The Hollywood elite like to claim that they champion the little guy, but in reality they want the little guy as far away from them as possible.
I suspect they don't buy it because that would prove it. Some of these celebs even dislike or hate having fans. They don't like being recognized. Makes one wonder what they thought being a celebrity would be all about, when they strove to be one.
This guy's never been to San Francisco.
-"I've seen people defecate on the beaches. They wouldn't tolerate it in the city."-
Sure they do. Liberal cities everywhere give free reign to public bums.
It also means individuals have the right to own property down to the mean high-tide line. Broadbeach creates problems because it is a continuation of LA County's Zuma Beach. At the first private property line, the entire public beach is narrowed down to the wet sand in the mean high tide zone.
Where Broadbeach gets confusing is that certain homeowners have allowed public easements up past the wet sand onto their private property ie dry sand. That's what creates the checker board look.
However, regardless of one's wealth or political affiliation, the bottom line is that this is a private property issue.
The celebrities aren't eager to talk about the beach battle. But many Malibu residents support their Broad Beach neighbors and complain that the public doesn't respect the beach.
"They treat this like a huge garbage dump," said Ron Lawrence, a retired doctor out for a morning walk along Broad Beach. "I've seen people defecate on the beaches. They wouldn't tolerate it in the city."
---
Public housing, public forests, public beach, public anything - is generally run down, unkempt, littered, and treated like it isn't owned by anyone - cuz it isn't.
Unfortunately, there's a desire for privacy on the part of celebrities (and who can blame them?) that generally outweighs the public's curiosity about how they live, where they live, who they live with, how many guns they own, etc.
That's why, as I understand it, movie stars began migrating to Maibu (then called "the colony") in the 1920s: so they could escape from their public, their agents, their inhibitions.
I say, let 'em have it. There's plenty of public beaches all up and down the coast, with restroom facilities, showers, snack bars, parking and fire rings. Surely there is no shortage of sand, surf, views, fishing spots if people are looking for same.
The problem is, some people are looking for adventure in someone else's back yard. And knowing whose yard it is makes the adventure all the more enticing to them. It's the same impulse that causes weirdos to stalk David Letterman.
Whatever your opinion of Hollyweird figures, their private property needs to be respected. The fact these people are a bunch of hypocrits is well known. It doesn't mean the rest of us need to be.
I know that if I had spent millions of dollars on some prime beachfront property, I sure as hell wouldn't want a pack of beach bums coming along, taking a dump in the sand, strewing trash everywhere, and turning it into a garbage dump / cat box.
If you can't afford Malibu, go someplace else if you must.
http://www.phototour.minneapolis.mn.us/277
It's a massively popular park system, and many people think that the city fathers of Minneapolis were quite farsighted to reserve the land before it could be developed.
Nothing of the sort is true - the lake shore was fully developed before the parks were built. Because built they were. The lakes were dredged and the parks built on new land deposited around the lakes, inside the prior high-water line.
And folks who had owned lakefront property woke up to find themselves owning property that fronted on the new lake-circling boulevard.
I'd love to see something similar happen to these fine folks in Malibu.
I'm a strong supporter of property rights, but their property rights end at the high-water mark.