I think you missed this part:
"Public access to Martins Beach, and to all land seaward of the mean high tide line in California, is guaranteed in the state’s constitution and mandated within the Coastal Act of 1976."
"Public access to Martins Beach, and to all land seaward of the mean high tide line in California, is guaranteed in the state’s constitution and mandated within the Coastal Act of 1976."
Or is there a difference?
What could go wrong if some poor kids will never get to see the beach? It makes it even more of an incentive to work hard, am I right? /sarcasm
The truth is that the bigger the disparities between rich and poor the more violent the environment gets. So, let those poor kids access to the beach and you'll be able to enjoy your wealth.
Also, read my comments. If anything, my proposed idea would reduce the number of de-facto private beaches and increase wealth transfer to the less fortunate.
If what is lawful differs from what is most conducive to human flourishing, it is the law that should be changed.
If we're talking about laws being conducive to human flourishing, then the law is perfect as is, and in fact, should have even more teeth to make it easier to enforce.
The current law is designed for the exact purpose of human flourishing. Specifically, the flourishing of ALL the citizens of California and visitors thereto.
The law, as is, prioritizes the flourishing of millions of people over the flourishing of a very few extremely wealthy individuals.
This is a textbook example of a good law.