For the last six months, the rebuilding from the fires in the Palisades has proceeded-- unreasonably slowly, to be sure, but proceeded nevertheless. The same is true in Altadena, the site of the second great fire last January. But the residents of Malibu have been frozen in time by the state. Nothing is happening. No debris clean-up, no environmental studies, permit applications are held in limbo, etc. And now the residents are hearing rumors of the reason for this: the state of California doesn't like people living on the beach. State bureaucrats have always taken a dim view of homes built right on the shoreline but haven't been able to do anything about it because those homes were built in an era when people were mostly free to do as they liked and the massive regulatory state didn't exist. But these fires have given them the perfect excuse to do what they've always wanted to do: kick all those people off the beach, seize their homes and property and demolish them.

Even people whose homes were spared by the fires are hearing from their insurance agents and sources within the government that the state is preparing to seize their land.


https://www.facebook.com/stevegrubershow/videos/is-california-poised-to-steal-malibu-from-residentsthere-are-rumors-that-califor/9562643043861347/

Of course if the state does do this, it will be required under the 5th Amendment to compensate property owners for the seizure at full market value. The guy in the video, his property alone is assessed at $40 million. So the state is looking at having to pay billions if it wants all that land back and they're pretty much bankrupt as it is. Gavvy Newsom is scrambling around looking for money anywhere he can find it just to keep the lights on in Sacramento, so where they think they're going to find the money to do this is anyone's guess.

And just from a base political perspective, the people that own these homes
are not itinerant migrants with no resources and no political clout, like the neighborhoods in Chavez Ravine that they seized back in the 1950s to build Dodger Stadium. These are some of the richest and most connected people in America and if the state is really planning to do this, the politicians behind it have some serious balls to steal the homes of the country's most powerful people.

But it's just rumors for now.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

For the last six months, the rebuilding from the fires in the Palisades has >proceeded-- unreasonably slowly, to be sure, but proceeded nevertheless. The >same is true in Altadena, the site of the second great fire last January. But >the residents of Malibu have been frozen in time by the state. Nothing is >happening. No debris clean-up, no environmental studies, permit applications >are held in limbo, etc. And now the residents are hearing rumors of the reason >for this: the state of California doesn't like people living on the beach. >State bureaucrats have always taken a dim view of homes built right on the >shoreline but haven't been able to do anything about it because those homes >were built in an era when people were mostly free to do as they liked and the >massive regulatory state didn't exist. . . .

I don't think you characterized this correctly. It's my understanding
that there never were exclusive riparian rights and that the public
always had access to the beaches but the state never enforced it to
appeased wealthy people who illegally grabbed the beaches for
themselves.

The public was excluded but it was illegal to do so, but that's not like
the Great Lakes in which the law is completely muddled, that the public
can be legally excluded, and when lots were sold off in Chicago, lots on
partly or entirely submerged lands were sold off because no one bothered
to map the shoreline first.

In my opinion, homes might be built a reasonable distance back from the shoreline but beach access must never be exclusive.

Of course, you are going to tell me that the distance will be
unreasonable, and I'm sure you're correct.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 28, 2025 at 12:56:17 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

For the last six months, the rebuilding from the fires in the Palisades has >> proceeded-- unreasonably slowly, to be sure, but proceeded nevertheless. The >> same is true in Altadena, the site of the second great fire last January. But
the residents of Malibu have been frozen in time by the state. Nothing is
happening. No debris clean-up, no environmental studies, permit applications >> are held in limbo, etc. And now the residents are hearing rumors of the
reason
for this: the state of California doesn't like people living on the beach. >> State bureaucrats have always taken a dim view of homes built right on the >> shoreline but haven't been able to do anything about it because those homes >> were built in an era when people were mostly free to do as they liked and the
massive regulatory state didn't exist. . . .

I don't think you characterized this correctly. It's my understanding
that there never were exclusive riparian rights and that the public
always had access to the beaches but the state never enforced it to
appeased wealthy people who illegally grabbed the beaches for
themselves.

The public was excluded but it was illegal to do so, but that's not like
the Great Lakes in which the law is completely muddled, that the public
can be legally excluded, and when lots were sold off in Chicago, lots on partly or entirely submerged lands were sold off because no one bothered
to map the shoreline first.

In my opinion, homes might be built a reasonable distance back from the shoreline but beach access must never be exclusive.

Of course, you are going to tell me that the distance will be
unreasonable, and I'm sure you're correct.

The law in California is that the mean high tide line down to the water is public property and cannot be owned by anyone from the Mexico border up to Oregon. (Technically, there's an exception for the federal government in
places like the SEAL training base in Coronado, the Army depot at Point Dume, the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton, etc. The federal government does own those beaches and can exclude the public from them, especially during live military exercises.)

But those rich folks in Malibu like to pretend they own the whole beach
outside their back door and treat it like it's their private property. Since the beach has always been legally public property and they couldn't own it, decades ago, they all decided that the best way to keep the public off 'their' beaches was to build a wall... with their houses. They literally built fences from the side of each house to the property line, where the next person's
fence would take over. Malibu is a city that's one mile wide and thirty miles long and there was literally no way to get from the road to the beach for most of that 30 miles.

Back in the 80s, a series of lawsuits made their way to the CA Supreme Court, with the plaintiffs arguing that blocking off access to the beach for miles at a time was effectively illegally appropriating public property for private
use. The Court agreed and ordered a series of property condemnations at one-mile intervals all along Pacific Coast Highway. Designated property owners had five-foot wide strips of their property condemned and bought by the state, which were then turned into access corridors from the road to the beach. The richey-riches screamed and yelled but in the end, they lost and now people can get to the beach. That didn't stop them, though. Over the years they've developed all sorts of tricks to hide those access points and/or make parking along PCH near the access points practically impossible. They've done things like plant shrubbery around the access gates to camouflage them and they put construction cones out to make it seem like they're the gates or the street parking around them are closed for repair, and they've even painted the backs of their homes to look like garages and constructed fake driveway cutouts
along the street in front of otherwise legal parking spots to make it seem
like you'd be blocking someone driveway and garage if you parked there.

