August 25, 2002
By Timothy Egan
The New York Times
MALIBU, California, August 23 - It started as another golden California day,
the shoreline aglow in the haloed light of midmorning. Rob LeMond was teaching
children in his surfing camp, passing on nearly a half-century of knowledge
about riding the waves of the Pacific.
Then a nearby homeowner complained that Mr. LeMond's surfing students had
crossed the line onto his beach property. The sheriff was called. A long
argument followed over which strip of sand belonged to the public and which was
private.
"Finally, this homeowner turned to me and said something I thought I'd never
hear on a California beach," said Mr. LeMond, 54, of Malibu. "He said he did not
like to look out his window and see people swimming, because it blocked his
view."
Skirmishes over surf and sand have become particularly intense up and down
the Southern California coast this summer.
To some people, the fight is about a California birthright: public access to
every inch of the state's 1,160-mile shoreline. By law, there is no such thing
as private beach in California. In a state where 80 percent of the 34 million
people live within an hour of the coast, it is no small fight.
Others see a gold coast of hypocrisy. Some of Hollywood's and the Democratic
Party's biggest contributors to liberal causes, like David Geffen, have turned
into conservative property-rights advocates because the battle is taking place
in their sandy backyards.
"The real issue here is money," said Steve Hoye, the leader of a nonprofit
group, Access for All, and an active Democrat.
"These people who live on the beach here think that the public cannot be
trusted to walk or swim in front of these million-dollar houses," Mr. Hoye
said.
A court fight, initiated by Mr. Geffen, the entertainment mogul, could take
the question of beach access well beyond the shores of Malibu. Last month, he
filed suit seeking to block public access to a narrow walkway that goes by his
Malibu compound. He promised access 19 years ago, but the path has never been
opened, and Mr. Geffen now says it would be unsafe, dirty and impractical to
allow people to walk by his home to the beach.
Mr. Geffen contends in the lawsuit that the access way amounts to a "taking
of property without compensation," an argument that conservatives have used in
environmental fights for years. If the suit is successful, it could make it much
harder for state and federal agencies to open paths to public beaches throughout
the United States, or even to acquire open space for wildlife or recreation,
some experts say.
"This could keep the public away from a lot of beaches," said Robert Ritchie,
director of research at the Huntington Library in San Marino, who is writing a
book on beach culture. "And because a very significant percentage of the United
States population now lives in counties facing the ocean, the pressure for
public access has become enormous. At the same time, you have these homeowners
fighting to keep the hordes back."
The stand taken by beachfront owners here in Malibu, long a Democratic Party
stronghold, has infuriated another sector of party supporters --
environmentalists.
"Here you have the superrich wanting to have a private beach in a state that
decided long ago it would not allow any private beaches," said Carl Pope,
executive director of the Sierra Club. "It's a huge land grab. By blocking
access, they want to lock up the coast."
Further complicating the issue, a prominent environmental philanthropist,
Wendy McCaw, has vowed to take her lawsuit against beach access to the United
States Supreme Court, making many of the same arguments as Mr. Geffen.
Ms. McCaw, the billionaire owner of The Santa Barbara News-Press, is trying
to block access to a 500-foot strip of beach below her 25-acre estate on a bluff
in Santa Barbara County. The easement was granted by a previous owner, and Ms.
McCaw says it does not apply to her. She has already paid $460,000 in fines in
her fight to prevent access. She says if the state is going to require an access
path from her private property, then she should be compensated.
"There needs to be more effort toward protecting the embattled wildlife
calling our beaches home, rather than focusing on how to pack more humans with
their destructive ways into those sensitive habitats," Ms. McCaw said.
In most states, beaches that are covered by water at high tide but are
relatively dry at low tide are public. The entire West Coast falls under this
mean high tide doctrine. But some states, notably New York, Massachusetts and
Maine, are more restrictive, allowing fences in the water and private ownership
of tidelands.
