[eplanit]

It seems Mr. and Mrs. Parker should have purchased their own coastal land for their fanciful wedding. Surely they could afford to do so. They could have probably avoided public scrutiny. However, I think the author's indignation and clear bias are a little over-the-top -- I think he even came close to using the all-powerful "middle class" hammer we've been beaten over the head with so much in the last year or two: "Basically, what was supposed to be a facility that people of all incomes -- including the general public -- could visit had become a high-end resort...". Sigh. It's worth noting also the CCC is notorious for their zeal in enforcement. Ask anybody who owns property along the California coast, and you will hear story after story of severe enforcement. Most any project is deemed to have significant impact; consequently, only those with deep pockets can afford to obtain the costly permits. To Mr. Madrigal, though, this is "...also part of the new Silicon Valley parable".

[anigbrowl]

But it's the law in California that you can't cut off public access to the coastline or alter it willy-nilly, and has been for a long time. If you want a private bit of coastline you can look in an adjoining state or on one of the other coasts. Now it's true that most people don't find other coastlines around the US as nice as that of California's but that's why it's rigorously conserved as a public resource.

I do think it's up to Mr Parker how he spends his money and while I think $10m for a wedding seems a bit daft to me that's partly because I don't have $1 billion in the bank; at least he's spreading it around, and I respect him for just paying the fines instead of litigating the matter or attempting to evade it via an offshore business address (although in a case like this, it would be relatively easy to 'pierce the corporate veil' and litigate against the individual whom the corporation exists to benefit).

On the other hand, just because you're very wealthy doesn't give you an automatic right of purchase to things that have been designated as 'not for sale.' You're arguing for a private right of eminent domain - because an individual has the money and the willingness to spend it, should that confer the right to purchase something others (individually or collectively) do not wish to sell? I don't think so.

[owenjones]

| But it's the law in California that you can't cut off public access to the coastline or alter it willy-nilly, and has been for a long time.

Really? What a great law!

[anigbrowl]

Obviously it's a little more complex than my one-sentence summary, but basically, yeah. I do think it's a great thing.

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/accndx.html

[nicw]

Kinda. All coastlines are public-access, but if you own the property up to the coast (say, a cabin on a river), you do not have to grant access across your property. So, you could walk down the river and hang out in front of this cabin, but you can't trespass across private property.

[anigbrowl]

Correct, but if there's a pre-existing easement (right of way) you can't buy the property and then close it off. I mention it in this context because of the agreement the inn had signed to make its parking area available to campers and hikers, which it appears to have reneged on.

[potatolicious]

Except in this case the availability of this space to the middle class was supposed to be explicitly guaranteed via an agreement with the Inn. In exchange for being allowed to expand they were to maintain the campsite and parking lot for public use.

So this isn't an idle "the rich own too much!" complaint followed by populist grandstanding, this appears to be a literal violation of an explicit contract.