Nevertheless, to this day if you take a long walk up the Malibu beachfront,
you stand good odds of being harassed by private security employed by studio moguls and our precious, precious celebrities to keep your dirty unwashed
prole ass off 'their' beach. This is especially true if they're having one of their glitzy catered soirees, where they put tables and chairs out on the sand for the guests. During those parties, the security guards are actually posted out on the beach and turn around anyone who tries to walk past, as if they actually have the authority to do it.

About seven years ago, a group of folks put together an app for smart phones, which details exactly where all the state-mandated beach access points are, notes if they happen to be (coincidentally) hidden by shrubbery, etc. and also points out where property owners have constructed fake driveways and other schemes to discourage the riff-raff from parking on PCH.

It also has copies of the California statutes that guarantee public access to all beaches, in case you're approached and harassed by someone's private security guards.**

When the app came out, it absolutely infuriated all the 1%-ers in Malibu and there was even an ill-fated attempt at legal action to prevent its release on the grounds that the wealthy would be 'unsafe' if their beach access points were publicized. That argument went over with the court like a fart in church. Since then, the L.A. Times has reported that use of Malibu beaches by non-Malibu residents has skyrocketed, which I'm sure is giving all those folks out there a serious case of red-ass.


**I had my own amusing encounter with private security on a beach in Malibu when I first moved here back in 2011. The girlfriend du jour and I were
walking along the surf line, when these two guys in suits came down off the deck of one the houses and ran down to intercept us. They told us the beach
was private and we couldn't go any further. I said that it was my
understanding that all beaches in California were public, to which one of the goons replied that "there's the law, and there's reality," while subtilely letting his coat hang open to let me see he was armed. I said, "Oh, I have one of those, too!" and lifted my shirt so he could see it and the badge right
next to it. I said, "You wouldn't be threatening people with violence for walking on a beach which they have every right to use, would you? 'Cause that would kinda be a felony. How does five years in Chino sound to you? Matter of fact, whoever your boss is in that big ol' house over there could also be civilly liable for whatever you do next, and it's obvious he has deep, deep pockets, so please, try and stop us from walking down the beach. And if you
put hands on us, that'll really make my day. I'll get to arrest you *and* retire 10 years early."

They backed off so fast you'd have thought their asses were on fire, and we decided to not only keep going across their 'private' beach, but we stopped
and sat down for a while to enjoy the view, too.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 28, 2025 at 12:56:17 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

For the last six months, the rebuilding from the fires in the
Palisades has proceeded-- unreasonably slowly, to be sure, but
proceeded nevertheless. The same is true in Altadena, the site of
the second great fire last January. But the residents of Malibu have
been frozen in time by the state. Nothing is happening. No debris >>>clean-up, no environmental studies, permit applications are held in >>>limbo, etc. And now the residents are hearing rumors of the reason for >>>this: the state of California doesn't like people living on the beach. >>>State bureaucrats have always taken a dim view of homes built right on >>>the shoreline but haven't been able to do anything about it because
those homes were built in an era when people were mostly free to do
as they liked and the massive regulatory state didn't exist. . . .

I don't think you characterized this correctly. It's my understanding
that there never were exclusive riparian rights and that the public
always had access to the beaches but the state never enforced it to >>appeased wealthy people who illegally grabbed the beaches for
themselves.

The public was excluded but it was illegal to do so, but that's not like >>the Great Lakes in which the law is completely muddled, that the public
can be legally excluded, and when lots were sold off in Chicago, lots on >>partly or entirely submerged lands were sold off because no one bothered
to map the shoreline first.

In my opinion, homes might be built a reasonable distance back from the >>shoreline but beach access must never be exclusive.

Of course, you are going to tell me that the distance will be
unreasonable, and I'm sure you're correct.

The law in California is that the mean high tide line down to the water is >public property and cannot be owned by anyone from the Mexico border up to >Oregon. (Technically, there's an exception for the federal government in >places like the SEAL training base in Coronado, the Army depot at Point Dume, >the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton, etc. The federal government does own >those beaches and can exclude the public from them, especially during live >military exercises.) . . .

Thanks for all tnat. We're under that weird Supreme Court ruling that
tried to interpret whether a common law rule establishing riparian
rights which wasn't based on parliamentary law but royal decree. The
decree established riparian rights to the center of water, which might
have made sense if a small creek divided ajacent lots, but sure as hell
does not make sense for the Great Lakes or even a navigable river.

Did common law even apply? Did the federal government's rights get
inherited by Illinois? I've tried to follow but I get bogged down.

But we lack access rights except from a public beach and these do get
blocked.

So, exactly how far back from the high water mark is California trying
to preclude rebuilding? It may not be a bad idea but it had damn well
better compensate land owners.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 28, 2025 at 3:41:33 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 28, 2025 at 12:56:17 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

For the last six months, the rebuilding from the fires in the
Palisades has proceeded-- unreasonably slowly, to be sure, but
proceeded nevertheless. The same is true in Altadena, the site of
the second great fire last January. But the residents of Malibu have
been frozen in time by the state. Nothing is happening. No debris
clean-up, no environmental studies, permit applications are held in
limbo, etc. And now the residents are hearing rumors of the reason for >>>> this: the state of California doesn't like people living on the beach. >>>> State bureaucrats have always taken a dim view of homes built right on >>>> the shoreline but haven't been able to do anything about it because
those homes were built in an era when people were mostly free to do
as they liked and the massive regulatory state didn't exist. . . .

