Boardmanville Access?

Imperial Sand Dune Recreation Area • Including Buttercup & Gordon's Well

Moderator: Sitewide Forum Moderators

Post Reply
Skid
1st Gear Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:36 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7

Boardmanville Access?

Post by Skid »

how are you getting to bordmenville

thanks for the info in advance.....

[edited by Woodglue 11/09/09 @ 1:54pm - revised thread title]

User avatar
Rick Bowen
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 6:26 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: USA

Re: bordmenville

Post by Rick Bowen »

I have heard that since the railroad closed the Wash 10 underpass, Imperial county has made an exception to allow OHV to use Ted Kipf road to get to Boardmanville. OHVs must follow speed limts and other Hwy rules.
Milkvetch.... It's not just for breakfast anymore.

User avatar
Doc
Website Admin
Website Admin
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2000 9:42 pm

Re: bordmenville

Post by Doc »

Rick Bowen wrote:I have heard that since the railroad closed the Wash 10 underpass, Imperial county has made an exception to allow OHV to use Ted Kipf road to get to Boardmanville. OHVs must follow speed limts and other Hwy rules.
The CHP turned down the request from the county to have Ted Kipf road designated as a dual purpose road.

So as of now only street legal vehicles are allowed on Ted Kipf road.

Also the CHP may be targeting the 78 crossing as it is not legal for an OHV to cross there. Currently there is no legal way for an OHV to get from the ISDRA to Boardmanville. Or from camping areas east of the railroad tracks to the ISDRA.

If you are camped on the east side of the railroad tracks there are some legal routes of travel. Contact the BLM for a map with the legal routes for this limited use area. The area east of the railroad tracks is in the Northern and Eastern Colorado management area (NECO) and as such is a limited use area, which means OHV’s may travel on navigable washes and other designated routes.

ddjthomas
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:25 pm

Re: bordmenville

Post by ddjthomas »

Doc wrote:
Rick Bowen wrote:I have heard that since the railroad closed the Wash 10 underpass, Imperial county has made an exception to allow OHV to use Ted Kipf road to get to Boardmanville. OHVs must follow speed limts and other Hwy rules.
The CHP turned down the request from the county to have Ted Kipf road designated as a dual purpose road.

So as of now only street legal vehicles are allowed on Ted Kipf road.

Also the CHP may be targeting the 78 crossing as it is not legal for an OHV to cross there. Currently there is no legal way for an OHV to get from the ISDRA to Boardmanville. Or from camping areas east of the railroad tracks to the ISDRA.

If you are camped on the east side of the railroad tracks there are some legal routes of travel. Contact the BLM for a map with the legal routes for this limited use area. The area east of the railroad tracks is in the Northern and Eastern Colorado management area (NECO) and as such is a limited use area, which means OHV’s may travel on navigable washes and other designated routes.
What about a street legal RZR with sand tires installed?
Donny
AKA: Digger
feet in the sand.....
you gatta love that

User avatar
Sandcock
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2089
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:09 am
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Avacado Capital of the World

Re: bordmenville

Post by Sandcock »

Knowing that Boardmanville is a popular eats and watering hole, what would be the purpose/incentive for the local agencies as well as CHP to take a negative position on this? Just asking.
The real egalitarians are not the people who want to redistribute wealth to the poor, but those who want to extend to the poor the ability to create their own wealth, to lift themselves up, instead of trying to tear others down. Earning respect, including self-respect, is better than being a parasite. Thomas Sowell

User avatar
Doc
Website Admin
Website Admin
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2000 9:42 pm

Re: bordmenville

Post by Doc »

Sandcock wrote:Knowing that Boardmanville is a popular eats and watering hole, what would be the purpose/incentive for the local agencies as well as CHP to take a negative position on this? Just asking.
The local agencies, the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, did not take a negative approach. They were the ones that sought the dual purpose designation. But any such designation needs to be approved by the CHP and they are concerned that there is no legal way for OHV’s to even access Ted Kipf road from the ISDRA.

Any travel from the ISDRA to get to Ted Kipf road requires crossing the railroad tracks at Hi-Way 78 which is illegal and dangerous.

We all know that is has been going on for years but nevertheless it is an illegal crossing and is not likely that Cal-Trans and the CHP will approve dual designation on state Hi-Way 78. As more people are using that for a crossing the more enforcement can be expected.

