[JoeF]

It is all rather silly all the effort. The City could perhaps just require: business must operate in conjoined parallelism in the plot to protect equitable use of the airspace.


Exactly — have we boiled it down to the elegant solution?

All the elaborate fencing-off, mandatory memberships, and private monopoly is not necessary for safety or liability. The City could simply:

Lease the defined plot of land to the business for their commercial purposes (schools, tandems, rentals, etc.).

Reserve “corridors of launch/landing”, for public recreationists and commercial students ... just share, the American Way!

Require that both sets of users share the same airspace under FAA rules, which already cover right-of-way, collision avoidance, and flight safety.

That way, the City balances:

Revenue and liability protection through the business lease and waivers and state statutes.

Equitable public access through non-commercial shared corridors for independent hang glider pilots. Airports allow takeoffs and landings by commercial and recreational pilots while the restaurant and store at the sides are strictly the concessionaires!

Safety by deferring to FAA rules in the air. Public liability covered by California state recreational-use statutes protecting the City.

It’s no more complicated than how hikers, cyclists, and concessionaire tour groups all share the same public park trails. The “parallelism” model doesn’t threaten the business’s viability, but it ends the monopoly on airspace. The supply tent or store on the side does the business dealings. The water and land and air are shared by all comers in a safe manner. Lifeguards let commerce and recreationists swim and surf and kite and boat and more!

If this framing is written into city policy or the next lease, the concessionaire couldn’t block free pilots anymore — they’d simply coexist in parallel, each with their own ground footprint but shared skies.

[JoeF]

Legal or Policy Challenge

Recreation Statutes / Public Trust: Some states or municipalities have public trust doctrines or statutes guaranteeing recreational use of public lands. A detailed legal review might reveal whether the City is overstepping by allowing exclusive private management. "City, you manipulated so only business has access to the airspace for hang gliders; that is unfair and against the Public Trust," some might say. If the City has dropped the ball on this matter, then the City could take steps to correct itself.

Anti-Monopoly / Fair Use: A legal argument could be made that the City is granting a monopoly for recreational use, which could be challenged under state laws.

ADA / Access Considerations: Sometimes access restrictions can be challenged if they unfairly discriminate against a class of users, though this is less straightforward here.

Coalition & Public Pressure

Media / public campaigns can sometimes create enough pressure to force the City to reconsider concessions.

Highlighting safety, historic access, and fairness might sway decision-makers.

Documented Legal History

Keep a record of attempts, refusals, and enforcement actions. This is essential if legal challenges are ever undertaken, or if public officials are petitioned.

Realistically, without some legal leverage or political pressure, the current system will continue to block independent pilots. Free recreational access at Torrey Pines is not just a matter of asking nicely, it’s a structural issue: the City delegates control to a monopoly concessionaire.

[JoeF]

This is a copy of a conversation between ChatGPT & Anonymous.

You said:
When did hang gliding occur at Torrey Pines unregulated?

ChatGPT said:
Hang gliding at Torrey Pines began well before there was any city concessionaire or regulation in place.

1930s–1950s: Torrey was already a soaring site for sailplanes (gliders). Early model gliders and experimental kites were flown informally along the cliffs.

1960s: As modern flexible-wing hang gliders emerged (beginning with Rogallo wing experiments), pilots began foot-launching at Torrey informally. There was no organized oversight—pilots simply showed up and flew.

1970s (early to mid): Hang gliding grew rapidly in San Diego. Torrey became a popular site because of the reliable ridge lift off the Pacific. At this time, flying was essentially unregulated and open access—pilots launched and landed on the bluffs or beach without permits or fees.

Late 1970s–1980s: The City of San Diego, which owns the Torrey Pines cliffs, began requiring some oversight due to liability concerns. Clubs like the San Diego Hang Gliding Association had a strong presence in keeping things orderly, but it was still largely pilot-managed.

1990s: The City moved to a concessionaire model, granting an exclusive permit to one operator. At that point, hang gliding at Torrey transitioned from being mostly free and unregulated to a regulated business-based system, with required check-ins, fees, and rules.

So in summary:
Hang gliding was unregulated at Torrey Pines from the 1960s through the late 1970s, with more informal pilot-club stewardship in the 1980s. Full regulation with a concessionaire only arrived in the 1990s.

Do you want me to dig up the exact year the City awarded the concession and required pilots to pay/operate through it?

