| Pages:
1
2
3 |
Worldtraveller
Junior Nomad
Posts: 65
Registered: 11-26-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Junior Nomad
Posts: 76
Registered: 9-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5814
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Newport, Mulege B.C.S.
Member Is Offline
|
|
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!!
DON\'T SQUINT! Give yer eyes a break!
Try holding down [control] key and toggle the [+ and -] keys
Viva Mulege!
Nomads\' Sunsets
|
|
|
BajaDave
Junior Nomad
Posts: 76
Registered: 9-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5814
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Newport, Mulege B.C.S.
Member Is Offline
|
|
Exactly! Not!
DON\'T SQUINT! Give yer eyes a break!
Try holding down [control] key and toggle the [+ and -] keys
Viva Mulege!
Nomads\' Sunsets
|
|
|
BajaDave
Junior Nomad
Posts: 76
Registered: 9-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sharksbaja
Exactly! Not! |
Huh? I guess I didn't understand what you were asking of me.
|
|
|
patsydiamo
Newbie
Posts: 12
Registered: 10-10-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
 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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5118
Registered: 6-21-2005
Location: Nopolo
Member Is Offline
Mood: mellow
|
|
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8813
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Mulege BCS on the BAY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Full Time Residents
|
|
that was a settlement NOT a judges order based on law
|
|
|
patsydiamo
Newbie
Posts: 12
Registered: 10-10-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8813
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Mulege BCS on the BAY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Full Time Residents
|
|
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
|
|
|
Don Alley
Super Nomad
Posts: 1997
Registered: 12-4-2003
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Banned
Posts: 1110
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: Lost Wages
Member Is Offline
Mood: Embarrased Harry Reid is a Nevadan
|
|
| 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.
Proud husband of a legal immigrant.
|
|
|
Skeet/Loreto
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4709
Registered: 9-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Banned
Posts: 1110
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: Lost Wages
Member Is Offline
Mood: Embarrased Harry Reid is a Nevadan
|
|
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.
Proud husband of a legal immigrant.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
