BajaNomad - A line in the sand over opening Mexico's beaches to foreign ownership

A line in the sand over opening Mexico's beaches to foreign ownership

Tommy A - 10-7-2013 at 07:34 AM

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-mexico-real-estate-201310...

Need to copy and paste

[Edited on 10-7-2013 by Tommy A]

[Edited on 10-8-2013 by BajaNomad]

Ateo - 10-7-2013 at 07:45 AM

Well, it seems a no brainer from an economic standpoint.

DENNIS - 10-7-2013 at 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ateo
Well, it seems a no brainer from an economic standpoint.

To the majority of Mexicans, there is no economic standpoint. To them, it would be like the US selling the Liberty Bell.

DianaT - 10-7-2013 at 08:58 AM

Thanks, it is another very interesting article and it will be interesting to soon see what happens. We have thought about purchasing a different place in Mexico, but we will not make that decision until AFTER this all shakes out. If it passes, it will save thousands of dollars.

And Dennis, what you say is pretty much what a number of our friends in Baja have been saying ---- no way! The beaches belong to them and they see it as a source of national pride.

But who knows, money and the expectation of making money might push the change. We should know soon, I think.

rts551 - 10-7-2013 at 09:35 AM

What percentage of Mexican citizens are going to make money off of foreign ownership?

DianaT - 10-7-2013 at 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
What percentage of Mexican citizens are going to make money off of foreign ownership?

A very low percentage, very low. The money to which I referred would be the money that influences the power elite. The guys at the top.

One huge negative for the local populations is often inflation of prices that they cannot afford. A prime example is a place like San Miquel de Allende. The price of real estate is unbelievable. And to a smaller degree, the same has happened in several places in Baja which causes the locals concern that their children will never be able to purchase land.

I well imagine that if the law passes, a place like Arroyo Grande will grow and be attractive to foreigners, and will only financially benefit a few.

msteve1014 - 10-7-2013 at 10:50 AM

There is more money to be had than just from the sale of the land. Who makes money if more people like you and me buy land, buy local materials, and pay local people to build a house? Then I spend money in town where I can. Even go out to eat, if I can find a restaurant.

You do not have to own the land to make money, and the land we are talking about runs a long ways from the ocean.

bajabuddha - 10-7-2013 at 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DianaT

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
What percentage of Mexican citizens are going to make money off of foreign ownership?

I totally concur. The guy in the article will make money, he's a realtor using others as examples to blur his own greed. ''Much needed jobs... housecleaning and gardening....'' that's about it. Beach real estate will be 10x (or more) higher than slightly inland with a view, and only wealthy will buy and build, not full-timers who contribute to the economy by co-reliance. I found his arguments as full of stuffing as a christmas turkey. The beaches are a Mexican treasure, too bad they don't ever get as much time to enjoy them as we do. To take any of them away would be a travesty, and an invitation to wider disparity.

DENNIS - 10-7-2013 at 11:05 AM

How many of Mexico's 115,000,000 citizens will benefit directly from giving up what their revolutions have fought for?
How many could properly celebrate "Expropriation Day"....a national holiday, if the government is selling out their icons and trophies earned through loss of life?
The Oil Industry is perhaps at the top of this list and it won't be surrendered quietly.
Mexicans aren't driven by financial gain as those of us are. Pride has a higher value to them.
If the decision is ever made to relinquish control over the protected areas of the country, those who feel the benefit of this very unpopular sellout should keep looking over their shoulder in the future for the tide to turn and have their new property privileges rescinded.

DianaT - 10-7-2013 at 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by msteve1014
There is more money to be had than just from the sale of the land. Who makes money if more people like you and me buy land, buy local materials, and pay local people to build a house? Then I spend money in town where I can. Even go out to eat, if I can find a restaurant.

You do not have to own the land to make money, and the land we are talking about runs a long ways from the ocean.

Yes, but that is in the short run, except for the stores and restaurants, if there is one open all the time in La Bocana. :biggrin:

But are the majority of people benefiting?

Just a small example. A good friend was in Scorpion Bay talking with some locals who were not very pleased with the gringo settlement. As they said, after the big houses were built, the jobs stopped and prices of everything went up. Now, that of course, is obviously not the opinion of everyone there, but it is one side of the story.

