NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE – Update on San Onofre court cases

NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE – Update on San Onofre court cases

---

************************************************** ***********
NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE
UPDATE
************************************************** ***********
http://www.naturistaction.org
************************************************** ***********
Copyright 2008 by the Naturist Action Committee, which is responsible for its content. Permission is granted for the posting, forwarding or redistribution of this message, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety and without alteration.DATE: August 20, 2008
SUBJECT: Judge postpones ruling in NAC’s San Onofre lawsuit
TO: Naturists and other concerned citizens

Dear Naturist,

The Naturist Action Committee wishes to update you briefly concerning an intermediate step in the battle to preserve a portion of San Onofre State Beach for clothing-optional use.

As many of you are aware, today is the day a California Superior Court had designated for issuing a ruling in the lawsuit the Naturist Action Committee (NAC) has filed against the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). Earlier this year, DPR had attempted to bypass state law regarding changes to public regulations, as it moved to end the traditional clothing-optional use of a small portion of San Onofre State Beach in San Diego County.

NAC sued, seeking to force DPR to follow state law.

A tentative ruling by the Court favored NAC, but following the presentation of oral arguments, Judge Sheila Fell said she would withhold a final ruling while she considers the issue further.

Joining NAC as petitioners are Friends of San Onofre Beach (the local TNS-affiliated naturist group), as well as individual beach users Allen Baylis and Gerda Hayes.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The Naturist Action Committee expects a final ruling within a matter of a few days. This delay must not be taken as an indication that we won’t ultimately win. It’s a reflection of the seriousness with which the judge views this matter.

WHAT IS NAC ASKING YOU TO DO?

This is a NAC Update. NAC is not asking for your action at this time.

MORE INFORMATION AND RESOURCES

Additional information and links are available, along with this NAC Update on the web site of the Naturist Action Committee.

www.naturistaction.org/sanonofre

PLEASE HELP NAC TO CONTINUE HELPING NATURISTS!

NAC is committed to the defense of traditional clothing-optional use of public land. NAC does not hesitate to hire lawyers and lobbyists when it’s necessary, but that can be very expensive. NAC does not have a membership roster on which it can simply assess dues. NAC relies entirely on the voluntary support of people like YOU.

Won’t you please send a generous donation to:

NAC
PO Box 132
Oshkosh, WI 54903

Or call toll free                (800) 886-7230         (8AM-4PM, Central Time, weekdays) to donate by phone using your MasterCard, Visa or Discover Card. Or use your credit card to make a convenient online donation: www.naturistaction.org/donate/

Thank you for choosing to make a difference.

Naturally,
Bob Morton
Executive Director
Naturist Action Committee

————————————————————
Naturist Action Committee (NAC)
- PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903
Executive Dir. Bob Morton – execdir@naturistaction.org
Board Member Allen Baylis – rab@baylislaw.com
Online Rep. Dennis Kirkpatrick – naturist@sunclad.com
————————————————————

Nudist condo, naked hostility

 

 

 

 

Nudist condo, naked hostility

By Rodney Thrash, Times Staff Writer

Published Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:51 PM

 

TOWN ‘N COUNTRY — An apartment complex at W Hillsborough Avenue and Countryway Boulevard is going condo and — well — clothing-optional.

The Eden, on its Web site, says it will soon allow nudity in a “private European/South Beach style swimming pool and spa area.”

That might fly in central Pasco, home of Caliente, Paradise Lakes and other nudist resorts.

But that’s not necessarily cool in Westchase, the manicured, family-friendly community just north of the Eden. One concerned homeowner, who declined to be quoted, sent an e-mail to that effect that is making the rounds among leaders of the taxing district and the Westchase Community Association.

Another resident, who could not be reached for comment, has consulted Hillsborough County offices to see if Eden has the right permits. The complex is about a mile from Alonso High School.

Former homeowner president Brian Ross learned the news from a St. Petersburg Times reporter, and he wasn’t happy.

“It would seem to me that the process has failed in that there has not been greater notification to the surrounding communities about this possibility,” Ross said.

County officials were unavailable for comment on Tuesday as government offices were closed because of Tropical Storm Fay.

But Debbie Carter, spokeswoman for the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, said the complex does not appear to be breaking any laws. “It looks like they’re taking every necessary precaution,” she said. “They’re going to have walls and everything else. Unless they’re committing crimes out there, I don’t see this as a law enforcement issue.”

Ashley Norman, who handles publicity for the Eden, said “intense landscaping changes” are under way to ensure the pool and the nudists “will be completely secluded.” Only residents older than 18 will be issued pass keys to enter. “So it’s not going to be an open area,” she said.

Public sex will not be allowed.

Still, Ross said, “I personally am strongly opposed to it.”

Condo officials say the Westchase homeowners need not worry about property values.

“If their concern is how this amenity will affect their community, on a real estate level, it’ll only help increase the traffic and interest for all neighboring communities,” said the Eden project manager Peter Mead.

Neither Mead nor Norman knew how many condos had been sold as of Tuesday, but the buzz has been strong, they said. They say they have received inquiries from around the country and abroad about the units, which range from $170,000 to $380,000.

At least one Westchase official was unfazed by his community’s prospective neighbor. “If someone wanted to have nude swimming at a private condominium at Hillsborough and Countryway, it really wouldn’t bother me in the least,” said Greg Chesney, the chairman of Westchase’s taxing district. “It’s not a part of our community. It’s their business.”

