From a presentation by Fred Divel to the San Clemente Planning Commissiion:
Time permitting I would like to conclude with a summary of the Supreme Court’s opinion on the question, “Why can’t I do what I want to with my own property?” A topic which recently has become one of heated debate in this community. Especially in regard to Sea Cliff Villa, Miramar Theatre, the Casino and even Beachcomber Motel; petty much all that remains of the at-risk iconic architecture still standing after the 1973 developer incursion.
From the City’s own website I read that The City's General Plan goal with regard to Cultural Resources is "to promote the preservation and restoration of the sites, structures and districts which have architectural, historical, archaeological and/or cultural significance to the City of San Clemente”.
To this feat the San Clemente Historical Society dedicates itself every day. It surprises me sometimes how such a nobel and necessary public service can result in such bitterness in the press and elsewhere.
SC City Councils for three and a half decades could count on the Historical Society to keep watch over what survives of the community’s historical evidence. It is a mission of the Society to remind the Council from time to time of our shared responsibility to the many over the wants of the very, very few. Before the Historical Society much was lost. Since we were founded, nothing has been lost.
Interestingly Santa Monica has paralleled San Clemente’s coming of age in the area of historical awareness and preservation.
In 2002 Santa Monica finally ordained the Historical Landmarks Commission which they had imposed upon them in 1975.
The community saved their pier from developers who, in the late 60’s, had won unanimous approval of the City Council to allow its total demolition. In just 13 years of active historic preservation education, another more historically sensitive and informed Council voted 6-0 to NOT demolish the pier – still standing at the time but in desperate need of repair - and have in fact listed nearly 1400 additional Structures of Merit as historically significant to the city.
San Clemente has only a handful of Structures of Merit remaining. We should STAND GUARD over their preservation NOT STAND BY and allow another era of demolition.
I have been checking surveys of other Community Historical Commissions and Societies that have websites and have learned that cities and counties use a number of tools to identify and protect historical resources.
For instance, at least 60 cities and counties have adopted general plan elements containing detailed policies on historic preservation of historic structures. By 1986 about 20 percent of California's cities and counties had completed historic resource surveys.
Whether city or county, citizens overwhelmingly supported historic preservation, according to two recent opinion surveys.
In a Santa Monica survey of 1,200 it was discovered that 97% support historic preservation as a public function. Interestingly, 93% support the use of public funds as incentives for preservation. When asked what was their favorite building, respondents made it clear that they don’t value new construction--less than 2% named a new building
In a Los Angeles county survey, the results were similar. Over 74% generally favored historic preservation, however, more than half of the people responding (55%) felt that county preservation policies are too lax. Those surveyed also supported MORE preservation efforts: 80% supported the use of incentives to achieve preservation goals, while 53% felt more buildings need to be listed in and protected by the local register.
San Clemente seems always to be in the midst of a dramatic challenge to its heritage. To backstep now and allow the Miramar Theatre or the Robison Sea Cliff Villa or the Beachcomber Motel or even the Casino to be changed and redeveloped is to set an unnecessary and dangerous precedent for the community as it has arrived, and somehow survived, into the 21st century.
As these propertie go so might go all that remains of what is left of original San Clemente -- a true California Original. The fall of any of these landmarks is a call to developers that San Clemente is again open for Condo development business just as in the 1970s. More scary is the fact that San Clemente would no longer be eligible for newly acquired national, state and local preservation funding privledges once the general plan takes a hit with the demolition of a landmark.
Just as Santa Monica in the ‘70s confronted a city council prepared to accept demolition of their historic pier as a matter of ordinary business to accommodate developers, we are here now doing the same for our landmarks. Humble as they are by metropolitan standards, they are ours...to keep...or throw away. There was no historical consideration in the 1970's – redevelopment and tax revenues were considered all-important in the course of the Council’s deliberations.
San Clemente’s council in those years was accommodating developers of its own by allowing several founders’ era mansions of distinction to be replaced by condos – severely depleting our inventory of Structures of Merit. The San Clemente Historical Society heard saw that this was WRONG and took up the role of watchdog. I believe we also have a very different council now. I hope so. I may be wrong.