Certainly not all the people in these small towns are happy over the influx of gringos. And many have a lot to say about it! It is a mixed bag.

BTW--- didn't I hear that a new restaurant that is open all the time opened in La Bocana?

msteve1014 - 10-7-2013 at 11:26 AM

Why would the price of anything go up because a gringo moved in? Who raised that price ?, a Mexican?
Yes, you can get food in La Bocana, but you have to know someone, or the secret hand shake.

redmesa - 10-7-2013 at 11:27 AM

I know that tourism and new comers here in my town have made the place boom. Good for some but for all us ole timers we liked the small know you community way of living. I think it will be the same in Baja. I could not get the article. Was it just about beach front or about clear title to property? There is very little ownership to foreshore left anywhere.

Mexican nationals land ownership

durrelllrobert - 10-7-2013 at 11:28 AM

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution‎

Before the Mexican revolution in 1911 more than 95% of Mexico's land was owned by less than 5% of the population. This vastly unequal distribution of land—and, therefore, wealth—had plagued Mexico for many years, to the anger and dismay of the working classes. Workers on the vast "haciendas" were often treated like slaves, being beaten for the slightest infraction—real or imagined—and murders of workers by their "masters" were common. Another way to ensure that farmers and workers were kept under the thumb of the wealthy classes was to make sure that any debt incurred was passed down from generation to generation, thereby ensuring that it would never be paid off and the farmers would be kept in perpetual debt bondage.

During the Álvaro Obregón presidency, Mexico began to concentrate on land reform. Agrarian reform was a revolutionary goal for land redistribution as part of a process of nationalization and "Mexicanization". Land distribution began almost immediately, and affected both foreign and large domestic land owners (Hacendados) however, this process was very slow. In 1914 Obregón and Pancho Villa called upon Venustiano Carranza to form a policy of land distribution.[6] This resulted in the Agrarian Decree of January 1, 1915, which promised to provide land for those in need of it.[6] Between the years of 1915-1928, 53,000 square kilometres was distributed to over 500,000 recipients in some 1500 communities. By 1930, though, ejidal (communal land holdings) constituted only 6.3% of national agricultural property (by area) or 9.4% by value.

President Lázaro Cárdenas passed the 1934 Agrarian Code and accelerated the pace of land reform. He helped redistribute 45,000,000 acres (180,000 km2) of land, 4,000,000 acres (President Lázaro Cárdenas passed the 1934 Agrarian Code and accelerated the pace of land reform. He helped redistribute 45,000,000 acres (180,000 km2) of land, 4,000,000 acres (16,000 km2) of which were expropriated from American owned agricultural property

Starting with the government of Miguel Alemán (1946–52), land reform steps made in previous governments were rolled back. Alemán's government allowed capitalist entrepreneurs to rent peasant land. This created phenomenon known as neolatifundismo, where land owners build up large-scale private farms on the basis of controlling land which remains ejidal but is not sown by the peasants to whom it is assigned.

In 1970, President Luis Echeverría began his term by declaring land reform dead. In the face of peasant revolt, he was forced to backtrack, and embarked on the biggest land reform program since Cárdenas. Echeverría legalized take-overs of huge foreign-owned private farms, which were turned into new collective ejidos

In 1988, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari was elected. In December 1991, he amended Article 27 of the Constitution, making it legal to sell ejido land and allow peasants to put up their land as collateral for a loan.

Today, most Mexican peasants are landowners. However, their holdings are usually too small, and farmers must supplement their incomes by working for the remaining landlords, and/or traveling to the United States.

DENNIS - 10-7-2013 at 11:31 AM

Another point to keep in mind.....If a Constitutional Amendment is required to make a change in property ownership laws..... Mexico amends their Constitution about as often as the change their pants.
An amendment that favors you today may wipe you out in the future.

.

[Edited on 10-7-2013 by DENNIS]

msteve1014 - 10-7-2013 at 11:39 AM

So if they manage to pass this law, and then someday a second one, I may be wiped out? Crap, can I get this round on credit?

bajacalifornian - 10-7-2013 at 12:18 PM

I don't know the quote thing . . . but to Dennis the sage who said . . .

"To the majority of Mexicans, there is no economic standpoint. To them, it would be like the US selling the Liberty Bell".

