We actually got hit pretty good the last couple days (over 1-1/2") First rain since July.
You do not need a helicopter to access the coast.
> You do not need a helicopter to access the coast.
Over the years I've had lots of boats that always stayed afloat and got me from point A to point B. Sometimes beaches along Lake MI or Lake Superior, think I tried Lake Erie once. Folks there would just wave and hand you a beer, and you'd never intrude but just do some surf fishing.
Lots cheaper than a heckilopter, which to this day will never get in because I don't know how they fly. It's like a rock with a goofy spinny thingy hat, or a fly you just pulled the legs off. Gonna crash and has zero coasting ability. Besides, do you really trust engineers that much??? (ok off topic so never mind)
We have a mix of folks here. Some welcome you along their beach; others post it as no trespassing. Makes it fun when ownership extends to where the tide doth not ebb further or 100 rods from ordinary high water.
> You do not need a helicopter to access the coast.
This is true, but it is still land locked, which is not uncommon in the US.
Very valid points Thad. I am pretty certain that every state has their own separate riparian laws, but some are multi-state, and some are international. Great Lakes and coastal waterways and all tributary sources come to mind. I'm now in Colorado River, Lake Mead, and all the stuff going their way world so it does get confusing. I don't work along the river, and Lake Mead is all gobm't land. Get to inland lakes and who the heck knows. I did lots of surveys in MI on little inland lakes 40-1000 acre stuff lakes and high value frontage lots. Don't tell them their 50 ft lot is only 49.8 ft....
I think this all started out as a persons rights to put a gate in their yard to keep surf bums out. Ok, fine by me. Put up a gate and let them react, and it seems they did. I still go with a toll booth and a couple pit bulls to manage it.
He'll win his appeal, as will most property owners in the US. The system is supposed to work for the people, right..... 😉
Actually, for recreational purposes, it is navigable if you can float a kayak down it (Baker v Mack, 19 Cal App 3d 1040; Younger v El Dorado County, 96 Cal App 3d 403). But the public's right is limited to navigation and the incidents of navigation. That right does not extend to being able to tresspass or otherwise use the upland for non-navigation purposes. If there are other points of access, the person seeking to navigate on the waterway needs to use those.
In this case, the waterway is the Pacific Ocean. People can access the beach via the water if nothing else, and at some low tides, can walk to it from other more accessible beaches.
It is my understanding that there are other issues being argued that are more fundamental than just access. If what I heard was correct, it seems Mr. Khosla may have gotten some bad advice as to title matters. If he argued that there should be no access because the beach is privately owned (and I don't see how it could be under any reasonable application of law) rather than on the fact that there is no public way or easement across his upland to the beach, then I can see why he would have lost.
Had it been me, I would have ditched the unwinnable title argument and focused on the fact that the only historic access was by permissive use in that if a person paid the landowner a fee to park and to cross, that person was granted permission. Permissive use cannot ripen into a prescriptive easement.
If he didn't argue that, then he got some really bad advice from his legal team and his experts.
Very intersting California beach case
What I find intriguing is all the input from people who do not really know. Not so sure this is fully state specific, but likely could be. I'm no expert and avoid these things, but did several jobs along the shores of Lake MI, and way more on inland lakes and rivers. Funny rules and the more I learned the less I wanted to venture there, as I just priced myself out of the job.
This is one of those topics that make all of us put our thinking hats back on, wherever is may be resting now. Not that the challenge goes away, but finding profitable solutions is just as much of a problem.
Have a great weekend. Go Spartans!!!
Thanks,
I was trying to find that.
Helicopters can coast
It's called autorotating. As I understand it, the pilot puts the rotor in neutral, and sets the pitch of the blades so that the bird goes into a gradual and stable descent. It's pretty much the same physics as a maple seed spinning toward the ground.
To get this back on topic: [sarcasm]people could parachute in too, as long as they're skilled enough to land above the water and below the OHWM - and as long as they drop in at low tide.[/sarcasm]
All valid points Golddigger. I'm well aware it is nothing new. Don't mean I have to like it. I'm sure it's not what Wood Guthrie had in mind singing 'This land is my land , this land is your land' ..
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
The California Courts are treating this as a permit issue, not a property rights or easement issue.
I didn't read the cites but there appears to be at least a couple of Appellate opinions this judgment is following.
Restricting historic access is a project which requires a coastal permit.
Fair is what you pay to get on a bus!