It's important to notice that any argument in favor of public access to beaches can be applied to any kind of desirable land. One could make an isomorphic argument about mountaintops: "The concept of a private mountaintop is backwards and unethical. Why should rich people be able to restrict others from hiking to the top and enjoying scenic views?" Should we ban private ownership of mountaintops?
Public beaches are a good thing, but it's wasteful to ban ownership of all 840 miles of California coastline. Some people want private beaches, even if the law doesn't allow for it. They'll lock gates, block roads, and otherwise shirk the law to get what they want. The state then must then expend significant resources discovering and sanctioning these people.
A better solution would be for the state to tax private beaches. That would collect significant revenue from people like Khosla while still allowing only a small fraction of the coast to be privately-owned.
Edit: I'm not saying we should ban public beaches. I'm saying allow something like 20 miles of private coastline and auction off the rights every year. The other 820 miles of coastline would remain public, and the state would collect millions in revenue to be used for social welfare.
>> Public beaches are a good thing, but it's wasteful to ban ownership of all 840 miles of California coastline. Some people want private beaches, even if the law doesn't allow for it. They'll lock gates, block roads, and otherwise shirk the law to get what they want. The state then must then expend significant resources discovering and sanctioning these people.
>> A better solution would be for the state to tax private beaches. That would collect significant revenue from people like Khosla while still allowing only a small fraction of the coast to be privately-owned.
A better solution would be to change the law so the fine for blocking access is computed relative to net worth, and to allow for collection of all court costs related to enforcement and collection.
That way the state could fine Khosla $3,000,000 a day for breaking the law, plus make him pay the bill for the legal actions required to collect the money. Failure to pay the money would result in foreclosure of his property.
People like Khosla need to be reminded that they are just like the rest of us.
A better solution, instead of giving in to the demands of sociopathic people, might be to calculate the total cost needed to enforce and keep the beaches open and then set fines in such a way that they generate the revenue needed.
A simple example would be if there are an average of 100 violations per year of people blocking access that require state intervention and an average annual operating cost of $1M, then the base fine is set at $10,000.
Instead of rewarding the folks breaking the law by letting them do it and taxing it because you can't afford enforcement, shift the burden of cost of enforcement to those in violation of the law.
Also, this idea of selling off public goods is a slippery slope -- if folks see that selling a little bit of beach here and there can raise funding for projects that will get them relected it will be hard to resist dipping back in.
Such fines would not collect nearly as much revenue as a tax. Consider the case of fining people for possession of marijuana versus legalizing and taxing it. States that tax collect several orders of magnitude more revenue, which they use to benefit the less fortunate. Fines have another disadvantage: Unlike taxes, fines are regressive and selectively enforced.
When it comes to lakes, mountains, woods, waterfalls, caves, cliffs, and other majestic natural phenomena, we're fine with some being privately-owned and some being public. We have mechanisms in place to ensure that we make the right trade-offs (eg: natural parks, nature preserves, zoning). Plenty of states and countries allow private beaches and they do just fine. I don't see why the coastline is so special that we must ban all private ownership, even if it means sacrificing valuable revenue for social programs.
> Such fines would not collect nearly as much revenue as a tax
Who said anyone cared about turning sociopaths into a revenue stream? (Although to my eye, it beats some of the others the state has...) The goal is to stop the sociopathic behavior.
Frankly, I am more of a mind with those advocating the bolt-cutter option. Make it an every-Saturday, media-friendly community event - a trip to the beach. Make it fun - bring clowns. Private security won't go too far with that many cameras around, and a few people willing to risk a jail visit would go a long way.
one could make that argument, and should. If it serves the common good, and there are other opportunities to own land (and of course their are), than we should dissallow it as a society. Getting some theoretical tax dollars and giving my son or daughter an opportunity to feel sand in their tows and waves on their chest and salt in their mouth, etc, are for more worthy than some tax dollars. We should not create a society where only the wealthy get to enjoy common properties and delights of the earth.
This is a strawman. Nobody is arguing in favor of 100% private beaches. Apparently I hold the most extreme view in this thread, and I'm proposing privatizing 2% of the coastline and taxing the hell out of it. The other 98% would remain public.
Remember: This proposal would mean millions more for social programs. I think things like education and health care are more important than ensuring everyone's right to access 100% of the entire coastline. (Which isn't even the case today, as the law rarely enforced.)
> Remember: This proposal would mean millions more for social programs.
Why not just skip the middleman and raise capital gains and estate taxes? Also what would keep the 2% landowners from paying lobbyists and politicians to lower the coastline taxes, like they have paid to lower capital gains and estate taxes?
Remember that this is a state policy, so it's pretty easy to keep the wealth out of state and avoid the taxes. California already has the highest capital gains taxes in the US and 2nd-highest in the world, so such tax avoidance is extremely common. Coastline can't be moved or hidden, making it much harder to avoid the tax.
"Public access to Martins Beach, and to all land seaward of the mean high tide line in California, is guaranteed in the state’s constitution and mandated within the Coastal Act of 1976."
So it's the right to bear arms in the US Constitution, but that does not stop us from wondering whether it is archaic and whether it should be changed.
If we are of the opinion that everything should be private, then why not privatize Central Park?!
What could go wrong if some poor kids will never get to see the beach? It makes it even more of an incentive to work hard, am I right? /sarcasm
The truth is that the bigger the disparities between rich and poor the more violent the environment gets. So, let those poor kids access to the beach and you'll be able to enjoy your wealth.
Nobody in this thread is arguing that all beaches should be private. I'm arguing in favor of privatizing a tiny fraction of coastline, taxing the hell out of it to pay for other social programs, and keeping the rest public.
I look forward for your initiative to change the California constitution to appear on the ballet. Until then, maybe we should obey what the courts say the constitution means?
Nobody is doing that. I'm talking about bad arguments, not bad policies.
Also, read my comments. If anything, my proposed idea would reduce the number of de-facto private beaches and increase wealth transfer to the less fortunate.
I don't think that's your true reason for supporting a ban on private beaches. Until the courts struck it down, California's constitution also banned same-sex marriage. I don't think that 5 years ago, you would have argued against gay marriage because of what was in the state constitution.
If what is lawful differs from what is most conducive to human flourishing, it is the law that should be changed.
The law existed before the property was bought. And regardless of your opinions about the morality of the law, for same-sex marriage, the law was being enforced before it was repealed. This law isn't being enforced.
>> If what is lawful differs from what is most conducive to human flourishing, it is the law that should be changed.
If we're talking about laws being conducive to human flourishing, then the law is perfect as is, and in fact, should have even more teeth to make it easier to enforce.
The current law is designed for the exact purpose of human flourishing. Specifically, the flourishing of ALL the citizens of California and visitors thereto.
The law, as is, prioritizes the flourishing of millions of people over the flourishing of a very few extremely wealthy individuals.
Nobody here is proposing privatizing the entire coast. Apparently I hold the most extreme views in this thread and my example was 2% of the coastline. Do you think things would be worse if 98% of the coastline was public and millions more in tax revenue went to social programs?
well thank goodness someone here on hackernews dot com is looking out for the interests of the wealthy property owners who want to violate California law.
What? At no point did I defend Khosla's actions or the interests of the wealthy.
Right now, the law banning private ownership of beaches is all but unenforced. One can currently buy a private beach for the cost of a fence and a gate. I'm saying we should tax private beaches so that:
1. The state has an incentive to enforce the law. (Just like any business, law enforcement favors profit centers to cost centers.)
2. We can limit private beaches to a small fraction of the total coastline.
3. The revenue collected can be used for social programs benefiting the less fortunate.
If anything, that's the opposite of "...looking out for the interests of the wealthy property owners who want to violate California law."
Another thing: "It violates California law" is not a good reason to condemn something. For five years, same-sex marriage was a violation of the state constitution. When I voiced my opposition to that law, social conservatives the same argument as you. (Though they were less snarky about it.)
I think your comment is uncharitable, untrue, and unkind.
Public beaches are a good thing, but it's wasteful to ban ownership of all 840 miles of California coastline. Some people want private beaches, even if the law doesn't allow for it. They'll lock gates, block roads, and otherwise shirk the law to get what they want. The state then must then expend significant resources discovering and sanctioning these people.
A better solution would be for the state to tax private beaches. That would collect significant revenue from people like Khosla while still allowing only a small fraction of the coast to be privately-owned.
Edit: I'm not saying we should ban public beaches. I'm saying allow something like 20 miles of private coastline and auction off the rights every year. The other 820 miles of coastline would remain public, and the state would collect millions in revenue to be used for social welfare.