As to the question on the street legal RZR, if it is truly street legal in California than it can be operated on any legal road in California. Ted Kipf road is a county road and thus is open to any street legal vehicle.

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: bordmenville

Post by jhitesma »

Sandcock wrote:Knowing that Boardmanville is a popular eats and watering hole, what would be the purpose/incentive for the local agencies as well as CHP to take a negative position on this? Just asking.
Well the obvious and initial thought that comes immediately to mind would be to cut down on DUI's in the dunes. Boardmanville isn't exactly known for the quality of it's food, and in my experience finding impaired drivers leaving it is rather easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

Of course there's also the much simpler explanation that Dick gave - it's illegal and always has been despite lack of enforcement.
Doc wrote: As to the question on the street legal RZR, if it is truly street legal in California than it can be operated on any legal road in California. Ted Kipf road is a county road and thus is open to any street legal vehicle.
Except for the other part of the question "...with sand tires..." I've never seen any "sand tires" that are DOT approved. And even on a street legal vehicle if your tires aren't DOT approved then you're not legal on pavement.

ddjthomas
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:25 pm

Re: bordmenville

Post by ddjthomas »

jhitesma wrote:
Doc wrote: As to the question on the street legal RZR, if it is truly street legal in California than it can be operated on any legal road in California. Ted Kipf road is a county road and thus is open to any street legal vehicle.
Except for the other part of the question "...with sand tires..." I've never seen any "sand tires" that are DOT approved. And even on a street legal vehicle if your tires aren't DOT approved then you're not legal on pavement.
The RZR is registered street legal in Arizona, which California has to honor. But the DOT rating on the tires is what I thought might be a problem. It is not something that is enforced very often in AZ, I figure the LOE's at the dunes would likely enforce it!
It's too bad for Boardmenville.
Donny
AKA: Digger
feet in the sand.....
you gatta love that

User avatar
Doc
Website Admin
Website Admin
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2000 9:42 pm

Re: bordmenville

Post by Doc »

ddjthomas wrote:
jhitesma wrote:
Doc wrote: As to the question on the street legal RZR, if it is truly street legal in California than it can be operated on any legal road in California. Ted Kipf road is a county road and thus is open to any street legal vehicle.
Except for the other part of the question "...with sand tires..." I've never seen any "sand tires" that are DOT approved. And even on a street legal vehicle if your tires aren't DOT approved then you're not legal on pavement.
The RZR is registered street legal in Arizona, which California has to honor. But the DOT rating on the tires is what I thought might be a problem. It is not something that is enforced very often in AZ, I figure the LOE's at the dunes would likely enforce it!
It's too bad for Boardmenville.
California does not have to honor a RZR registered as legal in Arizona as far as I know. It depends on which type of registration you have. I would check with the BLM or the Imperial County Sherriff before traveling on any California roads. There have been quite a few citations issued on Gecko road for golf carts and other Arizona registered vehicles to people that thought they were legal just because they were street legal in Arizona.

Jason can probably give you a better answer on what Arizona registrations are accepted in California.

But in any case you would need the correct street tires to operate on California roads.

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: bordmenville

Post by jhitesma »

I don't know what it does take to be legal in CA - but I do know golf carts and UTVs are not street legal in CA even if they're street legal in AZ. CA does NOT recognize all AZ street legal vehicles...I just wish AZ would return the favor and not grant reciprocity for some of the heaps I see around Yuma with CA plates :(

I know I've never had a problem in my manx - but my manx was originally built and titled as a special construction in CA (then moved to AZ, then NV and finally back to AZ when I bought it.)

It's been covered in the local papers several times though that CA does not recognize street legal UTV's, ATV's, OHV's or golf carts. This issue comes up fairly often here in the winter with snowbirds who try to drive their carts from Yuma over to the casinos in CA. The Winterhaven cops are very vigilant about it.

