But he is playing by the rules, the courts agreed with him.
At any rate, nothing pisses me off more than some petty bureaucrat who uses his limited power to bully someone for an entirely different reason.
If you don't like that fact he is refusing beach access, then petition the gov't to change the rules. Don't start abusing your power. What's next? They'll "accidentally" disconnect his municipal water?
Except it seems that the rules, in the form of the CA Constitution, already say that no one can prevent right of way if that is needed to be able to access the water. So in that sense, the "petty bureaucrats" are, in fact, working to uphold the State Constitution.
Other courts (higher than the Coastal Commission) have already determined ownership of that particular piece of land, specifically, is exempt from that.
So does this only extend to denying people the right to access the water, or does he also not have to abide by things like electrical and earthquake building codes, since those were surely not in place when this treaty was established? In fact, why does he need building permits at all, if the State of California has no jurisdiction over this piece of land?
I don't know. You'd need to ask the Supreme Court about that. But I don't think that they ruled that the land was exempt from all California building codes and such.
At any rate, nothing pisses me off more than some petty bureaucrat who uses his limited power to bully someone for an entirely different reason.
If you don't like that fact he is refusing beach access, then petition the gov't to change the rules. Don't start abusing your power. What's next? They'll "accidentally" disconnect his municipal water?