- This topic has 135 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 2 hours ago by
Jamie Shelden.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 23, 2026 at 1:14 PM #24167
Thomas May
General MemberThank you for the updated timeline Ben. Two clarification questions:
- When the board received the letter, what was the corrective action we took as demanded by the letter? Was encore satisfied by this action? Also, when you say “When you ask why the board didn’t trespass Steve last year, he was not on our land, so we have no discourse”, this is incorrect. The board could have banned him from the property at any point. Living on the property is not a requirement to trespass someone. Why did the board not trespass him when the legal liability caused by his presence was at its greatest? I suspect that this was the type of corrective action encore was seeking.
- Jana’s contention is that Steve was not living on CSS property when trespass vote was taken (although he may have been present). Is the board saying that Jana is mistaken?
I also have two points still outstanding from my previous post. One is related to the accuracy of and context for the text message that Luke reportedly sent to Steve. The second is what provision of the bylaws empowered the board to cancel a dues paying membership.
June 23, 2026 at 2:10 PM #24171
Jana Pivkova General MemberJana, I am unclear what “water pipe” issue you are referring to in regards to this letter.
To your second point of enabling him to squat on neighboring land: How can we say that allowing him to use the club’s resources has “nothing” to do with enabling him to squat on our neighbor’s property?? Those resources are directly supporting his sustainability there. We cannot simply turn a blind eye the second anyone steps off CSS property. If we or others witness activity that directly puts the CSS at risk, we must act, especially as board members who look through the lens of site sustainability and preservation.
The board was and continues to be concerned with Steve’s squatting. When you ask why the board didn’t trespass Steve last year, he was not on our land, so we have no discourse. The board expected that the formal enforcement action by the Sheriff’s department and Encore would serve as the definitive legal boundary. Club members spent months attempting to facilitate a voluntary, orderly transition. Members repeatedly approached Steve to ask for his plan and offer support, choosing to give him an opportunity to comply on his own accord. Steve willfully ignored the legal reality of the situation. When presented with opportunities and resources to relocate, he consistently refused assistance, shifted blame onto club leadership, and explicitly stated that he had no intention of moving.
When he did vacate the neighbor’s property almost 11 months after being formally notified in writing, he showed up on CSS property a few days later, we believe on the 10th of June. On the 11th, he personally messaged Mimi asking for permission to “work out something” with him and the club’s position on the matter where she responded by saying: “I’m sure you knew I wouldn’t be able to give you permission to disobey the laws that were already being enforced, right?”. He was asked to leave multiple times by multiple people and it was met with resistance and excuses. On the 12th of June, after lots of discussion among the board, we opted to use the SB city app to file a report with the city and made sure to note the history of this situation for context. This discussion continued heavily through the 13th and with a majority vote, we decided to call the SB police and request a citation for trespass. When the police showed up in the afternoon, there were no board members present to represent the club so, no trespass was enforced to my knowledge. That was the only time the police were called to this situation on the board’s behalf.
I hope this timeline gives anyone some context for how long and arduous this process has been.
Ben,
The water pipe I’m referring to is the one that was located near the stables on the XC ranch, where Steve was getting his water at the time. That water was being utilized by other campers back when the XC ranch offered visiting pilots camping spots.
If Steve hanging out at the LZ and using the sink, refrigerator and power is enabling his squatting, then by that logic, the local grocery store where he’s able to replenish his groceries, is also enabling his squatting. He’s not breaking any laws by hanging out at the LZ and Encore should be satisfied that Steve is no longer trespassing on their land.
When I say the board should have trespassed him last summer after it received the letter, I mean the board should have warned him that if he continued to squat on Encore property, he would not be welcomed at the LZ and trespassed from CSS property if he didn’t comply with Encore.
If the board was aware that his squatting was a problem back then, why act now that he’s no longer on the property? He’s no longer causing an issue with Encore and the club. It’s a little late to be trespassing him from the CSS now that he’s finally complying. The police told Steve they were called three times by a club member, they said he was not wanted on club property, but I wasn’t there, so I can’t confirm their exact phrasing.
I understand that the board took a vote on this, but it doesn’t mean that the decision must absolutely stand, or that it cannot be revisited and revised after a club member discussion. We had multiple discussions about past problem members/non-members and they were given an opportunity to defend themselves in front of the general membership before action was taken.
All I ask is that Steve is granted some leniency now that he’s complying, considering everything he’s done for the club over the many years. If he was a source of repeated offenses and problems over the last decade and didn’t contribute anything to the club, I wouldn’t feel inclined to defend him. However, I (and many others, including Luke) have witnessed him being very useful and helpful around the property, and it pains me that someone would hassle him, especially during a very stressful time, when he was trying to figure out his living situation on incredibly limited resources.
