[HN Gopher] California Sues Vinod Khosla over Martins Beach Publ...
___________________________________________________________________
California Sues Vinod Khosla over Martins Beach Public Access
Author : ilamont
Score : 156 points
Date : 2020-01-06 21:07 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.latimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.latimes.com)
| ripvanwinkle wrote:
| I found this provided an interesting window into Vinod Khosla's
| style. He didn't exactly answer the question asked
| https://youtu.be/HZcXup7p5-8?t=2618
| unapologetic wrote:
| The public should tear down his signs and simply refuse to
| acknowledge any ownership on his part.
|
| If he complains, take everything else he has.
| rcpt wrote:
| Sounds great.
|
| Now let's get some real gems like Hollister Ranch and Vickers Hot
| Springs opened up again.
| bazzert wrote:
| Its even worse in the north east. In Mass. and Maine property
| owners can (due to an old colonial era law) own property to the
| _low_ tide line and deny access not only to the access, but to
| the beach itself.
| markdown wrote:
| Are you sure it's colonial era law? Elsewhere in the world
| colonial era law ensured public access up to the high tide
| line.
| bazzert wrote:
| Exactly, in fact in the British Isles even the land above the
| high tide line (I forget the exact extent) is public. In New
| England they wanted to encourage the development of docks (to
| promote more commerce) and extended ownership to include the
| land on which docks would be built.
| bazzert wrote:
| Its discussed in this article.
| http://www.islandinstitute.org/working-
| waterfront/%E2%80%8Bp...
|
| "1647 Colonial Ordinance enacted by the Massachusetts Bay
| Colony ceded title to all intertidal land in what would
| become the state of Massachusetts to upland owners to
| encourage "wharfing out" (marine commerce)."
| bazzert wrote:
| This is a pretty good roundup of the topic.
| http://stage.mvmagazine.com/news/2007/07/01/private-beaches
| RobertRoberts wrote:
| I don't live near here, can someone explain this? ( The link
| should open in Google maps with satellite view.)
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martin's+Beach/@37.3746238...
|
| What I see is a bunch of houses on the beach.
|
| How is this in issue with one person and not all those home
| owners?
|
| Edit: Even the reviews talk about how you can just walk to the
| beach without paying for parking. I don't get the problem? Is
| this a California beach-perspective thing? As far as I know all
| water front property in the US is public up to a certain distance
| from the water already.
| choppaface wrote:
| There is a gate you can see in Street View. The contention
| started when Khosla started locking the gate and had security
| arrest surfers who jumped it.
|
| Edit: here's a timeline:
| https://www.surfrider.org/pages/timeline-open-martins-beach
| mindslight wrote:
| If this is a public right of way, then doesn't it take just a
| single surfer to come along and _improve the right of way_ by
| clearing obstructions? A cordless sawzall is like $100, and
| bolt cutters are much less.
|
| They'd likely end up receiving a SLAPP by Khosla, but surely
| there would be some judgement-proof surfer willing to
| shoulder the long tail risk, and plenty of people willing to
| pay for the legal defense.
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| Some surfers did that and then were arrested and put in
| jail by Khosla.
|
| Those people willing to pay legal defense are called the
| Surf Riders Association and they're the people that keep
| suing Khosla to open up the beach.
|
| It's been quite an ordeal.
| option wrote:
| Based on CA's constitution beaches (low to high tides) are
| public property.
|
| If you land lock a beach, in practice (like in the example
| above) there is an access route used by public which you are
| NOT entitled to close.
| RobertRoberts wrote:
| But this is where I am confused, if you read a bunch of the
| Google Map reviews on this beach you can just walk to it from
| the road. What was blocked?
|
| Street-view and Google maps shows a road, but it goes to a
| bunch of houses. Did the rich guy buy all those houses?
| [deleted]
| xeromal wrote:
| The parking and road existed as public access before Vinod
| bought the house. The argument is where something that was
| public before can be made private without prior approval.
|
| Public != Free
| RobertRoberts wrote:
| So in theory, he could make another access road further
| down and leave that one open?
|
| Still doesn't explain all the houses and cars directly on
| the beach. Does he own all those houses too?
| markdown wrote:
| > So in theory, he could make another access road further
| down and leave that one open?
