Stay off my Wave-Punta San Carlos

Stay off my Wave-Punta San Carlos

Post by <RobertAWal.. » Tue, 16 Sep 1997 04:00:00


 For those of you who have been following the rhetoric and saw my comment to
'stay off my wave" I would like to thank you for your response and clarify
my feelings. If you are the type of person who is willing to go through all
the hassle of camping at SC and bring  your own gear you are more than
welcome to share "my wave." Always have, always will. Through the years we
have met and become friends with some of the best people in the sport.
Everyone of them has met the challenge of camping in Baja and seems to fit
in with the rest of us. I'm sorry if "localism" offends some of you but I'll
say it again, camp with Solow sports and you will be met with hostility from
the locals. Get it?

 
 
 

Stay off my Wave-Punta San Carlos

Post by Jim Titu » Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

>And for the record, I'm unaware of any laws that mandate free camping
>above the high water mark of a navigable body of water, Mexican or
>American.  You may have free access to get to the water, but that doesn't
>say anything about camping out.

Actually, there are only a very small number of states that guarantee free
access to the shore or free access to use even the dry part of the beach
for navigation.  New Jersey's public trust doctrine right to use the dry
beach and, I'm told, requires reasonable access to be created in future
subdivisions.  Generally, the US deal is that you have a right to access
to the wet beach as long as you get there from the water, or from an
adjacent beach.  (In Texas you also have a right to drive on the beach),

In Maryland, people are eliminating beaches along Chesapeake Bay at a rate
of 20 miles per year by building various types of seawalls; there is not
even a right to the continued existence of the beach.  As the sea level
rises, many other states will probably gradually eliminate their
bay beaches.  Personally, I do not like launching from bulkheads or ricky
piles of rubble, but the trend in that direction seems unstoppable.

 
 
 

Stay off my Wave-Punta San Carlos

Post by Edward W. Sco » Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:00:00

:  For those of you who have been following the rhetoric and saw my comment to
: 'stay off my wave" I would like to thank you for your response and clarify
: my feelings. If you are the type of person who is willing to go through all
: the hassle of camping at SC and bring  your own gear you are more than
: welcome to share "my wave." Always have, always will. Through the years we
: have met and become friends with some of the best people in the sport.
: Everyone of them has met the challenge of camping in Baja and seems to fit
: in with the rest of us. I'm sorry if "localism" offends some of you but I'll
: say it again, camp with Solow sports and you will be met with hostility from
: the locals. Get it?

Translated as "If you live close enough, or have the time (e.g. don't have
a real life aka job) drive down to San Carlos in your own ride with your
own stuff, camp out, and wait for some wind.  If you live a distance away,
and have a life, whether you are a good slalom or wave sailor or not, and
you decide to travel with Solo Sports and rent their stuff, then we will
mess with you (meet you 'with hostility')."  Sounds like localism to me,
and yeah, it does offend me.

And for the record, I'm unaware of any laws that mandate free camping
above the high water mark of a navigable body of water, Mexican or
American.  You may have free access to get to the water, but that doesn't
say anything about camping out. I'd be interested to see which legal
authority you're relying upon for this proposition, and from which
lawyers you received this flawed opinion.  There'd be a lot of mighty
suprised land-owners on both sides of the border if this were the case.

-Ed "Who does his fair share of sailing in the Pacific in Northern
California, sharks and everything" Scott

--

     Ed Scott                             ShrEdding SF Bay    


 
 
 

Stay off my Wave-Punta San Carlos

Post by <RobertAWal.. » Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:00:00

