Re: Anna Baer’s April 19 letter, “Tapo Canyon just fine�:
A Tapo Canyon Park run and maintained by Rancho Simi Park District would be a long overdue blessing.
Ms. Baer’s letter is filled with false information obviously fed to her by Supervisor Judy Mikels. I live directly across from the park. While an out-of-town, out-of-district archery club does use the park for a fee, the park has been closed to the public since the fire. Equestrian arenas are burned out and have not been repaired. No hikers and picnickers are seen at the park, unless, of course, transients qualify under that description. Horse enthusiasts and neighbors of the park want it reopened and maintained.
Baer’s letter, and Mikels’ pretentious election-year masquerade to reopen the park as a campsite (further alienating neighbors), is the real political ploy here. When Mikels was called on it by the Rancho Simi Park District chair and park neighbors like myself, she did what she always does: She hid behind closed doors, gave some vague insincere promise to “look into concerns� and postponed any decisions.
Baer’s letter scoffs at accessibility to “sports players, parents and their cars.� Yet, she welcomes Mikels’ ridiculous plan for thousands of RVs and overnight, weekly and monthly stays from strangers. She welcomes a waste dumpsite for trailers. She describes a trip to the park as if it is a journey through mountainous wilderness. It is five minutes from Simi Valley City Hall!
A maintained park and road is not dangerous, but the currently abandoned park and washed-out road definitely is. If Mikels were smart, she would embrace the idea of local jurisdiction. Instead, she is stubborn and vindictive to her constituents who wish for anything other than what she has in mind.
— Ryan Chaleff, Simi Valley
It's apparent that Mikels has other plans for Tapo Canyon Park or she'd be happy to let Rancho Simi Parks take over the property. The question then is WHAT are those plans? Is the park being eyed by developers as anaccess to otherwise off limits, marginal properties? There's another motive here and the taxpayers and park-goers of this community need to know what it it.
Once again there are hidden agendas. I worked for Gillibrand back in the late 80's and that place was very serene area. The girl and boy scouts would use it and little else was done with it. I would ride my bike back there, but of course all gravel and rock quarries are the same, they dig and dig and eventually ruin the area. Unfortunatley, development has now creeped in as a possible agenda. The park should be left as an open space. Because of people who live there, close by it should be protected and allowed to develop as naturally as possble. There is still plenty of spaces left to build a park or camping. Hasn't Simi learned anything yet. I left Simi 3 years ago, lived there 30 years and for a 12 by 14 mile city, they are sequeezing as many people in as they can. Terrible. Stay out of the canyon....that is my opinion. Leave nature to nature and leave the beauty up to the wild. Linda