3 ms·

If the government REALLY wanted to give public access to the beach, they could have negotiated a footpath across this guy's property and build a parking nearby.

sidlls 8y ago
The government doesn't have to negotiate for anything: the law is that access must be provided. The law doesn't specify anything about amenities, just access.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  Really? And where would be the road, and how wide? No compensation? Access 24/7? Who builds, maintains the road? If a person dies there or a car is stolen who is responsible etc etc... It's not as simple, that is HIS property.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    The law has existed since the '70s, I'm pretty sure these issues have been settled before. "Access 24/7?" in particular is one of the point in the discussion: the law says he can change the hours, but must get a permit, which he refuses to do.
  - sidlls 8y ago
    Access doesn't mean a road is required. He simply cannot prevent people from accessing the beach, whether by foot, bicycle or other means typically employed. If Vinod supplies a road he'd be responsible for maintenance. The other questions are handled already: he'd do the same thing as if someone died in his house or a car was stolen from his driveway. Any member of the public who observes crimes like this can also report them
    - onetimemanytime 8y ago
      >>Access doesn't mean a road is required. He simply cannot prevent people from accessing the beach, whether by foot, bicycle or other means typically employed. So you can use all his property to access the beach, including unnecessarily zig-zags and passing right by his front door, 100 (or whatever) feet away from the beach? Why not require him to give people 80% of the rooms in his house too? If people have to use his property it has to be done with a delicate balance between public and PRIVATE property rights. That's what courts are for. Judging by some of the comments here, I'm kinda glad he sued.
      - sidlls 8y ago
        The law is not a dumb computer that executes code. It doesn't have to specify the means and constraints on access to the level of detail you are arguing for, nor should it be required to: the law when written could not account for all possible scenarios and it is not rational to have that expectation.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> they could have negotiated a footpath If they really wanted a footpath, and pre-existing law didn't already mandate maintaining access, they would take it (either in fee simple, or just an easement) by eminent domain.

sidlls 8y ago

The government doesn't have to negotiate for anything: the law is that access must be provided. The law doesn't specify anything about amenities, just access.

onetimemanytime 8y ago
Really? And where would be the road, and how wide? No compensation? Access 24/7? Who builds, maintains the road? If a person dies there or a car is stolen who is responsible etc etc... It's not as simple, that is HIS property.
- icebraining 8y ago
  The law has existed since the '70s, I'm pretty sure these issues have been settled before. "Access 24/7?" in particular is one of the point in the discussion: the law says he can change the hours, but must get a permit, which he refuses to do.
- sidlls 8y ago
  Access doesn't mean a road is required. He simply cannot prevent people from accessing the beach, whether by foot, bicycle or other means typically employed. If Vinod supplies a road he'd be responsible for maintenance. The other questions are handled already: he'd do the same thing as if someone died in his house or a car was stolen from his driveway. Any member of the public who observes crimes like this can also report them
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    >>Access doesn't mean a road is required. He simply cannot prevent people from accessing the beach, whether by foot, bicycle or other means typically employed. So you can use all his property to access the beach, including unnecessarily zig-zags and passing right by his front door, 100 (or whatever) feet away from the beach? Why not require him to give people 80% of the rooms in his house too? If people have to use his property it has to be done with a delicate balance between public and PRIVATE property rights. That's what courts are for. Judging by some of the comments here, I'm kinda glad he sued.
    - sidlls 8y ago
      The law is not a dumb computer that executes code. It doesn't have to specify the means and constraints on access to the level of detail you are arguing for, nor should it be required to: the law when written could not account for all possible scenarios and it is not rational to have that expectation.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> they could have negotiated a footpath If they really wanted a footpath, and pre-existing law didn't already mandate maintaining access, they would take it (either in fee simple, or just an easement) by eminent domain.