Skip to comments.End may be near for Point Reyes oyster farm
Posted on 07/07/2014 6:23:51 PM PDT by artichokegrower
It looks like the last oyster may finally be shucked at the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. by the end of December, judging by what both sides in the long legal fight over the future of the farm said in federal court Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
If there are thousands of these birds how endangered can they be. Go protect the environment on the southern border and leave these hard working Americans alone.
Oysters are one of those food items I'm not really wild about eating after having sat in the back of a truck for three days.
They could not be nearly as endangered as the American entrepreneur.....
“The Lunnys bought the oyster farm in 2004, eight years before the 40-year lease was set to expire. The operation has existed for about 80 years.”
Just shows the corruption of the federal government and Obama’s disregard for property rights. The administration knew the lease was about the expire and moved along all that time without making an effort to renew the lease.
They bought a lease with 8 years left 10 years ago? They should have been evicted 2 years ago.
The OF should be run as a historical museum, like Mystic Seaport.
The administration knew the lease was about the expire
'The Lunnys knew the lease was about to expire'
No sympathy from me for folks who feel 'entitled'.
This is so sad....and totally unnecessary. Thanks, Salazar and enviro-nazis.
Under common law, tidal lands have always belong to the sovereign.
Specifically dealing with shellfish in public waters, see McCready v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 391 (1877). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=94&invol=391
The fact remains, the government had no good reason for not renewing the lease.
Unless one is a statist, out to prove a point, using environmentalism for an excuse.
I remember such good times, picking up oysters at Point Reyes and picnicking on the side of the road, shucking, squirting lemon and dousing the briney goodness with Tabasco.
I am so sorry to see these businesses get pressured like this. Those elites in the Bay Area are going to miss them come brunch.
I’ve seen those marshes, they are pretty, but as God said in Genesis, everything is for us to use and we are to be good stewards.
If what I saw in my previous home in California, the illegals will turn those marshes into dumps that become dangerous for non-whites to visit.
Oysters play a huge part of my protein intense, low carb diet. Fortunately, I’m where they’re generally very fresh and very available, although even that is starting to change...
"Grandpa! We have to visit Africa to see the mating of the wildebeest before they go extinct!"
"If they're mating, how are they going to go extinct?"
Yes, let's throw out the rule of law to help out someone who bought a lease with a known expiration date.
Do you also favor the property rights of that California nanny who refuses to work and refuses to move out of her former employer's house?
Why don't you run for judge. I'll go around renting houses on a monthly basis, and you can convert my lease into fee ownership for me. Because, as you noted, common law property rights are just an anachronism.
Just the property rights of the federal government in tidal areas that don't comply with 'forts, naval yards, etc'.
You still can't defend why the government won't renew the lease.
And why would you think that these folks have an entitlement to a lease renewal. If the government were to continue to lease the area for oyster farming, the lease should be put out for public bid. You - or I - should have as much right to bid for a lease as the folks who bought the tail end of the former lease.
Well, one of us is on the same side of this debate as Dianne Feinstein, and it isn’t me.
I'm ok with the lease going to the highest bidder, as long as the current folks get reimbursed for real property on the site.
I’m envious. The Drakes Bay farm was the only one on the west coast outside of those in Puget Sound.
If you’re ever down Louisiana way, make a point of stopping here:
based off the 80year history of the farm, it was probably reasonably assumed at time of sale that the lease would be renewed a third time, seeing how it brought jobs to the area.
What this is, is just another land-grab (or ocean grab in this case) to set up yet another ‘wildlife’ area that isn’t needed.
Why are we setting up so many additional wildlife areas?
Some might point to Agenda 21 but my theory is it’s so the government can claim the assets on their bottom line, to polically offset the enormity of the national debt. So far, the government has gobbled up about 30% of the USA, and we’re not just talking deserts.
So if this man bought the business and the remaining years of the lease, having been told that the lease would not be renewed, I suspect he didn't pay much to the original owner/leaseholder. And who knows, if he can get it tried in the court of public opinion, he might be able to shame the govt into renewing the lease.
It depends on what the lease says, but generally the leasee won't get reimbursed for real property; it may or may not be reimbursed for tenant improvements to the land, and generally should be able to remove personal property.