YumaDune
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 7:25 am
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Yuma & Tucson, AZ

Re: bordmenville

Post by YumaDune »

I can imagine the folks at the Boardmanville Bar & Grill are having a stroke reading this info. No doubt between the UP and the Kalifornia Leo's they are intent on making sure no one even has a chance at a good time... No I don't mean getting drunk or whatever but closing Wash 10, no OHV's on the Wash Road, No Crossing the RR Tracks on 78... what the heck is next?? I was once in the Jack ***** Acres crowd and now those people can't cross the tracks with OHV's??
It's Just Sand!!!

User avatar
gelwell
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
Posts: 1548
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:14 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Vista, CA.

Re: bordmenville

Post by gelwell »

It seems to me if you cross the RR tracks at 78 along the macadam your not crossing 78 at all but the RR tracks. It is the RR right of way not the state of CA. I suppose the RR cops could enforce based upon that scenario.

It seems to me the CHP does not care about the jobs at Boardmanville but they should. Imperial county is one of the countries poorest counties and the poorest in Calif. Small business taking another hit. NO more sales tax from that retail business. Less sales tax to the state and less money funded to the CHP. The job you save could be your own.
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end"

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Re: bordmenville

Post by L&L Corvairs »

Is there any documentation to clearly show that Wash 10 is in fact closed off right now?

I do feel sorry for Jeanne and BMV.

However, there is nothing stopping us from getting in our street legal vehicle and legally driving to BMV. If you have one at the ISDRA.

If BLM/CHP/ICSO (especially BLM) is going to being or increase enforcement at the HWY 78 crossing, and since it’s been pointed out there is no legal way to cross the RR tracks into the ISDRA, then those folks camping over there should not have to pay for a parking (TAX) pass.
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

User avatar
Doc
Website Admin
Website Admin
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2000 9:42 pm

Re: bordmenville

Post by Doc »

L&L Corvairs wrote:Is there any documentation to clearly show that Wash 10 is in fact closed off right now?

I do feel sorry for Jeanne and BMV.

However, there is nothing stopping us from getting in our street legal vehicle and legally driving to BMV. If you have one at the ISDRA.

If BLM/CHP/ICSO (especially BLM) is going to being or increase enforcement at the HWY 78 crossing, and since it’s been pointed out there is no legal way to cross the RR tracks into the ISDRA, then those folks camping over there should not have to pay for a parking (TAX) pass.
Bingo Lloyd, That is one of the issues we will be taking up with the BLM when we meet with the fee management folks this Friday in Washington DC. Bob Mason and myself will addressing this and a few other fee related issues with the upper BLM management. In fact we have an appointment with the Director of the BLM also.

Voice
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 11:56 am

Re: bordmenville

Post by Voice »

I keep seeing that "it's illegal to cross the tracks at the crossing", but I'm not seeing where that law is written.
It has, in the past been designated legal by the BLM to cross the tracks at the crossing, on the hard shoulder. I've not seen any new laws saying this was no longer the case.
Certainly there may be competing enforcment agencies, but this is certainly something that could be looked into.
As for Ted Kipf, if they are not going to allow you on the road then it should be a fairly simple matter to stay on established trails, which, as far as I know are designated OHV trails.

Also, it is usually allowed (by law) to cross a road at a 90deg angle with an OHV. This would almost certainly apply to Ted Kipf. (as it does, Gecko and Highway 78)

I'm thinking that this issue needs to be researched deeply to find the actual laws that apply and then some education for our enforcement teams.
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in a letter to President Elect Barak Obama
"May God Almighty ... bless the leaders of societies with the courage to learn from the mistakes of predecessors,"
"I hope that you will be able to take fullest advantage of the opportunity to serve and leave behind a positive legacy."

Image

User avatar
RobC
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 772
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2000 10:39 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

Re: bordmenville

Post by RobC »

L&L Corvairs wrote:Is there any documentation to clearly show that Wash 10 is in fact closed off right now?

I do feel sorry for Jeanne and BMV.

However, there is nothing stopping us from getting in our street legal vehicle and legally driving to BMV. If you have one at the ISDRA.

If BLM/CHP/ICSO (especially BLM) is going to being or increase enforcement at the HWY 78 crossing, and since it’s been pointed out there is no legal way to cross the RR tracks into the ISDRA, then those folks camping over there should not have to pay for a parking (TAX) pass.

Wash 10 is still open right now. I crossed through it (under the tracks) on Saturday to get to BMV.
Save the Dunes!!
Rob's Dune Site
My Pics

User avatar
gelwell
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
Posts: 1548
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:14 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Vista, CA.

