[pct-l] what to do after the triple crown

[pcnst@oakapple.net (David hiking PCNST in bits)]

In today's paper:

http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/finbriefs06.htm



I took a few pictures once on one of the paths nearby which capture some
of the flavor of the area:
http://dhs.oakapple.net/photo/south-bay/hidden-villa/2000-12-23/
though I mostly avoided taking pictures of the houses along the way.

The underlying controversy can be gleaned from an excerpt from an 
article which is no longer in the Mercury's free archives; some of the newer
immigrants to Los Altos Hills seem to think that the town should behave like
some others at its socio-economic level and treat pedestrianism as a
suspicious if not criminal activity (but maybe equestrianism would still be OK
at least during daylight hours).
Sounds like establishing social consensus there would be a lot harder than 
finishing the triple crown.

=====

 Published on January 20, 2002, San Jose Mercury News (CA) 

 DEBATE OVER OFF-ROAD PATHS SPLITS LOS ALTOS HILLS IN TWO
 TOWN WEIGHING PROPERTY RIGHTS VS. COMMUNITY INTERESTS

 Years of controversy over the web of pathways between many properties in Los Altos Hills -- a defining characteristic of
 the wealthy rural town -- appear to be coming to a head at a time when pathway opponents believe the town council will be
 sympathetic.

 The forces at work are the same ones that have spawned bitter elections and vigorous debates about the appropriate size of
 houses, the town's strict planning and review process and private property rights vs. community values.
  ...

=====

Anyway this controversy, far from the PCT, reflects conflicts that already
exist around the former California Riding and Hiking Trail and increasingly
around the PCT where it passes through private-land areas 
(especially near highways and railroads)
that are being developed for residential housing.    People who just paid
millions of dollars for a fancy house don't particularly want strangers 
walking by at all hours that (to the landowners) aren't distinguishable
from the people living in the freeway underpasses.   To some new landowners,
the pre-existence of the trail is not something to be taken for granted 
but a nuisance to be remedied by political processes.    Remedies like
relocation, however, face other obstacles like
the Tejon Ranch's bitter opposition to the trail, which seems to have to do 
with fears that it might constrain its real-estate development plans.
(see http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=TRC&script=2200)

And it's not just wealthy suburbs and real estate development companies; I 
recall reading that part of the proposed route of the CDT in 
southern CO or northern NM
was in dispute because it crosses existing grazing
leases on National Forest land held by some descendants of early residents
who consider the leases the last vestige of ancestral 
lands taken illegally when the US annexed the area in 1848.