Bright, tall, portable lights - like the ones the police set up around downtown Santa Barbara during Fiesta - having been humming into the late night hours along a particular stretch of the Gaviota Coast this week. Joined by increased 24-hour security details roaming the property and trucks parked alongside Highway 101 just south of the Dos Pubelos Ranch exit, the measures are part of recently ramped-up efforts to prevent surf-minded trespassers from accessing the coastline commonly known as Naples.
As one area resident commented Friday, “It looks like some sort of militarized car lot out there right now.”
With Orange County developer Matt Osgood’s highly controversial plan to put 71 mansion-sized homes in the area approved earlier this fall by the Santa Barbara County supervisors, many passersby and hopeful wavesliders have speculated that the increased efforts to prevent them from traveling the well-worn - albeit illegal - routes from the highway, across the train tracks, and down to the beaches below had been put in place by the Osgood camp.
However, despite the fact that he has witnessed an increase in unwanted foot traffic on his property in recent weeks, Osgood pointed out that the security is not even on his land. Indeed, the activity is taking place to the east of Osgood’s sizeable holding, on a piece of land owned by Newport Beach-based luxury development firm Makar Properties. Once proposed as a site for a golf course along the stunning coast aspect, the Makar property is now the hopeful site of two homes - one of more than 8,000 square feet and the other in excess of 12,000 square feet - known as the Paradiso del Mar Estate.
While calls to Makar headquarters had not been returned as of press time, sources close to the development plan say that in recent days, in anticipation of a scheduled County Board of Architectural Review site visit on December 5, workers were attempting to mark areas of the property where site poles would be erected to indicate the location and size of the planned development. However, with a fair bit of northwest swell running, area surfers - many of whom have been using the area for decades-have been relocating the stakes and generally causing mischievous mayhem for the planning process as they made their way across the land. Hoping to put an end to this and allow the site pole preparation to proceed, Makar beefed up security. However, according to the Santa Barbara County Web site, the County Board of Architectural Review site visit, originally scheduled for early Friday morning, was abandoned nonetheless.
Last year, also at the beginning of the South Coast’s surf season, Makar replaced much of the fence line surrounding their property, sparking the ire of the local wave-sliding community. As a result of surfers’ decades-old practice of hunting waves in the area via the sprawling coastal bluffs, the efforts to deny access touched off a debate about prescriptive rights - the legal theory that trails through private property are recognized as public if they have been in place and widely used for more than five consecutive years. The California Coastal Commission opened a file on the matter though nothing has since come of it. It remains to be seen if the latest anti-surfer movement will rekindle that investigation.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Drove by these lights earlier tonight. Completely obnoxious. Naples has been *shut down* - no cars at the usual 'parking lot' across 101 earlier today.
Woe be the surfers; hey, they've only been using it for decades.
drberticus (anonymous profile)
December 5, 2008 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is it that people who have no legal right think they are above the law???
Instead of having legal owners tolerate such illegal use for a period of time, this attitude may result in legal owners fencing private land to avoid "prescriptive easements."
Rather than whining, why not be grateful that the surfers have been allowed to use someone else's land without hassle for "decades".
sbron (anonymous profile)
December 5, 2008 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought this land had been in the public domain for decades and had only recently been purchased by the mega-developers (destroyers of all that is good) in recent years. Surfers have been using those trails to the beach for decades and because of that, actually have legal right to keep using them. Surfing, like skateboarding, is not a crime! I hate what I'm reading about the development at Naples and I'm not even a surfer, just a lover of the SB county coastline. This land should not be developed, it should be left wild.
Analog8 (anonymous profile)
December 6, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND
words and music by Woody Guthrie
Chorus:
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me
As I was walking a ribbon of highway
I saw above me an endless skyway
I saw below me a golden valley
This land was made for you and me
Chorus
I've roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me
Chorus
The sun comes shining as I was strolling
The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The fog was lifting a voice come chanting
This land was made for you and me
Chorus
As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!
Chorus
In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.
Chorus (2x)
jqb (anonymous profile)
December 6, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why, wouldn't it be nice of these mega-developers (or any developer) to make friends with the locals and surfers who use these areas to at least leave trails for them to access the surf and coastline? Understandable is the concept of legal land owners, but nobody owns the ocean or shore, and more and more the Malibu mentality of private access is creeping up the coast. Which, in turn, leaves only those with water vessels to reach this stretch of shoreline. This mentality is what fosters hostility and divides us into the "us" and "them" camps. Sheesh, if I had the money to buy this property (I can only dream), I would find a way to leave access for all who wanted access to the beach rather than keeping it all to myself. If only I could buy that land...
er805 (anonymous profile)
December 6, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This whole gaviota coast thing really seems like a joke with all this going on. It has turned into a drag race to build as much crap as possible all of the sudden and ban the EVIL surfers from getting to the surf. It is funny because Osgood and all these other dorks really think they are going to get secluded beach front privacy at thier palacial estates, they are high on crack. Surfers will get to the surf. What they will get in stead is another Rincon. I am sure that Coastal Access will be mandated sooner or later and the places will be abuzz with foot traffic. You can be sure that the new residents will be welcomed with open arms. NOT. They have had some pretty lame security down there for years. I have even heard stories of a machetti being pulled. Hopefully the powers that be have the nads to stand up to these creeps (developers) and get some good access instead of crap.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
December 6, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Season of love.