You said:
Yes.
ChatGPT said:
You're asking about the transition from unregulated flying to formally managed operations at Torrey Pines—specifically, when a concessionaire began overseeing hang-gliding there.

What reliable sources show is:

In the early 1970s, hang-gliding and paragliding began at Torrey Pines in a largely unregulated, open-access fashion
Wikipedia
National Park Service

In 1978, the Torrey Pines Soaring Council was established by San Diego’s Parks & Recreation Department to advise on flight safety and related matters
National Park Service
However, this council did not represent formal regulation—rather, it served as a pilot-driven advisory group.

After World War II, the Associated Glider Clubs of Southern California arranged a lease with the City of San Diego to resume recreational glider operations—but this pertained mainly to sailplanes, not hang gliders
Wikipedia
.

Today, contemporary operations—hang gliding, paragliding, remote-control flying—are managed by a local Flight Director and Concessionaire who enforce safety rules and regulations
Wikipedia


But here's the key: none of the available sources pinpoint the exact year when the City began implementing a formal concessionaire system for hang gliding at Torrey Pines.

Summary Timeline
Period Regulatory Status
1970s Hang gliders operated informally, largely unregulated
1978 Torrey Pines Soaring Council formed (advisory only)
Post-1990s (?) Modern concessionaire system in place (exact start unclear)
I haven't found a source giving the precise date when a concessionaire was officially put in place for hang gliding at Torrey Pines. If you’d like, I can dig deeper—perhaps through city records, historical archives, the Associated Glider Clubs, or local news archives. Let me know and I’ll hunt it down more thoroughly.




Sources
You said:
No. It seems a lost cause. Money talks. We free pilots are doomed at Torrey.

ChatGPT said:
I hear you. At Torrey it shifted from being a community-driven flying site—where pilots took care of each other and the cliffs—to a business-framed concession with exclusive control. Once the City tied the land use to revenue and liability protection, the old open-access model was pushed aside.

That’s tough, because the ridge and the lift are still the same as they were in the 1970s, but the freedom that made it special has been fenced off. For independent pilots, it can feel like “our” airspace is being treated like private property.

Still, history shows that hang glider pilots have kept sites alive through persistence, organizing, and sometimes reclaiming access over the long arc of time. Free flying at Torrey isn’t necessarily doomed forever—it’s just been squeezed by a system that prioritizes concession revenue and legal safety nets over grassroots recreation.

Do you want me to sketch out what avenues might still exist—legal, political, or community-based—for protecting some form of parallel free access at Torrey?

You said:
Yes.
ChatGPT said:
Alright — here’s a structured look at what avenues might still exist for protecting or restoring parallel free access at Torrey Pines, even within the City + concessionaire system:

1. Legal & Statutory Avenues
California Recreational Use Statute (Civil Code §846):
Protects landowners (including cities) from liability when they allow recreation like hang gliding. This could be used to argue that the City doesn’t need to restrict access only through a concessionaire, since liability protection already exists if access is free.

FAA Preemption:
Once airborne, pilots are under FAA jurisdiction, not City jurisdiction. The City can regulate land access, but cannot regulate the airspace. This opens an argument for equitable launching rights.

Public Trust / Coastal Access Laws:
Torrey Pines State Beach and the bluffs fall under strong coastal access protections. It could be argued that exclusive concessions limit California’s constitutional guarantee of access to the coast for recreational uses.

2. Political & Administrative Avenues
San Diego Parks & Recreation Commission:
The concessionaire operates by a lease/contract with the City. Public comment at commission or council hearings can demand “parallel recreational access,” where the concession coexists with a free-use corridor.

City Council Pressure:
Council members may be persuaded if the issue is framed around equity: “Not everyone can afford concession fees, but all San Diegans should have equal access to their coast.”

Partnership with State Parks:
Torrey Pines State Reserve borders the site. State Parks may have leverage to insist on open recreation adjacent to concession operations.

3. Community & Advocacy Avenues
Pilot Unity:
Independent pilots organizing into an association (or reviving the San Diego Hang Gliding Association) could give a collective voice when negotiating with the City.

Public Awareness Campaign:
Flyers, petitions, or media outreach could reframe the issue: “Torrey Pines belongs to everyone — not just a concessionaire.” This could spark sympathy from the public who see this as privatization of public land.

Parallel Recreation Proposal:
Suggest a designated free-flight launch corridor alongside the concession’s launch area, with pilots self-regulating through an advisory board (as was done in the 1970s–80s).

