<p>The best way to find out the competitive value of the temporarily privatised beach would seem to be to auction licences, charge a tax based on the self-assessed value for holding them, and require the holder to relinquish them at the self-assessed value. This is basically the idea of Eric Posner &amp; Glen Weyl’s <a href="http://radicalmarkets.com/chapters/property-is-monopoly/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Radical Markets</a> (2018).</p>

<p>Given that the organiser of the contest has to commit to a suitable date (presumably during the right season, at the weekend, etc.) she will be willing to pay a tax for holding the licence based on a self-assessed value high enough to deter other (groups of) surfers from buying out her licence for that particular date. The other surfers will likely have less propensity to pay the assessed value of the contest organiser than to pay nothing for using the beach the following day. </p>

<p>That said, the public authority would likely need a mechanism for guaranteeing that the beach remains public in principle. This could be achieved by limiting the number of days per year that the beach could be privatised, or requiring qualitative criteria (such as an event) for issuing a licence. In any case the public condition is mutually exclusive with privatising the beach for dwelling.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-03T07:16:52.457Z
2020-06-03T07:16:52.457Z
sba222
<p>For most of the past week a private surfing contest has closed off Steamer Lane
- one of California's most popular waves - while paying only a few hundred dollars in permit fees. I think this is far too cheap.</p>

<p>Consider the following thought experiment: If somebody were to set up
at the beach and offer \$1 to each surfer who stays out of water they'd
all decline. However, if the amount were upped to \$100, several would
accept. To me this indicates that the price to close off the beach should be tens of thousands of dollars rather than a few hundred.</p>

<p>Is this a reasonable way to price externalities? Is there some other model where it would make sense to charge only a few hundred dollars for beach closures?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-14T04:10:00.640Z
Probably also relevant— does this surfing contest bring significant revenue to the community, outside of the permit fees?
dismalscience
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-14T04:52:59.557Z
The beach is public land accessible to the public unless you pay for a permit to host an event. Everyone is free to get a permit.
dranxo
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-14T04:53:21.973Z
The economic benefit to the city is negligible.
dranxo
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-14T17:26:11.837Z
It's hard to organize surfing contests which is probably why people don't hold them every day. There would be a lot of conflict if you closed the beach for nobody so I suppose there is a social hurdle to overcome.
dranxo
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-17T16:40:52.613Z
@dranxo Why does it need to be a surfing contest though, why can't I just close the beach and build a shed and live there?
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-18T06:16:05.077Z
It's true that the city must approve your beach closure before they will sell you a permit. But what would be a reasonable way to price the permit?
dranxo
<taxation><externalities>
How much should it cost to close the beach?
dranxo
# How much should it cost to close the beach?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-01-14)

For most of the past week a private surfing contest has closed off Steamer Lane
- one of California's most popular waves - while paying only a few hundred dollars in permit fees. I think this is far too cheap.

Consider the following thought experiment: If somebody were to set up
at the beach and offer \$1 to each surfer who stays out of water they'd
all decline. However, if the amount were upped to \$100, several would
accept. To me this indicates that the price to close off the beach should be tens of thousands of dollars rather than a few hundred.

Is this a reasonable way to price externalities? Is there some other model where it would make sense to charge only a few hundred dollars for beach closures?

**Tags:** taxation, externalities
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Probably also relevant— does this surfing contest bring significant revenue to the community, outside of the permit fees?  
> **username_0**: The beach is public land accessible to the public unless you pay for a permit to host an event. Everyone is free to get a permit.  
> **username_0**: The economic benefit to the city is negligible.  
> **username_0**: It's hard to organize surfing contests which is probably why people don't hold them every day. There would be a lot of conflict if you closed the beach for nobody so I suppose there is a social hurdle to overcome.  
> **username_2**: @dranxo Why does it need to be a surfing contest though, why can't I just close the beach and build a shed and live there?  
> **username_0**: It's true that the city must approve your beach closure before they will sell you a permit. But what would be a reasonable way to price the permit?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-06-03. Score: 1

The best way to find out the competitive value of the temporarily privatised beach would seem to be to auction licences, charge a tax based on the self-assessed value for holding them, and require the holder to relinquish them at the self-assessed value. This is basically the idea of Eric Posner & Glen Weyl’s [Radical Markets](http://radicalmarkets.com/chapters/property-is-monopoly/) (2018).

Given that the organiser of the contest has to commit to a suitable date (presumably during the right season, at the weekend, etc.) she will be willing to pay a tax for holding the licence based on a self-assessed value high enough to deter other (groups of) surfers from buying out her licence for that particular date. The other surfers will likely have less propensity to pay the assessed value of the contest organiser than to pay nothing for using the beach the following day.

That said, the public authority would likely need a mechanism for guaranteeing that the beach remains public in principle. This could be achieved by limiting the number of days per year that the beach could be privatised, or requiring qualitative criteria (such as an event) for issuing a licence. In any case the public condition is mutually exclusive with privatising the beach for dwelling.


---