Re: bordmenville

Post by gelwell »

Wash 10 will still probably be open until they re-do the tracks. The UPRR has been adding a dual line. Once they get to wash 10 that culvert will be reduced so no traffic can go thru the smaller culverts.
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end"

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Re: bordmenville

Post by L&L Corvairs »

Sorry, Brian, will have to respectfully disagree. I do remember some discussions here about this, but I do not remember anything from the BLM stating it was ok to cross on the shoulder. In any case, even if the BLM said so, they would be in error. What I do remember is an acknowledgement (I think from Steve Rasso, but I could be wrong) from the BLM that OHV’s have been using the RR Crossing at HWY 78, that it was not legal/and or there had not been any previous ENFORCEMENT.

It is illegal to drive our OHV on a street legal road. This would include the hard ‘shoulder’ as well. We can ‘cross’ at 90’. Anything else is subject to citation.

They (THEY meaning the various government agencies) have built themselves a Catch 22. It is common knowledge that many ISDRA users camp on the BMV side of the tracks, as well as the OHV traffic from the dunes to BMV. As there was no enforcement of the illegal OHV crossings and use of Ted Kipp, there was no resistance to charging people to park/camp there. Now that they are enforcing those OHV laws, they are getting a response from the duning community re-their tax.

They can’t have it both ways.

Good luck, Doc and Bob.
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

User avatar
RAPTOR DRIVER
4th Gear Member
4th Gear Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:48 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Tujunga, Ca.

Re: bordmenville

Post by RAPTOR DRIVER »

What's to keep you from pushing your vehicle across the tracks where they cross 78?

I know, they will nail you for just being on the shoulder of the highway.

Dean

GoofyDuner
4th Gear Member
4th Gear Member
Posts: 309
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:17 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Huntington beach ca.

Re: bordmenville

Post by GoofyDuner »

no one will be watching unless it a busy weekend.wash 10 is still open to go under,and I dont think the will ever put up the rest of the fenceing..that costs more money,and why would they spend the money whe we have a new road.......But ,,if anyone is going to try to get across,please do it carefully.no need to get hurt...
Dune Riders..If your not cranken on it,you must be Yanken on it......

Astro
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:37 am
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Clarkdale, Arizona

Re: bordmenville

Post by Astro »

I've been going to Boardmanville since the mid 80's when we used to stop there for gas after riding up from Buttercup :wink: . Our friends would camp @ Wash 10 so we would fill up before we rode back to Buttercup :) . I don't drink anymore, but the kids @ I have been going there for Ice Cream, T-shirts, to put up $'s, etc...since they started duning with me about 5 years ago :D . I hope they get something worked out before another small business goes under :twisted:

Astro 8)
"Just Ride!"

mpc
2nd Gear Member
2nd Gear Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:16 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Vista, CA
Contact:

Re: bordmenville

Post by mpc »

Doc wrote: If you are camped on the east side of the railroad tracks there are some legal routes of travel. Contact the BLM for a map with the legal routes for this limited use area. The area east of the railroad tracks is in the Northern and Eastern Colorado management area (NECO) and as such is a limited use area, which means OHV’s may travel on navigable washes and other designated routes.
I have contacted BLM El Centro for a Route of Travel Map of the NECO area. It is apparently "not ready yet" and unavailable to the public. Does anyone have another source for a map of this area? USGS would be the next best thing I suppose, but the legal routes will not be designated on that map.
Mike in Vista, CA
My Willys Website

Voice
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 11:56 am

Re: bordmenville

Post by Voice »

A search on this website will show that the BLM routinely reccomended crossing the tracks on the shoulder on HWY 78. This reccomendation usually came in the form of... "Don't go over the tracks... use the crossing at 78 and stay on the shoulder"

Riding on that side is supposed to still be legal. Or, is this another case of some more lost riding areas due to an out of control burocracy?
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in a letter to President Elect Barak Obama
"May God Almighty ... bless the leaders of societies with the courage to learn from the mistakes of predecessors,"
"I hope that you will be able to take fullest advantage of the opportunity to serve and leave behind a positive legacy."

