| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see what all the fuss is about. When has letting the wealthy have their way ever made life difficult for everyone else?
When has letting the wealthy have their way ever made life difficult for everyone else?
The entirety of American history?
So if he is not subject to California law does California have to provide services to his land. Can the Californian government fence him off dig up the road and cut the power and water... That's what I would be doing...
LOL, I guess people forget a few years ago when Barbra Streisand tried to lay claim to a couple miles of public beach because her property was adjacent to the beach.
These beach grabs by Hollywood elites are actually old news.
So if he is not subject to California law does California have to provide services to his land. Can the Californian government fence him off dig up the road and cut the power and water... That's what I would be doing...
The point made by the court is not that he is immune to California Law.
The point is that state powers cannot override federal powers that have jurisdiction.Waging war is a federal power.
In this case, the US was at war with Mexico with land being fought over and people dying on both sides. An agreement was made to end that war in 1848. An agreement with many stipulations among those of which were restricting laws which can be applied to large parcels of land granted by the Mexican government which came under American control. Thus, not applicable to this block of land which, from context, appears to be a block of land that was granted by the Mexican government before the 1848 treaty.
Although there are often cases which come up debating whether or not a treaty can supersede a state's preogatives or not in some areas, I am not sure how that will apply as the treaty was signed in 1848 and California did not even become a state until 1850. Basically, the block of land has remained under federal control.
As to the question of whether or not the state can do the above, it depends on how other aspects of the constitution are written as well as the treaty. It very well might be that state requirements (such as providing transportation access) must be met but that the owners can decline to meet any requirements if they so choose. It might be that California would have to change its constitution...
But, basically, people were dying and large amounts of capitol were being expended in a war. Concessions were made to end it and it is a significant part of California history.
I'd just say quit crying about it and complaining that someone else has something you (in general, not the 8th Dwarf) want and go to another beach, any of many in California.
I don't have a horse in this race, because where I come from all beaches and access to a beach are held by the people/government and can not be privately owned..
I am thinking of alternatives that's all (I also think rich people should be kicked in the nuts once a week but that's because I am a socialist).
Why doesn't the Cali government build a jetty and bring people in via boat.
The only way to end this kind of BS probably is: California buys all the beaches and declares them public property, and has that confirmed by federal law somehow. But with the typical allergic reaction to the public government doing just about anything in the US, this probably won´t happen. That´s what you get if you run a country like some corporate entity.
The California constitution already bans privately owning beaches. Why would we need to buy them and declare them public property?
|
Then Cali should run a road parallel to the beach, on the state owned beach land with parking areas for the public, from one end of "his" property to the other. This dude bought a property that had a public access road and decided "screw the public, I have more money than God and can hire lawyers to get the public off of here". I bet this one small decision made his property value triple.
There should be demonstrations and picketing of the area done constantly, anyone with vehicles that can ferry people onto the beach should start running services to make this a$$-hat's life miserable. Rich and powerful isn't enough, he wants to squash people too. Screw him.
Guy uses law as written . . . and the problem is what, exactly?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Torches. Pitchforks. Its the only way to be sure.
Off with his head?
Guy uses law as written . . . and the problem is what, exactly?
He used it to de facto create a private beach, something that was intended to be unconstitutional in California.
If he used the law to get his private beach, then the law needs to be changed.
|
Hmmmm, how about linking to a version of the story that is less inflammatory and more instructive, like this one?
The important legal bits are as follows:
"The decision was based on a unique set of circumstances dating back to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848. The treaty essentially required the United States to recognize Mexican land grants as long as the owner filed a claim. Jose Antonio Alviso, who owned the land grant at the time, filed such a claim, and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed it in 1859. A patent for the 53-acre beachfront property, 6 miles south of Half Moon Bay, was issued to Alviso in 1865.
Judge Buchwald ruled that Alviso's patent, handed down over the generations, extinguished all public rights to the property, including beach access rights established under the public trust doctrine in the California Constitution, which was first drafted in 1879."
So, the big problem people have with this is that the new management of the beach have decided to restrict land access to said beach. People are welcome to be upset by this, but until they can make a case that this is in violation of some other law, the courts seem to have made the right decision. He doesn't own the beaches, but he has the legal right to this parcel of land, much as the previous owners had the legal right to the land before him. This is a unique set of circumstances, and as a Midwesterner, I don't know how frequently this would arise. I'm guessing "rarely."
That said, if people would like to protest this decision, they are free to do so from his beach. It's public property, and the courts have upheld that as well. They just have to get there by sea. If they're determined enough - and, from the original post, I would suspect that they are - then there's little that he can legally do to remove them. In fact, I'd expect to see several stories in the coming weeks and months about people taking up his "private" beach space.
As the current owner is not a vampire, I don't see how the treaty that ended the mexicican american war is relevant to his rights.
As the current owner is not a vampire, I don't see how the treaty that ended the mexicican american war is relevant to his rights.
Because once the land rights were granted to the person after the Mexican-American War in 1865 they could then be transfered with the land. The current owner is just enforcing the property rights that still exist.
|
|
Exactly. Until the state and/or federal government rules that this loophole cannot be used to guarantee the free exercise of private property, the guy has a pretty clear case. The previous owners kept ownership due to the same loophole that people are now complaining about. It's only because the guy is being a jerk and restricting access to his land that they're upset.
Ya'll do realize that by that logic the land you're standing on is probably right for casino development by some Indian tribe...
Good point. We have a lot of native treaties we turned our backs on that are still technically the law of the land, but not enforced. If they were enforced, many of you could have your land taken and given to natives.
It's California.
It doesn't have to make sense.
Meh. This will be appealed and overturned -- as it should be.
Rest assured the mega-rich have numerous other ways to screw you.
|
|
I don't have a horse in this race, because where I come from all beaches and access to a beach are held by the people/government and can not be privately owned..
I am thinking of alternatives that's all (I also think rich people should be kicked in the nuts once a week but that's because I am a socialist).
Why doesn't the Cali government build a jetty and bring people in via boat.
Except under indigenous land rights...or where really rich people got control of beach access though their local government and had them impose laws allowing only horses and their trainers access to the beach.
|
|
That's not exactly the same thing here that you're arguing, though. The courts decided long ago that this parcel of land is covered by the Treaty, something that the previous owners took advantage of by allowing people passage through the land but charging them a toll. I don't recall hearing much about the public outrage at the audacity that the previous owners were showing by restricting people's access to the publicly available beach on the other side. It's only now that the land itself is closed to the public that people are upset. Am I missing something on how private property works?
In the end, I agree with bugleyman. This will get appealed, and probably should. If anyone has the right to rule on whether this precedent applies in this case, it'd be them. I don't see it making it to the US Supreme Court, as I'm not sure which section of the Constitution this particular case would violate.
Maybe if the beaches were not public, there would be a case. Private property is the most efficient way to capture rent, and give property utility. Those who own it will see to its upkeep and capture the benefits of its use by others. The owner has a personal stake in the claim, and not someone in the capitol. The CEO would have ownership of the beach, or someone else would and could exclude the CEO from its use, rent it, or have beach parties there according to his want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. This will be appealed and overturned -- as it should be.
Rest assured the mega-rich have numerous other ways to screw you.
Indeed, at least until enough many of us get fed up and do away with them. Too bad that's not happening fast enough.