Property Rights In "Stanton-By-The-Sea"

Pollster, campaign consultant, blogger and media quotemeister Adam Probolsky penned an article for the new issue of Red County magazine:

San Clemente: A Mayor and City Council Oppose Home Improvement

In a recent Los Angeles Times article, San Clemente Mayor Wayne Eggleston was quoted as saying, “I wouldn’t want to stop in Stanton, much less [work] there.” Well, Mr. Eggleston may have more in common than he thinks with the central-county hamlet at the butt of his joke.

Last year, the Stanton City Council passed a law mandating home inspections by city officials. Not to be outdone by shabby, landlocked little Stanton, the San Clemente City Council has targeted a small neighborhood called Shorecliffs and effectively imposed an indefinite moratorium on home improvements there.

Imagine you’ve made a family decision to do some home improvements—build that master suite your wife has always wanted or you’ve got another child on the way and a bonus room for playtime is needed. Now, imagine your mayor and city council, entrusted with the power of government, dashing your family’s hopes of adding on to your home just because they can. The council majority in San Clemente has done just that because a small group of neighbors persuaded these elected officials that an ocean view incidental to their property is theirs by an inviolable right.

Until they were tossed out by a court in 1991, the deed restrictions on the 500-home community of Shorecliffs clearly articulated an approval process for home improvements. Before the city could issue a building permit, it had to be notified that a jury of fellow homeowners had reviewed and approved the proposal. In the absence of any enforceable deed restrictions, or CC&Rs, the city could continue this jury-review practice and issue building permits for construction improvements when merited—after all, the original CC&Rs contemplated the inevitable need to expand from original square footage.

Instead, San Clemente has taken a hard-line against home improvements. The city council adopted a zoning-overlay ordinance that applies only to Shorecliffs homeowners and prohibits them from making any significant improvements to their homes by banning second story additions. The young families buying these million-plus-dollar homes today have been edged out of any opportunity to increase the value of their investments through physical improvements—to say nothing of the families who just need more space.

Why?

 

You can read the rest of Adam's article here.

Comments

[Richard Rios]

Yet another example of disintegrating property rights by elected officials who are more concerned with votes than doing what is right.

I inherently do not believe the councils actions were wrong... for new purchases. But those who purchased and planned on growing families should not be denied thier right to a comfortable living because it interferes with another’s view.

Perhaps I am a bit too simple at times. In this situation I believe there is a solution that addresses the concerns and, most importantly, preserves property rights.

Current residents would be grandfathered under the pre-agreed upon rules. New purchases or transfers would fall under the new conditions because it would be known and agreed to prior to moving a family there.

Life is actually simple if you use reason and consider others like you would yourself…

Richard Rios

[S. JACOBS]

IN ADAM PROBOLSKY ARTICLE, HE FAILS TO MENTION THAT HE WAS HIRED TO SPIN STORIES ABOUT THE SHORECLIFF RESIDENTS WHO DIDN'T WANT THEIR VIEWS BLOCKED.
1. DEVELOPERS/REAL ESTATE BROKERS THAT WERE BUYING HOUSES AND USING CONTRACTORS FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE TO BUILD 2ND STORIES ON A FEW EXISTING HOMES, ALL FOR THE PROFIT OF A FEW.
2. USING A SINGLE COMMENT REGARDING STANTON AGAINST PEOPLE SOUNDS MORE LIKE A DEMOCRAT THEN UNITY IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

IN SHORT, IF YOUR GOING TO TELL A STORY, LETS HERE THE WHOLE THING. HOW MUCH WAS PROBOLSKY PAID TO EXPAND THE SHORECLIFF ISSUES.
SHELDON JACOBS

[Richard Rios]

Sheldon,

Actually, I find this forum a great way to hear all sides of a story. Do you have any proof or substantiating evidence that Adam was hired or that the developers are out of state?

I do have to disagree with your assessment on item 2. As presented, the issue is about property ownership rights. That is one of the public cornerstones to the Republican Party. Brining it to light would actually serve to unite the Party under it's stated belief.

If you have any evidence regarding inappropriate bias please present it with sources so we can see all sides of the issues.

Thanks,

Richard Rios

[makati condo]

Thanks for this post. Will be back often to read more updates!

Deirdre G