4 ms·

"So the coastal commission tried to broker a compromise, chief of enforcement Lisa Haage said. Officials offered to consider moving the access road, to find a n

"So the coastal commission tried to broker a compromise, chief of enforcement Lisa Haage said. Officials offered to consider moving the access road, to find a nonprofit to operate the entry and to close on rainy days when the beach was muddy. But the talks went nowhere." If it was clear cut, why is the Chief of Enforcement accommodating alternatives?

SwellJoe 9y ago
Because the very wealthy are coddled and can get away with just about anything in the US.
mattkrause 9y ago
Why not? She's not trying to crush him. Her goal is to provide access to the beach--which these solutions would. It would obviously be great if he just went along with the legal requirements, but moving the road or getting a non-profit to operate a gate is better than a protracted court battle, and it wouldn't hurt if everyone ended up happy at the end.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  But it would hurt if everyone ended up happy in the end; it would reinforce the bad behavior of billionaires who believe they're above the law.
  - toast0 9y ago
    Resolving the dispute in a way that everyone is happy with may reinforce bad behavior in that you can get away with closing the path for N years; but at the end of the day, if there is equivalent access to the beach with the old path and a new path that the landowner is happier with, the public still has the same access going forward as they did before, and it likely would have been allowed if he had gone through permits. So it also shows that in the end, even billionaires need to follow the law; and that its probably a better use of their time to work with the commission to find a good solution, instead of to fight the law.
  - honestoHeminway 9y ago
    They are, by making the law..
dragonwriter 9y ago
> If it was clear cut, why is the Chief of Enforcement accommodating alternatives? Because the Commission has finite resources and devoting them to dealing with a billionaire that's devoted to tying up the legal system as long as possible isn't efficient use of them if a compromise can be reached at far less cost in litigation and the remaining resources directed to other priorities.

SwellJoe 9y ago

Because the very wealthy are coddled and can get away with just about anything in the US.

mattkrause 9y ago

Why not? She's not trying to crush him. Her goal is to provide access to the beach--which these solutions would. It would obviously be great if he just went along with the legal requirements, but moving the road or getting a non-profit to operate a gate is better than a protracted court battle, and it wouldn't hurt if everyone ended up happy at the end.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
But it would hurt if everyone ended up happy in the end; it would reinforce the bad behavior of billionaires who believe they're above the law.
- toast0 9y ago
  Resolving the dispute in a way that everyone is happy with may reinforce bad behavior in that you can get away with closing the path for N years; but at the end of the day, if there is equivalent access to the beach with the old path and a new path that the landowner is happier with, the public still has the same access going forward as they did before, and it likely would have been allowed if he had gone through permits. So it also shows that in the end, even billionaires need to follow the law; and that its probably a better use of their time to work with the commission to find a good solution, instead of to fight the law.
- honestoHeminway 9y ago
  They are, by making the law..

dragonwriter 9y ago

> If it was clear cut, why is the Chief of Enforcement accommodating alternatives? Because the Commission has finite resources and devoting them to dealing with a billionaire that's devoted to tying up the legal system as long as possible isn't efficient use of them if a compromise can be reached at far less cost in litigation and the remaining resources directed to other priorities.