To the disgruntlement of some 14,000 coeds, a whole slew of surfers, and many Isla Vista community members, I.V. beaches have been closed for two weekends in a row. The closures were a preemptive protective measure in light of previous years’ destruction from Floatopia. The I.V. community, however, is responding by partying on and planning protests.
Floatopia, I.V.’s annual spring quarter, booze-soaked beach party, has enjoyed a short-lived tradition. Fewer than 10 years ago, around 300 people did minimal damage to I.V.’s beaches. Recent Facebook organizing has expanded the event, ensuring that members of the I.V. community and out-of-towners alike know about and plan for the day of drunken debauchery well in advance.
The final straw was 2009’s April 4 Floatopia, when some 12,000 partiers flocked to I.V.’s beaches, saturating the sand and shallow waters with bottles, cans, human waste, and other nonperishable trash. According to Drew Sugars, the Public Information Officer of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office, 2009’s Floatopia sent more than 33 people to emergency rooms with alcohol poisoning, lacerations from broken bottles, heat exposure, and falls from the bluff.
In the immediate aftermath, the County Board of Supervisors banned alcohol from the beach stretching from UCSB’s campus through the 6800 block of Del Playa Drive. Third District Supervisor Doreen Farr called it an issue of safety, noting that alcohol consumption and ocean activities pose threats when combined. (Drinking on the beach is still possible after acquisition of a permit.)
But the following year — the weekend of April 10 and 11, 2010 — saw more than just an alcohol ban on the beach. Police closed I.V.’s beaches, forcing partiers to remain atop the bluffs. Excellent weather and the lack of a noise ordinance during the day were the perfect recipe for what became known as “Deltopia” — the filling of Del Playa Drive and the houses along the bluff with people, music, alcohol. It was effectively the Halloween of spring quarter; the costumes were bikinis, the weather was flawless, the goal was to rage. The beach was unnecessary, and it led the Sheriff’s Office to report “no major incidents”; Deltopia proved less treacherous than Floatopia.
This year, however, the I.V. community tried for another beach celebration. According to the Facebook event, Floatopia’s 2011 event would host more than 14,000 guests, including students at UCSB and SBCC and young people from all over Southern California. When the Sheriff’s office announced that it would be blocking beach accesses up and down I.V.’s bluffs the weekend of Saturday, April 2, Floatopia enthusiasts moved the event to the following weekend, of Saturday, April 9.
Outcries from the community have been numerous. Ten articles in the last two weeks alone have been published in UCSB’s campus newspaper, The Daily Nexus. Half were opinion pieces. Main arguments are that closure of the beach is an overreaction and that the I.V. community is misrepresented in the county’s decision.
Just as Facebook is arguably responsible for Floatopia’s demise (over-attendance and pollution never seemed to be issues when organization was simply a matter of word-of-mouth), it is the vehicle through which students are attempting to revive the revelry. Student Chris Alexander has organized a “Save Floatopia Protest” for this Wednesday and Thursday morning’s annual meetings of the Coastal Commission at the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors.
The “Save Floatopia Protest,” which has almost 400 confirmed guests, is the most comprehensive, organized attempt by the I.V. community to combat the county’s reaction to Floatopia. “The county has gone too far for two straight years in what is an egregious overreaction and flagrant rights violation by shutting down our beaches,” Alexander argues in encouragement of the protest.
In promotion of his case, Alexander cites Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Commission’s Public Resources Code, which aims to “maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.”
He also cites the code’s Section 30210, from the public access article, which includes a state mandate of the California Constitution that requires “maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.”
Alexander, who aims to get legal representation and rally up a group of 1,000 or more protesters, encourages I.V. dwellers to show respect and demonstrate civility in order to “avoid sullying the reputation of I.V. further.” He mentioned fourth-year UCSB student Chris Par’s performance at a County Board of Supervisors meeting last year, from which he was forcefully removed due to inarticulate, profanity-ridden arguments against the county’s closure of the beach, as an example of what not to do. (Par organized the “Protest to Stop Closing the Beach,” for Saturday, April 9 at a location called “They’re Gonna Close the Beach Every Weekend Until 2020,” which 16 people attended on Facebook but apparently nobody attended in real life.)
