[azernik]

The attempt to turn public property into the property of the locals reminds me of a similar, non-tech-related case, also in LA - Malibu beaches.

According to the law of the state of California, all beaches are public property. Of course, this gets a bit complicated when an individual owns the land in front of the beach. The people who buy houses in Malibu would, of course, prefer to have a private beach section. So they put up gates and hire security guards (illegally), block public parking spots (either physically or by putting up counterfeit "no parking" signs), etc. They've historically gotten away with it because the enforcement agency is underfunded and the enforcement process is expensive (a separate civil lawsuit for each offender). That may change soon though:

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-coastal-penalties-20140...

[ndespres]

In a similar case here in NJ, a local town was working to effectively block access to its beaches by non-residents by enacting an onerous parking restriction (no out-of-towners may park for more than 2 hours on any street near the beach).

http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/10/deal_reportedly...

The real insult here is that the town had recently accepted federal funds ($40mm) to widen and improve the beach, so blocking access seemed a little unfair if not illegal. Additionally most of the houses near the beach are only occupied in the summer season. So really, who is a "resident" when many are really only there in the summer?

[arethuza]

I found an interesting here in Scotland not far from Edinburgh - there are some really nice beaches and a large estate with golf courses and high end housing immediately inland from the beaches. Between the beaches and the houses there is a very large green metal fence which stops all access from the properties to the beaches.

My initial reaction was how unreasonable it was for the developers to build such a fence to keep people out of their development. Then I noticed that there are no gaps in the fence and, on doing some research, found out that the fence is there to keep the house owners off of the beach!

I'd be a bit annoyed if I spent £1M on a house overlooking a lovely beach only to find that I'd have to walk/drive 8km or so to the other side of the fence...

[huhtenberg]

But what would be the reasoning for not having gates in this fence?

[arethuza]

The coast there is part of a protected "Site of Special Scientific Interest" (SSSI) and the beaches in question are sufficiently far from normal access points that they are remarkably quiet. A condition of the developer being allowed to build houses was apparently that this didn't improve access to the coastline - hence the fence. You can see it here:

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/102036

Edit: Keeping up my secret work for Visit Scotland - I can recommend the walk to the beaches from Dirleton:

http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/lothian/dirleton-fidra.shtml

[logfromblammo]

I would guess that at least a few of the home buyers fully intended to "alter the deal (pray I do not alter it further)" after the developer sold off the last parcel and exited.

[arethuza]

I'd expect there to be conditions in the sale that would enforce this - also the landowner in this case would be appear to be the business that runs the surrounding golf courses and hotel, so they're probably not going anywhere:

http://www.archerfieldhouse.com/

I would also expect the relevant government agency (possibly Scottish National Heritage) to take a rather dim view of anyone breaking the conditions of planning permission.

Edit: I'd expect the people who buy houses directly from the developer to be told about this. However, I can imagine years from now someone buying one of the houses overlooking the beach (NB they are lovely houses) and getting a nasty surprise when they ask about where the gate is in the fence.

[logfromblammo]

Or they don't ask, and buy semi-permanent sea access for the bargain price of one angle grinder, some unassuming hinges, a latch, and a can of matching green paint. I'm assuming that most of the home-buyers would be Scots, after all.

The folks on the other side of the fence are certainly Scots with an interest in public access to Archerfield Woods from the coastal walking trail.

I very much doubt that such a fence would be patrolled or otherwise monitored well enough to prevent rogue gate installation from happening.

If this was in the U.S., the same people cutting holes in the fence would simultaneously be posting signs saying "no public beach access" and blaming the holes on outsiders bent on ruining both beach and neighborhood. The zoning and development board would quietly be enjoying their kickbacks from the developer, and winking every time the fence got mentioned.

They know that fence isn't going to last. It's only there so that no one starts a protest until after it's too late to be effective.

[jordigh]

A similar thing happens in Mexico. According to article 27 of the Mexican constitution, all beaches are public property:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Mexico#Article...

So how does this work in relation to the de facto apartheid we have in Mexico, thanks to resorts? Same thing: the people with money make their own rules.

Edit: Never mind, upon further investigation, it seems that the public property is not defined by the constitution, but by other laws, and individuals can obtain certain temporary concessions to use it which roughly corresponds to leasing the land from the government:

http://mexicolaw.com/Lawinfo30.htm

http://www.eloscabos.gob.mx/pdf/lyr/reglamento-de-acceso-a-p...

This still does end up furthering the de facto apartheid we have in Mexico, however.

[micampe]

There is a controversy and lawsuits going on in Half Moon Bay for five years so far http://martinsbeach.blogspot.com/

[greggman]

What's the definition of "beach"?

Apparently the coastline of the SF Bay does not count under that law. So for example the area from the Golden Gate Bridge down to San Jose, back up to Richmond, over to Larkspur and down back to the Golden Gate bridge has many places on the water that are not public.

[ctbeaches]

This is called the public trust doctrine. Also see Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois. Its the same here in Connecticut and I take advantage of it.

http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?A=2705&Q=323792

Connecticut's shore belongs to the people--not just in terms of our environmental and cultural heritage, but in a specific legal sense as well. Under the common law public trust doctrine, a body of law dating back to Roman times, all coastal states as sovereigns hold the submerged lands and waters waterward of the mean high water line in trust for the public. The general public may freely use these lands and waters, whether they are beach, rocky shore, or open water, for traditional public trust uses such as fishing, shellfishing, boating, sunbathing, or simply walking along the beach. In Connecticut, a line of state Supreme Court cases dating back to the earliest days of the republic confirm that private ownership ends at mean high water line, and that the state holds title to the lands waterward of mean high water, subject to the private rights of littoral or riparian access.

The public trust area comprises submerged lands and waters waterward of the mean high water line in tidal coastal, or navigable waters of the state of Connecticut. On the ground, the public trust area extends from the water up to a prominent wrack line, debris line, or water mark. In general, if an area is regularly wet by the tides, you are probably safe to assume that it is in the public trust. The public trust area is also sometimes referred to as tidelands, and is defined as "public beach" by the Connecticut Coastal Management Act, C.G.S. 22a-93(6).

"Public rights include fishing, boating, hunting, bathing, taking shellfish, gathering seaweed, cutting sedge, and of passing and repassing. . ." Orange v. Resnick, 94 Conn. 573 (1920).

"It is settled in Connecticut that the public has the right to boat, hunt, and fish on the navigable waters of the state." State v. Brennan, 3 Conn. Cir. 413 (1965). The public has the right to fish and shellfish over submerged private lands, Peck v. Lockwood, 5 Day 22 (1811).

The public has the right to pass and repass in navigable rivers, Adams v. Pease 2 Conn. 481 (1818) .

The public may gather seaweed between ordinary high water and low water, Chapman v. Kimball 9 Day 38 (1831).

In almost every case, private property ends, and public trust property begins, at the mean high water line (often referred to as "high water mark" in court decisions). Mean high water is the average of high tides over a defined period, and its elevation can be obtained from standard references, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tidal Flood Profile charts.

The public owns up to "high water mark," Simons v. French, 25 Conn. 346 (1856).

Title of riparian proprietor terminates at ordinary high water mark, Mather v. Chapman, 40 Conn. 382 (1873).

"High water mark" = "mean high water mark" = "ordinary high water mark." Private ownership of submerged lands is possible, only when basins are dredged from upland, or from inland, non-navigable waters. Michalczo v. Woodmont, 175 Conn. 535 (1978).

The adjacent landowner has the exclusive riparian or littoral right of access to navigable water. This does not mean that the owner can exclude others from the adjacent waters, but that only the owner may get to the water from his or her upland, as by constructing a dock or other structures where appropriate and appropriately authorized. In terms of access, navigable waters are equivalent to a public road, and a dock serves the same purpose as a private driveway. A littoral landowner may not exclude the public from lawful uses of the public trust area, just as an upland owner cannot exclude the public from driving or walking on the street in front of his or her house. Of course, nuisance behavior in the public trust, such as littering, intoxication, etc. would constitute a breach of the peace, just as if done by neighbors on adjacent upland property.