5 ms·

Perhaps I’m a little radical on this, but I think all beaches should be open to the public, and property owners may only block access up to so many feet from th

Perhaps I’m a little radical on this, but I think all beaches should be open to the public, and property owners may only block access up to so many feet from the high tide mark. Or say 100 feet from the main structure, etc. restricting access all the way to the water just seems… Overkill.

fake-name 8y ago
That's basically what the california law already is. This case was an asshole who bought land with a public easement that provided access, and then (illegally) closed the easement.
- komali2 8y ago
  The anti-California line on Twitter is that somehow this is about property rights, that a road being on this guy's property means he somehow is responsible for its upkeep, so he should be allowed to do with it what he wants. Except... He's not responsible. I just find it interesting that hundreds of suspicious Twitter accounts are taking this opportunity to try to trend hashtags like "#socialismkills"
  - rmason 8y ago
    Under California Coastal Commission rules the property owner must continue to maintain beach access. You also cannot deny beach access which Barbara Streisand among others learned in Malibu years ago. I wish Michigan had been so farsighted.
    - komali2 8y ago
      I thought the definition of "maintain" was determined to be "not prevent previous access routes?" Meh, clearly just need to look at the casework, I'm no lawyer.
- ChoGGi 8y ago
  Yeah, he sure went about it the wrong way. I would've cleared out all the old buildings/parking lot, built my house and stuck private property signs just around it, that way I'm not blocking access to the beach. The hassle of finding somewhere to park would get rid of most visitors, then you can just start calling the cops on suspicious cars parked near your house :)
rootusrootus 8y ago
I agree. I am thankful that in Oregon the governor in 1911 declared all the beaches to be a highway, therefore not available for private ownership. In 1967 it was formalized by legislation recognizing low tide plus 16 vertical feet as publicly owned. If my understanding is correct, the legislation also requires allowing public access to the beach across privately held land, and in return beach property is exempt from property tax. Or something along those lines.
- peterlk 8y ago
  I'm honestly curious. This seems like a way to create lots of legal corner cases. Can I drive a car on any beach in Oregon? Is it (technically) illegal to bike/walk on the beaches? My guess is that legislation has smoothed out the obvious questions. But to the broader point, do there exist strange legal corner cases because of this?
  - krrrh 8y ago
    I’m not sure about state law in Oregon, but the term highway existed before the existence of cars, so calling something a highway doesn’t automatically mean you can drive on it. Similarly, while Americans have a consitutional right to use waterways for transportation, local restrictions can limit the type of boat allowed on a particular stream or lake to prevent the use of motorboats where it would harm wildlife for instance. There are frequent legal battles when someone buys a large chunk of land that has a stream going through it, only to discover that they can’t legally prevent recreational users from wading, floating, or fishing down it, as long as they don’t go past the high-water mark. Sometimes it’s the only practical way to access otherwise inaccessible public land. Source: http://www.themeateater.com/listen/meateater/ep-136-locked-out http://www.themeateater.com/listen/meateater/ep-136-locked-o...
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    I'm not aware of any strange corner cases, but there are definitely some beaches that are legal to drive on. They are clearly marked, and the rest is off-limits to motorized vehicles.
  - 8y ago
yholio 8y ago
Maybe not all open to the public - I can understand the notion of a private beach where a 5 star hotel provides premium services for it's paying clientele and wants to exclude the free-riders. But for that right, the general public should be compensated with a hefty annual rent. The concession would be awarded for a limited time to the highest bidder just like for any other eminently public resource, for example the airwaves. The frequency of my mobile phone is private in the sense that no one else can use for the time I'm using it (it's illegal to even tune a receiver at those frequencies), but it's not my private property or the network's, we lease it from the public.
- rileymat2 8y ago
  In theory, shouldn't beachfront property have a very high property tax assessment anyway?
  - komali2 8y ago
    It does, because the property value is high right, but in California that rate could be "locked in" by the same owner decades ago (property tax doesn't change here until sold). I'm guessing the op meant a secondary, even greater and separate tax.
    - duck 8y ago
      The loophole of value being only assessed when buying property needs to be fixed asap as that would probably fix a lot of issues in California.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > It does, because the property value is high right, but in California that rate could be "locked in" by the same owner decades ago (property tax doesn't change here until sold). Property taxes can change annually, though there is a 1% maximum rate limit, and so can assessed values, though there is an upper bound to assessed value based on a 2% per year increase over the baseline value set by a qualifying sale or improvement.
- 8y ago
burlesona 8y ago
That’s basically how it is in Texas. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Open_Beaches_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Open_Beaches_Act
augustocallejas 8y ago
As a resident of Hawaii, this makes perfect sense; this is part of state law [1] and includes public access, along with protections such as: > In June 2010 Governor Lingle signed into law House Bill 1808, a bill that prevents private property owners from blocking shoreline access by planting or cultivating vegetation. [1] http://www.beachapedia.org/State_of_the_Beach/State_Reports/HI/Beach_Access http://www.beachapedia.org/State_of_the_Beach/State_Reports/...