Image

mpc
2nd Gear Member
2nd Gear Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:16 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Vista, CA
Contact:

Re: bordmenville

Post by mpc »

This is somewhat off topic from the Boardmanville access issue but....

I spoke to someone at the BLM El Centro office again. The NECO map should be ready in a few months. I'm interested in the map for exploring this area east of the ISDRA in my Jeep. The rule for that area is travel on existing roads/trails and camping is allowed within 300' of a designated route.
Mike in Vista, CA
My Willys Website

proglamis
ASA Transportation Vice Chair
ASA Transportation Vice Chair
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2000 11:56 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Re: bordmenville

Post by proglamis »

This whole thing has locked me out of the dunes. I can't get from my place to the dunes anymore. I really don't know what to do. It's just a never ending battle to ride in Glamis. I didn't buy property out there to trailer bikes a mile to get to the dunes. Plus, I had plans for the future which have vaporized if this isn't resolved.

I know my story is breaking a lot of hearts out there but it's not just me. There are others with the same problem. And the writing is on the wall for Boardmanville. It's going to die.

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: bordmenville

Post by jhitesma »

Voice wrote:A search on this website will show that the BLM routinely reccomended crossing the tracks on the shoulder on HWY 78. This reccomendation usually came in the form of... "Don't go over the tracks... use the crossing at 78 and stay on the shoulder"
What search terms? I tried a few things: http://www.americansandassociation.org/ ... ++%2Bcross++ but couldn't find any official statements from the BLM on crossing the tracks.

I found one TRT member who suggested crossing at 78 on a few occasions, but no indication that it was an official statement, and I'm not even sure if he was a TRT member at the time he made the statement.
Riding on that side is supposed to still be legal. Or, is this another case of some more lost riding areas due to an out of control burocracy?
Riding and camping there is still legal. The same way it always has except for a brief period after the lawsuit when it was closed to camping. It's always been a limited access area with travel allowed on established routes. That's actually one "temporary" closure that was eventually lifted...and that's tortoise land!

Prior to 2007 there was a crossing other than 78 that should have been legal for OHV use, but after one of the derailments damaged it it was taken out.

Crossing under wash 10 has always been questionable. It was only Chucks and then later Jeanies word that they had an agreement with the RR allowing them to keep wash 10 clear. They claimed to have had it in writing at one time but lost it. Jeanie could have pursued getting a new agreement - but apparently preferred to ask forgiveness than permission, apparently out of fear of being told no. I actually got banned from Jeanies Yahoo site (before there even was an ASA only GOL) for attempting to contact the RR about legalizing the painting of the washes through a program the railroad had going that encouraged community groups to paint some of their bridges as beautification efforts.

I can't recall ever hearing anyone from the BLM suggest crossing the tracks at 78 in non-street legal vehicles. I've heard the suggestion made many times...but not by the BLM, ICSO or anyone else with any official authority, at least not on here.

proglamis
ASA Transportation Vice Chair
ASA Transportation Vice Chair
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2000 11:56 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Re: bordmenville

Post by proglamis »

It seems that the RR permit has been found. Now what?

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: bordmenville

Post by jhitesma »

proglamis wrote:It seems that the RR permit has been found. Now what?
Potentially Good news. Though I suppose just how good would depend on what exactly the permit says. And who's going to lawyer up to enforce what it says if it says something that will help.

(Without seeing the permit who knows if it will help or not. The RR may well have left themselves a clause allowing them to terminate the agreement at any time for any reason, if so then finding the permit doesn't really change anything.)

I'm glad to hear it's been found though, and hope it was well negotiated when it was originally written.

I'm still thinking the RR's move to close the wash road is an attempt to avoid lawsuits by preventing any means of crossing the tracks legally. 1st they took out the legal crossing, then they close the road and block of wash 10 leaving the only option 78 which isn't legal for OHV's. I wouldn't be surprised at all if one of their lawyers is telling them to make these changes due to the 3 kids who were killed crossing at 78 after the legal crossing had been removed.

User avatar
FunRunner
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4740
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 1:50 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: bordmenville

Post by FunRunner »

proglamis wrote:This whole thing has locked me out of the dunes. I can't get from my place to the dunes anymore. I really don't know what to do. It's just a never ending battle to ride in Glamis. I didn't buy property out there to trailer bikes a mile to get to the dunes. Plus, I had plans for the future which have vaporized if this isn't resolved.