 Ed,
I personally do not advocate hostilities towards innocent vacationers out
for a good time. However there are many people who have been traveling great
distances for many years who have come to love and hold valuable the area.
Some of these are not as levelheaded as others and have discussed ways of
solving the situation. I was there a week ago and *** solutions were
bantered back and forth like you and I might discuss the latest sail
designs. The other contingency is the surfers who have been coming since way
before any of us ever held a boom in our hand and they are really pissed. No
telling what they will do.
In regards to your comments on camping for free, where did that come from.
None of us expect to camp for free. Since you brought up the issue of money
let me inform you as to the latest. The current camping fees have been
raised beyond reason. I have four children and a wife and we camp at PSC
every summer. The fee for us camping will now have gone from 2.00 per night
(ridiculously low) to 30.00 per night (ridiculously high).
Way beyond the insignificance of the camping fees is the real heart of the
issue--environmental protection. Maybe as a Californian you are sick of
hearing those words but the thought of PSC someday looking like California
makes me want to puke. The ecosystem is fully intact down there and the
intrusion of to many guests is sure to end that. My ten year old daughter,
with tears in her eyes, asked me if this meant that the big starfish would
be gone. Honestly, Ed, I couldn't assure her they wouldn't. Can you.
A small group of us have established a forum located at windsurf.net for the
purpose of discussing these issues and hopefully coming up with a solution
short of *** and hostilities.
Thanks

Edward W. Scott wrote in article ...

Quote:


>:  For those of you who have been following the rhetoric and saw my comment
to
>: 'stay off my wave" I would like to thank you for your response and
clarify
>: my feelings. If you are the type of person who is willing to go through
all
>: the hassle of camping at SC and bring  your own gear you are more than
>: welcome to share "my wave." Always have, always will. Through the years
we
>: have met and become friends with some of the best people in the sport.
>: Everyone of them has met the challenge of camping in Baja and seems to
fit
>: in with the rest of us. I'm sorry if "localism" offends some of you but
I'll
>: say it again, camp with Solow sports and you will be met with hostility
from
>: the locals. Get it?

>Translated as "If you live close enough, or have the time (e.g. don't have
>a real life aka job) drive down to San Carlos in your own ride with your
>own stuff, camp out, and wait for some wind.  If you live a distance away,
>and have a life, whether you are a good slalom or wave sailor or not, and
>you decide to travel with Solo Sports and rent their stuff, then we will
>mess with you (meet you 'with hostility')."  Sounds like localism to me,
>and yeah, it does offend me.

>And for the record, I'm unaware of any laws that mandate free camping
>above the high water mark of a navigable body of water, Mexican or
>American.  You may have free access to get to the water, but that doesn't
>say anything about camping out. I'd be interested to see which legal
>authority you're relying upon for this proposition, and from which
>lawyers you received this flawed opinion.  There'd be a lot of mighty
>suprised land-owners on both sides of the border if this were the case.

>-Ed "Who does his fair share of sailing in the Pacific in Northern
>California, sharks and everything" Scott

>--

>     Ed Scott                             ShrEdding SF Bay


 
 
 

Stay off my Wave-Punta San Carlos

Post by NLW TFW » Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:00:00

Re: "camp with Solow sports and you will be met with hostility from the
locals. Get it?"

Now THERE'S a guy I'm dying to sail with. Sounds like some of the posters
-- the worst of them -- you find in the rec.jetski forum. Makes you wonder
what he means when he says "met and become friends with some of the best
people in the sport. Everyone of them has met the challenge of camping in
Baja and seems to fit in with the rest of us."

Who the hell would WANT to hang with people with that attitude? Keep it in
SC, and not when/if I go there. I don't like mobs, either, but HOSTILITY
just because someone chose to ride in with a commercial ride?

Guess we'd better sharpen the nose on our polyester boards, guys! The
gauntlet has been thrown down.

On second thought, I'd rather go sailin'.

Jeez, this guy sounds like the idiot militants you read about in the news.
Whatcha gonna do next, guy -- bomb the Solo Sports building? Are you a
loner, with abusive parents? And do you work with the Postal Service?

