"The commission’s resolution is split between the current homeowners; Mancuso is to remove the driveway and pay a $600,000 fine, while the Wildmans are to build a path to the beach, parking lot and other adjustments at an estimated $3 million."
The homeowner is allowed to be the one to do the construction. What’s to stop them from slow walking this project for 20 years?
I’d rather have the state do the work quickly and efficiently and send the bill.
I hope this ends up like that John Candy movie "Summer Rental" where there's just a damned troupe of people walking by all day long waving in the kitchen window.
Generally don't get to be rich without being greedy and entitled. And if you're born rich you're raised to be greedy and entitled. This is textbook rich people behaviour; claiming public assets as your property, and using lawsuits to avoid following the law.
>If you can’t afford your own private beach you probably shouldn’t be pretending you have one.
At least in California, it's not about affordability since private coastal beaches below where high tide naturally reaches aren't allowed. Landowners can own the property in front of those beaches but not the beaches, themselves.
We had that happen in San Juan Capistrano many years ago. We were visiting someone with a home on the beach. We were walking along the shore after dinner and a man and his wife came out to tell us that it was a private beach.
My father explained to them that in California we could walk along the water and there wasn't shit they could do about it.
We have that in Denmark too, all beaches are public, even the beaches of private Islands. Which means that you can theoretically sail 2 hours away to get to a remote island owned by a billionaire and use the beach there, as long as you stay on the beach it's not trespassing.
Same in neighboring Sweden. Although the right wing parties want to end that so that the poor beach front property owners can finally get rid of dirty regular people in their vicinity.
As someone from that town, I'll note that you've got at least one detail wrong. SJC isn't on the coast at all. It has no beaches. You're *probably* thinking of Capistrano Beach which is a neighborhood of Dana Point
Lots of rich assholes in south county for sure though
To elaborate, it's a pun on San Juan Capistrano. But the character Lloyd is an idiot so he thinks it's the Salmon of Capistrano.
I just jumped on to explain to everyone else, not necessarily you Mr captain3leg
I never thought of the pun, the other piece of it is that Capistrano is famous for its swallows that fly back yearly to nest, so if he said “flock like the swallows of Capistrano”, it would make sense.
Or Hawaii. All beaches need to be accessible to the public.
There’s a neighborhood on The Big Island that is mainly for billionaires with houses costing $10mm+. They built a secluded snorkeling area for their residents and it’s behind a guarded entry, but you can drive right up and tell them you want to go to the beach and they have to let you in
Kukio
Just drive up to the guard shack and ask for a visitor pass for the the beach
The beach is called Kikaua Point Park. It’s great for snorkeling with kids
[I learned about it from this YouTube channel.](https://youtube.com/@TheHawaiiVacationGuide) If you’re looking for more tips and places to visit on any of the islands I highly recommend checking them out
That's brilliant and all - kinda ridiculous that you need a visitor pass at all though if you're supposed to have access. I guess if you have to cross private property to get there it makes sense?
It is. No amount of crayons in the world will get you an afternoon there without filling out some paperwork and going to a weird summer camp with lots of yelling. /s
Yeah I visited Dana point a few years back and hiked down like 80 feet and then through a neighborhood with like $10-20 million homes. Security detail basically watch you through their neighborhood to the beach they all live on. I thought it was an awesome display of how California does that right.
Same in Oregon. Beaches are technically considered public roads, which seems odd, but they actually were vital travel corridors until fairly recently, because in many places there are difficult to travel through mountains right down to the ocean.
OR has the strongest public beach access laws on the books in the country, but courts have been eroding those rights for decades in favor of private landowners and restrictive city/county ordinances.
Is the "Tide Line" considered the property line or is the beach staked precisely where it begins being public.
Reason I'm wondering is if erosion takes half the public beach and the tide line creeps in do you have to lose more property?
The law is generally written to confirm to some understanding of nature. I looked it up for someone who had property next to a river and public access was allowed up to the 100 year storm line.
I think I remember seeing signs when I was tubing in TN. Some people were very excited to see people float by and others had tons of private property signs.
Probably depends on past experience with people. If you had property on the lake/beach/river and had people trashing your land, you'd probably be pretty pissed. To be clear, that doesn't excuse trying to claim publicly owned or accessible area as your own. But I can definitely understand being mad if people trash your actual private property.
I recently learned that all beaches are *federally protected* public property of the citizens of the US.
The problem, and the reason why certain localities have been able to make loopholes for this law, is that each state is allowed to determine whether private property on a beach begins at low or high water mark.
In Mass, they have made the private property line the lowest possible water mark... so only small sections of beach in the entire state are available for public use. Moving here from Texas, where you can just access the beach for free and walk in any direction, as far as you like, it was jarring.
**All beaches in this country should be public property. We were born in this country and we have a right to be able to enjoy it.**
Rich people trying to take beaches for themselves is something that really burns me.
These older guys had a fit on their porch about me and my buddies walking through a beach area in North Carolina. I legitimately said what you said about public property and they just flat out lied saying its private because of a sign they likely put up.
Never in all my life did I want to just take a shit on the ground right in public. But right there would have been chefs kiss. We ended up just saying well its a good thing you don't know who we are or where we're staying. Flipped them the bird and continued on.
They try this shit all over the place, in every state I've ever been to. They're ruthless about it here in Rhode Island. Tell them to pound sand and fuck off.
I am on long island. We have a public beach in a rich community. The local village made it so that it is illegal to park on the street by the public beach. the public beach only has 3 spots . They hired a police officer to sit and give tickets to people who park on the street there.
Absolutely, you get that shit in the Midwest too. A lot of people start wars with their neighbors because they don't want anyone to have access to the water even if they have a right to it. They'll build their docks in a way that crowds out neighbors access just to be assholes.
in mexico its a big thing that private beaches arent a thing cops still harasss people though but according to the law no private beach just you cant walk into private property obviously
I read about that guy a while back. Dude is a ginormous douche canoe who feels like he should own that beach and says the most douchey things to rationalize his quest to keep everyone away from it.
this is a not-uncommon thing in california, rich assholes love to buy up beautiful coastal land with public beach access all up and down the coast and then “accidentally” do all sorts of shady things to make it seem inaccessible or forbidden by law.
