Susanville Voters Decide Tuesday on Purchase of Hobo Camp
March 11, 1978
HOBO CAMP PURCHASE — A debate which wore on through last summer and continued into fall will end Tuesday, March 7, when Susanville voters decide whether or not the city should purchase Hobo Camp for a recreation area.
A proposal that the city buy the approximately 81 acres of forest and greenbelt came before the city council last spring when owner George Farris offered the land to Susanville for $45,000.
Farris, who has kept the area open to public use for 26 years, had hoped the city would buy the area near the west city limits for the same type of use and said he is selling the area because taxes had become prohibitive.
The proposal became a familiar item on City Council meeting agendas and at a late May public hearing, more than 100 Susanville residents turned out to voice their opinions and listen to debate.
At the session, supporting speakers outnumbered opponents by more than three to one. However, opposition later strengthened and opponents became more outspoken.
At an early June meeting the council voted to buy the property if a 50-foot wide roadway easement into the area were dedicated within 60 days. That move came after a first motion by Councilman Bob Woods to acquire the property without a dedicated easement failed three to two.
Prior to that meeting, Arturo Terzi, an adjacent property owner, told the city land for such an easement would not be forthcoming. The 60-day deadline expired with no right of way.
Woods and other supporters contend such an easement is not needed, because a prescriptive easement, gained through years of uninterrupted use, could assure right of way. Establishing such an easement could take court action if contested, however.
Supporters point to the natural beauty and recreation close to the city as a main reason for the purchase. They say public ownership will ensure public access to the Susan River Canyon, which could be in question if the area were in private ownership.
They further contend the purchase can be made at no direct burden to the local taxpayers since State Park Bond Act funds have been made available. They say the only maintenance costs would total about $800 per year for trash removal.
Supporters also say if the area is left in a natural state, as mandated by a city council action on June 6, 1977, and the road is left unimproved, the state government code provides the city would incur no liability for injuries occurring on the property.
Opponents assert a public purchase would remove $1,500 annually from county tax rolls in a county where 70 percent of the land is public domain. They contend the city would need extra insurance protection, and that insurance, maintenance, development and other costs would increase city taxes.
They have further pointed to a need for more parkland within the city and to the need for more softball, baseball and recreation facilities and say state bond funds should be spent there.
Opponents have also stated the area is used by few persons and is not accessible in bad weather.