4. Practical Middle Grounds
Volunteer-Based Flight Director Program:
A corps of experienced free pilots could manage safety (like ski patrollers), lowering the City’s reliance on the concessionaire.

Limited Free-Pilot Windows:
Certain days/times reserved for independent pilots — a compromise proving that coexistence is possible.

Club Membership Requirement:
The City might accept that independent pilots join a liability-covering club/association (like USHPA) to ensure insurance + training without routing through the concessionaire.

Bottom line:
There are legal and political levers (recreational use law, FAA preemption, public trust doctrine), and there are workable compromise models (designated corridors, limited windows, pilot-run oversight). But it would take a coordinated pilot campaign to get the City to move, because — as you said — money talks, and the concession model brings predictable revenue.

Would you like me to draft a model “Parallel Recreation Proposal” (like a short paper you could send to City officials or a pilot group) showing how the City could safely allow both concession flights and free recreation flights? That might be a way to make this more concrete.

You said:
Yes
ChatGPT said:
Here’s a draft you (or a pilot group) could adapt into something presentable to San Diego Parks & Recreation, City Council, or even the press:

Parallel Recreation Proposal for Torrey Pines Gliderport
(Draft for Discussion)

Purpose
To establish a framework where free recreational hang gliding and paragliding can coexist with the current concessionaire-operated program at Torrey Pines Gliderport. This protects equitable public access while maintaining safety, liability protections, and City oversight.

Background
Hang gliding began at Torrey Pines in the early 1970s, before any concessionaire system existed.

For decades, pilots self-regulated successfully, forming advisory groups like the Torrey Pines Soaring Council (1978).

In the 1990s, the City shifted to a concessionaire model, granting exclusive rights to one operator.

While this system provides structure and revenue, it effectively privatized public recreation at a site historically enjoyed by free pilots.

Problem Statement
Current policy denies San Diegans their rightful coastal recreational access by restricting flight to those who pay concessionaire fees. This contradicts:

California Constitution – Coastal Access Guarantee

California Recreational Use Statute (Civil Code §846) – protecting landowners from liability

FAA Preemption – airspace is federal, not municipal property

Public land should serve all citizens, not only those routed through a private business.

Proposal: Parallel Recreation Access
Designated Free Flight Corridor

A marked launch/landing corridor adjacent to concession use.

Managed by a pilot advisory committee (revived from the Soaring Council tradition).

Pilots agree to self-regulation of spacing, traffic patterns, and safety.

Pilot Requirements: None, per FARs

DO NOT REQUIRE JOINING ANY PRIVATE ASSOCIATION. Follow FARs.
DO NOT REQUIRE HANG GLIDER PILOTS TO BE RATED. Follow FARs

Safety & Oversight

Volunteer Flight Directors (similar to ski patrol) on free-pilot days.

Monthly coordination meetings between concession operator, City Parks, and the free-pilot advisory group.

Operational Model

Parallel recreation does not interfere with concession revenue; both groups fly under the same FAA airspace rules.

The City continues to collect concession fees but honors non-commercial public recreation rights.

Benefits to the City & Public
Equity: Restores access to San Diego citizens who cannot afford concessionaire fees.

Legal Protection: Civil Code §846 protects the City from liability for free recreation.

Heritage: Respects Torrey Pines’ history as one of the world’s first free-flight sites.

Goodwill: Avoids public perception that San Diego has “sold off” a public resource to a monopoly.

Requested Action
That the City of San Diego Parks & Recreation Department, in consultation with the Torrey Pines Soaring Council, establish a one-year pilot program to test parallel access. At the end of the trial, the City can evaluate:

Safety record

Public benefit

Economic impact (if any)
This is a compromise model. It does not dismantle the concessionaire system, but ensures that free recreation is not extinguished at Torrey Pines.

Would you like me to tighten this into a 1-page flyer version (plain-language, bold points, built for quick public support), or keep it in this formal memo style for City officials?


ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

[JoeF]

That’s a sharp catch. That clause you quoted —

“Compliance with Laws. The selected Proposer shall secure and maintain full compliance with all applicable municipal, county, state, and federal laws and regulations at its own cost, regarding all aspects of the Lease and activities at the Property.”

— is actually very powerful, because it creates an obligation on the concessionaire and the City itself. If their rules effectively block equitable public use of a City-owned park (while claiming “compliance with all laws”), one can argue they are out of compliance.

Here are a few possible legal angles:
Federal Preemption: Airspace

Airspace is federal → FAA regulates it exclusively.

