BajaNomad - Loreto's Beaches are quickly becoming privitized

Loreto's Beaches are quickly becoming privitized

flyfishinPam - 10-9-2007 at 08:58 AM

Here is an article in the local newspaper:
http://www.oem.com.mx/elsudcaliforniano/notas/n445603.htm

tha above discusses beach access closures in general by the developers and private owners. If you understand Spanish many of the comments made in this piece are truly sad.

Here is another one on the recent closure of the beach on the north side of town:
http://www.oem.com.mx/elsudcaliforniano/notas/n442728.htm

this one discusses this beach closure in town by FONATUR´S entity, SINGLAR SA de CV and here's a brief discussion of that one:

This specific beach closure happened within this week:
Singlar SA de CV (the same that´s in charge of Puerto Escondido) has acquired and fenced off a large portion of the beach on the north end of town. The southern boundry of the fence is at the Northern end of the La Pinta Hotel property. This is the same beach that was used by us to launch our boats when APIBCS closed down the lanuchramp. The fence´s western border is the E side of the access road that runs between the beach and many of the houses that can be seen from the water. These WERE beachfront homes and properties now their access is completely cut off, and they have to look at an ugly fence reminiscent of a prison. The North end of the fence is where the La Negrita is. There is now only ONE access to the beach and obviously cars can no longer access the beach here.

My husband hung out with a friend of ours who was born here of parents whose family has been here for hundreds of years and took him there... His words were "yesterday I went there to drink a beer in the shade, today we cannot go there anymore". This now has reduced public accessable beaches to:
*the beach on the malecon from La Pinta to Hotel Oasis
*a few remaining accesspoints south of colonia Zaragoza which will eventually be sold and fenced off too

Now one needs to have a boat to access beaches. The locals can no lnger dive for clams, something they've been doing for centuries.

Access to beaches from a car is limited andm this is the way most local people access THEIR beaches. North of La Negrita the new houses are directly on the beach their properties are fenced off blocking access and there is no car access anywhere. North of those homes the beaches are being fenced off at an alarming rate. South of Loreto Bay all beaches are fenced off until you get to Ligui. Ensenada Blanca will soon also be inaccessable. One literally will need a boat to access Loreto´s beaches in the very near future.

Your days of camping on the beach are over, so our ours. Remember it is against this country's constitution to restrict public access to beaches.

Slowmad - 10-9-2007 at 09:10 AM

Really disturbing.
The sweet spots will go first.
Then the check-off destinations will feel the pressure.
It happens so fast.
The Norte corridor, Cabo, San Jose, and the East Cape were the canaries in the coal mine.
Solutions?
The Nature Conservancy and WiLDCOAST are actively engaged in land trusts and conservation easements in Baja. These preserve wilderness while providing sustainable opportunities for local inhabitants.
Can they outpace wholesale wilderness eradication?
Maybe not.
But I'll tell you this: doing nothing has predictable results.

No Worries, Mate !

MrBillM - 10-9-2007 at 09:12 AM

If it is against the Mexican Constitution then, without a doubt, the Legal System will come to the correct solution and protect the rights of citizens against abuse by Evil Big Business interests.

That has ALWAYS been the history of the Mexican Legal System, RIGHT ?

All will work out for the best, I'm sure.

Where do it say that?

Dave - 10-9-2007 at 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfishinPam
Remember it is against this country's constitution to restrict public access to beaches.

Hook - 10-9-2007 at 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfishinPam
Remember it is against this country's constitution to restrict public access to beaches.

I cant answer the WHERE of that, Dave, but I see it often quoted on the internet that there are SUPPOSED to be public accesses to the federal zone every 400 meters. Seems a little to esotheric to be in the actual Constitution, though.

It is not often adhered to nor enforced in my experiences.

Maybe Ferna has an online link to the Mexican Constitution and can point it out.

flyfishinPam - 10-9-2007 at 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

where does it say that?

