Malibu homeowners foiled by $30K Kickstarter campaign | Hacker News Reader

Malibu homeowners foiled by $30K Kickstarter campaign

sub.garrytan.com

596 pointskirillzubovsky206 comments

Just for a little context for those unfamiliar with Malibu. Some beaches are public, some are private and open only to those who live in particular neighbourhoods. The residents here are remarkably wealthy, we're talking Speilberg, Streisand, Geffen, and at times have hired their own private security to check people's ID to ensure they belong there. Broad Beach (I think) is public, but there's gates that block access to it requiring a key. So this app informs people which gates are legit and which ones are erected under false premise.

Malibu problems.

This is great. One day I was exploring Malibu and found one of these small narrow entranceways. They had a "guard" (guy in a yellow t-shirt) sitting on a foldable chair telling people it was a private beach. Pay these people no regard. Walk on to any beach you want. If the sand really belongs to the homeowner, they would have a fence surrounding it. Even if it happens to be private, the public should still have an easement to pass through. Remember, if they want to kick you out of their private beach, they need to call the police. They can't eject you with force.

Some of the private communities have fences that extend into the water line. I just walk past them. Fished surf in Malibu for 10 years, never had issues with people telling me i couldn't be there. Don't know why people want to hangout on Malibu beaches, the water smell like sewage since they lack a sewer system so everything is on septic tanks that overflow every time it rains. Also all the home owners let their dogs run free and they defecate everywhere without picking it up.

I imagine they CAN eject you with force, but if they do you will be able to sue them and probably also call the police. Recent events should help us remain mindful of the fact that ability and legality do not always go hand in hand -- be mindful of what can happen, not just what is legal, and you'll be safer.

The same goes for being a pedestrian near cars. Physics trumps right of way.

I always phrase this as, 3000 pounds of steel always has right of way over 200 pounds of flesh.

I always keep this in mind when riding my bike. Just because I may legally have the right of way, it's not worth getting hit by a car to prove the point.

Bein' right is not a bulletproof vest, Freddy. - Cop Land

That's completely dependent on state a local laws. Its California so... yea physical force may not be legal.

"some beaches are private" is actually incorrect - all beaches in California are public from the water to the high tide line.

> from the water to the high tide line

That's what I've seen reported elsewhere. But this PDF from the state government claims that public access extends to the start of dune vegetation (where it exists) or 25 feet inland of the mean high-tide line otherwise, excluding in some cases a 10-foot buffer around authorized development. That would suggest a substantial portion of the beach is public, even above the high-tide line: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/BroadBeachCoastalAccess.pdf

edit: Some more digging turns up that the land up to the mean high tide line is publicly owned, but the right of public access may extend further landwards. In some cases the landowner is required to grant a 25-foot public-access easement above the MHTL, as a condition of getting a development permit. That appears to be what's happened in Malibu, or at least the PDF above is claiming so. In those cases the area above the MHTL is still technically private land, but the public is allowed to access it.

"all beaches in California are public from the water to the high tide line."

There is also a federal law that makes all navigable rivers open to the public up to the high water line. However, as far as I know there isn't any database that contains a list of all the rivers that are considered to be navigable, meaning that actually using this protection might require an expensive affirmative defense.

Relevant: A group of kayakers rode down the LA river to prove that it was navigable and therefore eligible for protection.

http://laist.com/2010/03/02/documentary_following_kayakers_i...

The Army Corp gives guidance on what defines a navigable waterway: http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/regulatory/reg...

It should be noted that rivers and streams shift over time and so there is no comprehensive list of navigable waterways.

Interesting. I hadn't realized there was an underlying federal law, since different states I've lived in have very different state laws as well. Lots of good information here: http://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/us-law-who-owns.ht...

As a whitewater kayaker in Texas, I can concur with this saving us. But the police don't often know the federal law and will still harass or arrest you.

Also, federal law won't necessarily save you in court, unless you have the money and time to escalate. I took a traffic fine to court once, showed the judge copies of the federal regulation and photos of the area proving that the signage was invalidly placed, and he upheld the fine anyway--he literally said "I don't care."

Even state supreme courts seem to sometimes have trouble determining what "navigable" means.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-218.pdf

In virginia the courts have sided with land owners that claim rights the the river were granted to them by King George. http://www.blueridgeoutdoors.com/fly-fishing/fishermen-vs-th...

Once someone finds or gathers this data it would be great to put it into Open Street Map.

In Hawaii they take it a step further and require that there be access to the coast for the public every N hundred feet. You can find some pretty cool ways down to the water in some of the more expensive neighborhoods.

I believe in Hawaii if such access doesn't exist, you may create it by jumping a fence or whatever. Property owners like to put KAPU (forbidden) signs alongside access paths, giving the impression that the path is forbidden when it's actually just the land on either side of the path.

Resorts in Hawaii may be required to provide public access to the beaches they front. Some have public parking lots or other public amenities to direct the flow.

They do that now in California, but there are a lot of areas with existing housing and no access. Often when a renovation or rebuild happens, they can add access, but then the owners try to mask the access as much as possible.

It's the same in France, including along rivers. But especially for rivers, homeowners often block access and it might be difficult to get them to open it.

Things get a little wonky on a few of the more elite private beaches in Malibu: Broad Beach and Carbon Beach, among others. On these beaches, erosion has basically eliminated 50% of the beachfront, such that the entire public strip is underwater at mid to high tide. It's exposed only at low tide. Hence, the beaches are de facto private for much of the day. This isn't intentional; it's just the result of environmental changes over the last few decades.

