Ignacio Lujano has lived in a small house at the edge of Capistrano’s orange groves for nearly 40 years. For much of that time, he tended the crops, lighting smudge pots to keep the trees warm on cold nights and pumping water by hand when the windmills failed.
But now the city wants him out, contending he’s no longer able to tend to the grove and keep up his end of a deal that allowed him to live in the house that San Juan Capistrano acquired more than 16 years ago.
His family contends there’s a signed agreement that allows Lujano, “Nacho” to those who know him, to stay until passes away. He’s 85 now. But no one can find that document. There are copies, however, of a month-to-month rental agreement that allowed him—and his immediate family—to live there in exchange for maintaining the orchards and structures on five of the 42 acres.
The city even got Lujano to execute a quitclaim deed in 1992 acknowledging that he had no ownership in the property.
The city started eviction proceedings more than a year ago, Assistant City Manager Cindy Russell said, because the city is beginning to explore options about how to use the open space land off Camino Capistrano at the north end of town.
Reports of the pending eviction spurred angry letters and speakers urging the council to leave Lujano alone at Tuesday’s City Council meeting. The city issued a news release Thursday denying reports they intend to remove the orange grove or build a corporate yard there. Officials even offered to help Lujano help find a new place, which he turned down.
Lujano’s family said they’re willing to help their father pay rent—the city says nothing has been paid for about six months, despite two of his grown sons and other family members living at the home with him—but they want a place where his family can gather and Lujano will be happy.
“I don’t feel too good right now,” Lujano said of the proceedings. “It’s making bad memories of the town I love.”
When posting comments please be courteous. No bad language, vulgarity or racial slurs.
Add A Comment
Posted by Frank Fuller
June 28, 2008, 9:32 am
Not only did Ignacio live in the house for free but was paid $500 per month to care for the 5 acres. Another contractor has a contract to maintain the remaining 60 acres or so. In addition Mrs. Bathgate (Pat Bathgate'd mother received $700 per month to "supervise" Ignacio. Is the proper stewardship of public funds?
Posted by bigkilla
June 25, 2008, 4:46 am
Where is my free house???? Why should he get such a great deal?? If he cant keep up his end or the deal, or if the city want to do something else with the land, TOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!
Next they will say the city is racist. What a bunch of crap this is. Everyone thinks they are entitled to something.
Posted by Donna
June 23, 2008, 1:43 pm
I hope there will be more articles on this subject of Lujano's lease on the land; and I appreciate Therese Gray's excellent feedback on the topic.
Ever since I was a kid riding my bike by that property, I was always very curious about (and envious of!) the inhabitants of that rural-like patch of land . . . especially when the orange blossom scent was on the air and the yellow oxalis flowers were growing all over, and the residents were gathered together outside in a large, happy family group . . . it was like a perfect picture-- a memory-like vision of San Juan Capistrano at its most appealing!
When I first heard about the story of the eviction, it seemed such a horrible shame. I do quite agree with Native Local in commenting, "What person in their right mind wouldn’t love to water and care for 5 or more acres of crops on someone else’s dime and live rent free for one year, let alone 4 (four) decades?" But in normal circumstances, one would think Lujano would have received a pension.
But these circumstances are certainly abnormal and he and his family clearly have no legal protection to remain. I would have hoped that someone in the family would have begun doing research earlier about the liklihood of their being evicted, so they could begin to organize other plans of finding a home where they might gather in a similar way or of paying more rent for the privilege of remaining in that lovely place. Lujano's determination not to accept help from the city to find another place to live seems to indicate an unwillingness to face facts.
The quitclaim deed will doubtless prevail and the city will win this one; but why now? To explore options about how to use the space? (That seems forboding). I don't think it seems worth whatever the city projects to gain by evicting them-- the negative publicity-- unless there is more that we are not seeing reported about the nature of these options the City of SJC is considering.
Anyway, interesting story-- hope "Nacho & family" will find another happy place and I hope the orange orchard will remain as lovely a patch of SJC history.
Posted by Therese Gray
June 21, 2008, 11:50 am
Hi Native Local, If you don't mind I would like to address my response to your comments on the Lujano family. First , I must share with you that I probably have some biases because Nacho is my oldest daughter's father in law.My feelings about this 84year old man are of respect and admiration for what he has accomplished in the span of a lifetime. He has shown his family that hard work is the American way. The example he has set is the example my own father set for my family and as such it truly endears me to him. I can only respond to what I personally know so forgive me if I don't respond to the other allegations.It is not intended to be deceitful. I workas a mediator here in Orange County so I often here seven sides to every story and want to show respect for your perceptions of the situation.
