California's slippery slope of land ownership

The owners have 36 acres, with water front. If I owner, I would have built hotels, golf course. I cant grasp 36 acres, but you get my point. I would have been creative. Such a waste. California coastline and you give it to the cows. You can make a ranch/cowboy themed resort/spa.
The coast line north of Jalama Beach is not like the coast line one might imagine in California. Sure, Cali has great beaches near LA or San Diego and Pismo. The Jalama coast line is windy and socked in with fog a great deal of the year.
 
I think the article said they own 37 square miles, with 11 miles of beach front

God damn. That number I can understand. That space is bigger than Newark NJ. You can develop a small portion into some hospitality/tourism business, and leave the rest alone while pretending is all a part of the attraction.
 
36 acres of actual land that doesn't have crappy '5 star' hotels and a bunch of drunk idiots of it, can't ever see how any of that was allowed to happen.

Ug what ever did those poor settlers do when they were confronted with those vast spectacular forrests that the west coast once had. It must've been suffocating. Without a starbucks and a boardwalk it was such a waste of real estate

Well why not turn over to parks and recreations? They dont have to pay property taxes anymore on it, and can probably work out some tax credit.
 
The coast line north of Jalama Beach is not like the coast line one might imagine in California. Sure, Cali has great beaches near LA or San Diego and Pismo. The Jalama coast line is windy and socked in with fog a great deal of the year.

A retirement/old folks home it is then
 
In HI, especially during times when waves are super strong, there are beachfront homes that have seawalls (that people say causes beach erosion) and the waves totally destroy the seawalls and take a huge chunk of land either super close to the house or under the house and the house is no longer safe to live in.
 
Back
Top