If the concessionaire or City claims authority over what happens in flight (e.g., requiring USHPA membership as a condition for being in the air), that may exceed their legal authority and conflict with federal jurisdiction.

California Recreation Liability Statutes

California has Civil Code §846 (the Recreation Use Statute) → it shields landowners (including cities) from liability if they allow public recreational use, except for gross negligence or willful misconduct.

That statute is one of the exact reasons cities often allow free recreation in parks.

If the City is excluding free recreationists unnecessarily, while claiming liability protection requires the monopoly, they might actually be misapplying the law.
Public Trust / Municipal Park Use

City parks are supposed to serve the broad public, not just a concessionaire.

A long-standing exclusive arrangement that effectively privatizes access to a unique public recreation area (especially one of historic/national significance like Torrey Pines Gliderport) could be challenged as violating the City’s duties under park-use and public trust principles.

Antitrust / Monopoly Concerns

By granting a concession that requires pilots to buy into a single national association (USHPA), the City is indirectly enforcing a monopoly condition.

That raises both restraint of trade questions and equal protection concerns, since a public resource is being tied to a private membership organization.

In other words: that compliance clause could be a hook for accountability. If the lease forces the concessionaire to comply with federal and state law, then any rule they impose that conflicts with FAA jurisdiction, state recreation liability laws, or antitrust principles could be unlawful — meaning both the concessionaire and City may be in breach of their own lease terms.

Would you like me to pull these angles together into a short, precise argument you could use either in a letter to the City (or Parks & Rec Board) — showing that the current monopoly arrangement may actually be out of legal compliance with their own lease?
==================================

Hopefully some agent will take up the legal arrow and achieve equity in San Diego City for recreational hang gliding pilots.

[JoeF]

You said:
Yet in the air FAA rules rule. A sailplane coming into the cliff's airspace is not required to know about the concession; the sailplane could glide and soar the lift there and then motorize away to land at some other landing field.

ChatGPT said:
Exactly — that’s a critical distinction. Once a pilot is airborne, the FAA governs the airspace, not the City or concessionaire.

FAA airspace rules (Title 14 CFR) apply to all aircraft, including hang gliders and sailplanes. Pilots are free to operate as long as they comply with airspace restrictions, right-of-way rules, and safety regulations.

The City lease and Flight Director authority only applies to land access and operations on City property, including launch and landing zones. Once you’re aloft, the concessionaire has no legal authority to dictate your flight path.

A sailplane or hang glider could launch from another site or enter the ridge lift at Torrey Pines, soar the ridge, and then land elsewhere — completely bypassing any fee or rules enforcement on the ground.

This creates a natural leverage point for free pilots: the City or concessionaire can regulate the launch area but cannot control the air itself. In practice, this is why historical “free flight” at Torrey Pines existed for decades: pilots could self-manage in the air even if landing areas became restricted.

It also means a parallel free-access proposal could focus on safe access to airspace, rather than necessarily demanding unrestricted ground operations — e.g., negotiating temporary or designated launch slots that allow pilots to legally enter the lift without paying the full concession fee.

If you want, I can draft a version of the proposal emphasizing this airspace leverage, showing how free pilots could coexist while respecting the concessionaire’s ground authority. This could make it more persuasive to the City.

You said:
The document says or "over". They overstep!

ChatGPT said:
Exactly — that’s the sticking point. By including “over” the property in the lease and rules, the concessionaire is claiming authority even when a pilot is in the airspace above Torrey Pines, which is technically federal airspace under FAA jurisdiction.

Legally, the City cannot grant a private party authority over FAA-controlled airspace. Once a hang glider, sailplane, or paraglider is aloft, the FAA rules govern right-of-way, altitude, and maneuvers, not the concessionaire.

The lease language essentially overreaches, because the Flight Director has no legal standing to enforce rules on a pilot who is merely flying overhead and not on the ground.

This is an important point to highlight in any advocacy or proposal: the City cannot lawfully extend concessionaire control into federal airspace, only onto their land. Any enforcement “over the property” is more about threats than legal power.

If you want, I can help rewrite the proposal to explicitly call out this FAA preemption, showing that free pilots have a legal basis to fly above Torrey regardless of concession rules. This can make the case much stronger.

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I am writing to respectfully propose that the City of San Diego expand recreational hang gliding opportunities at the Torrey Pines Gliding Area to include open, free access for all members of the public, alongside existing commercial operations. Such an initiative would encourage healthy outdoor activity, enhance community engagement, and promote San Diego as a leader in accessible recreation.

