4 ms·
No, that's the order of the trial court saying he has to open the gate (and the appeals court affirming that ruling). The court is saying, "There is an establis
by kbutler 9y ago
No, that's the order of the trial court saying he has to open the gate (and the appeals court affirming that ruling). The court is saying, "There is an established process to administer the law - you can't unilaterally decide to close the gate. Open it back up!"
From that same document and everything else I've seen, he hasn't even applied for the permit to close it. If he applies, and if he's denied, then he can assert that allowing public access is a "taking" of his property rights, rather than just protecting the public's right of access.
But he has to apply for the permit before the commission can decide to allow or forbid it.
- kbutler 9y agoRayiner asserts it is "the agency" that is forcing opening, but it is not (or had not been). The opinion at page 50 of the PDF is in the case "SURFRIDER FOUNDATION v. MARTINS BEACH 1, LLC et al." - It's a concerned citizen group filing suit against one of the two LLCs that purchased parts of the property, and the courts agreeing that Khosla must re-open the gate he locked. "[Surfrider has] kept it real simple,...It’s always been ‘Mr. Khosla, do you have a permit for that gate or don’t you?’” In September, after this decision, the commission began an enforcement action, which could cost Khosla over $4 million per year, and Khosla opened the gate, in addition to filing his appeals. http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/NE/20171004/NEWS/171009839 http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/NE/20171004/NEWS/17...