Par’s failed protest does speak to a fear shared by Isla Vista residents that continued postponements of Floatopia will be accompanied by continued closures of the beach. Both weekends saw hundreds of surfers, dog walkers, joggers, and kayakers kept disappointedly high and dry. Beach-goers of all ages and with all intentions had to walk half a mile up the coast past the 6800 block of Del Playa Drive, where they could descend the bluffs to Sands and Devereux Beaches at Coal Oil Point. Sugars maintains that, “The Sheriff’s office is prepared to enforce any future closures if necessary.”
But Saturday the 9th may have played host to the loud, debaucherous, beer-soaked Deltopia that Isla Vista residents needed to get their yearly fix. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff and the Isla Vista Foot Patrol had officers both blocking beach accesses and biking up and down the streets, ready to regulate on raging parties. They seemed to share a sense of accomplishment in controlling the event. Officer Mark Ward, who’s been serving with the IVFP for almost 20 years, said that as long as everybody remained safe, he was happy.
Talk of treating Floatopia like another Halloween is frequent but likely unfruitful. According to the IVFP, events like Halloween cost the county close to half a million dollars annually. Budgeting Floatopia in the same way would cost around the same amount.
For now, the controversy surrounds beach closures. As tactfully stated by many a stumbling student Saturday afternoon, “If drinking’s banned on the beach, I’d rather be up here anyway!” It remains to be seen whether I.V. representation at the Coastal Commission’s meeting Wednesday at 9 a.m. will be effective.



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




Previous Month



Comments
Now children; you're beginning to sound like your old spoiled gluttonous, overstuffed, cigar smoking, overly tatted and chardonay sipping hog riding elders. A bit ungrateful for this earth. And it is becoming apparent why some would want to cut higher education as well as medicare. I'm not in agreement but that's what people are thinking about your "entitlements." Don't give the "some" any justification.
So I know every single one of you work so hard at getting an education at University; and perhaps think you deserve this ordinary beer-fest. But you're just following a bad example. For break just relax, rest. Enjoy less provocative entertainment. Ditch the bimmer, rice and crotch-rockets. Meditate and observe the earth and all it's other fascinating inhabitants. Maybe think about where you're going to live in a few years.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2011 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is surreal. Are taxpayers really paying all those jack booted cops to stand around sweating in the sunshine? For what, to block us from our constitutional right to access our coastline? Santa Barbara has become an embarrassing testament to right wing nutter policies..... There is no doubt this is a flat out and explicit violation of the California Coastal Act, just like the Counties' lame illegal seawalls at Goleta Beach. Let's just hope it doesn't take a decade to get public access back to IV Beach.
Oh, BTW, I've started a July 4 party for elderly people at IV Beach called GeriTopia, only open to dudes and chicks over 65. Better keep those 'beach is closed' signs handy in case these old cougars get out of hand.
4Oceans (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2011 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
``... saturating the sand and shallow waters with bottles, cans, human waste, and other nonperishable trash.''
This is just false, and inflammatory.
Bad Job, Ms. Bachmann.
Is there any evidence that the 12,000 coastal accessors at the 2009 Floatopia did any more damage than 12,000 individual visits, spread out over time? Certainly the bacteria counts in the IV area did *not* spike after 2009 Floatopia... and counts spike all the time near Santa Barbara, where sewage seeps right into the channel.
There certainly was trash in 2009, but there is always trash, and usually beach trash is cleaned up by volunteers, both in the case of Floatopia and regular, spread-out beach access.
No doubt Floatopia visitors peed in the ocean, but surfers do that all the time.
As for safety, surfers are getting knocked on the head and also drowning around IV once every few years. Wouldn't requiring that surfers wear helmets and floatation devices produce as much safety as banning IV beach use during Floatopia?
pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2011 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whine, whine, whine.
