miscreant
Well-Known Member
- May 20, 2016
- 2,491
- 1,163
carry on.
AB 1680
- Thread starter miscreant
- Start date
Freddibetts
Well-Known Member
Yay or Nay ?
MrChristmas
Active Member
Looks like the Governor signed the bill.
Yay!!
nedsurf
Well-Known Member
- Jan 22, 2005
- 3,036
- 1,127
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?
miscreant
Well-Known Member
- May 20, 2016
- 2,491
- 1,163
Try posting on Craigslist.
MrChristmas
Active Member
Here's the latest article. Is it really a good thing?
https://www.surfer.com/blogs/opinio...mail&em_hash=9a2e5219e2d39d694abfc511d95bdfaa
https://www.surfer.com/blogs/opinio...mail&em_hash=9a2e5219e2d39d694abfc511d95bdfaa
Bruce Fowler
Well-Known Member
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.
nedsurf
Well-Known Member
- Jan 22, 2005
- 3,036
- 1,127
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?
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?
SdSurferguy
Well-Known Member
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. 