windy city slide

windy city slide

There are 14 comments on the Monterey County Herald story from Mar 5, 2009, titled windy city slide. In it, Monterey County Herald reports that:

Remember how dominant the Golden State Warriors were in Tuesday night's win at Minnesota? Remember how fluid they were offensively, how pesky they were defensively, how undermanned they made the Timberwolves ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Monterey County Herald.

Ken Johnson

Chualar, CA

#1 Mar 5, 2009
I very much appreciate the City's effort to keep the greenbelt accessible to the residents (and visitors) of Monterey. Good work! Thanks to everyone who put time and effort into preserving this access.

New York, NY

#2 Mar 5, 2009
the warriors dont hav a chance at the playoffs any more

San Diego, CA

#3 Mar 5, 2009
the land should be available to humans, animals serve us they're not our masters. Let the animals adapt or die, "survival of the fittest" said Darwin. LOL

New York, NY

#4 Mar 5, 2009
thats mean
Bill Russo

Salinas, CA

#5 Mar 5, 2009
This is a great victory for the city but a sad disappointment for the Giammanco family. Those trails have been open to the public for as long as I can remember. The open space has been accessible to the public well before the Giammanco family ever bought their house in that location. Unfortunately, the only person who won on this deal was attorney Gary Gray who represented the Giammanco family and probably took well over a 100k to litigate this case. Now the Giammanco family is going to have to sit down and negotiate with the city about upkeep and whether a fence is going to be built. Unfortunately people got emotional about this case and got attorneys involved. See what happens when you cant get along.
John Pontti

Marquette, MI

#6 Mar 5, 2009
A nice idea for playground for the kids, but who owns and pays the taxes on
on the parcel? To be continued...... Have a 12 acre parcel next to my
home and allow children to play and hike in the area..Will not give it away but will allow public use up to a point of ownership and liability. JNP

“Living the dream!”

Since: Nov 07

Pleasanton, California

#7 Mar 5, 2009
Tiffany wrote:
the warriors dont hav a chance at the playoffs any more
At this point I have to agree. But how did this article get posted in the Warriors heading???

“Living the dream!”

Since: Nov 07

Pleasanton, California

#8 Mar 5, 2009
whocares wrote:
the land should be available to humans, animals serve us they're not our masters. Let the animals adapt or die, "survival of the fittest" said Darwin. LOL
I have a dog. I feed her, walk her, pick up her poop... Wait a sec, who's "serving" who???
(heh heh!)
Cathy Giammanco

United States

#9 Mar 5, 2009
As one of the plaintiffs in this case...


All we have ever asked for is this:

1) If Parcel B is to be open to the public, the City must pay for the maintenance and the liability of it. The City has refused since 2000.

2) If the City refuses to pay for the maintenance and liability of Parcel B, then it must be closed to the public.

That is our lawsuit. It has been 9 years in the making. Since then, the public has had free and unrestricted use of Parcel B. The 17-member Association which owns Parcel B as its private property, pays for ALL the maintenance of it. That maintenance has cost each member appx $11,000.00 EACH since 2003. THE CITY OF MONTEREY HAS PAID NOTHING. THE PUBLIC USES THE LAND. The Association pays for and assumes ALL liability and insurance on it. THE CITY OF MONTEREY HAS PAID NOTHING. If a member of the public is injured on Parcel B, the Association is liable, not the City.

We finally have our victory, but it has taken us 9 years to get there. JUSTICE AGLIANO HAS TENTATIVELY RULED THE CITY MUST PAY FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND LIABILITY.

Equally important, our lawsuit was not about the pre-1972 easements. If that is what Justice Agliano can use lay over the legal 1984 Open Space Easement Deed that states there is to be "No-Trepassing on Parcel B, the one we built our property with in 1988, then we appreciate what he is doing to help us in our fight with the City to accept its responsibility. The City signed, sealed and delivered this deed, not the Giammancos and not the Association. The deed is legal and it says what it says, and the law can't circumvent it. The Giammancos' are not the blame for the 'No-Trepass" clause in it. The City Council signed it, not us. We prevailed in Phase One of the lawsuit.