It’s easy for many of us to say “Just move! Get a job! Call this number!” If Steve was capable of that level of problem-solving, he wouldn’t be in this situation. He does work for the little money he has, as pilots pay him to fold their wings, drive, or assist with other tasks. He is trying to live as close to a normal life as is possible for him.
Also, as someone who has tried to use government resources, I can’t begin to express to you how frustrating it is to get anything done by “calling” for help. Even with my abilities to communicate, it was a nightmare that got me nowhere in the end. In my opinion Steve requires and deserves some grace, as long as he continues to stay off Encore property.
June 23, 2026 at 3:59 PM #24176Dave,
To clarify, my offer for members to call me directly is a standard, responsible approach to handling sensitive community matters, and it falls squarely within my duties as a Board Member and the Event Coordinator.
There is a strict distinction between board transparency and publicly broadcasting a private individual’s personal hardships. Board transparency covers club financials, bylaws, and land-use policies. It does not mean publishing the sensitive, private struggles of a non-member on an internet forum, which only exposes the club to unnecessary risk.
As the Event/Activities Coordinator, I am currently managing our upcoming community events—including our scheduled pasta party—and coordinating how we utilize and protect our club infrastructure. Because Steve’s presence directly impacts our site logistics, guest safety, and our relationships with neighboring properties, this is directly tied to my operational oversight.
When a situation involves complex personal elements that cannot ethically or constructively be debated in a public text forum, inviting members to have a direct, one-on-one conversation is the most professional way to address their concerns.
Every seat on this board carries an equal responsibility to protect the long-term future and liability of the club. Minimizing my role because it contains “Activities” or “Events” in the title misunderstands how critical community coordination and site management are to keeping our flight park secure. My focus remains entirely on protecting our land-use agreements and ensuring our upcoming events run safely. If you or any other member would like to discuss the operational steps we are taking, my phone is open.
June 23, 2026 at 6:30 PM #24177Thomas,
1. To this point, we really didn’t do enough. We met the minimum requirement the developer set for the club which was to disconnect the water supply going to Steve’s “camp”. We had discussed putting a lock on the fridge and changing the wifi password but that never happened to my knowledge. We truly hoped that the eviction notice would be the wake-up call Steve needed to change his situation for the better, along with the generosity and assistance of his friends. After leaving Encore property he moved to Soboba. For a short week, we were hopeful things were going well and no further action would be needed. Shortly thereafter, Steve and his RV showed back up on CSS property prompting the first of many warnings.
2. Yes, the call was made on the 13th. Steve had his trailer on CSS property from the 10th until the 14th all while being repeatedly asked to move off the property. I personally spoke with Steve on the 14th just before we left on the ride to launch warning him once again on the club’s position and asking him kindly to remove his RV from CSS property. Nearing the end of my flight I noticed his RV was relocated to an adjacent property. No calls to authorities were made on the 14th regarding Steve. People may be confusing that with the officer that showed up at AJX who was helping to coordinate the helicopter rescue. Steve certainly seemed to have the impression the officer was there to speak with him.
We were surprised to find out he had a paid membership shortly after this encounter which was directly undermining what the board has been trying to accomplish, complying with the laws that allow us to have and use this priceless asset.
Regarding the text messages, those were between two acquaintances. I am not privy to what was in them so no, there was not a board discussion on those messages or the context.
Question: Would you think it is responsible for any organization to issue a membership to someone who has, and continues to work against the stated interests of its purpose and its members? How many warnings is enough? How much assistance is enough?
CSS had no choice in all of this. San Bernardino county law prohibits living in an RV anywhere but in a trailer park. This is precisely why Gene and Linda were required to leave the XC Ranch.
We are continually inviting community leaders, city council members, and others influential in our cause with the adjacent development out to Andy Jackson to witness what we are trying to protect. When we ask them to help our cause we must come to them with clean hands.
June 23, 2026 at 6:50 PM #24178General MemberThank you for the detailed response Ben.
Yes, the call was made on the 13th. Steve had his trailer on CSS property from the 10th until the 14th all while being repeatedly asked to move off the property.
I am confused by this. The timeline you provided said he was told by the police to leave the property on the 13th. But he stayed until the 14th? Is it that he left the property after the police came and then came back later that day and stayed overnight?
Question: Would you think it is responsible for any organisation to issue a membership to someone who has, and continues to work against the stated interests of its purpose and its members? How many warnings is enough? How much assistance is enough?