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfishinPam
Remember it is against this country's constitution to restrict public access to beaches.

articulo 27

Minnow - 10-9-2007 at 04:08 PM

Pam, seems you are bummed about the Beach thing, and the Mexican governments total lack of commitment to the constitution. However, you continue on an ongoing basis to break the following.
Article 33. Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualifications set forth in Article 30. They are entitled to the guarantees granted by Chapter I, Title I, of the present Constitution; but the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.

Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.

What is your justification? Do you think it might effect your citizenship application? Doesn't following the rule of law begin at home? Perhaps you are doing what you are doing because you are above the law. You certainly come off as you posess the RIGHT to be political. I just hope the wrong person does not take offence.

[Edited on 9-10-2007 by Minnow]

Minnow - 10-9-2007 at 04:27 PM

I just read all of article 27. I only see beaches mentioned in one place in it is in relation to foreigners.

Please enlighten me.

[Edited on 9-10-2007 by Minnow]

edinnopolo - 10-9-2007 at 05:37 PM

Quote:

What is your justification? Do you think it might effect your citizenship application? Doesn't following the rule of law begin at home? Perhaps you are doing what you are doing because you are above the law. You certainly come off as you posess the RIGHT to be political. I just hope the wrong person does not take offence.

[Edited on 9-10-2007 by Minnow]

Minnow,

What happened ? You got off your meds ? Or maybe too much Teguila ?
Do you know ( must after you read your own post )
how much you sound like a total idiot ?
Pam just states the obvious, that we who live here are upset with the taking away of access to "our" beaches, and that includes Mexican folks.

comitan - 10-9-2007 at 06:36 PM

Ed. I've heard for years that its in the Mexican Constitution that you have to have beach access. I've read article 27 in the 1917 and 2002 of the constitution and I don't find anything that says that. I understand your concern but you have to back it up with a law, if your to try to do something about it.

Minnow - 10-9-2007 at 06:57 PM

Ed, I make it my business to expose hypocrisy. Pams position it hypocritical. Not to mention not based in fact. We are talking property rights here, not what the eco's think should be done.

Here is my perspective. Someone bought some property on or near the beach. The locals used to go there and get drunk. Now they have to get drunk somewhere else. The new property owner no longer wants to clean up all the trash from the people getting drunk, or wants anything in the way of liability from their presence. Ever hear of squatters rights in Mexico, Ed? Am I missing something?

Along comes a gringo, who marries a Mexican, who used to get drunk on the previously mentioned piece of beach. She has so little regard for the aforementioned Mexicans, that they cannot defend themselves, and so forth. That she has to rant on and on to anybody what will listen about how screwed up the foreign country, and town, is that she chose to live in.

All this does is say to me, what I knew long ago by the way, Loreto Sucks! I would rather go to Cabo.

Here is the kicker Ed. She is risking her livelyhood, and existence by doing what she is doing. She wants others to operate by a fictional set of rules, but when presented with actual facts she only has you to back her up, and people like you. Now, Amigo, who needs to lay off the tequila.

edinnopolo - 10-9-2007 at 07:33 PM

Minnow,

Spoken like a true gringo.
You must have friends in Malibu, one of the many ocean front places where the rich hog the beaches for themselves and the hell with rest of the populace.
One of the reasons people move here is to get away from this kind of discrimination.

edinnopolo - 10-9-2007 at 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by comitan
Ed. I've heard for years that its in the Mexican Constitution that you have to have beach access. I've read article 27 in the 1917 and 2002 of the constitution and I don't find anything that says that. I understand your concern but you have to back it up with a law, if your to try to do something about it.

Comitan,

It's not my intention at all to do something about it. I can go to any beach by boat which is not the case for many Mexican people.
The reason for my post was to answer the totally unwarranted attack on Pam by Minnow.

Minnow - 10-9-2007 at 07:48 PM

Ed, in difference to your obviously limited intellect. I will write it again. Hypocrisy needs to be exposed. I make it my business. How can people write things, with no basis in fact, and expect people to find them credible. That is people other than you Ed. Prove me wrong. Show me where is says in Article 27 that Mexicans are guaranteed access to all beaches. Show me where Pam has the legal right to put herself in the middle of these arguments. I do believe her that Loreto Sucks though. She has proven that point. Hmmmm, if I could only make it from Mulege to La Paz without stopping in Loreto. Wait, I can. HAHAHA. I guess I should be saying, Thank you Pam.

