4 ms·
It's perfectly valid for you to argue in defense of that right, even that it trumps property rights if that's what you believe. What's not okay is to say that t
by homonculus1 7y ago
It's perfectly valid for you to argue in defense of that right, even that it trumps property rights if that's what you believe. What's not okay is to say that the people siding with the issue's other concerns are dumb greedy idiots who shoot themselves in the foot because they can't understand sharing.
- strbean 7y agoEvery person in the United States has had the right to access any beach in California for almost 50 years. To act like this case represents an "erosion of property rights" is disingenuous. Next we'll be talking about "eroding the rights of people to buy the ocean".
- WillPostForFood 7y agoNot exactly. There is a right to be on the beach up to the mean high tide line, (except government owned/controlled beaches), but there is no guarantee of access, which is the issue here, and in places like Malibu colony.
- strbean 7y agoThere is a guarantee of access. See [PRC Division 20 Ch3](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=20.&title=&part=&chapter=3.&article=2. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...) Particularly: > Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. This is an access point that has been used by the public for decades.