My point on this issue is not contesting the merits of the board’s claims, but the process the board took. The bylaws lay out a specific procedure for how to revoke/cancel/expel a member. It involves a written complaint and a board meeting where the accused member has a right to be heard (as well a right for the general membership to be present). The board seemingly did not follow this procedure. The board has no other authority to review an application for membership. By canceling the membership, the board has invented a new authority for itself in violation of the bylaws.
June 23, 2026 at 7:05 PM #24179Jana,
Your assessment regarding the systemic challenges at play here is precisely why the board has had to take a firm position. You have shared with Mimi and me that you think Steve “has issues and wouldn’t be homeless if he could be a normally-functioning adult, but he is not like the rest of us, capable of planning things out, solving the smaller problems sooner.” If that is the case, it tells us clearly that our club is not an agency capable of handling life choices or long-term management for him.
Furthermore, other members of the community have expressed a completely different view—that Steve is entirely smart and capable enough to choose a different path, but simply chooses not to. Steve himself even told us directly at one time that he “is not homeless” and considers his RV to be his home.
Regardless of which perspective is accurate, the current physical reality remains our primary focus: while Steve did technically move after receiving a notice from one neighbor, he left garbage behind on their property and has since moved his RV several times to several different neighbors’ properties.
It took roughly a year of legal processing for that first developer to finally get Steve off of their property. As a board, we cannot allow our other neighbors to be put in that exact same position because we didn’t do enough to draw a clear line. Shifting an RV across multiple local parcels does not solve the underlying issue—it simply moves the legal and operational liability from one neighbor to another, while keeping the airpark directly in the line of fire.
Steve certainly deserves a better, more stable situation than this. However, the infrastructure of a recreational flight club is simply not equipped to provide or manage his living arrangements.
The board’s single focus right now must be preserving this airpark from developers and protecting our vital land-use agreements. Internal conflict over these boundaries actively undermines the very security of the flight park we are all trying to save.
The Professional Path: If an individual requires assistance managing their affairs, they must be redirected entirely to official county social services agencies or structured support networks that are legally equipped to handle those needs.
The Community Path: If members of our community excel at organizing outreach, managing public visibility, or raising funds, those talents would be immensely valuable if directed toward helping Steve secure a legitimate, legal housing transition completely off these local properties.
We cannot be complicit in a cycle of shifting encampments or property disputes. We need to stop the division and pull in the exact same direction to protect our landing zone, safeguard our community events, and preserve our relationships with the city and our neighbors.June 23, 2026 at 7:33 PM #24180Thomas,
As previously stated regarding the 13th, no board members were around so no formal trespass could be filed. From what I understand, they did not tell Steve to leave.
I understand your point regarding the bylaws.
The reason the bylaws only talk about what happens after someone is a member is pretty straightforward: bylaws are rules for running the club internally, not an open door that strips the board of its ability to protect the park.
Let’s look at the common-sense difference between how someone joins a club versus how they get kicked out:
Paying dues doesn’t equal automatic entry: Just because someone hands over money—or in this case, someone else tries to buy a membership for them—it doesn’t mean the club is forced to accept it. If that were the case, a developer trying to shut us down could just buy a membership online and immediately demand access to our internal meetings and assets.
The board’s main job is protection: As a board, our number one responsibility is to protect this flight park. Even though Steve has been a long-standing friend of the park, his recent actions regarding the neighboring properties have passively worked against the club’s survival by creating massive liability for our land-use agreements. Common sense dictates that we cannot officially bring someone into the club under those circumstances.
The bylaws protect existing members, not outside actions: The long, formal process you mentioned is in place to make sure an active, existing member isn’t unfairly kicked out without a voice. It was never intended to force the club to accept a membership request for a non-member whose ongoing living arrangements are actively jeopardizing our landing zone.
Steve was never a member because the club never accepted his entry. We didn’t invent a new rule to kick him out; we just did our job by refusing to let an already complicated situation compromise the future of the airpark.
June 23, 2026 at 9:57 PM #24181General MemberSteve was never a member because the club never accepted his entry
This is a point we disagree on. The bylaws do not lay out a membership application process for us to lean on. What did happen in this case is that after Steve’s application was submitted, the society published his name on the list of members (it has been removed after the board struck his membership). If that is not accepting his entry, I don’t know what the society counts as accepting someone’s entry. Maybe it is in the double secret part of the bylaws. (and, yes, I know it’s an automatic system that was set up for the convince of us all. That doesn’t mean his addition to the list of members was any less valid).