Exactly. From the grass roots.

treuboff - 10-7-2013 at 02:38 PM

More Gringos, Just who I wanted to visit. Can't wait for them to put out their flags and build their fences on the beaches install more gates to protect them from the Mexicans they don't want in their neighborhoods back home. I have seen them do it just leasing.

redmesa - 10-7-2013 at 02:49 PM

The federal zone would still be protected I hope!

cessna821 - 10-7-2013 at 03:12 PM

Do gringos living in Mexico contribute to the actual welfare of the community they live in?

Would fish camps grow into villages? Would there still be hospitals, doctors, fire services, stores and restaurants in small towns if there were no gringo residents or snowbirds around? Or would towns prefer to become sleepy villages and villages become fish camps again?

Do Mexicans prefer to live in isolation from the rest of the world or do they prefer the services that are provided when the population can support them? Money spent by gringos on home maintenance and cleaning, in restaurants, stores, workshops and gas stations circulates ..... surely?

Shari? Bianca? Osprey? What do you think? Do your locals enjoy the benefits or disdain them?

bajacalifornication - 10-7-2013 at 03:22 PM

Muy Buenas tardes amigos. My Mexicano point of view is as follow.
Most of Us (Mexicanos) learn in primaria schools that the United States robbed
all the states north of the border from Mexico. So this problem goes back to the Mexican American war. To make matters worse according to history Los
Niños Heroes were kill by American troops at the Castillo de Chapultepec in
Mexico City. It was a Military Academy and most of the members were under age at the time. My point is. Most Mexicanos think if you let any foreigners buy
land in Mexico. History will repeat itself.

rts551 - 10-7-2013 at 03:36 PM

No. Gringos living in Mexico are not the reason there are hospitals, doctors, fire services, stores and restaurants. They would have these things anyways Do gringos contribute, yes a little(although I know of people, including some on this forum that bring their own food down).

Quote:

Originally posted by cessna821
Do gringos living in Mexico contribute to the actual welfare of the community they live in?

Would fish camps grow into villages? Would there still be hospitals, doctors, fire services, stores and restaurants in small towns if there were no gringo residents or snowbirds around? Or would towns prefer to become sleepy villages and villages become fish camps again?

Do Mexicans prefer to live in isolation from the rest of the world or do they prefer the services that are provided when the population can support them? Money spent by gringos on home maintenance and cleaning, in restaurants, stores, workshops and gas stations circulates ..... surely?

Shari? Bianca? Osprey? What do you think? Do your locals enjoy the benefits or disdain them?

DianaT - 10-7-2013 at 03:42 PM

Quote:

Some do and some don't. The "hospital" was in Asuncion before the gringos started to arrive. In many ways, gringos have not made that much difference, except there are more restaurants; all small and limited in what they serve.

This, please, in no way to to pass any judgement or opinion, but just to set out some of what has happened to a place like Bahia Asuncion.

When the town became a town, people more or less claimed what lots they wanted and built houses. The land was owned by the town and the owners were supposed to pay for the land --- some did and some did not. There are still many, many homes there where the owner has never finished paying for the land. But the land was valued at a set price per square meter.

As the town started becoming more of a tourist place with more gringos arriving, including us, the Mulege Municipality reappraised the land and what had been sold before at 20 pesos a square meter in some areas, went up to 200.00 pesos. The increase was not the same everywhere. And there was more pressure for the locals to finish paying for their land; fortunately at the old price.

It was quite an increase for the locals. Also, there has been much conflict and anger when new areas have been opened up for purchase, or older lots were put on the market by the town because the town preferred to sell to gringos who had cash and would not be making payments. And there is more that probably should not be discussed, but let's just say, it has not always been above board.

Just a few years ago, a small house in town could be bought for $5000.00 and it is at least 4 times the price now. Rents have also changed a lot. While there were not a lot of places for rent, the prices have increased partially because gringos are willing to pay so much more.

Those are some of the changes that can make it difficult for the locals who are not in the chain of benefiting from the new money arriving.

Fortunately, when the town decided to create new lots in front of our house we were good friends with the then delegado so he waited for us to arrive in town and would not sell to to some others who wanted to buy it and then probably sell it back to us. It was not long before we arrived and then we quickly informed the Farley's as to what was happening and asked the delegado to wait for them and he did. It could have been a real mess

Yes there are a few who have profited from the increase in the gringo population, but it is a fishing village with most people working for the co-ops and unless they have a second business, they don't profit at all.