If the public land is the land between hightide and the water, shouldn't the public land be underwater during hightide by definition?

"If the public land is the land between hightide and the water, shouldn't the public land be underwater during hightide by definition?"

Typically, there is some sand on the beach above the high tide line ("public dry sand easement" in zoning parlance). You're allowed to walk on this sand.

This isn't the case on Broad Beach or Carbon Beach. At either of these beaches, there is no sand at all above the high tide line. Just a large seawall of rocks.

Seems kind of like a problem for everybody, not just the people not living there. Granted, the people living there can retreat to their homes while other people have to walk/drive home I guess, but it seems like basically a shitty deal for everyone. The only "defacto-private" thing in this situation is a shitty rock wall.

The homes of the people living (or the rock wall) there are probably the cause of the lack of beach.

Beaches are dynamic things, they get eroded during storms and are built up at other times. They can recede inland hundreds of metres over the years. Conversely, large amounts of sand can be deposited, extending the land well out into what used to be water.

Humans putting houses, sea walls, groynes, bridges and other structures along the coast conflicts with the natural movements of the coast. In this case, if the houses were located further back from the beach, there would still be a beach there.

I believe the only exception to this rule is Military property. Coronado (off of San Diego) beach is an example. Eventually you hit the navy base...

You were concerned a lot of people were going to read this and then try to have a picnic on the beach and watch the newest BUDS class?

I don't know about Coronado but at Dam Neck there is a fence that extends at least 150+ feet into the water clearly delineating the base. If the fence is not a dead give away there are signs every 20 feet on the fence that make it crystal clear that the other side of the fence is not a public beach.

Right, but it's good to point out the exceptions to the general rule that all beaches are accessible to the public. Especially in the context of Malibu where there are often wrong or misleading signs.

Yeah you're probably right - I've probably been conditioned to think some are private because the access is restricted.

he's not probably right, he's right. california beaches are public and protected. anyone can use them as long as they follow state law (regarding alcohol, fires, dogs, trash, etc.)

the state takes it very seriously and that's why there's thousands of miles of clean shoreline for everyone to enjoy.

Question from an unfamiliar northeasterner: how public is the beach really if you have to flee the rising tide? Or are folks happy to pack it in after a few hours?

The purpose of the beach being public isn't really sunbathers. It's a very old principle based on the idea that the waters and the land under them belong to the public, and that they should be accessible to people doing the fundamental things that require access to the water: fishing, washing clothes, etc.

If you're washing your clothes in seawater, you're doing it very wrong.

You couldn't have further missed the point.

I got the point fine. I was just pointing out the rather clumsy justification given.

Actually, it really depends on how the house there is built. Many are on stilts, and with the tide, you are up against their property. Beach is also uneven, so in places there is dry sand left, but it's surrounded on three sides by water and forth side is the house.

There are also legitimate concerns for many homeowners. I've frequently seen homeless camping underneath those houses on stilts. This is definitely a safety issue.

Another issue is trash. If you walk through Santa Monica beaches Sunday evening, it is appalling. Piles of trash in the parking lots and by waterline. After seeing it, I really can't blame Malibu residents from trying to protect their beaches.

That said, because I'm not privileged enough to have private beach access, this app is kinda cool.

> I've frequently seen homeless camping underneath those houses on stilts.

I'm with you on the trash -- come down to Hermosa on the morning of July 5! -- but this is a lame excuse to prevent beach access. I'm all for homeless people camping out beneath David Geffen's infinity pool. Maybe complaints coming from somebody of his stature would finally get the city to deal with this problem in a humane and effective way, instead of just sweeping it under the rug as they have for decades.

...deal with this problem in a humane and effective way...

Which problem exactly? Where the homeless sleep or the fact that they exist? Most municipal solutions I've seen to the former problem are repulsively violent, while it isn't clear that the latter "problem" has solutions.

I'm advocating help for those who want it. Skid Row is all the evidence you should need that policymakers in LA don't care about homeless people.

The high tide point isn't the same every day, but the public beach line is. On a typical day there's a decent amount of public beach left even at high tide.

My understanding of mean high tide in California is the law does not specify a time frame for the mean. So how do you actually know where the MHTL is?

Generally there's debris left from the high tide - seaweed and what not. It's usually pretty easy to tell.

Yes but that would be the mean high tide of perhaps the last week. If a stormed rolled in, by your logic, the whole beach could be public property. Some states define the mean high tide as the mean over a 18.6-year period or Tidal Epoch. To my knowledge, California makes no such distinction.

Surfers would appreciate being able to use the beach if there are decent waves.

Sorry, I downvoted you by mistake, meant to upvote.

Hiring private security for that purpose is basically vigilantism, this should be illegal in any sane jurisdiction. Has anybody prosecuted this?

Being a "Malibu problem" doesn't really make this matter any less relevant. It's precisely this kind of being above the law feeling of the wealthy that's at the root of many much larger problems.

This is a bit hyperbolic. Vigilantism refers specifically to "an individual or group undertaking law enforcement without legal authority".

Not to defend the clearly overreaching actions of the Malibu homeowners, but hiring security guards to protect what you feel is your property is not vigalantism in any sense of the word.

A homeowner has every right to hire security guards for their property. At worst, the issue here is overreaching claims on the extent of their property – something that happens among even the unwealthy.

Vigilantism is based on using illegal methods to enforce the law.

