Anonymous
By Bryan Rosen
WHO AUTHORIZED THE SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS THAT WERE PLACED AT MONTECITO HOT SPRINGS AND NEARBY?
On Friday, February 17, 2023 I went on a hike to the Montecito Hot Springs starting my journey on the Ridge Trail. No signs stating the Los Padres National Forest was closed were to be seen at the trailhead, so I assumed the forest was open. The newly restored Ridge Trail was busy with hikers.
When I finally reached the hot springs, I was surprised to see a surveillance camera pointing down at a pool of hot water. Attached to the camera was a tag that had printed on it “County of Santa Barbara, Public Works, Trail and Creek Monitoring in Progress, Do Not Tamper or Remove, Enforced by County Sheriff.”
When I got home I contacted the Dept. of Public Works about the camera. The department was upset to hear that a camera bearing its name was taking pictures of people bathing in the hot springs. Lael Wageneck, information officer for Public Works sent an email to me: “I forwarded this information to the sheriff and let them know it may be some kind of peeping Tom camera…”
The next day Saturday, February 18, I went to the Hot Springs again. The camera was still there.
Three young ladies, who weren’t naked, were bathing in the pool below the camera. I informed them that they were being photographed. They thanked me when I turned the camera towards the tree trunk it was attached to.
I did a little trail repair work above where the camera was, concerned that the trail was unsafe. Then I noticed the camera had been turned so that it now pointed directly at me. I was shocked! Someone had turned the camera around 180 degrees. I went farther up the trail to get away from the camera, and was moving some rocks off the trail when Ed Gonzales, a supervisor for Montecito Creek Water Company, shouted at me from across the creek, telling me I wasn’t allowed to do what I was doing. I told him I was repairing an unsafe trail, and he told me I wasn’t allowed to do that. What was he doing in the area of the public hot springs which isn’t in the private water company’s jurisdiction–the company is taking hot spring water from the next canyon over for estates on Hot Springs Road and Riven Rock Road? Did Gonzales turn the camera towards me when I was working on the trail? It’s not the kind of camera that can turn by itself. He was the only person I saw in the area after the young ladies departed.
After checking with all departments, Public Works ascertained it wasn’t one of their cameras. On February 19th Mr. Wageneck wrote to me: “Please feel free to remove the camera and bring it to us.” On the 21st, he wrote to me: “Did you get the camera? If not, can you give me a little more info on where it was (how far up the trail)? We should be able to grab it today if it is still there. If you have it and would like to drop it off, I can meet you at my office downtown.”
Photo of camera and pool in background taken Monday February 20, 2023. Two young ladies were in the pool, but didn’t want to be photographed, so got out. (Photo: Bryan Rosen)
In response to inquiries from Public Works on February 21 Lieutenant Ugo (Butch) Arnoldi of the Sheriff’s Department wrote in an email which was cc’d to me and others: “The primary purpose of the cameras is to capture illegal activity of various types: Being in a “Posted Forest Closure Area”, constructing pools and diverting water for the natural environment, vandalism to the existing private water system, etc…Mr. Harry Rabin was authorized to install these cameras and is responsible for monitoring the activity and forwarding that information to the affected agency”.
It turns out there were five cameras. A friend and I noticed a camera pointed at newly placed pipes put in by the water company to replace those pipes washed away during the big rainstorm of January 9. Another camera was pointed at Hot Springs Trail a little way up the canyon. Where the other two cameras were placed is a mystery. One or both of them might have been pointing at hot springs pools.
On February 23, Ashlee Mayfield, Director of Montecito Trails Foundation emailed me: “I heard you found cameras at the HS. Are they still there? The county didn’t put them up, I’d like to be sure someone collects them before the original “poster” collects them and they vanish. Tomorrow won’t be safe. Impersonating the county is a big deal — I’m hearing.” On February 24 she emailed me: “Re: cameras, I don’t know anyone in that cast of characters but would guarantee that the one homeowner on the west bank is involved. I always hate to group them together as there are some great neighbors up there. So the cameras have been taken down? I’m hoping so.”
Who authorized the cameras? Who issued the written authorization that is required and the permits?
I contacted the organization Rabin works for, Heal the Ocean, about the cameras, and spoke with a receptionist. I left a message for the director of the organization, HIllary Hauser.
I wasn’t expecting a call from Harry Rabin, but he phoned me on February 23, and we spoke for almost 23 minutes. He gave me some good information, including the name of the official who told him to put “Public Works” and “Enforced by County Sheriff” on the tags. Rabin informed me that he wasn’t acting on behalf of Heal the Ocean when he placed the cameras.
