And that, if he then continues to refuse, he be jailed for contempt of court.
In my own little childhood hometown, I've watched public beach access (to a lake) become more and more locked up behind fees and limited hours of access and upscaling property values and home ownership that wants to keep things quiet and for themselves.
The quiet part, I appreciate. The "keep out" part, not so much.
The childhood memories I have of times spent there, are simply no longer possible. It's all on lockdown. Something lost in that -- something significant, in my opinion.
[1] http://beaches.lacounty.gov/zonker-harris-accessway-closed-f...
A year after the case was filed, however, a San Mateo County Superior Court judge dealt Friends of Martin’s Beach a setback, ruling there was no right of access. He said the property was subject to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, an agreement that ended the Mexican-American War and required the United States to recognize Mexican land grants.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-martins-beach-sn...
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sdut-...
> In 2014 the Legislature and Governor Brown gave the California Coastal Commission the authority to fine property owners who intentionally block public access to the coast. That authority was included in the 2015-2016 state budget, based on legislation I had written in 2013 to achieve the same goal.
The California Costal Commission website - https://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/prc-access.html
And then from there to https://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/pr-access-facts.pdf
> The California Coastal Act, Public Resources Code Section 30211, states:
> 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.
What a jerk.
From what I understand, you could use a boat, show up at the beach, party and leave with boat and you are within legal use.
If people truly care about this issue, they can organize public campaigns against those companies as a message to founders to avoid his money or face consequences. He may laugh off fines the court imposes, but this being a stain on his professional reputation would be more damaging.
But it would be hard to pull off. There are some HN favorites in there. How many people here are willing to avoid Stripe or Gitlab over beach access? He's betting that it's not many.
Society has relatively little to gain from letting the super rich buy up fundamentally scarce bits of land like this. Meanwhile making it public access means way more people can appreciate the beach. Not like this VC is on the beach most of the time anyways.
Alas, he can't in either case, because we the people have created limiting the unchecked exercise of power.
In my case, I was being sarcastic... yet it's nearly true. His mega-wealth let him buy the oceanside estate to begin with, and then his mega-wealth lets him ignore fines. The laws against this abuse are (as evidence here) quite weak.
(Why doesn't California declare its coastline public property that is not-for-sale?)
edit: Just found out the answer. Beaches themselves are never for sale, even though properties right up to the edge of the beach are. Next question: Are all river banks public property too? Can you not build a manufacturing plant at a river bank? What about lakes? Are lakes public property?
You'd truly be pretty dense if you wanted to build a permenant structure below the high water mark.
I prefer the Scandinavian approach: Non built up land can be freely accessed by anyone regardless of owner in most cases, and the coast is by default protected against people building down to it in Norway at least. Dispensations do get given, but if you block access without applying for planning consent, it will be struck down.
The basis is simple: Restricting access to a scarce resource like the land is equivalent to taking away or liberty. This is a right we've had since time immemorial - in Sweden it's a constitutional right. In Norway it was not codified into law until the 60's as it used to be seen as so self-evident that it wasn't necessary.
There is no justice in mob justice.
you can't have it both ways. The other side refused to accept the form of the justice of the civilized society, ie. the court of law justice. Do you have any other form of justice in mind, other than the two already mentioned - the court of law and the mob ones? Please do tell if you do.