|
| I'm not sure about the law in the US and California, but
| in some jurisdictions you can't just move an easement.
| There was an easement running through his property from
| the road to a specific point on the beach. He can't just
| move the ending point of the easement to a different spot
| on the beach.
| Pyxl101 wrote:
| The previous owner of the property erected a gate along
| their private road, posted "no tresspassing signs",
| charged for access, and opened/closed the gate at their
| discretion (leaving it closed for months during winter).
| I don't have a horse in this race, but that doesn't sound
| like public access any more than an amusement park is
| public access.
|
| Yes, it's my understanding that Khosla owns the entire
| compound and all of the houses. It's one property and was
| operated as a business by the former owners, the Deeney
| family.
|
| The previous court case that (SCOTUS declined to hear)
| was really about whether Khosla needs to apply for a
| permit for his development work that changes public
| access to his property. SCOTUS declining to hear the case
| essentially means that Khosla needs to apply for the
| permit for these changes -- the implication is that until
| this happens, the case is not actually ripe for review.
| If he's unable to obtain the permit, then Khosla may be
| able to pursue his argument that the state's mandated
| public access is an unconstitutional "taking" of private
| property. (IANAL)
| option wrote:
| he placed the gates and guards. The state has fined him for
| doing so and ordered to restore access. But since he is
| rich and the fine is small - he did not comply and was just
| paying the fine and keeps fighting in courts
| RobertRoberts wrote:
| Looking at the map, I see what looks like one decent road
| to the beach.
|
| Couldn't the state just come in and make their own road?
| Where I live access roads are common on private property,
| but the are on the borders of the property between
| private owners.
|
| Is he just that petty that he truly doesn't want others
| to have access to the beach? Or is it more complicated
| than that?
| blackhaz wrote:
| It looks like this person is an asshole.
| eitally wrote:
| You can make a _long_ walk to the beach from Rt1 if you park
| roadside at the top. If you don 't want to do that, you can pay
| $10-20 for private parking in a small lot about halfway down to
| the beach. The parking lot only holds perhaps 15-20 vehicles,
| so capacity at the beach is already tightly constrained.
| RobertRoberts wrote:
| I read some articles on this, but something still isn't
| clear. Is he being sued to keep a parking lot open?
|
| I can understand blocking access to the beach being illegal,
| but being forced to run a private enterprise seems odd...
| cortesoft wrote:
| He locked the gate at the entrance. He doesn't have to
| allow parking, but he has to allow people to get to the
| beach somehow.
|
| His argument seems to be that he HAS to maintain the beach
| and parking lot, which he doesn't want to do because it
| loses money.. but I am not sure where that idea comes from.
| He could just close the parking lot and leave the road
| open. I am not sure about the liability concerns.
| markdown wrote:
| > I am not sure about the liability concerns.
|
| There shouldn't be any liability concerns related to the
| use of a public easement.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| He's rich. Someone will find an excuse to sue him, public
| easement or not. (Not saying they'll win, but they will
| sue.)
|
| I actually not on Khosla's side of this issue, but in the
| current lawsuit-as-lottery-ticket climate, liability
| concerns are in fact a reasonable issue.
| cortesoft wrote:
| I mean, he is already being sued right now.... and these
| lawsuits seem to have a better chance of winning than
| some other random liability lawsuit.
| plussed_reader wrote:
| To preserve public access to the coast.
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| There are no home owners. Vinod owns literally all of those
| houses and their land.
| [deleted]
| rossjudson wrote:
| This is pretty interesting:
| https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/access/pr-access-fac...
|
| The public can do whatever it wants on the beach itself. The
| argument is about whether the road to the beach is implicitly
| public property because of prior use.
|
| That PDF provides some tests, and is useful to review prior to
| reading the judge's decision.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Isn't this not about the beach but about his private property
| that leads to the beach? The courts previously ruled in favor of
| Khosla - see
| https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF. The
| conclusion is on pages 35 and 36, which notes that this
| particular piece of land was NOT dedicated to public access and
| does not fit the common law parameters for implied public access.
| nooyurrsdey wrote:
| It is infuriating that one individual
|
| A) has the audacity to believe they are entitled to such a rare
| publically beneficial property and
|
| B) has the power (both politically and financially) to see this
| battle through.
