[eadmund]

> now he relishes the opportunity to crush his opponent (average people).

It seems to me that he's the underdog here: his opponents not only also have the resources to drag this fight on for a decade, they also have the state legislature and the governor on their side. At this point, the state is prepared to use armed force (which is what eminent domain ultimately is) to take his property, and if he tries to physically resist its agents will use violence to subdue him. Ignoring the accountable government, it's remarkable that an unaccountable non-profit has the resources to fight one of the richest men in the world for years, and it's sobering to think of how little chance you or I would have if a similar nonprofit attacked us.

I have no idea if he's legally in the right or wrong, although given that the state has had to change the law, it sounds like he was originally in the right. And I wonder at what point laws aimed at a single person's situation become too akin to bills of attainder to pass constitutional muster.

[icebraining]

The state doesn't have to change the law. The lawsuits which he lost were based on the existing law.

As for violence, the only ones who were manhandled by the state have been surfers, not Khosla.