I appreciate your feelings but would like to clarify that the Lujano children are not intending to be disrespectful or unappreciative of where they grew up or of the city of San Juan Capistrano. If in fact you have seen the TV interviews with Alex I would hope you would see a young man with an honest concern for his father but no telltale signs of requesting a handout.I know for a fact that Alex moved back home to keep an eye on his father while working in the fields. Nacho uses a cane to get around but even now that his time at the Ranch grows short he is still out amongst the trees everyday. roy has always lived on this land and never moved away.when the city signed Nacho on as an independent contractor they knew Roy lived on the land also.
Nacho still has a son under 18 and as such we would all expect that he live with his father. When the subject of the city offering to help relocate Nacho came up ,I think Jonathan forgot to mention that Mistie shared with him that Nacho would not be able to take his minor son with him to the new housing. I don't know if you are a parent but I hope you can see this would not and should not be an option for Nacho.
I don't know about you but I view the tending of those trees as back breaking work which Nacho has done every day for forty years. Obviously, not because he was making a lot of money off of his labor but because he believes that that was his responsibility. The stipend he received for this work was $500. That is not a huge amount of money for tending 5 acres.So, in my right mind ( and that is always questionable..smilin) No, I wouldn't attempt todo this job.I see the backbreaking work that it is.
I would like to add one more thing. I apologize for the length of this response but Mr.Swanner sold the land to the city with the understanding that Nacho would stay there and work the land. It was never a free ride for Nacho or his family.It was hard back breaking work for endless hours.Mr. Swanner recognized this which is why he added this proviso to the sale. I have mediated hundreds upon hundreds of cases over my career and it is my experience that people make agreements similar to this all the time. Mr. Swanner recognized Nacho for being a hard worker and made that clear. Thank you for sharing your perspective Native Local. It is a wonderful country we have where we are free to have this exchange of views. Therese Gray
Posted by native local
June 20, 2008, 11:44 am
Wow, Rather than thanking the City of San Juan Capistrano for allowing Lujano to stay on the property for so long , the family cries to the media for more of a hand out. No where in the article was there mention of the 4 other adults (of his 13 children) and their families that live in the house working decent jobs, or of the business that they are able to own since there is NO RENT that anyone has to pay. Nor was there any talk of how for years Lujano has been renting out the shacks in the rear of the driveway to immigrants to make an extra buck, And was also failed to mention that if you know the right person you can rent the property for as little as $500.00 for the day &night if you want to have a large party or quincenera. Being that the City doesn’t allow large all night parties with “bandas” or “conjuntos” ,and alcohol without permits, rules or regulations. Making money off the City land. Free Rent isn’t sufficient enough? Come on Lujanos 40 years is way too long …. Tell the readers this, What person in their right mind wouldn’t love to water and care for 5 or more acresof crops on someone else’s dime and live rent free for one year , let alone 4 (four) decades and be able to raise 13 children, 25 grandchildren and so on…..Give the people a break, looks like the FREE ride is over.
Vol. 6, Issue 25, June 20-26, 2008
Add A Comment
Not only did Ignacio live in the house for free but was paid $500 per month to care for the 5 acres. Another contractor has a contract to maintain the remaining 60 acres or so. In addition Mrs. Bathgate (Pat Bathgate'd mother received $700 per month to "supervise" Ignacio. Is the proper stewardship of public funds?
Where is my free house???? Why should he get such a great deal?? If he cant keep up his end or the deal, or if the city want to do something else with the land, TOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!
Next they will say the city is racist. What a bunch of crap this is. Everyone thinks they are entitled to something.
I hope there will be more articles on this subject of Lujano's lease on the land; and I appreciate Therese Gray's excellent feedback on the topic.
Ever since I was a kid riding my bike by that property, I was always very curious about (and envious of!) the inhabitants of that rural-like patch of land . . . especially when the orange blossom scent was on the air and the yellow oxalis flowers were growing all over, and the residents were gathered together outside in a large, happy family group . . . it was like a perfect picture-- a memory-like vision of San Juan Capistrano at its most appealing!
When I first heard about the story of the eviction, it seemed such a horrible shame. I do quite agree with Native Local in commenting, "What person in their right mind wouldn’t love to water and care for 5 or more acres of crops on someone else’s dime and live rent free for one year, let alone 4 (four) decades?" But in normal circumstances, one would think Lujano would have received a pension.