We have many friends in Asuncion and they were and are very accepting of our family, even the ones who are not happy with the changes. And that is true for most of the other gringos who have bought property in Asuncion. It is a mixed bag for sure. But the majority of the population does not prosper from the gringos.

redmesa - 10-7-2013 at 04:03 PM

We usually shop in local stores, eat at the diners and taco stands, donate to quincenaros, help the ball teams, hirer local labor and builders all the time, have a grounds keeper, donate coats and clothing, pay my taxes, etc. Monetarily, I have put alot of money into that community and try my best to be a good citizen and friend to the locals. So yes, I think gringos can contribute a great deal to a community without causing undo stress to the local environments. There will always be bad seeds in any group of people but so far I think Bahia Asuncion has been pretty lucky with the newcomers.

DENNIS - 10-7-2013 at 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by treuboff
More Gringos, Just who I wanted to visit. Can't wait for them to put out their flags and build their fences on the beaches install more gates to protect them from the Mexicans they don't want in their neighborhoods back home. I have seen them do it just leasing.

You don't get it. Just move your understanding arse into a community that isn't housed by Mexicans with AmEx cards, and you'll see what you're worth down here.
Oh...yeah....have a locking cap on your gas tank.

And....quit calling us gringos. It aint nice....a-hole.

.

[Edited on 10-7-2013 by DENNIS]

Ateo - 10-7-2013 at 04:32 PM

What about blocking beach access? Seems there's tons of places that are inaccessible to the public in the Rosarito to Salsipuedes area. That sucks.

DianaT - 10-7-2013 at 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by redmesa
We usually shop in local stores, eat at the diners and taco stands, donate to quincenaros, help the ball teams, hirer local labor and builders all the time, have a grounds keeper, donate coats and clothing, pay my taxes, etc. Monetarily, I have put alot of money into that community and try my best to be a good citizen and friend to the locals. So yes, I think gringos can contribute a great deal to a community without causing undo stress to the local environments. There will always be bad seeds in any group of people but so far I think Bahia Asuncion has been pretty lucky with the newcomers.

Most, of course not all, of the gringos in Asuncion do the same and are friends with many locals and liked by many. But that does not change the big picture. And it is the big picture many of the locals do not like.

DENNIS - 10-7-2013 at 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ateo
What about blocking beach access? Seems there's tons of places that are inaccessible to the public in the Rosarito to Salsipuedes area. That sucks.

What's "beach access" mean? Through private property? Does it mean you can walk through a persons house or over his property because you feel you have a "right to beach access"?

Lemmee 'splain something.....it doesn't. The surfer on a quest for the big wave doesn't pay the taxes.

Mulegena - 10-7-2013 at 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by Ateo
Well, it seems a no brainer from an economic standpoint.

To the majority of Mexicans, there is no economic standpoint. To them, it would be like the US selling the Liberty Bell.

Or like when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock
they said, "Gee, this is beautiful land!"
and the Indians said, "Yes, and it's all free,"
and the Pilgrims said, "Great! We'll take it!"

DENNIS - 10-7-2013 at 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulegena

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by Ateo
Well, it seems a no brainer from an economic standpoint.

To the majority of Mexicans, there is no economic standpoint. To them, it would be like the US selling the Liberty Bell.

Or like when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock
they said, "Gee, this is beautiful land!"
and the Indians said, "Yes, and it's all free,"
and the Pilgrims said, "Great! We'll take it!"

Recording please... :lol:

rts551 - 10-7-2013 at 04:58 PM

Quote:

so do the other ?000 habitants....makes you a pretty small percentage, doesn't it?

Bajaboy - 10-7-2013 at 05:55 PM

Of course investment will benefit Mexicans but not equally. Those that own land will benefit the most while those that do not will struggle. To assume that only gringos will buy land in Mexico is absurd. Many of the people purchasing lots and driving up prices in Bahia Asuncion are Mexicans. I think that allowing foreigners to own land will allow great liquidity with regards to real estate and thus all will benefit.