I don't think you characterized this correctly. It's my understanding
that there never were exclusive riparian rights and that the public
always had access to the beaches but the state never enforced it to
appeased wealthy people who illegally grabbed the beaches for
themselves.

The public was excluded but it was illegal to do so, but that's not like >>> the Great Lakes in which the law is completely muddled, that the public
can be legally excluded, and when lots were sold off in Chicago, lots on >>> partly or entirely submerged lands were sold off because no one bothered >>> to map the shoreline first.

In my opinion, homes might be built a reasonable distance back from the
shoreline but beach access must never be exclusive.

Of course, you are going to tell me that the distance will be
unreasonable, and I'm sure you're correct.

The law in California is that the mean high tide line down to the water is >> public property and cannot be owned by anyone from the Mexico border up to >> Oregon. (Technically, there's an exception for the federal government in
places like the SEAL training base in Coronado, the Army depot at Point Dume,
the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton, etc. The federal government does own
those beaches and can exclude the public from them, especially during live >> military exercises.) . . .

Thanks for all tnat. We're under that weird Supreme Court ruling that
tried to interpret whether a common law rule establishing riparian
rights which wasn't based on parliamentary law but royal decree. The
decree established riparian rights to the center of water, which might
have made sense if a small creek divided ajacent lots, but sure as hell
does not make sense for the Great Lakes or even a navigable river.

Did common law even apply? Did the federal government's rights get
inherited by Illinois? I've tried to follow but I get bogged down.

But we lack access rights except from a public beach and these do get blocked.

So, exactly how far back from the high water mark is California trying
to preclude rebuilding? It may not be a bad idea but it had damn well
better compensate land owners.

They (theoretically, just rumors, remember) want to take the whole thing from the west/south side of Pacific Coast Highway to the water.

E.g., in the below photo, everything south of the roadway would be condemned and appropriated by the state.

https://ibb.co/9Stqkg1

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On May 28, 2025 at 3:41:33 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 28, 2025 at 12:56:17 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

For the last six months, the rebuilding from the fires in the
Palisades has proceeded-- unreasonably slowly, to be sure, but
proceeded nevertheless. The same is true in Altadena, the site of
the second great fire last January. But the residents of Malibu have >>>>> been frozen in time by the state. Nothing is happening. No debris
clean-up, no environmental studies, permit applications are held in
limbo, etc. And now the residents are hearing rumors of the reason for >>>>> this: the state of California doesn't like people living on the beach. >>>>> State bureaucrats have always taken a dim view of homes built right on >>>>> the shoreline but haven't been able to do anything about it because
those homes were built in an era when people were mostly free to do
as they liked and the massive regulatory state didn't exist. . . .

I don't think you characterized this correctly. It's my understanding
that there never were exclusive riparian rights and that the public
always had access to the beaches but the state never enforced it to
appeased wealthy people who illegally grabbed the beaches for
themselves.

The public was excluded but it was illegal to do so, but that's not like >>>> the Great Lakes in which the law is completely muddled, that the public >>>> can be legally excluded, and when lots were sold off in Chicago, lots on >>>> partly or entirely submerged lands were sold off because no one bothered >>>> to map the shoreline first.

In my opinion, homes might be built a reasonable distance back from the >>>> shoreline but beach access must never be exclusive.

Of course, you are going to tell me that the distance will be
unreasonable, and I'm sure you're correct.

The law in California is that the mean high tide line down to the water is >>> public property and cannot be owned by anyone from the Mexico border up to >>> Oregon. (Technically, there's an exception for the federal government in >>> places like the SEAL training base in Coronado, the Army depot at Point Dume,
the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton, etc. The federal government does own
those beaches and can exclude the public from them, especially during live >>> military exercises.) . . .

Thanks for all tnat. We're under that weird Supreme Court ruling that
tried to interpret whether a common law rule establishing riparian
rights which wasn't based on parliamentary law but royal decree. The
decree established riparian rights to the center of water, which might
have made sense if a small creek divided ajacent lots, but sure as hell
does not make sense for the Great Lakes or even a navigable river.

Did common law even apply? Did the federal government's rights get
inherited by Illinois? I've tried to follow but I get bogged down.

But we lack access rights except from a public beach and these do get
blocked.

So, exactly how far back from the high water mark is California trying
to preclude rebuilding? It may not be a bad idea but it had damn well
better compensate land owners.

They (theoretically, just rumors, remember) want to take the whole thing from >the west/south side of Pacific Coast Highway to the water.

E.g., in the below photo, everything south of the roadway would be condemned >and appropriated by the state.

https://ibb.co/9Stqkg1

Ok, thanks.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 29 May 2025 00:12:25 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On May 28, 2025 at 3:41:33 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 28, 2025 at 12:56:17 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

For the last six months, the rebuilding from the fires in the
Palisades has proceeded-- unreasonably slowly, to be sure, but
proceeded nevertheless. The same is true in Altadena, the site of
the second great fire last January. But the residents of Malibu have >>>>> been frozen in time by the state. Nothing is happening. No debris
clean-up, no environmental studies, permit applications are held in
limbo, etc. And now the residents are hearing rumors of the reason for >>>>> this: the state of California doesn't like people living on the beach. >>>>> State bureaucrats have always taken a dim view of homes built right on >>>>> the shoreline but haven't been able to do anything about it because
those homes were built in an era when people were mostly free to do
as they liked and the massive regulatory state didn't exist. . . .

I don't think you characterized this correctly. It's my understanding
that there never were exclusive riparian rights and that the public
always had access to the beaches but the state never enforced it to
appeased wealthy people who illegally grabbed the beaches for
themselves.

The public was excluded but it was illegal to do so, but that's not like >>>> the Great Lakes in which the law is completely muddled, that the public >>>> can be legally excluded, and when lots were sold off in Chicago, lots on >>>> partly or entirely submerged lands were sold off because no one bothered >>>> to map the shoreline first.

