frauenfelder at June 24th, 2014 18:47 — #1
brainspore at June 24th, 2014 18:52 — #2
Great news, but I wonder if it will be enough. A Malibu billionaire could easily just keep paying the fines instead of complying with the law.
boundegar at June 24th, 2014 19:16 — #3
That reminds me of a story about a daycare center that got tired of parents arriving late. So they levied a $5 fine on late parents. To everybody's surprise, lateness went up - because the parents saw the fine as permission to be late, at a pretty good price.
Not like I give a damn about Malibu. Saw it once. It's pretty.
bexwhitt at June 24th, 2014 19:21 — #4
if they had the balls to implement, "it's tiny bulldozer time"
carlmud at June 24th, 2014 21:15 — #5
They need the fines to double for every instance. So if they fine once and come back in a week and the access is still impeded, double the fine. That will get expensive real quick.
stephen_schenck at June 24th, 2014 21:19 — #6
There needs to be some way for citizens to verify whether no access/no parking signs are indeed legitimate.
Maybe a QR code that when scanned directs the the user to a website verifying the sign as official, along with a photo of its installation (to prevent property owners from simply copying the code from a legit sign).
andy_hilmer at June 24th, 2014 22:10 — #7
Tiny Bulldozer needs a song.
newliminted at June 24th, 2014 22:24 — #8
Run this through a pitch-changer.
newliminted at June 24th, 2014 22:27 — #9
Just make these beaches the most popular spot around through social media. If rich people don't like a few locals using 'their' beach, maybe they will enjoy hundreds from miles around?
bobo at June 25th, 2014 00:58 — #10
Bwa ha ha! Exponential fine growth! The trick would be to make sure that it happens at the optimal rate to have enough "bad at math" rich folks fail to pay fines to ensure that the fines reach optimal pre-payment growth.
If the fine gets big enough, they can put a lien on the property, and if that's not paid, level the place to restore public access.
Seriously though rich guys, the law exists. You do not have a private access to the ocean. You have to let the general public walk along "your" exclusive beach. If you don't like them apples, then buy a property on the edge of a hill or something like the other rich folks.
bolamig at June 25th, 2014 02:09 — #11
Many cities have graffiti abatement laws that require property owners to remove graffiti on their property within 30 days. Kind of surprised nobody has tried using those laws to cite these folks.
catgrin at June 25th, 2014 02:43 — #12
The original cost of the fines ranges, "from hundreds of dollars to around $22,000." If it goes unpaid, then it probably will double. That's true for a parking ticket here, and many other city fines. (You don't want to know about our library fees!)
cowicide at June 25th, 2014 05:45 — #13
catgrin at June 25th, 2014 07:09 — #14
Sorry about the delayed reply - I just saw this comment. Missed it when I posted earlier.
Anyhow, there are already regs in Los Angeles that require anyone who posts a "no parking" sign post the code for the type of parking that's being enforced and the information for who to call if your car gets towed (either 3-1-1 or a local station). City signs may say they're from the city and also say "impounded" instead of "towed". Grouped city signs (like you see for street sweeping) aren't required to all bear contact info, but some must. If there's no police contact number on a stand alone sign, it's not really a city sign.
Even a correctly placed sign for private property (like the ones in our alley to prevent people from blocking our cars in our garages) has to list the number for the private tow company that will be called if your car vanishes. If there's no number, and no code, it's not an official, enforceable private sign. Anyone towing on a sign missing that information will be fined themselves AND have to pay for your tow.
brainspore at June 25th, 2014 13:38 — #15
Unless they allow it to keep doubling exponentially it's still not much of a disincentive to a Billionaire. You could pay a $22K fine every single day for 125 years before going through a billion bucks.
catgrin at June 25th, 2014 16:46 — #16
I agree, but there aren't many living there (there are a total of 111 B's in all of CA, and about 50 of them live in Silicon Valley and Frisco). Of the 21 miles of shore that make up Malibu, only one mile is the part called "Billionaire's Beach". They all live clustered together. Even that area is public access, and court battles have already been lost over it by the very rich (David Geffin tried to block a public walkway next to his home and failed.)
Topanga, Malibu State, Paradise Cove and Zuma are all equally gorgeous if you don't want to duke it out with people who collectively have enough cash to wash out California's debt and still be flush.
brainspore at June 25th, 2014 16:55 — #17
The courts have been pretty clear on the issue for some time now, those guys have just been defying court orders. Some for decades.
That's exactly what the elitists are betting on. They don't have the force of law behind them, but they know that they can intimidate the unwashed masses with fraudulent signs and security guard until they give up and go somewhere else.
catgrin at June 25th, 2014 17:14 — #18
This isn't just happening at B's Beach. It's happening all over Malibu. Some of the people defying those orders will really feel the hurt if they happen to get tagged, and if that does start to happen, they may not be so kind to their own ultra-rich neighbors. (That's the goal here. No one believes you can fine a B into submission, but they aren't the homeowners there.)
Putting some force all along that coast may make the other owners (whose families may have held that property since the 1920s) be a little less complacent about that type of behavior. They may turn on the ultra-rich themselves.
brainspore at June 25th, 2014 17:25 — #19
Yeah, it's a good start—I'd just like to see some kind of penalty for bad behavior that put the hurt on ultra-rich people as much as everyone else.
catgrin at June 25th, 2014 17:28 — #20
So would I, but it's hard to find a way to hurt people with bank balances that match those of some countries. Hopefully their neighbors will get them to comply when everyone else is forced to do just that. No one in the Malibu Colony will be amused if B's Beach is the only place not hosting the public.
next page →