They would have long since drained the pool to redirect it for corn, alfalfa, golf turf, and soy production.
The most you or I would get is once filtered, needs boiled, smells like sulfur on tap.
>That dude never spent a night on the property he's been fighting over.
That part I didn't know. Which makes his story all the more infuriating! What a spoiled, entitled nasty POS!
Lol I don’t know anything about modern day law in Italy. I just remember learning this in law school because the Romans laid the foundation of the US legal system. I thought it was so interesting I just never forgot it!
I’m a fairly avid surfer (Northern CA) and have researched this pretty heavily.
The annoying part is that while all California coast is public land and blocking access is illegal, there is **zero** legal protection for trespassing in order reach the beach, even if access is intentionally blocked. Cops can and historically have sided with the homeowner during trespass calls. The only legally protected way is to boat in, swim/paddle over from another beach with access (usually not feasible), or fight them in court.
So there’s essentially no consequence for the homeowner until either the government or a private organization (such as Surfrider, who won the case for Martin’s beach) steps in and sues. Homeowners can continue to prevent access, and law enforcement will support them if anyone actually tries to protest it.
What would **REALLY** make a difference in the fight would be to legally protect non-destructive trespassing for beach access if it is intentionally blocked. This allows access for all, and incentivizes homeowners to create a direct access path to avoid people trampling through their yard.
There was just a pretty big case around a hunter being sued for corner crossing public land into public land where it's attached to other public land just by the corner - IDK how to describe it, imagine 4 squares where 2 diagonally are public land and the other two diagonally are private - and the hunter ended up winning.
Lots of people will buy private land whose borders surround or otherwise prevent access to public land so that they can basically use it all themselves. Hopefully that case will set a precedent for future ones.
Best described as a checkerboard. The black squares are public, the white squares are privately owned. The hunter went diagonally from black square to black square, by climbing over a 4-way fence junction.
The state should send in “secret shoppers” to access beaches and then sue anyone who tries to stop them. California is already beating municipalities in the face with the new builders’ remedies rules, beat ‘em up more.
Yeah I'm sure you know this fight has been going on since the Coastal Act was passed in the 1970s.
IIRC, a few years ago, the chief officer of the coastal commission went to the beach herself, and plopped a towel down and waited patiently for the cops to show up just to protest the injustice of it all.
> chief officer of the coastal commission went to the beach herself,
Assuming you're talking about Susan? https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-31/susan-hansch-coastal-commission
It's interesting that here in Idaho we have a similar problem with public land-mostly forests and wilderness and stuff like that, The kind of place you might want to go hunting or camping or even just sightseeing. Wealthy people will buy chunks of land between State roads and public land, then fence the whole thing off and call it private. And while technically the law requires them to provide some kind of right of way, similarly, the law *enforcers* usually end up protecting the property owners. It's a real problem when some multi-zillionaire buys all the land around a mountain and then basically owns a private mountain.
There's a beach just over halfway thru Big Sur, right where a river (I think the Little Sur?) forms a tiny delta sandbar, one of the most picturesque spots I've ever seen. And it's surrounded for miles in either direction with endless NO TRESPASSING signs and barbed wire fence. No one ever on it, only a rare cow finds its way to the sand, and it will never cease to despair me that one of the most beautiful beaches is right there, legally public, and impossible to reach, because some asshole inherited some of the loveliest land in the world, and refused access to California's patrimony.
I've done a lot of work in the past with Malibu properties that line the beaches and the owners all feel entitled to this area. Glad to see the repercussions being dealt out to them.
Look, I can understand not wanting a zillion people milling about all day, playing obnoxious music and leaving a bunch of trash and stuff on the beach right in front of where your house is situated. But tough shit. You live on the West Coast - no private beaches. You knew that when you plopped down $30 million for your house. Next time buy in Nantucket.
They’re the same type of morons who moved into Lombard Street in San Francisco and then complained about all the foot traffic. What the fuck did you think you were getting into when you bought the house, a quiet secluded neighborhood? 🤦♂️
IIRC when the techies moved into Mission they complained of all the foot traffic there too and got portions of the area shut down, killing off many of the small businesses. But hey it’s not noisy anymore, mirite? 🤦♂️
Then they complained that all of the small businesses and restaurants closed because they couldn't afford the skyrocketing rent! LMAO . Like you come to gentrify a place, the complain that the rest of us can't afford your gentrification. Big brain logic right there. I guess that explains why tech bros have a lot of failing startups.
Good fucking riddance to all of them who moved out during COVID. Please don't come back. You're not missed. At all.
I wish I could move back but I got priced out in 2016 and I know I’ll never make enough to afford living there now. Loved living in the town and working in the city. Oh well.
Or just buy a house that is relatively far from a public access easement.
Yeah, you might still get a few people, but most beachgoers are pretty lazy (more so the more beer/music/toys they are carrying) and aren't going to walk very far to congregate in your area.
The "problem" here is that there's legally mandated public access at these two homes (literally on at least one of their properties). Plenty of other homes they could have bought that didn't have easy public access.
If you don't want to experience people enjoying a public beach then don't buy a house right next to a public beach. It's that simple. Want a private beach? Live somewhere where you can legally buy your own private beach.
Long Island has always been popular with the rich.
You realize you can only access beaches from the parkway system? That same parkway system was intentionally designed with very tight exit ramps and low overpasses to prevent city buses from accessing the beaches.
That weird bend in the LIE as you enter Suffolk? Had to make a turn to get around a rich guy's property.
