Let's put it this way, the question could be turned around, would you have no public property? Would it be satisfactory to have no public parks, monuments, mus

Let's put it this way, the question could be turned around, would you have no public property? Would it be satisfactory to have no public parks, monuments, museums, even streets, or other amenities? Of course not. Cities, states, regions need to preserve public spaces for the public good. The beach is a rare and precious natural asset that can't be duplicated, so logically ought to be open to the public. Once you've seen the Pacific Ocean from most anywhere in the Upper Left Coast you'll know it's beautiful and inspiring. Furthermore, it's an important recreational resource and since ancient times a source of food for many people and remains so to this day. Despite having many differing political points of view in our state, AFAIK no one has ever suggested closing off beach access to the public. If such ideas were broached at the state level, I expect it would set off quite a loud and negative reaction.