In my opinion, homes might be built a reasonable distance back from the >>>> shoreline but beach access must never be exclusive.

Of course, you are going to tell me that the distance will be
unreasonable, and I'm sure you're correct.

The law in California is that the mean high tide line down to the water is >>> public property and cannot be owned by anyone from the Mexico border up to >>> Oregon. (Technically, there's an exception for the federal government in >>> places like the SEAL training base in Coronado, the Army depot at Point Dume,
the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton, etc. The federal government does own
those beaches and can exclude the public from them, especially during live >>> military exercises.) . . .

Thanks for all tnat. We're under that weird Supreme Court ruling that
tried to interpret whether a common law rule establishing riparian
rights which wasn't based on parliamentary law but royal decree. The
decree established riparian rights to the center of water, which might
have made sense if a small creek divided ajacent lots, but sure as hell
does not make sense for the Great Lakes or even a navigable river.

Did common law even apply? Did the federal government's rights get
inherited by Illinois? I've tried to follow but I get bogged down.

But we lack access rights except from a public beach and these do get
blocked.

So, exactly how far back from the high water mark is California trying
to preclude rebuilding? It may not be a bad idea but it had damn well
better compensate land owners.

They (theoretically, just rumors, remember) want to take the whole thing from >the west/south side of Pacific Coast Highway to the water.

E.g., in the below photo, everything south of the roadway would be condemned >and appropriated by the state.

https://ibb.co/9Stqkg1

That is a lot of land
A lot of very expensive land.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 28, 2025 at 6:43:17 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2025 00:12:25 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On May 28, 2025 at 3:41:33 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 28, 2025 at 12:56:17 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

For the last six months, the rebuilding from the fires in the
Palisades has proceeded-- unreasonably slowly, to be sure, but
proceeded nevertheless. The same is true in Altadena, the site of >>>>>> the second great fire last January. But the residents of Malibu have >>>>>> been frozen in time by the state. Nothing is happening. No debris >>>>>> clean-up, no environmental studies, permit applications are held in >>>>>> limbo, etc. And now the residents are hearing rumors of the reason for >>>>>> this: the state of California doesn't like people living on the beach. >>>>>> State bureaucrats have always taken a dim view of homes built right on >>>>>> the shoreline but haven't been able to do anything about it because >>>>>> those homes were built in an era when people were mostly free to do >>>>>> as they liked and the massive regulatory state didn't exist. . . .

I don't think you characterized this correctly. It's my understanding >>>>> that there never were exclusive riparian rights and that the public >>>>> always had access to the beaches but the state never enforced it to >>>>> appeased wealthy people who illegally grabbed the beaches for
themselves.

The public was excluded but it was illegal to do so, but that's not like >>>>> the Great Lakes in which the law is completely muddled, that the public >>>>> can be legally excluded, and when lots were sold off in Chicago, lots on >>>>> partly or entirely submerged lands were sold off because no one bothered >>>>> to map the shoreline first.

In my opinion, homes might be built a reasonable distance back from the >>>>> shoreline but beach access must never be exclusive.

Of course, you are going to tell me that the distance will be
unreasonable, and I'm sure you're correct.

The law in California is that the mean high tide line down to the water is
public property and cannot be owned by anyone from the Mexico border up to
Oregon. (Technically, there's an exception for the federal government in >>>> places like the SEAL training base in Coronado, the Army depot at Point >>>> Dume,
the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton, etc. The federal government does >>>> own
those beaches and can exclude the public from them, especially during live
military exercises.) . . .

Thanks for all tnat. We're under that weird Supreme Court ruling that
tried to interpret whether a common law rule establishing riparian
rights which wasn't based on parliamentary law but royal decree. The
decree established riparian rights to the center of water, which might
have made sense if a small creek divided ajacent lots, but sure as hell >>> does not make sense for the Great Lakes or even a navigable river.

Did common law even apply? Did the federal government's rights get
inherited by Illinois? I've tried to follow but I get bogged down.

But we lack access rights except from a public beach and these do get
blocked.

So, exactly how far back from the high water mark is California trying
to preclude rebuilding? It may not be a bad idea but it had damn well
better compensate land owners.

They (theoretically, just rumors, remember) want to take the whole thing from
the west/south side of Pacific Coast Highway to the water.

E.g., in the below photo, everything south of the roadway would be condemned >> and appropriated by the state.

https://ibb.co/9Stqkg1

That is a lot of land
A lot of very expensive land.

Yeah, that's the one thing that makes me think it's just a pipe dream for
them. Yes, they'd love to do it, but financially it's a non-starter given the state's current dire economic situation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

For the last six months, the rebuilding from the fires in the Palisades has proceeded-- unreasonably slowly, to be sure, but proceeded nevertheless. The same is true in Altadena, the site of the second great fire last January. But the residents of Malibu have been frozen in time by the state. Nothing is happening. No debris clean-up, no environmental studies, permit applications are held in limbo, etc. And now the residents are hearing rumors of the reason
for this: the state of California doesn't like people living on the beach. State bureaucrats have always taken a dim view of homes built right on the shoreline but haven't been able to do anything about it because those homes were built in an era when people were mostly free to do as they liked and the massive regulatory state didn't exist. But these fires have given them the perfect excuse to do what they've always wanted to do: kick all those people off the beach, seize their homes and property and demolish them.

Even people whose homes were spared by the fires are hearing from their insurance agents and sources within the government that the state is preparing
to seize their land.

https://www.facebook.com/stevegrubershow/videos/is-california-poised-to-steal-malibu-from-residentsthere-are-rumors-that-califor/9562643043861347/

Of course if the state does do this, it will be required under the 5th Amendment to compensate property owners for the seizure at full market value. The guy in the video, his property alone is assessed at $40 million. So the state is looking at having to pay billions if it wants all that land back and they're pretty much bankrupt as it is. Gavvy Newsom is scrambling around looking for money anywhere he can find it just to keep the lights on in Sacramento, so where they think they're going to find the money to do this is anyone's guess.

