undefined | Better HN

0 pointsggchappell12y ago0 comments

I don't see why the reasoning didn't go like the following.

California law requires the property owner to give up rights. The eminent-domain laws require the state to compensate property owners when forcing them to give up rights.

Conclusion: The property owner must allow beach access to the public, and the state must pay the property owner for allowing this.

EDIT: The comment by gojomo would seem to explain this.

0 comments

ChuckMcM12y ago

Yup, the question is whether or not the treaty trumps California law otherwise it would have worked exactly that way.

I like the idea of working out a 'patch' to the treaty, although I don't think I've heard of that ever happening in practice, new treaties yes, but patching an old one not so much.

ballard12y ago

Adverse possession may be used to force an easement on the grounds that the access road was itself de-facto public. If not an easement maybe forced in any case.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse