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: Fri, 30 May 2025 02:28:20 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <101b543$629d$3@dont-email.me>
References: <1017nru$3d9fg$1@dont-email.me> <1018kkr$3m5km$3@dont-email.me> <101a9kp$hto$1@dont-email.me> <101auk0$3rn78$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 04:28:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c37fdb93cfe7c14ac4ec8ab3ceb52fe3";
	logging-data="198957"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/6+xiAX90kGtSjpuNWgbqt"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ms72F4Wl7tzxCiiS2/7mtzTiexE=

On May 29, 2025 at 5:37:20 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:

> On 2025-05-29 2:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>  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.
>>  
> I don't know the whole history of the Indian claim on Ipperwash but my 
> perception of it is that the Indians took something that may or may not 
> have been legitimately theirs (at least at one point), essentially at 
> gun point, and the government didn't take it back. I'm not aware of any 
> payments of money going either way so it appears that outright seizing 
> that land was a successful strategy for the Indians - and a distinct 
> setback for the rule of law, which seems to have been abandoned in this 
> case.
> 
> made me think something along the same lines but this time perpetrated 
> by the government *might* have a chance of clearing people out of 
> Malibu. It looks like I'm wrong though. Given the strength of your 
> Constitution, it looks like any seizure of land on the ocean side of the 
> PCH *has* to be compensated, presumably at market rates. The cost of 
> that would appear to be prohibitive given the dire state of California's 
> finances.
> 
> Here's hoping developments in the last few years make Californians give 
> their heads a mighty shake before they go to the polls next year and 
> choose some sensible leaders for the first time in too many years.

A *lot* people are looking at what Rick Caruso is doing in the Palisades--
everything from setting up legal collectives to give people affordable access
to lawyers who know how to push permits through the bureaucracy to partnering
with Silicon Valley to leverage AI to turbo-charge the permit approval process
and get them evaluated and approved in 1/10th the normal time-- while Karen
Bass does nothing but spout platitudes and slogans ("L.A. Forward!") and
they're wishing they'd voted for him instead of Bass when they had the chance.
They coming to realize that basing their vote on skin color and genitals isn't
actually a smart thing to do.

Caruso is getting shit done while Bass dithers and passes the buck.