Hiring a guard for land you don't own is using illegal methods to break the law. (Assuming the guard actually does anything.)

I see this as worse than vigilantism, and I find it really odd to see you explain it as less bad. I seriously doubt that the majority of these landowners are actually mistaken about who owns the beach.

I don't think you understood what "guard" meant in this scenario. The guards couldn't stop anyone from walking onto the beach. And an easement in this case means that the public can use the land without owning it. Public beach access is a requirement for building permits on the waterfront.

This isn't vigilantism. They're trying to mislead the public about their rights, not enforce some law with illegal methods. I'd be damned if any of our politicians were arrested for that, let alone some Malibu residents.

Are you ignoring the part where I said "assuming the guards do anything"?

Vigilantism is enforcing the law through illegal means. Hiring men-at-arms to stake out property, and keep the peasants in line is feudalism.

It depends on authority and proof. It is not vigiantism if the area is private and the guard is given authority by the neighbourhood association (or whoever owns/is in charge of the land).

While the wealthy being above the law is a problem, the larger problem is the arbitrary nature of the law and the arbitrary nature of its enforcement. People wouldn't have to hire private guards if the law wasn't enforced. The police would enforce the law if there was less of it wasted on things that moral people do (like smoking pot).

Often the rich are happy to have the police not enforce the law and to do it with private security instead. Private security reports directly to their employers, the police have more public accountability.

Also reduced property taxes mean less police for everyone, so you get the "I only pay for what I need" anti-tax rationalization of those who live in gated and guarded neighborhoods which is ultimately socially destructive.

I agree with your sentiment regarding arbitrary law enforcement and the huge waste of times it is to chase people smoking pot and similarly harmless things. However, you seem to imply (please correct me if I'm wrong) that this justifies the vigilantism. I find that idea to be very problematic on many fronts.

Is it vigilantism for you to stop me from walking into your house? That is the crux of my argument. If you, or a group of people, rightfully own land then you should be free to pay guards to stop people to enter it.

But they don't rightfully own the land. This is hiring guards to keep people off the sidewalk in front of your house.

There are also a lot of public walking paths[1] and unexpected stairways[2] in the Hollywood Hills that homeowners will put gates over or post signs claiming no public access, because, you know, fuck you got mine.

- Bunny Ultramod on Metafilter (http://www.metafilter.com/129367/Hiding-Public-Land)

http://www.discoverlosangeles.com/blog/hiking-los-angeles-la...

http://www.secretstairs-la.com/welcome.html

For large values of "remarkably wealthy" - http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/05/mapping_15_of_tech_bil...

These properties seem undervalued. We're talking about absolute beachfront property a half hour from the #2 population center of the largest economy in the world in a beautiful area (that's on the US coast that faces Asia) with one of the best and rarest climates in the world. $10 million is chump change to a billionaire; consider the number of billionaires in the world and that the number rises yearly as more and more economies around the world develop and emerge. There are only 70 homes on Carbon Beach. Considering new Manhattan penthouses are selling for $90 million cash, it seems Ellison has spotted a bargain and dived straight in.

Small nitpick - Manhattan "penthouse" is a very vague term. You can buy penthouses with 10-30k square feet for $10 million or less in Manhattan. This is dependent on location and marketability, but they are still very high class locales.

Unless you mean a penthouse literally less than a year old. Just wanted to share this info as a New Yorker.

I hate the implications, but you're right.

I reached this enlightenment a few years ago after visiting the coastline around Nice and Cannes. It was clear where Malibu was going, eventually. I'm not saying it will be the same, but close enough.

Did you say that even public beaches require a key, which I assume only residents of the 'allowed' neighborhoods are able to attain?

Of course keys aren't the only things that open locks. Back in the early 80's the "locks" on these gates were pretty basic 3 pin convenience locks and you could pick them very easily.

Yup, Broad Beach at one location has a gate requiring a key.

This app was led in part by an LA journalist and lover of Malibu beaches, Jenny Price. She had been reporting on these public beaches in a series that ran on laobserved.com, a popular LA blog.

Here's the first such piece, which I notice ran in 2006:

http://www.laobserved.com/intell/2006/08/guide_to_malibus_hi...

Here's a link to the announcement of the kickstarter campaign:

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2013/05/time_ticking_for_j...

which contains pointers to some of her other articles.

It was a genius idea on someone's part to get her to build an app around this knowledge. She's a journalist, not a computer nerd.

Why do you assume that the idea wasn't hers?

Since this is HN, I was trying to point out that it's a case where latent knowledge was transformed into highly useful software.

I do pretty much assume the app wasn't totally her idea. This is because I've been aware of her work (e.g., http://west.stanford.edu/node/901) for probably 10 years now, but hey, I could be wrong. The agency that developed the app is here: http://escapeapps.com/about

It seems to me that if they really wanted to disrupt the Malibu beach scene and provide more access for the public to the beaches, that they would just release the data as an annotated geojson file, rather than raise 30k(!) to create an app that will no longer be updated in a year.

Props to them for doing a civil service, but it seems to me that it is also very-much motivated by money.

I think it might actually have more impact this way: it's not only information that's lacking, but public awareness of the law on beach access, deliberately muddied by some false information and low-level intimidation from homeowners. By both collecting the information and making an app with some fundraising publicity, they can try to target both angles.

That said, I would like to see this information make its way into OpenStreetMap, if it isn't already. In addition to just mapping out the paths, OSM has tags for access rights.

I don't see anything inherently wrong in building a business around a civil service.

