The Natural State


Malibu stars battle environmentalists to save their beach homes

Some of Hollywood’s wealthiest stars are battling environmentalists over a $20million plan to save their houses on Malibu’s badly named Broad Beach. Steven Spielberg, Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, Goldie Hawn and Pierce Brosnan are among 108 homeowners along the 1.2-mile beach, where houses sell for up to $30million. When most of them were built in the 1970s, the owners had to walk 140 feet in the sand to reach the surf. Now, at high tide, the waves crash against an 8-foot-high emergency rock barrier. Though the stars want to spend their own money to rebuild the beach with sand dredged from the ocean floor, regulators have blocked the plan. Environmentalists prefer a “managed retreat” from the waves so the shore can revert to its natural state. Nancy Hastings of the Surfrider organization is sure the stars are committed to the environment, “But when your home is threatened, it puts things in a whole new perspective,” she told The Post’s Richard Johnson. Another eco-activist said, “They drive Priuses and have the right bumper stickers, but they care more about their houses.”

This might shock you but I gotta go with the Rich and Shameless of Malibu on this one.

California is the home of the environmentalist movement. Although many of them migrated northward during the 60’s and 70’s, we probably have more tree-huggers here than in the other 56 states combined. I wasn’t born in California but I was raised here. In school I received all the right environmental indoctrination. But for some reason it didn’t take.

I’m not saying that I’m pro-pollution. I believe that we should not waste or contaminate our natural resources. But I despise eco-freaks.

Environmentalists love nature but hate humans. What they forget is that we are part of nature. And since at least the Agricultural Revolution humans have been tampering with nature. Our ancestors were not content to “live in harmony with nature”. They decided to make a few improvements in order to increase their chances of survival.

There are approximately 7 BILLION people on this planet, give or take a billion. If we threw away all our technology and tried to “live in harmony with nature” then several billion people would quickly die from thirst, starvation, disease and/or exposure to the elements.

From what I remember of science classes, beaches are made out of sand which is lots of small grains of rock. The sand is created when larger rocks disintegrate, eroded by water, weather, and glaciers. These small rock particles wash down the streams and rivers into the ocean. Waves and currents push the particles around until the eventually accumulate in piles.

Depending on where those piles end up we call them by different names. When they accumulate along a shore we call them “beaches.” There are actually people out there who study how beaches are formed. Because these people are real scientists they can actually predict these accumulations.

In this particular case we are talking about Hollywood stars and some of the priciest real estate on the planet. But how would we react if these were poor people or a bunch of suburb dwellers being threatened by Mother Nature?

Imagine if the scientists agreed that the reason the sand on Broad Beach had eroded away was due to something humans had done. The environmentalists would be screaming for the beach to be rebuilt toot sweet.

longshore drift

About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Environmentalism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

105 Responses to The Natural State

  1. myiq2xu says:
  2. westcoaster says:

    OT: a democrat in my blue state wants to allow bosses access to Facebook passwords of their employees (he was identified in the comment section)

    • myiq2xu says:

      Next they’ll say your boss should also have a spare key to your house so he can drop by and check out what you’re up to in your off hours.

    • lildoggy4u says:

      Can I publish that comment?
      “The amendment was proposed by Rep. Mike Sells (DEMOCRAT). I can’t imagine why the Times would forget to mention this very important fact.

      Rep. Mike Sells

      Olympia Office:
      132B Legislative Building
      PO Box 40600
      Olympia, WA 98504-0600
      (360) 786-7840”

    • Somebody says:

      I guess Rep. Mike Sells is unfamiliar with the bill of rights, what a douchebag.

  3. Erin says:

    Civilization has been 10,000 years of trying to get some distance from “nature”. I’m good with that.

  4. votermom says:

    Imagine if the scientists agreed that the reason the sand on Broad Beach had eroded away was due to something humans had done. The environmentalists would be screaming for the beach to be rebuilt toot sweet.


    All over the world humans “reclaim” land from the sea. I think Qatar & Dubai billionaires even build their own islands or something.

    Imagine if NYC revert to its “natural state.”

    If the rich west coasters want to spend their own money rebuilding their beachfront, more power to them.

    • driguana says:

      Go to The Netherlands for a couple of days and check out real “sustainability”.