And Redmesa, I'm sure your contributions are appreciated and they do add up. To say otherwise is ignorant.

redmesa - 10-7-2013 at 06:01 PM

Right you are rt but I think it is the new money and the amount of it that is brought in from visitors and new residents that helps a community. A little influx of pesos goes along way in Bahia Asuncion. I have lived in small communities in Canada that have wilted when the major employer shrunk and I have lived in other communities and have seen them erupt with development and prosperity when the population grows. So not all growth is bad and there are many friends in Bahia Asuncion that are really looking forward to new development and love interacting with new people. I am not sure I would personally like to see our village change but it certainly seems to going that way.

Ateo - 10-7-2013 at 06:05 PM

What good is the public's right to Mexican beaches to go for a swim if some billionaire buys coastal property and won't allow anyone to reach the beach?

As you see in many places in San Diego, there are stairs in between every few homes or every block for public access.

This doesn't happen everywhere, but it should.

Bottom line is beach access (which ties into this thread about Mexican beaches) is total BS in the border corridor. Large swaths of the coast are inaccessible to most Mexicans, and us gringo surfers.

It's an example of how not to do it.

Cheers!

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by Ateo
What about blocking beach access? Seems there's tons of places that are inaccessible to the public in the Rosarito to Salsipuedes area. That sucks.

Ateo - 10-7-2013 at 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulegena

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by Ateo
Well, it seems a no brainer from an economic standpoint.

To the majority of Mexicans, there is no economic standpoint. To them, it would be like the US selling the Liberty Bell.

Or like when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock
they said, "Gee, this is beautiful land!"
and the Indians said, "Yes, and it's all free,"
and the Pilgrims said, "Great! We'll take it!"

Recording please... :lol:

And I learned today that the only reason they landed there is they were out of beer. They had exhausted their water supply, and once out of beer decided to head to shore.

rts551 - 10-7-2013 at 06:27 PM

Shak, my friend. Think about what would happen to Asuncion if its major employer went away!

Quote:

Originally posted by redmesa
Right you are rt but I think it is the new money and the amount of it that is brought in from visitors and new residents that helps a community. A little influx of pesos goes along way in Bahia Asuncion. I have lived in small communities in Canada that have wilted when the major employer shrunk and I have lived in other communities and have seen them erupt with development and prosperity when the population grows. So not all growth is bad and there are many friends in Bahia Asuncion that are really looking forward to new development and love interacting with new people. I am not sure I would personally like to see our village change but it certainly seems to going that way.

rts551 - 10-7-2013 at 06:33 PM

and to think you contribute too much is arrogance.

Most Mexicans in my community (which has a larger Gringo population than Asuncion) is worried about liquidity. I would be willing to bet its the Gringo population in Asuncion that is overwhelmingly worried about it as well.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy
Of course investment will benefit Mexicans but not equally. Those that own land will benefit the most while those that do not will struggle. To assume that only gringos will buy land in Mexico is absurd. Many of the people purchasing lots and driving up prices in Bahia Asuncion are Mexicans. I think that allowing foreigners to own land will allow great liquidity with regards to real estate and thus all will benefit.

And Redmesa, I'm sure your contributions are appreciated and they do add up. To say otherwise is ignorant.

slimshady - 10-7-2013 at 06:36 PM

It is only fair that they remove the FIDO and that particular regime that exists to take the yearly fees. The banks which are mostly foreign owned take that money and don't reinvest it in mexico.

If people are encouraged and feel secure to buy homes, condos, and lots with title and free of a FIDO then it will be a financial boom for locals and those involved in construction, retail, etc.

It's called progress and regardless of what one feels about growth and development, locals would like to provide for their families and that takes money from jobs created from those new homeowners which you would not have had with the current law.

DENNIS - 10-7-2013 at 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy
Of course investment will benefit Mexicans but not equally. Those that own land will benefit the most while those that do not will struggle.

Why "struggle" more than usual. A man with no assets has no assets to sell. Maybe the new proprietor will give him a job...or by "equally"...do you mean they should share? Even out the wealth?

redmesa - 10-7-2013 at 06:41 PM

Who said they contributed too much? I only wish I had more to give. I totally love Bahia Asuncion and the people there.

rts551 - 10-7-2013 at 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by redmesa
Who said they contributed too much? I only wish I had more to give. I totally love Bahia Asuncion and the people there.

