Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/08/10/owners-of-25-million-laguna-b.html
…
4 Likes
They rent it out for 70,000 per month!? For a beach house that will most likely be underwater in another 50 years.
Where the fuck is Robin Hood when you need him?
23 Likes
I suspect it’s the close proximity to the ‘pounding surf’ and the house’s inevitable eventual collapse into said surf if left without the wall that is reducing the value of the home…
21 Likes
Rich assholes complaining about how shitty mother nature is. ::insert sad trombone sound::
14 Likes
The Katzes are fighting the ruling, saying that orders to remove the wall are reducing the value of the home and the ability to rent it for $70,000 a month.
19 Likes
Mother nature isn’t the problem here, it’s stupid humans who have no respect for her power and think they can build a durable house on sand by the sea.
18 Likes
Call before you dig.
18 Likes
12 Likes
Interesting thing here is. Any one of us could understand and appreciate doing anything it takes to save your home.
So if it were one of us preventing our house from being destroyed in some form or fashion, then erecting a wall to prevent that would be a-ok in most if not all of our minds.
The issue is of course it isn’t their home. It’s an investment. And they should have chosen a better investment.
16 Likes
The sentiment is understandable, but this particular instance of trying to save a home wouldn’t be ok even if it was their residence rather than an investment. This is a beach house built relatively recently on the California coast, so if someone goes to the expense and trouble of building one they need to plan accordingly.
Having the money to build on the beach does not exempt one from either the laws of nature or the law of the state of California.
28 Likes
Did I say something contrary to that?
1 Like
You said the issue in this case was that it wasn’t their home but an investment:
I’m pointing out that this makes no difference and isn’t the issue here at all.
4 Likes
So you’re correcting me on something that I didn’t say was an issue in terms to the legality of building the wall or not.
I did not say once in my post that what they did was right. Or legal. I said “we would be a-ok with them trying to save their home IN OUR MINDS”. This thread Has already begun with judgment and derision for the poor 1%er who is going to see their house fall into the sea. My point was if this was not a 1%er investment property but instead one of our level of hooman actual home. We’d have empathy.
Is that an inaccurate statement? Did I say that erecting a wall in that scenario would be perfectly legal and legit? Exactly why am I being corrected on something that I did not say?
Well… Would you rather rent the house that’ll disappear or own the house that’ll disappear?
6 Likes
Another article with more info here: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-laguna-beach-seawall-20180808-story.html
It says that they were given permission for a temporary wall. It seems that they are now say that the temporary wall can stay there forever.
Going by the map in that article, I -THINK- this is the house: https://goo.gl/maps/s1kVcN8neKm
On the one hand, I get it. If I had a house on the beach, I’d want to keep it from getting washed away too.
On the other hand, I get it. If they let this wall stay up, then they’d have to let every wall stay up, and suddenly no more beach.
On the gripping hand, I get it. Walls are cheap and easy to build, and go up fast. I’m not an engineer, but the only other option I can see is raising the house and driving cement pilings into the ground under the foundation. That might cost them, oh, three or four months rent, plus any lost rent from however much time the place is unrented. The horror! Much cheaper to throw lawyers at it.
11 Likes
And I don’t agree that makes any difference. Yes, it’s a bummer for anyone whose property is threatened, but if that property is built on the beach on California I have zero sympathy for them in my mind (perhaps because my mind works better than theirs) if they didn’t plan and consult accordingly for the long term. That goes for homes and investment properties, for mansions or shacks, for wealthy and poor people.
What you’re seeing here is an additional lack of empathy, because it’s difficult for most people to put themselves in the shoes of a pair of entitled modern-day King Canutes with a pal on the city zoning commission and a high-priced weasel lawyer.
I’m going to leave you with the last word on this because I can see it’s very important to you that no one contest the thing you said.
10 Likes
I’ll rent one that doesn’t cost more than a year’s income per month, TYVM. What possible point is there to renting a beach house with ten bathrooms and an indoor pool when you’re on the fucking beach and are going to be spending most of your free time enjoying the sand, sun, and surf?
4 Likes
Same as always: showing the friends you invite to your party that you can waste the money. U-S-A! U-S-A!
3 Likes
What’s important to me is having an ability to feel and show empathy in the proper context.
Because this is a millionaire person with millionaire problems it is easy for the BBS to dismiss it as “got what’s coming to em”.
My point was clearly “if it were one of us plebes doing everything we can to save our only home” even if our methods or actions were illegal…we would have empathy for them. Change one fact of the situation and we find empathy fairly easily.
You could have asked me “do you think it would be legal to do this if it was their home?” Instead of assuming. Asking clarifying questions instead of assuming pekple’s Intentions and thoughts is part of the BBS guidelines. And it is not unreasonable of me to expect that from you or anyone else here. Please do not put words into my posts nor thoughts in my head that are not mine.
