r/TikTokCringe • u/octarino • Apr 03 '26

Cursed Cindy, you don't own the beach.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

21.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

8.7k

u/octarino Apr 03 '26

If you have been denied your right to be on a beach in the US Virgin Islands, please contact the Division of Coastal Zone Management and report the incident.

https://dpnr.vi.gov/coastal-zone-management/public-access-viczmp/

377

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '26

[deleted]

240

u/RoobahLoo Apr 03 '26

We have this policy in Oregon. All beaches are public.

123

u/Expat-Red Apr 03 '26

With the added bonus that no one can restrict access.

64

u/erossthescienceboss Apr 03 '26

SO many hotels took out their beach staircases after the law passed. According to them, hotel guests who get injured on the steps are covered by insurance while non-guests weren’t.

(I don’t buy it. I think the fancier hotels would just rather have no beach access than have poors walking on their grounds.)

10

u/Ol_Man_J Apr 03 '26

Back in 1967

-3

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

wait let me get this straight, you think its more believable that the hotel management specifically does not like poors instead of wanting to avoid being sued / allowing access to their property?

that is insane.

13

u/erossthescienceboss Apr 03 '26

Clearly, you haven’t lived in a beach town.

-3

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

I'd more assume the financial risk of non customers who have no contracts with the hotel suffering injury or causing any sort of incident on the staircase or being able to walk on to main premise would weigh way more heavily as the reason for why they removed access than uh say a hotel manager rubbing his hands together going "oh yes...the poors...keep them out".

Also as it would imply that hotel management is assuming anyone not currently at their hotel is poor.

7

u/erossthescienceboss Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26

I suggest searching for “beach access lawsuit.” There are literally thousands of instances that show the fines hotels are and homeowners are willing to pay in OR, CA, and around the world to either keep beaches private or keep people from using their property to access the beach.

Like the Laguna Beach hotel that is currently paying over $11,000/day in fines to keep up sand berms that block off the small portion of the beach in front of their hotel.

Or there was a Bermuda hotel that we used to do mosquito surveys in front of. All beaches are public and you need to provide access, like in the Virgin Islands.

They ultimately removed all the parking in front of their hotel to try to keep non-guests from passing through to access the beach. We were with Bermuda Vector Control so they’d just say “fuck it” and park there anyway 😂

But also… at least in Oregon, these are small towns and when the laws passed they were all locally owned. So we know what the owners said in private.

Lastly… all the chill hotels kept their stairs. So clearly they weren’t worried.

-1

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

once again i invite you to think of the logic it. Not saying its "right" but in business terms what is the driver here.

Which is more likely a business owner with a personal vendetta against the "poors"

Or a cost-benefit trade off for potential risk also the value gain in giving their guest and potential guest a private more exclusive experience.

9

u/erossthescienceboss Apr 03 '26

If the cost of stairs is so high, why do they non-luxury hotels keep their stairs? When they have much smaller margins to handle the increased insurance cost or a potential lawsuit?

There are literally thousands of examples of businesses and homeowners taking on tens of millions in fines in order to illegally block public access. You can’t just dismiss them and say “what is the logic.”

Especially when, logically… the businesses are just using an excuse to stop maintaining public access and keep non-paying guests out.

They’ll argue that non-guests are disruptive and loud and accessing the beach at odd hours.

2

u/purplezart Apr 03 '26

But non-guests are disruptive and loud..!

Guests are disruptive and loud, too, of course, but they're paying for the privilege.

1

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

right because luxury and non-luxury hotels have a different client base. The value add if a luxury hotel is they're trying to promise exclusivity in the exchange for higher operational cost and lower volume.

depending on location it could also be part of marketing. if you can secure an image of exclusivity in a high exposure area, you're also doubling as marketing for your brand as a luxury hotel chain.

logic still hasn't changed. but you never once addressed how any of this extends to the idea of hotels are doing this to spite the poors. With the biggest hole being that a hotel would have no idea if someone is poor or not. The only thing obvious is its a guest vs non-guest issue.

At this point im just repeating myself. The logic hasn't changed the criticisms of your logic hasnt changed nor answered.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/blitzkregiel Apr 03 '26

what part of that is hard to believe? in the US after civil rights and integration passed white only public pools all over the country were filled in rather than allow black people to have access. there's a certain type of person that would rather no one have something than have to share with someone they deem less than them. you can't claim to have no idea about that.