Somehow, I am reminded of the 500,000 illegals marching through the streets of LA waving Mexican flags. :lol:

[Edited on 10-10-2007 by Minnow]

IS there possibly a way...?

djh - 10-9-2007 at 09:09 PM

Minnow, Is there a way that you can possibly express your view without personal attacks and insults?

"Ed, in difference to your obviously limited intellect.." (Minnow)

"Ed, I make it my business to expose hypocrisy." (Minnow)

"Along comes a gringo, who marries a Mexican, who used to get drunk on the previously mentioned piece of beach..... she has to rant on and on to anybody what will listen about how screwed up the foreign country, and town, is that she chose to live in. " (Minnow)

etc.

Do you think you fulfill your true potential via marginalizing, minimizing, or insulting others who do not share your view on a topic?

I read Pam's post as an expressed concern for a place that she loves and calls home ~ not as some illegal political involvement... and what anyone can do about some THING depends alot on how deeply they feel about that thing ~ and other factors, of course.

Be Careful.... All the negativity and name calling isn't good for you...

djh

[Edited on 10-10-2007 by djh]

Hook - 10-9-2007 at 09:25 PM

Tom, show me where Pam is being hypocritical in bringing this up? What past stance has she taken that is anti-beach access?

Show me where she has stood for foreigners and Mexicans rolling over and playing dead in the face of other foreigners buying up large tracts of land and excluding everyone?

The Sculpin - 10-9-2007 at 09:25 PM

Oh come on..this is just starting to get good. Pam writes something and ignites an incendiary rage by Minnow and Ed. You guys are worried about meds and tequila? Hell...take more!!

Somewhere cornell is smiling......

amir - 10-9-2007 at 09:48 PM

That's happening down here, too. Rich foreigners buy large beautiful public beaches, bribe the authorities and get special dispensations. It sucks!
When we moved to Todos Santos just one year ago, we had no idea that this sort of corruption and destruction by greed was going to get here so fast!

Sharksbaja - 10-9-2007 at 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by amir
That's happening down here, too. Rich foreigners buy large beautiful public beaches, bribe the authorities and get special dispensations. It sucks!
When we moved to Todos Santos just one year ago, we had no idea that this sort of corruption and destruction by greed was going to get here so fast!

Sorry to say, they've been there all along Amir. Here, there, everywhere. Hold on to Asuncion carefully amigos. Look what #1 did to Seattle!

What this about privately owned islands? Did they not say that they are federally owned?

fishbuck - 10-10-2007 at 02:49 AM

Wow, I drank beer on that beach with the local pangeros. I have driven my truck all the way from the panga beach to the Pink House(old brothel).
It was a simple pleasure that I will truly miss. I can imagine the locals are hurt by the loss.
We never left the bottles because of the deposit so I don't think there was much litter.
I'm going to miss Baja when it's gone.

Minnow - 10-10-2007 at 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by djh
Minnow, Is there a way that you can possibly express your view without personal attacks and insults?

"Ed, in difference to your obviously limited intellect.." (Minnow)

"Ed, I make it my business to expose hypocrisy." (Minnow)

"Along comes a gringo, who marries a Mexican, who used to get drunk on the previously mentioned piece of beach..... she has to rant on and on to anybody what will listen about how screwed up the foreign country, and town, is that she chose to live in. " (Minnow)

etc.

Do you think you fulfill your true potential via marginalizing, minimizing, or insulting others who do not share your view on a topic?

I read Pam's post as an expressed concern for a place that she loves and calls home ~ not as some illegal political involvement... and what anyone can do about some THING depends alot on how deeply they feel about that thing ~ and other factors, of course.

Be Careful.... All the negativity and name calling isn't good for you...

djh

[Edited on 10-10-2007 by djh]

djh what abouts Ed's comments. :lol:

Because his opinion agrees with yours you only care to mention my "negativity".

