What I'd really like to see in cases like this is the state playing hardball with entitled billionaires.
Why not use eminent domain to build a state road to the beach? I mean this will face a court battle too I'm sure but for a slice of land for a road you're not talking that much money (the property owner needs to be compensated by the Fifth Amendment) and building a few miles of road (I honestly don't know how much) also isn't that expensive.
I mean we're talking lawyer fees kind of money here right? Having a state road once and for all solve this issue, no?
I'm generally against governments simply placing the burden for public services onto private individuals. This is the real problem with things like rent control. If the government feels lower rents for certain individuals is a public good then why does the burden for this fall on the property owner instead of the state?
So one could argue the state should provide public access to something that is currently only accessible over private land, right?
California, build a road.
While we're at it, I've read about this story before but had missed the detail that there was a parking lot, a store and toilets at the site built and maintained by the prior owner.
How exactly is this not dedicating the road to public access? What tortured legal argument swindled the court here?
Why not use eminent domain to build a state road to the beach? I mean this will face a court battle too I'm sure but for a slice of land for a road you're not talking that much money (the property owner needs to be compensated by the Fifth Amendment) and building a few miles of road (I honestly don't know how much) also isn't that expensive.
I mean we're talking lawyer fees kind of money here right? Having a state road once and for all solve this issue, no?
I'm generally against governments simply placing the burden for public services onto private individuals. This is the real problem with things like rent control. If the government feels lower rents for certain individuals is a public good then why does the burden for this fall on the property owner instead of the state?
So one could argue the state should provide public access to something that is currently only accessible over private land, right?
California, build a road.
While we're at it, I've read about this story before but had missed the detail that there was a parking lot, a store and toilets at the site built and maintained by the prior owner.
How exactly is this not dedicating the road to public access? What tortured legal argument swindled the court here?