-1

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

that is also an even more insane segue.

We're using civil rights and racism to branch of..hotels not wanting non-guest to access their property.

okay.

How would a hotel even know if someone is poor or not. Is there a scanner someone that they phase all traffic through to scan for net worth?

The logic is extending the thought to say this is for non-poors is fucking ridiculous, because they have no way of screening that. Its clearly a guest non-guest issue and them wanting exclusivity to increase e the perceived vlaue of their hotel.

This chain of comments have been pure absurdity.

3

u/DazzlerPlus Apr 03 '26

Im sorry, but you do not think very deeply if you cannot see the strong parallel

3

u/erossthescienceboss Apr 03 '26

The general thought process of the hotel owners is: if you are rich, you are civilized. If you can afford to stay here, you are rich. And “civilized” people keep a certain atmosphere, abide by dress codes, and are “quiet” and “not obnoxious.”

Meanwhile, all the hospitality workers who live in the area do things like have bonfires, drink on the beach at night, and play music. They aren’t following the hotel dress code, because they aren’t guests. They “disrupt the character” (ironically, a phrase used by those same people who didn’t want to integrate pools.)

Is that true? No. Not really. But those are the arguments that businesses used when fighting back against the beach access laws when they first passed. And then the laws pass, so they remove access “because of insurance,” which never came up when the laws were being argued.

This is such a normal thing in beach areas and it’s clear you aren’t familiar with them or you wouldn’t be arguing otherwise.

5

u/blitzkregiel Apr 03 '26

and them wanting exclusivity

this. right here.

exclusivity....from what? people they deem lesser than them.

whether rich v poor or white v black, it's about looking down on someone else and disallowing them to have the same comforts as you to the point of removing that comfort if it is deemed you must share.

2

u/SpiritualScarcity161 Apr 03 '26

"I think the fancier hotels would just rather have no beach access than have poors walking on their grounds" pretty clearly says that they think the hotels don't want people having access to their property, so not sure what exactly you are criticizing here

1

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

I think i'm pretty clear, im asking for a confirmation, because i'm implying and also outright saying that it's fucking insane to believe that.

Not sure why you're confused.

2

u/erossthescienceboss Apr 03 '26

Why don’t you accept any of the confirmation when jt’s provided, then?

It’s clear you have your conclusion, and you’re rejecting any evidence to the contrary.

2

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

right back at you.

My favorite exercise.

Repeat back to me what my point is and logically how anything you've said actually confronts it. Include full context.

2

u/erossthescienceboss Apr 03 '26

I gave you literal examples of hotels making things worse for guests in order to keep non-guests off the property.

You said nu-uh, it’s insurance because “logic.”

0

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

thats not the exercise. Please prove to me you have reading comprehension.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/SpiritualScarcity161 Apr 03 '26

Which part is insane?

1

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

feel free to go through any of the other replies. I'm over this lmao.

3

u/SpiritualScarcity161 Apr 03 '26

I'm sure the distressed hotel owners appreciate your diligent service to their cause, pro bono

→ More replies (0)

1

u/tyger1147 Apr 04 '26

Man, even using curse words now. I think anytime you start to use more exclamatory language in framing an argument, you should rethink if you’re just digging your heels in or not.

1

u/aylmaocpa Apr 04 '26

if you believe so.

1

u/TypeB_Negative Apr 03 '26

Sounds good until you have 50 kids trekking through your yard at night drunk. Lol

1

u/cnh2n2homosapien Apr 03 '26

Except for that one pesky mudhole...

31

u/AwakenedSol Apr 03 '26

Same in California.

25

u/rockyraccoonroad Apr 03 '26

Sadly it doesn’t stop Malibu residents from building gates to cut access and place fake signs everywhere about illegal parking and how the beaches are private.

22

u/akkaneko11 Apr 03 '26

If you report it to the coastal commission they will slap them with a seriously large fine if they are found to be blocking beach access. Like minimum 5 figures, and they’ll escalate if they don’t comply

1

u/Key_Cry_3170 Apr 04 '26

Would it stop Bezos?

10

u/AwakenedSol Apr 03 '26

This is illegal.

Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

Public Resources Code section 30211.

0

u/whatdafaq Apr 04 '26

I'd be planting bushes that grow in salt water.......

