to Mr. Buckner’s situation the underlying issue is an easement with the County of Los Angeles and the right of the County to allow access to the public. Our City Council felt there was a legal question to be determined by the courts. This is an ongoing legal matter which restricts me from discussing the details.

The responsibility of the City Council is to protect all rights of citizens and listen to each point of view to determine the best direction for our community. There is always a need to balance the rights of a few with the rights of many. That is the American democratic process that our founding fathers created.

A vote from a city council to begin eminent domain proceedings in the State of California allows both the property owner and acquiring agency checks and balances. In Mr. Buller’s case the property on California and Duarte Road was a business rental that was unkept, blighted and consistently in violation of city codes. Mr. Buller’s property was not taken by eminent domain, although through use of the tools of the process he was able to take advantage of tax relief and still receive an excellent price for the property.

The Wilderness Preserve Management Plan was recently adopted by our Council. The issue of public access is only a small portion of the plan. I seconded the motion and added many provisions to restrict public access until the easement issues are resolved, the fire protection program is in place, and alternate potential trails are evaluated. I live adjacent to the Wilderness Preserve and have a uniquely qualified understanding of the concerns of those who also live adjacent.

Thank you for sharing your concerns and giving me the opportunity to answer your questions.

Sincerely,
Mary Ann Lutz
City Council Member
Candidate for Mayor

Your voting record seems to be some what socialist and un-American when it comes to personal property rights.

Did you support the city battle against Steve Bruckner property rights and constitutional rights of enjoyment of his property and sided with the trespassers (criminal law breakers)who were violating Mr. Bruchners property rights ?

You would think the city would have taken a stance to protect Mr. Bruchners property rights. But the city sided to support law breakers.

Isn’t it the responsibility of government to protect private property ? I think I read that some where. I believe it was our country’s founding fathers who mentioned that.

Did you vote in the city council to abuse eminent domain to acquire Bernard Bullers property of 22 years to build condos on his land ?

And what was your position with the property rights of those citizens who live on Cloverleaf Dr., Ridgeside Dr. and those living with in the proposed Hillside Wilderness Preserve. Where do you stand with their property rights of not having their enjoyment of their private property violated ?

Thank you
AnnaHopn