Iconic ‘Magnum, P.I.’ House Torn Down, Environmental Laws Bypassed To Build Obama’s Beachside Villa

Members of the American left like to portray themselves as protectors of the environment.

However, according to a report from the U.K. Daily Mail published Saturday, former President Barack Obama, a beloved figure on the left, does not exactly practice what he preaches when it comes to environmentalism.

Five years ago, Obama’s close friend Marty Nesbitt purchased a property in Hawaii containing the beach house that served as the setting for the TV series “Magnum P.I.” Nesbitt has been working to redevelop the property so the former president can retire there.

The redevelopment of the property involved the demolition of the historic “Magnum P.I.” house, which, according to the Daily Mail, “had fallen into disrepair.”

The mansion was torn down in 2018 and will be replaced by “three homes, two pools and a security perimeter.”

TRENDING: Daviscourt: Seattle Residents Voting for Trump After Democrats Refuse To Stop Rioting

Considering the fact that Obama is a liberal with a record of supporting environmental causes, it would have made sense if a century-old seawall on the property was also demolished. According to environmental experts cited by the Daily Mail, the seawall causes “coastal damage and beach erosion.”

A picture of the property shows “the beach has almost completely disappeared along with the property,” the Daily Mail reported.

Yet, this apparently was not a cause of concern for Obama and friends, since the seawall is set to remain despite the fact that it would normally run afoul of laws designed to preserve Hawaii’s coastlines.

A loophole allowed the sellers of the property to “essentially lease the public land that sits under the seawall” for a one-time cost of $61,400. Hawaii’s Department of Land and Natural Resources gave the green light for the seawall to remain standing for another half-century, according to ProPublica.

Keep in mind that, in each of the past three presidential elections, Hawaii has provided a higher margin of victory for the Democratic presidential candidates than any other state, according to 270towin, a website that focuses on presidential election results. In both of his presidential campaigns, Obama won 60 to 70 percent of the vote there, 270towin reported.

Nesbitt had no problem bypassing environmental laws in the bluest state in the union as he sought to build a dream home for his good friend, the former president.

The Shoreline Protection Act requires those building new properties along the coastline to obtain a permit imposing additional safeguards to “protect the environment from coastal development,” according to ProPublica.

However, a loophole enables local officials to grant an exemption for the permit if the property in question is less than 7,500 square feet. With that in mind, Nesbitt proposed a 7,496 square foot house and a separate 7,485 square foot house on the property.

It’s hypertechnical, it’s a clear abuse of the law’s loopholes. And it’s impossible to make this up.

RELATED: Joe Biden Takes Credit for Trump Brokered Peace Deal

For his part, Nesbitt dismissed concerns about the seawall, claiming that any damage the structure caused to the beach “is no longer relevant.”

Besides, according to liberal philosophy, all of the work Obama did for the environment more than makes up for the fact that his friend has gone out of his way to make sure that environmental regulations would not get in the way of his retirement plans.

Obama’s actions in his post-presidency definitely raise questions about how seriously he takes the alarmist warnings about the future of the environment.

In addition to buying beachfront property in Hawaii, Obama bought a beachfront house on Martha’s Vineyard, despite the fact that climate change alarmists warn that it will sink in 10 years.

For the far left, which is on the ascendancy in the Democratic Party, Obama did not work hard enough on behalf of the environment during his presidency. According to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, a Green New Deal is required to preserve the environment.

As for the fact that the legislation would cost the average American household $74,000 a year, that’s an afterthought to the left.

It turns out that America might not need to adopt the Green New Deal because the U.S. led the world in reducing carbon emissions in 2019 even without the implementation of such a radical framework, according to The Hill.

While the left likes to portray Republicans as evil capitalists willing to sacrifice the environment for profit, President Donald Trump has proven them wrong. Two weeks ago, he signed into law a $3 billion conservation bill called the Great American Outdoors Act.

This legislation will allocate $3 billion annually to “conservation projects, outdoor recreation and maintenance of national parks and other public lands.”

Based on Trump and Republicans’ embrace of the Great American Outdoors Act and Marty Nesbitt’s relentless efforts to make sure that Obama’s beachfront pad does not have to conform to environmental standards, Democrats have lost the right to claim the moral high ground on the environment.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

About the author:
Tell us something about yourself.

Get involved!

Get Connected! 0Censor Community BETA

Come and join our community. Expand your network and get to know new people!

Comments

No comments yet