AB 1680

Discussion in 'Surfing' started by miscreant, Oct 11, 2019.

  1. miscreant

    miscreant Well-Known Member

    May 20, 2016
  2. Freddibetts

    Freddibetts Well-Known Member

    May 7, 2015
    USA New York
  3. MrChristmas

    MrChristmas Active Member

    Dec 10, 2014
    USA California
    Looks like the Governor signed the bill.
  4. davey

    davey Active Member

    Jun 9, 2007
  5. nedsurf

    nedsurf Well-Known Member

    Jan 22, 2005
    There go my property values on the Ranch estate house. Gonna put it up for sale now that the riff-raff will be wandering around harshing my mellow. Any offers?
    Dawnpatrol and zEd like this.
  6. miscreant

    miscreant Well-Known Member

    May 20, 2016
    Try posting on Craigslist.
  7. Bruce Fowler

    Bruce Fowler Well-Known Member

    Jul 28, 2018
    This is what I posted on my FB page accompanying the Surfer link you posted.
    Bruce Fowler I see a case for Eminent Domain abuse here. With the year round opening of Surf Beach (Snowy Plover protection no longer an issue) and the vast expanse of unused beaches along the Gaviota coast directly south of Hollister, it doesn't make sense for the state to impose themselves on the private property limited access the Hollister Ranch road presents. The narrow, undivided entry road into Hollister is not safe enough, nor well suited to the increased traffic it would surely experience. Inclement weather is the norm: frequent high winds, the potential for flash floods after long droughts, as well as slippery, twisting road presents a clear and present danger to inexperienced drivers. SURF BEACH is easily accessible with adequate parking as well as the beach areas south of Gaviota Park. These alternative beach access sites represent safer, more convenient options while avoiding negative land value impact upon the present taxpayer owners living in the Hollister Ranch area. OPENING HOLLISTER IS FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE, A LIABILITY TO THE PUBLIC AND REPRESENTS A BAD MOVE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
    pintail likes this.
  8. nedsurf

    nedsurf Well-Known Member

    Jan 22, 2005
    Oh, I see now. It's entirely too dangerous for the ignorant public to have access to a beach that by law they have a right to access. Let the low life public go to the "public" beaches, those that are entitled will stay in their unsafe little enclave and protect it from entry because they care so much for the safety of the unwashed public.

    You either have a public access right or you don't, it shouldn't be selectively enforced based on wealth and entitlement. Malibu was a case of that, as are other beaches that beach landowners kept closed untill the state forced public access. Any beach city along the coast has examples of that. How about those dangerous beaches on the Hawaiian Islands?

    With due respect I call bullshit on your argument, it is a tortured attempt to keep gates locked that should have been opened years ago. At least the people that have kept it closed for all these years are honest, they simply don't want you there unless you "belong".

    From your detailed description of the area I'll guess that you have at least some limited access to the ranch?
  9. SdSurferguy

    SdSurferguy Well-Known Member

    Oct 18, 2006
    I just hope I'll be able to redeem my Chase Sapphire travel points at the Hilton Surf Ranch on the bluffs. Staying in Solvang will be a drag. ;)
    nedsurf likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice