Bulldozer tactics by Malibu's super-rich

[kskiska]

It is a perennial conundrum for any self-respecting Malibu millionaire: how to stop the public from unrolling their gaudy towels on the beach in front of your house and cluttering up the view of the ocean from the infinity pool.

The answer this year, it seems, is as simple as it is drastic. The association representing owners of the 108 palatial homes that front Broad Beach - one of Malibu's most exclusive locations, where the residents include Goldie Hawn, Steven Spielberg, Dustin Hoffman and Danny DeVito - has caused uproar by using bulldozers to remove the beach.

Tonnes of wet sand were pushed from the publicly owned area up to the high tide mark, creating a huge barrier.

According to a nine page letter of protest sent to the association by the California coastal commission, and quoted in the Los Angeles Times, the removal of sand has lowered the profile of the public beach so that "public access is cut off by wave run-up and standing water".

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1503322,00.html

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Doesn't the the DEC or EPA have something to say about modifying the

beach?

[MichiDem]

2. Who owns

the beach?

[Jacobin]

4. The public

[kskiska]

3. Here's their excuse:

But Marshall Grossman, a Broad Beach homeowner and lawyer, told the newspaper that the intent was not to block public access, but to restore the sandy dunes in front of the homes that were eroded during storms last winter. "When that happens, homeowners bring their own sand back to the dunes, or bring in replacement sand from outside. It doesn't interfere with public access, because the dunes are simply restored to what they were."

[99Pancakes]

5. What happened to the liberal Dems?

Not on the Malibu Beach!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Deja Q]

6. They don't, uh, exi$t anymore.

[Redstone]

7. Fucking Yuppie scumbags.

Christ, I despise people like that.

Redstone

[pinniped]

8. I don't like the fact they are jacking up the grunion eggs and...

messing up the sand samples.

I would like to see some pics of what this eight foot high sand wall looks like. A moat is probably on the drawing boards.

http://cbs5.com/california/CA--BeachBattle-kn/resources_news_html

[enigmatic]

9. What a bunch of fucking tools...

Seriously...

[Book Lover]

10. The CA Coastal Commission is pretty powerful

Why are they sending letters instead of legal briefs?

[Occulus]

11. interesting paragraph here

"The unmitigated nerve of this is staggering," Richard Menna, a kite-surfing instructor from the San Fernando Valley, told the LA Times. "I know people who've gotten tickets for just picking up a few rocks on state beaches. There must be thousands of tonnes of sand taken from state property."

Is a grain of sand a 'kind' of rock? :evilgrin:

[fortyfeetunder]

12. Hope for a tsunami (sarcasm)

:sarcasm:
They might have blocked off the alleged riff raff, but they can't block Mother Nature...

[Joj Bush]

13. Too bad they're rich

and immune to persecution for crimes such as VANDALISM.

[Piperay]

14. They don't want the public on 'their' beach but

they sure don't mind when there is a disaster like fire or high tide in the 'Big Boo' calling in the National Guard and asking the students from Pepperdine and any other volunteers they can drum up from the public at large to help them out. :eyes: :mad:

[Arkansas Granny]

34. Quite possibly it was the public

that made it possible for them to buy these beach front homes in the first place. After all, someone has to buy all those movie tickets, records, etc.

[Nihil]

15. Be patient, vanity is a short-lived critter

If this bit is true

> the removal of sand has lowered the profile of the public beach so
> that "public access is cut off by wave run-up and standing water".

then we just need to wait for the first major storm ... it will happily
use the additional wave run-up to first erode the "sand dune" then go
further inland with the remaining energy, hopefully flooding the entire
property.

Gaia doesn't use bulldozers - they are far too slow and don't carry
anything like enough material in each trip.

[DinahMoeHum]

18. Tee hee. It's not nice to screw around with Mother Nature !!

:evilgrin:

[fasttense]

16. Why is it that when people get a little money they become idiots?

I don't know, people frolicking on the beach is not such a bad thing to look at. Didn't they know it was a public beach when they built their palaces? I guess they just want the middle class to pay for their roads, their school systems, their beach protection, their fire fighters, their police. Just don't want to look at those same middle class.

They should come to Appalachia. You can get land with beautiful views and not see a person all day. Of course you don't have all the other amenities but you have to make choices.

[zalinda]

17. Okay, don't shoot me, but I understand why

they are trying to keep it "private". First, it's been sort of private for decades and they consider the beach as their front yard. How would you like people playing on your front yard, leaving their garbage, having sex at night and during the day kids wandering all over, including maybe into your house.

Then, let's look at how bad people are. These are multi-million dollar homes, with people all over the place, who is going to notice if their is a break in. And then, what about these people's personal security, especially for their family......bullies and kidnappers. And let's not forget the celebrity photographers, they will be camped out trying to take their thousand dollar or more photos.

There are miles of beaches in California, it's not like they are hogging 90% of them. This is a small section of beach. I can understand these people buying their homes to have a little relaxation and privacy, and then be assaulted by some guy who wants bring in the public to within inches of their homes. And don't think for a minute, there aren't going to be people who will have their faces pressed against the glass trying to see their celebrity "hero", at all times of the day.

Yes, I understand their concerns, their beach homes will become either a prison or a zoo, with garbage strewn all over. Let them buy the beach from the city, or make a donation to improve the other beaches around them.

zalinda

[BuddhaGirl]

20. if they want their privacy so badly

then let them buy acres of land in the boondocks. The beaches belong to the public.

In the case of David Geffen, he had been illegally blocking beach access near his house for years. Now finally he has been forced by the courts to open the path to said access.

Beaches belong to the public! :mad:

[zalinda]

23. Again..........you want them in a prison?

Why is a small stretch of beach so important? Many of these "celebrities" are just doing their jobs, but are constantly harassed by people. Some to make money off of them, others to touch them, but others to harm them.

They CAN'T go to a public beach, they are accosted every where they go, and now in other countries. So, your solution is for them to give up ever being able to be near the ocean.

I'm sorry, but I'm not against people just because they are rich. And celebrities are people too, they just happen to have a job in which attracts all the crazies. Celebrities do donate their time and energy to good causes, they aren't anti people. But, I understand their point. I couldn't imagine being stalked 24/7, and not being able to get away from it even in your own home. They have to close all the blinds, and hide away, so they don't have their face on the tabloids.

I still don't see why such a small piece of beach is so important, unless you just want to stick it to some rich people.

zalinda

[progressivebydesign]

26. You don't understand. You cannot have a private beach like that..

the law states that there HAS to be public access. If they want to have privacy, they need to move somewhere else. They're behaving like spoilt children. I have many celebrity friends, and yes.. it does get annoying when you're bothered, I've witnessed it firsthand. BUT.. the point is.. you do not try to alter the natural landscape, try to circumvent laws, just to suit your preferences. They need to move away if they want that kind of privacy. They KNEW that when they bought there...

[amazona]

28. hey you don't have to be rich to be stalked 24/7 by a crazy

And you know what? Most of the time the law doesn't give a damn. It sure didn't in my case. The rich can afford the best in security. They don't get to steal a public beach.

When it is reality that "only" the rich are somehow special when it comes to stalking, maybe I'll think again. The reality is that my stalker is still out there, lots of women's stalkers are still out there, and we are still expected to make our way in the world without stealing property belonging to others. Even when the stalker shows up at our work and causes us to lose our work.

Do I hear the world's tiniest violin playing a tune?

A "small" piece of beach is important because only rich people can afford property right on the beach in California and many other areas such as Florida, New Jersey, the Carolinas, and so on. Your idea means that all beach everywhere in all desirable coastal areas of the U.S. becomes accessible only to the rich. That is theft of our common heritage.

[shanti]

29. why are you defending the practices

of the extremely wealthy? this is one of the prices of fame! the ocean belongs to all!

[Arkansas Granny]

33. Look, I'm not against people just because they're rich.

I'm sure there's a downside to being rich and famous and loss of anonimity is just a part of it. But, they knew the job was dangerous when they took it. You can't expect the public to be excluded from public property just because a celebrity happens to live near it and would like to use it privately.

[SoCalDem]

31. Homes should be prohibited on the "beach side" of any road..anywhere

If they want their glitzy houses on the "other" side, I see no problem, but people should be able to access the shore...all of it.. anywhere..

If there was an automatic ban on beach-building, insurance would be a lot cheaper for all of us.. There used to be small, temporary structures on beaches (used by beach bums and vendors)..when storms took them, they just rebuilt them until the next storm.. But when you have mega-million dollar homes just perched out there waiting to be damaged every few years, it's NUTS.