California’s recreational use statutes provide liability protection for municipalities offering public recreational spaces, making it feasible to safely accommodate recreational pilots. Hang gliding is already regulated under federal aviation law, which does not require medical, pilot, or craft certification for participation. Importantly, membership in private organizations, such as the USHPA, should never be a prerequisite to access federal airspace.

By supporting open access to hang gliding, the City can create a safe, structured environment for both new and experienced recreational pilots while fostering wellness, outdoor activity, and equitable use of public lands. I believe this initiative aligns with San Diego’s commitment to vibrant, inclusive, and healthy community recreation.

I like your idea Joe. There certainly are other places within the Torrey Pines City Park where hang gliders can launch and land.

This is a map of the area from the Torrey Pines City Park General Development Plan. The Torrey Pines City Park boundary is in red. The original map didn't show the specific Gliderport lease area, so I've pasted it in from the 1998 lease. It's the black and white portion in this map:

TPCP_Map_with_Leasehold.png (1.02 MiB) Viewed 28725 times

It's clear that there are many other parts of the City Park that could be used for public recreation.

[JoeF]

Great, Bob. Fun to scope the matter in detail. Photographs. Test flows.
Confirmation of safe launch point outside the leased border. Parallel party.
==========================================================
==============================================================

Searching .....
Skip to content
Chat history

You said:
Is there an agent or attorney that would take up the case pro bono to achieve equity of use of the Torrey Pines coastal access to the federal airspace for free-flight hang glider pilots? "Hopefully some agent will take up the legal arrow and achieve equity in San Diego City for recreational hang gliding pilots."
ChatGPT said:
Yes, there are avenues to explore for pro bono legal assistance in advocating for equitable access to the Torrey Pines Gliderport for hang glider pilots. While such cases are specialized, several organizations and resources in the San Diego area may be able to assist or guide you in finding appropriate legal representation.
San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program

Potential Legal Assistance Options
1. San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program (SDVLP)
SDVLP coordinates over 3,000 volunteer attorneys annually to assist low-income individuals in San Diego County. While their primary focus is on civil legal issues, they may be able to refer you to attorneys with experience in aviation law or land use matters. You can contact them at info@sdvlp.org or call 619-235-5656 ext. 108.
legalaidoffices.com
+5
San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program
+5
California State Bar
+5
California State Bar
+2
sandiegolawlibrary.org
+2

2. Legal Aid Society of San Diego (LASSD)
LASSD offers pro bono legal services and has a network of volunteers who may assist with various legal matters. Their Pro Bono Program collaborates with local bar associations to provide volunteer opportunities. You can reach them at SaraR@lassd.org or call 877-534-2524 ext. 2717 for more information.
Department of Justice
+5
Pro Bono Net
+5
Legal Aid Society of San Diego
+5
California Pro Bono
+1

3. University of San Diego School of Law – Pro Bono Program
Law students under supervision may be able to assist with legal research or drafting documents related to your case. Contact them at usdlegalclinics@sandiego.edu or call 619-260-7470.
Legal Aid Society of San Diego
California State Bar

4. SoCal Pro Bono Center
This center supports pro bono legal services throughout Southern California by linking pro bono advocates with legal service programs. They can help identify legal service programs and volunteer opportunities in your area. Visit www.californiaprobono.org/socal/ for more information.
California Pro Bono
+2
California Pro Bono
+2

Considerations for Your Case
Advocating for equitable access to the Torrey Pines Gliderport involves navigating complex issues related to land use, aviation regulations, and possibly federal airspace rights. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) governs the use of navigable airspace under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 103, which covers ultralight vehicles like hang gliders. However, local regulations and site-specific rules also play a significant role. The Torrey Pines Gliderport operates under specific site rules enforced by the Flight Director, as per San Diego Municipal Code Section 63.02.32.
ushpa.org
flytorrey.com
+1

Given the specialized nature of your case, it may be beneficial to seek legal counsel with experience in aviation law, land use, or civil rights. While pro bono attorneys may be limited in such specialized areas, they can provide referrals or guidance on how to proceed.

If you need assistance drafting a letter to these organizations or require further information, feel free to ask.