    • elliesmom says:

      The Back Bay area of Boston is “man-made”. I wonder when the People’s Republic of Cambridge will try to reclaim their beachfront property in the name of the environment.

  5. votermom says:

  6. votermom says:

    OT for Denise

    • DeniseVB says:

      LOL ! My husband would agree with this trailer 😀 Thanks for the laugh!

    • leslie says:

      Thanks, votermom! THAT was fun! I’ve seen several different film versions of Les Mis and Ioved this musical. I would love for the Lyric Opera to tackle it. I’m half-way through the novel (probably thanks to the cheer leading of Denise). It is an amazing book.

  7. Somebody says:

    Dredging and beach renourishment is quite expensive, I say if the Hollywood crown wants to pick up the tab let them. The tax payers of California are already tapped out.

    I can’t stand eco-freaks myself. We have quite a few in this area. There is no logic or reasoning with them. If you’re not for the abolishment of fossil fuels, ridding the earth of most manufacturing, “restoring” natural habitats, etc., then you are for massive pollution and overbuilding. You can’t have a coversation with these people they’re nuts and most of them lack common sense.

    If I’m ever queen of the world for a day, I’m going to set aside a large tract of completely untouched virgin land somewhere. Then I’ll let all the eco-freaks have a chance to realize their dream……I’d give them the virgin land to live on and commune with nature. I wonder how many would actually take an offer like that? Environmentalism is a religion.

    • votermom says:

      If I’m ever queen of the world for a day, I’m going to set aside a large tract of completely untouched virgin land somewhere. Then I’ll let all the eco-freaks have a chance to realize their dream……I’d give them the virgin land to live on and commune with nature.

      May I suggest the Sahara?

    • piper says:

      Siberia is lovely at this time of year. Lots of room so they can spread out and enjoy the environment without being on top of neighbors.

    • driguana says:

      It took me a very short time in the rainforest of Liberia, West Africa to realize how incredibly sensitive and “sustainable” the local ethnic Kpelle farmers in a small village of about1500 were in a place they have farmed for hundreds of years using “slash and burn” methods. Yep, they knew exactly what medicinal plants to protect, what trees needed to be kept, how to control erosion, what animals needed to be protected and had very strict rules for keeping lands fallow. But, oh my gosh, they slash and burn! And they always played music, drank and danced when they farmed….oh my gosh, damn animists!

      • wmcb says:

        This is why I don’t wholesale jump on the “ban Big Agriculture” bandwagon, or “ban Big Oil”. It is very easy for those of us who already had our industrial revolution and reaped the benefits thereof to suddenly get all concerned with preserving pristine Nature in the raw.

        But there are sub-Saharan communities where an evil engineered drought-resistant wheat is a Godsend – the literal difference between starvation and prosperity. There are countries where the presence of evil foreign investment in oil exploration or mineral mining can lift the entire area out of poverty. And don’t EVEN get me started on how many millions of poor people the stupid DDT ban has killed from malaria.

        Do we need to be concerned about HOW these things are done? Yep. But this attitude of “Let’s just lock the quaint thirld world into their historic and authentic poverty, because it makes US feel good” is arrogant in the extreme. For some, it’s as if they want to preserve those “cultures” as a fucking human theme park for their own enjoyment – with no consideration that maybe those people WANT some cheap grain, lumber jobs, or the access to transportation that comes with industrialization.

        These are human beings. Not zoo residents for you to “preserve” and ooh and ahh over like some exhibit of an earlier age.

        • driguana says:

          Funny you should mention “drought resistant wheat” experiments. One of the projects I led in Liberia in 1970 was to try and grow so-called “miracle rice” (IR 8 from the Philippines) in several experimental paddy rice projects under the tutelage of Taiwanese farmers working for UN FAO! What a disaster! This strain led to severe rice blast and tons of leaf hoppers invading the crop. The Taiwanese guys said “Oh, just use some good ole Sevin…that’ll solve the problem”. Pesticides and commercial fertilizer was always the answer. The first crop failed and so I went into Guinea, forbidden at that time, and found some indigenous swamp rice that grew quite well, twice a year. And, oh, the Taiwanese guys wouldn’t come out and work in the small villages because, well…they didn’t particularly like black people!!! Thus, my long standing hatred of the UN!