While everything you said is sensible, I believe they are sensible suggestions for the much needed bylaws rewrite. Until that happens, the board is constrained by the current set of bylaws regardless of sensibility. Additionally, the current procedure is not overly burdensome on the board, it just requires a letter and a board meeting.
I understand that the board will never agree with me on this point. Given that the bylaws offer no mechanism to seek relief from, what I believe to be, an erroneous board decision, I will not push this argument further until the next board election.
June 24, 2026 at 10:46 AM #24182Thomas,
Thank you again for your patience and cordial discourse on this matter.
I hear what you’re saying and I think this hits on a really common misunderstanding about how bylaws actually work.
It’s completely true that our bylaws don’t map out a step-by-step application vetting process. But in corporate governance—especially for a 501(c)(3) nonprofit like us—silence in the bylaws doesn’t mean our hands are tied, nor does it mean we are forced to accept every application that rolls in.
Our legal mandate as trustees of this nonprofit is to protect the club’s assets and long-term survival. If an applicant’s current situation creates a direct liability for our land-use agreements or landing zones, we are legally required to step in and act as the gatekeeper, even if the bylaws don’t explicitly say the words “membership approval process.”
Once again, we are not inventing a new rule; we are simply stepping into the default legal role that every board has to fill when the internal rules have a gap. That’s exactly why a bylaws rewrite is such a great idea—it lets us put what is already the legal default down on paper so it’s clear to everyone moving forward.”
Thank you for the constructive dialogue, and I look forward to working together on updating these policies and ensuring the long-term success of the airpark.
June 24, 2026 at 11:51 AM #24183Charles Curry said :
I’ve watched with interest the recent ‘give and take’ between the board and some of its members regarding Steve Russo. …However, what I think has been overlooked is that a board’s responsibility is to steadfastly care for the health, welfare and protection of the organization it oversees. We don’t live in the 70’s, 80’s or even the 90’s anymore. Hang loose is gone, probably forever. Attorneys and MBA’s dictate how things are done these days. The reality of AJX is that it could easily go away. The board is acutely aware of this and they are trying their best to not let it happen. Although at times unpopular, their actions must be based on what’s best for the long-term survival of AJX. I get that.
Some of you who fly CSS might want to read what, “Charles” had to say a few more times ; apparently it isn’t sinking in !
I brought this issue about Steve a few years ago ; because I was concerned about the high quality of lawyers that Encore could purchase with their vast amounts of money. The idea that Encore could come after the individual members of the club instead of the club itself ; that notion was temparioraly dispelled by Luke for a short time until I spoke to a prominent lawyer in Vegas about the same question. Bottom line for me now is : I’m not willing to chance becoming a full member of CSS until this situation is Fully resolved ; until then I will purchase temporary membership for when I want to fly there.
IF there is still garbage left by Steve in the spot where he was squatting ; then the situation is NOT resolved. Also if Steve is encroaching on other neighbors near CSS , then the situation is Not resolved ; because they also could come after the club members with lawyers that I can’t afford..
Bille Floyd
June 24, 2026 at 4:38 PM #24184Jana Pivkova General MemberBen,
I maintain my position that as long as Steve is not squatting on Encore, the XC ranch, or the CSS land, we have no business telling him where and how to live. The problem with Encore is resolved at this point and he is no longer an Encore squatter.
The other neighbors have not complained about Steve’s presence and we can’t base our acceptance of him in the club on imaginary future possibilities, though some of you are certainly trying. He seems to be committing pre-crimes! I think Steve should be given a chance to prove himself, especially after all the help he’s provided to the club over the years.
I can see that those of you who have voted to have him trespassed are not going to change your minds, so for me to continue to reiterate my point to you is a waste of time. If any of you need to know my position, you can re-read my previous posts.
