3 ms·
I don't understand why they would be fined/forced to remove erosion abatement measures. Sure that might reduce beach access, but without it the beach will go aw
by gcanyon 4y ago
I don't understand why they would be fined/forced to remove erosion abatement measures. Sure that might reduce beach access, but without it the beach will go away? I guess there will always be a beach, it will just move inland over time. I wonder how the California Coastal Commission will deal with the universal access requirement when the beach literally eats its way into private property.
- Arrath 4y agoThe key word there is "unauthorized". If they went through some official process with an erosion abatement/remediation plan and got the right review and approvals, they wouldn't then be forced to clear the rocks away.
- Animats 4y agoIt ceases to be private property when the sea eats it away. Everything below the high tide line is public property.[1] [1] https://www.slc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2017-PublicAccessGuide.pdf https://www.slc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2017-Publi...
- gcanyon 4y agoWell that clarifies that. It's interesting that this sort-of automatic eminent domain doesn't require some form of compensation to the (previous) owner of the land. It also just sits poorly with me that the public's interest in a small portion of beachfront is resulting/going to result in the destruction of such a nice place -- albeit that I know almost none of the particulars.