| abstractbarista wrote:
| So do we - or do we not - have decent property rights? It
| sounds like the land never should have been private in the
| first place, given how special it is.
|
| Otherwise, if I own it, I should be able to keep others off of
| it. You don't actually own something that you cannot control
| access to.
|
| If you disagree, then keep your front door unlocked, because
| I'm moving in with some friends later this week.
| compiler-guy wrote:
| Property ownership comes with easements and other legal
| restrictions all the time. I have to give the power company
| access to the power pole on my property, and I knew that when
| I bought it.
|
| Public easements to public beaches are quite normal.
| abstractbarista wrote:
| That's very reasonable. Sounds like it's time to pass a law
| in CA that requires property owners to have an easement
| offered to the public for beach access.
|
| Have such an easement recorded for all real estate parcels
| touching the coast. Done.
|
| I know they have that 1976 law mentioned in the article,
| but clearly that was not strongly written so as to force
| this.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| It was, but the owner is a billionaire who thinks he is
| above the law.
| abstractbarista wrote:
| Oh. Well in that case I'm sure this will be quickly
| resolved in the public's favor.
|
| I hope it's not one of those 'feel-good' laws written
| like "All Californians should be able to access the
| beaches" (without specifying actionable frameworks like
| easements and such).
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| No this is a very specific law requiring easements
| exactly as you said. It is not getting resolved quickly
| because every time Vinod loses (and that's been every
| time so far) he just baselessly appeals the ruling again
| and again.
| freepor wrote:
| Land ownership is a social construct. It's not like ownership
| over something you make with your hands or your mind, and in
| the US, all of the land is stolen property anyways so there's
| no rational claim to any of it.
|
| So land ownership is a right afforded by society to society,
| like any other kind of legal framework, and part of that is
| limitations. In earlier parts of human history, if you tried
| to cut off a population's access to a valuable resource like
| water by claiming land ownership, they'd just come with sharp
| implements, impale you on them, and take the land back from
| you. In modern times, we need to accomplish the same end, but
| with hopefully no bloodshed.
| jdblair wrote:
| He doesn't own the beach, and an easement to access public
| land is a normal, non-controversial thing.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| hummel wrote:
| A complete jerk
| PHGamer wrote:
| well A makes sense if you believe in private property at all. I
| can see not being on his side but its true if it was not public
| but private property before the only way the government should
| legally allowed to appropriate it is via eminate domain and the
| compensation to the property owner.
| inscionent wrote:
| Look around the world is overflowing with individuals engaged
| in A and B
| munk-a wrote:
| All of those individuals are infuriating - they can be
| examined in isolation as grouping them together will lead to
| fatigue by volume.
|
| > If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If
| millions die, that's only statistics.
|
| Let's just focus on the one for now.
| rayiner wrote:
| In fact, the opposite is true, and the reporting around this
| issue is a great example of how the media doesn't care about
| facts but instead cares only about narratives.
|
| Khosla has won two California Court of Appeals rulings in his
| favor undermining any claim by the State to actual rights over
| the property under a "public trust" or "public dedication"
| theory: https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/11/ca-appellate-court-
| rules....
|
| > As such, according to the common law of public dedication,
| the court determined that Martin's Beach is not dedicated to
| public access.
|
| Opinion here:
| https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF
|
| > We have endeavored faithfully to follow the prior holdings of
| our Supreme Court and fellow appellate courts in applying
| common law of public dedication principles here. However, we
| have not attempted to extend the public dedication doctrine
| beyond the common law parameters previously recognized by court
| decisions in this state. As strong as the coastal access
| policies of our state are, we do not understand them to empower
| us to do so.
|
| The Khosla case is a classic example of the government trying
| to take private property for public use without paying for it.
| There is an ancient doctrine that the waters and beaches up to
| the high tide line belong to the State to hold in trust for the
| public. However, the California Court of appeals has already
| rejected the theory that this applies to Khosla's land (based
| on U.S. Supreme Court precedent having to do with the treatment
| of Mexican land grants that predate the State of California).