But something was needed in print, and Rabin was of great help. On February 24, Rabin responding to an email I sent him wrote: “Authorization was given by the Sheriffs dept. Our only role was installing them per request from Sheriffs representative. We did not like all the bureaucratic nonsense going on so we made the decision to remove them and requested written authorization from a federal lands rep, ie forest service.” Concerning the abandoned pipes from Montecito Creek Water Company left in Hot Springs Creek he stated in the same email: “At this juncture I understand and support what you enlightened me with re: the history and use of that area. As for the pipes when I return to the U.S. that will be on my list of items to do within Heal the Ocean as that does indeed have to do with what HTO deals with”. I look forward to Heal the Ocean assisting in the cleanup of Hot Springs Creek!
Arnoldi has a different story about who authorized the cameras. In the March 2, 2023 edition of the Montecito Journal (local news, page 8) he is interviewed and says “Unfortunately the cameras were placed with both the Sheriff’s Office logo and County of Santa Barbara Public Works logo…rather than display the USFS logo who authorized their placement (emphasis added).
He says in the same interview: “…last month we received a call reporting several people being observed jumping over the fence and gate at the Hot Springs Trailhead by neighborhood residents (presumably to go to the hot springs). USFS Law Enforcement Officers responded, as well as the Sheriff’s Office. While at the Hot Springs County Parking Lot on East Mountain Drive, a concerned citizen and Montecito resident arrived on scene and contacted law enforcement on site. They–having knowledge of the past, as well as current problems involving that trail access which is posted ‘Closed by USFS Forest Order,’ and the history of people diverting the water flow from the natural creek to form new pools (etc)…asked if Forest Service would be interested in them installing trail cameras on United States Forest land…The two Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers said that would be a welcomed proactive enforcement tool. The citizen was told that the cameras must be within the USFS Forest Boundary and not display any logos, etc.”
Was the camera pointed at the hot spring pool also intended to enforce a bathing suit code?
But Darrell Hodges, Santa Barbara District Ranger for the U.S. Forest Service contradicts Arnoldi when he’s interviewed (same article): He says “Neither the Santa Barbara Ranger District, the Los Padres National Forest, nor I authorized or sanctioned the placement of the cameras” (the plot thickens).
Someone is lying.
There are a lot of unanswered questions. Who paid Rabin to do the surveillance? Just who are the forest service law enforcement officers who are encouraging cameras to be placed without the legally required identification tags? Arnoldi’s quotes make Arnoldi sound very involved in this matter. What was his role in all of this? Who is this “concerned citizen” who was so willing to violate bather’s privacy rights, putting them into the ranks of Stormy Daniels without the compensation? Is there a secret voyeur? Ashlee Mayfield’s above mentioned statement begs the question “What else has this person wearing the mask of concerned citizen stirred up?
What’s going to happen to the footage of the people who were photographed in the springs without their knowledge? Was someone watching people in the hot springs by means of remote viewing? How many naked people were photographed? A representative from the Sheriff’s Dept. told me the cameras were returned to the camera installer/operator. Is this true?
I think I uncovered a case of voyeurism among the Montecito elites.
The public has the right to know all the cast of characters involved in this surveillance activity.
On February 24, Wageneck emailed me: “Thank you for this information Bryan. The cameras were turned over to the Sheriff”.
On March 3, I emailed Arnoldi twice, asking for answers. No response. On March 4 Commader Brad Welch from the Sheriff’s Dept. emailed me: “Hi Bryan. Let me know a good time we can link up and discuss this matter. I’ll take it over from Lt Arnoldi.”
On March 4, I emailed Welch, asking the question, “Just who met at the trailhead to discuss issues going on the trail?” The same day Welch responded in an email: ” I was not in attendance but told USFS personnel, local residents, Mr Rabin and Lt Arnoldi.” (emphasis added). Arnoldi didn’t disclose in the Montecito Journal Interview that he and Rabin were at this trailhead meeting. Did authorization for the cameras and instructions for the tags occur at this meeting?
On March 5, Welch emailed me again: “Like I told you on the phone yesterday, this incident is being investigated on multiple fronts including internally”. If there’s an investigation going on, why would the cameras be returned to the photographer? Important information for an investigation could have been caught on the cameras. Was the footage taken kept by the Sheriff’s Dept. or returned to the photographer?
On March 13, Welch clarified what he meant by “multiple fronts” in an email to me: “Again, the internal investigation will determine what other, if any, investigations need to be conducted or sent out. That’s what I meant about multiple fronts. Any information on the cases from here on out should be directed to the investigators at: oops@sbsheriff.org” (Office of Professional Standards). I left a message at this email that I had information that would aid in an investigation. No response. Why? Maybe the Sheriff’s Dept. is implicated, and doesn’t want a serious investigation? There could even be a cover-up.
