4 ms·

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 w

by 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.
komali2 8y ago
I can see the logic of your example, but I'm with the radical person - I don't think the rich should be allowed to create "no peasants allowed zones." For many, many reasons, but chief among which is that maybe if the hyper rich have to share some of the public experiences we all have, they'll be more inclined to contribute to the improvement of those resources.
- taeric 8y ago
  I think your difficulty will be in coming up with a way that allows for any private parks, then. And, by extension, a private yard. You can almost get away with just defining this as something only single families can do, but then you run afoul of some genuine community ownership things. Want to band together into a mutual HOA so that you and your neighbors can afford to maintain a private pool? Why/why not? Edit: I suspect I agree with the radical on this. :)
  - komali2 8y ago
    I also sense the slippery slope present, but my understanding is that many countries have beach-specific laws without sliding into "no private property," so the evidence is such that the slippery slope does not exist. As for parks, the USA has sorted that already with the national and state park system. Sometimes those get huge land donations from private citizens as well. Buuuut personally, I am of the "abolish private property" mindset anyway, I think that's way out of scope for here though. It's for the same reasons I've listed previously.
- coolso 8y ago
  > maybe if the hyper rich have to share some of the public experiences we all have, they'll be more inclined to contribute to the improvement of those resources. I agree, but couldn't it be argued it could go the opposite way too? If you're forced to be exposed to something, even if you're ambivalent towards it initially, often times that can breed contempt.
  - komali2 8y ago
etrautmann 8y ago
I think it’s reasonable for the state to say that even this level of corporate private access is not desired. Why should it be for such a limited public good?
s73v3r_ 8y ago
I don't see why a private beach is needed at all. Provide your premium services all you want; find other ways to only provide them to your guests.
int_19h 8y ago
While we're on this subject, there's also some history to consider. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

by yholio 8y ago

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.

komali2 8y ago

I can see the logic of your example, but I'm with the radical person - I don't think the rich should be allowed to create "no peasants allowed zones." For many, many reasons, but chief among which is that maybe if the hyper rich have to share some of the public experiences we all have, they'll be more inclined to contribute to the improvement of those resources.

taeric 8y ago
I think your difficulty will be in coming up with a way that allows for any private parks, then. And, by extension, a private yard. You can almost get away with just defining this as something only single families can do, but then you run afoul of some genuine community ownership things. Want to band together into a mutual HOA so that you and your neighbors can afford to maintain a private pool? Why/why not? Edit: I suspect I agree with the radical on this. :)
- komali2 8y ago
  I also sense the slippery slope present, but my understanding is that many countries have beach-specific laws without sliding into "no private property," so the evidence is such that the slippery slope does not exist. As for parks, the USA has sorted that already with the national and state park system. Sometimes those get huge land donations from private citizens as well. Buuuut personally, I am of the "abolish private property" mindset anyway, I think that's way out of scope for here though. It's for the same reasons I've listed previously.
coolso 8y ago
> maybe if the hyper rich have to share some of the public experiences we all have, they'll be more inclined to contribute to the improvement of those resources. I agree, but couldn't it be argued it could go the opposite way too? If you're forced to be exposed to something, even if you're ambivalent towards it initially, often times that can breed contempt.
- komali2 8y ago

etrautmann 8y ago

I think it’s reasonable for the state to say that even this level of corporate private access is not desired. Why should it be for such a limited public good?

s73v3r_ 8y ago

I don't see why a private beach is needed at all. Provide your premium services all you want; find other ways to only provide them to your guests.

int_19h 8y ago

While we're on this subject, there's also some history to consider. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam