Some people can't afford to go to the beach, and lawmakers want to change that

I'm currently working on a gig in OC and living in Laguna Beach. I've found it to be one most exclusionary communities I've ever lived in. AirBNB is effectively banned, and, as a renter, I didn't feel like I fit in at my gym which is dominated by wealthy and long time home owners.

Like many areas, there are laws which prevent increased development which further puts pressure on housing and rent prices.

Overall I like Laguna, but while I think most people who live here would consider themselves liberal, their local politics are more reactionary.

Loving beaches is great, but the reasoning expressed in the article seems kind of weird to me.

There are plenty of low income families who probably can't easily afford to go to a beach, but at the same time there's also plenty who have also never spent time in mountains, forests, meadows, lakes, etc.

This is alien to me. "The average cost of a one day visit to the beach was $22, not including parking or food, according to the study." I have lived all my life in Puerto Rico, and the average visit to the beach is $0.00 Just, go. The many beaches of the island is one of the reason why we don't have that many parks - we just got to the beach instead.

Having lived in Florida all my life this is weird. It's so easy to take a day trip to the beach and it just costs gas (pack a lunch, water and lots of sunscreen).

This reminds me of a similar problem we had in Bulgaria, a long time ago. Many rich land owners and hotel tycoons teamed up and basically made it illegal to go on the beach, plant your own umbrella, and spend the day there. Tickets, time limits... Gosh. There was a lot of outrage but of course, nothing changed.

Things changed slightly when those beaches got almost empty one particular summer (sorry, can't remember the year). But then the politicians intervened and helped the land/hotel owners make our beaches more foreign-friendly -- better, quicker, more reliable transportation, more restaurants, more bars on the beach, better service. And the foreigners started flocking.

From then on, a good chunk of Bulgaria's beaches are a paradise for foreigners while us the Bulgarians have to scour the beach line for a place to get some sun. Admittedly there are still a good amount of places where this craziness doesn't exist but a lot of beaches are practically out of limits for us now.

TL;DR -- this article sounds like somebody influential is concerned about the economy on/around the beaches. I might be wrong.

It was the state that defunded the State Beaches, bringing about the day use fees to pay for maintenance, lifeguards, etc.

And by the way there are beaches that are transit-accessible in Los Angeles that are free to walk on.

What about the people who would prefer hiking or skiing or white-water rafting or Disneyland or a day trip to Catalina Island or ...

This seems like a crazy level of economic micro-management to me.

This article could use some work. It names two beaches that have over 80% white visitors, but neither of those beaches have over 80% white visitors according to the figure in the article.

Also, they did not ask how many families actually did not go to the beach because of costs, which is the actual metric that matters.

The price of an overnight stay might be exorbitant if you stay near the water, but there is no reason to do that if you live in any of California's population centers (and cheaper accommodations are available nearby).

Also, I go to the coast frequently, but have not heard of many (any?) of these beaches. Is this some LA problem or something? It can't be, since it opens with "California has >1,100 miles of beaches". Later, the map shows the study is indeed only for SoCal.

With all that, I'd still like to know WTF the legislation actually does. The article does not say. Does anyone here know?

I grew up in OC. While the south county is a bunch of rich people, there are plenty of beaches in the northern part that are totally free, especially if you just park outside the main area. All of the beaches are ultimately free for people just walking in, and many are just free if you know where to go, but I understand why all the rich lawmakers think that all the beaches are expensive -- all the ones they think are worth going to certainly are. For us plebes though there is still plenty of beach.

Also, judging by how crowded the beach is on weekends, I'm guessing access isn't much of a problem

I looked up a better article:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-coastal-accommod...

Apparently, the plan is to make our beaches great again by building hotels inside of state parks.

If you care about the beach it's important that a broad swath of the population appreciates the coastal areas. That ways when it comes time to vote on bond and tax measures that go to restoring and managing these areas, people understand the importance of what they're voting for.

That's great, they can make more beaches be like Dockweiler, the most "diverse" on the chart. Where one can currently experience gangs, graffiti, littering and constant violations of the law that the lifeguards and tiny police presence are incapable of enforcing.

Nutty CA.

This will probably reduce the number of beachgoers. Do I want to take my family to the equivalent of a public housing project? Hell no.