6 ms·

California should have adopted public access rights like Hawaii a long time ago. For example, from http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/public-access-rights http:/

California should have adopted public access rights like Hawaii a long time ago. For example, from http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/public-access-rights http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/public-access-rights: Q: How should the public access beaches and shorelines that are blocked by houses? A: If private homeowners are obstructing existing public rights-of-way to the shoreline, HRS § 115-9 provides a remedy and up to a $2000 penalty for that kind of situation.

rosser 13y ago
Because a $2000 fine is totally going to deter a billionaire.
- rdl 13y ago
  Something like how California does prop 65 warnings would be awesome; 50% of an $x000 fine for each violation reported by each person, per day. I'd be happy to spend an hour or two every morning racking up a new violation (and swimming), and I'm sure busloads of poor people could do the same.
- smnrchrds 13y ago
  I think the important part is the remedy.
- crusty 13y ago
  I lived on the island of Hawaii for years and around the western side of the southern tip, there's a large area of lava fields, with sparse development and larger land-holders, presumably speculating that hotels will eventually want to buy big tracts of coastal property. There are still a number of beautiful, mostly deserted beaches along that coast and great fishing spots, accessible only by boat or across rough ground-down lava tracts. Property owners would put up large iron gates blocking the paths every once in a while, and without fail, a few days later you'd drive down the path past the gate flung off to the side after someone brought down an Oxy-fuel setup and just cut it to pieces. It is well understood, ocean access is primary, no one will wait for court battles and fines to mount. Just cut it down and get to the ocean. Whether it's NJ towns that charge a fee to even be on the beach or states that allow exclusive ownership or allow owners to block public access, there's nothing by the people, for the people in any of it. It's a stain on our notion of a democratic-self. If a regulation exists that's clearly against the interest of 99+% of the people, then there's clearly something inherently wrong with the system that allows it. bonus - one of my favourites: http://goo.gl/maps/wqe8t http://goo.gl/maps/wqe8t
pbreit 13y ago
With only a couple of very narrow exceptions (Malibu, Stinson), California beaches are indeed publicly accessible by law (which is the main point of this situation).

rosser 13y ago

Because a $2000 fine is totally going to deter a billionaire.

rdl 13y ago
Something like how California does prop 65 warnings would be awesome; 50% of an $x000 fine for each violation reported by each person, per day. I'd be happy to spend an hour or two every morning racking up a new violation (and swimming), and I'm sure busloads of poor people could do the same.
smnrchrds 13y ago
I think the important part is the remedy.
crusty 13y ago
I lived on the island of Hawaii for years and around the western side of the southern tip, there's a large area of lava fields, with sparse development and larger land-holders, presumably speculating that hotels will eventually want to buy big tracts of coastal property. There are still a number of beautiful, mostly deserted beaches along that coast and great fishing spots, accessible only by boat or across rough ground-down lava tracts. Property owners would put up large iron gates blocking the paths every once in a while, and without fail, a few days later you'd drive down the path past the gate flung off to the side after someone brought down an Oxy-fuel setup and just cut it to pieces. It is well understood, ocean access is primary, no one will wait for court battles and fines to mount. Just cut it down and get to the ocean. Whether it's NJ towns that charge a fee to even be on the beach or states that allow exclusive ownership or allow owners to block public access, there's nothing by the people, for the people in any of it. It's a stain on our notion of a democratic-self. If a regulation exists that's clearly against the interest of 99+% of the people, then there's clearly something inherently wrong with the system that allows it. bonus - one of my favourites: http://goo.gl/maps/wqe8t http://goo.gl/maps/wqe8t

pbreit 13y ago

With only a couple of very narrow exceptions (Malibu, Stinson), California beaches are indeed publicly accessible by law (which is the main point of this situation).