And just from a base political perspective, the people that own these homes are not itinerant migrants with no resources and no political clout, like the neighborhoods in Chavez Ravine that they seized back in the 1950s to build Dodger Stadium. These are some of the richest and most connected people in America and if the state is really planning to do this, the politicians behind
it have some serious balls to steal the homes of the country's most powerful people.

But it's just rumors for now.

We need Jim Rockford



--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-05-28 10:18 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 28, 2025 at 6:43:17 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2025 00:12:25 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On May 28, 2025 at 3:41:33 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 28, 2025 at 12:56:17 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

For the last six months, the rebuilding from the fires in the
Palisades has proceeded-- unreasonably slowly, to be sure, but >>>>>>> proceeded nevertheless. The same is true in Altadena, the site of >>>>>>> the second great fire last January. But the residents of Malibu have >>>>>>> been frozen in time by the state. Nothing is happening. No debris >>>>>>> clean-up, no environmental studies, permit applications are held in >>>>>>> limbo, etc. And now the residents are hearing rumors of the reason for
this: the state of California doesn't like people living on the beach.
State bureaucrats have always taken a dim view of homes built right on
the shoreline but haven't been able to do anything about it because >>>>>>> those homes were built in an era when people were mostly free to do >>>>>>> as they liked and the massive regulatory state didn't exist. . . . >>>>

I don't think you characterized this correctly. It's my understanding >>>>>> that there never were exclusive riparian rights and that the public >>>>>> always had access to the beaches but the state never enforced it to >>>>>> appeased wealthy people who illegally grabbed the beaches for
themselves.

The public was excluded but it was illegal to do so, but that's not like
the Great Lakes in which the law is completely muddled, that the public
can be legally excluded, and when lots were sold off in Chicago, lots on
partly or entirely submerged lands were sold off because no one bothered
to map the shoreline first.

In my opinion, homes might be built a reasonable distance back from the
shoreline but beach access must never be exclusive.

Of course, you are going to tell me that the distance will be
unreasonable, and I'm sure you're correct.

The law in California is that the mean high tide line down to the water is
public property and cannot be owned by anyone from the Mexico border up to
Oregon. (Technically, there's an exception for the federal government in
places like the SEAL training base in Coronado, the Army depot at Point >>>>> Dume,
the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton, etc. The federal government does
own
those beaches and can exclude the public from them, especially during live
military exercises.) . . .

Thanks for all tnat. We're under that weird Supreme Court ruling that >>>> tried to interpret whether a common law rule establishing riparian
rights which wasn't based on parliamentary law but royal decree. The >>>> decree established riparian rights to the center of water, which might >>>> have made sense if a small creek divided ajacent lots, but sure as hell >>>> does not make sense for the Great Lakes or even a navigable river.

Did common law even apply? Did the federal government's rights get
inherited by Illinois? I've tried to follow but I get bogged down.

But we lack access rights except from a public beach and these do get >>>> blocked.

So, exactly how far back from the high water mark is California trying >>>> to preclude rebuilding? It may not be a bad idea but it had damn well >>>> better compensate land owners.

They (theoretically, just rumors, remember) want to take the whole thing from
the west/south side of Pacific Coast Highway to the water.

E.g., in the below photo, everything south of the roadway would be condemned
and appropriated by the state.

https://ibb.co/9Stqkg1

That is a lot of land
A lot of very expensive land.

Yeah, that's the one thing that makes me think it's just a pipe dream for them. Yes, they'd love to do it, but financially it's a non-starter given the state's current dire economic situation.

All they have to do is think of a reason to seize the land that exempts
them from paying market value for the property.

Here in Ontario, we had an interesting case about 30 years ago. There
was a provincial park called Ipperwash on the Ontario side of Lake
Huron. The area of the park had originally been an Indian reserve but it
was apparently seized by the government during WWII for use as a
military base - and never given back after the war. In fact it still had
some military buildings and vehicles in a fenced off area of the park
when I went there with my family in the early 70s. The Indians
apparently made some efforts to get their reserve back (or at least the
part that had been expropriated) but weren't having any luck. Finally,
in the 90s, they essentially seized the park and the base section and
defied all attempts to evict them. There was an armed standoff, some
property was damaged, and one Indian was fatally shot by police. The
government ultimately backed down and the (former) provincial park and
army base remain in the hands of the Indians and the rest of us are
forbidden to be on that land. I drove by there a few years back and
there's still a burned out car visible from the highway that serves the
area; it's painted with a provocative slogan that I can't remember.

If Gov. Nuisance can establish some right of the local Indians to the
land between the PCH and the ocean, maybe he can get away with chasing
out the folks in Malibu WITHOUT compensation because they "stole" the
land from the Indians in the first place.



--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 29 May 2025 02:18:07 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On May 28, 2025 at 6:43:17 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2025 00:12:25 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On May 28, 2025 at 3:41:33 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 28, 2025 at 12:56:17 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

For the last six months, the rebuilding from the fires in the
Palisades has proceeded-- unreasonably slowly, to be sure, but
proceeded nevertheless. The same is true in Altadena, the site of >>>>>>> the second great fire last January. But the residents of Malibu have >>>>>>> been frozen in time by the state. Nothing is happening. No debris >>>>>>> clean-up, no environmental studies, permit applications are held in >>>>>>> limbo, etc. And now the residents are hearing rumors of the reason for >>>>>>> this: the state of California doesn't like people living on the beach. >>>>>>> State bureaucrats have always taken a dim view of homes built right on >>>>>>> the shoreline but haven't been able to do anything about it because >>>>>>> those homes were built in an era when people were mostly free to do >>>>>>> as they liked and the massive regulatory state didn't exist. . . . >>>>

I don't think you characterized this correctly. It's my understanding >>>>>> that there never were exclusive riparian rights and that the public >>>>>> always had access to the beaches but the state never enforced it to >>>>>> appeased wealthy people who illegally grabbed the beaches for
themselves.