        • wmcb says:

          People who rail against fertilizer and pesticides forget that for most of the history of the world, major crop pests and diseases meant PEOPLE STARVED.

          Can we come up with better ones, with less harmful aftereffects? Sure. And most Ag companies have, and are trying. But this tunnel vision about what the world was really like in the halycon days of “natural living” annoys the fuck out of me. People DIED, and malnutrition was rampant. Commercial agriculture literally saved the world. Make adjustments, find better ways, yes. But don’t be blind to the benefits of all that “poison” and decide to just throw it away willy nilly.

    • foxyladi14 says:

      these people they’re nutty as fruitcakes!!!! 🙄

  8. fif says:

    Is there an environmental impact to rebuilding the beaches? If not and it’s their own money, that’s their business. With their reasoning, why bother maintaining anything? Let the entire infrastructure revert to its natural state – no maintenance on roads, bridges, highways, water systems, etc. Let’s all just sit and watch as nature does it’s thing. And where are these self-righteous utopians living – out in the wild? Stop all public services to their domains so they can live in the open air.

  9. leslie says:

    But how would we react if these were poor people or a bunch of suburb dwellers being threatened by Mother Nature.”

    Here in Chicago, the teachers union would be out there screaming raaacism and demanding the city come up with the money to move those prro people to the “Chicago gold coast” and then the gangs would vandalize and have wildings along the Maginificent Mile like they’ve been doing this spring, and call it an environmental movement.
    And the bicyclists would descend on the rest of the city for a month long critical mass celebration.

    • leslie says:

      But Hyde Park would be protected so TehOne could come home ot his house, provided by Tony Rezko and cared for by the locals whose windows are wax paper thin and whose heat doesn’t work – that is the Chicago environmental way.

  10. yttik says:

    We just had a major landslide on the shoreline. It’s sad for the people who have homes that they are losing, but it is to be expected when you have a home so close to the sand. Erosion has been happening forever. Eventually the sea is going to win.

    It’s kind of funny, but I often have conflicts with environmentalists because they don’t seems to respect mother nature. They treat her like a victim in need of their protection, rather than an awesome and powerful force. It’s like demeaning and disrespecting the power of nature. LOL, there’s something about this that really offends me.

    • myiq2xu says:

      If you have ever been near ground zero when mother nature gets PMS you realize how puny humans are in comparison.

      As a scifi book once put it, “Random death in the life-support system”.

    • wmcb says:

      Insanity. Yet if you object, you are anti-poor people. Um, NO, jackwads. You are NOT doing people any favors pushing them into loans that they really cannot afford. That’s not kindness.

      Progs are constantly trying to “equalize” things on the results end, while doing nothing at all to address causes. There are reasons why those people are poor, ill-disciplined, ill-educated, and unable to afford a mortgage. It has to do with our education system, our eroded industrial base, no good jobs, etc. Address those structural issues, and those with the desire to rise to middle class home ownership will do so.

      Another dirty little secret though: There exists a small segment of the population (not ALL poor people) who will never have or achieve anything, no matter how much opportunity there is, because they really don’t give a shit. They don’t want to achieve. They are quite content to live in slums and get by on the minimum. They will sit on the trailer porch taking $50 of dole before they will ever do a lick of work for $100. You cannot help those people. Sorry, that’s just reality. These are the ones who need society to fill their most basic needs (i.e. make sure they don’t starve and have some kind of shelter available), but other than that they are a lost cause. Compassion dictates we do a minimum for them, but they will be forever poor, and we need to accept that.

      If that seems harsh, then you have likely never been poor, or spent much time around poor people. I have. And while not the majority, those people DO exist. I have lived among them. The adage “No one wants to be poor, everyone would work hard if given opportunity” is bullshit. Many? Yes. All? Nope. Nothing you can do for them except make sure they don’t literally die. People who want to rise above poverty are a different story – those are the ones who need tools to do it.

