A state appeals court has sided with the California Coastal Commission in a battle over an Encinitas sea wall, a decision that could weaken the ability of property owners up and down the state’s shoreline to protect their homes from the long-term assault of ocean tides.If you're on the west side of Neptune, you're not owning; you're renting.
The ruling Tuesday by the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms the state agency’s authority to set time limits on how long sea walls can remain in place.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Appeals Court rules for Coastal Commission against Neptune homeowner seawalls
U-T:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good.
ReplyDeleteStop turning our beaches into concrete bunkers.
I would be happy to kick in a small annual property tax adder to create a public insurance fund to compensate owners when homes are condemned.
A small fee on everyone within five miles of the beach would cover it. My home value is boosted by proximity to beautiful, natural beaches, so it's worth paying.
screw that, if someone who owns a house on the beach/bluffs can't pay for their own insurance, they should find somewhere else to live. I'm tired of welfare for the 1%.
Delete...furthermore, the homeowners along the beach should themselves have to pay a property surtax to buttress all public access points in an environmentally benign way. Absent that, homeowners should be forced to provide easements for additional beach access.
DeleteClarification: the proposal of public insurance above is assuming private insurance becomes unavailable if sea wall building eventually goes away. It's possible the state insurance commissioner could twist arms to force ins carriers to offer private policies. If so, no public coverage would be needed.
DeleteWe already have public insurance for earthquakes, because the private carriers won't.
Imagine a system where bluff-top owners are offered coverage of up to 100% of their tax assessed property value. Coverage might cost them $10K per year, but it's voluntary. They can self insure if they want. If their property tax assessment lags market value due to the Prop 13 1% cap, they have a choice: either accept the reduced coverage amount, or request a reassessment from the County to adjust up to current market value (which would raise their property taxes).
Part of the deal would be that the rest of us would get out beaches and bluffs restored to a beautiful and natural state, which would boost our property values as well. We should be willing to pay $50 per parcel per year into the insurance fund, although this fee would not be voluntary.
I think this scheme would be fair to everyone. Everyone sacrifices, but we all share in the benefits of a natural coastline as well.
Uh-oh. Marvy will be on here flipping his wig any second. Shouldn't be long now.
ReplyDeletelol, 11:10. I'm also glad for the Court of Appeal's ruling. I hope it will be published so it can become legal precedent.
ReplyDeleteMost locals don't want sea walls at Beacon Beach, either. They would not be allowed there by the CCC absent an emergency condition. The switchbacks should be stabilized by methods other than concrete. That is one of the many reasons why the grant the State was going to give Encinitas for stabilization of the beach access at Beacon Beach went to the Moonlight Beach improvements, instead.
The planned seawall was not permissible, and the engineering for the proposal was deficient. The bluffs could not support the infrastructure that was being planned . . . Beacon has been a more or less natural trail, for locals, not as hazardous as the trail leading to Black's Beach, further south.
Yep, Beacons has been a natural trail. So natural there's been a new stair case every 15 years as the bluff approaches Neptune. In the 60's jeeps could drive down to the beach. Now, with total neglect, you can expect to get $300 tickets when you get caught sneaking through the barbed wire fence that will soon block public access at Beacons indefinately. Nice work "most locals".
ReplyDeleteNatural does not equal "total neglect." You don't go down the trail so you have nothing relevant to add. There has never been a "stair case" at Beacon Beach, that I have heard of . . .
ReplyDelete4:00, Guess you haven't lived here very long. If natural is not total neglect, enjoy going to the beach somewhere else when Beacons is closed.
Delete11:41 If you've lived here very long, you'd know that the name of the beach is Beacon, and you might even know why the name of the beach is Beacon.
DeleteThis case will be appealed to the California Supreme Court and onto the US Supreme Court if need be. Nothing to crow about yet. The CCC is the ultimate in a bully organization over which the public has no control.
ReplyDeleteIt's a state issue. The US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
DeleteIn Marvy's world the Supreme Court will make all his dreams come true.
DeleteIf the issue is made into an unlawful "taking" then SCOTUS could very well get involved if they decide to take the case.
DeleteIt's not and they won't.
DeleteYou live on a naturally crumbling bluff, you take your chances. If you go down, you go down. A realtor recently told me that 75% of those seafront homes are only occupied part time by absentee landlords...
ReplyDeleteI support no houses on the bluffs. The public should set up an assessment district to purchase all the property.
ReplyDelete12:25 was trying to say that when the Beacons bluff erode even more, there won't be public access any longer. You will either need to hop over a future closed fence or thru someone's private property. I think that was the point.
ReplyDeleteAnd there is a staircase at Beacons beach, its wooden made out of railroad ties and occurs at the first switch back.
The coastline naturally evolves and changes. If the access at Beacons becomes unsafe, it should be replaced with another access point where homes have been condemned. Permanence is an illusion. Just work with nature, not against it.
Delete9:16, Been to a dentist lately?
DeleteWe havec a council member whose brain is eroding from alcohol. Could turn into a mayor problem if left unchecked.