Not one of the many responsibilities of the city council decrees that they must make redevelopment, by way of community mutilation, easy for the developer.
It may not be a National Historic Site but given a bit more time and marketing, our remaining landmarks may be adopted by someone of some celebrity or means who we have not yet met or who is just days away from discovering San Clemente, who will ensure that Sea Cliff Villa and Garden, the Miramar Theatre, the Casino, the Beachcomber Motel and others are restored as another place of beauty in San Clemente – right up there with Casa Pacifica and Casa Romantica.
Even the Supreme Court weighed in on the argument:
“Why can’t I do what I want with my own property?”
A Historical Perspective on private property rights.
Everyone seems to have an opinion about property rights, whether about one’s own rights, those of someone else, or the rights of a community. Property rights discussions reveal diverse and controversial opinions and are often related to larger issues such as land use, regulation, planning, and the like. There is no universal definition of property rights. Considering different perspectives can be helpful in understanding property rights issues.
Who Owns What Property and Where Do Property Rights Come From?
Property rights come from culture and community. One person living in isolation does not need to worry about property rights. However, when a number of people come together, they need to define and enforce the rules of access to and the benefits from property. In this way, the group or community defines the stream of benefits of a private property.
“This land is mine to use, enjoy, and treat as I wish!”
Many property owners feel this way about their rights to land, and certainly, landowners possess many rights to the properties they hold. However, historical actions by governments and courts suggest that the property rights of private owners are shared with the public. Therefore, the definition of property rights can, and has, changed over time. Although the issue of property rights has received a great deal of attention in recent years, it is valuable to remember that property rights have been debated in the United States since the country was formed over 200 years ago.
What Are Property Rights?
Property rights establish relationships among participants in any social and economic system. Holding the rights to property is an expression of the relative power of the bearer. Holding such power or rights commands certain responses by others that are enforced by the community or our culture.
Property rights are a function of what others are willing to acknowledge. The limits on an owner’s actions result from expectations and rights of others as formally sanctioned and sustained by law. The boundary between obligation and right is variable.
Patterns in rights and obligations reflect prevailing judgments on what is fair, and people’s values determine fairness. Laws and rules generally reflect the values held by a sufficient number of the people in a social group.
A review of the many programs adopted by local, state, and federal governments shows our culture has adopted a larger role for public rights than was recognized in the individualistic frontier perspective.
This evolution over the past 200 years can be attributed to increasing population, rising incomes, more competition for available resources, environmental concerns, historic awareness, etc.
It is apparent that the rights we hold in property spring from society. Rights are real only when the sovereign power, acting as an agent for society, recognizes those rights of the society and is willing to defend and enforce them.
Do Private and Public Rights Conflict?
Depending on a person’s perspective, one set of rights may be in conflict with another’s perceived set of rights. Who is right or wrong, though, is not necessarily a question that can or should be answered. Since property rights are culturally defined and enforced, no one can know how or when public rights may be broadened over time. This situation can create concern or conflict since the interests of different groups of people vary greatly.
Those who see private ownership as an opportunity for acquiring wealth have obvious reasons for being concerned about trends toward public ownership. Others view land as a fragile resource needing community protection and more public supervision. Most Americans are probably somewhere in the middle of these two views.
As demands and pressure increase for stronger public programs to direct land use, private property owners may fear that such societal attitude shifts will adversely affect them. They may worry about being stripped of certain rights. Accepting this change requires recognizing the rights that owners enjoy in private property are balanced by responsibilities. Property owners need to use land or other streams of benefits in a manner that does not impact negatively on others and to use practices that serve the basic community interests. Defining what may be a negative impact or what specific practices to follow, however, can be a point of conflict. The community also needs to reflect on the value of private ownership to society and to remember that it is in private owners’ best interest to use their land productively.
Although perspectives vary, the general aspects of private and public ownership and rights are fairly well understood in today’s society.
When discussing private property rights issues, it is important to remember that property rights are not absolute but, instead, a function of what society is willing to acknowledge, defend, and enforce. The relationship between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community have been in constant flux throughout our history and will likely continue to change with time. Since the discussion of these shifting relationships can be extremely polarizing and controversial, adopting a historical perspective may help to clarify the overall discourse on these issues.