      • swanspirit says:

        I used to do a home care visit in a neighborhood where it was advisable to go early in the morning ; before the local residents were up and about , you know , around 9 or 10 AM . I visited this lady in a wheelchair , whose house was literally falling down around her . In good weather , by the time the visit was over , on the opposite corner from this lady’s home ; were a group of people hanging out , sitting on plastic lawn chairs . The whole neighborhood was decrepit and in disrepair . I used to think , if that group of people would get up off their butts , and work on one house at a time starting with the lady I visited , they could have improved the neighborhood beyond recognition . Local people and businesses would have donated materials and tools and probably time as well. But those people are probably still sitting there , in good weather , and finally the lady was placed in public housing .

        • wmcb says:

          Swan, there are likely quite a few in that group of people who with the right motivation, hope, and opportunity would actually get up off those lawn chairs and make a life. If they could be convinced that it wouldn’t be a futile gesture, yeah, some would.

          But saying that ALL of them would is a pipe dream. No, all wouldn’t.

      • Somebody says:

        I agree with you, there are some people that have no desire to help themselves.

        People like that could have a boatload of money come their way and they’d piss through it all and be broke again. I actually know someone that did just that. There is no help for those who are not willing to help themselves.

    • Somebody says:

      Well while I agree I don’t want to go down the path we’ve already been down there is some validity to parts of what the administration is doing…….I dislike Obama so it takes a lot for me to admit this. I will give two personal examples.

      1) Lending is still quite tight for mortgages. In 2010 my brother sold his second home and purchased his third. He made a tidy profit on his 2nd home and was putting down a large amount on the 3rd. He has excellent credit, but works on commission…..that last part freaked a lot of lenders out. Nevermind he had a track record of a very high income (yearly income of more than the mortgage amount)….nevermind he had 10 times the amount of the mortgage tucked away in a 401K. He said it was easier to buy his first house when his income was a quarter or less, but he was working an hourly job back then. He went with a government loan because it was so much less hassle.

      2) My son bought his first home in 2011. His mortgage is through a government lender and because of that he was able to get into the house with a smaller down payment. In my son’s case his mortgage payment is actually less than he was paying in rent. My son isn’t poor he’s not on any kind of government assistance like food stamps, he earns too much…..but this mortgage program helped him get into a home years before he otherwise would have. Without the program he would have to save up 20% down, some lenders want 25% these days, or he’d have to pay PMI which would have made his mortgage payment much higher.

      Neither my brother nor my son were particularly high risk, but traditional lenders have been quite gun shy since the crash. I think the government did help avoid a much larger crash by stepping in to fill the void. I don’t mind the programs if they stick with reasonable lending. There are probably quite a few people out there like my son that could be making payments toward owning a home for less than what they are paying in rent. As the market improves lenders will probably be a little less gun shy, but for now if the government can fill the void, provided they keep risks minimal, I don’t mind. In many ways it’s a win-win, the market gets stronger and the tax payers earn a little bit of interest on the mortgages. (I do not in any way shape or form support risky lending to people that can’t even put food on their tables)

  11. yttik says:

    Apparently 4% of people surveyed believe our Gov is being run by alien lizard people. I actually believe that’s a somewhat rational conclusion.

  12. HELENK says:

    maybe it is me, but if a government piles on so many regulations on a small business that hiring becomes “not worth it” the jobless rate businesses close
    when a government encourages it citizens to become so dependent upon it and does not have the money to support them people get hurt

    • yttik says:

      My town is really getting hit hard because of the ideology coming from DC. It turns out that big business and corporations actually support a lot of charities and community needs. If you get rid of “evil corporations” it turns out you also get rid of Little League, parks, festivals, art museums, tourism, etc, etc. If you create a lot of city taxes and regulations, it turns out the small businesses either fold or move away. If you run all the business out, you wind up with a lot of unemployed people who don’t pay much in taxes, so the Gov winds up with less money.

  13. HELENK says:

    David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog 4m

    Breaking: Mike Rice fired as Rutgers BB coach; replaced by Joe Pesci

    • Somebody says:

      OMG can we send Jim Carey to Siberia? He’s Canadian so he should be able to handle the cold just fine.

      What a tool. He compares himself to Ronald Reagan…..because they are both actors.

      He claims he doesn’t allow his security to carry large magazines, but doesn’t say what size magazine he considers acceptable for his security. He also doesn’t address whether or not they carry multiple firearms, I suspect they probably do carry multiple firearms. He’s just a hypocrite that got called out and now he claims to be the victim AND Ronald Reagan reincarnated

    • elliesmom says:

      I think he woke up and realized people who own guns go to the movies. Like Tina Fey is discovering the demographic that goes to romantic comedies starring middle-aged ladies likes Sarah Palin.

