psyflyjohn
Newbie
Posts: 7
Registered: 12-4-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
Rumor about Burro Beach
El Burro Beach is one of my favorite spots to bring the motorhome for vacation. I know several palapa residents there also. A friend recently
relayed a rumor that the government has decreed the removal of all palapas from the beach within two years. Apparently the palapas were constructed
too close to the water, and waste water is polluting the bay.
Shades of Santispec! Can anyone confirm that this is true?
|
|
|
capt. mike
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8085
Registered: 11-26-2002
Location: Bat Cave
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sling time!
|
|
i heard the same but not the reason. i figured it is being sold for development and they are simply getting rid of the tennants.
formerly Ordained in Rev. Ewing\'s Church by Mail - busted on tax fraud.......
Now joined L. Ron Hoover\'s church of Appliantology
\"Remember there is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over....\"
www.facebook.com/michael.l.goering |
|
|
Terry28
Senior Nomad
Posts: 825
Registered: 8-25-2007
Location: S.Calif mtns.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Thirsty
|
|
That sounds unrealistic. I believe Burro is owned by two different Ejidos, Each owns about half...Now with no water and no electricity development
sounds aways off....but who knows..it's Baja...and yes, several of those palapas are way to close to the water line..and with septic too.
I will be in the area next month and will ask around Bertha should know!
Mexico!! Where two can live as cheaply as one.....but it costs twice as much.....
|
|
|
Lindalou
Senior Nomad
Posts: 623
Registered: 1-12-2004
Location: Punta Banda Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
Santispac had no water or electricity and they had no problem moving us off.
|
|
|
Hook
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9010
Registered: 3-13-2004
Location: Sonora
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inquisitive
|
|
Cant see where the ownership of Burro being split between two ejidos is relevant if the issue is the potential for pollution.
|
|
|
losfrailes
Senior Nomad
Posts: 577
Registered: 11-16-2004
Location: Ejido San Lucas near Santa Rosalia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Good!
|
|
Hook, I don't think the issue is even the pollution. The issue is are they (??) using that as an excuse to evacuate long term residents so the place
can be sold.
Just a WAG
|
|
|
Terry28
Senior Nomad
Posts: 825
Registered: 8-25-2007
Location: S.Calif mtns.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Thirsty
|
|
If in fact the rumor is true...and for now I guess it is still an "IF", having the renters gone would makei t easier to sell. And Santispac is back
on the market, the development deal appears to have fallen through. I would hope the owners at Burro are watching that and learning from it...a bird
in the hand....etc......
Mexico!! Where two can live as cheaply as one.....but it costs twice as much.....
|
|
|
psyflyjohn
Newbie
Posts: 7
Registered: 12-4-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
Maybe I'm naive, but could pollution be a legitimate issue. It's my understanding that the government owns the shore, up to a certain distance
inland. Then ejido rights take over from there. Now if the palapas are close to the water (I've seen high tide hit a foundation or two there), it
could be a legitimate issue?
|
|
|
Pescador
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3587
Registered: 10-17-2002
Location: Baja California Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
There are several places on Concepcion that they have built palapas and other structures in the Federal Zone. In some cases the ejido may have opted
to pay for a concession, but in most cases it was a case of the ejido never getting checked and since they had always used the land they assumed they
would always be able to.
I used to have a place at San Lucas Cove and the ejido of San Lucas told us that it was ok to put a patio, etc. on that property since they paid the
concession. But when I was talking to the military guys that were surveying they indicated that nothing permanent was allowed and only temp
structures were permitted. Needless to say that made me very nervous since one mans permanent is another mans temporary. They also strictly enforced
the access which led to a disagreement with an adjoining lease since he assumed that I had asked for the access instead of the Federal Government.
I think the days of anything goes are long gone.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
There are occasions when you are encouraged to build on property for the owners benefit?$#@!
|
|
|
CaboRon
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3401
Registered: 3-24-2007
Location: The Valley of the Moon
Member Is Offline
Mood: Peacefull
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Pescador
There are several places on Concepcion that they have built palapas and other structures in the Federal Zone. In some cases the ejido may have opted
to pay for a concession, but in most cases it was a case of the ejido never getting checked and since they had always used the land they assumed they
would always be able to.
I used to have a place at San Lucas Cove and the ejido of San Lucas told us that it was ok to put a patio, etc. on that property since they paid the
concession. But when I was talking to the military guys that were surveying they indicated that nothing permanent was allowed and only temp
structures were permitted. Needless to say that made me very nervous since one mans permanent is another mans temporary. They also strictly enforced
the access which led to a disagreement with an adjoining lease since he assumed that I had asked for the access instead of the Federal Government.
I think the days of anything goes are long gone. |
Is anything permanent against a Cat Tractor ?
|
|
|
Pescador
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3587
Registered: 10-17-2002
Location: Baja California Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
Nope, nor: a fire like at Las Arenas.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
