What? At no point did I defend Khosla's actions or the interests of the wealthy. Right now, the law banning private ownership of beaches is all but unenforced.

What? At no point did I defend Khosla's actions or the interests of the wealthy. Right now, the law banning private ownership of beaches is all but unenforced. One can currently buy a private beach for the cost of a fence and a gate. I'm saying we should tax private beaches so that: 1. The state has an incentive to enforce the law. (Just like any business, law enforcement favors profit centers to cost centers.) 2. We can limit private beaches to a small fraction of the total coastline. 3. The revenue collected can be used for social programs benefiting the less fortunate. If anything, that's the opposite of "...looking out for the interests of the wealthy property owners who want to violate California law." Another thing: "It violates California law" is not a good reason to condemn something. For five years, same-sex marriage was a violation of the state constitution. When I voiced my opposition to that law, social conservatives the same argument as you. (Though they were less snarky about it.) I think your comment is uncharitable, untrue, and unkind.