Trailer Park Lease and Free Speech Rights

This letter is in response to the editorial (Jan. 25) in which you accuse the owner of Treasure Island Trailer Park of attempting to stifle tenants’ rights of free speech. In light of the seriousness of this charge, your readers deserve to know the whole story.

We acquired Treasure Island in August, 1989, in the anticipation that the city of Laguna Beach would be open to a change in use of the property. The property includes about 4,000 feet of spectacular beach to which the public currently has no access.

Our thought was that the residents of Laguna Beach would favor clearing the slopes of development and opening the beach for public access while using the balance of the property for some form of visitor-serving or other consistent use. Our early discussions with city officials made it clear that we should provide residents a long-term right of occupancy and other benefits before the city would consider an alternative use.

The benefits provided tenants in the final lease offer were greater than the tenants could expect to receive through normal legal process. This has been confirmed to the tenants many times by their legal counsel. The lease offer not only addresses tenants’ concerns over occupancy and rent increases, it also includes a very favorable buyout provision.

The tenants have consistently proven themselves to be an articulate and well-organized force in Laguna Beach politics. One of the most important objectives of the tenants was that the benefits afforded under the lease not be contingent upon receipt by the owner of any development approvals. As such, it became crucial to secure the tenants’ agreement that they would not oppose our development proposals. It is simply unrealistic for the tenants to expect the park owner to obligate itself to deliver to each tenant the economic benefits conferred in the lease without the tenants being similarly obligated to cooperate in allowing the owner to achieve the benefits of the bargain. The owner never asked the tenants to support its application for change in use; it asked merely that the tenants not oppose its development proposals.

When the tenants met on Jan. 21 to discuss the owner’s offer, they were told in clear and unequivocal language by their lawyer, in the presence of the owner’s representatives, that the agreement not to oppose development did not constitute a deprivation of their First Amendment rights.

RICHARD A. HALL

General Partner

Treasure Island Associates