|
| Moreover, California has dramatically expanded the scope of
| that ancient doctrine to include recreational uses. Thus,
| although the public trust doctrine only covers using the water
| and beach up to the high tide line for fishing and navigation,
| California in the 1970s expanded the notion to include
| recreational uses. And even that wasn't far enough. California
| has been using regulatory and permitting regimes to effectively
| force property owners to allow public use of dry sand beaches--
| something that has never been covered by the public trust
| doctrine.
|
| Having lost on the property-law issues, California continues to
| press forward using its permitting authority to do what it
| cannot do as a matter of property rights. Again, that's a
| classic technique of government abuse. (California can't force
| Khosla to actually dedicate the beach to public use as a matter
| of property law, so it sues him for building a fence to keep
| the public out under unrelated regulatory authority.)
|
| As to your point (B)--it's a wonderful thing that private
| citizens have the financial resources to fight the State and
| vindicate their legitimate property rights. The opposite of
| that is tyranny.
| vanusa wrote:
| Were it just one individual. Unfortunately there's a whole lot
| of people who adhere to the general mindset from which Khosla
| derives his sense of entitlement:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology
| woah wrote:
| Incredibly far stretch to turn one guy illegally blocking a
| road into a straw man against an imagined political grouping
| from the 90's
| whack wrote:
| > _has the power (both politically and financially) to see this
| battle through_
|
| It is absolutely infuriating that a rich individual can get the
| type of "justice" that the rest of us can never hope to
| achieve, in the legal system. Or as Peter Thiel put it when he
| bankrupted Gawker: _" If you're a single-digit millionaire like
| Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system."_
|
| Unfortunately, this suit is unlikely to make any difference in
| the above, and it doesn't seem like anyone cares about fixing
| the above problem. Maybe I'm just being a fundamentalist who's
| blowing it out of proportion. But my sense of fairness is
| constantly outraged by how ridiculously hard it is for any
| layperson to get justice in today's legal system.
| unapologetic wrote:
| Elon Musk comitted fraud on twitter and nothing happened.
|
| Elon Musk called a pedo on twitter, and won the trial. The
| "jury" had a fucking lawyer who owns 2 Teslas.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| > Or as Peter Thiel put it when he bankrupted Gawker: "If
| you're a single-digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have
| no effective access to our legal system."
|
| Which is amusing since the lawyer that Thiel used is
| constantly suing on behalf of single-digit millionaires to
| stifle free speech all over the country (including
| threatening to sue the NYT for reporting on Harvey
| Weinstein's crimes). Not a whole lot of principles in that
| group.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Which is amusing as the lawyer Thiel used is constantly
| suing on behalf of single-digit millionaires to stifle free
| speech all over the country (including threatening to sue
| the NYT for reporting on Harvey Weinstein's crimes)
|
| Harvey Weinstein isn't a single-digit millionaire but a
| triple-digit one, his net worth is estimated at $240-300
| million. This (and the lawyers work for Thiel) is
| consistent with, though does not imply, Thiel's contention
| that the wealth at which one has effective access to the
| legally system is much greater than that of a single-digit
| millionaire. Not sure what other "single-digit"
| millionaires you think he is working on behalf of, but your
| one concrete example certainly isn't one.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| How about Shiva Ayyadurai's suit to try and kill TechDirt
| when TechDirt wrote that he didn't invent email?
|
| https://www.thedailybeast.com/gawker-killing-lawyer-
| charles-...
|
| Or Barry Honig's penny stock charades where Harder
| represented the fraudster in suing people who wrote about
| his fraud and then represented another alleged penny-
| stock fraudster John Hurry in his suits against
| journalists who wrote about his fraud:
|
| https://www.teribuhl.com/2019/03/28/about-that-insider-
| story...
|
| Harder is a bad dude who sues journalists for seriously
| troubling reasons. That many people agreed with his
| takedown of Gawker is unfortunate when the rest of his
| 'portfolio' is so poisonous to the first amendment.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Honig seems to probably be at least a double-digit
| millionaire (at least, prior to the sanctions for the
| fraud).
|
| Ayyadurai, however, does seem to be a single-digit
| millionaire or less.
|
| > Harder is a bad dude who sues journalists for seriously
| troubling reasons.
