Why I Don't Want to Live in Manhappenin' Beach

So, a retired Southern Californian aerospace engineer decides he wants to sell his house in Manhattan Beach, an LAX-adjacent burgh that should always be referred to as "Manhappenin' Beach." Only he comes up with a novel way of auctioning off the $800,000, ocean-views structure -- he announces an essay contest, with an entry fee of $195, on the topic of "Why I Want to Live in Manhattan Beach, Calif." You can see how this is going to end in tears, right?

A robust 1,813 essays arrive. The winner, understandably (given the topic), is Canadian. But he doesn't claim his prize. One of the sore losers notices the retired aerospace guy is still living in the house long after the contest is wrapped, so he files a class-action lawsuit. In the meantime, the engineer sells his house for around $1 million. The jury rules for the plaintiffs, and … well, here's the punchline:

Jurors agreed that the contestants should additionally split between them the approximately $1 million for which Waldrep sold the house last year. But in a mix-up, jurors inadvertently awarded the 1,812 essayists $1 million each.

Jurors discovered their $1.8-billion mistake while chatting with lawyers after the trial. When they attempted to return to the courtroom of Superior Court Judge Andria Richey to rectify things, they learned they were too late: They had been dismissed.

Whole thing here.

Comments

[Douglas Fletcher]

Sounds like the bozo was guilty of mail fraud.

[Larry]

I think there's more to this story than just a jury gone wild. Someone fails to claim an $800,000 prize and just happens to live out of the country? Come on. And it seems like he evidently held on to the entry fees and the house? If true, that's just plain wrong.

Granted, the jury says they made a clerical error in the judgment, but that should be correctable easily.

[Ball of Confusion]

Not clear to me from the article. IF the guy who won was a real person and actually didn't claim the prize for whatever reason (seems a little far-fetched, but possible), then I don't see how it was fraud. I assume the main point of the trail was to provide reasonable doubt that the winner didn't really exist or was somehow in cahoots with the guy selling his house, but the article didn't spell that out.

[thoreau]

If this was fraud then I could totall see awarding each contestant the $195 entry fee, plus some compensation for postage and time spent writing the essay.

Let's say $500/contestant.

[Poustman]

Ball, I agree. Ditto Thoreau.

[kwais]

So what is the libertarian angle on this?

[Ball of Confusion]

So what is the libertarian angle on this?

Bush sucks, but Kerry would have been worse?

[joe]

Ha!

[c]

Libertarian angle on this storyline:

"The aerospace engineer -- his livelyhood created by the subsidized airline industryand the public sector military-industrial complex -- is a thief of the public's money. He redeems himself by his creative victimization of 1,813 genuine morons, only to be tragically cast down by the litigious class. Deus ex machina comes when his beachfront property is wiped out by a storm, and the National Flood Insurance Program pays him out $1,813,000,000."

[WSDave]

c,

You rock!!

[Some radio guy]

It was a fraud. The winner was a shill or ringer or whatever the term is. The fraud was to take the money of the essay writers and then award the house to a "winner" who had no intention of taking possession. He got caught because the "winning" essay was so lame some of the contestants realized it was a setup. Now he's out a lot of money. The jury's plan was to award the price of the house split up among the contestants (which would be extremely just, IMHO) - not the price of the house to each contestant.

And now you know the rest of the story.

[Andy]

Well, the guy could have awarded the house to the SECOND place winner if the first place winner didn't respond. The fact that he didn't shows that it's fraud.

[phil]

Look: this has to be fraud, Why? Not wanting to live in a particular house would be understandable, but the winner could have sold it himself for the million bucks. What person would write and essay, pay a $195 fee, be declared winner and then say, "Oh, I will pass on the million dollar house. It might take me an hour to line up a real estate agent and an attorney who would broker the deal for me." So the whole sales price should go to all the contestants to split.

[Gary Gunnels]

One wonders why - if this is indeed a case of fraud - the D.A. didn't go after him.*

*I haven't read the article, so perhaps the answer to my query is revealed there.

[nvrmnd]

This guy diserves to lose his million for his scumbaggery.
He was so eager to give away his house - and he got his wish.

A million per contestant - perhaps a tad excessive, though.

[Morat]

Since it's highly likely that the Judge will set the judgement aside, or at worst order a new trial, I fail to see anything to get excited over.

[Dante]

Damn, I thought he meant the person who won got to buy the house at a set price (I was under the impression there was great demand for it) what assholery!

[fyodor]

So what is the libertarian angle on this?

Maybe instead we should be asking: so, is this good for the libertarians?

[thoreau]

I just realized that my estimated $500/contestant would come pretty close to dividing the sale price evenly among the contestants.

[Ken Shultz]

Um...I've been watchin' this locally for a while--local government here is hilarious.

...But please, don't come and see us. All of LA is hell hole--there's nothing to see in Manhattan Beach. In fact, the beach name's a misnomer. Nothin' to see.

...Why don't you check out the Valley? Or better yet, go look at Beverly Hills--that's where all the rich people live! Nothing to see in Manhattan Beach. No Beach, No Strand, No Kettle, No Bikini Girls on Blades--nothin' to see to folks. If you want all that, well, I guess you better go to Venice! Yeah--Venice, you know Venice.

