In CA by law the the beach is public property below the mean high tide line, and the public has the right to access that beach. There are some exceptions - military bases and such. We all voted overwhelmingly for it, Prop. 20.
REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
City Officials at the 'Bu Accused of Tearing Down Beach Access Signs
- Thread starter r32
- Start date
Yes, but there has to be a sign? You have to have access right here instead of 1/2 mile over there? You have to have parking?
Like I’ve always said regarding the ranch. It’s open. All of the beaches there are open to the public and always have been. It’s just hasn’t been accessible by car.
Every single beach in California is open. Some are just harder to get to than others and I have no problem with that.
Privilege and entitlement.
it’s not just Malibu, similar battles are waged on coastlines all across the country. I remember people fighting over access to town beaches in Greenwich connecticut for non-residents as a teen and the town making non-residents jump through insane hoops to get passes when they lost. I think if you’re a non-resident you have to go to city hall during limited hours to secure a one day pass in advance that’s only good on a specific date. sh!t like that.
This is going on next to the town beach where I grew up in Rhode Island…
We always crossed the town beach line to drink where there were no lifeguards and open containers weren’t enforced. Here’s a couple pics of me and my old man on that beach more than 40yrs ago…
If you look in the background it was all basic working class vacation homes. They were almost entirely summer rentals and nobody gave a fuck about coastal access. Parking was limited but the beach was for anyone who could find their way their. Now it looks more like the Hamptons and there are a bunch of rich motherfuckers who can afford not to rent their mansions out to summer rentals and think they’re gonna tell me I can’t be on the same beach I’ve been going to my entire life.
it’s not just Malibu, similar battles are waged on coastlines all across the country. I remember people fighting over access to town beaches in Greenwich connecticut for non-residents as a teen and the town making non-residents jump through insane hoops to get passes when they lost. I think if you’re a non-resident you have to go to city hall during limited hours to secure a one day pass in advance that’s only good on a specific date. sh!t like that.
This is going on next to the town beach where I grew up in Rhode Island…
We always crossed the town beach line to drink where there were no lifeguards and open containers weren’t enforced. Here’s a couple pics of me and my old man on that beach more than 40yrs ago…
If you look in the background it was all basic working class vacation homes. They were almost entirely summer rentals and nobody gave a fuck about coastal access. Parking was limited but the beach was for anyone who could find their way their. Now it looks more like the Hamptons and there are a bunch of rich motherfuckers who can afford not to rent their mansions out to summer rentals and think they’re gonna tell me I can’t be on the same beach I’ve been going to my entire life.
So you feel entitled to have the privilege of going to a very specific beach because when you were a kid you and your alcoholic dad went there to break the law.
Your profile says PNW. Maybe Oregon? Do you fellas post signs pointing to your spots?
Cool story bro. Given how easy and legal beach access in SoCal, absolutely zero comparison.
A-) now we (the erBB) knows where the pudgey comes from.
1-) somewhere Al Soldano is glad your parents made you wear girls shades when you were young.
A-) + 1-) = that explains a LOT.
for surfers, Malibu is generally sh!t. Go to Zuma to ogle valley chicks in summer and that’s about the beginning and end of the appeal. 3rd point sucks, Leo sucks, Dume is average, all the state beaches are sh!t. Overall it’s one of the worst beach cities in California.
I already said my comment wasn't about the signs. Who even uses signs anymore? Everyone has google maps.
I know dealing with the unwashed masses sucks but the alternative of allowing private landowners to restrict access is far worse in my opinion.
We have a spot up here that's been accessible for as long as I can remember. It's generally not a great wave but it's one of the few spots that is clean on south winds and handles huge winter swells. There is only the one slippery, muddy trail on the entire cliffy section. A couple years ago a new owner bought all the land around it and put up a fence and no trespassing signs.
I suppose since someone could paddle a half mile around the headland through 20 foot closeouts to get to the beach by Duffy logic there is still beach access.
For a moment there I thought $kully was raised by Lieutenant Frank Serpico, NYPD
Some of the access laws have interesting origins - for instance along the East side of the Hudson River in NY North of Manhattan there is a railroad right on the river but river access across the railroad was guaranteed primarily for subsistence fishing.
The stretch of beach in question is not a surf spot and there are public access beaches adjacent. Zuma is right there and has a miles long parking lot. I think this was about local residents trying to reserve some very limited street parking spots. City was probably responding to constituent requests. My guess is the city has jurisdiction over street signage.
Vals go home!
Vals go home!
I'm glad you deny the long workable rights of Latigo.
First thought is something like this:
Second thought is something like this:
From my understanding coastal access laws are just about access. They don’t guarantee that there’s free and abundant parking etc. I do think there’s a fine line that has to be walked to manage crowds. I understand they can be an inconvenience, create noise disturbances and litter, etc. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a municipality to take measures to moderate the convenience of access. Every path to access the beach doesn’t need a parking lot that can hold 50 plus cars. There are things cities can do such as issue permitted parking only leaving room for a handful of a non-permitted cars to park at coastal access paths at any given time. Which I’m sure is already happening in many beach side neighborhoods.
But reading the article about Malibu it’s hard to believe that the city just acted unilaterally to take down these signs. It’s pretty obvious that some Karen’s brought the signs to the attention of members of the city council. The whole “safety” argument of the breakaway poles seems a bit contrived, like they found a loophole to get rid of signs that they didn’t want. Do you think if a restaurant or business erected a sign on the side of the road the city would make them take it down for safety concerns that it wasn't breakaway if a car hit it?
Pretty sure this sign isn't breaking away if someone hits it...
But reading the article about Malibu it’s hard to believe that the city just acted unilaterally to take down these signs. It’s pretty obvious that some Karen’s brought the signs to the attention of members of the city council. The whole “safety” argument of the breakaway poles seems a bit contrived, like they found a loophole to get rid of signs that they didn’t want. Do you think if a restaurant or business erected a sign on the side of the road the city would make them take it down for safety concerns that it wasn't breakaway if a car hit it?
Pretty sure this sign isn't breaking away if someone hits it...
Last edited:
It's an active cattle ranch, with 100's of landowners, it is not a preserve of any nature. There are stretches of beaches set up as coastal preserves, but that is it. Those portions of the sand are already publicly owned, and generally accessible to all who really want to get out there.