|
| Sure, I just don't see evidence that it's primarily or
| even regularly on behalf of people who aren't
| significantly wealthier (or sponsored by someone
| wealthier) than single-digit millionaires, such that it
| is somehow a contradiction to Thiel's claim about the
| limited effective legal power of people at merely that
| level of wealth when they lack a wealthier benefactor.
| mc32 wrote:
| I think that's a bit harsh. Even people who confess and for
| whom the prosecution has good evidence, can and will get
| lawyers or public defenders.
|
| How would you feel if a public defender took the position
| of "nah, this gal is clearly a criminal, we have seen the
| footage --its a pass, let her represent herself".
| mikeyouse wrote:
| These are civil suits voluntarily launched by 'aggrieved'
| parties. I don't think there's any reasonable comparison
| to public defenders.
| mc32 wrote:
| Ok, what if lawyers were biased and "simply" declined to
| represent one class of people because I dunno, they are
| "debtors" and don't deserve representation against an
| authoshop which ripped them off.
| JackRabbitSlim wrote:
| They do, all the time. You have no expectation of legal
| council outside of criminal law. Debt collectors are
| running roughshod on the poor and vulnerable.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| When I read this article, it looks a lot more complicated than
| that.
|
| > Khosla, in legal filings, said he "was willing to give the
| business a go, and continued to allow members of the public to
| access the property upon payment of a fee. But [he] soon faced
| the same problem the Deeneys had faced: The business was
| operating at a considerable loss, as the costs of keeping the
| beach, the parking lot and other facilities in operable and
| safe condition significantly exceeded the fees the business
| generated."
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| To the best of my knowledge (and a reading of the actual law
| text), the 1976 Coastal Access Act doesn't require private
| owners to provide and maintain facilities for public beaches
| -- it simply doesn't _prevent_ them from doing so. The
| Deeneys chose to make Martins Beach a business, and more than
| likely started doing so before the Coastal Access Act passed.
| Khosla is absolutely within his rights to stop maintaining
| "the parking lot and other facilities in operable and safe
| condition"; the battle is over whether he's within his rights
| to block access to the beach entirely just because he can't
| find a way to turn a profit from it -- and whether the
| limited access he's currently granting is enough to meet the
| law's requirements.
| api wrote:
| I really wonder why he's choosing this hill (err I mean beach!)
| to die on and how he doesn't see what damage this is doing to
| his public image. Even if he does have a point this makes him
| look absolutely horrible and it's not like letting a few people
| on the beach is going to impact his lifestyle in anything
| beyond the most trivial way.
|
| I just don't quibble over minutia like that. I don't get people
| who do. This seems like a gigantic waste of time and resources
| where even if you win you lose.
| nosequel wrote:
| You have to realize that Vinod Khosla is one of those people
| who is used to people just following his orders. He was
| successful, he owns Khosla Ventures (KV) and probably never
| gets called on his shit. Suddenly locals, surfers, and The
| Surfrider Foundation starts to push back and he thinks he can
| just squash them, because /s obviously he's better than them.
|
| Let's be real, he was never in that house. I'd venture to say
| he spent maybe 30 days per year in that house? Like any other
| rich asshole with a vacation house in prime territory he
| bought it and wanted to keep any riffraff away. He thinks he
| deserves it and not for one second did he think about his
| public image.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| Well, I, for one, have tried to avoid companies funded by
| Khosla Ventures since this story initially broke. I doubt a
| lot of people feel strongly enough to do that, but there
| are some.
| bscphil wrote:
| Given that I had never heard of the company until this
| post, I was surprised by how many companies I've heard of
| that they funded. From their portfolio page[1]:
|
| Academia.edu, AppNexus, Arista Networks, DoorDash,
| GitLab, HackerRank, Impossible Foods, Instacart, "Just,
| Inc.", Scribd, Square, Stripe, Teespring, Vox Media
|
| https://www.khoslaventures.com/portfolio/all-companies
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| Haha, no. Vinod has never, ever visited this property and
| even brags about that fact quite often.
| jdross wrote:
| Just to be clear, this is not Vinod's mindset.
|
| It's more like Vinod is extremely stubborn, especially when
| he believes something is a matter of principle.
|
| From his POV, the principle here is around free enterprise.
