Replies

Right, and it doesn’t apply retroactively. Read the part you bolded - development or new development. It doesn’t apply to existing property - see Malibu in SoCal. So what the judge did, is say the act of closing an existing gate is now “development”’so the law applies. That is blatant judicial activism, a perversion of the law, and an assault on private property.

The judge's order was not activist, because the law itself is activist, but not unconstitutional. Further it was passed by voter initiative, then armored by the legislature and governor with the California Coastal Act, which insulates it from judicial and legislative tinkering unless it is outright unconstitutional.

Given the state of the law, property owners rights are severely limited and only the most careful planning and use can allow the coastal property owner to maintain a fee interest in the property free of easements and other encumbrances.

And that is the legal opinion that backs the judge.

Finally, the initiative has never been successfully challenged in court, so the entire law can be used to justify the judge.

I wish it were not so, but the law, and San Mateo County code is designed to make the smallest change a permit requiring development.

So what the judge did, is say the act of closing an existing gate is now “development”’so the law applies. That is blatant judicial activism, a perversion of the law, and an assault on private property.

I agree 100% MrShoop.