Your exclamation mark indicates that 30K is too much for an app like this, but I disagree because someone has to do the research to find each beach access point, identify false ones, organize the data into a database and build a app/web service around it.

For an average Silicon Valley salary, $30K is a quarter of a year's worth of salary. My guess is that more than three months of work was put into this.

I also have no problem with people building businesses around a civil service. However, this is a kickstarter campaign which seems to be trying to raise money for work that has already been done.

I put the exclamation point there because it is my outsider perspective that the data has already been researched and compiled by the California Coastal Commission. An iPhone application has even already been submitted to Apple and approved (that's my understanding, their kickstarter page has changed over the last few weeks). They are raising the money so that they can "release the iPhone app for free", instead of charging for it. That is the reason for my exclamation point -- to believe that the app would compile 30k worth of purchases may be disingenuous.

One user (https://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=66&uid=215784313754106091...) added many of them to Google Maps in early May: http://goo.gl/maps/YO1O7

Most of those entrances seem to be open. This one even appears to have a welcome sign. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=public+beach+access+point&hl=...

Given that the project goal is to permit as many people as possible to find these beach entrances isn't it a bit odd to target a total of two platforms for the application? I'm surprised they aren't doing something this simple with the web.

Put another way, isn't accessibility a prime concern for a beach accessibility application?

You can just go here to get the information for free:

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/BroadBeachCoastalAccess.pdf

They are just providing a better user experience and advertising, but it is public information and it is free.

And moreover, the person who contributed to making the app was a significant force in getting the document you link to, to be written in the first place.

She's been working for a decade on clarifying public accessibility to the Malibu beaches.

I'm asking why the "better user experience" can't be accessible to people without an iPhone or Android device.

Because perfection is the enemy of the "good enough," and iPhone + Android covers an enormous share of the market. Should they support Lynx on SunOS 5, too? No? Why? Because a vanishingly small number of people use that platform.

The app is simple enough that it seems within the realm of possibility that it would take less time to build it using the web thereby getting support for many more operating systems for free.

But that is backwards for this case. They are trying for "perfection" by writing a mobile app so it looks just so and the ui is just the way they want it, when "good enough" would be a simple web site that took a couple hours to make and have online.

That gets you ~90% of users right there. Make it cheap to port apps to Windows Phone or Blackberry and I'm sure they will.

Probably due to cost. Can't really afford a whole lot of development on just $30k (minus any applicable fees)

Which is why a website makes far more sense. You could do it for a couple hundred bucks.

Those 2 platforms cover a large percentage of the mobile devices.

Certainly they do, but they don't cover all of them or the people who don't own mobile devices. Again, this is an accessibility issue.

No one owes you an app. If it doesn't exist and you think there is a need then do the entrepreneurial thing and create one.

Lets start with something simple here: I'm not contending in any way that anyone owes me anything. I'm asking whether it wouldn't be better to spend the money on building a simple web application instead of focusing on these two platforms.

Since you're here and you've taken the time to write such a thoughtful reply I'll address it directly. If I had donated money to the kickstarter campaign, they would indeed "owe me" an app for all senses of "owe" that matter for conversation about the apps in question. Then, if I or someone I cared about wasn't an owner of an Android or iOS device, it's reasonable to wonder why the campaigners can't achieve the same result using a technology that works for a significantly larger market of devices (including desktops).

The Kickstarter was specifically for an Android app.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/escapeapps/opening-this-...

Let's continue with simple thoughts, shall we. Presumably before donating to the campaign you would have determined that it met your requirements. If your requirements included a minimum level of device coverage then you would have withheld your support.

If you did not donate to the campaign then why should the developer be criticized for not meeting your requirements? They don't owe you anything. Including meeting your expectations.

Added: If they left a need on the table then take it and run with it.

Usability is also an accessibility concern. If you make something that is technically accessible to anyone, but difficult to use (because mobile web is harder for people), I'd argue you are cutting out more people than you are by limiting to Android and iOS. And this application is explicitly mobile anyway, because you can drive along and have it show you what's what, rather than memorizing the raw info ahead of time. That is, you can at least make the case that creating a great experience for a large majority of people will reach more net users than a poor to mediocre experience in a platform-agnostic way.

You're right. They should make a WP, Meego, Sailfish, Jolla, Tizen, WebOS, Windows, and Mac OS app. And some more too. It's an accessibility issue.

