But in practice many developments do have the effect of blocking off access to a piece of beachfront. The state doesn't interfere with those developments, worki

But in practice many developments do have the effect of blocking off access to a piece of beachfront. The state doesn't interfere with those developments, working off of the assumption that the owners are reasonable folks and will follow public access laws. If the only way to get people to behave reasonably is to not issue building permits, then everyone loses. What you're suggesting is that California should choose the defect/defect quadrant of a game. But there's a more optimal solution -- just tell people like Khosla they're not allowed to defect on this question. In other words, why should I be prohibited from owning certain types of land or having the chance to purchase into certain types of developments just because Khosla's being an ass about restrictions he knew about when he bought the property? What you're proposing is the "if I can't have it then burn it all down" solution. Which I guess is a way to vindicate Khosla in a sort of pyrrhic way, but everyone else loses.