It was He who cast the first stone. Go back an read his post that starts with off your Meds, and Tequila. :lol:

Why don't you bleeding hearts just answer the question. Where is it in Article 27 that says Mexicans are guaranteed by their constitution access to the beach. :light:

Minnow - 10-10-2007 at 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hook
Tom, show me where Pam is being hypocritical in bringing this up? What past stance has she taken that is anti-beach access?

Show me where she has stood for foreigners and Mexicans rolling over and playing dead in the face of other foreigners buying up large tracts of land and excluding everyone?

Gawd Hook. Are you reading this stuff?

Pam has no dog in this fight. She is not a Mexican. Let her husband come on here and bring up all these political issues. I will listen.
On the one hand she is saying the Mexican government is violating their constitution by allowing private land owners to block off beach access. She pointed to a specific part of the constitution that she says proves her point. I read it. I don't see where it mentions beach access. It says 20meters from the mean high tide is the property of the Mexican people, and that foreigners cannot own property within 50 km of the shore.
Then I pointed out that, as opposed to her imaginary law, it is against the law for foreigners, like her, to involve themselves in politics in any way.
For her to expect to Mexican government to follow the law, but that she does not, is hypocrisy. :lol:

Maybe this will help you further:
Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. Although the term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, politics is observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions

Politics consists of "social relations involving authority or power"[1] and refers to the regulation of a political unit, [2] and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.[3]

Bob and Susan - 10-10-2007 at 04:53 AM

minnow...are you mexican???? :lol:

isn't this like "the pot calling the kettle black?" :lol:

"Let (your)*** (wife)*******come on here and bring up all these political issues. I will listen." :lol:

djh - 10-10-2007 at 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Minnow

djh what abouts Ed's comments. :lol:

Because his opinion agrees with yours you only care to mention my "negativity".

It was He who cast the first stone. Go back an read his post that starts with off your Meds, and Tequila. :lol:

Why don't you bleeding hearts just answer the question. Where is it in Article 27 that says Mexicans are guaranteed by their constitution access to the beach. :light:

..... Minnow, you really don't know me or my opinion (I never stated one), or whether I agree with you or Ed or Pam, or anyone else for that matter. You assumed you know my opinion and then extend your name calling to me to... "bleading hearts" ? ? You really don't know much about me....

You're going to give yourself an ulcer, amigo.

I simply asked you if you could express your thoughts without all the name calling and marginalizing. That's a tough one for alot of folks.... myself included sometimes... At least you're adding laughing face icons to your post now

flyfishinPam - 10-10-2007 at 08:29 AM

Like a few others who have been here, I too now give up!

I guess when I´ve posted here it was a simple cry for help. I do not wish to meddle into anything but this place is my life, my childrens, my husbands, my friends and colleagues. I hate to see this majestic land taken from those who deserve it. The beach closure does not affect me personally but it affects so many people here. We have a chance to not let this place become another Cancun or Cabo but it is headed right in the same direction. I think it is actually headed in a much worse direction because of the lack of natural resources here but that's just silly me.

Article 27 forms the basis of the land laws and states that the shoreline, among other many things, belongs to the Nation. Now what does that mean to you? If the US constitution stated that all shoreline areas belong to the Nation, how would you perceive that? There are other more specific laws that cover land use and the access to the beaches for the people of this nation. The country´s beaches are part of their rightful patrimonio and patrimonio is the richness the Mexican people are born with like culture, art, music, ancient history, natural wonders, etc. and it is also what they create for themselves through hard work. I think the specific law is called Ley General de Bienes Nacionales so maybe someone wants to look that up and cut on this further.

I think its ironic and a disgrace that in a Marine Park which was created by the people of this town, these same people are increasingly being denied their right to its access.

Minnow - 10-10-2007 at 08:50 AM

Pam, don't give up. I honestly worry for you. People like you only come along every once in a while, and the world is definately a better place for it. Please, however, be careful.

My posts are mostly intended to stimulate conversation, as this is a place of ideas, and for ideas. Please everyone, don't take everything I write so literally. I knew Pam could defend herself. She is one smart lady, to be sure, and living the Baja Dream.