And while we're at it, how come libraries have accessibility as a goal, but many rural areas don't have easy access to a library? We should build many more libraries so that every home in America, no matter how isolated, has easy access. It's an accessibility issue.

~~~

Sometimes, the ROI is just too small. If someone wants an app for their platform, they can go ahead and make it, but access to Malibu beaches isn't a human right so essential that we must take extraordinary measures to ensure it.

Don't forget to translate it into the ~ 6,000 known human lanauges as well. You'll have to include audio and good speech-to-text so people who can't read can use it.

This is silly. Built with web technologies you'd get most of those for free. This isn't facebook, the app is simple enough that the web is viable platform for delivery.

Are you suggesting a project like this isn't worthwhile unless it cater to "all" mobile devices as well as "people who don't own mobile devices?" This is the perfect as the enemy of the good in spades.

Honestly tho, by your standard, 100% of websites and apps are problematically inaccessible, because they don't cater to people with no net access & no phone. Demanding 100% coverage before a tool can be praised is silly.

Incidentally, is there any reason you're not filling in the gap here with... what, a mobile site & printed handbills, distributed throughout the city on a regular basis (if even that would meet your desire for accessibility)? :)

Why is it so hard to imagine building this with web technologies. The app is simple enough and then many more platforms would be supported by default

My argument is that there simply isn't any reason to make this a native app and by doing so they are limiting their reach.

Well, then do it. This is HN, creating software to fulfill a need is what (almost) everyone here does / has done. Hence, your argument is not carrying much weight and getting so much pushback. The crowd here expects a "Show HN", more than a "Waanh HN". ;-)

I hear your argument & it's valid but it's important to not wholly discount image & marketing when choosing a solution, as they also affect how widely used a product is, for better or worse. Apps are "cooler," some people will be more inclined to use it as an app. Again, this isn't a really meaningful reason but it's a real factor and bears consideration. I'm not sure if bookmarking to homescreen is a common workflow for many people.

My point is that there's a trade off (I tend to suspect people would use a mobile site less; you have to find it each time etc.) and if you determine that product X would be less accessible, but used by more people, if you implement it using technology Y, it's not unreasonable to accept that compromise.

Lest I come of as a grumpy gus that doesn't care about accessibility, I'll link to this PR https://github.com/tastejs/todomvc/pull/37 which hopefully illustrates that I do care about accessibility, I just recognize that there are other factors when choosing a solution as well and not all will be perfectly accessible, for better or worse.

On an iPhone a well built app will be far better than a webpage from an accessibility point of view.

Accessibility, by definition, is about accommodating as many users as possible be they impaired or otherwise.

One justification may be that it's much simpler to both obtain and display helpful location data as a native application than a web page.

I'm not sure about obtaining location information (ie, I don't know about geo api support) but "maps on the web" are extremely robust.

For someone on a PC. Mobile users have much more difficulty utilizing the generic web-based maps than the native, platform-optimized and integrated mapping application. There are ways to attempt to make it work in both directions, but it's extra complexity. For an app that is heavily location-centric and meant to help you find obscure walking paths while you're walking around the area, it's reasonable to have non-native support as a secondary goal.

> Given that the project goal is to permit as many people as possible to find these beach entrances isn't it a bit odd to target a total of two platforms for the application?

What alternative would you suggest? What would meet your criteria of "accessible" for this initiative?

A web app perhaps?

It's already free information online; if you're online you can already look at it. What would you like the webapp to do? Bear in mind in the interest of accessibility it must not rely on javascript, and there should be an offline as well as a print version to accomodate those with less internet access or no computer.

Can they make this app also tell you when valet parking companies are falsely putting cones and signs in front of parking meters, etc? This happens in every area of Santa Monica, Venice, LA, etc. They make it look like several parking spots are legally blocked from 6pm to 2am for their valet service, when in fact they are not. It's a way bigger problem than this beach thing, but seems like it would rely on similar technology.

Why are the cops letting them do that?

Tell me that the homeowners who put up the misleading signs get fined, preferably heavily, knowing how wealthy those homeowners likely are.

Probably not. It's INTENDED to be an exclusive neighborhood. The city government is probably rigged to maximum effectiveness at protecting the interests of the wealthy and exclusive. So doing things that impede the rabble is probably rewarded, not punished.

"Keep your ugly, fucking, gold-bricking ass out of my beach community, Lebowski!"

While we are on movie quotes, on similar lines from Supertroopers:

College Boy 2: No, man, I'm just saying... I'm sayin', if-if you own beachfront property, right, do you own, like, the sand and the water?

College Boy 3: Nobody owns the water. God owns - it's God's water.

Haha, golden, classic line! Came here to post it, came into my head seconds after reading the article :)

> It's INTENDED to be an exclusive neighborhood.

Since when? And I mean that in a "can you elaborate on how that happened", not a sarcastic way.

My only knowledge of the history of Malibu comes from Rob Lowe's autobiography - he moved there as a young teenager / pre-teen (11-13 I think) with a slightly hippy mother who was looking for cleaner air than Ohio had to offer. Anyway, he describes 70s/80s Malibu as very different from what it is today, much more laid back, much less rich-people-focused (although even back then he had, as an example, Martin Sheen + family as neighbors), worth noting that when Lowe moved his family were probably somewhere between working and middle class, and they fitted in fine.

It seems easy to understand why Malibu could become so expensive and lived in by only super-rich and celebrities - that's basic economics of supply and demand - but at what point, and why, did it get to a point where you say "it's INTENDED to be an exclusive neighborhood"?

It's just a natural progression. I'm sure if you go just a bit further up the coast and away from "the money" of Los Angeles you will find laid back coastal communities.

100% Correct -- the reality here is that the city council is likely to respond to the wealthy tax payers. The last thing the city wants is a mass exodus of the wealthy on the hunt for more private beach property.