  14. HELENK says:

    immigration bill says immigrants must be paid prevailing wage.

    new democratic union members maybe???

  15. HELENK says:

    I just found this and thought it was interesting. since last month was woman’s history month I thought you would like to see it

  16. HELENK says:

    when backtrack made the comment about being scientist in chief, I thought it was to out do Ben Carson.

  17. swanspirit says:

    Here in Ocean City , beach replenishment is nothing new , is an ongoing effort and has been for decades .The idea of allowing the beach to disappear is simply inconceivable ; because the tourist dollars for the state of Maryland are important , and the entire state , and quite a few neighboring states , would rebel if they lost their vacation spot. Ocean City has lost a great deal of beach to erosion and storms and our beaches are beautiful , and clean .
    Part of the beach erosion in Ocean City actually contributes to the build up of the beach in Assateague ; and was caused by the man made reinforcement of the inlet , but the inlet itself was created by a hurricane in 1933 .
    In contrast to Ocean City , and right across the inlet from the tourist town , is Assateague Island , which is also maintained ; but in as much of a natural state as a National Park can be .
    After years of very expensive beach replenishment ,and fighting a losing battle against erosion ; it was discovered that natural dunes were the best protection from natural erosion , hurricanes and nor easters .
    That welcome discovery resulted in building higher dunes on Assateague , and rebuilding dunes where ever possible in Ocean City . We have learned the hard and expensive way that beach replenishment alone does not preserve the beaches .
    The beaches of both Ocean City and Assateague are open and available to the public , and the locals take the maintenance of both very seriously. The preservation of Assateague maintains the environment , and the wildlife , and still provides access for swimming ,fishing, crabbing, camping ,and canoeing for everyone.

    Perhaps if some if the 108 people who own the beachfront property in California were not so adamant that the ” little people ” and those that cannot afford to fight the EPA ; suffer the consequences of nature preservation , I would have more sympathy for them . I remember in 2009 when water was cut off and farmers in California lost their farms to protest one species of a tiny fish . I don’t remember Redford coming to the rescue of those farmers , and someone should have .
    I can consider whether or not the shoe could be on the other foot , but almost always , it is not . Living here so close to the beaches , we have learned if we want our playground , we have to work with Mother Nature , otherwise we wont have it at all .

    • wmcb says:

      On the barrier islands of SC, we learned the dune lesson the hard way as well. Many of those islands have had their dunes restored, and the ones that were still existing are now protected. Disturbing the natural sea grass or vines that grow on and anchor the dunes is a crime with jailtime. Fripp Island is one of the most gorgeous islands in existence, and you cannot build beachfront there: you have to build behind the dunes and can have a wood walkway built very carefully over the dunes to the beach. Fortunately, they got those regs in place for Fripp and a few other islands long before there was too much development.

      • votermom says:

        Even the Bible warns about building houses on the sand. 😀

      • swanspirit says:

        As beautiful as our beaches are , we just might be a bit jealous of S.C. beaches . You all have some fine beaches !!! This is my favorite O.C. beach cam

        • myiq2xu says:

          West coast beaches are beautiful but can be very cold and windy all year round. The water is never warm. Even at the nicer beaches like Santa Cruz there will be lots of people but you hardly see anyone in the water except surfers and they all wear wetsuits.

          I prefer rocks and tide pools to beaches.

        • elliesmom says:

          On the west coast offshore currents flow from north to south bringing cold water with them. On the east coast the Gulf Stream flows from south to north bringing warm tropical water with it. Besides giving the US east coast warmer beaches, when it veers east it warms the British Isles. They’re at the same latitude as Labrador.

    • myiq2xu says:

      the 108 people who own the beachfront property

      There is more to the story and it might be karmic revenge. Some of those stars aren’t so keen on the idea of the little people wandering around on “their” beaches. But according to California law the beaches are public property so the stars have tried to cut off access to the beach.

