3 ms·
I don't think he was ever technically fighting that law, it was the access to that public beach through his property that he blocked off. So basically - "Look,
by djrogers 9y ago
I don't think he was ever technically fighting that law, it was the access to that public beach through his property that he blocked off. So basically - "Look, that beach is public, you just can't walk on my property to get to it. Oh, and my property is the only way to get to it. Sorry!"
- abritinthebay 9y agoDoesn't quite work that way. He's locking a public right of access (that's been used that way for 100 years). At that point it's a legal public byway. Kind of how easements etc are. He's allowed to have a gate, but he can't actually block access. He also knew this when he bought the place.
- alasdair_ 9y agoI'm surprised no member of the public has shown up with boltcutters yet and told his security people to fuck off.
- abritinthebay 9y agoI think that DID happen initially but it’s technically vandalism. Of course hopping the gate isn’t illegal so...
- kafkaesq 9y agoI don't think he was ever technically fighting that law, it was the access to that public beach through his property that he blocked off. Yet there's a near universal consensus that "the law" (i.e. the founding statutes regarding access to coastal properties, from the time California entered the Union) mandates that this access must be maintained, for perpetuity, by whoever takes title to the property. So in effect there's a permanent easement attached to the property (even if the term as such didn't appear in the text of the original statues).