"Supervisors Ban Beach Nudity"
by our LA Bureau
Residents allege public sexual acts
Supervisors Tuesday, on a 3-1 vote, gave initial approval to an ordinance banning nudity on beaches and at parks in unincorporated county territory.
Adoption of the ordinance came after a handful of proponents and opponents had spoken before the board.
Several women residents of the Topanga Beach area claimed that beach was no longer safe for their children because of the nude bathers and the acts they committed. A male resident claimed acts of oral copulation were committed by nude bathers. One woman said taking children to the beach for shell hunting meant crossing over 200 to 300 nudes every day.
"It’s horrible, just horrible," she told the board.
Several men spoke against the ordinance saying they had taken part in nude sunbathing and had never seen the types of activity described by opponents of the ordinance.
Passage of the ordinance came after Supervisor Kenneth Hahn successfully led a move to delete from the proposed ordinance a qualifying statement which said nudity would be banned "except in an area expressly set aside for such purpose.'
Supervisor Ed Edelman, who cast the lone dissenting vote, urged his colleagues to leave In the qualifying clause, saying he would like to see some study of the possibility of setting aside an isolated county beach area where wearing of swimsuits would be optional.
Opponents of the nudity ban had called for a secluded area to be set aside where clothing would be optional.
However, Supervisors Baxter Ward and Pete Schabarum joined Halm to delete the qualifying language. Ward pointed out there was nothing to prevent Edelman later bringing up the possibility of setting aside a nude bathing area.
Supervisor James Hayes had Initially called for drafting the ordinance and requested that it be adopted on an urgency basis so it would go into effect immediately at the start of the summer holiday.
An urgency ordinance, however, requires four votes. With Hayes absent at a National Association of Counties convention in Hawaii and Edelman voting against, there was no chance of urgency passage. However the 3-1 vote means the nudity ordinance will be placed on the agenda next Tuesday, and once adopted on a majority vote, will become effective 30 days later.
Edelman said he understood it would be difficult to explain his vote but he felt the board was acting in great haste without any written report on the extent of the problem or other alternatives.
He said the ordinance would not prevent the sexual acts described by speakers earlier, noting that those acts already were covered by criminal law.
A sheriff’s spokesman, however, pointed out that in the absence of an anti-nudity law, the “opportunity exists for persons to commit criminal acts."
