Nothing is ever black and white in Altadena, that’s for sure!

Latest example: not everybody favors establishing an eternal anti-graffiti plan for the Audubon signs at the Cobb Estate — some would prefer that a natural area stay, well, natural.  Local historian/activist Michele Zack shares with us a letter she has sent to Supv. Michael Antonovich:

Dear Supervisor Antonovich,

I am writing to recommend that the interpretive signs which have created a series of eyesores at the Cobb Estate for over a year now, be removed. Although no doubt well-intentioned, the plan to place them there there was not well thought through — nor do the signs honor the spirit Virgina Steele Scott’s gift to our community. It says on the plaque at the entrance that this land is meant as a quiet sanctuary for birds and people forever. As Altadena’s historian, I spent time researching this site, and sharing my findings in Altadena: Between Wilderness and City (pp191-192).

To save you looking it up, here is essentially what I found:

1. After Charles Cobb’s death in 1939, the property changed hands many times, most famously when the Marx Bros. bought it in 1956.

2. Since no one built anything there or otherwise occupied/developed the land, it became a target of youthful and other misbehavior  after the Cobbs moved out, and an escalating problem for law enforcement because of easy access and plentiful parking at the top of Lake Avenue

3. In 1956-57 alone, 175 juveniles and 20 adults were taken into custody for petty crimes around the deteriorating mansion (those were just the number caught!)

4. When saved though efforts of John Muir Students, the Audubon Society, and mostly, a gift of $150,000 from Mrs. Virginia Steele Scott in 1971, the idea was to keep it as a passive area for birds, hikers, and others wishing to enjoy nature and access trails.

Considering the site’s history, you would think it a foregone conclusion that interpretive signs would become grafitti blackboards and a financial drain to whoever became responsible for maintaining them. In this case, no one seems responsible. The desecrated signs take away from the beauty of this sanctuary, not to mention making people scared to go there at dawn/dusk when it is very peaceful and a good time for observing wildlife. No one wants to run into gang members or other undesireables. I do not think it a prudent public expense to take responsibilty for cleaning them up continually, (it seems to take months and even years for volunteers to organize this activity, and in the meantime we have to look at messed up signs) and hope taxpayer money is not wasted on this fruitless endeavor.

I believe the most reasonable long term solution is to take the signs out so hikers and other nature lovers may again enjoy this wonderful gift to the community in the way it was meant to be enjoyed: as a sanctuary. Sometimes generous-minded ideas simply do not work out, and the time comes to move on. Hopefully, better historical research will go into Audoban’s next project.

Thanks for your consideration on this, and I request to be kept informed on any county decision regarding these signs.

Sincerely,

Michele Zack