Our lawsuit is about the Veterans Park to Quarry Park Trail Connector that was established many years after our home was built, unbeknownst to us, by the City placing trail hikings signs in the parks directing people onto Parcel B. Trail use escalated and in 2000 the City told the Association to pay the maintenance and insure the public use of Parcel B, and if we did not want to do so, we were to give the property to the City. We objected, and the lawsuits were filed.

The issues at stake are simple:

Public use will require publicly funded maintenance and publicly funded liability.

Public use will require park regulations for the homeowners whose properties border the park trail connector. The trail is part of the City park system rules must apply, such as hours, leash laws, loitering, etc.

Special regulations need to be implemented in this case as Veterans Park has 15000 overnight campers and visitors who will have access to yards such as mine, 24/7. Privacy and security fences in vunerable areas need to be in place.


So while Ms. Davi may be jubilant, I can assure you, it is the Giammancos' who have won and have gotten what they want. This is all we have ever asked for. We always knew we would win. Justice and honor always does. We went in with the truth, stayed with it, and came out victorious relying on the truth and the facts.

Salinas, CA

#10 Mar 5, 2009
Yay! The hikers win, the Giomancos win, the city wins, the Giomancos lawyer$ win, the the dogs, deers, and mountain lions win - everybody wins but the Golden State Warriors!
Warrior Follower

Monterey, CA

#11 Mar 5, 2009
If the Warriors tell Don Nelson to take a hike, I know one place in Monterey that he'll be allowed to go!
John Gault

Salinas, CA

#12 Mar 5, 2009
Yup, everybody wins--except the Monterey taxpayers. Once again, the taxpaying folks who only ask for competent governmental representation for the money they pay are the ones to get hosed. Besides the dollars this case cost in litigation-- whether City attorneys or outside attorneys handled it, it all costs a lot to litigate--the liability and maintenance costs will now be born by all city taxpayers, not just the very few who utilize this open space for recreation. And while, arguably, this is a good thing for those who use the space, this entire issue could have been avoided if competent City legal eagles would have got this right when the open space deeds were being recorded in the first place! The time to establish all these issues was when the open space was laid out as a condition of the building permit process, not 20 or 37 years later. This could have all been avoided with some clarity back then. So, everybody wins--except taxpayers, the Warriors, SF Giants and Forty-niners.

Salinas, CA

#13 Mar 5, 2009
I am so glad that you are happy with the out come, thrilled actually if it means you will now lower your voice for a change and try to quiely go on with your life.
Time to move on

Salinas, CA

#14 Mar 5, 2009
Ms. Giammanco,
Thank you for the imformative post but I would be a bit more humble before you start toting a victory. The City of Monterey, just like most cities these days, is starting to feel some financial pain and I can predict that you will not see any significant changes in the near future. Remember, the ruling from the cities perspective is only a reccommendation and if they elect not to do anything your pretty much right where you started. The city has time on their side and I have a feeling that the Giammanco family will ultimately have to either throw in the towel or drain your bank account in attorney's fees. You might want to stop fighting and start enjoying your life. Life is way to short to be fighting with everyone. Those trails have been open for so long even befor e your family ever moved their. As a child I played in the area and enjoed natrue and what the open space had to offer. The foot traffic on those trails are not as bad as they are purporte to be and the Hucklberry Homewoners made some agreements in the beginning in order to futher their agenda. Bottom line im plesed that your family is happy with the ruling and are now willing to negotiate a resolution. Now mabey you can have some closure on this and start enjoying your life and putting your money in th bank instead of giving it to your attorney.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

C.J. Watson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Is Kobe Bryant the Key to the Chicago Bulls Win... (Jul '12) Jul '12 Ginobili 3
News NBA Draft 2012: 7 Best Options for the Chicago ... (Jun '12) Jun '12 best thing 2
News Chicago Bulls: How Bulls Can Work Some Flexibil... (May '12) May '12 richard 1
News Hawes, Holiday lead 76ers past Bulls 89-82 in G... (May '12) May '12 Thomas 1
News Rose scores 32 points as Bulls hand Knicks sixt... (Mar '12) Mar '12 Basketball3 1
News Lucas leads Bulls over Wizards (Jan '12) Jan '12 tim 1
News Chicago Bulls Rumors: Why Omer Asik is Not a Pa... (Dec '11) Dec '11 David 1