| He believes the state is requiring him to pay to maintain
| an unprofitable business (a private road and parking lot),
| which he doesn't believe they have the right to do.
|
| As far as I know, he doesn't care much about restricting
| beach access.
| vernie wrote:
| What a psycho
| OpieCunningham wrote:
| Parent comment could be his mindset. You're just stating
| his mindset is what he has claimed his mindset is. I see
| no reason to take his word for it.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt about
| their own state of mind when they declare it. Sure, he
| could absolutely be lying, but I don't see any reason
| _not_ to take his word for it. The issue is just whether
| his interpretation of the law is correct. (My reading of
| it is that the law does _not_ require him to maintain a
| parking lot and other facilities, it just requires him
| not to block access to the beach.)
| oisino wrote:
| Curious signaling as a VC to be involved in something so
| negatively publicly. The best companies/ entrepreneurs are super
| picky on who to raise money from and I have already heard a
| couple companies mention this as a reason they didn't talk to
| Khosla.
| righteous wrote:
| I thought the nuance here was the land was titled under
| Spanish/Mexican land grant which predates the California
| constitution. Interesting to see how it plays out.
| newnewpdro wrote:
| Back when I lived in Pescadero years ago I'd drive past this
| place very often, most of the time the gate was locked shut. It
| seemed completely random when it'd be open.
|
| My understanding is that his guy is a Grade A douche bag.
| thrillgore wrote:
| Good. He has no right to public beach access.
| IGotThroughIt wrote:
| I feel like this contentious issue has had a net negative effect
| on his life and that he should just sell the damn place and move
| on.
|
| It's been years and there's so much else to do!
| kops wrote:
| The property rights are what they are. Who the owner is should
| not cloud the argument. If you are a middle class person and have
| a lawn in front of your house, would you allow the random people
| to use the lawn for chilling/sleeping/picnic or whatever? Well a
| rich person happens to own a much bigger and luxurious version of
| the same front lawn. If the state or whoever owned the thing once
| upon time sold it, then it is his. The fact that he is stinking
| rich and we the normal populace would love to have access to the
| same property is no argument. On the other hand if his purchase
| did not include exclusivity to the beach then by all means go
| there and piss around. But just being rich and owning something
| that most of us can not afford is no justification to snatch it
| from them. It is just using the justice system/democracy as a mob
| intent on plunder.
|
| P.S. 1. I don't care who khosla is. But looking at the whole
| debate it seems the whole opposition is based on the fact that he
| is a billionaire. I refuse to buy that line of argument. Tell me
| it is illegal for so an so reason and I will buy. But he is an
| asshole or he is a billionaire is just emotions doing the talking
| :-)
|
| P.S. 2. Going by the comments below, I feel compelled to clarify
| that my comment is not informed by the local laws. I am just a
| little bit puzzled by the words billionaire and asshole being
| used synonymously. The law should be same for everyone. A
| billionaire can hire more lawyers is no reason to call him an
| asshole in this context even if he has earned the title elsewhere
| unequivocally.
|
| Update: typo and added a p.s.
| tathougies wrote:
| By California law, there is no such thing as ownership of a
| beach. All beach sands are public, by statute. You are asking
| who the owner is, but there is no owner of the rights of access
| or exclusivity, by law.
|
| Of course, Khosla should have access to the lands he owns.
| Under California law, land is something that private citizens
| can own. A beach is not one of those things.
|
| EDIT: that being said, private property rights do not always or
| even typically grant you exclusivity. Many jurisdictions have
| various requirements on what private landowners must allow the
| public to do on their land. For example, many jurisdictions
| have freedom to roam provisions, which ensure that the public
| has access to wilderness, even if privately owned. The United
| States does not have this in general, but it is certainly
| within the purview of the states to legislate such things. In
| many US cities, homeowners own the sidewalk and must maintain
| it, but allow the public access. This is written in the deed,
| or mandated by statue.
| Pyxl101 wrote:
| The case is not about the beach itself. It's about land near
| the beach through which one can travel to visit it. Is Khosla
| obligated to provide the public with access to the beach by
| crossing his land? Ordinarily this kind of right is
| represented as an easement on the property, or as a roadway
| separate from the property, neither of which exist here.