The public was excluded but it was illegal to do so, but that's not like
the Great Lakes in which the law is completely muddled, that the public >>>>>> can be legally excluded, and when lots were sold off in Chicago, lots on
partly or entirely submerged lands were sold off because no one bothered
to map the shoreline first.

In my opinion, homes might be built a reasonable distance back from the >>>>>> shoreline but beach access must never be exclusive.

Of course, you are going to tell me that the distance will be
unreasonable, and I'm sure you're correct.

The law in California is that the mean high tide line down to the water is
public property and cannot be owned by anyone from the Mexico border up to
Oregon. (Technically, there's an exception for the federal government in >>>>> places like the SEAL training base in Coronado, the Army depot at Point >>>>> Dume,
the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton, etc. The federal government does
own
those beaches and can exclude the public from them, especially during live
military exercises.) . . .

Thanks for all tnat. We're under that weird Supreme Court ruling that >>>> tried to interpret whether a common law rule establishing riparian
rights which wasn't based on parliamentary law but royal decree. The
decree established riparian rights to the center of water, which might >>>> have made sense if a small creek divided ajacent lots, but sure as hell >>>> does not make sense for the Great Lakes or even a navigable river.

Did common law even apply? Did the federal government's rights get
inherited by Illinois? I've tried to follow but I get bogged down.

But we lack access rights except from a public beach and these do get >>>> blocked.

So, exactly how far back from the high water mark is California trying >>>> to preclude rebuilding? It may not be a bad idea but it had damn well >>>> better compensate land owners.

They (theoretically, just rumors, remember) want to take the whole thing from
the west/south side of Pacific Coast Highway to the water.

E.g., in the below photo, everything south of the roadway would be condemned
and appropriated by the state.

https://ibb.co/9Stqkg1

That is a lot of land
A lot of very expensive land.

Yeah, that's the one thing that makes me think it's just a pipe dream for >them. Yes, they'd love to do it, but financially it's a non-starter given the >state's current dire economic situation.

The most I could see them doing is taking a few of the homes and
turning them into parking/free access to the beach. While it will be
expensive it's likely within the state budget.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 28, 2025 at 8:34:51 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-05-28 10:18 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 28, 2025 at 6:43:17 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >> wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2025 00:12:25 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On May 28, 2025 at 3:41:33 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 28, 2025 at 12:56:17 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

For the last six months, the rebuilding from the fires in the >>>>>>>> Palisades has proceeded-- unreasonably slowly, to be sure, but >>>>>>>> proceeded nevertheless. The same is true in Altadena, the site of >>>>>>>> the second great fire last January. But the residents of Malibu have
been frozen in time by the state. Nothing is happening. No debris >>>>>>>> clean-up, no environmental studies, permit applications are held in >>>>>>>> limbo, etc. And now the residents are hearing rumors of the reason for
this: the state of California doesn't like people living on the beach.
State bureaucrats have always taken a dim view of homes built right on
the shoreline but haven't been able to do anything about it because >>>>>>>> those homes were built in an era when people were mostly free to do >>>>>>>> as they liked and the massive regulatory state didn't exist. . . . >>>>>

I don't think you characterized this correctly. It's my understanding
that there never were exclusive riparian rights and that the public >>>>>>> always had access to the beaches but the state never enforced it to >>>>>>> appeased wealthy people who illegally grabbed the beaches for >>>>>>> themselves.

The public was excluded but it was illegal to do so, but that's not like
the Great Lakes in which the law is completely muddled, that the public
can be legally excluded, and when lots were sold off in Chicago, lots on
partly or entirely submerged lands were sold off because no one bothered
to map the shoreline first.

In my opinion, homes might be built a reasonable distance back from the
shoreline but beach access must never be exclusive.

Of course, you are going to tell me that the distance will be >>>>>>> unreasonable, and I'm sure you're correct.

The law in California is that the mean high tide line down to the water is
public property and cannot be owned by anyone from the Mexico border up to
Oregon. (Technically, there's an exception for the federal government in
places like the SEAL training base in Coronado, the Army depot at Point
Dume,
the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton, etc. The federal government does
own
those beaches and can exclude the public from them, especially during live
military exercises.) . . .

Thanks for all tnat. We're under that weird Supreme Court ruling that >>>>> tried to interpret whether a common law rule establishing riparian >>>>> rights which wasn't based on parliamentary law but royal decree. The >>>>> decree established riparian rights to the center of water, which might >>>>> have made sense if a small creek divided ajacent lots, but sure as hell
does not make sense for the Great Lakes or even a navigable river. >>>>>
Did common law even apply? Did the federal government's rights get >>>>> inherited by Illinois? I've tried to follow but I get bogged down. >>>>>
But we lack access rights except from a public beach and these do get >>>>> blocked.

So, exactly how far back from the high water mark is California trying >>>>> to preclude rebuilding? It may not be a bad idea but it had damn well >>>>> better compensate land owners.

They (theoretically, just rumors, remember) want to take the whole thing >>>> from
the west/south side of Pacific Coast Highway to the water.

E.g., in the below photo, everything south of the roadway would be condemned
and appropriated by the state.

https://ibb.co/9Stqkg1

That is a lot of land
A lot of very expensive land.

Yeah, that's the one thing that makes me think it's just a pipe dream for >> them. Yes, they'd love to do it, but financially it's a non-starter given >> the
state's current dire economic situation.

All they have to do is think of a reason to seize the land that exempts
them from paying market value for the property.