Mike \m/
Never Leave Wind To Find Wind

 
 
 

Stay off my Wave-Punta San Carlos

Post by To » Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:00:00

The way I understand  it, the Mexican constiution guarentees beach
access for 100 meters from the mean high tide line. It is okay for
someone, who has legal rights to the property, to charge a reasonable
fee if he is providing a service. The key here is the term reasonable
fee. This will take into account what is being provided, what has been
charged in the past, and what similar charges are in the area,
There are several condo & trailer developments between TJ and Ensenada
where those that are closest to the beach pay rent to the ferderal
government and the others pay the land owner. This law is often abused
and people will set up gates to charge people to get to the beach even
though they have no legal right. But in most cases it is a small fee
and the people need the money, such as the lady who charges $3.00 /
day per vehicle at Raul's. This area is called the Baja gold coast
because of high rates like this.
 On 16 Sep 1997 02:28:47 GMT, Jim Titus

Quote:


>>And for the record, I'm unaware of any laws that mandate free camping
>>above the high water mark of a navigable body of water, Mexican or
>>American.  You may have free access to get to the water, but that doesn't
>>say anything about camping out.

>Actually, there are only a very small number of states that guarantee free
>access to the shore or free access to use even the dry part of the beach
>for navigation.  New Jersey's public trust doctrine right to use the dry
>beach and, I'm told, requires reasonable access to be created in future
>subdivisions.  Generally, the US deal is that you have a right to access
>to the wet beach as long as you get there from the water, or from an
>adjacent beach.  (In Texas you also have a right to drive on the beach),

>In Maryland, people are eliminating beaches along Chesapeake Bay at a rate
>of 20 miles per year by building various types of seawalls; there is not
>even a right to the continued existence of the beach.  As the sea level
>rises, many other states will probably gradually eliminate their
>bay beaches.  Personally, I do not like launching from bulkheads or ricky
>piles of rubble, but the trend in that direction seems unstoppable.

 
 
 

Stay off my Wave-Punta San Carlos

Post by Ray B. Man » Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:00:00

On 16 Sep 1997 02:28:47 GMT, Jim Titus

Quote:


>>And for the record, I'm unaware of any laws that mandate free camping
>>above the high water mark of a navigable body of water, Mexican or
>>American.  You may have free access to get to the water, but that doesn't
>>say anything about camping out.

>Actually, there are only a very small number of states that guarantee free
>access to the shore or free access to use even the dry part of the beach
>for navigation.  New Jersey's public trust doctrine right to use the dry
>beach and, I'm told, requires reasonable access to be created in future
>subdivisions.  Generally, the US deal is that you have a right to access
>to the wet beach as long as you get there from the water, or from an
>adjacent beach.  (In Texas you also have a right to drive on the beach),

>In Maryland, people are eliminating beaches along Chesapeake Bay at a rate
>of 20 miles per year by building various types of seawalls; there is not
>even a right to the continued existence of the beach.  As the sea level
>rises, many other states will probably gradually eliminate their
>bay beaches.  Personally, I do not like launching from bulkheads or ricky
>piles of rubble, but the trend in that direction seems unstoppable.

Who said anything about free camping at San Carlos????
    Ray B
 
 
 

Stay off my Wave-Punta San Carlos

Post by To » Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:00:00

The way I understand Mexican law, beach access is guarenteed by the
Mexican  constitution. The area is 100 meters from the mean high tide
line. It is okay for a land owner to charge a REASONABLE fee for
access IF they are providing providing services, i.e. you can charge
for donkey rides in Rosarito Beach and camping in San Filippi if you
provide showers. The term reasonable fee is determined by what others
in the area are charging, so you can charge more in Cabo than
Abreojos.
There a several developments between TJ and Ensenada where those
closest to the beach pay their rent to the federal government and the
others pay the land owner. But this law is often abused, there is a
lady who collects parking fees at Raul's who doesn't really have the
legal right, but she  needs the money.
   On 16 Sep 1997 02:28:47 GMT, Jim Titus

Quote:


>>And for the record, I'm unaware of any laws that mandate free camping
>>above the high water mark of a navigable body of water, Mexican or
>>American.  You may have free access to get to the water, but that doesn't
>>say anything about camping out.