Pam, all your defenders certainly speak for how well you are loved here.

comitan - 10-10-2007 at 09:32 AM

From the Mexican Constitution.

Article 9 - The right to associate or peacefully assemble for any lawful purpose shall not be abridged; but only citizens of the Republic may do so in order to take part in the political affairs of the country. No armed gathering has the right to deliberate. No assembly or gathering that has as its object to make a petition or present a protest because of some act to an authority, shall be illegal or be dissolved, provided injuries are not suffered by the authority, nor use was made of violence or threats to intimidate it, or obligate it to respond in the manner desired.

Dave - 10-10-2007 at 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfishinPam
Article 27 forms the basis of the land laws and states that the shoreline, among other many things, belongs to the Nation. Now what does that mean to you? If the US constitution stated that all shoreline areas belong to the Nation, how would you perceive that?

Pam, are you a U.S. citizen? Ever been to a U.S. government owned anything? Did you perceive that you actually owned it? Were there rules governing its use and did you have to pay for the privilege?

Article 27 not only defines what assets belong to the "nation" but says that the "nation" can do with those assets how it sees fit.

You would do a great service for Lorentanos if you explain that the "nation" doesn't mean "them". And that selling something doesn't mean you still own it.

longlegsinlapaz - 10-10-2007 at 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Minnow
Pam, don't give up. I honestly worry for you. People like you only come along every once in a while, and the world is definately a better place for it. Please, however, be careful.

My posts are mostly intended to stimulate conversation, as this is a place of ideas, and for ideas. Please everyone, don't take everything I write so literally. I knew Pam could defend herself. She is one smart lady, to be sure, and living the Baja Dream.

Pam, all your defenders certainly speak for how well you are loved here.

Minnow: You certainly have a unique (read: offensive) way of "stimulating conversation"! Whether or not you knew that Pam could defend herself, you words & attitude towards her were so offensive to me that I opted not to immediately post, or my post would have sounded like yours towards her!

I don't personally know Pam, and Loreto isn't my favorite town, but I DO know a person who is passionate & cares deeply for her life, her family, her liveliehood & the people, town & country she's chosen to make her life....when I hear one! I read your words about the wrong people hearing her words as a threat; I doubt I'm alone in that.

"Please everyone, don't take everything I write so literally." If you don't want everyone to take your words so literally, then please don't write so literally! You are the words you speak & your words to Pam spoke in a very offensive, name-calling, manner which questioned her integrity as a person & when she throws in the towel in the face of your attack, you tell her not to quit?? :?:

WHAT?

You think she should keep herself open to abuse & threats (real or perceived) from the likes of you? "I knew Pam could defend herself."....WHY SHOULD SHE HAVE TO???? It's a little late now to be backing off your words! IMHO, you owe Pam an apology!

Pam....Follow your passion! Your family, your adopted town, their way of life & their very survival is at stake! The only thing minnow said that I agree with is be careful in your approach to protect yourself & your family!

Cap - 10-10-2007 at 10:24 AM

Man, I thought I was the only one that had to figure out who to steer clear of. I chalked it up to inexperience on with this format. I am sorry to see others tangled up with them.

Cheers Pam, you seem nice, and I like your avatar. Hang in there, if no one takes the bait, the buzzards will look elsewhere.

Minnow - 10-10-2007 at 12:27 PM

Sinlapaz. Literally, like, don't literally change your life because of what I write. This is an internet discussion forum. Hello. Why would I apologize for being right?
Facts are facts. If you can't back up what you say with facts, we will probably not get along. However, if you can, fire away. Why is it always the bleeding hearts that want to throw out all the rules, and make new ones that are favorable to themselves?

Cap, it lightens my heart to know I give you something to focus your energy on.

For the rest of you bleeding hearts. Why won't you answer my questions instead of clouding the issue with your personal opinions of me.

:tumble:

Cap - 10-10-2007 at 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Minnow

For the rest of you bleeding hearts. Why won't you answer my questions instead of clouding the issue with your personal opinions of me.

:tumble:

See what I mean, I think you kind of answered your own question there.

