Standup Zone Forum
General => Random => Topic started by: SlatchJim on January 28, 2015, 11:32:43 AM
-
Coastal access win for our team.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/09/25/surfers-defeat-silicon-valley-tech-billionaire
-
So we can get to the shore, but can we take our paddles into the water? I don't think even the Coastal Commission can help us there.
-
I think the jurisdiction changes at the water line. :P
As someone who is so far right, I might be to your left, It's kind of weird for me to be such a strong supporter of coastal access even in the face of property rights. If I were the benevolent dictator of this fair land, I'd eliminate private ownership of all coastline other than harbor use. I'd step everyone back a hundred feet and allow the public use of a very limited resource.
Of course I'd be assassinated in a week, for all my other stands and viewpoints. ;)
-
As someone who is so far right, I might be to your left, It's kind of weird for me to be such a strong supporter of coastal access even in the face of property rights. If I were the benevolent dictator of this fair land, I'd eliminate private ownership of all coastline other than harbor use. I'd step everyone back a hundred feet and allow the public use of a very limited resource.
In Texas at least we have up to the high water line. All beaches and waters are public property. Once you are on the water or the beach you can go anywhere. Unfortunately sometimes the access is difficult.
I would definitely support 100 feet.
-
I think the jurisdiction changes at the water line. :P
As someone who is so far right, I might be to your left, It's kind of weird for me to be such a strong supporter of coastal access even in the face of property rights. If I were the benevolent dictator of this fair land, I'd eliminate private ownership of all coastline other than harbor use. I'd step everyone back a hundred feet and allow the public use of a very limited resource.
Of course I'd be assassinated in a week, for all my other stands and viewpoints. ;)
Interesting. I guess I never thought of beach access as being a left or right issue. I would consider myself a moderate with liberal leanings but despite that (based on my own personal experience fighting for beach access issues as a volunteer with The Surfrider Foundation) I never really noticed political leanings having much to do with either side of this issue. The pas CEO of the Surfrider Foundation Jim Moriarty in fact was a conservative Christian Republican. The gist of my point if being a far righty as you describe yourself on not contradictory with fighting for beach access.
-
I always assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that private property sanctity was an issue more tightly held by the right than left.
If in fact you should be granted access to the coast through private property, how many have actually knocked on the gate of a homeowner and been granted access through, or just walked through on there own? I don't know the actual law but it seems to be a de facto property owner right once the gate goes up, whether it holds legal water or not.
-
Perhaps, but again I'm just basing it on my own experience. The other thing could simply be (despite all the perceived polarization these days) there are a lot of people who lean right or left case by case. Many property owners I've come across were quite left leaning on issues outside of property rights. Likewise, a conservative who wants to spend time at the beach with his/her family probably no more likes the idea of a property owners restricting their access. They may be very conservative on many or most or even all things that divide liberals and conservatives but may still feel that beach access anywhere should be open to the public.
-
Thanks for sharing this here. Great outcome. Beach access is the publics right.
When visiting the coast there last June I read about this beach being closed and was shocked. I'm hopeful reading about the fair outcome.
-
i like the 100 foot concept, tho it's too late to dream of implementation in most populated coastlines.
what i like most is that it prevents people from building in range of serious storm damage, and then expecting gov't subsidy for cleanup and ongoing insurance costs. It annoy the shit outta me to see these oceanfront homes, wiped out by Sandy, being rebuilt with significant subsidy, right smack in the same storm path as with Sandy! So we can pay again when it happens again, which it will.
I figure if you're a big enough big shot to be on the water, the risk should be all yours (or your private insurers') if your property is damaged.
I know in CT the law is that waterfront is public up to the highest tide mark, and the state provides access points. This allows people to walk the shoreline anywhere, accessing by state-owned access points, and accessing via moored/anchored boats.
I'll throw this out to the wolves: power boats should be taxed heavily. The indirect costs to all of us are significant, and boaters pay nil for this.
-
I'll throw this out to the wolves: power boats should be taxed heavily. The indirect costs to all of us are significant, and boaters pay nil for this.
The tourist sector in NJ is a $35 billion industry and boating is a significant part of that, so I might argue that at the very least, boaters pay directly including sales tax, registration and gas taxes. Indirect contributions are too exhaustive to list.
One of my biggest concerns with powerboats is the damage to the environment from PWC's running over spawning areas (as well as other delicate areas) in our back bays. But, you can't easily put a dollar figure on that. One trend that I'm happy about is a shift from 2 stroke to more efficient 4 stroke. But, at the same time it seems the average boat is getting larger.
-
indirect costs are by definition all those costs which are tough to put a dollar figure on, that are incurred via a specific activity--your example of damage to fisheries is but one of many that are incurred by power boaters--and the small special taxes paid by boaters dont nearly cover any of these costs
and i challenge that boaters are responsible for much of the NJ tourism revenues--there are relatively few boaters, charterers, etc compared to other visitors of the state
what are some of the indirect benefits provided by power boaters to the state of NJ? benefits to all of us who pay the indirect costs associated with the power boating activities of the few?
-
I'll give you a hypothetical example. Uncle Bob rents a house in Sea Girt for $26,000 for two weeks in August and brings his extended family of 15-20 depending on the day. In total, this family will spend about $40,000 to $50,000 (a bargain really). No one else in the extended family steps foot on a boat the entire time except for Uncle Bob who goes on his annual overnight fishing trip. In fact, the overnight fishing charter is what started this annual family vacation 20 years ago. Although a very small part of the overall cost of the vacation, if the fishing was not there, Uncle Bob would go elsewhere. We know this because every time additional fishing restrictions are put in place, tourism goes down.
-
we'll have to disagree that uncle bob's one day fishing trip is the lynchpin issue for the whole trip.
when uncle bob dies, will the family tradition of going to sea girt cease?
what about the people who aren't going to sea girt because they don't like the boat noise, congestion and pollution?
what about the bird watchers who go elsewhere because of the proliferation of boats and their effects on bird populations.
what about the kayakers who, after being swamped by more and more power boats, go elsewhere?
what about the homeowners who sell out because their view and their beachfront has become crowded with powerboaters.
NJ loses plenty of tourism because of the hordes of idiots in big ugly plastic boats.
-
We can disagree on the hypothetical but it's based upon actual events (only the names were changed to protect the innocent)
Uncle Bob did die and the family Cruised like Norwegians, (they have not been heard from since)
Sea Girt has minimal boat traffic (ocean front only)
The bird watchers go to Cape May anyhow, plus they are cheap, they bring lunch from home
Kayakers love the challenge; they just like to complain
No one is selling, seriously
There is no evidence that NJ looses tourism due to "hordes of idiots in big ugly plastic boats" or big ugly governors for that matter
For what its worth, I did sell my last boat in 2010, the same year I got into SUP and haven't looked back. But, that's approximately $10,000 per year less into the local economy just in slip fees, fuel, repairs and misc. equipment.
I can't beleive I wasted my 1000th post on this drivel... ;D
-
i had to laugh--the bird watchers are cheap--was speaking with one near my house in CT (4 osprey nests out front) and she pulled a half-eaten tuna sandwich out of her pocket.
-
funnier would be to see christie on the beach--i mean, other than in the 4 million dollar ad he promoted himself and family with!
sorry, no more politics!
-
We'll have to see how he does with his weight loss, maybe 2015 will be his year to SUP NJ! He'll make a splash for sure...
-
But do they make a SUP with enough luxury for his highness? Who would give a better "gift" SUP; Jerry Jones or King Abdullah?
-
maybe he'd create a big traffic jam nearby his favorite break, and then chopper in to his son's sup lesson?