Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Is California Planning to Steal the Malibu Coastline from Residents?
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 18:39:21 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <101a9kp$hto$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1017nru$3d9fg$1@dont-email.me> <0tef3kpkhto12a344rdcsgeu4gg80trniv@4ax.com> <1018g4v$3lloq$1@dont-email.me> <1018kkr$3m5km$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 20:39:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="687825060391b9c9b70c033193627eaa";
	logging-data="18360"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kt8NLkjk5SDQB3JL2EocY"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NuS+/OGb5KlPgqFEzo/H36ugpeM=

On May 28, 2025 at 8:34:51 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:

> On 2025-05-28 10:18 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>  On May 28, 2025 at 6:43:17 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>  wrote:
>>  
>>>  On Thu, 29 May 2025 00:12:25 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>>  On May 28, 2025 at 3:41:33 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>    BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>    May 28, 2025 at 12:56:17 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>>>    BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>    
>>>>>>>>    For the last six months, the rebuilding from the fires in the
>>>>>>>>    Palisades has proceeded-- unreasonably slowly, to be sure, but
>>>>>>>>    proceeded nevertheless. The same is true in Altadena, the site of
>>>>>>>>    the second great fire last January. But the residents of Malibu have
>>>>>>>>    been frozen in time by the state. Nothing is happening. No debris
>>>>>>>>    clean-up, no environmental studies, permit applications are held in
>>>>>>>>    limbo, etc. And now the residents are hearing rumors of the reason for
>>>>>>>>    this: the state of California doesn't like people living on the beach.
>>>>>>>>    State bureaucrats have always taken a dim view of homes built right on
>>>>>>>>    the shoreline but haven't been able to do anything about it because
>>>>>>>>    those homes were built in an era when people were mostly free to do
>>>>>>>>    as they liked and the massive regulatory state didn't exist. . . .
>>>>>    
>>>>>>>    I don't think you characterized this correctly. It's my understanding
>>>>>>>    that there never were exclusive riparian rights and that the public
>>>>>>>    always had access to the beaches but the state never enforced it to
>>>>>>>    appeased wealthy people who illegally grabbed the beaches for
>>>>>>>    themselves.
>>>>>    
>>>>>>>    The public was excluded but it was illegal to do so, but that's not like
>>>>>>>    the Great Lakes in which the law is completely muddled, that the public
>>>>>>>    can be legally excluded, and when lots were sold off in Chicago, lots on
>>>>>>>    partly or entirely submerged lands were sold off because no one bothered
>>>>>>>    to map the shoreline first.
>>>>>    
>>>>>>>    In my opinion, homes might be built a reasonable distance back from the
>>>>>>>    shoreline but beach access must never be exclusive.
>>>>>    
>>>>>>>    Of course, you are going to tell me that the distance will be
>>>>>>>    unreasonable, and I'm sure you're correct.
>>>>>    
>>>>>>    The law in California is that the mean high tide line down to the water is
>>>>>>    public property and cannot be owned by anyone from the Mexico border up to
>>>>>>    Oregon. (Technically, there's an exception for the federal government in
>>>>>>    places like the SEAL training base in Coronado, the Army depot at Point
>>>>>>  Dume,
>>>>>>    the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton, etc. The federal government does
>>>>>>  own
>>>>>>    those beaches and can exclude the public from them, especially during live
>>>>>>    military exercises.) . . .
>>>>>    
>>>>>    Thanks for all tnat. We're under that weird Supreme Court ruling that
>>>>>    tried to interpret whether a common law rule establishing riparian
>>>>>    rights which wasn't based on parliamentary law but royal decree. The
>>>>>    decree established riparian rights to the center of water, which might
>>>>>    have made sense if a small creek divided ajacent lots, but sure as hell
>>>>>    does not make sense for the Great Lakes or even a navigable river.
>>>>>    
>>>>>    Did common law even apply? Did the federal government's rights get
>>>>>    inherited by Illinois? I've tried to follow but I get bogged down.
>>>>>    
>>>>>    But we lack access rights except from a public beach and these do get
>>>>>    blocked.
>>>>>    
>>>>>    So, exactly how far back from the high water mark is California trying
>>>>>    to preclude rebuilding? It may not be a bad idea but it had damn well
>>>>>    better compensate land owners.
>>>> 
>>>>  They (theoretically, just rumors, remember) want to take the whole thing
>>>> from
>>>>  the west/south side of Pacific Coast Highway to the water.
>>>> 
>>>>  E.g., in the below photo, everything south of the roadway would be condemned
>>>>  and appropriated by the state.
>>>> 
>>>>  https://ibb.co/9Stqkg1
>>> 
>>>  That is a lot of land
>>>  A lot of very expensive land.
>>  
>>  Yeah, that's the one thing that makes me think it's just a pipe dream for
>>  them. Yes, they'd love to do it, but financially it's a non-starter given
>> the
>>  state's current dire economic situation.
>>  
> All they have to do is think of a reason to seize the land that exempts 
> them from paying market value for the property.

Well, thankfully we have a 5th Amendment that short-circuits all the normal
tricks they would play to do that.

Our Takings Clause and the restrictions and requirements for the government
are pretty well settled not a lot of wriggle room for the reptiles in
Sacramento to get around it. Plus, the California Constitution is even *more*
restrictive on government than the 5th Amendment. It was written at a time
long before Sacramento had turned into a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
> 
> If Gov. Nuisance can establish some right of the local Indians to the 
> land between the PCH and the ocean, maybe he can get away with chasing 
> out the folks in Malibu WITHOUT compensation because they "stole" the 
> land from the Indians in the first place.

That would still be a government seizure of private property and be subject to
the requirements of the 5th Amendment. Meaning the state would have to pay for
it even if they want to just give it back to the Indians. And even if they
did, it's not like the Indians could bar the public from being on the land. As
noted above, ownership of the state's beaches is legally prohibited, even by
Indian tribes.