5 ms·

A better solution, instead of giving in to the demands of sociopathic people, might be to calculate the total cost needed to enforce and keep the beaches open a

by ada1981 9y ago

A better solution, instead of giving in to the demands of sociopathic people, might be to calculate the total cost needed to enforce and keep the beaches open and then set fines in such a way that they generate the revenue needed. A simple example would be if there are an average of 100 violations per year of people blocking access that require state intervention and an average annual operating cost of $1M, then the base fine is set at $10,000. Instead of rewarding the folks breaking the law by letting them do it and taxing it because you can't afford enforcement, shift the burden of cost of enforcement to those in violation of the law. Also, this idea of selling off public goods is a slippery slope -- if folks see that selling a little bit of beach here and there can raise funding for projects that will get them relected it will be hard to resist dipping back in.

chroma 9y ago
Such fines would not collect nearly as much revenue as a tax. Consider the case of fining people for possession of marijuana versus legalizing and taxing it. States that tax collect several orders of magnitude more revenue, which they use to benefit the less fortunate. Fines have another disadvantage: Unlike taxes, fines are regressive and selectively enforced. When it comes to lakes, mountains, woods, waterfalls, caves, cliffs, and other majestic natural phenomena, we're fine with some being privately-owned and some being public. We have mechanisms in place to ensure that we make the right trade-offs (eg: natural parks, nature preserves, zoning). Plenty of states and countries allow private beaches and they do just fine. I don't see why the coastline is so special that we must ban all private ownership, even if it means sacrificing valuable revenue for social programs.
- _jal 9y ago
  > Such fines would not collect nearly as much revenue as a tax Who said anyone cared about turning sociopaths into a revenue stream? (Although to my eye, it beats some of the others the state has...) The goal is to stop the sociopathic behavior. Frankly, I am more of a mind with those advocating the bolt-cutter option. Make it an every-Saturday, media-friendly community event - a trip to the beach. Make it fun - bring clowns. Private security won't go too far with that many cameras around, and a few people willing to risk a jail visit would go a long way.

chroma 9y ago

Such fines would not collect nearly as much revenue as a tax. Consider the case of fining people for possession of marijuana versus legalizing and taxing it. States that tax collect several orders of magnitude more revenue, which they use to benefit the less fortunate. Fines have another disadvantage: Unlike taxes, fines are regressive and selectively enforced. When it comes to lakes, mountains, woods, waterfalls, caves, cliffs, and other majestic natural phenomena, we're fine with some being privately-owned and some being public. We have mechanisms in place to ensure that we make the right trade-offs (eg: natural parks, nature preserves, zoning). Plenty of states and countries allow private beaches and they do just fine. I don't see why the coastline is so special that we must ban all private ownership, even if it means sacrificing valuable revenue for social programs.

_jal 9y ago
> Such fines would not collect nearly as much revenue as a tax Who said anyone cared about turning sociopaths into a revenue stream? (Although to my eye, it beats some of the others the state has...) The goal is to stop the sociopathic behavior. Frankly, I am more of a mind with those advocating the bolt-cutter option. Make it an every-Saturday, media-friendly community event - a trip to the beach. Make it fun - bring clowns. Private security won't go too far with that many cameras around, and a few people willing to risk a jail visit would go a long way.