 The Coastal Commission had asserted that the public easement condition was imposed to promote the legitimate state interest of diminishing the "blockage of the view of the ocean" caused by construction of the larger house.The Nollans, represented by Pacific Legal Foundation (a property rights advocacy legal foundation), responded that any blockage of the view didn't justify the condition because the public view wouldn't be helped by the easement.The Court observed that requiring a dedication of private property in exchange for a building permit was "an out-and-out plan of extortion" unless it could be shown that the private development imposed a burden on public facilities or resources, and the dedication would mitigate such impact.