I know my story is breaking a lot of hearts out there but it's not just me. There are others with the same problem. And the writing is on the wall for Boardmanville. It's going to die.
I can certainly sympathize with you and the folks at Boardmanville, also. The establishment of access over years of usage, and the good faith you had in making a substantial investment based on the circumstances, ought to carry some weight by precedence, if not for economic and common sense reasons. The synergies that made the Life Flight headquarters a reality, are once again needed to solve the issue of access which should'nt be stopped because of problems of the RR or Law Enforcement; those problems can be dealt with and remedies need to be discussed. A closed mind by the RR and Law Enforcement is not in the best interest of problem solving. The issue of drinking at Boardmanville is one thing, and it would seem to me that Law Enforcement could have a field day writing DUI's, which would cover the cost of the manpower, and have the effect of reducing the abuse.
I would suggest the permanent access via W10, with improvements and markings to enable crossing at that point. Going all the way up to 78 and crossing and then down Ted Kiph, even if the legality were enabled, seems unnecessary and in actuality, probably increases the risk of accidents.
Reading further, I see mention of a permit. Whatever the permit states, the tradition and establishment of routes of access should be maintained for posterity and just the peace of mind in knowing that traditions and established livelihoods, ways of life, and access won't be summarily and arbitrarily terminated.

hershman3
2nd Gear Member
2nd Gear Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:05 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Yucaipa

Re: bordmenville

Post by hershman3 »

The bottom line....

Another small business bites the dust.

We went out there last weekend. we were the only ones there. She says she might not be able to make it one more month.
Hershman

User avatar
Sandcock
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2089
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:09 am
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Avacado Capital of the World

Re: bordmenville

Post by Sandcock »

Just an idea/suggestion. Can the synergies (good word fr) compromise with the RR to maybe allow access at W10 by confining the crossing, i.e. install a gate across Washroad at the North and South side of the road. They basically have canked our access/use of Washroad and with the new access road I don't see an issue. I would think there would only be minimal dust created by ohv use. Unless the RR is just adamant about no access. Just an idea :idea:
The real egalitarians are not the people who want to redistribute wealth to the poor, but those who want to extend to the poor the ability to create their own wealth, to lift themselves up, instead of trying to tear others down. Earning respect, including self-respect, is better than being a parasite. Thomas Sowell

User avatar
FunRunner
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4740
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 1:50 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: bordmenville

Post by FunRunner »

hershman3 wrote:The bottom line....

Another small business bites the dust.

We went out there last weekend. we were the only ones there. She says she might not be able to make it one more month.
That's a real shame, and it's unfortunate that someone in that situation feels so alone. Where are all the friends who visited over the years? don't those people care enough to speak up and help out in a desparate situation? admittedly, it's difficult to get the ear of someone who could atually do something to help. There are benefits to Boardmanville being there. I know for me, the original fun of going to Boardmanville, abated somewhat with the raucous crowds as opposed to the welcome serenity and hospitality that was found there early on, unlike the Glamis Store.
Just being able to ride there, go in and sit down, have a beer, and talk with Chuck or others there, was always worth the trip, and Chuck was great at remembering people and names, so that was an added incentive. Maybe a return to less ambitious goals would be a prospect worth considering, and of course, that would have to be weighed with the current circumstances as the scale; but I think most of the small businesses in this Industry are struggling right now. Those who can figure out how to tuck back in, and improvise, can survive, if that is their goal.

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Re: bordmenville

Post by L&L Corvairs »

Just some comments, mostly all opinion.

Finding the permit will allow for the digging out of the Wash 10 undercrossing. Beyond that, it is probably not worth much more.

As much as I like Jeanie, BMV and proglamis, the reality is, the RR is a business and does not do things that do not make economic sense. I believe there is more liability for the RR WITH a crossing, then without one. There’s just no money in it for the RR to create an OHV crossing.

Take the permit and approach the RR asking for an OHV crossing near Wash 10 after the double tracking project is completed. When they refuse, you’ll need a lawyer and sue. I really hate to say it, but IMO, it would be cheaper for the RR, in the long haul, to buy out BMV, proglamis and any other affected businesses over there then put in a crossing. The RR will judge how deep your pockets are and determine if it’s cheaper to pay you off or let you take them to court. My opinion also is, you do have case for redress based on the history of usage. You may even have one against the state. (The county signed off on the duel use of Ted Kipf).