fake-name 8y ago

That's basically what the california law already is. This case was an asshole who bought land with a public easement that provided access, and then (illegally) closed the easement.

komali2 8y ago
The anti-California line on Twitter is that somehow this is about property rights, that a road being on this guy's property means he somehow is responsible for its upkeep, so he should be allowed to do with it what he wants. Except... He's not responsible. I just find it interesting that hundreds of suspicious Twitter accounts are taking this opportunity to try to trend hashtags like "#socialismkills"
- rmason 8y ago
  Under California Coastal Commission rules the property owner must continue to maintain beach access. You also cannot deny beach access which Barbara Streisand among others learned in Malibu years ago. I wish Michigan had been so farsighted.
  - komali2 8y ago
    I thought the definition of "maintain" was determined to be "not prevent previous access routes?" Meh, clearly just need to look at the casework, I'm no lawyer.
ChoGGi 8y ago
Yeah, he sure went about it the wrong way. I would've cleared out all the old buildings/parking lot, built my house and stuck private property signs just around it, that way I'm not blocking access to the beach. The hassle of finding somewhere to park would get rid of most visitors, then you can just start calling the cops on suspicious cars parked near your house :)

rootusrootus 8y ago

I agree. I am thankful that in Oregon the governor in 1911 declared all the beaches to be a highway, therefore not available for private ownership. In 1967 it was formalized by legislation recognizing low tide plus 16 vertical feet as publicly owned. If my understanding is correct, the legislation also requires allowing public access to the beach across privately held land, and in return beach property is exempt from property tax. Or something along those lines.

peterlk 8y ago
I'm honestly curious. This seems like a way to create lots of legal corner cases. Can I drive a car on any beach in Oregon? Is it (technically) illegal to bike/walk on the beaches? My guess is that legislation has smoothed out the obvious questions. But to the broader point, do there exist strange legal corner cases because of this?
- krrrh 8y ago
  I’m not sure about state law in Oregon, but the term highway existed before the existence of cars, so calling something a highway doesn’t automatically mean you can drive on it. Similarly, while Americans have a consitutional right to use waterways for transportation, local restrictions can limit the type of boat allowed on a particular stream or lake to prevent the use of motorboats where it would harm wildlife for instance. There are frequent legal battles when someone buys a large chunk of land that has a stream going through it, only to discover that they can’t legally prevent recreational users from wading, floating, or fishing down it, as long as they don’t go past the high-water mark. Sometimes it’s the only practical way to access otherwise inaccessible public land. Source: http://www.themeateater.com/listen/meateater/ep-136-locked-out http://www.themeateater.com/listen/meateater/ep-136-locked-o...
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  I'm not aware of any strange corner cases, but there are definitely some beaches that are legal to drive on. They are clearly marked, and the rest is off-limits to motorized vehicles.
- 8y ago

yholio 8y ago

Maybe not all open to the public - I can understand the notion of a private beach where a 5 star hotel provides premium services for it's paying clientele and wants to exclude the free-riders. But for that right, the general public should be compensated with a hefty annual rent. The concession would be awarded for a limited time to the highest bidder just like for any other eminently public resource, for example the airwaves. The frequency of my mobile phone is private in the sense that no one else can use for the time I'm using it (it's illegal to even tune a receiver at those frequencies), but it's not my private property or the network's, we lease it from the public.

rileymat2 8y ago
In theory, shouldn't beachfront property have a very high property tax assessment anyway?
- komali2 8y ago
  It does, because the property value is high right, but in California that rate could be "locked in" by the same owner decades ago (property tax doesn't change here until sold). I'm guessing the op meant a secondary, even greater and separate tax.
  - duck 8y ago
    The loophole of value being only assessed when buying property needs to be fixed asap as that would probably fix a lot of issues in California.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > It does, because the property value is high right, but in California that rate could be "locked in" by the same owner decades ago (property tax doesn't change here until sold). Property taxes can change annually, though there is a 1% maximum rate limit, and so can assessed values, though there is an upper bound to assessed value based on a 2% per year increase over the baseline value set by a qualifying sale or improvement.
8y ago

burlesona 8y ago

That’s basically how it is in Texas. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Open_Beaches_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Open_Beaches_Act

augustocallejas 8y ago

As a resident of Hawaii, this makes perfect sense; this is part of state law [1] and includes public access, along with protections such as: > In June 2010 Governor Lingle signed into law House Bill 1808, a bill that prevents private property owners from blocking shoreline access by planting or cultivating vegetation. [1] http://www.beachapedia.org/State_of_the_Beach/State_Reports/HI/Beach_Access http://www.beachapedia.org/State_of_the_Beach/State_Reports/...