[Lunatic Fringe]

Subscription only?

You tease.

[Prime Choice]

Leave it to the California Communist Coastal Commission to screw up an otherwise idyllic situation.

If memory serves, the CCC was also the party responsible for nixing an anti-illegal-immigrant fence near the Mexican border that was near the coastline.

And they wonder why we think they have an agenda?

[EggsAckley]

I'd sure like to read it but refuse to sign up. Oh, well.

[seenenuf]

The Ca Coastal Commission has got to be reformed quick.
I watch for our new Gov to do some housecleaning with
future appointments. The tree huggers have won all
battles with regard to beach issues while property owners
are strong armed by the bullys. I've seen this particular
property and know it galls the weenies that they can't
just take the property without the bother of a Commission,
let alone a judge.
The construction of my house was delayed an additional year
because of the C. Commission being influenced by neighbor loosing some view. One year's delay was mighty expensive!

[antaresequity]

Why is the Coastal Commission meeting in Marin County on this, 350+ miles away?

--snip--
The Coastal Commission meeting Thursday is at 9 a.m. in the Marin County Civic Center, 3501 Civic Center Drive, in San Rafael. Information: (415) 499-7308.

[NFOShekky]

I haven't been able to access the entire article so I don't have all the facts, BUT. . . I see this sort of thing here in California often. Homeowner has property on the beach, river, or some other sort of vacant land. They think that since the land is "not being used" they can build a "barbecue, restroom, shower, canopy, cabinets and concrete picnic tables," etc ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S LAND(!), usually the State's or some other local government's land. If the McNamees have in fact built this stuff on the State's beach, they are stealing just the same as if they built it on their next door neighbor's property!

[Clinging Bitterly]

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