3 ms·
1) Sure, there's no abstract right to access the beach, but there's still a right, rooted in the fact that the access already existed, and he can't change it wi
by icebraining 8y ago
1) Sure, there's no abstract right to access the beach, but there's still a right, rooted in the fact that the access already existed, and he can't change it willy-nilly
2) The definition of "development" in the law in question includes “change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto”, which seems precisely what he did. The fact that this doesn't sound like the common definition of the word is irrelevant.
4) The court still ruled against him on the question at hand - whether he can simply close access as he wishes. The "not ripe" decision is about a different (if related) question.