The Constitutional issue is whether it's a taking to force Khosla to provide the level of access that the State wants. While it's clear that the State owns the

The Constitutional issue is whether it's a taking to force Khosla to provide the level of access that the State wants. While it's clear that the State owns the land up to the mean high tide line, what it actually wants here is for Khosla to maintain the existing public access. Easements and rights-of-way that stay with the property are not new, not unusual, and not generally something you can get wiped out by stomping your feet and yelling that it's a taking. And the specific case of property rights ending at a specific tide line, and public access being guaranteed, exists widely and non-controversially in US states which have tidal coasts, and even where not explicit via statute has precedent running back in the common law to pre-independence times and ultimately at least as far back as the laws of the Byzantine empire. Dude's not gonna get a judgment in his favor; his plan is pretty clearly to just keep locking it up, paying the fine, locking it up, paying the fine, until somebody buys the property from him, he runs out of money, or he dies of old age.