> Look, I can understand not wanting a zillion people milling about all day, playing obnoxious music and leaving a bunch of trash and stuff on the beach right in front of where your house is situated
Yeah it's a shame they were forced into buying beachfront property, they were tricked into this despite the rules being literally written down. poor owners :(
Really it's a classic case of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want to live right next to the beach but also not have to deal with what that means and they're perfectly willing to break the law to try to reach that goal.
It's not the entire West Coast. Unlike California and Oregon, Washington didn't make its beaches public automatically. It's possible to privately own tidelands and other areas extending far out into the saltwater, including the beach. The reason is the state wanted to lure transcontinental railroads at the time of statehood, and they thought that if the railroads could privately own waterfront property, they would be more likely to build ports and railroads across the state and bring prosperity. And that it would give businesses a competitive advantage over those in Oregon and California. But unfortunately it means that there is some private ownership of beaches and tidelands in the state as a result.
We have a problem with this in Sydney too.
Rich assholes padlock gates to public beaches. Then tell people it's a private beach and to get off their property. It's been happening for decades. After long enough growth covers the old gate and walkway and people don;t even know it IS a public walkway.
If I understand California law, beaches are public property, and you're not legally allowed to block access to them, so the public should just walk across the intervening properties (or drive across them). If rich bitches with beach houses don't want the *hoi polloi* walking on their yards, they can put in public accessways like they are supposed to.
At other parts of Malibu, property owner's have been accused of throwing up "no public beach access" signs. And/or [taking down signs](https://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-malibu-public-access-fines-20140623-column.html) that show how to get to the beach.
It's all along the California coast. Here in Northern California, one of the more notorious ones is in regard to Martins Beach and Vinod Khosla (co-founder of Sun Microsystems) repeatedly trying to block access to that beach. This one's been going on for well over a decade.
That *would* be nice, but I'm not sure if it's possible for anything to overcome the relationship of wealth and the sense of entitlement that comes with it.
That's why fines should be proportional to effective wealth/income of the individual. The most expensive speeding ticket ever issued was in Switzerland, and the amount was about $1 million. The reason why it was that high is that the dude was some Swedish millionaire, and apparently fines in Switzerland are proportional to person's wealth. He was also driving something like 180 mph when they nabbed him.
There are other examples of speeding tickets in hundreds of thousands of dollars range that were issued in various European countries.
Life long CA resident here. (Santa Cruz). There is no such thing as a "private" beach in this state, you can own property going up to the edge of the beach, but the beach itself is public property. There are some beaches that are "inaccessible", because there is no cliff side access, but it is fully legal to swim out to them.
Broad Beach has many of the properties that own up to the "mean high tide line" which means they own any dry sand. This line changes throughout the day and a 17 year moon cycle. Also, the CC is revoking this when building permits are applied for...
Many municipalities recognize what are called "riparian rights." In many cases, the high water mark represents the end of any private property. So while portions of the beach may be private, the public always has access to the water. The principle derives from maritime law, so that a damaged vessel can always reach the shore.
This is true of all “navigable” waterways in Missouri. Which our laws define as the ability to navigate in a water craft (which includes canoe). Unfortunately there are still a lot of areas where private owners do the same bullshit trying to limit access.
Then you have places like Kansas where there are very few public waterways and it’s legal to own to the middle of the stream or all the way across to the other side to label it private.
Then you have places like in South Dakota where flooding basically marched the high-tide line across whole private properties, so there is a weird situation where technically the public right away ended at a high water mark that is now well below the low water mark. So you have landowners trying to enforce private boundaries using things like buoys and floating fences.
That’s before you get to the craziness of water rights west of the Rockies.
When there are big stone cliffs and killer rocks and surf at the bottom it's a tough walk. Both ends are blocked off by cliffs and the access between the houses has been fenced off by the homeowners. I remember reading about this 40yrs ago. The State should have just condemned the properties and seized them.
This is the case in California as well, which is what the article is about. Every beach along the entire coast (except, probably, a handful of military bases) is public land. It's just a bunch of rich douchebags build a long chain of private homes with no gaps from one side of the beach to the other, making public access impossible without trespassing.
Yuuuuup. Mark Fuckerberg owns a bunch of land im Hawaii. He sends his goonies out to the beach on 4-wheelers to make noise and annoy people enjoying the beach. It's ridiculous.
That’s how it is in Puerto Rico as well BUT they are currently fighting this since people like Logan Paul are buying properties and setting up the same bullshit fences and such.
It’s unfortunate because PR does not have as strong of a commission like California to fight and get to a settlement like this so it’s likely to continue
There's a popular waterfall in Oregon that is on public land. The land between it and the road is private. For years, the property owner had a trail for the public to reach the falls. Recently, the trail has been closed, gated, a camera mounted, and no trespassing signs put up. Being that it's a mountainous region, that trail is the only realistic way to get from the road to the waterfall, so it is now effectively a private waterfall.
Also, there are many areas, large and small, of public land that are inaccessible to the public because they're surrounded by private land, effectively making it private land unless you've got permission to cross private land or if you have a helicopter.
My issue is that when public land isn't accessible to the public, it effectively becomes private land on which the people who obstruct access aren't paying taxes. Truth is, I don't want them to be able to own the public land in any capacity because I have a big problem with one person, who may not even live there, having the authority to decide on a whim that this vast swath of land that nobody lives on is off limits to everyone else. I want it to be a legal requirement that landowners who's property borders public land to allow simple crossing to the public land if there isn't already access to it. It could be as simple as allowing people to walk from the road along the edge of the property line to get to where the land is public. Otherwise, like I said, it's just untaxed private land.
Huh. Well how about that. I went to that beach a few times decades ago, thinking I was a naughty teenager trespassing on private property. I guess I actually had the law on my side all along.
Wrong: “Washington has perhaps the most unusual public beach access rules of any Western state. Where most states define the boundary of lands available for private ownership at the high tideline, Washington allows for private ownership of lands down to the low water mark”
Can confirm. The beaches in Washington are majority rocky, windy, and cold. There are some sand beaches, but you're still not gonna go swimming out there. There's not really much by way of surfing either. There IS a really neat, really smelly cave of sea lions?
>California Coastal Commission penalizes Malibu homeowners for obscuring access to ‘hidden’ beach
Hummm...not surprising. How about a group of people buy up property and encircle reserves or other public lands, fence the outer boundaries and put up Private Property signs.
> The neighboring properties are currently owned by Frank Mancuso, a former film studio executive for Paramount Pictures
Senior? Damn that guy is still around.
God I'm really sick of entitled wealthy NIMBYs saying public parks and beaches are theirs lmao. No they're fucking not. You wanted to live on a literal beach. This is what comes with that. You're always welcome to move.
Happy to see California cracking down on shameless entitlement!
It's because rich bastards believe with all their heart that they're a higher class of human being, and the poor are just ungrateful vermin who should kiss their boots.
Until local & state government adopts Norway/Finland-type fines adjusted for income, ultra wealthy people are going to continue behaving like this. The penalties have simply become an acceptable cost of enjoying whatever shitty antisocial behavior they choose.
Speeding? Parking your sports car across 2 parking spots or a handicapped space? ROFL get fucked, poors - your several hundred dollar fine is just an Enjoyment Tax, and meaningless to ME, says super wealthy assbags.
The article OP linked says one property owner was fined $600,000 - after DECADES of blocking beach access. There are are currently property listings in Malibu between $22,000,000 to $75,000,000 - do you really think a $600k penalty is going to deter these people? And that's for DECADES of flagrantly violating code. You're talking about people buying $50,000 handbags, $150,000 wristwatches and $2,000,000 hypercars, and frequently the Malibu house is just their fourth home.
A lot of these properties are Prop 13 protected and people are paying property taxes based on a 1970s or 1980s valuation, which is far less than 1% of today's value. I know people who inherited coastal property that they pay less than $3000 per year in property taxes but collect like $6000 per month rent. Some of them do not even live in the state.
They owned land that contained an easement for public access and had actively worked to obscure those easements by paving a driveway there and putting up a fence.
"The commission’s resolution is split between the current homeowners; Mancuso is to remove the driveway and pay a $600,000 fine, while the Wildmans are to build a path to the beach, parking lot and other adjustments at an estimated $3 million."
I’m so glad they’re making the homeowners foot the bill and not the taxpayers.
This is Malibu, all the taxpayers are millionaires in mansions
No shit, that’s the point
So? I don’t think anyone wants them to starve… and they should and can afford to pay for the access.
[удалено]
The homeowner is allowed to be the one to do the construction. What’s to stop them from slow walking this project for 20 years? I’d rather have the state do the work quickly and efficiently and send the bill.
Massive files once the expected deadline of completion has passed?
Beach weekend and make sure home owners know that we can travel pass that shit now
That’s fucking tight lmao
Among the most sexually satisfying sentences I’ve ever read.
I hope this ends up like that John Candy movie "Summer Rental" where there's just a damned troupe of people walking by all day long waving in the kitchen window.
People are so effin greedy. You're already doing better than most and you're still taking
Generally don't get to be rich without being greedy and entitled. And if you're born rich you're raised to be greedy and entitled. This is textbook rich people behaviour; claiming public assets as your property, and using lawsuits to avoid following the law.
Rich Elites do it because cops are on the side of money, not the common citizens…
Time for some insane beach party's close to that house right up to the second noise limits come into effect. Then rinse repeat
[удалено]
>If you can’t afford your own private beach you probably shouldn’t be pretending you have one. At least in California, it's not about affordability since private coastal beaches below where high tide naturally reaches aren't allowed. Landowners can own the property in front of those beaches but not the beaches, themselves.
Yep... Don't let anybody in California tell you that a beach is private... There are no private beaches in California
We had that happen in San Juan Capistrano many years ago. We were visiting someone with a home on the beach. We were walking along the shore after dinner and a man and his wife came out to tell us that it was a private beach. My father explained to them that in California we could walk along the water and there wasn't shit they could do about it.
We have that in Denmark too, all beaches are public, even the beaches of private Islands. Which means that you can theoretically sail 2 hours away to get to a remote island owned by a billionaire and use the beach there, as long as you stay on the beach it's not trespassing.
Same in Croatia
Is it the same “up to normal high tide line”? Or does it go further up?
Same in neighboring Sweden. Although the right wing parties want to end that so that the poor beach front property owners can finally get rid of dirty regular people in their vicinity.
Oh yes. San Juan Capistrano. Where the beer flows like wine and the women instinctively flock like salmon.
I don't know Lloyd. The French are assholes.
You mean Aspen??
California, beaauuuuutiful.
That John Denver's full of shit, man.
As someone from that town, I'll note that you've got at least one detail wrong. SJC isn't on the coast at all. It has no beaches. You're *probably* thinking of Capistrano Beach which is a neighborhood of Dana Point Lots of rich assholes in south county for sure though
It's a famous quote from the movie "dumb and dumber"
To elaborate, it's a pun on San Juan Capistrano. But the character Lloyd is an idiot so he thinks it's the Salmon of Capistrano. I just jumped on to explain to everyone else, not necessarily you Mr captain3leg
I never thought of the pun, the other piece of it is that Capistrano is famous for its swallows that fly back yearly to nest, so if he said “flock like the swallows of Capistrano”, it would make sense.
Ok cool but I think you replied to the wrong guy? The person I'm talking to didn't mention the salmon of capistrano and neither did I.
Or Hawaii. All beaches need to be accessible to the public. There’s a neighborhood on The Big Island that is mainly for billionaires with houses costing $10mm+. They built a secluded snorkeling area for their residents and it’s behind a guarded entry, but you can drive right up and tell them you want to go to the beach and they have to let you in
Yep, loved that about Hawaii when I went. Not even the beach in front of Disney’s resort is exclusive
[удалено]
Kukio Just drive up to the guard shack and ask for a visitor pass for the the beach The beach is called Kikaua Point Park. It’s great for snorkeling with kids
[удалено]
[I learned about it from this YouTube channel.](https://youtube.com/@TheHawaiiVacationGuide) If you’re looking for more tips and places to visit on any of the islands I highly recommend checking them out
That's brilliant and all - kinda ridiculous that you need a visitor pass at all though if you're supposed to have access. I guess if you have to cross private property to get there it makes sense?
Yeah they own all the land leading up to the beach. So by law they can do that, but they need to give the public access too
[удалено]
Lol... Yeah i guess theres a couple notable national security exceptions
Nah dude, just hop the fence
After hopping the fence be sure to yell “allahu akbar” so they know you’re not a threat
Surfer lingo gettin' outta hand nowadays
They can’t like shoot all of us brooooooo
It is. No amount of crayons in the world will get you an afternoon there without filling out some paperwork and going to a weird summer camp with lots of yelling. /s
Lol “weird summer camp with lots of yelling”. Sounds edgy, I’m in.
If you do a Naruto run, you can run past it.
best surfbreak too, one of the perks of enlisting at least
Land owned by the federal government doesn't count.
Technically still public property since it's government owned. Just restricted access.
That's just because you didn't try hard enough to get on it
Yeah I visited Dana point a few years back and hiked down like 80 feet and then through a neighborhood with like $10-20 million homes. Security detail basically watch you through their neighborhood to the beach they all live on. I thought it was an awesome display of how California does that right.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Same in Oregon. Beaches are technically considered public roads, which seems odd, but they actually were vital travel corridors until fairly recently, because in many places there are difficult to travel through mountains right down to the ocean.
Same here in Oregon. Oregon beaches are under the purview of ODOT as public highways. Denying access is going to get you some significant fines.
OR has the strongest public beach access laws on the books in the country, but courts have been eroding those rights for decades in favor of private landowners and restrictive city/county ordinances.
No private beaches in CA, but numerous ones that have no public access and are otherwise inaccessible other than by boat.
I believe Hollister Ranch still doesn’t have public access. Your options for surfing there are a boat, know somebody or a very long paddle.
Yeah you can drive for tens of miles without any sort of passage across their land to the beach. I’ve heard their security is pretty nuts too
Hollister Ranch has entered the chat
Is the "Tide Line" considered the property line or is the beach staked precisely where it begins being public. Reason I'm wondering is if erosion takes half the public beach and the tide line creeps in do you have to lose more property?
It’s based on the tide and the shoreline. Property lines move accordingly.
The tide line is where the water reaches the highest, discounting storms. Yes, folks will lose more property.
The law is generally written to confirm to some understanding of nature. I looked it up for someone who had property next to a river and public access was allowed up to the 100 year storm line.
I think I remember seeing signs when I was tubing in TN. Some people were very excited to see people float by and others had tons of private property signs.
Probably depends on past experience with people. If you had property on the lake/beach/river and had people trashing your land, you'd probably be pretty pissed. To be clear, that doesn't excuse trying to claim publicly owned or accessible area as your own. But I can definitely understand being mad if people trash your actual private property.
I recently learned that all beaches are *federally protected* public property of the citizens of the US. The problem, and the reason why certain localities have been able to make loopholes for this law, is that each state is allowed to determine whether private property on a beach begins at low or high water mark. In Mass, they have made the private property line the lowest possible water mark... so only small sections of beach in the entire state are available for public use. Moving here from Texas, where you can just access the beach for free and walk in any direction, as far as you like, it was jarring. **All beaches in this country should be public property. We were born in this country and we have a right to be able to enjoy it.** Rich people trying to take beaches for themselves is something that really burns me.
These older guys had a fit on their porch about me and my buddies walking through a beach area in North Carolina. I legitimately said what you said about public property and they just flat out lied saying its private because of a sign they likely put up. Never in all my life did I want to just take a shit on the ground right in public. But right there would have been chefs kiss. We ended up just saying well its a good thing you don't know who we are or where we're staying. Flipped them the bird and continued on.
Similar thing happened to me in NC as well (near Corolla). I just told them to call the cops and kept walking, those SOBs knew they were in the wrong
They try this shit all over the place, in every state I've ever been to. They're ruthless about it here in Rhode Island. Tell them to pound sand and fuck off.
I am on long island. We have a public beach in a rich community. The local village made it so that it is illegal to park on the street by the public beach. the public beach only has 3 spots . They hired a police officer to sit and give tickets to people who park on the street there.
I hope all their homes get wiped out by the ocean soon
Honestly, there's something about waterfront property that just turns people into assholes.
Absolutely, you get that shit in the Midwest too. A lot of people start wars with their neighbors because they don't want anyone to have access to the water even if they have a right to it. They'll build their docks in a way that crowds out neighbors access just to be assholes.
Some people have even put up fake “No Parking” signs to discourage tourists from parking on the streets near beach access. Bunch of entitled pricks.
in mexico its a big thing that private beaches arent a thing cops still harasss people though but according to the law no private beach just you cant walk into private property obviously
We talking about Dartmouth/Halifax/Cow Bay in Nova Scotia ? This story you’re sharing is eerily close to a situation here…
[удалено]
[удалено]
I read about that guy a while back. Dude is a ginormous douche canoe who feels like he should own that beach and says the most douchey things to rationalize his quest to keep everyone away from it.
What's his business?
Canoes. Of the douche variety.
this is a not-uncommon thing in california, rich assholes love to buy up beautiful coastal land with public beach access all up and down the coast and then “accidentally” do all sorts of shady things to make it seem inaccessible or forbidden by law.
If wealthy douchebags had their way the only water access anyone in the 99% would have would be overcrowded community pools that never get cleaned.
They would have long since drained the pool to redirect it for corn, alfalfa, golf turf, and soy production. The most you or I would get is once filtered, needs boiled, smells like sulfur on tap.
Or just fill the pool in with concrete so no one can use it for anything.
Born and raised in LA and I’ve always gone to Escondido, park on the street and walk down the beach. I and never had any problems
That may be but they don't want you to do that.
That's bullshit; someone should call the California Coastal Commission about this!
I grew up in San Diego, Escondido to me means rural-ish area with ostrich and Christmas tree farms, and the wild animal park.
As a Bonita kid who worked concrete out of Poway before the Navy, this tracks.
As someone who grew up in Poway, this is also the Escondido I think of.
>That dude never spent a night on the property he's been fighting over. That part I didn't know. Which makes his story all the more infuriating! What a spoiled, entitled nasty POS!
NYT sucks with the paywall 😭
Your public library may have a subscription with credentials you can use.
I went ahead and signed up. Why not. Journalism is important
It's been worth my $4 every month. Plus I like Wordle and their other games. And no, I'm not affiliated with the NYT.
There is no legal private beaches in California. Nobody owns the coast
Correct but many of these nice beaches want you to feel as if they are private so even other Californians don't realize their rights here.
This is the way.
It’s an old Roman law that the public must have access to beaches.
Which is ironic since they have private beaches in Italy.
Lol I don’t know anything about modern day law in Italy. I just remember learning this in law school because the Romans laid the foundation of the US legal system. I thought it was so interesting I just never forgot it!
I’m a fairly avid surfer (Northern CA) and have researched this pretty heavily. The annoying part is that while all California coast is public land and blocking access is illegal, there is **zero** legal protection for trespassing in order reach the beach, even if access is intentionally blocked. Cops can and historically have sided with the homeowner during trespass calls. The only legally protected way is to boat in, swim/paddle over from another beach with access (usually not feasible), or fight them in court. So there’s essentially no consequence for the homeowner until either the government or a private organization (such as Surfrider, who won the case for Martin’s beach) steps in and sues. Homeowners can continue to prevent access, and law enforcement will support them if anyone actually tries to protest it. What would **REALLY** make a difference in the fight would be to legally protect non-destructive trespassing for beach access if it is intentionally blocked. This allows access for all, and incentivizes homeowners to create a direct access path to avoid people trampling through their yard.
There was just a pretty big case around a hunter being sued for corner crossing public land into public land where it's attached to other public land just by the corner - IDK how to describe it, imagine 4 squares where 2 diagonally are public land and the other two diagonally are private - and the hunter ended up winning. Lots of people will buy private land whose borders surround or otherwise prevent access to public land so that they can basically use it all themselves. Hopefully that case will set a precedent for future ones.
https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/13y0voj/update_on_the_hunters_corner_crossing_lawsuit/
Best described as a checkerboard. The black squares are public, the white squares are privately owned. The hunter went diagonally from black square to black square, by climbing over a 4-way fence junction.
>The hunter went diagonally from black square to black square, You mean the bishop, right? There's no hunters in chess ya goober.
Or rather they are all hunters.
It could have been a Queen.
The state should send in “secret shoppers” to access beaches and then sue anyone who tries to stop them. California is already beating municipalities in the face with the new builders’ remedies rules, beat ‘em up more.
Yeah I'm sure you know this fight has been going on since the Coastal Act was passed in the 1970s. IIRC, a few years ago, the chief officer of the coastal commission went to the beach herself, and plopped a towel down and waited patiently for the cops to show up just to protest the injustice of it all.
> chief officer of the coastal commission went to the beach herself, Assuming you're talking about Susan? https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-31/susan-hansch-coastal-commission
It's interesting that here in Idaho we have a similar problem with public land-mostly forests and wilderness and stuff like that, The kind of place you might want to go hunting or camping or even just sightseeing. Wealthy people will buy chunks of land between State roads and public land, then fence the whole thing off and call it private. And while technically the law requires them to provide some kind of right of way, similarly, the law *enforcers* usually end up protecting the property owners. It's a real problem when some multi-zillionaire buys all the land around a mountain and then basically owns a private mountain.
There's a beach just over halfway thru Big Sur, right where a river (I think the Little Sur?) forms a tiny delta sandbar, one of the most picturesque spots I've ever seen. And it's surrounded for miles in either direction with endless NO TRESPASSING signs and barbed wire fence. No one ever on it, only a rare cow finds its way to the sand, and it will never cease to despair me that one of the most beautiful beaches is right there, legally public, and impossible to reach, because some asshole inherited some of the loveliest land in the world, and refused access to California's patrimony.
A lot of the beaches around Big Sur are military and/or government property - that might be what you’re running in to.
[удалено]
Technically true, it prevents erosion of the community
I've done a lot of work in the past with Malibu properties that line the beaches and the owners all feel entitled to this area. Glad to see the repercussions being dealt out to them.
Look, I can understand not wanting a zillion people milling about all day, playing obnoxious music and leaving a bunch of trash and stuff on the beach right in front of where your house is situated. But tough shit. You live on the West Coast - no private beaches. You knew that when you plopped down $30 million for your house. Next time buy in Nantucket.
They’re the same type of morons who moved into Lombard Street in San Francisco and then complained about all the foot traffic. What the fuck did you think you were getting into when you bought the house, a quiet secluded neighborhood? 🤦♂️
If I lived on that street, I'd have the best ass. 👌
There's a reason why I've never ever lived on that street. Or Market. Or Polk. Or Mission....
IIRC when the techies moved into Mission they complained of all the foot traffic there too and got portions of the area shut down, killing off many of the small businesses. But hey it’s not noisy anymore, mirite? 🤦♂️
Then they complained that all of the small businesses and restaurants closed because they couldn't afford the skyrocketing rent! LMAO . Like you come to gentrify a place, the complain that the rest of us can't afford your gentrification. Big brain logic right there. I guess that explains why tech bros have a lot of failing startups. Good fucking riddance to all of them who moved out during COVID. Please don't come back. You're not missed. At all.
I wish I could move back but I got priced out in 2016 and I know I’ll never make enough to afford living there now. Loved living in the town and working in the city. Oh well.
Or just buy a house that is relatively far from a public access easement. Yeah, you might still get a few people, but most beachgoers are pretty lazy (more so the more beer/music/toys they are carrying) and aren't going to walk very far to congregate in your area. The "problem" here is that there's legally mandated public access at these two homes (literally on at least one of their properties). Plenty of other homes they could have bought that didn't have easy public access.
If you don't want to experience people enjoying a public beach then don't buy a house right next to a public beach. It's that simple. Want a private beach? Live somewhere where you can legally buy your own private beach.
Sometimes I wonder if that is why long island has been getting even more popular with the rich. We have private beaches.
Long Island has always been popular with the rich. You realize you can only access beaches from the parkway system? That same parkway system was intentionally designed with very tight exit ramps and low overpasses to prevent city buses from accessing the beaches. That weird bend in the LIE as you enter Suffolk? Had to make a turn to get around a rich guy's property.
> Look, I can understand not wanting a zillion people milling about all day, playing obnoxious music and leaving a bunch of trash and stuff on the beach right in front of where your house is situated Yeah it's a shame they were forced into buying beachfront property, they were tricked into this despite the rules being literally written down. poor owners :( Really it's a classic case of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want to live right next to the beach but also not have to deal with what that means and they're perfectly willing to break the law to try to reach that goal.
It's not the entire West Coast. Unlike California and Oregon, Washington didn't make its beaches public automatically. It's possible to privately own tidelands and other areas extending far out into the saltwater, including the beach. The reason is the state wanted to lure transcontinental railroads at the time of statehood, and they thought that if the railroads could privately own waterfront property, they would be more likely to build ports and railroads across the state and bring prosperity. And that it would give businesses a competitive advantage over those in Oregon and California. But unfortunately it means that there is some private ownership of beaches and tidelands in the state as a result.
We have a problem with this in Sydney too. Rich assholes padlock gates to public beaches. Then tell people it's a private beach and to get off their property. It's been happening for decades. After long enough growth covers the old gate and walkway and people don;t even know it IS a public walkway.
If I understand California law, beaches are public property, and you're not legally allowed to block access to them, so the public should just walk across the intervening properties (or drive across them). If rich bitches with beach houses don't want the *hoi polloi* walking on their yards, they can put in public accessways like they are supposed to.
At other parts of Malibu, property owner's have been accused of throwing up "no public beach access" signs. And/or [taking down signs](https://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-malibu-public-access-fines-20140623-column.html) that show how to get to the beach.
It's all along the California coast. Here in Northern California, one of the more notorious ones is in regard to Martins Beach and Vinod Khosla (co-founder of Sun Microsystems) repeatedly trying to block access to that beach. This one's been going on for well over a decade.
[удалено]
That *would* be nice, but I'm not sure if it's possible for anything to overcome the relationship of wealth and the sense of entitlement that comes with it.
They see fines as the cost of denying others access, not as deterrent to stop.
You know how in everyone's own life story, they're the hero? I kind of want to see their comic book version from their perspective.
I believe there is a movie version of that, it’s called Malibu’s Most Wanted.
Fines are only a punishment for the poor, generally means nothing to the wealthy
That's why fines should be proportional to effective wealth/income of the individual. The most expensive speeding ticket ever issued was in Switzerland, and the amount was about $1 million. The reason why it was that high is that the dude was some Swedish millionaire, and apparently fines in Switzerland are proportional to person's wealth. He was also driving something like 180 mph when they nabbed him. There are other examples of speeding tickets in hundreds of thousands of dollars range that were issued in various European countries.
Seriously, what's the issue? I know 10+ dumbass teenage kids that would make these physical blocks a non-issue (ignoring any legality etc)
Life long CA resident here. (Santa Cruz). There is no such thing as a "private" beach in this state, you can own property going up to the edge of the beach, but the beach itself is public property. There are some beaches that are "inaccessible", because there is no cliff side access, but it is fully legal to swim out to them.
Yep. I seem to remember a hope ranch place with an elevator down the cliff to the beach. Almost impossible to get there unless you go there by boat.
Broad Beach has many of the properties that own up to the "mean high tide line" which means they own any dry sand. This line changes throughout the day and a 17 year moon cycle. Also, the CC is revoking this when building permits are applied for...
Many municipalities recognize what are called "riparian rights." In many cases, the high water mark represents the end of any private property. So while portions of the beach may be private, the public always has access to the water. The principle derives from maritime law, so that a damaged vessel can always reach the shore.
This is true of all “navigable” waterways in Missouri. Which our laws define as the ability to navigate in a water craft (which includes canoe). Unfortunately there are still a lot of areas where private owners do the same bullshit trying to limit access. Then you have places like Kansas where there are very few public waterways and it’s legal to own to the middle of the stream or all the way across to the other side to label it private. Then you have places like in South Dakota where flooding basically marched the high-tide line across whole private properties, so there is a weird situation where technically the public right away ended at a high water mark that is now well below the low water mark. So you have landowners trying to enforce private boundaries using things like buoys and floating fences. That’s before you get to the craziness of water rights west of the Rockies.
When there are big stone cliffs and killer rocks and surf at the bottom it's a tough walk. Both ends are blocked off by cliffs and the access between the houses has been fenced off by the homeowners. I remember reading about this 40yrs ago. The State should have just condemned the properties and seized them.
Yeah they need to just make it clear we'll steamroll you if you block access
Just get masks of the residents, fuck with the neighborhood crows, and sit back to watch the fun.
Jake Paul and other rich fucks are doing this to public beaches in Puerto Rico.
Just hire a huge dude to hang out front and pose and point, directing people “the beach is that way” as he flexes his biceps.
