I genuinely don't see how he is being "an asshole". I guess literally everyone who owns land in US would want to protect it. If people wanted to have public access to your own garden, would you consider yourself "an asshole" for denying them that? It just so happens that his land is a beach - so maybe the problem is that someone sold him that beach in the first place? In many countries you literally can't buy beaches, no matter how much money you have.
> I genuinely don't see how he is being "an asshole".
He bought land subject to (and whose market value is depressed by its being subject to, though it may not seem to be because of the countervailing factors driving up the price of California beachfront property) a law that is well known and has been on the books for decades, but then, having benefited from the law in the purchase of the property, flouts it.
That's being an asshole.
> If people wanted to have public access to your own garden, would you consider yourself "an asshole" for denying them that?
If I bought land in a place which had well-known laws requiring property owners to provide access to gardens on their property, where the burden of such laws were priced into the market price of garden-containing properties, yes, I would be an asshole and scofflaw to purchase the property and then proceed to deny access to the garden.
> It just so happens that his land is a beach - so maybe the problem is that someone sold him that beach in the first place?
Unless the seller misrepresented the material facts or actively concealed the applicability of the pre-existing law to the property, no, that's not the problem.
Correct me if I am wrong, but from my understanding, he does not own the beach itself, but only the road allowing to access it. It is a bit different. It sounds more like a right of way issue.
I guess Vinod's property is the big one on the main road and he also owns the other houses/cabins on Martin's beach road.
