|
|
|
|
|
by anigbrowl
4767 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
Really? What a great law!