June 24, 2026 at 11:16 PM #24185Well as a long time CSS member who now rarely flies at Crestline/Marshal/AJX I would like to throw my “two cents” in on this “Steve situation”. Since I rarely fly there anymore and since I don’t think I know Steve, (and I am not up to date with any board issues or controversies) I hope my my perspective will be viewed as an independent, third party, unbiased point of view. My primary concern regarding this or any other issue is for the best interests off the CSS and preservation of “free flight” at Crestline/AJX. I have no problem barring or banning membership or access to CSS facilities to anyone that is a threat or detriment to the club, regardless of their past good deeds, and regardless if their current adverse conduct is occurring at AJX or completely outside the club. Regardless of Steve’s current conduct at AJX having him as a current member would not be good with or for any current or future dealings with Encore or any other neighbors or authorities. This is no different than a coffee shop or other private business refusing service to a customer (or access to a non-customer) for any variety of reasons. I don’t believe anyone has an inalienable right to be accepted into our club as long as they are not being refused due to being a member of a “protected class” of folks. I appreciate the good intentions of each side or point raised over this issue but I don’t believe it is in the mission statement or interest of the club to provide a day time hang out place for an apparently homeless person that also has a history of irresponsible conduct, locally, that has and is likely to again adversely affect the best interests of the club. Why would we want to tell our neighboring developer, that we wanted to make or have a member of our club be the individual that they apparently or presumably spent time, money, and headaches getting off their property. I see the downside of Steve’s membership or association with the club as a rational concern and the upside as nothing more than …… feelings (however kind). Anyway, I hope to finally get the Super Floater out to the next Fly In/Pasta date. See you in the Air, Alan
June 25, 2026 at 2:45 PM #24189Jana Pivkova General MemberAs a local pilot who has been around AJX consistently year-round since 2016, flying consistently at AJX since 2017, someone who has spent years serving on the CSS board as communications director & vice president, and as someone who is currently serving on the LSFFC (the XC Ranch), I feel that I have a bit more insight into this situation than those of you who spend far less time at the LZ.
I’m not trying to detract from people’s personal observations or opinions, I’m listening, but I’m also trying to caution some of you that by visiting AJX only a few times a year (if that), you may not be privy to all the going-ons and you may not be as aware of the personality whose motivations may not be as based in protecting the club, as they are personal.
There is a process that must be followed in order to take away someone’s legitimate membership. If we pick and choose who gets to benefit from that process and who doesn’t deserve to benefit from that process, we are abusing our powers. It doesn’t matter whether we like the individual, we have to give them a chance to speak and to be heard. That’s what we’ve always done for those whose membership status was under review.
I’ve had people reach out to me to let me know they support my stance, and also to clarify some of these claims. I am now more certain than ever that there is a bigger problem here, possibly a bigger threat to the CSS than I could have imagined, and as I suspected, that problem is not Steve R. I’ll leave it at that.
June 25, 2026 at 7:45 PM #24190Well.. I respect “due process” when it is warranted, but I also absolutely expect the board or the general membership to “PICK AND CHOOSE” to act in the best interests of the club and the future viability of our flying site and yes that includes choosing who “benefits from that process”. Of course exercising powers or abusing powers can be in the eye of the beholder and not a clear cut thing as the devil in the details and I admit I may not know all the details. But from the details or discussion I have seen, I have seen enough to support removing or preventing membership to an individual whose previous, current and likely future actions will adversely affect the club. When the future landing approaches to our LZ may be at the whim or goodwill of the neighboring developer I would advise doing everything possible to work with them or even appease them, and I believe that should include distancing our club from an individual that has and may continue to jeopardize that relationship. It is not a matter of liking or disliking Steve as I don’t really know him. I presume he is a nice fellow that just makes bad choices. I know lots of nice folks and even some friends that I like and…. That I would never allow in my home. Again there is nothing personal against Steve. I just see him as a detriment to the club, despite any good deeds he has done in the past or continues to now. If you truly believe there is a much greater threat to the club could you tell me what that is and perhaps I will support you as, again, my first concern is on the health and viability of the CSS/AJX and hopefully free flight here in perpetuity. (Unless you are hinting that members who don’t fly there infrequently are the big threat 😮)
June 26, 2026 at 9:46 AM #24191Douglas Gilchrist
General MemberI like Steve and find him helpful, but he has done things that jeopardized the club that cannot be undone. I wish he had moved out when asked, instead of forcing Encore to go to the lengths it had. That no doubt left a very sour taste in their mouth about the entire club that will be hard to get past. Had the club taken swift and decisive action a year ago, that might have changed the opinion of the club in Encore’s mind as a helpful partner, instead of an operation that attracts and enables homeless people. But that also is water over the dam. However, we only control the actions we take from this point on, which can either help or hurt our position. Allowing Steve to stay does not help.
Buying Steve a membership so he’ll be legitimate is a ruse — nothing more than closing the barn door after the cows got out. He has been an illegitimate squatter for years, and the club did nothing. We are clearly complicit. To continue allowing him on-site daily while he squats on a different neighbor’s land is irresponsible. It is only a matter of time before that neighbor finds out, and alienating neighbors is not helpful to the club’s future. Sorry to say, but his situation cannot be wished away, and as much as I hear people saying it’s none of our business, until we know that he is staying somewhere with the landowners’ permission, and not breaking any other laws, he is a liability to the club, and the only legal option we have is to trespass him.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.