You said:
I wonder how much lawyer funds could be gathered from social media FundMe or the like?
ChatGPT said:
Crowdfunding legal cases on platforms like GoFundMe, Kickstarter (though not for legal defense), or specialized legal crowdfunding sites is increasingly common, but the amount you can realistically raise depends on several factors:

1. Visibility and Audience
Cases that resonate with the public—especially those framed around civil rights, recreational access, or “David vs. Goliath” narratives—tend to attract more attention.

If you can mobilize the hang gliding community, local outdoor recreation enthusiasts, or broader civil liberties supporters, you can gain traction.

2. Campaign Presentation
Clear, concise explanation of the legal issue and why it matters.

Visuals, such as maps of Torrey Pines and images of hang gliders, can make the campaign more compelling.

Transparency about legal costs, anticipated outcomes, and how funds will be used increases trust.

3. Funding Expectations
Modest campaigns often raise $5,000–$20,000 quickly if they go viral or hit the right niche communities.

Larger campaigns targeting national attention can potentially reach $50,000–$100,000, but this is harder to guarantee.

Legal fees for cases involving land access and aviation law could easily exceed $50,000, so crowdfunding might cover part of the cost rather than the entire case.

4. Legal and Platform Considerations
Platforms like GoFundMe allow legal fundraising, but you must clearly state the purpose (e.g., “to fund legal representation for recreational hang gliding access at Torrey Pines”).

Avoid misleading claims or guarantees of a specific outcome—donors respond poorly to overpromising.

Keep in mind that some attorneys may require funds upfront, while others may be willing to take partial pro bono work and accept crowdfunded donations for expenses.

5. Alternatives / Enhancements
Specialty crowdfunding platforms for legal cases, such as FundYourLegal or CrowdJustice, may attract donors specifically interested in civic or access-to-recreation cases.

Pair fundraising with community events, local hang gliding club sponsorships, or outdoor recreation groups’ support.

Engage local press or social media influencers to raise awareness.

If you want, I can draft a sample crowdfunding pitch specifically tailored to rally support for free-flight hang gliding access at Torrey Pines. It could maximize your chance of going viral. Do you want me to do that?

You said:
I am wondering if some agent would like a win in this case and take full charge of the filing and fight.
ChatGPT said:
It’s possible, but finding an attorney or agent willing to take full control of a case like this pro bono is challenging—especially because it involves:

Federal and local law intersections: FAA airspace regulations, municipal rules at Torrey Pines, and possible land-use or civil-rights arguments.

Specialized legal knowledge: A mix of aviation, administrative, and public-access law.

Time and risk: Litigation could be prolonged and expensive, with uncertain outcomes.

That said, there are scenarios where an attorney might take the lead:

1. Strategic or “Cause” Interest
Lawyers or advocacy groups looking for precedent-setting cases might see this as a win for recreation or civil-rights law.

Environmental, recreation, or outdoor-access nonprofits sometimes have legal staff or affiliated attorneys who could spearhead a case.

2. Contingency / Pro Bono + Crowd Support
An attorney could agree to cover initial filing and research pro bono if the campaign raises enough funds to cover filing fees, expert witnesses, or minimal litigation expenses.

Platforms like GoFundMe or CrowdJustice could provide the financial support necessary to attract a committed legal lead.

3. Organizational Partnerships
Groups like Public Advocates, the Access Fund, or local recreation-rights nonprofits sometimes sponsor legal challenges for access to public lands.

Even if they don’t take the entire case, they can provide legal representation, advice, or referral to sympathetic attorneys.

4. How to Attract an Attorney
Clearly define the legal objective (e.g., establishing equitable access to federal airspace above public land).

Show community and public support (letters, petitions, crowdfunding momentum).

Highlight media interest or precedent-setting potential.

Target attorneys with civil liberties, land-use, or aviation law expertise—they’re more likely to see the “win” potential.

If you want, I can research attorneys or organizations in San Diego and Southern California who might see this as a cause-case and could realistically take it on, and summarize how to approach them. That would give you a concrete list to reach out to. Do you want me to do that?

You said:
Alternatively, if ten of us canvassed San Diego homes with a printed flyer, I wonder if things would just fissile.
ChatGPT said:
Yes—direct grassroots outreach like canvassing can have an impact, but the dynamics are a bit different than litigation or crowdfunding. Here’s a breakdown of what could happen:

1. Community Awareness
Hand-delivering a flyer to local households can inform residents about the hang gliding access issue and the perceived inequity.

It’s more personal than social media posts, which can get lost in the feed. People can ask questions, see visuals, and remember your message.

2. Public Pressure
If enough residents understand and support the cause, the city or concession holders may feel political pressure to respond, especially if letters or petitions accompany flyers.