Minnow - 10-10-2007 at 12:58 PM

:lol:

So, according to your logic, if you don't like someone, their points don't matter. :lol:

Well, Cap, what about the three other posters who asked the same question. :?:

Geeze Tom

Sharksbaja - 10-10-2007 at 01:46 PM

I guess you made your point. Tis a shame the flag waving can only happen on one side of the border.
Hell, it's hard enough to get along w/o all the POLITICS!
Passionate people rule!
Ok, time to kiss n make up.

longlegsinlapaz - 10-10-2007 at 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Minnow
Sinlapaz. Literally, like, don't literally change your life because of what I write. This is an internet discussion forum. Hello. Why would I apologize for being right?
Facts are facts. If you can't back up what you say with facts, we will probably not get along. However, if you can, fire away. Why is it always the bleeding hearts that want to throw out all the rules, and make new ones that are favorable to themselves?

Yes, facts are facts, and if you'll note, I wasn't taking issue with anything but the fact that you chose to address Pam, her integrity & her honest & deep concerns & convictions for all the people of the Loreto area in a hostile, rude & offensive manner. What rules did I suggest be thrown out & remade for my self-interest?? If preferring to exchange differing personal opinions respectfully & with common human courtesy makes me a bleeding heart, so be it!

Yes, it IS an internet forum, and like most things in life, it also is governed by rules....interesting to see that you feel you're above those rules!

Minnow - 10-10-2007 at 02:37 PM

Sharks, I tried. But, As my mentor I need you to tell me what to do about leggs? :spingrin:

I think she might secretly be in love with me. :biggrin:

Sharksbaja - 10-10-2007 at 03:35 PM

Fishnet stockings come to mind.... :wow:

or maybe chocolate

Sharksbaja - 10-10-2007 at 03:39 PM

Quote:

As my mentor I need you to tell me what to do about leggs?

No wonder you're so "popular". :yes:

bajamigo - 10-10-2007 at 03:55 PM

Has this thread hit bottom yet?

DENNIS - 10-10-2007 at 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharksbaja
Fishnet stockings come to mind

Yeah, Tom...........You'd look good in those.

Worldtraveller - 10-10-2007 at 06:57 PM

I find Pam to be one of the more thoughtful, well intentioned, caring, and articulate posters on this board. Let's try not to overly personalize postings or some (perhaps many) of us will lose interest.

BajaDave - 10-11-2007 at 12:06 AM

Perhaps this is where some confusion regarding access being required comes into play. SEMARNAT, the government agency that grants the concessions in the ZOFEMAT, lists preventing access to the beach as a cause for revoking the concession.

This is from SEMARN AT's webpage "Introduction to the ZOFEMAT" by SEMARNAT:

"Las concesiones pueden ser revocadas entre otras por las siguientes razones: Por subconcesionar, arrendar o gravar la concesión; por realizar actividades no autorizadas por el Título de Concesión; falta de pago de derechos, impedir el acceso a las playas, etc..."

The full text of it is at: http://www.semarnat.gob.mx/estados/quintanaroo/Pages/concesi...

Sharksbaja - 10-11-2007 at 12:40 AM

Dave , can you clue us in, in English??

Really, are the laws governing "the zone" even clear to any of you guys? I see amendments are common.Seems like there is a wide range of interpretation at all levels of govt, both fed and local. So what prevails is the guy with the biggest guns(lawyers) and best connections(politics). What else is there? Don't say money!! :rolleyes:

BajaDave - 10-11-2007 at 12:59 AM

Here's my translation:

"Concessions can be revoked for, among other reasons: Sub-letting, renting or encumbering the concession; for carrying out activities not authorized by the Concession; failure to pay the dues, preventing access to the beaches, etc..."

Sharksbaja - 10-11-2007 at 01:16 AM

Exactly! Not!

BajaDave - 10-11-2007 at 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharksbaja
Exactly! Not!