Over a dreamland
there's the sound
of a delicate
sadness, and over
the way there's
a light that
invites you to
discover the sun.
Francesco Sinibaldi
Sinibaldi (anonymous profile)
December 6, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Trails were offered up during the planning commission meetings. Osgood tried to work with everyone. His job is not to please people that have not spent a dime on his land. I would bet that Osgood does not trample through all of the Anti-SBR peoples homes and Properties. Let the man develop his property. He has waited over 10 years. His land, his money. His right to build it out. Last time I checked, private property does not mean people suing him can use the trails.
rennergizer (anonymous profile)
December 6, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is sad to see the little bits of land that are left be concentrated into the hands of a few. I know it's their legal right, but, there are few beaches left and more people wanting access to them. When these mansions are built, there will be a need to hire housekeepers, gardeners and other lower income individuals to take care of these properties. Thus, now we'll need more affordable housing. This drives more people into the area, but hey, now there are fewer beaches for them to visit.
I see the side of the owners of the property too. If I owned it, I would look into a way to allow public access. But, sadly, I also know that as soon as someone trips, falls or gets hurt somehow, the owners could be sued -- especially if they are wealthy! Such is the nature of our society. Thus, even if the owner wants to contribute to society by offering up the beach for public access, there is the issue of liability.
sunnyday (anonymous profile)
December 6, 2008 at 11:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What the hell does anyone need a 12,000 square foot home for? I find such a thing bordering on the morally reprehensible. I wonder if it's even going to be used by the owner as a primary residence?
postername (anonymous profile)
December 7, 2008 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why don't they keep the trail as-is and put their cattle fences around the trail with a gate so the surfers don't mess with their markers and the builders still have access? That seems a lot easier and a lot more environmentally friendly that putting up a bunch of 12,000 watt lamps all night and paying for extra security. This is just ridiculous, I mean, is this the kind of stupidity that we're going to be seeing from these developers for the next few years?
I hope 150 surfers show up there on the next good swell and crash their stupid security party.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 8, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the surfers have been using this trail for decades, then why doesn't Surfriders file a lawsuit on their behalf to legally establish a prescriptive easement?
However, even if that were to happen, the landowner is still liable for any injuries that occur on his or her property.
dalplan (anonymous profile)
December 8, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rennergizer, is your first name Matt or your last name Osgood? temper temper....
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2008 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bimboteskie,
No temper here. Just the facts. Let me know how you would feel if you spent millions on a property, and a group of haters tried to stop your legal use of the property. Then you see death threats in a local publication, because you are exercising your legal rights. Let me know. I will say that if anyone wrote threats against me, I would find them, and give them the opportunity to follow through on the threats. This is getting out of hand. This is America. Remember the Freedom thing???? Mr. Osgood followed the law. And by the way, my last name is Renner. People need to worry about their own lives, not everyone elses. I am sure if the surfers were willing to work with the builder, something could be worked out. It is when they oppose, and try and take what they want, is when the door shuts. I would bet the door is currently shut.
rennergizer (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2008 at 4:16 p.m.
Oh darn, they took away my last comment. It was a good one too. I will try to remember and rewrite. I am not sure why. Get back to you soon Rennergizer.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, but hopefully the coastal commission will pop it back open for all of us. You will never convince me of he legal right over that land. He got his stuff thru on a technicality over the previous lots that should have been null and void. What was the vote 3-2? Sorry not buying it. I see that whole vote as a sham. I will say that death threats are weak sauce. While I may not like what he is doing, and probably not him all that much, being a bully lame in any respect, physically or economically. We are worrying about our lives. Naples has been a big part of a lot of peoples lives around here. This guy shows up, buys it, pulls a shell game with the lots and wants to build a mini Hollister ranch? I don't think so, Homey don't play that game. He is pulling the art of war negotiation crap. Setting the bar hi until the costal commission comes down on him which is inevitable. I kind of hope the county gets involved again some how with the new change in the roster. And here is one more point dude, I doubt he EVER had a decent parking spot and a little trail down to the beach for surfers in any plan. I watched the hearings. "ahhh, no that to severely have an economic impact as my higher end buyers value their privacy.... " Oh BS. It is because the developer is being a greedy pooh head.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)