Yeah, it also required 24/7 access 365 days a year. Which was above and beyond what everyone else had provided in the past.

It also noted that, at the time, the area's use had declined significantly due to smelt fishing decline which is why the previous owner sold it.

So, when the dispute occurred, he'd been providing the same access as ever when a mandate came out of the blue saying he had to provide a significantly higher level of access than was historically required and whatever extra costs that might incur on a beach that was largely unused at the time overall and during the periods of closer in particular.

So he was like "wtf, why?" in a very legal sense (the only sense that would work in legal disputes). And _only_ after the case went viral as some kind of down with the 1%'rs! rally cry did people actually start bothering to go visit the site...to make a point.

I'm sure the novelty will wear off and then they'll be some property manager that has to sit up there through the night and winter for....nobody.