Not in their back yard? (CA asks couple to get rid of installations on their slice of beach.)

CORONA DEL MAR – George and Sharlee McNamee have enjoyed the cool ocean breeze, soothing waves and swaying palm trees from their sandy, oceanfront back yard for 27 years. A sign on their shed reads "Just another day in paradise."

The California Coastal Commission wants the McNamees to remove the barbecue, restroom, shower, canopy, cabinets and concrete picnic tables from the couple's back yard, which is immediately behind Corona del Mar State Beach. Their property line extends into the sand near Inspiration Point.

The headline is misleading. The government is not asking them to remove those things from their property, it is telling them to do it, and if they refuse to comply long enough, agents with guns will come and make them do it.

But it sounds as if the laws or regulations being enforced on them were in effect when they bought the property, so the only quarrel they could have is with the commissions interpretation of the law, or perhaps its constitutionality.

Most of us here would probably agree the constitutionality of laws affecting private land use would be questionable where they prohibit uses that harm absolutely nobody in any way, but they will be in a position where they have to prove that at their own expense. The government will, in turn, defend it's position at taxpayer expense, and regardless of cost. California's appellate level and higher courts are no likely to rule in favor of private property rights, nor will the 9th US Circuit. USSC might, but the McNamees would be broke long before that.

Some sort of public outcry in numbers is the only thing that's likely to bend the Commission in their direction, but the public will view them as rich folks with the two million dollar beach home (regardless of what they paid in 1977), and they won't back them up, because the government has not yet come after their property rights (so they think). So it's too bad for them.

We have similar beach laws in Oregon, the intent is to ensure that the beaches themselves, a public recreational resource, are accessible to everyone. They were put into place because there were those enclaves of fenced beach dwellings blocking off sections of beach in the central and north coast, where there are some quite picturesque short sections of beach bordered on the ends by impassible rocky outcroppings, and absolutely nobody but the homeowners could get there. The access laws essentially require all property owners to give right of way to the general public to access the beach. It's a compromise, the homeowners sacrifice a bit of privacy and are at risk from burglary, vandalism, and other types of predation under those conditions, but the vast majority of people are doing just fine with it.

In time, when I can afford to live in a place with no full time economy, I'd grab a little cape cod on the beach in a minute (with proper research into title, boundaries, regulations, etc.), and I'd give 'em their eight foot walkway without complaint. But I don't think Oregon's laws come anywhere close to restricting one's yard furnishings. As for California, I didn't lose anything there anyway, and I have no intention of ever taking up domicile within it's borders.

Dave in Eugene

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.