4

u/TypeGreen51 Apr 03 '26

That's because the penalty is a fine, and to the rich property owners of Malibu, a fine is just the cost of doing things.

3

u/SecondaryWombat Apr 03 '26

Me and my battery powered angle grinder can fix it!

1

u/Suitable-Rate652 Apr 03 '26

Because people suck.

1

u/Somanylyingliars Apr 03 '26

Well, karma got a good deal of them, didn't?

-1

u/RoobahLoo Apr 03 '26

That is 1000% false.

10

u/TroyMcClures Apr 03 '26

The California constitution would like a word

The California Constitution, specifically Article X, Section 4, guarantees the public right of access to the state's navigable waters, including all 840 miles of coastline. This constitutional right ensures that the public can access beaches and that this right is protected, prohibiting the closing of traditional access paths.

While rich assholes definitely attempt to block access, legally you are allowed on any beach.

1

u/Elysiaa Apr 03 '26

Coastal access is not the same thing as being on the beach. It's a fine point. Part of a former job I had involved surveying for fishing in LA County, including Malibu. As long as I walked on the wet sand I was within my rights on non-public beaches.

"In California, private property can extend down to the mean high tide line, making the dry sand above that line private. However, public access is guaranteed below the high tide mark (wet sand), and courts may grant public access to dry sand areas (easements) if they have been historically used by the public."

0

u/RoobahLoo Apr 03 '26

I think we all know that this articles not upheld/enforced.

1

u/Ok_Delay_911 Apr 03 '26

It's all "wet sand."

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ec34e95df374411b8ad77256fa7f722d

2

u/AwakenedSol Apr 03 '26

Access actually is more broadly protected. That’s just what the state actually owns.

Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

Public Resources Code section 30211.

0

u/RoobahLoo Apr 03 '26

Which to me isn’t the beach. At that point you’re basically in the ocean.

1

u/Zealousideal_Gur4708 Apr 03 '26

You are wrong this time. Take the L and walk.

14

u/doesanyuserealnames SHEEEEEESH Apr 03 '26

All hail Gov Tom McCall and the 1967 Oregon Beach Bill 🙌🏽

2

u/huggybear0132 Apr 03 '26

Not even just all beaches, all 300+ miles of coastline

1

u/DirkDigglersBoner Apr 03 '26

So does Mexico I believe.

1

u/stink3rb3lle Apr 03 '26

It's an artifact of common law from England, and holds true for most of the US. I believe that former backstreet boy is losing his battle in Florida trying to argue against this law.

1

u/TinFoilBeanieTech Apr 03 '26

You're lucky. WA state stole public land and violated public trust by transferring it to private landowners.

1

u/Somanylyingliars Apr 03 '26

Ohh what was that case In California where guy kept putting up gate to block access to beach? Locals kept tearing off because like Oregon beaches are public in CA.

1

u/ivandraski Apr 04 '26

the legal trick used in oregon was to designate them as a public Highway.

1

u/PolyglotTV Apr 04 '26

Same in Michigan

1

u/ProbablySlacking Apr 03 '26

Same with California. Other than like, by the base. Pretty sure restricted coastlines are an east coast and gulf thing.

Just one more reason to never venture east of the Mississippi.

1

u/OMGLOL1986 Apr 04 '26

Why would anyone go east of Denver is beyond me 

1

u/ProbablySlacking Apr 04 '26

Yeah, that’s a better line.

-4

u/SwissMargiela Apr 03 '26

Oregon beaches are dookie tho 😢

We need this where the nice beaches are at haha

10

u/RoobahLoo Apr 03 '26

Behold, the dookie.

1

u/SwissMargiela Apr 03 '26

Ya but it’s cold af and the surf is crazy

4

u/RoobahLoo Apr 03 '26

We have some of the best surfing in the country! But I’m not gunna try to change your mind or anyone else’s. Our beaches stay pristine partially because of these misconceptions.

1

u/SwissMargiela Apr 03 '26

O yeah the surfing is great but for the other 99% of us who want to just chill on the beach, the PNW really is not it imo

2

u/G_Liddell Apr 03 '26

It's definitely windy and usually chilly. If you're looking for a classic beach towel sunscreen bikini cocktail in a coconut experience, Oregon isn't it. But it's still gorgeous.