Billionaire baseball team owner donates entire BEACH to the public after fiery accusation he stole sand to bulk out his gorgeous waterfront mansion
Milwaukee Brewers owner Mark Attanasio has agreed to donate a $2 million oceanfront parcel of land to the California Coastal Commission for public use, resolving a dispute after he was accused of illegally taking sand from a public beach near his Malibu home. The commission's investigation found that in 2024 Attanasio's construction team used excavators to remove sand from Broad Beach and transport it to his $35 million property, damaging sensitive habitats such as starfish and restricting public beach access, in an apparent breach of the California Coastal Act.
Rather than paying a fine, Attanasio is handing over a separate parcel he is currently buying at Big Rock Beach, roughly 14 miles from Broad Beach, which spans over 5,000 square feet with 70 feet of beach frontage; a building once on the site was destroyed in the Palisades Fire. Coastal Commission enforcement chief Lisa Haage welcomed the arrangement as preferable to settlement money, noting it is rare for the commission to receive a whole parcel for public use, while Attanasio, worth close to $2 billion, has also agreed to restore the sand and habitat at Broad Beach. His lawyer declined to comment further until the land sale is finalised.
- Brewers owner Attanasio donates $2m Malibu-area beach parcel to public
- Move follows accusations he took sand for his own mansion
- He'll also restore Broad Beach habitat damaged by the excavation
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of this outcome argue that a donated oceanfront parcel delivers a far greater and more lasting public benefit than any fine the Coastal Commission could have levied, permanently expanding public beach access rather than simply adding to a government fund. They point to the added habitat restoration commitment at Broad Beach as addressing the actual environmental harm directly, and see this kind of tailored, restorative remedy as a pragmatic model for enforcement that produces tangible results rather than punitive symbolism.
The case against
Critics argue that allowing a billionaire to resolve serious allegations of environmental damage and unlawful restriction of public beach access by handing over land he can easily afford, rather than facing meaningful fines or prosecution, risks creating a perception that wealth can buy one's way out of accountability. They contend that the Coastal Act exists to deter exactly this kind of encroachment on public trust resources, and worry that a lenient, negotiated settlement sends a signal that well-resourced property owners face softer consequences than ordinary citizens would for comparable violations.