...By the way, there's nothing to see in Hermosa Beach either. Nothing to see in Redondo. No--LA's all hell hole. Nothin' to see.

...Now, please, never mention Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach again. Thank you.

[Ken Shultz]

"One of the sore losers notices the retired aerospace guy is still living in the house long after the contest is wrapped, so he files a class-action lawsuit."

...Actually, my understanding of the story (and I read it through a second hand account in the Beach Reporter a long time ago so I'm not swearing this is accurate) is that one of the people who thought they should have won the contest went to Canada to the address of the winner and found that the winner either was the guy who created the contest or had a very close connection.

[Matt Welch]

I love the Beach Reporter....

[Eryk Boston]

The Libertarian angle on this (Is it ironic to claim to collectively speak for individualists?) is that the engineer had a contract with the entrants. He is obligated to award the house to whomever won by the standards of the contest. The winner doesn't need to claim the prize for it to become their property.

In the very likely event that this was a case of deliberate fraud then the engineer should become someone's cellmate for a few years.

[Ken Shultz]

I love the Beach Reporter....

Have you been following the Sam Edgerton/WiFi debates in Hermosa?

[Matt Welch]

No! Do tell....

[Ken Shultz]

One of the city councilmen wants the city to pay for city wide wireless internet access. Another council member--an acquaintence of mine--Sam Edgerton shut it down because he wasn't convinced that the plan would pay for itself.

A shouting match ensued, broadcast live locally.

http://tbrnews.nminews.com/articles/2005/01/13/hermosa_beach_news/news08.txt

...Later that week, as I recall, the councilman who wanted to wire the city for speed was cited by a policeman for abusive language some construed as threatening toward local bar workers--it just keeps get more and more funny all the time.

http://tbrnews.nminews.com/articles/2005/01/13/hermosa_beach_news/news02.txt

...In the last election Sam was smeared with the charge that he was in Bar Owner's pockets. (Note to everyone else--there are no bars in Hermosa Beach--Do not come here.) I'm sure this incident was in no way related--it just couldn't have been.

About a week after the controvesy erupted, Sam announced that he was spearheading the effort to raise the funds to wire the city through private donations.

http://tbrnews.nminews.com/articles/2005/01/20/hermosa_beach_news/news02.txt

Sam was the victim of another smear campaign in the last election--someone sent a blown up photograph of him to just about every house in Hermosa Beach; in the picture, he looked inebriated and seemed to be relieving himself--in the street.

He was smeared with a suggestion that he and his family were gaming the city health plan too.

If you ever find yourself watching the Hermosa Beach City Council in session on TV, watch Sam--even on a bad day, he's the funniest thing on television.

I don't know what's going to happen next with the city council, but I know it's gonna be hilarious.

[Matt Welch]

Ken -- Wow, thanks. It's hard to pick out the funniest bit, but "seemed to be" ranks right up there. Sounds like I need to come down for some hot municipal action....

And yeah, there certainly are no bars in Hermosa. Not a single one.

[db]

Why is it that so many libertarians seem to live in California? I'd expect a higher concentration in New Hampshire or Pennsylvania or Wyoming, fer cryin' out loud. California? Like, the worst state in the union for libertarians short of Massachussets, New York, and New Jersey?

I mean, I love the weather in CA, but come on. Consenting to live in that hellhole of beuracracy is tantamount to giving up on libertarianism.

jeez.

[db]

and, er, I do know how to spell 'bureaucracy.' really.

[Ken Shultz]

"Why is it that so many libertarians seem to live in California?"

I suspect that the only way they can justify all that bureaucracy in the first place is because of all the business activity. From Silicon Valley to the entertainment industry to Biotech and international trade, there's so much goin' on here that size of the pie makes it all worthwhile anyway.

Take a look at New York. California isn't as bad as New York, and New York's goin' strong. Take a look at Boston--on second thought, forget it. Boston's inexplicable.

P.S. If I had my druthers, I'd go home to D.C.

[db]

I guess that's a big part of it. Building up an enormous amount of wealth and then taking all of it out of California in one big swoop would almost be enough of a thrill to put up with a few years' worth of crazy restrictions on liberty .... nah. But it would be a lot of fun.

[Ken Shultz]

Not to beat a dead horse--but this link actually has a photo of Sam & Keegan mid argument. Keegan is listening and he looks like he's about to...

Well, you be the judge.

http://easyreader.hermosawave.net/news2002/storypage.asp?StoryID=20025473&IssuePath=news2005/0113/

[Ken Shultz]

Here's a link about the infamous photo and the campiagn's hijinks.

http://easyreader.hermosawave.net/news1999/1104/hbads.Htm

[js]

Some people don't choose where to live based on politics alone. It's hard to believe I know, but it's true nontheless ;).

[RJL]

Actually, you read that story in the Daily Breeze, which has been the leader on this story. I've been following it for years and that paper should win an award for not letting go of the matter, even when the police and DA were asleep at the wheel.