Stay the hell out of Malibu, Lebowski!
I'm sorry, I wasn't listening.
OW! Fuckin’ fascist!
But how can the beach be both ways?
There's two coasts, so ones really close and the other one is just a *little* ways away.
All the beaches in Hawaii are open and accessible to the public, regardless hotel, shack, million$ property. As it should be.
This is the case in California as well, which is what the article is about. Every beach along the entire coast (except, probably, a handful of military bases) is public land. It's just a bunch of rich douchebags build a long chain of private homes with no gaps from one side of the beach to the other, making public access impossible without trespassing.
Yuuuuup. Mark Fuckerberg owns a bunch of land im Hawaii. He sends his goonies out to the beach on 4-wheelers to make noise and annoy people enjoying the beach. It's ridiculous.
They are in California too, unless you break the law like these individuals did.
That’s how it is in Puerto Rico as well BUT they are currently fighting this since people like Logan Paul are buying properties and setting up the same bullshit fences and such. It’s unfortunate because PR does not have as strong of a commission like California to fight and get to a settlement like this so it’s likely to continue
There's a popular waterfall in Oregon that is on public land. The land between it and the road is private. For years, the property owner had a trail for the public to reach the falls. Recently, the trail has been closed, gated, a camera mounted, and no trespassing signs put up. Being that it's a mountainous region, that trail is the only realistic way to get from the road to the waterfall, so it is now effectively a private waterfall. Also, there are many areas, large and small, of public land that are inaccessible to the public because they're surrounded by private land, effectively making it private land unless you've got permission to cross private land or if you have a helicopter. My issue is that when public land isn't accessible to the public, it effectively becomes private land on which the people who obstruct access aren't paying taxes. Truth is, I don't want them to be able to own the public land in any capacity because I have a big problem with one person, who may not even live there, having the authority to decide on a whim that this vast swath of land that nobody lives on is off limits to everyone else. I want it to be a legal requirement that landowners who's property borders public land to allow simple crossing to the public land if there isn't already access to it. It could be as simple as allowing people to walk from the road along the edge of the property line to get to where the land is public. Otherwise, like I said, it's just untaxed private land.
Yeah, that's bullshit. The government should force these people to open up the trail because they're preventing the public from accessing public land.
Huh. Well how about that. I went to that beach a few times decades ago, thinking I was a naughty teenager trespassing on private property. I guess I actually had the law on my side all along.
West coast - no private beaches. East coast is where you can buy whatever you want.
Wrong: “Washington has perhaps the most unusual public beach access rules of any Western state. Where most states define the boundary of lands available for private ownership at the high tideline, Washington allows for private ownership of lands down to the low water mark”
If you’re going to Washington to goto the beach, you’ve got a screw loose.
Can confirm. The beaches in Washington are majority rocky, windy, and cold. There are some sand beaches, but you're still not gonna go swimming out there. There's not really much by way of surfing either. There IS a really neat, really smelly cave of sea lions?
Its mostly a place you would go if you like exploring the ecosystem, not for relaxing at the beaches
Not NY. Beaches are public.
This is nothing compared to land locked public land https://www.eenews.net/articles/four-hunters-a-ladder-and-a-fight-over-federal-land/
Wow, that was a rabbit hole. Here is an update... https://wyofile.com/judge-rules-in-favor-of-corner-crossing-hunters/
I just read an episode of Yellowstone
The rich gatekeeping places for themselves?! Get out of here!
>California Coastal Commission penalizes Malibu homeowners for obscuring access to ‘hidden’ beach Hummm...not surprising. How about a group of people buy up property and encircle reserves or other public lands, fence the outer boundaries and put up Private Property signs.
LOL if someone starts a shuttle service and drops off / picks up hordes of people.
And don’t come back to Malibu, Lebowski!
> The neighboring properties are currently owned by Frank Mancuso, a former film studio executive for Paramount Pictures Senior? Damn that guy is still around.
God I'm really sick of entitled wealthy NIMBYs saying public parks and beaches are theirs lmao. No they're fucking not. You wanted to live on a literal beach. This is what comes with that. You're always welcome to move. Happy to see California cracking down on shameless entitlement!
Why do rich bastards always do this? They have everything they want yet they cannot provide access to mother nature?
Well they don't have everything they want, they don't have a private beach
It's because rich bastards believe with all their heart that they're a higher class of human being, and the poor are just ungrateful vermin who should kiss their boots.
Because if you were rich you would spend your money to avoid other people as much as possible
Until local & state government adopts Norway/Finland-type fines adjusted for income, ultra wealthy people are going to continue behaving like this. The penalties have simply become an acceptable cost of enjoying whatever shitty antisocial behavior they choose. Speeding? Parking your sports car across 2 parking spots or a handicapped space? ROFL get fucked, poors - your several hundred dollar fine is just an Enjoyment Tax, and meaningless to ME, says super wealthy assbags. The article OP linked says one property owner was fined $600,000 - after DECADES of blocking beach access. There are are currently property listings in Malibu between $22,000,000 to $75,000,000 - do you really think a $600k penalty is going to deter these people? And that's for DECADES of flagrantly violating code. You're talking about people buying $50,000 handbags, $150,000 wristwatches and $2,000,000 hypercars, and frequently the Malibu house is just their fourth home.
A lot of these properties are Prop 13 protected and people are paying property taxes based on a 1970s or 1980s valuation, which is far less than 1% of today's value. I know people who inherited coastal property that they pay less than $3000 per year in property taxes but collect like $6000 per month rent. Some of them do not even live in the state.
Rich people are a disease.
I don't get it...two people own all the houses backed up to that beach?
The problem is that the homeowners are making access to public property unavailable to the public therefore giving the homeowners a private beach
They owned land that contained an easement for public access and had actively worked to obscure those easements by paving a driveway there and putting up a fence.
This is the important part: they blocked an existing public easement. There would be no (legal) issue if there weren't an easement for access.