Re: Is California Planning to Steal the Malibu Coastline from Residents?

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.