Coastal Services Center

Gated communities along the nation's coasts spark controversy between people living behind the walls who are seeking privacy and security, and those outside of the walls, who want public access to the beaches and shoreline. Coastal resource managers in California and other states are finding themselves in the middle of this debate as they seek to find a balance between economic development and protecting public resources.

In the book Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States, authors Edward J. Blakely and Mary Gail Snyder define gated communities as "residential areas with restricted access in which normally public spaces are privatized." California and Florida are home to the most gated communities, with Texas running a distant third. The authors estimate that more than 3 million American households are now behind walls and fences, which "can make access to shorelines, beaches, and parks so difficult that these public resources become essentially private preserves."

"As a country, it is the wrong direction to go in to allow this kind of exclusive development behind locked gates," said Peter Douglas, executive director of the California Coastal Commission. "It's a reflection of a fortress mentality, of a desire to keep out the invaders. Looking beyond the coast and thinking about this growing phenomenon in a broader societal context requires our putting on sociologist hats and recognizing that we need to manage in a way that people think about themselves, their neighbors, and those who do not live in their neighborhood."

Steve Moser, a California developer, said, "I don't like to see too many gated communities either. But I think you need to look at what is good planning and what the market wants. Regulators want to exclude the market in planning decisions and the market needs to be a factor."

Mike Hill, outreach programs coordinator at the National Building Museum, said, "I think what it really gets down to is whether or not it's the policy of the people managing our national resources to allow small groups of people to own a significant natural resource."

Some of the concerns about gated communities that Douglas and his staff cite include changing the visual or community character of an area; possible impact to public views of the ocean and scenic values; and inhibiting or blocking public access. Gated communities also raise questions about using public monies for projects, such as beach replenishment activities.

Douglas said that the California Coastal Commission has "dealt with many projects involving gated communities, and they are often rejected. The coast, and in particular the area between the first major public road and the sea, is a special piece of geography that should be inviting to all. Gated communities are intended to keep people out and send signals of exclusivity. The issue of greatest long-term concern is the environmental future and demographic character of the coast."

One recent California proposal was for a development called Sand Pointe in Humboldt County. The proposal for the gated community was approved at the county level but was appealed to the state Coastal Commission by residents and environmental groups. The Commission ultimately approved a development on the 26 acres of coastal bluff, but cut the number of residences from 63 to 37, required additional public access and parking for an adjacent trail system, and denied the construction of the gates. The developer did not appeal the Commission's decision.

While the Commission was concerned about public access, community character played a larger than usual role in the decision to eliminate Sand Pointe's gates, said Bob Merrill, district manager for the North Coast District of the California Coastal Commission. The California Coastal Act describes community character in part as, "The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas.... Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas ... (and) be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas."

Merrill said, "This would have been one of the denser subdivisions you would be likely to see in the area. There is only one other gated community in the area, about a quarter of a mile away, which was approved in the late 1980s, before we thought we needed regulation with respect to gated communities. The character of the area is best defined by natural areas and subdivisions that don't have gates."

Steve Moser, who is developing Sand Pointe, said he felt the Commission "gutted" his development plans "arbitrarily" and without regard to their own Coastal Act standards. "The community character issue is a mask the Commission is hiding behind. Community character allows the decision making body to make whatever decision they feel furthers their own agenda."

According to Hill, coastal managers should be wary of making decisions solely on the basis of community character. "That, to me, could be dangerous. If you base your decisions on precedents, what happens in an area that already has several gated communities?"

Sara Wan, a California Coastal Commissioner, said community character was not the reason she voted against the gates. "Public access is the number one issue. I have a very strong, positive bent towards the public and the public's rights. I believe my responsibility is to protect those rights."

"Our vision for the environmental future of the coastal zone is an area characterized by inclusivity in terms of public accessibility, not exclusivity," Douglas said. "The coast is precious to Californians and one of the most important values the public wants to protect is accessibility for everyone."

"The reason they threw the gate out is because they didn't like it," said Moser. "Exclusivity has negative connotations. Security has negative connotations. Coastal managers involved in the decision making process have to look at the existing standards and policies and make their decisions on those, and not on their personal preferences."

Wan said the Commission cut the number of homes that could be developed in Sand Pointe because of concern over how the view would be impacted. "Coastal views is an important issue in California. People from other states are often impressed that you don't have to own part of the beach to even be able to see it when you drive by. It's positive for our state and helps our tourism."

The debate over gated communities also includes whether or not public monies should be used to protect beaches where public access is limited or prohibited. "That's a legitimate question," Merrill said. "Beaches provide benefits beyond access that would need to be taken into account when making that decision. But if you are able to put up a wall to keep the public out, why should public funds be used on that beach?"

While there may be no simple answers for coastal managers in the discussion of gated communities, Douglas thinks it's important that the questions be posed. "More and more of our landscape is being locked up for the exclusive use of less and less of our citizenry. People lock themselves in and lock others out. This trend is a manifestation of our evolving American character. It is a depressing statement about our society's future well being. The extent to which this exclusivity becomes our legacy to future generations depends on the vision of elected officials and other environmental stewards of the land, and whether they actually care about the character of human communities along the coast.

"Appreciating and understanding the ramifications tangled up in the web of environmental and social issues associated with gated communities is important. It is vital that these issues be discussed in the public square," he said. "While coastal gated communities raise several somewhat unique issues under California's coastal protection law that warrant their denial in many circumstances, they are a microcosm of the greater American landscape."

For more information about gated communities and how they relate to coastal resource managers, contact Peter Douglas at (415) 904-5201, or pdouglas@coastal.ca.gov. You may also contact Mike Hill at (202) 272-2448, or mhill@nbm.org, and Steve Moser at (707) 839-3233.