Hacker News Reader

Comment by waterside81 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com