>Actually, there are only a very small number of states that guarantee free
>access to the shore or free access to use even the dry part of the beach
>for navigation.  New Jersey's public trust doctrine right to use the dry
>beach and, I'm told, requires reasonable access to be created in future
>subdivisions.  Generally, the US deal is that you have a right to access
>to the wet beach as long as you get there from the water, or from an
>adjacent beach.  (In Texas you also have a right to drive on the beach),

>In Maryland, people are eliminating beaches along Chesapeake Bay at a rate
>of 20 miles per year by building various types of seawalls; there is not
>even a right to the continued existence of the beach.  As the sea level
>rises, many other states will probably gradually eliminate their
>bay beaches.  Personally, I do not like launching from bulkheads or ricky
>piles of rubble, but the trend in that direction seems unstoppable.

 
 
 

Stay off my Wave-Punta San Carlos

Post by Jim Titu » Thu, 18 Sep 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>The way I understand  it, the Mexican constiution guarentees beach
>access for 100 meters from the mean high tide line. It is okay for
>someone, who has legal rights to the property, to charge a reasonable
>fee if he is providing a service. The key here is the term reasonable
>fee. This will take into account what is being provided, what has been
>charged in the past, and what similar charges are in the area,
>There are several condo & trailer developments between TJ and Ensenada
>where those that are closest to the beach pay rent to the ferderal
>government and the others pay the land owner. This law is often abused
>and people will set up gates to charge people to get to the beach even
>though they have no legal right. But in most cases it is a small fee
>and the people need the money, such as the lady who charges $3.00 /
>day per vehicle at Raul's. This area is called the Baja gold coast
>because of high rates like this.

By beach access, are you referring to the **parallel** access that most of
the US has for the wet beach, or is there a right of **perpendicular**
access as well.  In the US, the public trust doctrine (which originated
under the Roman civil law and was incorporated by the Magna Carta into
British law and inherited by the US) gives people access to the beach
**from the water** but provides no right via the land.  Some local zoning
ordinances protect it.

The discussion here seems to be perpendicular access.  Could you double
check your source?  It would seem more probable that the Mexican
Constitution was simply clarifying the public trust doctrine (which Spain
may have also inherited from Rome), which would only pertain to your right
to access from the water or another beach.  Guaranteeing the right to
cross private land sounds like the kind of thing that would be in a zoning
ordinance, not a constitution.

By the way, how is access in California?

Thanks

Jim

 
 
 

Stay off my Wave-Punta San Carlos

Post by Edward W. Sco » Thu, 18 Sep 1997 04:00:00

:  Ed,
: I personally do not advocate hostilities towards innocent vacationers out
: for a good time. However there are many people who have been traveling great
: distances for many years who have come to love and hold valuable the area.
: Some of these are not as levelheaded as others and have discussed ways of
: solving the situation. I was there a week ago and *** solutions were
: bantered back and forth like you and I might discuss the latest sail
: designs. The other contingency is the surfers who have been coming since way
: before any of us ever held a boom in our hand and they are really pissed. No
: telling what they will do.
: In regards to your comments on camping for free, where did that come from.
: None of us expect to camp for free. Since you brought up the issue of money
: let me inform you as to the latest. The current camping fees have been
: raised beyond reason. I have four children and a wife and we camp at PSC
: every summer. The fee for us camping will now have gone from 2.00 per night
: (ridiculously low) to 30.00 per night (ridiculously high).

The statements were made, "6) Because he's leased the land, it does not
give him the right to keep people out, extort money or threaten them.
Many of whom have been going to S.C. long before Solo appeared on the
scene. Mexican law gaurantees access to the country's coastal areas to
visitors and locals alike. Commercial ventures like Solo cannot bar  
access to the coast but can charge a nominal fee."

I'm sorry if you thought I attributed those statements to you.  They are
complete horseshit, of course.  The law may guarantee access to coastal
areas, but it does not include guarantees for camping near the coast nor
for a nominal fee.  As to the amount and the ability by the landowners or
their lessees to exclude others: 1) it's market driven - if you don't
like it, don't go; 2) it's private property, they may need to allow beach
access, but nothing else; and 3) it's a foreign country.  I'm sorry that
it was such an increase for you, but if it's burdensome, don't go, others
won't, and they'll drop their prices.

