- Joined
- Apr 5, 2002
- Location
- San Jose, bottom of dirty 130
- Moto(s)
- ‘18 Alta EX006, ‘17 Alta MX019, 06R6, 05TM530, 01TM250 2T, ‘24 Yam Tenere 700, Lightning Spark
- Name
- Butch
- BARF perks
- AMA #: 1093637
Really interesting.
-
There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.
Martins beach issue may go to the Supreme Court
- Thread starter Climber
- Start date
Really interesting.
msethhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2011
- Location
- SoCal
- Moto(s)
- '98 VTR1000F, she's a fatty! '89 YSR 50 with a 150, she said "it's so cute!"
- Name
- Mikey
It seems that the property owner is being expected to foot the bill for parking access to the beach, and maintain a private road.
I see two solutions.
1: The city needs to step up and pay to run parking and maintain the road (don't give the owner an option here).
2: The city needs to provide alternate means of access to a public beach.
I see two solutions.
1: The city needs to step up and pay to run parking and maintain the road (don't give the owner an option here).
2: The city needs to provide alternate means of access to a public beach.
FXCLM5
bombaclaud
for your track bikei had a old coworker that did security on the side, she was hired to patrol a beachfront and kick ppl off of it during the summer weekends from the owners or hoa of that division.
Climber
Well-known member
They probably didn't have valid legal standing to do that, but that never stopped anybody from doing something like that. Most people will leave.
AbsolutEnduser
bike r
Are you talking about Stinson Beach and the properties to the north end? For example, there's a visible "patrol" there but they patrol only people walking back to houses and yell at them.
(Looks like the literal laboratory implementation of California Beach law access , actually )
FXCLM5
bombaclaud
not exactly sure but has to be local to sonoma county so possibly?
Khosla's bullshit is totally unconvincing. A comment in his article is pretty relevant:
"The fact that the prior owner did not have action taken against him does not legalize these activities or change the law in any way. Absolutely uniform enforcement does not exists for any law anywhere in the land. Question- what effort did you make for the permits, and how were you obstructed if that’s your argument."
"The fact that the prior owner did not have action taken against him does not legalize these activities or change the law in any way. Absolutely uniform enforcement does not exists for any law anywhere in the land. Question- what effort did you make for the permits, and how were you obstructed if that’s your argument."
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2002
- Location
- Menlo Park, Ca.
- Moto(s)
- Keep me rocking life
- Name
- Budman
- BARF perks
- AMA Life Member #203453
I am sure it is convincing to some. Much of it makes sense to me as an example.
No dog in the fight, but just reading as an outsider I don't find it complete bullshit.
Time to just get the court to rule.
I cannot fathom them forcing the man to pay for upkeep. You have to pull the he can afford it out of the equation unless the coastal commission has successfully implemented such on other owners that were not rich too.
I do hope that something comes out of this that maintains access. Guess time will tell.
No dog in the fight, but just reading as an outsider I don't find it complete bullshit.
Time to just get the court to rule.
I cannot fathom them forcing the man to pay for upkeep. You have to pull the he can afford it out of the equation unless the coastal commission has successfully implemented such on other owners that were not rich too.
I do hope that something comes out of this that maintains access. Guess time will tell.
Climber
Well-known member
The danger in this case is precedence.
If he prevails, others will follow suit and use his case as justification.
I don't know how much of the CA coastline has similar terrain where you simply can't get down to a beach from the sides, but I'm sure it's a portion.
gixxerjeff
Optimistic Underdog
The Sea Ranch fought a fight very similar to this one back in the late 60's/early 70's and lost.
The "compromise" at the time was State Park run/maintained parking lots and trails that exist today. There is a small fee to use the lots and trails and only the hearty take them up on their offer as some of the beaches are nearly a mile away from the "facilities".
The Sea Ranch owners continue to be irked at the *riff raff* accessing "their" beaches but they were successful in keeping the feared masses away.
I watched that battle go down when I was a kid as my family has property up that way and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to their cause as I can only imagine what that area would look like during abalone season.
Different issues here perhaps, but some similarities do exist.
msethhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2011
- Location
- SoCal
- Moto(s)
- '98 VTR1000F, she's a fatty! '89 YSR 50 with a 150, she said "it's so cute!"
- Name
- Mikey
It absolutely is dangerous. Forcing one person to foot the bill for access is bullshit. Carte blanche denying someone access to a beach is also bullshit. There needs to be a compromise figured out, even if it has to be forced on the dude who owns the property.