> more private beach property

Which would be where exactly?

Not anywhere in the state of California, that's for sure.

Isn't there a free speech issue here? Can't they put up signs proclaiming whatever they want on their own property?. Yes, I am aware that there are some specific public-safety oriented exceptions, like impersonating police, but I don't see that here. Scumbag? Yes, but it absolutely should not be illegal.

This argument makes no sense. Why not paint the curb in front of your house red or yellow to discourage parking, then? Why not pop a few "free speech" stop signs on the road as part of a private traffic-calming initiative? Why not leave it up to the informed motorist to figure out whether the curb is painted red for a safety reason or merely because the homeowner is a jackass?

Trying to enforce one's will over public property and public behavior with misleading, official-looking signs is scarcely any better than impersonating a police officer for the same effect--it's just a matter of degree.

Well, while I agree with the spirit of what your saying, 100%, I do disagree with his argument not making sense.

Everything you're suggesting would be illegal, because the person would be defacing public property. There's a clear line between repainting a city owned curb or a posting a sign on a city owned streetside.

It's not -exactly- the same as painting a curb on your own property, or putting a sign on your own lawn.

Again. I agree that these Malibu owners are being crappy, but there's a difference.

The whole problem is finding out exactly where the property line is. There is a whole army of professionals that do that, full time -- surveyors. And there are databases of lots and zones that local governments maintain (some even behind pay walls). So finding out where exactly "private" stops and "public" begins is not that simple.

The issue might not be that big in areas where nobody cares about land that much, but in NY, LA, or other big city, where the cost of land is so high, every inch counts.

So you paint the curb red and install a fake fire hydrant. Is the curb yours or not? I don't know. Can you "impersonate" a fire hydrant to stop others from parking in front of your house? Not sure. It seems like it would be illegal. Kind of like putting a fake "highway entrance" green sign on the side of your house. It is your property but if it start directing traffic into your neighbor's pool you might just get fined or sued. At least a law will quickly be created to deal with the issue.

Point taken, the city usually owns the curb, I think... but has a painted curb been defaced, or merely weatherproofed in a colorful, free-expression sort of way? On the other hand, stop signs and the like tend to be stuck into private property.

There's definitely some funny business when it comes to signs and sidewalks; e.g., the landowner owns the sidewalk, but is required to keep it clear and level, not prohibit the public walking on it, not turn it into a flowerbed, etc.

Fraud is typically not protected by free speech rights. For example, if you put up a fraudulent "No Parking" sign on your property so that people wouldn't park on the curb next to your house, that would be illegal even if it were on your property.

Isn't this very close to impersonating police? Impersonating the government?

Google says yes, in certain cases: "http://blog.lawinfo.com/2011/03/23/impersonating-a-governmen...

That's talking about impersonating a government _employee_.

Public beaches and their required-to-be-public access points presumably aren't private property, and I'd bet that those 'no parking' signs are on public property as well, given that the parking spaces themselves are apparently public.

The no parking sign is clearly in the middle of a patch of bushes. Willing to be bet they figured out exactly what the city easement is and positioned accordingly.

I think you may be attributing too much effort in finding and toeing the legal boundaries, but yeah, you definitely have a point about the bushes :)

The law is not just what is written, is it what is commonly practiced as well. So says the great and terrible philosopher Carl Schmitt, and he makes sense.

These fake signs try to change common practice; they are subverting the law and are quite successful at it. They are black hat hackers, in a way.

I cannot see why you would be supporting this scumbaggery.

I don't support it, per say, but it's a bit like how you don't support free speech for all unless you support free speech for nero-nazis and other groups you find personally offensive.

Functional speech can be regulated. And yes, it should be illegal to put up signs purporting to be official.

I don't know... Some of those signs look like they are government signs, and that could be a public safety issue.

The section mentioned in the misleading sign isn't even the right section. 602(n) appears to deal with motor vehicles?...

602(n) "Driving any vehicle, as defined in Section 670 of the Vehicle Code, upon real property belonging to, or lawfully occupied by, another and known not to be open to the general public, without the consent of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession."

Seems pretty simple. Search local laws for "not open to the general public", copy, paste, boom.

So, it's like Copyright trolls, but for property

Finally, someone started taking my advice! This is very interesting. I never considered that homeowners might put up fake signs to detour the public.

"Special logo thanks! ---> We'll put your logo / icon (280 x 280 px) PLUS a link to your website on a special thank you page in the app! Plus, an advance copy of the app. Estimated delivery: Jun 2013 "

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5794094

Although note that they're only putting the link in the app, not on a website, from what I can tell. So, not really buying a link in the traditional sense.

The first thought I had was: Why doesn't someone organize an "Occupy Malibu"? Hundreds or thousands of people peacefully (and cleanly) making use of the public beaches in these "exclusive" areas for the entire summer. Keep it clean, civilized, respectable, don't leave trash behind and be considerate. In other words, give absolutely no reason to label you negatively in any way.

> "Hundreds or thousands of people peacefully (and cleanly) making use of the public beaches in these "exclusive" areas for the entire summer. Keep it clean, civilized, respectable, don't leave trash behind and be considerate."

This is a nice idea, but I don't think it's at all possible. Looking at Occupy and other large protest movements in recent memory, none of them were really above reproach to this degree, at least not once they reached scale.

I still remember the SF Occupy camp. Civilized, respectable, clean, and considerate lasted about two days. You put 500 modern, young protesters on a beach and "clean, civilized, respectable, considerate" will be a distant memory.

Not to mention, even if it is actually that respectable, the FBI really doesn't like hippie protests and have a history of making sure that they don't stay respectable.

Probably because there are about a million other more important injustices to work on first.

