{"id":250,"date":"2019-05-15T19:29:00","date_gmt":"2019-05-15T19:29:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/?p=250"},"modified":"2023-12-15T21:57:26","modified_gmt":"2023-12-15T21:57:26","slug":"california-beachfront-owner-temporarily-denied-power-to-place-a-gate-limiting-public-access-to-the-beach","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2019\/05\/15\/california-beachfront-owner-temporarily-denied-power-to-place-a-gate-limiting-public-access-to-the-beach\/","title":{"rendered":"California beachfront owner temporarily denied power to place a gate limiting public access to the beach"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong>The Supreme denied certiorari from a California court that interpreted California statutes to ensure public access to the beach and that prohibited a beachfront owner from installing a gate to prevent such public access.\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/cases.justia.com\/california\/court-of-appeal\/2017-a144268.pdf?ts=1502389862\">Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC,<\/a>221 Cal.Rptr.3d 382 (Ct. App. 2017). The court did not rule on the owner&#8217;s claim that the state law requiring him to allow access across his property effected a taking of property without just compensation. It found the regulation to be temporary since state law merely required the owner to seek a permit before closing access to the beach when permissive access had previously been given. It did not consider the order to allow access to constitute a temporary taking since it preserved the status quo before the owner&#8217;s action (installation of the gate) that triggered the state permitting requirement.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n<div class=\"taxonomy-category wp-block-post-terms\"><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/easements\/\" rel=\"tag\">Easements<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/real-estate-transactions\/\" rel=\"tag\">Real Estate Transactions<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/takings\/\" rel=\"tag\">Takings<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/trespass\/\" rel=\"tag\">Trespass<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme denied certiorari from a California court that interpreted California statutes to ensure public access to the beach and that prohibited a beachfront owner from installing a gate to prevent such public access.\u00a0Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC,221 Cal.Rptr.3d 382 (Ct. App. 2017). The court did not rule on the owner&#8217;s claim that the state law requiring him to allow access across his property effected a taking of property without just compensation. It found the regulation to be temporary since state law merely required the owner to seek a permit before closing access to the beach when permissive access had previously been given. It did not consider the order to allow access to constitute a temporary taking since it preserved the status quo before the owner&#8217;s action (installation of the gate) that triggered the state permitting requirement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[29,10,36,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-250","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-easements","category-real-estate-transactions","category-takings","category-trespass"],"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"jsinger","author_link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/author\/jsinger\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=250"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}