Well, thankfully we have a 5th Amendment that short-circuits all the normal tricks they would play to do that.

Our Takings Clause and the restrictions and requirements for the government
are pretty well settled not a lot of wriggle room for the reptiles in Sacramento to get around it. Plus, the California Constitution is even *more* restrictive on government than the 5th Amendment. It was written at a time
long before Sacramento had turned into a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

If Gov. Nuisance can establish some right of the local Indians to the
land between the PCH and the ocean, maybe he can get away with chasing
out the folks in Malibu WITHOUT compensation because they "stole" the
land from the Indians in the first place.

That would still be a government seizure of private property and be subject to the requirements of the 5th Amendment. Meaning the state would have to pay for it even if they want to just give it back to the Indians. And even if they
did, it's not like the Indians could bar the public from being on the land. As noted above, ownership of the state's beaches is legally prohibited, even by Indian tribes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-05-29 2:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 28, 2025 at 8:34:51 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-05-28 10:18 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 28, 2025 at 6:43:17 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2025 00:12:25 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On May 28, 2025 at 3:41:33 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>>> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 28, 2025 at 12:56:17 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

For the last six months, the rebuilding from the fires in the >>>>>>>>> Palisades has proceeded-- unreasonably slowly, to be sure, but >>>>>>>>> proceeded nevertheless. The same is true in Altadena, the site of >>>>>>>>> the second great fire last January. But the residents of Malibu have
been frozen in time by the state. Nothing is happening. No debris >>>>>>>>> clean-up, no environmental studies, permit applications are held in
limbo, etc. And now the residents are hearing rumors of the reason for
this: the state of California doesn't like people living on the beach.
State bureaucrats have always taken a dim view of homes built right on
the shoreline but haven't been able to do anything about it because
those homes were built in an era when people were mostly free to do
as they liked and the massive regulatory state didn't exist. . . .

I don't think you characterized this correctly. It's my understanding
that there never were exclusive riparian rights and that the public
always had access to the beaches but the state never enforced it to
appeased wealthy people who illegally grabbed the beaches for >>>>>>>> themselves.

The public was excluded but it was illegal to do so, but that's not like
the Great Lakes in which the law is completely muddled, that the public
can be legally excluded, and when lots were sold off in Chicago, lots on
partly or entirely submerged lands were sold off because no one bothered
to map the shoreline first.

In my opinion, homes might be built a reasonable distance back from the
shoreline but beach access must never be exclusive.

Of course, you are going to tell me that the distance will be >>>>>>>> unreasonable, and I'm sure you're correct.

The law in California is that the mean high tide line down to the water is
public property and cannot be owned by anyone from the Mexico border up to
Oregon. (Technically, there's an exception for the federal government in
places like the SEAL training base in Coronado, the Army depot at Point
Dume,
the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton, etc. The federal government does
own
those beaches and can exclude the public from them, especially during live
military exercises.) . . .

Thanks for all tnat. We're under that weird Supreme Court ruling that
tried to interpret whether a common law rule establishing riparian >>>>>> rights which wasn't based on parliamentary law but royal decree. The >>>>>> decree established riparian rights to the center of water, which might
have made sense if a small creek divided ajacent lots, but sure as hell
does not make sense for the Great Lakes or even a navigable river. >>>>>>
Did common law even apply? Did the federal government's rights get >>>>>> inherited by Illinois? I've tried to follow but I get bogged down. >>>>>>
But we lack access rights except from a public beach and these do get
blocked.

So, exactly how far back from the high water mark is California trying
to preclude rebuilding? It may not be a bad idea but it had damn well
better compensate land owners.

They (theoretically, just rumors, remember) want to take the whole thing
from
the west/south side of Pacific Coast Highway to the water.

E.g., in the below photo, everything south of the roadway would be condemned
and appropriated by the state.

https://ibb.co/9Stqkg1

That is a lot of land
A lot of very expensive land.

Yeah, that's the one thing that makes me think it's just a pipe dream for >>> them. Yes, they'd love to do it, but financially it's a non-starter given >>> the
state's current dire economic situation.

All they have to do is think of a reason to seize the land that exempts
them from paying market value for the property.

Well, thankfully we have a 5th Amendment that short-circuits all the normal tricks they would play to do that.

Our Takings Clause and the restrictions and requirements for the government are pretty well settled not a lot of wriggle room for the reptiles in Sacramento to get around it. Plus, the California Constitution is even *more* restrictive on government than the 5th Amendment. It was written at a time long before Sacramento had turned into a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

If Gov. Nuisance can establish some right of the local Indians to the
land between the PCH and the ocean, maybe he can get away with chasing
out the folks in Malibu WITHOUT compensation because they "stole" the
land from the Indians in the first place.

That would still be a government seizure of private property and be subject to
the requirements of the 5th Amendment. Meaning the state would have to pay for
it even if they want to just give it back to the Indians. And even if they did, it's not like the Indians could bar the public from being on the land. As
noted above, ownership of the state's beaches is legally prohibited, even by Indian tribes.

I don't know the whole history of the Indian claim on Ipperwash but my perception of it is that the Indians took something that may or may not
have been legitimately theirs (at least at one point), essentially at
gun point, and the government didn't take it back. I'm not aware of any payments of money going either way so it appears that outright seizing
that land was a successful strategy for the Indians - and a distinct
setback for the rule of law, which seems to have been abandoned in this
case.

made me think something along the same lines but this time perpetrated
by the government *might* have a chance of clearing people out of
Malibu. It looks like I'm wrong though. Given the strength of your Constitution, it looks like any seizure of land on the ocean side of the
PCH *has* to be compensated, presumably at market rates. The cost of
that would appear to be prohibitive given the dire state of California's finances.

Here's hoping developments in the last few years make Californians give
their heads a mighty shake before they go to the polls next year and
choose some sensible leaders for the first time in too many years.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 29, 2025 at 5:37:20 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-05-29 2:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 28, 2025 at 8:34:51 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >> wrote:

On 2025-05-28 10:18 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 28, 2025 at 6:43:17 PM PDT, "shawn"
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2025 00:12:25 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>> wrote:

On May 28, 2025 at 3:41:33 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 28, 2025 at 12:56:17 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

For the last six months, the rebuilding from the fires in the >>>>>>>>>> Palisades has proceeded-- unreasonably slowly, to be sure, but >>>>>>>>>> proceeded nevertheless. The same is true in Altadena, the site of
the second great fire last January. But the residents of Malibu have
been frozen in time by the state. Nothing is happening. No debris
clean-up, no environmental studies, permit applications are held in
limbo, etc. And now the residents are hearing rumors of the reason for
this: the state of California doesn't like people living on the beach.
State bureaucrats have always taken a dim view of homes built right on
the shoreline but haven't been able to do anything about it because
those homes were built in an era when people were mostly free to do
as they liked and the massive regulatory state didn't exist. . . .

I don't think you characterized this correctly. It's my understanding
that there never were exclusive riparian rights and that the public
always had access to the beaches but the state never enforced it to
appeased wealthy people who illegally grabbed the beaches for >>>>>>>>> themselves.

The public was excluded but it was illegal to do so, but that's not like
the Great Lakes in which the law is completely muddled, that the public
can be legally excluded, and when lots were sold off in Chicago, lots on
partly or entirely submerged lands were sold off because no one bothered
to map the shoreline first.

In my opinion, homes might be built a reasonable distance back from the
shoreline but beach access must never be exclusive.

Of course, you are going to tell me that the distance will be >>>>>>>>> unreasonable, and I'm sure you're correct.

The law in California is that the mean high tide line down to the >>>>>>>> water is
public property and cannot be owned by anyone from the Mexico >>>>>>>> border up to
Oregon. (Technically, there's an exception for the federal government in
places like the SEAL training base in Coronado, the Army depot at Point
Dume,
the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton, etc. The federal >>>>>>>> government does
own
those beaches and can exclude the public from them, especially >>>>>>>> during live
military exercises.) . . .

Thanks for all tnat. We're under that weird Supreme Court ruling that
tried to interpret whether a common law rule establishing riparian >>>>>>> rights which wasn't based on parliamentary law but royal decree. The
decree established riparian rights to the center of water, which might
have made sense if a small creek divided ajacent lots, but sure as hell
does not make sense for the Great Lakes or even a navigable river. >>>>>>>
Did common law even apply? Did the federal government's rights get >>>>>>> inherited by Illinois? I've tried to follow but I get bogged down. >>>>>>>
But we lack access rights except from a public beach and these do get
blocked.

So, exactly how far back from the high water mark is California trying
to preclude rebuilding? It may not be a bad idea but it had damn well
better compensate land owners.

They (theoretically, just rumors, remember) want to take the whole thing
from
the west/south side of Pacific Coast Highway to the water.

E.g., in the below photo, everything south of the roadway would be >>>>>> condemned
and appropriated by the state.

https://ibb.co/9Stqkg1

That is a lot of land
A lot of very expensive land.

Yeah, that's the one thing that makes me think it's just a pipe dream for
them. Yes, they'd love to do it, but financially it's a non-starter given
the
state's current dire economic situation.

All they have to do is think of a reason to seize the land that exempts >>> them from paying market value for the property.

Well, thankfully we have a 5th Amendment that short-circuits all the normal >> tricks they would play to do that.

Our Takings Clause and the restrictions and requirements for the government >> are pretty well settled not a lot of wriggle room for the reptiles in
Sacramento to get around it. Plus, the California Constitution is even
*more*
restrictive on government than the 5th Amendment. It was written at a time >> long before Sacramento had turned into a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

If Gov. Nuisance can establish some right of the local Indians to the
land between the PCH and the ocean, maybe he can get away with chasing
out the folks in Malibu WITHOUT compensation because they "stole" the
land from the Indians in the first place.

That would still be a government seizure of private property and be subject >> to
the requirements of the 5th Amendment. Meaning the state would have to pay >> for
it even if they want to just give it back to the Indians. And even if they >> did, it's not like the Indians could bar the public from being on the land. >> As
noted above, ownership of the state's beaches is legally prohibited, even by
Indian tribes.

I don't know the whole history of the Indian claim on Ipperwash but my perception of it is that the Indians took something that may or may not
have been legitimately theirs (at least at one point), essentially at
gun point, and the government didn't take it back. I'm not aware of any payments of money going either way so it appears that outright seizing
that land was a successful strategy for the Indians - and a distinct
setback for the rule of law, which seems to have been abandoned in this
case.

made me think something along the same lines but this time perpetrated
by the government *might* have a chance of clearing people out of
Malibu. It looks like I'm wrong though. Given the strength of your Constitution, it looks like any seizure of land on the ocean side of the
PCH *has* to be compensated, presumably at market rates. The cost of
that would appear to be prohibitive given the dire state of California's finances.

Here's hoping developments in the last few years make Californians give
their heads a mighty shake before they go to the polls next year and
choose some sensible leaders for the first time in too many years.

A *lot* people are looking at what Rick Caruso is doing in the Palisades-- everything from setting up legal collectives to give people affordable access to lawyers who know how to push permits through the bureaucracy to partnering with Silicon Valley to leverage AI to turbo-charge the permit approval process and get them evaluated and approved in 1/10th the normal time-- while Karen Bass does nothing but spout platitudes and slogans ("L.A. Forward!") and they're wishing they'd voted for him instead of Bass when they had the chance. They coming to realize that basing their vote on skin color and genitals isn't actually a smart thing to do.

Caruso is getting shit done while Bass dithers and passes the buck.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)