But how many of those involve lying on a beach all day long?

Yes, but doesn't this just feel deliciously like "sticking it to the man?" These are public beaches that the most well-off among us would like to keep for themselves. Not only that, they use extremely underhanded tactics to do so.

"sticking it to the man?"

In the grand scheme of things, I'd argue that occupying a beach to stick it to the man isn't a great way to spend time.

If you are going to a beach it's much better to be sticking it to the man while you are there.

Besides, who doesn't like the beach?

Eh, we can do two things at once.

An "Occupy Malibu" protest needn't suck resources from cancer research. A few hundred (thousand) people are going to be visiting beaches in the general area of Malibu anyway. A concerted effort by beach-goers to find and use the most egregiously obstructed public beaches (for instance, using this app) could be both satisfying and low-cost.

About 20 years(?) ago Michael Moore did this in Greenwich, CT. Same deal: in CT, all beaches are public from the water to the high-tide mark. Greenwich imposes ridiculous parking/beach entry fees ($100+ IIRC) for non-residents so the only access is often from the water. He took a bunch of people and a film crew and hung out below the high-tide mark while the Greenwich cops hung out above it to make sure no-one crossed.

Not sure what the point of it all was, since there are many other nice public beaches. Maybe it was worth it just pissing off a bunch of people with sticks up their collective asses?

Here's the Kickstarter campaign - http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/escapeapps/opening-this-...

Is it just me or is $30,000 a lot for an app?

I know there's some research involved but that still sounds highly expansive.

Regarding Broad Beach... here is a PDF [1] with some good detail on beach access. There are 2 access points that are open to the public from Broad Beach Road. The PDF also has photos of all of the properties, and detail on what part of the beach is available to the public.

[1] http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/BroadBeachCoastalAccess.pdf

I read this as Malibu homeowners scammed by $30K Kickstarter campaign.

99% Invisible had a story on secret staircases in California, left over from the WPA, and a time when public infrastructure projects for pedestrians was a thing.

Thing about the WPA, it had a lot of really talented artists and sculptors contributed to public works, so you get some magnificently beautiful constructions, if you can find them.

Apparently a lot of landowners try to fence off or discourage access to the public walkways though, and there's an underground movement to keep access open to these public city spaces.

http://99percentinvisible.org/post/45876810693/episode-75-se...

I think the real story here is the use of Kickstarter to remove the risk from further developments on the Android app. If you want to go ahead and create something, but are worried about it panning out, this starts to open up new options.

It's not the first time it's been done, but it's encouraging to see creators being able to deliver to those who want their products with less question marks in the process.

I think the real story is how easy it is to scam people out of 30k for doing what could be done in a weekend with Google maps and some info from the authorities.

Seems like some of these homeowners would pay $30k to not have this program, or for some control over the final product. I could imagine some rich guy paying $15k to keep his section of beach off the program.

Perhaps this is their idea of monetization for their app!

In the comments to the Sean Parker / Big Sur Wedding story that was posted recently, at least one person described the California Coastal Commission as a bunch of thugs. It's largely thanks to the CCC enforcing easement requirements on beach front homeowners, including some very powerful people, that there is any public access at all in places like Malibu.

This happens too with public land trails in the Rockies (near Boulder). The nearby landoweners remove signs, plant over trails, etc.

The iPhone app is now live: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/our-malibu-beaches/id5656361...

Ah yes. I remember in 2005 some friends and I hung out at Carbon Beach in front of David Geffen's house soon after he lost a court battle... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Geffen#Court_battles

edit: photo http://i.imgur.com/zCQEfZY.jpg

Those same things happen in Brazil too, wealthy people put gates, make the entrance hard to find and even do lobby to have people enforcing paid parking to restrain access to public beaches, there is no such a thing as private beach, but somehow they manage to fake the "ownership".

Glad that Californians have this option. Beaches should be public on the East coast as well.

"Malibu homeowners intentionally obscure public beach access areas with fake signs and hidden access. This is not only ridiculously selfish, it is illegal."

Better or worse than just flat out preventing access whatsoever?

http://www.indiawest.com/news/9799-Surfers-Sue-for-Access-to...

Reminds me of the challenges Half Moon Bay is having with Vihnod Kholsa and beach access. At least, when they sue, the Malibu residents own up to it -- see Streisand vs Adelman. Vihnod is hiding behind things. sad.

http://www.pehub.com/2013/03/15/the-surfrider-foundation-tak...

This a great project. Living on the east end of Long Island, we tend to have similar (although seemingly less extreme) situations with public beaches and waterways. I'd love to see something like this here too, so when I'm getting yelled at I can point out that I am in fact on a public beach.

When access is blocked illegally, it is just totally wrong and this app will certainly help those who just want to enjoy some beach time. It would be nice if the entire coast could have an app like this, on both East and West...oh and South.

Awesome. I've never been to Malibu, but I can definitely see this as a useful app if I ever do decide to go. If the locals have trouble finding the public beaches, I can't imagine I'd be able to do it without some help.

'Right to roam' in Nordic countries comes to mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

Not just Nordic countries, we have in Scotland as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Scotland

I'm thinking if you pay me $30K to port a relatively simple IOS UI to Android, then that is the business. No need to sell anything (else).

Why does this need to be an app? Seems like building out a website to distribute the information would be better.

Websites already exists and have been linked to by other people. This app just makes it easier to find and use that info from a mobile phone.

Why would you drive all the way up to Malibu when LA has an uninterrupted stretch of beach that is 50 miles long?

Wow, they could use this for Hawaii. We deal with a lot of the same stuff here.

I'm in Santa Monica (just down the road from Malibu) right now and decided to go checkout the public access path next to David Geffen's house[1] after reading this today.