California voters, in a populist campaign 30 years ago, took the additional
step of guaranteeing "access" to beaches, and empowered the California Coastal
Commission to fight on the public's behalf.
Since then, the state has reached more than 1,300 access deals with private
property owners, but many of those have a time limit and are set to expire
within a few years.
"Development shall not interfere with the public right of access to the sea,"
reads a section of the California Coastal Act.
Beachfront owners in Malibu have surveyed the tide lines and posted signs
warning people that it is trespassing to walk within a zone they have claimed
from their houses to the ocean. The coastal commission says these private
surveys are meaningless because the definition of what a public beach is changes
daily, with the tides.
Still, homeowners in parts of Malibu have hired private security forces to
roam the beach on three-wheeled vehicles, herding people away from areas they
consider private property.
A 1987 Supreme Court ruling, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, limited
the commission's authority to insist on public access, saying it had power only
over new developments. Mr. Geffen and Ms. McCaw are trying to expand the Nollan
ruling.
Mr. Geffen's spokesman, Andy Spahn, said the Nollan ruling should be applied
retroactively to Mr. Geffen. Mr. Spahn said the public access promise Mr. Geffen
made in 1983 was "extorted" from him as a condition to expand his beach property
with maid quarters and other improvements.
Mr. Spahn also said he wanted to start a debate about the "beachgoing
experience" of the public.
"We think this is the wrong place for access," Mr. Spahn said, referring to
the path next to Mr. Geffen's house. "People are looking for safety, for
bathrooms, for lifeguards. They're not going to want to cross four lanes of
highway, carrying beach furniture."
But the coastal commission says that it has granted hundreds of access points
that are no more than footpaths next to mansions, and that they operate without
lifeguards or bathrooms and have few problems.
The path by Mr. Geffen's estate is blocked by a locked gate. In front of the
house is a 275-foot stretch of beach, which is open to the public at low tide,
but requires a 20-minute hike to reach now.
"What David Geffen is doing is simply breaking his promise," said Sara Wan,
chairwoman of the coastal commission. "He has a very nice stretch of beach in
front of his house, and it belongs to the public."
The city of Malibu, a 27-mile strip of beach castles and hillside homes along
each side of the Pacific Coast Highway with a population of 13,000, has joined
Mr. Geffen in his lawsuit.
Jeff Jennings, the mayor of Malibu, said the city was concerned about safety
and garbage pickup if the access point at Mr. Geffen's house was not properly
maintained by Access for All, the group that has been granted the right to
manage the pathway should it ever be opened.
"I have no interest in keeping the public off public land," Mr. Jennings
said. "But most people who come to the beaches are not experts in water safety.
It can be a highly dangerous situation."
Veteran surfers, who rely on the narrow public paths to get to some of the
best waves of the Pacific, say they do not need lifeguards or bathrooms. But
they would like to bring back an earlier era.
"In the old days, it was live and let live," said Kurt Lampson, a surfing
instructor who grew up on Malibu's beaches. "Now you got these guards going
around saying sit here, don't walk there. It's
depressing."
Submitted by Jim Alex
3 comments:
Democrats have always been the biggest hypocrites. "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" Especially our first lady. "You can't eat this, but I can" And , Babs Streisand, the biggest hypocrite-"stay off my beach" "hand over your home, we need more open space"
Love this article, Jim. California legal conundrum of private property ownership and the public's right to the beach, dovetails well with the 9/1/11 Martin's Beach article.
You would think RFR-WTPR (513) would have more concern for these wealth private property owners in Malibu. Instead she deselects the Democrats, takes a poke at healthy food for children promoted by the First Lady, and calls others hypocrites. Go figure.
*rabid far right-wing tea party republican. (RFR-WTPR, not so much for you a friendly world to live in, Democrats and rational Republicans in hiding have more fun).
The article is dated 2002. Couldn't find a more recent update? Something newer than 9 years ago?
Post a Comment