Huh? I guess I didn't understand what you were asking of me.

patsydiamo - 10-11-2007 at 06:28 AM

:light:

My goodness--people do get worked-up---dont they? Perhaps this story is pertinent: In Punta Chivato on Shell Beach there is a little shack settlement of fishermen who have been living and fishing there seasonally for, oh maybe a century or more. When the ejido divvied up the beach front property to sell as individual lots; the ejido who had gotten the property where the fishermen had their cardboard shacks discovered that gringos didnt want to buy land next to these unsightly homes...so he bulldozed them. However, the fishermen went to Court...and guess what. They won. They got to rebuild their little shacks and they are there to this very day. I think this proves that Mexican law isnt always about the money and the little guy does have power---he just has to fight for it.

vandenberg - 10-11-2007 at 06:37 AM

Patsy,
This is not very clear. Were those shacks on their own land or were they squatting on the ejido land you mentioned ?

Bob and Susan - 10-11-2007 at 06:38 AM

that was a settlement NOT a judges order based on law

patsydiamo - 10-11-2007 at 07:02 AM

Ok, I will have to admit Im not sure of the exact legal details; however, it was my understanding that the fishermen had been squatting on the property---which is beachfront, in the same parcel our ejido landlord owns. The fishermen did not own the land but had been using it for many many years. I had also heard that they went to Court after their shacks were razed and that the Judge sided with them based on the many years they had been occupying the land. It is also my understanding that they do not currently own the land and they moved their shacks down on to the actual beach (it appears to be the Federal zone)rather than above where the ejido parcel was. But they are still there!!--Id call that "access".

Bob and Susan - 10-11-2007 at 07:11 AM

the federal zone is never "owned" by an individual
the govt owns it

the "razing " of the shacks could have been a huge problem for the person who took them down because they have "value"
unless...they HAD a "permit" from the government

someone got some money :biggrin:

Don Alley - 10-11-2007 at 08:00 AM

Here are some pics of the area in Loreto under discussion.

There are wetlands here, the remnants of much more extensive wetlands:

Not long ago the city and federal governments decided to protect this area from development. This was especially welcome by the owners or the large homes on Calle Davis, who would not have to fear homes being built to block their view.

So now Singlar has taken control of the land, as well as the large lot south of La Pinta/Desert Inn, facing the old Chili Wilis place. I have no idea what they plan.

Here's the fence. It blocks the south drive to the area, but is still open to vehicle access onthe north end, near the former Los Trojes hotel where the pangas are beached.

Pretty serious fence. I wonder what they are thinking, or if they are thinking.

Minnow - 10-11-2007 at 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by patsydiamo
Ok, I will have to admit Im not sure of the exact legal details; however, it was my understanding that the fishermen had been squatting on the property---which is beachfront, in the same parcel our ejido landlord owns. The fishermen did not own the land but had been using it for many many years. I had also heard that they went to Court after their shacks were razed and that the Judge sided with them based on the many years they had been occupying the land. It is also my understanding that they do not currently own the land and they moved their shacks down on to the actual beach (it appears to be the Federal zone)rather than above where the ejido parcel was. But they are still there!!--Id call that "access".

That is the exact reason landlords have to put fences around their property. In Mexico squatting is much easier than in the US.

Skeet/Loreto - 10-11-2007 at 09:19 AM

Thanks for the Good Photos Don!
And to think I contacted the owners of that Property many years ago and they only wanted 100,000 Thousand, But---- you had to buy 5 other Properties to get that one!!

Don. All of those beautifull Palms surrounding Rancho Sonrisa{ 300 Meters }from the Beach were Hand Planted by Virginia and I.We bought the Fan Palms from Constitution for .50 cents each and the Cocos from La Paz were $4.00 each.. Many good mermories from the Past when Tio and I bought the Property, there was nothing North or West of the "El Presidente" but the Beach and the Muni Airport to the West.
Times Change

Skeet/Loreto

Minnow - 10-11-2007 at 10:11 AM

I am not for rampant development that only benefits a few, but controlled growth can be good for everyone. Some of the things going on in Loreto seem to be geared toward the greedy, but who am I really to say. I do not live there, nor am I a Mexican Citizen. In my way of thinking market forces will dictate the winners and losers.