Flagrant rights violation? What right, to trash the environment? The Coastal Commission has a duty to balance coastal access with the protection of sensitive coastal resources. The temporary inconvenience is far outweighed by the potential for long-term damage to the fragile coastal ecosystem. If the partygoers had been more responsible to begin with, the County wouldn't have to close the beach in the short-term in order to protect it for the long-term.
dalplan (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2011 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The option of closing the beach every weekend from now until the end of spring quarter at UCSB is an option but not a viable one. There are plenty of local citizens (old working folks and older retired folks) who regularly surf at Sands and Devereux or simply go for their daily walks there. They understand the need to protect the beach from getting trashed, and have been patient with the closures. But their patience will wear thin sooner than later. At that point, things will get either political or lawyerly or both. Then the cost of keeping the beach closed will begin increase both in terms of legal costs and political capital. I don't see this going anywhere good.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2011 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Aw, poor victimized (temporary) citizens of Isla Vista! Are you protesting the spikes in fees you'll be facing next too or are your parents paying for those?
cramer (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2011 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
L.A. go home!
surfrmom (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2011 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No one has the right to destroy the environment.
EZK (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2011 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The amount of pollution that flows into the ocean every time it rains far exceeds what any number of students could do in one weekend. One way to fight back is to move Floatopia to Goleta Beach. Give them an ultimatum, either keep IV beach open at all times, or hordes of wild college students will invade the family friendly Goleta Beach and leave behind a mountain of waste.
Chato (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2011 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm fairly certain the Coastal Commision Codes used above in an attempt to undercut the legality of the beach closures actually supports the opposite.
Not to mention the threat to public safety such an event is. Its only a matter of time before someone drowns at this thing if it is allowed to continue.
UCSB stus should be satisfied with their "right" to trash Isla Vista and its properties for four years then prance off out of town.
In response to Chato, just because a fair amount of pollution comes into the ocean each time it rains from our streets and creeks does not give an excuse to blatantly pollute and disturb the marine environment in Goleta.
dcd (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2011 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The long term impact on the environment from an event like Floatopia is minimal to none. Yes, shore bird numbers were down temporarily in 2009, but they were back to normal within a day. The beach closures has nothing to do with the environment. Speculation is worthless in this argument. We need data that shows the impacts of Floatopia. If anyone does a study, I am guessing that the impacts will be zero.
The city is closing the beaches to control the party. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, they are breaking the constitution while doing so. When I was in college, Floatopia was a great event. Now that I look back on it, it was pretty dangerous. However, I just don't understand the reaction by police and the city. Why don't they just rake in tons of cash by handing out hundreds of citations for open containers, drunk in public, minors in possession, etc? Maybe it will cover the cost of Halloween. Maybe it will cover the cost of having some cops patrolling the water on jet-skis. Maybe it will effectively end Floatopia because people will not want to come for a party that they cannot drink at. Just another overreaction by the University and IV footpatrol.
laxer (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2011 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Equal opportunity under the law has not been violated- nobody was allowed on the beach. They are complaining only because of the publicity that the beach was closed made it impossible to sell tickets and then say they were stopped- they would have kept the money without the expense of actually holding the event. Two types of people are surfers- those that would give you the shirts off their backs and the floatopia surfers that would steal the milk out of a mother's breast. That is low,
bobbydias (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2011 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wish the protesters the best of luck. The first year this event occurred, nobody had any idea what kind of response would be generated and what the consequences would be. Now that those things are known, I am pretty sure IV residents could put together a fun event on their own and clean up afterward. Of course, they won't even give them the opportunity.
I also hate when the police talk about the large costs of Halloween. They are the ones eating up the costs, bringing in horses that fill the streets with horse crap, horse crap EVERYWHERE!! I'll bet the horse crap from Halloween does more to pollute the beaches than 10 years worth of floatopia. What a bunch of hypocrites. No wonder youth hate authority so much, leave us the hell alone!!
loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2011 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I was really happy to hear that many more students were engaged in protesting rising tuition fees than wanking about Flotopia to the Coastal Commission. There is hope for the future.
gaviotapowerranger (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2011 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In general the problem isn't the students but nonstudents who come in because of nerd events like Floatopia.
EZK (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2011 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)