[ad_1]
"Whether you have to drive an hour on the coast and have a picnic or spend $ 32 million and buy a property adjacent to the coast, the beach belongs to everyone," said Eric Buescher, a lawyer working on the property. Surfrider Foundation case. "The Coastal Law survives the whims of a billionaire and continues to protect the people of California."
If the Supreme Court had heard the case and ultimately ruled in favor of Khosla, the decision could have not only changed the laws that govern 1,100 miles of California's shores, but also affected the area. Public access to the beaches, lakes and waterways of 22 states, according to the Surfrider Foundation.
"This case reaffirms that you can not take a unilateral decision to close a beach that has left memories to generations of families," said Lisa Haage, chief of law enforcement at the California Coastal Commission, in a statement.
For Mr. Khosla, this means that the state requires him to keep open his business that loses money. The beach, he explained, is no longer as popular as before and billing parking no longer covers the cost of an attendant and the maintenance of public facilities. .
"No private business owner should be required to obtain a government permit before deciding who he wishes to invite on his property," said Khosla's lawyer, Dori Yob Kilmer, in a statement. "No business owner should be required to obtain government permission to close a private business, to change its prices from those of 1972 (as requested by the government). State) or change its opening hours. "
The action of the Supreme Court on Monday puts an end to this particular saga that has captivated Silicon Valley.
Well, that can end. Mr. Khosla, who asked Ms. Kilmer questions, must now apply for this permit to close the road to Martin's Beach.
"If the application is denied," Ms. Kilmer said, "we will start this process again."
Source link