: Way beyond the insignificance of the camping fees is the real heart of the
: issue--environmental protection. Maybe as a Californian you are sick of
: hearing those words but the thought of PSC someday looking like California
: makes me want to puke. The ecosystem is fully intact down there and the
: intrusion of to many guests is sure to end that. My ten year old daughter,
: with tears in her eyes, asked me if this meant that the big starfish would
: be gone. Honestly, Ed, I couldn't assure her they wouldn't. Can you.
: A small group of us have established a forum located at windsurf.net for the
: purpose of discussing these issues and hopefully coming up with a solution
: short of *** and hostilities.
: Thanks

This is a subterfuge.  Although most responsible folks would agree that
you should pack it in and out, your main complaint is the increase in
fees.  I'm sympathetic, but when you post a message staying "Stay off my
wave" when it ain't yours in the first place, threaten others "with
hostility," and call people "slalom geeks" just because they haven't been
to that particular break, you're showing your true colors and are not
going to win many converts.  In fact, the very act of saying something's
yours that's not, especially in a empoverished foreign country such as
Mexico with its history of US exploitation harkens back to another time
when Norte-Americanos would assert that something was theirs just because
they wanted it and take it when they pleased.

In this case, the real locals have entered into a business relationship
with their own free will for which they receive money, whether you like
it or not.  The manner in which they administer that lease is up to free
market forces and Mexican law, whether they pack it out or not.

: Edward W. Scott wrote in article ...

: >
: >:  For those of you who have been following the rhetoric and saw my comment
: to
: >: 'stay off my wave" I would like to thank you for your response and
: clarify
: >: my feelings. If you are the type of person who is willing to go through
: all
: >: the hassle of camping at SC and bring  your own gear you are more than
: >: welcome to share "my wave." Always have, always will. Through the years
: we
: >: have met and become friends with some of the best people in the sport.
: >: Everyone of them has met the challenge of camping in Baja and seems to
: fit
: >: in with the rest of us. I'm sorry if "localism" offends some of you but
: I'll
: >: say it again, camp with Solow sports and you will be met with hostility
: from
: >: the locals. Get it?
: >
: >Translated as "If you live close enough, or have the time (e.g. don't have
: >a real life aka job) drive down to San Carlos in your own ride with your
: >own stuff, camp out, and wait for some wind.  If you live a distance away,
: >and have a life, whether you are a good slalom or wave sailor or not, and
: >you decide to travel with Solo Sports and rent their stuff, then we will
: >mess with you (meet you 'with hostility')."  Sounds like localism to me,
: >and yeah, it does offend me.
: >
: >And for the record, I'm unaware of any laws that mandate free camping
: >above the high water mark of a navigable body of water, Mexican or
: >American.  You may have free access to get to the water, but that doesn't
: >say anything about camping out. I'd be interested to see which legal
: >authority you're relying upon for this proposition, and from which
: >lawyers you received this flawed opinion.  There'd be a lot of mighty
: >suprised land-owners on both sides of the border if this were the case.
: >
: >-Ed "Who does his fair share of sailing in the Pacific in Northern
: >California, sharks and everything" Scott
: >
: >--
: >
: >     Ed Scott                             ShrEdding SF Bay

If you want to heighten awareness on the environmental, access or the fees
increase issues, go ahead, I completely support you.  If you want to
organize a boycott against Solo Sports, more power to you.  However,
you'd better serve your cause by not threatening people or calling them
names.

--

     Ed Scott                             ShrEdding SF Bay    

 
 
 

Stay off my Wave-Punta San Carlos

Post by wndsur » Thu, 18 Sep 1997 04:00:00

Damn, I think Ill stay over here on the east coast and sail Hatteras. I
think the whole group of you, Friends and Solo sound like a real fun group
to hang out with.Id rather go to a ***ing funeral then to SC.

--
Life sucks, then it blows.