I’m just a barroom lawyer, though. You need to consult with someone who knows.

I wish I could help. Would hate to see BMV go away. And proglamis is a great guy and good friend.
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

User avatar
FunRunner
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4740
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 1:50 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: bordmenville

Post by FunRunner »

I'm certainly not an attorney either, but I have to wonder in regard to precedent for access being established by usage over a period of years. Would this be sufficient to bring as the basis of a suit? call it prescriptive easement and even though the injured parties did not have actual possession, improvements were made and passage was continuous, and though it may have been protested from time to time, if steps weren't taken to prevent the trespass, and only now there is talk of doing so, permit or no permit, would not there be a valild arguement for a continuation of said trespass? obviously, the RR has rights as the owner of the land, and deep pocket liability status. I don't know the history of suits involving crossing at W10 underpass, but all the deaths I've heard of have been at H78 or crossing over the tracks. That passage would still be an unresolved problem for the RR. It would seem the RR's primary issue is one of liability, which will always be a problem, as long as we have trial lawyers and the ability to sue deep pockets, regardless of the stupidity of the party bringing the suit and the ridiculousness of the basis.
As Lloyd suggests, and we don't know if ProGlamis or Jeannie have established this line of appeal, but it would seem that's the way to go, and just possibly the RR might find a solution, even if it does mean buying out the parties who would suffer by taking away access to their land.

Astro
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:37 am
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Clarkdale, Arizona

Re: bordmenville

Post by Astro »

Build a Bridge :idea: I would feel stimulated if they spent some money on Safe Access to the Desert & Boardmanville like the Access over the canal @ BC/GW Hwy 8 :wink: Just a looney Tune Thought #-o

Astro 8)
"Just Ride!"

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: bordmenville

Post by jhitesma »

I'm surprised no one has suggested an OHV ferry service.

You know, a truck with a big flatbed. Pull on by the beach store, it crosses the tracks and lets you off on the other side. Do the reverse to get back.

Wonder what kind of crazy permits/insurance you'd need to do it....

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Re: bordmenville

Post by L&L Corvairs »

FunRunner wrote:I'm certainly not an attorney either, but I have to wonder in regard to precedent for access being established by usage over a period of years. Would this be sufficient to bring as the basis of a suit? call it prescriptive easement and even though the injured parties did not have actual possession, improvements were made and passage was continuous, and though it may have been protested from time to time, if steps weren't taken to prevent the trespass, and only now there is talk of doing so, permit or no permit, would not there be a valild arguement for a continuation of said trespass? obviously, the RR has rights as the owner of the land, and deep pocket liability status. I don't know the history of suits involving crossing at W10 underpass, but all the deaths I've heard of have been at H78 or crossing over the tracks. That passage would still be an unresolved problem for the RR. It would seem the RR's primary issue is one of liability, which will always be a problem, as long as we have trial lawyers and the ability to sue deep pockets, regardless of the stupidity of the party bringing the suit and the ridiculousness of the basis.
As Lloyd suggests, and we don't know if ProGlamis or Jeannie have established this line of appeal, but it would seem that's the way to go, and just possibly the RR might find a solution, even if it does mean buying out the parties who would suffer by taking away access to their land.
I had this very discussion with some of the folks at BMV last year when the RR started playing hardball. I also did some research on the issue myself on the Public Right of Way (ROW) on private property. As did the ASA with the old Wash Road.

Bottom line, based on the Calif. laws as they are now, the ROW had to have been established prior to 1972. Chuck wasn’t there in ’72, according to my source. So they don’t have an ROW case. The ASA, IMO, DID have a case, but I believe they were not able to collect enough corroborating/substantiating data to support it.

Having the RR permit, though, adds something to BMV’s case now.
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

proglamis
ASA Transportation Vice Chair
ASA Transportation Vice Chair
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2000 11:56 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Re: bordmenville

Post by proglamis »

Does the ASA have a land use attorney?

Post Reply

Return to “Glamis Dunes • I.S.D.R.A.”