|
| The previous owner built a gate on the property, which was
| open and closed at their whim, posted "no trespassing" signs,
| and charged for access to the road and beach.
| tathougies wrote:
| Yes, you're right. I'm responding to the comment above
| which states that the case here is akin to forcing
| homeowners to allow people to picnic on their front lawn.
| The difference is that homeowners own their lawn, while
| Khosla does not own the beach. Many homeowners have
| easements requiring them to maintain sidewalks and allow
| the public to pass through (I know I certainly do). In this
| case, I suppose the question is if California's 1979 law
| implied this easement or not. Either way, it is hardly
| unprecedented.
| xeromal wrote:
| Water rights aren't your average yard. If water rights aren't
| protected, the rich could buy up the entire coastline and you'd
| have no where to access the beach.
| strbean wrote:
| > Who the owner is should not cloud the argument.
|
| Fair point, but...
|
| > On the other hand if his purchase did not include exclusivity
| to the beach then by all means go there and piss around.
|
| This, by law, does not exist in any form in California (unless
| the beach is on a lake rather than the ocean).
|
| This is simply a case of someone flaunting the law.
| kops wrote:
| > (unless the beach is on a lake rather than the ocean).
|
| And there I see why he has hopes. If it is legal on a lake
| then someone would wonder why not on ocean. Rather than
| asking the nice people on internet one might as well go to a
| court of law.
|
| Why are people angry that he went to court. Where I come from
| people settle these kind of questions in less civilised ways.
| Court is better i think.
| strbean wrote:
| As a tech billionaire, he should know how to do a simple
| internet search.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=california+private+beaches
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| This has nothing to do with him being rich. This has everything
| to do with the fact that he is an asshole. He has no property
| rights to the beach but is spending his money trying to change
| that.
|
| He has no right to do what he is doing but the only reason we
| are talking about it at all is because he is rich.
| cortesoft wrote:
| What? California beaches have been public property since 1976.
| He bought the house knowing he doesn't own the beach, and that
| the public has a right to that beach.
|
| No one is allowed to own a beach in California. This isn't
| about mob rule, this is about a choice Californians made many
| years ago that says beaches are public.
|
| The beach is not his.
| kops wrote:
| Then he should be kicked out of the court in a less than 5
| minutes. Why is it being discussed?
| cortesoft wrote:
| Are these questions based on reading the article or not? A
| lot of the things are discussed in the article... the
| question is not whether the beach is public, it is about
| what access requirements he has to meet. Does he have to
| provide a road? Parking?
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| No he doesn't have to provide parking. But he does have
| to allow access.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Because he's not blocking access to the beach,
| _technically_. Just blocking _that_ pathway. But it's
| surrounded by cliffs, so the only way to access it is
| _through the path he's blocking_.
| markdown wrote:
| > California beaches have been public property since 1976.
|
| Wow, how did it take the public so long to wake up? I thought
| the default was that it was public property in most places on
| earth.
| kops wrote:
| >Wow, how did it take the public so long to wake up? I
| thought the default was that it was public property in most
| places on earth.
|
| Sorry it will take only a minute. Let me check with my
| native American friend.
| Traster wrote:
| This isn't like owning a front lawn, this is like owning the
| pavement, but not the front lawn- but insisting no one else can
| use the front lawn because (whilst you don't own it) you can
| stop them accessing it. In fact in your metaphor not only does
| he not own the lawn, he lives in a state where it's not even
| possible to own the lawn, he bought the pavement knowing he
| could never own the lawn and has been illegally obstructing
| access to the lawn for decades.
|
| And now somehow he has people on the internet arguing that a
| billionaire should be allowed exclusive benefit to public land-
| as if of all people, the billionaire is the one that needs the
| public handout.
| kops wrote:
| >And now somehow he has people on the internet arguing that a
| billionaire should be allowed exclusive benefit to public
| land- as if of all people, the billionaire is the one that
| needs the public handout.
|
| No I didn't say that. If the exclusivity is not part of the
| sale then it should be trivial to kick his butt. The fact it
| isn't is confounding to me. Perhaps because I am not an
| American.
| alextheparrot wrote:
| His monopoly on land is granted at the discretion of and
| subject to regulation by the state, just as many other actions
| are.
