Does Oregon Really Have 100% Public Beaches? (Brookings: oceanfront, rent, neighborhood)

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

Does one access point every 2 miles sound adequate to you?

Yup quite generous actually. I bet the 99% of Oregonians who subsidize these access points would be upset is they knew the real cost.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

Yup quite generous actually. I bet the 99% of Oregonians who subsidize these access points would be upset is they knew the real cost.

Oh please. You are talking out of your ass. You have no clue what the real cost would be. Oregon has a 162,101 miles of roads connecting every part of the state, but putting in a few hundred feet of walking path down to a so called "public" beach is going to break the state? Give me a break.

How about this, just stop giving away the access that already existed for a hundred years. Would that be too much to ask?

[RobertFisher]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

Oh please. You are talking out of your ass. You have no clue what the real cost would be. Oregon has a 162,101 miles of roads connecting every part of the state, but putting in a few hundred feet of walking path down to a so called "public" beach is going to break the state? Give me a break.

How about this, just stop giving away the access that already existed for a hundred years. Would that be too much to ask?

The key cost is not the cost of the wood planks, but the right to walk on the land that leads to the beach. Where the state has the right to the access, they already took it back. Some land are private and the state can't just pave over it. You may feel access is a God-given right for the people but legally that's not the case.

Even in places where access had been given before, where you may think grandfather rule kicks in, landowner can take it back (Martin's Beach in CA for example). The concept of grandfathering is actually very counter-productive in this situation, because it makes landowners reluctant to give access.

What I don't understand is why the state cannot just pay market price for the land property and open access to the public? So far the state's agency rely only on begging homeowner to donate land or donate easement -- and where they can, coerce -- of course that process is very slow. Why put the sacrifice on the homeowners? Even with the market price (Martin's beach was bought for $25 mil), I think and like you said, the state can afford it. They already blow so much money on so many irrelevant stuff.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

Oh please. You are talking out of your ass. You have no clue what the real cost would be. Oregon has a 162,101 miles of roads connecting every part of the state, but putting in a few hundred feet of walking path down to a so called "public" beach is going to break the state? Give me a break.

How about this, just stop giving away the access that already existed for a hundred years. Would that be too much to ask?

Spoken like the greedy "Taker from the Public coffer" person that you are.


How about this? Go earn your own keep, purchase (at fair market value) property that makes you happy and then donate part or all of it to the "public." You seem to want everybody else to do this for you.




The point was: There is, without doubt, reasonable amount of access to public beach in Oregon and only a "perpetual victim of life" like you would think otherwise.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

Oh please. You are talking out of your ass. You have no clue what the real cost would be. Oregon has a 162,101 miles of roads connecting every part of the state, but putting in a few hundred feet of walking path down to a so called "public" beach is going to break the state? Give me a break.

How about this, just stop giving away the access that already existed for a hundred years. Would that be too much to ask?

They'd have to put in parking lots as well or else you'd complain about that, and then it would be lack of picnic tables, public restrooms, and on and on. Sounds like you want something like this every couple of hundred feet or so.

What I don't understand is why someone who is so obviously miserable living in Oregon doesn't just move.

[Parnassia]

The key cost is not the cost of the wood planks, but the right to walk on the land that leads to the beach. Where the state has the right to the access, they already took it back. Some land are private and the state can't just pave over it. You may feel access is a God-given right for the people but legally that's not the case.

Planks? Paving? The vast majority of access trails to beaches won't have and don't need either of those things.

What I don't understand is why the state cannot just pay market price for the land property and open access to the public? So far the state's agency rely only on begging homeowner to donate land or donate easement -- and where they can, coerce -- of course that process is very slow.

Well, even if they did offer market price that only works if the landowner is willing to sell. Can't see too many home or business owners being too eager to sell off part of their property if it means they lose half of their house or other developed features (septic drain field, well, their own access to a street, their own view of the coast, etc.) What if they don't happen to like the idea of living with a public access trail and all the resulting nuisances it creates right next to their house? Subdividing parcels that are already modest can make what's left unsellable/unusable for multiple reasons. All of those things can create losses even for a willing seller. Are you suggesting the state not only pay market price for what the trail/parking lot, or whatever needs but also compensate the seller for the diminished value of the unusable/unsellable scrap of land they're left with? Why do you think states end up resorting to less...shall we say...voluntary methods? Because landowners are not interested in selling. Besides, there may be multiple layers of private properties standing in the way of access to a stretch of public beach, not just one.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by RobertFisher

The key cost is not the cost of the wood planks, but the right to walk on the land that leads to the beach. Where the state has the right to the access, they already took it back. Some land are private and the state can't just pave over it. You may feel access is a God-given right for the people but legally that's not the case.

Even in places where access had been given before, where you may think grandfather rule kicks in, landowner can take it back (Martin's Beach in CA for example). The concept of grandfathering is actually very counter-productive in this situation, because it makes landowners reluctant to give access.

What I don't understand is why the state cannot just pay market price for the land property and open access to the public? So far the state's agency rely only on begging homeowner to donate land or donate easement -- and where they can, coerce -- of course that process is very slow. Why put the sacrifice on the homeowners? Even with the market price (Martin's beach was bought for $25 mil), I think and like you said, the state can afford it. They already blow so much money on so many irrelevant stuff.

Sure they can. It's done all the time. If the state couldn't take private land and pave it over, I-5, I-84 and most every other highway in the state wouldn't exist.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

Spoken like the greedy "Taker from the Public coffer" person that you are.


How about this? Go earn your own keep, purchase (at fair market value) property that makes you happy and then donate part or all of it to the "public." You seem to want everybody else to do this for you.




The point was: There is, without doubt, reasonable amount of access to public beach in Oregon and only a "perpetual victim of life" like you would think otherwise.

I bet you don't have a problem with taking $5 billion a year from the public coffer to pay for roads in Oregon do you? You greedy, greedy road user. But a few thousand dollars for beach access is the end of the world.

[leastprime]

The Beaches in Oregon are big enough to accommodate everyone. You may have to walk another couple of yards to get your own private patch.

Parking is a problem for real heavy weekends. But otherwise its near desolation even at the access points.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

They'd have to put in parking lots as well or else you'd complain about that, and then it would be lack of picnic tables, public restrooms, and on and on. Sounds like you want something like this every couple of hundred feet or so.

There were parking lots, picnic tables and public restrooms, there for over 100 years. Why couldn't they just leave it alone? Why do we have to take away everything good about living in Oregon?