Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Using R44 And A PowerBook To Bust Illegal Seawalls

Posted by timothy on from the what's-wrong-with-seawalls dept.

Sylvestre writes "Ken Adelman, founder of TGV and Network Alchemy, is using a digital camera, helicopter, and a Power Book to take a high resolution photograph every 500 feet down the California coast. The goal? Busting people putting up illegal sea walls. The catch so far? One golf course covered the beach with boulders. Also of note: the website has 44 gigs of photos so far, runs on solar power, and is Microsoft Free. Best use of technology I've seen all month!"

10 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. Why illegal? by dsanfte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Question... why would making a "sea wall" be illegal?

    --
    occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    1. Re:Why illegal? by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not just your property though. That seawall may prevent erosion on your golf course, but the guy who lives down the coast a little might experience greater erosion because of it.

    2. Re:Why illegal? by ender81b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No you would be the one stupid enough to *buy* property about to slide into the sea you deserve what you get. If you buy beachfront property and need a sea wall you shouldn't be buying it in the the first place or *shock* you should've built your house on a different location. There are other solutions to building a sea wall btw, that is just the cheapest. Also, people

      Seriously, this is crap. The beach is the most dynamic enviroment the earth has to offer, and one of the most vital to organism reproducing. I could care less about your 400,000$ beachfront house that is going to be rubble the next time a hurricane/el nino/mudslide comes around anyways. Repeat after me - never build that close to a beach.

      Bah, sorry for the rant it has been a long day. I took a oceanography class last semester from a really good professor who drilled into us how dumb beachfront building really is.

    3. Re:Why illegal? by dubl-u · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yes, but wouldn't the added benefit of not having your entire property slide into the ocean give you a legitimate claim against the frogs?

      The no-seawall stuff isn't just for the little froggies, although destroying a public resource (the ecosystem) for private gain is generally a no-no. Other reasons include
      • California requires public access to the coast; some seawalls impede that, often intentionally
      • seawalls on one property can increase erosion on nearby properties
      • stopping erosion means that beaches aren't replenished, destroying them
      So turn it around: Why would being dumb enough to build on an eroding piece of land give you a legitimate claim to build a seawall?

  2. MicrosoftFree.com's hearts in the right place.... by mgpeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But what the heck are they doing using Microsoft FrontPage 4.0 as the HTML editor ???

    If you talk the talk, please walk the walk

  3. burden of proof by oh · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ``My concern when the Sierra Club is going to become vigilantes with these photographs is that there be some fairness to people,'' he said. ``People should not have to prove they are not criminals.''


    If I have photos proving you did something illegal, then the burden of proof is still on me as the accuser. Its just I already have proof.
    --
    Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.
  4. Why not just use a digital camcorder? by Goldenhawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After thinking about my post above... Seems like it would be much easier to just take a decent digital camcorder and fly down the coast at a moderate rate of speed. Better continuous coverage, much much faster, and if the real purpose IS to look for breakwaters or illegal rockpiles, certainly a digital camcorder image would work for that.

    I wonder if there isn't some other motive here, requiring high-res images.

    (Like getting free publicity on Slashdot for using exclusively non-MS technology for a cool task, perhaps.....? Naaaaahhhh....)

    --
    --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

  5. Maybe you should look into some facts by Sacarino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Um

    Perhaps you ought to look into fuel consumption for a R44 before you go spouting off.

    If you were to look at the R44 Spec Sheet you'll see that the standard fuel capacity is 30.6 US gal. with a max range of 400 miles.

    A little simple math shows us that 400/30.6 is equal to what kids? That's right, 13.07 mpg. Now, let's take a look at the gas economy on your SUV..... hmm... Comparible, is it?

    --
    -- El Sacarino tiene gusto de la chocha
  6. WTF?? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    To all the people who posted to this story with 'fucking vigilanties','screw the hippies' and the like.

    Go visit some place where industrial development has existed without enviromental concerns. Like China, the ex-U.S.S.R, or East Germany. Is that what you want to live in? I don't think so.

    If you want to piss in your bathtub, go ahead, but if I catch you pissing in _our_ bathtub.....

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  7. Re:my house! by bellings · · Score: 4, Insightful
    OK, so it's illegal to build a private sea wall. But, your house is at the bottom of a cliff, on a very wide beach, facing the ocean. And, between your house and the ocean, the state of California has built a:
    • a road
    • a railroad bed,
    • a divided highway,
    • a natural gas pipeline, and
    • a seawall.
    Sweet. At least there's no hypocrisy there.
    --
    Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.