Climber
Well-known member
I'm not that sympathetic to his plight.
He 100% knew what he was getting into when he bought those properties with the intent on making it his 'private' beach.
I don't believe that he ever had good intentions with the beach.
msethhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2011
- Location
- SoCal
- Moto(s)
- '98 VTR1000F, she's a fatty! '89 YSR 50 with a 150, she said "it's so cute!"
- Name
- Mikey
I'm not really sympathetic to him either. It's the long term stuff that could come of this that's troubling, and it could reach a lot farther than just beach access. There's a solution in there somewhere. It most likely involves him being forced into something, and.thats just to bad for him. But right now, he's liable for anything that happens on his property, and he's being forced into that position.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2008
- Location
- Bay Area
- Moto(s)
- Kawasaki Versys 1000LT,
Work: BMW R1250RT-P
Prior: Honda 600RR Graffiti, Kawi 650R
- Name
- D
Well, is it true that he maintained the existing private parking access, as the previous owners had done, for the first couple years he owned it? Is it true the commission was trying to make him operate a business at a loss?
As for the private beach argument, is there any evidence to support this? He doesn't reside on the property. Is there a history of him hosting private beach parties? (According to him, the previous owners did this at times.)
If the coastal commission has really been that overreaching, which sounds entirely plausible, then what's wrong with fighting something on principle? It doesn't really matter that he's spent more fighting this than he would have in operating a parking business at a loss. It's the principle of the matter. He's a billionaire, so he can afford to fight this. If he doesn't fight this, what happens to the next owner of much lesser means who can't afford to fight it? Are they just supposed to accept overreach of a governmental commission without recourse?
I do agree with msethhunter that the court needs to mandate a solution. Normally, I'd think that would be a government maintained easement or eminent domain purchase of an access road and parking/facilities through the private property. If this particular piece of property has some pre-California Mexican property rights or some such unique roadblock, then maybe nothing can be done.
Climber
Well-known member
IIRC, he purchased several pieces of property that added up to all of the land that was connected to the beach between the cliffs. I don't believe that one person had previously owned all of that land together.Well, is it true that he maintained the existing private parking access, as the previous owners had done, for the first couple years he owned it? Is it true the commission was trying to make him operate a business at a loss?
As for the private beach argument, is there any evidence to support this? He doesn't reside on the property. Is there a history of him hosting private beach parties? (According to him, the previous owners did this at times.)
If the coastal commission has really been that overreaching, which sounds entirely plausible, then what's wrong with fighting something on principle? It doesn't really matter that he's spent more fighting this than he would have in operating a parking business at a loss. It's the principle of the matter. He's a billionaire, so he can afford to fight this. If he doesn't fight this, what happens to the next owner of much lesser means who can't afford to fight it? Are they just supposed to accept overreach of a governmental commission without recourse?
I do agree with msethhunter that the court needs to mandate a solution. Normally, I'd think that would be a government maintained easement or eminent domain purchase of an access road and parking/facilities through the private property. If this particular piece of property has some pre-California Mexican property rights or some such unique roadblock, then maybe nothing can be done.
The law is clear, the state owns the beach, you can't buy it. That was put there for a reason.
As for access, I don't know the whole history of access to the beach, perhaps somebody here who has followed this story more closely can verify the accuracy of this claims.
gixxerjeff
Optimistic Underdog
Like I said, this will conclude much the same way The Sea Ranch situation did, it's just going to take a while.
State access over private property to get to public property.
State access over private property to get to public property.
Maybe. The makeup of the Supreme Court has changed over the years...
This and the fact he thumbed his nose at the Coastal Commission. I dont care who you think you are, the CCC is a powerful regulatory body in this state with a rather large trail of prevailing cases in the appellate and state supreme courts.
Pretty common actually, I have to maintain the sidewalk in front of my house, technically its "my" property but the city tells me what to do with it and can force me to pay for repairs/maintenance to allow the public to safely walk in front of my house. I can't go tear up the sidewalk and put in a fence that goes all the way to the edge of my property line.
Beach access could pretty easily be viewed as a big chunk of sidewalk to access a public area.
MrIncredible
Is fintastic
I own a lakefront house on Cape Cod.
There's a small horseshoe shaped road which my home is at the apex of. I'm the only waterfront property, but the other houses all have water rights.
The access is through my property. I own and maintain a path for everyone else to use. It was there when my parents bought the place.
The asshat in question can get the fuck over it.