This can create a “fissile” effect—small actions accumulating to create a chain reaction of awareness, discussion, and potentially media attention.

3. Challenges
Reach and scale: Ten people can only cover a limited number of homes. Repetition and neighborhood targeting matter.

Message clarity: Flyers need a simple, compelling, and legally sound message—avoid claims that could be misinterpreted or legally risky.

Follow-up: Flyers alone rarely create change; they work best when paired with signatures, social media amplification, or invitations to public meetings.

4. Potential “Fissile” Effect
If a small but engaged group starts a ripple effect, neighbors might talk, share online, attend meetings, and local media could pick it up.

It’s slower than a lawsuit but can build broad community support, which sometimes motivates authorities faster than litigation.

If you want, I can draft a concise, compelling flyer text that could both inform residents and encourage action—something that maximizes the chance of that “fissile” chain reaction. This could be tailored for Torrey Pines hang glider access. Do you want me to do that?

You said:
One of our working group shows up in person or on phone to City Council meettings every week for a one minute or two minute call to action on the matter. Almost nothing changes.
ChatGPT said:
That’s a common frustration—small, repeated efforts at public meetings can feel invisible, especially in a city the size of San Diego. A few observations about why it may not be moving the needle, and how you might adjust the strategy:

1. Public Comment Saturation
City councils often get hundreds of public comments per meeting.

A one- or two-minute statement is easily drowned out unless it’s part of a larger coordinated effort with visible numbers of supporters.

2. Lack of Perceived Urgency
Council members respond more readily to issues that affect a lot of constituents or carry political risk if ignored.

A niche issue, even if legally and morally compelling, may not register as urgent unless the broader community shows concern (emails, petitions, local media).

3. Limited Leverage
Speaking at meetings alone doesn’t create formal legal or financial pressure on the city.

Without public attention, legal avenues, or demonstrated community support, officials often see no immediate incentive to act.

4. How to Increase Impact
Amplify numbers: Pair weekly comments with petitions, flyers, social media campaigns, or local press.

Tie to legal/policy leverage: If you can show federal airspace rights or recreation statutes that support your position, officials take it more seriously.

Visual presence: If a small group shows up consistently in person, ideally with signage or handouts, it’s more noticeable than a single speaker each week.

Coalitions: Partnering with recreation, civil-rights, or outdoor-access organizations increases credibility and leverage.

Basically, one-minute speeches are necessary but insufficient on their own. They work best as part of a multi-pronged strategy: public awareness + legal leverage + coalition building.

If you like, I can sketch a strategic “escalation plan” for your group that combines these elements, aimed at actually getting San Diego City to act on Torrey Pines hang glider access. It would go beyond weekly comments. Do you want me to do that?

You said:
I am running out of years on this matter!
ChatGPT said:
I hear you—that sense of urgency is real. When time is limited, incremental approaches (weekly comments, flyers, small petitions) often feel frustratingly slow. At this stage, you need strategies that can create visible, immediate momentum rather than years of gradual advocacy. Here are some options you could act on quickly:

1. Legal Leverage
Hire a specialized attorney or advocacy group: Even a limited-scope consultation could clarify whether a formal legal challenge could establish or protect hang glider access under federal airspace or recreation statutes.

Pro bono or cause-driven lawyers: Target lawyers with civil liberties, aviation, or recreation law experience—they may be willing to take the lead if they see a precedent-setting opportunity.

Legal action can force the city to respond within a timeline, unlike public comments that can be ignored.

2. Coordinated Public Pressure
Crowdfunding for media and legal support: Raise funds not just for legal fees but for community outreach and press.

Amplified visibility: Flyers, social media campaigns, and local news coverage create political pressure quickly.

Coalitions: Partner with outdoor recreation groups, civil liberties nonprofits, or environmental organizations to lend credibility and numbers.

3. Direct Action / Demonstrations
Small, safe, and legal public demonstrations or media events at Torrey Pines can draw attention quickly.

Photographs, videos, and local coverage can put the issue on the City Council’s radar faster than repeated public comments.

4. Tactical Combination
Use legal consultation to define your rights.

Pair with a short-term, high-visibility campaign to create urgency.

Leverage coalitions and media to make it politically costly for the city to ignore.

Time is clearly of the essence for you. If you want, I can draft a high-impact action plan that lays out a 6–12 month strategy combining legal, public, and media approaches—designed specifically to create fast momentum on Torrey Pines hang glider access.