The public has the right to answers, and the media is the best way to get these answers. Local media can perform its traditional public duty by giving the public accurate information.
I seem to have opened a can of worms.
Bryan
Regarding water rights and “jurisdiction” you should have a waters rights attorney spell it out for you.
Water rights can extend in unexpected directions and easements often do as well.
The water manager can restrict “improvements” within their easement. For example, you can’t pile rocks on top on a buried pipeline, you can’t create any obstructions, diversions, of flow. You cannot remove obstructions, diversions and sometimes those are not obvious. I know a water manager named Eddie who works for several private water owners groups, some of whom own water rights that do not show up on State maps. The Eddie I am thinking of is a bit on the gruff impersonal side, but I give him slack because his job seems always at odds with someone because people do not respect his owners rights, improvements, and property. I know that many have advocated for the water owners in the reaches of Hot Springs, to abdicate their rights, which is fine, but some of those same people have also behaved destructively and disrespectfully to the rights holders.
I’m no expert on cameras and rights, but I do know that owners have a right to use security devices to monitor their property, monitor their easements. If an entity owns water rights to all of the flowing water within a given reach, they have the right to monitor that reach, monitor their diversions, pipelines, obstructions. The Federal government, State and Local use camera monitoring on SY River stream flow , crossings , debris basins. I hate to say it, but in this era of video everywhere we have learned we no longer have any expectation of privacy on any public or privately owned property, easement etc. There are public cameras and private cameras that show what we do on city streets, sidewalks, parks, cameras everywhere. Some of us are on Google earth, Google maps, Apple maps, Tom-Tom, Mapquest, so I don’t know where you think this is going to end
If it turns out to be in a LPNF jurisdiction, that’s a whole different set of rules.
My better half just said “Let them look, there the pervs”.
Maybe you meant “they’re”? But even that doesn’t make much sense without specifying who you mean.
@ 6:56pm – you missed using a comma after “But”.
Um, no.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/comma-before-but/
Is it illegal to take pictures of people that are in a public place? As I understand past law enforcement incidents, an “internal investigation” is only conducted when an agency suspects one of their members was involved in wrongdoing. Interesting that PC Section 594 is referred to on the tag attached to the camera. 594PC has nothing to do with (removing) any property, in this case, the camera. The section relates to “damaging, destroying or defacing someone else’s property.” Could it be the initial case (was) handled by a SD criminal investigator and they learned information that led to the reported “internal investigation?”
It is not illegal, you have no legal right to privacy in any public place. People can literally photograph you, your kids, etc.. There’s also nothing to stop you from videoing them in the act and trying to figure out how to out them on social media–this is a small town.
When you are in public your actions are free game. There is no privacy. If you can be seen from a public place you have no right to privacy. I had a crazy neighbor who put a surveillance camera in his yard and he could see across the street into the window of a teenage girl . The sheriffs deputy told them there was nothing they could do about it because you could see into her window from the public street. He said they needed to pull down shades, put up a fence etc if they didn’t want people to see in the window. Now if the crazy neighbor was on their property looking in the window that would be different.
Folks have been battling over the hot springs since the days of the Chumash. The camera stuff is weird though.
People ask, “If you’re innocent what do you need to fear from 24/7 government surveillance?” What people SHOULD ask is “Why is the government so afraid of innocent people they feel justified surveilling them 24/7?”
In the final years of Mr McCaslin, the former owner, there was an attempt to create a small destination resort and free public pools to access the healing waters. At that time the deed stated that if a spa/club were to be rebuilt (the original club burned), 100% of the water rights reverted to the club; the end of the Hot Springs Water Co.
While the waters are therapeutic, some is toxic The three springs have different compositions and the lower spring is an Arsenic spring, not somewhere I’d soak. The top spring is very high in Sulphur which is good for removing Mercury from the system. In the 80’s, while working on an experimental generator in Montecito (that used many pounds of Mercury), I would soak in the Sulphur water at the end of every day. I have the mineral analysis of all three springs…packed away somewhere. If I can find it, I will post some numbers.
These Hot Springs are sublime and it has been hard watching them become over run, and now this camera foolishness. Just sad.
Pretty much anyplace you go there are cameras now. Just in the neighborhood how many ring doorbells do you see? They film across the street and sidewalks.
Intriguing story and fantastic investigative journalism, thank you! Would love to see this picked up by the LA Times. The primary purpose of the cameras doesn’t seem to be voyeurism, since 5 of them were placed at areas susceptible to illegal creek diversions. The real story is the failure of the responsible parties to act lawfully in the installation of the cameras- followed by lies and obfuscation.
