4 ms·

This article says that he bought a private business that operated private road, private parking and convenience store for profit. Then he closed the business. S

by vl 8y ago

This article says that he bought a private business that operated private road, private parking and convenience store for profit. Then he closed the business. Surely state shouldn't be able to compel a person to run business they don't want to run? Even if road is opened, where are they going to park? Who is going to pay for maintaining the road? For maintaining the restrooms?

JamesBarney 8y ago
He bought a business in the state of California which has the California Coastal Act which regulates "activities broadly defined by the Coastal Act to include (among others) construction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the intensity of use of land or public access to coastal waters". And closing the private road and parking lot definitely do this.
- vl 8y ago
  I.e. your position is that state should be able to compel individual to run unwanted business?
  - URSpider94 8y ago
    He doesn’t have to run a business. He can let people park for free, or he can ban all parking and only open the road for drop-offs and walk-ins, and tow any cars that park there. What he can not do, is block the right-of-way providing access to the coastline.
  - hirsin 8y ago
    Forced to maintain a road that was included in the easement he agreed to upon purchasing it, yes.
  - arrosenberg 8y ago
    No, but the individual should not be able to block access because he doesn't want to run the business either. In California, the public has full access rights to the beaches. The individual has no right to deny the public access under State law.
  - JamesBarney 8y ago
    Sure my argument is * He bought the business with full knowledge of what his obligations were under Californian law. * There is a huge difference between compelling an individual to run a business, and compelling him to not restrict access to the public. * This lawsuit was not because he stopped maintaining the road, or the bathrooms, but because he closed a road that allowed people access to the beach. * Government compels people to do all sorts of things, and not closing off public access to a beach after you paid $32 million for a private beach house seems like one of the least onerous.
  - 394549 8y ago
    > I.e. your position is that state should be able to compel individual to run unwanted business? I'm sure the state would be fine if he just opened access to the beach to everyone for free. No need to operate any business. This question about being "compel[led] to run unwanted business" is just a smokescreen to obscure a campaign to deny the public its rights.
  - sangnoir 8y ago
    Here's a simple test for you to apply: what if Verizon decided it wants out of the 911 'business'? Certain resources (like spectrum, or the beach) belong to the people, in exchange of using those public resources, individuals often make some concessions on how they run their business.
    - vl 8y ago
      But you can't compel Verizon to support 911 if they decide to get out of wireless communications business in the first place.

by vl 8y ago

JamesBarney 8y ago

He bought a business in the state of California which has the California Coastal Act which regulates "activities broadly defined by the Coastal Act to include (among others) construction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the intensity of use of land or public access to coastal waters". And closing the private road and parking lot definitely do this.

vl 8y ago
I.e. your position is that state should be able to compel individual to run unwanted business?
- URSpider94 8y ago
  He doesn’t have to run a business. He can let people park for free, or he can ban all parking and only open the road for drop-offs and walk-ins, and tow any cars that park there. What he can not do, is block the right-of-way providing access to the coastline.
- hirsin 8y ago
  Forced to maintain a road that was included in the easement he agreed to upon purchasing it, yes.
- arrosenberg 8y ago
  No, but the individual should not be able to block access because he doesn't want to run the business either. In California, the public has full access rights to the beaches. The individual has no right to deny the public access under State law.
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  Sure my argument is * He bought the business with full knowledge of what his obligations were under Californian law. * There is a huge difference between compelling an individual to run a business, and compelling him to not restrict access to the public. * This lawsuit was not because he stopped maintaining the road, or the bathrooms, but because he closed a road that allowed people access to the beach. * Government compels people to do all sorts of things, and not closing off public access to a beach after you paid $32 million for a private beach house seems like one of the least onerous.
- 394549 8y ago
  > I.e. your position is that state should be able to compel individual to run unwanted business? I'm sure the state would be fine if he just opened access to the beach to everyone for free. No need to operate any business. This question about being "compel[led] to run unwanted business" is just a smokescreen to obscure a campaign to deny the public its rights.
- sangnoir 8y ago
  Here's a simple test for you to apply: what if Verizon decided it wants out of the 911 'business'? Certain resources (like spectrum, or the beach) belong to the people, in exchange of using those public resources, individuals often make some concessions on how they run their business.
  - vl 8y ago
    But you can't compel Verizon to support 911 if they decide to get out of wireless communications business in the first place.