Do you want me to create that plan?

You said:
People acted to open access to California beaches. Access point once closed were opened. What agents were involved?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, several legal and advocacy groups have successfully fought to reopen closed beach access points in California. These efforts often involve a combination of legal action, public pressure, and advocacy.

Key Legal and Advocacy Agents Involved
1. Surfrider Foundation
A prominent nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the world's ocean, waves, and beaches. They have been involved in numerous legal battles to ensure public access to California's coastline. Notably, they were part of the legal team that challenged the closure of Martin’s Beach by billionaire Vinod Khosla, leading to a court ruling that ordered the beach to be reopened to the public.
Ezer Williamson Law
+5
Jennifer F. Novak Law
+5
CPM Legal
+5

2. Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)
A nonprofit legal organization that defends individual liberties and property rights. They have represented property owners in cases involving the California Coastal Commission, challenging actions they believe infringe upon property rights. For instance, they represented homeowners in Laguna Beach who sued the California Coastal Commission over property rights violations.
Pacific Legal Foundation
+1

3. California Coastal Commission (CCC)
The state agency responsible for regulating land and water use in the coastal zone. They play a central role in enforcing the California Coastal Act, which mandates public access to the coast. While they have been involved in enforcing access laws, they have also been challenged in court by property owners and advocacy groups.
FindLaw

4. Environmental Law Clinics and Law Firms
Legal clinics, such as the Stanford Environmental Law Clinic, and law firms specializing in environmental and property law have provided legal representation and support in cases involving coastal access. They often collaborate with advocacy groups to challenge unlawful closures and support public access rights.

Strategies for Reopening Closed Access Points
Legal Challenges: Filing lawsuits against property owners or entities that unlawfully block public access, citing violations of the California Coastal Act.

Advocacy and Public Pressure: Organizing campaigns, petitions, and public demonstrations to raise awareness and pressure authorities to act.

Coalition Building: Partnering with other organizations, community groups, and legal experts to strengthen efforts and resources.

Media Engagement: Utilizing media coverage to highlight issues and garner public support.

If you're considering similar actions to reopen access to Torrey Pines, these organizations and strategies may offer valuable insights and support.

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

[eagle]

Hello Torrey Hawk Members,
Our recreational freedom has been stolen at Torrey Pines Gliderport by a dirty, short-term lease contract. City Lasahoder, ACA (Air California Adventure) is blocking Public access and forcing residents into an unfair contract for a license and fee.

Torrey Pines Gliderport flight director (A convicted felon) has Torrey Hawks Hang Gliding Club locked out, blocking pilots out, and charging $10 a day to fly free. This is a blatant attack on our recreational freedom, completely unacceptable under any terms.

This is Public Extortion by a City leaseholder in collusion with a dirty lease agreement by our own La Jolla rep Joe Lacavas's corrupted administrative dictatorship.

Time to stop the crime, or be owned by a dirty politician's greed. Time to show up and stand up for your rights because they have already been illegally stolen.

Please sign the petition, and tell our representative that hang Gliding and Paragliding are free sports, not to be owned by a politician, an illegal short-term contract.
There are laws to protect public rights from private enterprise using their color of authority to rob our public rights.

I am on Change.org and MoveOn.org with a clipboard and nearly 700 signatures demanding that authorities stop the crime and implement the SD REC WAIVER as a proven working solution to end the dispute at Torrey Pines Gliderport.
https://www.change.org/p/to-city-counci ... al-scandal

[eagle]

Here is the Proposed SD RECREATIONAL WAIVER, to view and share with other Hang Gliding and Paragliding flight parks.
(please see attachments) inspired by many written by Ernie Casco

Time to stop robbing America of our recreational rights, it's illegal for ANY flight director to use their color of authority to exploit our public recreational rights and freedoms to use a free public park

Hang Gliding And Paragliding are free sports like surfing and scuba diving. We should not have to pay a city thug to use our public parks

[Craig Muhonen]

I posted this video on X, using the words,
This is a great video and paragliders need not watch. And I got banned !
This is what we are up against.
=====================================================================================
=====================================================================================
We are each of us angels in this world with one wing. In order to fly we must embrace one another.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbGImsudaAE

Screenshot 2025-09-06 011614 Eagle 1.jpg (10.67 KiB) Viewed 27668 times

Screenshot 2025-09-06 011706 Eagle 2.jpg (9.18 KiB) Viewed 27668 times