2 ms·
The judge had to twist the law to get the decision everyone wanted. She said closing the gate was "development" and therefore needed a permit which he didn't ge
by NoPiece 12y ago
The judge had to twist the law to get the decision everyone wanted. She said closing the gate was "development" and therefore needed a permit which he didn't get. That's already quite a stretch, it would have been capricious to tack on a fine.
- eksith 12y agoYou're referring to : Mallach agreed with Surfrider that closing the gate amounted to “a change in intensity of use,” That change, she said, could be considered development under the law. As a result, she said in her ruling, Khosla must apply for a coastal development permit if he wants to close the gate or make other changes to the property. Removing public access means he intends to use the land privately. While what constitutes "use" is debatable, these are moot points considering the laws passed in 1972 and 1976: prohibit homes or developments from blocking access to beaches. They essentially make the entire coast, including all beach property below the mean high tide line, public property.
- bradly 12y ago> Removing public access means he intends to use the land privately The argument was that he wasn't removing public access; he contends public access never existed: "the Deeney family, which set up the first cabin in 1918, had always charged people to access the beach, a clear indication that it was a private beach prior to 1972"
- NoPiece 12y agoAs I understand it, this ruling hinged on the former, not the latter. I think a fine would have been unreasonable - this a disagreement over technicalities in the law. On the other hand, what guys like David Geffen are doing in Malibu is blatant knowing disregard for the law, and fines would be completely appropriate in cases like that.