I was able to park across the street with no problem (plenty of spaces) and walk alongside his house onto the beach. I walked really far and passed many people who I assume were homeowners based on how they were dressed (no shoes/bags/purses or beach toys) and acting (walking close to the houses etc). All offered polite smiles and several let their dogs run up to me and seemed to expect me to pet/play with them. Not a single person gave me an odd or disapproving look - though one couple (really old white guy with a 20-something black girl) went pretty far out of their way to avoid the path I was walking on. I figured at least one of them was famous or something, as the reason.

When I was leaving though, I went back past Geffen's house (only way out) and what I assume was his private security guard (plainclothes but looked like a Marine) came walking straight at me staring at me and then got in a car in the driveway. I look across the street to my car and I see a cop car parked in the turning late in the middle of the road with two cops in it. I decided to take an extra long time wiping the sand off of my feet to soak it all in. The security guy eventually pulled the car out of the driveway and alongside the cops, I assume they were talking through open windows but with traffic and distance couldn't hear. Then the guy pulls his car in front of the cops in the turning lane, does a U-Turn and parks right in front of my car on the opposite side of the street.

There was no cross-walk and I didn't want to give the cops a reason to legally harass me, so I walked on the sidewalk right in front of David Geffen's house and gestured to the cops asking if I could cross the street illegally. They both just sorta shrugged and looked back at traffic and nodded - meaning if you want to risk getting hit by a car, go for it.

So after a couple of minutes with these cops staring right at me, I find an opening and dart over to my car. The whole time the security dude is still sitting there parked in front of my car. I put my stuff inside and pull away, on the left two cops are staring at me driving off and on the right the security dude is also staring at me. I waved to all three of them and drove away.

So I can confirm the beach is public and the homeowners seem like really nice people who don't mind that at all - other than David Geffen, who seems to try to use his private security and the police to intimidate people into not using the path.

I'm taking a date back there tomorrow.

[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/fashion/sundaystyles/05bea...

This sounds right out of Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep (or Big Lebowski if one wants something more modern)

This has been thoroughly covered in the NYT, on BBC, and NPR weeks ago. Is this news to anyone still?

why does this app cost $30,000? They should be able to get a high quality app like this developed for 1/10th the cost.

It costs $30K for the time and effort to gather and organize the data. If it was that easy to find all beach access points and identify false signs, it would have already been done.

The cost of an app isn't just the amount of man-hours*salary required to program an app. I feel that this is a trap that inexperienced engineers fall into often. Once you start building a business, there are many, many aspects that are a time-drain, and if you charge your customer solely based on the amount of time you spend coding -- rather than the amount of time actually working on the business -- you are short-changing yourself.

With 1/10th of the cost ($3000) you can pay a good programmer for something like a week at most. Do you think this app will be completely done within one week?

As someone who has written many GPS apps like this, once you have the data you could write it in a day. And since there is a free PDF with all the data in it, you just need to extract that data.

Sounds like you should have started a kickstarter and provided an app for whatever you felt was reasonable. Or even done it for free.

But you didn't.

You are right, but I can't do kickstarter because I am not an american. And I missed this issue. But I think these guys are having a huge laugh to the bank, getting such a huge sum.

How long could it take to make an App that says "All the beaches are public, don't believe their lies."?

lol - exactly

Exactly. You will find what public footpaths (that's public rights of way for leftpondians) there are marked on British Ordnance Survey maps. I believe the Ordnance Survey is the definitive source for these claims.

Do Ordinance Survey maps cover Southern California?

Do Americans not have maps or have forgotten how to read them?

What's this thing with having an app for every silly little thing? One would hope that the definitive map of public rights of way is kept somewhere, and the thing to do would be to get a copy.

Perhaps one could even draw a new map with just the public beach accesses and publish that. That would cost way less than 30 kUSD. But, no, in Silly Valley, everything has to be an app.

Drawing an accurate surveyed map would cost less than 30K? Really? I honestly had no idea that maps were that cheap to produce. I figured they had a pretty large initial cost that only was recouped due to the fact that only minor changes would be needed and they could be sold for years.

Also, Silly Valley is a bit north of Malibu, ~300 miles north.

FTR, the idea person is a local to the Malibu area.

Have you developed a similar app and know the amount of work going into it? Have you commissioned a similar app and know the cost? Actually why don't you do it if you are confident it can be done in $3000?

This is trivial to do as a web page; making it an app is pointless and 30,000 dollars completely wasted.

yes, actually I have. And the app was more complicated than this beach app.

And it costed $3000?

Coincidentally, yes, it did cost exactly $3,000. That includes 2 separate freelancers - a designer and a coder.

Because everything these days is a Kickstartr.

(Also, I hope developers don't sell themselves so cheap.)

It appears the development is being done by an agency. Overhead, profit and all that...

Or take a weekend and a copy of the data from the authority responsible and put it on a website using Google maps so everyone can access it from any device.

My assumption is for the inevitable legal battle when one of the homeowners tries to sue to app out of existence.

in SoCal that would be the $300,000 kickstarter follow on round.

Beaches in California are public only by historical accident. There are plenty of public beaches with facilities for visitors like lots of beach space, parking, restrooms, and restaurants. Santa Monica, for instance is about 15 minutes from Malibu and has all that. Why is the homeowner the bad guy for wanting a little privacy without hordes of people partying all night in his back yard, blocking his parking, leaving fast food trash everywhere, and pissing in his bushes?

While I do sympathize with the homeowners when it comes to resenting poor behavior by visitors, that thing you are calling "his backyard" is not his. He never paid for it.

English Common Law encodes many centuries of traditions about easement for travel. This topic is not a new thing. That an area might bear ever more visitors over the march of years is just a fact of life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com