But these circumstances are certainly abnormal and he and his family clearly have no legal protection to remain. I would have hoped that someone in the family would have begun doing research earlier about the liklihood of their being evicted, so they could begin to organize other plans of finding a home where they might gather in a similar way or of paying more rent for the privilege of remaining in that lovely place. Lujano's determination not to accept help from the city to find another place to live seems to indicate an unwillingness to face facts.
The quitclaim deed will doubtless prevail and the city will win this one; but why now? To explore options about how to use the space? (That seems forboding). I don't think it seems worth whatever the city projects to gain by evicting them-- the negative publicity-- unless there is more that we are not seeing reported about the nature of these options the City of SJC is considering.
Anyway, interesting story-- hope "Nacho & family" will find another happy place and I hope the orange orchard will remain as lovely a patch of SJC history.
Hi Native Local,
If you don't mind I would like to address my response to your comments on the Lujano family. First , I must share with you that I probably have some biases because Nacho is my oldest daughter's father in law.My feelings about this 84year old man are of respect and admiration for what he has accomplished in the span of a lifetime. He has shown his family that hard work is the American way. The example he has set is the example my own father set for my family and as such it truly endears me to him.
I can only respond to what I personally know so forgive me if I don't respond to the other allegations.It is not intended to be deceitful. I workas a mediator here in Orange County so I often here seven sides to every story and want to show respect for your perceptions of the situation.
I appreciate your feelings but would like to clarify that the Lujano children are not intending to be disrespectful or unappreciative of where they grew up or of the city of San Juan Capistrano. If in fact you have seen the TV interviews with Alex I would hope you would see a young man with an honest concern for his father but no telltale signs of requesting a handout.I know for a fact that Alex moved back home to keep an eye on his father while working in the fields. Nacho uses a cane to get around but even now that his time at the Ranch grows short he is still out amongst the trees everyday.
roy has always lived on this land and never moved away.when the city signed Nacho on as an independent contractor they knew Roy lived on the land also.
Nacho still has a son under 18 and as such we would all expect that he live with his father. When the subject of the city offering to help relocate Nacho came up ,I think Jonathan forgot to mention that Mistie shared with him that Nacho would not be able to take his minor son with him to the new housing. I don't know if you are a parent but I hope you can see this would not and should not be an option for Nacho.
I don't know about you but I view the tending of those trees as back breaking work which Nacho has done every day for forty years. Obviously, not because he was making a lot of money off of his labor but because he believes that that was his responsibility. The stipend he received for this work was $500. That is not a huge amount of money for tending 5 acres.So, in my right mind ( and that is always questionable..smilin) No, I wouldn't attempt todo this job.I see the backbreaking work that it is.
I would like to add one more thing. I apologize for the length of this response but Mr.Swanner sold the land to the city with the understanding that Nacho would stay there and work the land. It was never a free ride for Nacho or his family.It was hard back breaking work for endless hours.Mr. Swanner recognized this which is why he added this proviso to the sale. I have mediated hundreds upon hundreds of cases over my career and it is my experience that people make agreements similar to this all the time. Mr. Swanner recognized Nacho for being a hard worker and made that clear.
Thank you for sharing your perspective Native Local. It is a wonderful country we have where we are free to have this exchange of views.
Therese Gray
Wow, Rather than thanking the City of San Juan Capistrano for allowing Lujano to stay on the property for so long , the family cries to the media for more of a hand out. No where in the article was there mention of the 4 other adults (of his 13 children) and their families that live in the house working decent jobs, or of the business that they are able to own since there is NO RENT that anyone has to pay. Nor was there any talk of how for years Lujano has been renting out the shacks in the rear of the driveway to immigrants to make an extra buck, And was also failed to mention that if you know the right person you can rent the property for as little as $500.00 for the day &night if you want to have a large party or quincenera. Being that the City doesn’t allow large all night parties with “bandas” or “conjuntos” ,and alcohol without permits, rules or regulations. Making money off the City land.
Free Rent isn’t sufficient enough? Come on Lujanos 40 years is way too long …. Tell the readers this,
What person in their right mind wouldn’t love to water and care for 5 or more acresof crops on someone else’s dime and live rent free for one year , let alone 4 (four) decades and be able to raise 13 children, 25 grandchildren and so on…..Give the people a break, looks like the FREE ride is over.