No one, and I am sure you do. But put things in perspective our, yes me too, contribution is just a fraction of the total. For example, do you know what the contribution in wages and income of the COOP is to your town? The majority of people in our town are just hoping for a good Lobster season. Property titles are way low on their priority list.

DENNIS - 10-7-2013 at 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by slimshady
It is only fair

Excuse me while I laugh myself to death.

Quote:

If people are encouraged and feel secure to buy homes, condos, and lots with title and free of a FIDO then it will be a financial boom for locals and those involved in construction, retail, etc.

Form a corporation and you got all of that without the requisite obligations to society that you feel should be mandated.

Quote:

It's called progress and regardless of what one feels about growth and development, locals would like to provide for their families and that takes money from jobs created from those new homeowners which you would not have had with the current law.

It wouldn't improve from today's status quo. The need for workers will rise or fall with the need.

slimshady - 10-7-2013 at 07:41 PM

I believe the new law prevents /excludes corporations and developers. It will only be for personal residences only.

The demand for employees and services will always rise and fall with the economy, like everywhere else.

slimshady - 10-7-2013 at 07:54 PM

Forget it Dennis, maybe it's best that no one in baja has the potential to earn a better living that would have been realized if certain land ownership laws were changed. Maybe living off the beach and eating papayas is the way go.

DENNIS - 10-7-2013 at 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by slimshady
Maybe living off the beach and eating papayas is the way go.

What an idyllic idea. Loin clothes...or nekid?
Count me in, please. :biggrin:

rts551 - 10-7-2013 at 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by slimshady
Forget it Dennis, maybe it's best that no one in baja has the potential to earn a better living that would have been realized if certain land ownership laws were changed. Maybe living off the beach and eating papayas is the way go.

somehow I don't see the Fishing Cooperativas giving up "living off the beach" in order to have the potential to earn a better living catoring to people taking advantage of certain ownership laws.

treuboff - 10-7-2013 at 08:13 PM

How about gavachos

DENNIS - 10-7-2013 at 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by treuboff
How about gavachos

I theeenk thas a leeetle bit racist....gabacho.

Hey....waitaminit....are we in the right thread?

.

[Edited on 10-8-2013 by DENNIS]

treuboff - 10-8-2013 at 05:05 PM

sunny beaches

DENNIS - 10-8-2013 at 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by treuboff
sunny beaches

No parking meters

DENNIS - 10-8-2013 at 06:42 PM

Quote:

Just a revisit out of boredom while awaiting "Sons Of Anarchy" to air at 7:00, but wouldn't it be a more substantial progression if prosperous employment was a result of development, rather than a reason for development?
Just doesn't seem economically sound enough to inspire investment.

.

[Edited on 10-9-2013 by DENNIS]

But FIDOs are usefull for protecting beach front properties

durrelllrobert - 10-8-2013 at 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by slimshady
It is only fair that they remove the FIDO and that particular regime that exists to take the yearly fees. The banks which are mostly foreign owned take that money and don't reinvest it in mexico.

If people are encouraged and feel secure to buy homes, condos, and lots with title and free of a FIDO then it will be a financial boom for locals and those involved in construction, retail, etc.

..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
'

DianaT - 10-9-2013 at 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551

Quote:

Somehow I don't see the Fishing Cooperativas giving up "living off the beach" in order to have the potential to earn a better living catoring to people taking advantage of certain ownership laws.

Not a chance as the fishermen can make a very good living most of the years ---- some years are not so good, and others are excellent. Some have side businesses that benefit some from the gringos, but most of the business is still from the locals; the fishermen and their families. The really good years is when the construction boom happens.

Places like Asuncion and Abreojos exist because of the co-ops and if they fell apart, so would the towns. Most of the gringos in these type places contribute a lot of their personal resources to various causes, families etc., And while using the local stores etc., they contribute, but it really is all about the co-ops. And only a very few of the locals profit from the tourist business.

For example, a few years back we were asked to help some of the locals by creating a website so that they could have some internet advertisement in English. It took a long time, but we finally agreed to help. It was their hope to be able to at least compete a small amount in the tourist business. They still can't really compete against the massive advertising in English and never will. It is the way it is.

Did it help? Yes, it did bring some business to some places and for other businesses who cater to the locals, it was fun. It cost quite a bit of money but we learned a lot about webpages.