[progressivebydesign]

25. I understand your point. BUT in Calif. they KNEW it was never private.

That is the law. The public has to have access to the ocean. That is one of those laws in California that really benefits everyone. If they wanted a private beach, they need to move somewhere else. Their actions disgust me.

[zalinda]

35. I would agree, except that for years

they were protected. While the beaches were "public" the powers that be, let them have their "private" beach. And, no, I don't think only rich should have access to the beach. And, I don't think ANY house should be built on the beach. But, they are there, so you grandfather them in. They pay huge property taxes, and if the beaches become "public", watch those houses go down in value. And, with the drop in the housing value, those property taxes go down, and other peoples property taxes will go up.

To me, the fight should be no more building on the beaches. If a house is destroyed, it should not be able to be built again. The beach would then become part of public lands.

I'm sorry, but I live in the city and I'm constantly picking up garbage in my front yard, that people have just deposited there. I could not imagine what it would be like on a beach. People are pigs and no amount of trash cans around would stop the used condoms, broken bottles, campfire debris, take out containers and such that will start turning up. The reason, just because the people who own the houses are rich, and they disgust them.

zalinda

[Selatius]

37. Those beachfront homes are incredibly expensive

It wouldn't matter if there were people out on the beaches or not. The demand for beachfront property would be more than enough to offset the depreciation if the beach had a lot of traffic on it, and not everyone who lives by the beach in question is a celebrity. Only a few of them are. The rest are just citizens who happen to be wealthy.

[Javaman]

27. The people were there before the homes...

I don't feel the least bit sorry for them. And the "front yard" as you call it, is public property.

As far as break ins, welcome to the real world. That's why they have security systems and private guards.

Have you been to Malibu? It's beautiful there and just because this is just a "small section of beach", should only the rich have access to that beautiful section? Very hypocritical.

Also, if you had ever lived in that area, you will understand that the more the rich isolate themselves from the public, the more the public becomes more interested in what they do. When I lived there, many a celebrity lived there and no one bothered them, it was when they started building walls and acting all high and mighty that things changed.

It's a public beach, period. If they don't like, that's just tough shit.

[Arkansas Granny]

32. This is like moving to a house near an airport or freeway

and then complaining about the noise. They knew the beach was public access when they moved in. Shoulda thought about this problem then.

[hatrack]

19. And who will be paying for the next Malibu firestorm cleanup and repair?

Why, all those horrid ordinary people with their gaudy towels and their state and local and federal tax payments and their rising insurance premiums, that's who.

Because if you can't subsidize dumbass rich people who insist on building $10 million houses in the middle of flammable chapparal, who can you subsidize? :eyes:

[Neshanic]

21. Malibu Seagulls..."MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE!"

It's not like the beach there is big. This was a cheesy and quite republican response from people who should know better; or at least told so by their publicists.

[Toots]

22. I think they need an Army Corp of Engineer Permit to do such a thing

I think without such a permit they have broken the law. They only own the land to mean high tide. any beach or land below the mean high tide mark is public property and can not be touched without proper permits.

[shanti]

30. right, and

shoring up the beach like they have is shortening the high tide zone.

[progressivebydesign]

24. Assholes. Total assholes.

Why don't they move to a state that has no guarantee of public access? If they don't like people around them.. let them all move to Montana or South Dakota where they'll have the space they need.

Total selfish assholes.

[LizW]

36. Sorry. If you live on a public beach, you can expect

to see the public using it.

Public beach and privacy are mutually exclusive. I've rented a place at the beach before and had a whole group of people come set up for the day right in the yard between the house and the water. That's just the way it is.

I wouldn't want to live that way all the time though, so I don't. These wealthy people have more opportunity than most of us to live in a nice place of their choice, so I don't feel sorry for them one bit. They can buy all the privacy in the world if they want. They just can't buy the California beach.

[Bridget Burke]

38. Isn't the Pacific a bit cold for swimming?

The very rich can build a place with a fine view of the Pacific & all the privacy they want. For beaches--they can go to Mustique.

Texas beaches are public, as well. Hurricanes tend to clean them off from time to time. However, some pretty big places have been built in Galveston--beyond the area protected by the Seawall. Just a matter of time....