Coastal Access Is for All to Enjoy

Hooray for “A Line in the Public Sand,” your Nov. 3 editorial regarding the public right to the seashore. Everyone in our wonderful country should have access to the beach. How can the wealthy, who can afford beachfront homes, maintain the selfish notion that it is theirs alone? We must fight, fight, fight for the freedom of access.

There appears to be a conflict of interest here. People with wealth, power and celebrity have far easier access to influence government policies and decisions than most of us have. Public agencies, such as the California Coastal Conservancy, are responsible for protecting the public interest so that the undue influence of an elitist few does not establish rules and regulations that favor the preferences of the wealthy and powerful.

The Times could further serve the public interest by identifying the members of the coastal conservancy and by reporting on the arguments on which they are relying, as well as identifying those persons or organizations that have stated positions supporting denial of beach access.

Barkley B. Yarborough

Leatrice J. Yarborough

Huntington Beach

*

I think your interpretation of Article 10, Section 4, of California’s state Constitution is extremely distorted. The framers did not mean people; when they wrote “people,” they were talking about boaters. The framers were talking about navigable waters, which would preclude the beachgoing public because beachgoers are not navigating in the water. Beachgoers are playing on the beach, or wading in the surf, which is not a body of navigable water.

How you missed this, when you correctly argue that the “people” in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution means the state, is beyond me.

Mark Thomas Moore

Calabasas

*

Yes, we are permitted to traverse the shoreline sand, up to the mean high-tide line. So, get a boat to get to the beach. And be careful you don’t trespass onto dry sand, or irate property owners may run you back into the sea.

One possible remedy: Consolidate some of the 1,264 potential access ways to the beach. This could replace some of the many narrow passages between homes that were expected to become perpendicular access ways. This might also better provide for adequate nearby parking, restrooms and security personnel to staff such access ways.

Also, the California Coastal Conservancy should make widely known how citizens may make tax-deductible contributions and leave bequests to it for the purposes of implementing public access to our beaches.

Ellen Stern Harris

Executive Director

Fund for the Environment

Beverly Hills

*

Your editorial and your Oct. 26 article, “State Shifts on Access to Beaches,” distort the Coastal Conservancy’s long-held position on the public’s right to get to the seashore.

The conservancy is willing to accept almost all offers to dedicate access easements (OTDs) once required as a condition of permits given by the Coastal Commission. Some of the almost 1,300 OTDs, however, may be fatally flawed. For example, the conservancy recently declined to accept a Mendocino County OTD that was illegally conveyed, potentially dangerous and unconnected to either a public road or the shore. Of the over 600 OTDs accepted so far by the conservancy and its partners, this is the only one to be rejected. Of the 700 remaining, we expect that no more than a few, if any, will not merit acceptance.

The conservancy was acting responsibly when it voted last month to evaluate OTDs on their individual qualities, rather than blindly accepting them all without review. As a public agency, the conservancy should not abandon its discretionary obligations. We believe this is common sense and good government.

Samuel Schuchat

Executive Officer

California State Coastal

Conservancy, Oakland