DeleteDon't worry. There wasn't much to erode there in the first place.
Delete9:16, Er, eh, we are nature.
Delete2:19, Of course we are. But we also have the power to change the state of natural features and processes. Do I really have to demonstrate to you why Lake Powell is different than the Colorado River in it's wild state? Maybe you need clarity on what makes Times Square fundamentally different from Yosemite Valley.
DeleteNah.
You aren't that dumb. You know the difference. You just like to play dumb troll.
2:59, So humans have the monopoly on artificial?
DeleteBeacon access is unsafe. Nor does it comply with ADA regulations. Close it permanently.
ReplyDelete11:09,
DeleteStone Steps is also impassable to a wheelchair. Swami's as also not ADA compliant. Nor is the beach itself, the Pacific Ocean, Indian Head Canyon, the trails of San Elijo Lagoon.
Close them all?
Or is there a tiny chance you have misinterpreted the law?
Yup, close them all.
DeleteOCEANFRONT SHOULD HAVE ***************NEVER***************** BEEN ALLOWD TO BUILD ON IN THE FIRST PLACE. WHY SHOULD RICH FOLKS HOG THE PRECIOUS RESOURCES OF ALL CALIFORNIANS? I'M A HARDCORE REPUBLICAN TOO! LET NATURE TAKE HER LAND BACK!!!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, turn off caps lock. It makes you look like a screaming jackass.
DeleteSecond, did you see the old maps during the Pacific View deliberations? Did you know that 5th street used to separate the current bluff top homes from the old bluff top?
At PV, the bluff has moved something like 200 ft. Eventually, any buffer would erode away to homes. Sooner it later, you'd end up with the same problem. The question is how to deal with it.
So perhaps in 150-200 years from now PV might be on the edge of the bluff ready to fall into the ocean?? Cool.
Deletenot perhaps. It will happen. Hard to predict the exact timing. The bluffs can be stable at one location for a century, then suddenly drop 30 ft chunks in an El Nino year.
DeleteI'm with what 12:17 stated. No one should be able to build on a bluff top near the ocean. It is just plain ass stupid.
DeleteI agree with you 2:30- we need a 5 mile set back from the seashore. Fuck those that enjoy closeness to the water...
DeleteWhat I don't get, is why bluff-top owners feel the state is legally obligated to allow seawall equipment and construction on state property.
ReplyDeleteI could understand a private property rights argument that owners should be allowed to build a wall on their own property, from their own property. But every major sea wall in Encinitas has a footing that extends into the sand, below the mean high tide line, which is where state property begins. What gives you the right to pour concrete on property that does not belong to you? And why do you feel you have a "right" to operate construction equipment on property that does not belong to you?
You want a wall? Fine. Build it from the top, and the weight of the wall has to be supported by the bluff. Your wall must not extend an inch beyond the mean high water mark. And when your wall is undermined by the waves, and falls onto our beach, we'll send you a bill for the demo.
You don't have a "right" to resources you do not own.
I get a kick out of solutions jealous losers come up with on this blog. Can't wait till they launch their attack on Vulcan Ave.
ReplyDelete2:30, you by any chance a cliffdweller looking for a handout? Sorry, none of us "jealous losers" feels obligated to solve your problem. Next time buy and build moderately, not greedily.
Delete2:59, Don't ya just hate it when people make a good living and can afford to live on the edge of a continent, blocking your ocean view? Or when infrastructural improvements might make business better for many near you? Or when historic stop signs and lights are removed just so circulation is improved? Or when 1000 trees are planted on a road where people don't deserve them? Or when anyone wants to save Beacons beach access and parking for all to enjoy? Lot to hate in this town.
DeleteThere are meds for your problem, you know. Avail yourself.
DeleteWe are ready and waiting on Vulcan, man the barricades Madame LaFarge!
ReplyDeleteSurprise bluff top owners. The ocean is mightier than any bluff or any type of wall you want to have built. It will take your house when it wants and you won't be able to stop it.
ReplyDeleteMove inland and you will have no worries. The salt air corrodes all of your stuff anyway.
10:18
ReplyDeleteLame post. Until their house fails they block access views to the ocean.
bigest thing that needs to happen is an assessment district to pay for all the coastal property. Spread it out and its not that much for the common fold.!
10:18, You forgot to add "Love, your neighbor on the other side of Neptune".
ReplyDelete11:33 Not as lame as you think.
ReplyDeleteThe stairs at Stone Steps are too steep. Level them out.
ReplyDeleteI got a splinter in my toe at the Grandview stairs. Coat them with surfboard resin mixed with sand.
The palm at Moonlight has too many fronds. Cut the tree down.
The reasons you list are the reasons I'm moving to Huntington, easy access to the beach and Huntington Beach is the surf Capitol of California, if not the world.
DeleteNow you've really done it. You just pissed off 1,000,000 Auzzies. Good on ya mate.
DeleteHB is a shit hole! The wave sucks too!
DeletePave paradise, put up a parking lot.....
DeleteJoin the Pacific Legal Foundation, the rights they protect are yours.
ReplyDelete