However, in the overall scheme of things for the overall town, it has contributed very, very little. They live and die with the co-ops and any perks brought to the town by the government are the result of pressure from the co-ops, the people, mostly co-op employees, and politicians who want the votes. BTW --- soon, it will no longer be our website as we are giving it away since we won't be there as often.

Like others, we helped a number of individuals in different ways, but, they got along before they met any of us, and they would get along fine without any of us. The best thing we gained from the community were some very good friends who will continue to be our friends.

oops!

EdZeranski - 10-17-2013 at 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS
Another point to keep in mind.....If a Constitutional Amendment is required to make a change in property ownership laws..... Mexico amends their Constitution about as often as the WET their pants.
An amendment that favors you today may wipe you out in the future.

As much as I've liked Baja since the early/mid '60s, its still Mexico and the ability to F'up is ingrained and cultural. It will be done.

EdZ

.

[Edited on 10-7-2013 by DENNIS]

daveB - 10-18-2013 at 10:50 AM

Many beaches in some other states in Mexico, notably to the south of Puerto Vallarta, are already closed off to the public. Usually a road to the beach through the jungle leads to a guard house, and a gate. If you have no direct business there you will be turned around; if no one is at the gate, it is locked. Up to 3/4 of the beaches are under lock and key. So much for the idea of the 50 metres to the water belonging to the people of Mexico. Even if you approach by boat you will often be thwarted.

Land grabs abound. Those aimed there at beaches are the valuable ones. At one beach on the bay of Tenacatita, a real estate developer organized an early summer morning state police attack on those on the beach and all property. Armed with automatic rifles and outfitted in riot gear, they evicted all, erected fences, blocked the roadway and ended an estimated 800 people's reliance on this beach for their income. Three years later now, private armed guards are still there, with state police now in a different role, simply keeping the peace. The road block was dismantled this spring, but the infrastructure has long since been bulldozed, along with private houses, small hotels. Visits to the beach are limited to daylight hours only, no alcohol, but no facilities, no busineses are left. Some of the restaurants there had been operating there for 50 years.

BajaRat - 10-20-2013 at 11:24 AM

Translation- Ask not what you can do for Mexico, but what Mexico can do for you ?

I believe the reason most Mexican beaches are the way they are is they have been protected from direct foreign ownership. It takes far more dedication to participate without a safety net, that's the type of expats and visitors that you now call your neighbors, friends and fellow travelers.
The current condition of the Mexican coastline is why most of us here choose to visit and live here. One thing for sure, It won't be the Mexican citizens deciding which direction this debate goes. It will be the elected officials and the interests they work for calling the shots.

[Edited on 10-20-2013 by BajaRat]

DENNIS - 10-20-2013 at 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by daveB
Many beaches in some other states in Mexico, notably to the south of Puerto Vallarta, are already closed off to the public. Usually a road to the beach through the jungle leads to a guard house, and a gate. If you have no direct business there you will be turned around; if no one is at the gate, it is locked. Up to 3/4 of the beaches are under lock and key. So much for the idea of the 50 metres to the water belonging to the people of Mexico. Even if you approach by boat you will often be thwarted.

Land grabs abound. Those aimed there at beaches are the valuable ones. At one beach on the bay of Tenacatita, a real estate developer organized an early summer morning state police attack on those on the beach and all property. Armed with automatic rifles and outfitted in riot gear, they evicted all, erected fences, blocked the roadway and ended an estimated 800 people's reliance on this beach for their income. Three years later now, private armed guards are still there, with state police now in a different role, simply keeping the peace. The road block was dismantled this spring, but the infrastructure has long since been bulldozed, along with private houses, small hotels. Visits to the beach are limited to daylight hours only, no alcohol, but no facilities, no busineses are left. Some of the restaurants there had been operating there for 50 years.

Now....who in Mexico would have enough power and money to finance an operation of this magnitude?

Jeeezo....who? I wonder.

bajagrouper - 10-20-2013 at 01:35 PM

It is happening all over Nayarit also, large hotel chains like Marriott are buying beach concessions and the local government officials are selling out, they bring in bulldozers and knock down palapa restaurants and any other structures, put up a chain link fence,put up a guard shack and fill it with armed guards...

DENNIS - 10-20-2013 at 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bajagrouper
large hotel chains like Marriott

Soooo....it's the Mormons, and here all the time I was thinking cartels.
Shame on me.