Assume you are always on camera. That’s why I always dress super fancy, do my hair and walk with purpose as I make errands about town. A tip of the derby and a how do you do also makes for a nice subject. Add a nice cane for the sophisticated gentleman look.
Yes, Sac–and don’t forget the lipstick! Never know who might end up seeing it! But seriously, the idea of cameras on trails, even this particular hot-button trail with all its complicated history, recording people’s activity, is yucky. Let people bathe in peace and relative privacy.
MTN – ah yes, glossy red! LOL! I was just joking around, but the idea of cameras in nature disgusts me, especially government ones. If you’re worried about illegal activity send a team out to patrol. Setting and forgetting cameras to watch everyone is just wrong. It’s also lazy. Just like the checkpoints, overreactive beach closures, etc. If you’re worried about people breaking the law, go LOOK FOR THEM. Sitting around waiting for them to come to you or closing things for everyone is just lazy.
Why is everyone so worried about this camera? Each of us are probably recorded and tracked a 100+ times a day by government surveillance.
There were five cameras. Yesterday I spoke with Harry Rabin, the camera installer, at the Heal the Ocean booth at Earth Day. One camera he never got back. As far as I know, there was just one camera at the hot springs, which a friend took down, and shortly after handed to Public Works.
Mr. Rabin told me the footage was “burnt off” or something like that phrase after he got the cameras back.
It saddens me some people aren’t concerned much with the loss of our constitutional privacy rights. To me it’s a serious matter.
To those who say it wasn’t a voyeur operation, let me remind you of the resident who was described as a concerned citizen in the Montecito Journal article with Arnoldi. He witnessed people jumping over the fence enroute to the hot springs. So of course they knew people were going up there. Maybe Harry Rabin didn’t, but the resident and law enforcement certainly knew people were heading to that popular destination.
While Rabin may do some good in his capacity with Heal the Ocean, he made a big mistake getting involved with this crazy scheme. It’s a wonder the cameras were still there when I gave them back to Public Works at Public Works request.
As far as misrepresentation of a public agency is concerned, if any of us regular people put up cameras claiming to belong to Public Works Department, and we’re caught, the justice department would show no mercy. Impersonating a public agency is a serious thing. Arnoldi, if he’s the one who told Rabin to put “Public Works” on the tags, should not be let off the hook because he’s an important man with the Sheriff’s Department. I’m all for forgiveness but there cannot be a double standard in justice.
Let us forgive them for their wrongdoing but at the same time hold them accountable.
They may just get emboldened if they get away with this.
An article in this week’s Montecito Journal about surveillance cameras being placed at four locations around Montecito says it was difficult to get the permits. It appears they decided in the trailhead parking lot to do this surveillance. I believe their actions were illegal, since the proper permits weren’t obtained.
People were also heading into the forest from the Ridge Trail where no signs denoting forest closure were to be seen for weeks (a sign was posted shortly after the big storm of January 9 but quickly disappeared). The trail was repaired not long after the big rainstorm, and locals knew it. The fact is the Ridge Trail was very busy with local people, as were some other local trails. People need their nature, and the forest closure didn’t stop the crowds from going to the springs from one trailhead or another. And there and other locations they were photographed with unpermitted cameras.
Maybe there will be a lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Dept. Harry Rabin said this agency authorized the operation.
This issue has also been covered in Montecito Journal. Readers can send letters to the editor to the Journal and other local media.
Bryan is a hero for his tireless work to maintain public access to public land.
Apart from the issue of the cameras and access to the actual hot springs is the issue of access to the Hot Springs trailhead.
Some Montecito property owners have placed boulders and other obstructions in the public right of way in an attempt to keep hikers from parking near the Hot Springs trailhead. How long do you think such lawless behavior would last if we placed boulders in the road on our street in Goleta? Isn’t this a rather serious breakdown in the rule of law?
The Hot Springs trailhead is the start of about six different hikes that I used to lead, none of which involved going into the actual hot springs. I applaud Supervisor Das Williams for pushing back against the lawless property owners. But so far there has been no actual justice or enforcement. On the contrary, a wide range of public agencies have abetted the lawlessness. Including the court.
Does anyone else see the larger issues, along with the practical issues of public access to public land?
What a cluster. Thank you for your work and tenacity, Mr. Rosen!
my kids and i went up there around early march and saw them. my 15 y/o daughter pointed it out. it was off to the side, in the brush, pointing down at her as se was in the pool. i opened my pack, clipped the wires, and cable holding it and removed it. IDC who it belongs to, authorities or home owners. You don’t put cameras on our trails and you certainly don’t video my under aged daughter. Want your damned camera back? it’s about 500 feet out past sterns wharf