« Board Of Supervisors OK Civilian Review Board | Main | Requiescat In Pace, Denise Mansfield-Reinking »

May 22, 2007



Bulls eye Jubal.

way to go jubal


I admire your steadfast committment to property rights. You have exposed the do-gooders in Dana Pt. as well as the Disney gang in Anaheim. Keep it up!


They bought the property knowing they'd have to deal with the historic house. Now they want to tear it down. Property rights are not absolute: You have a right to build what is permitted, as it is permitted.

ocwatcher watcher

"Property rights are not absolute"

And they aren't non-existent, either. The owner shouldn't have to maintain the house, regardless of the cost, just so a bunch of busybodies can look at an old house.

Jose M.

I suggest that these 600 people buy the house next door to Jubal.

Install a large neon sign, park your cars on the front lawn, and leave your trash strewn across the driveway so that Jubal's prospective home buyers view the neighborhoods curb appeal.

Any bets that Jubal calls code enforcement because the property owners maintenance of their own property is not up to his standard. Yeah, but I can imagine that neon sign just shines through the front windows of every neighbors house. While every neighbor now wants to sell their house, there is so much one can reduce their asking price before those neighbors go to the city council. Wait a minute, look there in the back row, it is the former champion of property rights, Nimby Jubal.

Double standard or too strict of interpreting property rights?

Nevertheless, here's a conservative idea. Those 600 people pay enough taxes where they can petition their elected representatives to assist in preserving history. After all we preserve schools, libraries, light houses, parks, beaches, roads and government institutions. Why can't people petition the government to preserve a historic house? I'm sure these people have paid enough taxes to have this issue considered without being called to ante up more money.

I'm sure Jubal has fought vigorously against all those Orange property owners who wanted to renovate or tear down their houses situated in old town Orange's preservation neighborhoods. Funny, thing is that most of the council consider themselves pro-property rights yet they continue to uphold the old town's preservation rules during meetings and I have yet see in the council minutes Jubal’s strong opposition.

What gives Matt? Mouse got your tongue.

colony rabble

We have seen historic structures in far worse condition purchased and restored, and private dollars could likely be found to purchase and restore the Doheny-Leyden house, if the developer would sell. The fact is, the developer has made no public offer to sell, he appears to want only to develop the property. He bought it knowing it was subject to restrictions as an historic resource, and then expected the community to alter their standards to provide him with the desired ROI for developing the multiple lots beneath the vintage home. Paul Douglas has the right to use the single family residence, restore it for a profitable resale, or sell it “as is” to a restoration minded buyer. He does not have the absolute right to “highest and best use”, and the residents of Camino Capistrano are not obligated to compromise their standard of living to ensure a developer’s profit. He knew what he was buying, let him sell it to those people that you want to “pull out their checkbooks”.


I was under the assumption the "historical" program was voluntary as no property tax breaks for maintaing a historical residence have been given by the county. Is the "historical" program involuntary? If so, that is scary.

ocwatcher watcher response

Those places you mention are all public property. I belive the topic at hand is private property and volunteering to maintain a historical house rather than being drafted. Dana Point voted down the use of eminent domain.

The comments to this entry are closed.