  18. HELENK says:

    this article made me think. yes I am guilty of thinking that yesterday’s public school education was better than today’s

    • wmcb says:

      I disagree with him that the state should not provide for education. But his criticisms of the system have merit, which is why I am in favor of the full voucher system such as Sweden has. The reason why the vile progs hate hate HATE the idea of vouchers is not, as they claim, that it will result in poorer education. It is because it strips the bureaucrats of power. It denies them the venue to indoctrinate citizens from childhood.

      Vouchers fill the requirement of the State (or we the people) providing for every child’s education, while at the same time denying the State the power to choose for us HOW our child is educated. It puts all the choice and power back in the hands of the people. I can send my child to the school I think is best for them.

      I find myself in multiple areas more and more in favor of using the State as the logical clearinghouse to collectively fund things, but denying them the power that they want married with that function. And THAT is the one thing the vile progs cannot have. They use funding as the means to control. If you strip away the control, but still leave the funding, they look like stupid hypocrites, revealing that “funding and helping” was never their primary goal – POWER was.

      Another argument raised against vouchers is that some people will make bad decisions. True – some will. But IMO, the downside of a few parents choosing badly is LESS than the downside to the clusterfuck of state-controlled education. Bad parent choices may harm a few kids, but bad STATE choices harm millions.

      So yes, fund for every child via the State. But give the POWER to the parents, and to the people.

      • myiq2xu says:

        If schools had to compete for dollars they might have to become less imperious and more user-friendly.

      • HELENK says:

        have you watched the tv show Monday Morning ? It is an interesting medical drama. I was wondering what you and your husband thought of it

  19. HELENK says:

    North Korea leader takes a page from backtrack writes book about dad

  20. votermom says:

    OT (maybe not) from a korean drama I’m watching (paraphrase):

    The three most important ways to get money from the government for generation after generation:
    First, sort out the people who have power.
    Second, be close to him somehow.
    Third. This is important above all. Believe that what I am doing is the right thing. No matter what happens.

  21. myiq2xu says:
    • HELENK says:

      remember when a white supremest group tried to blow up the police station here in Hemet? It is like every several years they go on a rampage until they are caught or killed

      • myiq2xu says:

        According to the Vile Progs we’re all white supremacists but they are only a tiny fraction of 1%.

        They no more represent white people than Crips and Bloods represent African Americans. Except that C&B’s are held in higher esteem in their communities.

  22. HELENK says:

    #breakingnews | @nbcnews confirms: #TonightShow host Jay Leno on way out; Jimmy Fallon to take over late-night reigns

  23. myiq2xu says:

    Disaster relief money provides lots of opportunities to steal.

    • wmcb says:

      This is what I don’t get about progs. I am fully cognizant of the failings of the private sector. But I am *also* aware of the frequent and often worse failings of the public sector. It’s like progs want to focus on how the private sector can fail us (which is true), but admit to ZERO downside to the govt doing things. Their mantra is that the profit motive is bad, and govt, due to no profit motive, is automatically good. But that’s not true in real life. Henry Ford’s profit motive had vast benefits. Governments in all of history have been demonstrably power-mongering corruptocrats and wasters of the public treasury, if allowed to do so.

      Progs seem incapable of doing a dispassionate upside/downside analysis at all. I look at some things, and my question is not only “Will the private sector do an incomplete job at this – will there be a downside?” My question is also “Does the govt fail at it less, about the same, or even worse than the private sector does?”

      If govt can obviously do it better, then fine. But if the result is equal or even tilted to the private sector, WHY in god’s name would you hand over that power? Because greed is icky or something? Don’t be an idiot. Honestly, it’s not THAT hard. Nothing is perfect, all solutions will have at least *some* selfishness and corruption, so you look at shit and figure out best benefit for society for the buck, with the least downside.

      • myiq2xu says:

        Sometimes the best way is a combo – a government franchise to a private company, like for garbage collection contract put out for public bid.

        But you still have to watch out for corruption. Sunshine is always the best disinfectant.

  24. myiq2xu says:
    • myiq2xu says:

      I dunno, that first debate was pretty bad. And bowing to dictators, giving QEII a collection of his speeches, the list goes on.

  25. driguana says:

    I’m taking all of this beach stuff with a proverbial grain of sand as we prepare to leave the mountains of Santa Fe for the sandy soils of Delray Beach FL!!!

Comments are closed.