The NYT reports that a state court judge has concluded that there is no need to evict the seals from the “children’s pool” in La Jolla — at least not yet. In January, a new state law will take effect giving local authorities greater discretion over whether the seals may stay. Meanwhile, reports the Times, ”The seals basked on the beach, oblivious as usual to the fuss.”
micdeniro says:
I was hoping to see you posing on a seal. What a disappointment to find you prosing on seals.
November 15, 2009, 9:34 amSoronel Haetir says:
I have a lot of problems with the legislature being able to unilaterally change the terms of a conditional donation.
November 15, 2009, 9:42 amtdsj says:
Seems presumptuous of the reporter to assume that the seals are oblivious. It doesn’t even sound like he interviewed them.
November 15, 2009, 10:12 amCornellian says:
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, put the issue to a vote of the children and those seals will stay at the Children’s Pool forever.
November 15, 2009, 10:30 amsubpatre says:
The pool and breakwater were donated to city of San Diego on the condition of use as a (human) swimming and bathing area. Then the state granted trust to the City for adjacent property, on condition it “shall be devoted exclusively” to park-type uses. It is not clear what the new law changed, and if it changed the state’s condition of grant, it would certainly be legal and acceptable if true.
When donating the core area, Ellen Browning Scripps’ mistake was not providing alternatives; what happens when the city fails to uphold its end of the bargain. Failure to provide alternatives is what allows the “legislature being able to unilaterally change the terms of a conditional donation“. San Diego is abusing the Scripps donation, getting by with it (since there are no parties with standing) and the state is aiding the city by altering the terms of their accompanying trust.
Having been involved in two reversions of conditionally held property and one avoidance or evasion (to date) of return; a contract providing alternatives unmistakably curbs government over-reach. The financial and personal gain to alternative parties —descendants, heirs, alternative organizations, and their attorneys— provides powerful motives to oppose government abuse. It also gives a clear path for the courts, including intent.
November 15, 2009, 11:18 amSkyler says:
It took me a while to understand that US navy seals were not playing in a children’s pool.
November 15, 2009, 11:29 amKazinksi says:
The whole issue of the conditional donation is a red herring raised by the plaintiff, in California the land between the highest and lowest tide is public property, and this is the area where the seals were basking. There is no valid condition that the donation could impose on the beach which has always been public.
November 15, 2009, 1:55 pmJay says:
Subpatre– I’ve put most property law aside since I took the bar, but I have trouble getting very worked up about the conditions of an 80-year old grant by someone long since dead being violated. The fact that no one has standing seems to me not just a technicality, but a good substantive reason for not enforcing the original terms. If there is no one alive who has enough interest in the agreement as to suffer any legal detriment if it is not followed, then why should it be enforced? One thing I do recall being struck by in both property and estates is the extent to which very ancient common law traditions were designed to limit the time over which the “dead hand of the past” could control future events.
November 15, 2009, 10:26 pmI’ve never been sure how a “libertarian” view of the law addresses this kind of thing; things like the Rule Against Perpetuities or elective share statutes aren’t artifacts of nanny-state interventionism or the Warren Court.
Mark N. says:
Indeed, it seems like some limitation on contract law’s ability to indefinitely bind future generations is necessary for anyone but the initial generation to have a reasonable degree of freedom. Otherwise, it’s a one-way ratchet where property gradually acquires restrictions that can never be removed, until eventually nobody owns clear title to anything, but only a highly conditional and constrained title.
Though not targeted at a dead-hand problem, the common American state-law rule against property titles other than alloidal seems to have a similar goal, to ensure that owners are always clear owners, not feudal tenants.
November 16, 2009, 1:48 am