5 ms·
Some California beaches have been off-limits, but public outrage is changing
- trishmapow2 8y agoWow that title was hard to parse - two sentences as in the article would be much clearer - or maybe just reword it. Article: These California beaches have long been off-limits. But public outrage is changing the tide edit: it's been fixed nvm (original: public outrage is changing the tide of off-limits California beaches)
- gamma-male 8y agoDoesn't help when it includes a pun.
- throwaway424344 8y agoI sea what you did there...
- dang 8y agoI've taken a crack at shortening the title to fit 80 chars in a more straightforward way, but if anyone can do better, we can happily change it again.
- FatalLogic 8y agoPublic outrage is opening up California beaches that used to be off-limits
- dmckeon 8y agoRegardless of the title, the key to this issue is that while California beaches below the high tide line are open to the public, access over private land is not part of the deal. One could walk along a beach, or arrive by water, or access from and over public land, and be within one’s rights, but there is no right to walk thru somebody’s private land to get to the public beach. Note that the Khosla / Martin’s Beach case also contains an issue of changing public access without a permit from the Coastal Commission. That’s complicated.
- masonic 8y agoThe Martin's Beach issue involved a long-existing easement (a road across the property to the beach).
- the_absurdist 8y agoIs opening all beaches to the public really in the best interest of...the public? Should no natural spaces be private? We allow other parcels of land to be private in name name of conservation, why should a beach be any different? Why can National and State Parks require entrance fees (and thus be operationally private though nominally public), but not privately owned land?
- sn41 8y agoThis may seem like a valid viewpoint, but it does not sound completely correct. I am not sure that we allow parcels of land to be private in the name of conservation. Perhaps ecologically sensitive parcels of land should not be private. Wetlands, mountains, forests and perhaps beaches (that's up for debate right now) should be considered "commons" or "protected" with general access to the public. The fees in National and State Parks go for conservation, not for profit.
- the_absurdist 8y agoHere's one organization that engages in private lands conservation. You can now be sure that we allow parcels of land to be private in the name of conservation: https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/who-we-are/how-we-work/private-lands-conservation/ https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/who-we-are/how-we-work...
- sn41 8y agoThanks, this is news to me. I am not sure where I am with respect to this. What prevents the entire society deciding to use the land for some other purpose?
- eigenvector 8y agoNothing except the rules of that society, which is why organizations like the Nature Conservancy actively seek to have their landholdings added to national and state parks so they can be permanently protected. But the political appetite to do that doesn't always exist, which is why private conservancies are there - to protect natural land that the government won't.