Rodney Thrash can be reached at rthrash@sptimes.com or (813) 269-5303.

© 2008 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times

490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

.

 

Nudists head to O.C. court today

 

Nudists head to O.C. court today

 

 

CATCHING RAYS: A man who only identifies himself as Richard stretches out in the nude to get a little sun at San Onofre State Beach. The state is going to begin to crack down on the nudity at the beach by issuing warnings on June 1 with a total ban taking effect on July 1.

LEONARD ORTIZ, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

 

MORE PHOTOS

Related links

• ‘Naked man’ breaks silence about Huntington Beach nudity ban
• Nudist attorney 1 of 6 potential H.B. council candidates
• Nudists sue state over crackdown at beach
• State about to crack down on San Onofre nude beach
• Nudists head to O.C. court today

 

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Nudists head to O.C. court today

BY CINDY CARCAMO

 

The Orange County Register

 

 

SAN ONOFRE – A judge is expected to decide this week whether State Park officials violated the law when they changed their clothing-optional policy at San Onofre State Beach without holding a public hearing – days before a nudity ban is set to take effect.

Today, Orange County Superior Court Judge Sheila Fell will hear from two sides of an ensuing battle over Trail 6 — a 1,000-foot beach that has traditionally been something of a safe haven for naturists.

In July, the Naturist Action Committee filed a lawsuit against the State Department of Parks and Recreation, accusing the agency of violating the state’s Administrative Procedures Act when they adopted a nudity ban without seeking public feedback.

Park officials said the agency followed the rules and did not violate any policy.

“We have a perfectly legal right to go back and rescind our own policy without a public hearing, public input, without any kind of a public meeting process,” said Roy Stearns, state parks spokesman.

Regardless, he said they did reach out to the groups and various stakeholders. Since June 1, Stearns said, rangers have passed out fliers, answered phone calls and e-mails about the change, and set up signs explaining the nudity ban.

Allen Baylis, a Huntington Beach attorney who is a spearheading the legal effort, said Wednesday’s hearing is to determine a procedural issue.

“It has little to do if you are pro or con on clothing-optional beaches,” he said. “It’s our contention that the director’s action was done illegally.”

Baylis said a 1988 letter written by then-Deputy Director for Operations at the park essentially set a 20-year policy.

“To say that this letter means nothing, when the people of the state of California relied on it for 20 years, it flies in the face of any logic,” Baylis said. “And it certainly bears weight in the court.”

Stearns said the naturists have to adhere to a code in state law called “nudity prohibited,” which states that “no person shall appear nude while in any unit except in authorized areas set aside for that purpose by the department.”

Stearns said the state’s Cahill Policy, written in 1979, allows the enforcement of nude sunbathing regulations when complaints are received by private citizens.

Baylis countered that the complaints are not for their group but other non-naturist people who use the parking lot and the abutting Camp Pendleton property as a place for illicit activity.

The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. at Orange County Superior Court in Santa Ana.

 

ONLINE POLL: A naturist group led by a Huntington Beach attorney claims State Parks officials violated the law when they banned nudity at San Onofre State beach without holding a public hearing. Comments 4| Recommend 5

 

Should state officials have held a public hearing before imposing a nudity ban?

Yes

No

 

Contact the writer:   

  714-445-6688        

 

or ccarcamo@ocregister.com

San Onofre, CA – Judge blocks no-nudity rules

 

More North County news

Judge blocks no-nudity rules

• Tentative ruling bars enforcement at beach

By Terry Rodgers

UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

August 20, 2008

SAN ONOFRE – Nudists who congregate at the remote southern end of San Onofre State Beach can still let it all hang out, at least for a while longer.

A tentative ruling yesterday by an Orange County judge has halted plans by the state Parks and Recreation Department to enforce no-nudity rules after Labor Day.

“We’ve got them pinned back,” said Allen Baylis, president of the Friends of San Onofre Beach, a group seeking to preserve the nudist tradition at the north San Diego County beach.

In June, state parks officials announced they were ending a three-decade-old practice of allowing nudity at what is known as Trail 6 beach.

Parks officials said they intended, beginning Sept. 2, to cite or arrest beach-goers who refused to heed posted warnings prohibiting nudism.

The Naturist Action Committee, a national pro-nudist group, sued, claiming the state could not unilaterally change a state policy without first holding a public hearing. In addition, the suit said, parks officials must codify the new rules through the state’s Office of Administrative Law.

In her preliminary ruling, Superior Court Judge Sheila Fell sided with the naturists and ordered the state to “maintain the status quo.”

Lawyers for both parties are scheduled to appear in court in Orange County today to deliver oral arguments on the ruling.

Nudism is not technically legal at California’s state beaches. However, since 1978, the department’s policy has been to leave nudists alone unless a complaint from the public is received.

Ultimately, state parks officials may still be able to adopt a zero-tolerance stance against nudity at San Onofre, but their path now contains more steps.

“This puts a huge speed bump in their way,” Baylis said.

Parks officials said strict enforcement of nudity laws was necessary to deter lewd conduct by people attracted to the permissive atmosphere at the beach. Action had to be taken, they said, because the illegal sexual activity had created a hostile and “sexually charged” workplace detrimental to park employees.

The naturists say they have cooperated for decades with state parks officials to deter sexual activity at the beach and its bluff-top trail.

“This is all about freedom,” Baylis said. “It has nothing to do with sex.”

Terry Rodgers:  (619) 542-4566 ; terry.rodgers@uniontrib.com