Thursday, October 22, 2009

Tom Mulhall Blames the NAC for San Onofre Loss

In a disappointing yet predictable move, Tom Mulhall, owner of the Terra Cotta Inn, has decided to bash the NAC for the loss of nude sunbathing at San Onofre.
I guess some people do not understand the meaning of hazards of litigation and decided to sue. They put at risk nude sunbathing at ALL beaches in California. That was so obvious in the lawsuit.

Worse, not only was Cahill at risk in California, but Cahill was a model policy used by nudist groups in other states to work on getting legal nude beaches.
Sorry Tom, but your argument is bogus. The minute the California Department of Parks and Recreation decided to ban nudity at San Onofre Beach, the Cahill Policy was breached. While AANR made the decision to roll over and accept the loss, the NAC stood up for naturist rights and put up a good fight.

Tom, who is on the AANR West Board of Directors, made this statement upon his election: "I am very happy to be elected to this position of trust for nudists. I won't let you down."

Well, Tom, today you let me down, as well as every member of The Naturist Society and board member of the NAC. This political spitball game is unbecoming of people entrusted to uphold nudist and naturist rights. This is schoolyard childishness that only serves to stroke the egos of all the AANR officials who made the decision some time ago to abandon San Onofre.

“Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for.” ~ Clarence Darrow

"I guess this is just another lost cause, Mr. Paine. All you people don't know about lost causes. Mr. Paine does. He said once they were the only causes worth fighting for. And he fought for them once, for the only reason any man ever fights for them; because of just one plain simple rule: 'Love thy neighbor.'... And you know that you fight for the lost causes harder than for any other. Yes, you even die for them." ~ James Stewart as Senator Jefferson Smith in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"


Andrew Moore said...

"Compromise" he says.

"Compromise." When you're in the minority? I have to -- or rather, used to -- drive an hour and a half AT LEAST from Los Angeles to San Diego county for the closest nude beach. Compromise? I suppose a "compromise" would be to drive to Palm Springs and pay his day use fee instead.

A united front is what was needed here. AANR sold out the nudists and naturists who consider themselves free beachers, and we WON'T forget it!

Academic Naturist said...

It's an edgy post... But as usual, you're right. I'm sure Tom will take note. What will he say next?

Tom was on my naughty list the moment he took the AANR job. It was only a matter of time before the brainwashing was complete.

Tom Mulhall said...

This is Tom Mulhall. What I wrote on my blog is MY personal opinion. It has nothing to do with AANR.

Also what I wrote has to do with my experience with governments. I have found that in my limited experience in dealing with govenment entities (I have dealt with the IRS the most as a tax accountant, my previous career), you have to see the big picture and what is at risk. You have to take into consideration hazards of litigation. What is your downside if you lose.

Andrew, if you ask most nudist resort owners, we wish there were more nude beaches in the US. Many people get their first start on a nude beach in their 20's and 30's and then move to nudist resorts and parks for more luxury. Haulover is a perfect example of how this happens. We have many guests whose first experience with nudism was at San Onofre. Now that may be gone with this decision.

A united front would be nice, but you will never achieve it as nudists and naturists all have different opinions as to how to achieve it. Egos have to stay out of the picture which is hard.

I sincerely wish NAC good luck in dealing with CA Parks department in damage control from this decision. Hopefully they will be able to open a dialogue.

Hi Academic Naturist. Brainwashing? You don't even know me. If I was brainwahed I would have kept quiet instead of writing about the decision. You are more than welcome to personally call me at 800-786-6938 to discuss this. I answer the phones from 8am-10pm PST.

Today was a sad day for nudists in California. Sure confrontation sounds like fun. It sounds like you are standing up for yourself and doing something, but you always have to look at what you may lose. The "something" you are doing may not be the best thing.

Lessons need to be learned here.

Nudiarist said...

Tom, when you are a board member with AANR West, anything you say in a public forum regarding nudism will be interpreted as an official statement. It's a political position, and any politician will tell you that anything they say in any forum has a direct bearing on the office they hold.

In the case of San Onofre, AANR failed to see the "big picture". What they saw was a short-term opportunity to discredit the Naturist Action Committee.

Once the California Department of Parks and Recreation decided to ban nudity at San Onofre, they conservative elements within the government were declaring Cahill null and void, and setting a precedent that they could revoke nudity at any state location.

The ONLY sensible and correct course of action for nudists and naturists was to file suit against the Parks Department. Cahill had to be challenged in court, even if it meant an eventual loss. If you don't stand up for your principles, you have none.

AANR decided to pursue a course of appeasement with the DPR instead of joining in on the NAC lawsuit. Today the DPR has the last laugh, knowing that AANR fell for their empty promises and sat by the sidelines as the court battles raged.

In fact, AANR did fatal damage to Cahill by accepting a letter from the DPR which added the word "remote" to the policy, thereby ensuring that officials could decide at any time if any location was too close to the public to remain clothes-free.

You want the big picture, Tom? California is broke. The government is weak. The Governator has record low approval numbers. The time is ripe for lobbying for more public locations for nude recreation to bring in some revenue to the state coffers.

Instead, AANR is rolling over and playing dead as thousands of California naturists are losing their rights statewide.

Wishing the NAC "luck" in the fight is not only lame, it's insulting to all nudists and naturists. AANR needs to join the fight. Even if the battle is lost in the short run, putting up a strong and unified front will win the ultimate war.

The loss from doing nothing is far greater than the loss from doing something.

Tom, you say that checking your ego is "hard" to do. What you are actually saying is that your personal bias of being an AANR West board member trumps the rights of nudists and naturists.

Confrontation is never "fun" Tom. Confrontation takes courage, determination, and backbone. AANR needs to show it has a spine.

Andrew Moore said...

We're not talking about zoning variances here, Tom. We're talking about a fractional amount of State Park acreage, tiny slivers of beach scattered among 1,100 miles of California coastline. San Onofre IS the big picture for nude recreation. It's like saying "So what if we amputate your arm ... you still have your other limbs. Choose your battles!"

You said "Sure confrontation sounds like fun." Tom, you must think we're all children. Tell me, how did the confrontation start exactly? Did the nudists at Trail 6 take up pitchforks and demand to be ticketed?

In your original post that Nudiarist reponded to, you said "Worse, not only was Cahill at risk in California, but Cahill was a model policy used by nudist groups in other states to work on getting legal nude beaches." God forbid we defend Cahill in California!

Pay lip service to public facilities all you want. The fact remains that nude recreation on private property (i.e. clubs and resorts) is not under threat. AANR has a vested interest in clubs and resorts, and you guys are in competition with public land for the nudist dollar during a recession.

It's awful convenient that the competition has been knocked out. I believe the term is "regulatory capture."