|
| My front lawn can be eminent domained to build new power lines,
| so clearly the state has greater authority over property than
| your argument represents.
| wuunderbar wrote:
| Does anyone have any way to illustrate to me the physics of how
| he is actually blocking access? Like how does this road run
| through this property, where is the beach in relation, etc.
|
| EDIT: I suppose this helps:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=vinod+khosla+road
| eaguyhn wrote:
| Khosla seems to say the issue is maintaining the access path..
| parking, bathrooms, etc. Is that correct? If so, would it make
| sense for California to seize that part the access path via
| eminent domain and provide those services?
| tedk-42 wrote:
| Obviously looking at the bigger picture he's in the wrong. I do
| wonder what his motivations are to own that section of the beach
| though.
|
| Maybe it's the only bit of his property that's vulnerable from a
| security perspective and he simply wants tighter control of it.
|
| I hope the public win and he doesn't get his way.
| tempsy wrote:
| IIRC, his argument is that the path that leads to the beach is
| actually his property, and he is effectively being required to
| pay to upkeep/monitor/secure this area on his property on his
| own dime.
| aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA wrote:
| What a terrible shock that must have been for him, to realize
| this fact only after having purchased the property.
| tempsy wrote:
| Feels like an edge case to me. Not exactly something
| someone who buys a private property would think would be
| possible e.g. to have to pay for upkeep for public
| property.
|
| Seems like the gov't should figure out some sort of
| reimbursement program in situations like this.
| ng12 wrote:
| I'm sure a surveyor would have informed him of California
| law.
| tempsy wrote:
| it's not really my point. the law is deficient in the
| sense that it doesn't cover this edge case. so why not
| address the edge case?
|
| IMO Khosla should present some numbers on how much it
| would reasonably cost to maintain whatever land he owns
| that would be used by the public to get to the beach and
| the gov't should agree to reimburse some reasonable
| expense on a quarterly basis.
| aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA wrote:
| That would make sense if the government had installed the
| beach after Khosla's purchase.
| mindslight wrote:
| This isn't an edge case, but rather the standard
| experience of living somewhere that gets snow and has
| sidewalks.
| munk-a wrote:
| There are some interesting questions to be answered here about
| the value of the view included in the pricing of beachfront
| property that need to be addressed (agreements to limit
| development including height restriction - agreements not to sell
| property closer to the water line to other private parties) that
| will get super complex as climate change continues - including
| the fact that erosion may shrink the size of the private rights
| portion of the lot on beachside property, or potentially expand
| it.
|
| Additionally this gets super muddled when it comes to coastal
| constructions, even simple jetties docks may have public safety
| concerns, protection of private property (if expensive boat
| maintenance tools or machinery are located on the jetty) - and
| that will evolve into questions about using coastal constructions
| to restrict access.
|
| Lastly, the costs - as Khosla mentioned the beach is unprofitable
| to run, should CA be footing that bill? Could they sublease the
| property to an entrepreneur that thinks they could make the
| beachside facilities profitable? It is entirely unreasonable
| (even given the excessive wealth of Khosla) for him to be forced
| to maintain an unprofitable entity like that and all the facility
| liability that goes along with it.
|
| This is a gigantic can of worms.
|
| I look forward to how this might be resolved, but it sure ain't
| going to be simple.
| option wrote:
| The beaches should be accessible by public. Nothing
| controversial about that.
|
| His realtors knew 100% about the passage used by public which
| ran through the property.
| aqme28 wrote:
| > as Khosla mentioned the beach is unprofitable to run, should
| CA be footing that bill? Could they sublease the property to an
| entrepreneur that thinks they could make the beachside
| facilities profitable? It is entirely unreasonable (even given
| the excessive wealth of Khosla) for him to be forced to
| maintain an unprofitable entity like that and all the facility
| liability that goes along with it.
|
| Does he need to maintain those facilities? Could he just
| unblock access and move on? This feels like a cheap excuse.
| sushisource wrote:
| Seemingly (IANAL) he could, in fact, do that. I think his
| concern would be if he's not properly maintaining it, now the
| beach near his house is going to fill up with trash, maybe
| overnight campers, etc. So he's either got to foot the bill
| to keep it looking nice, or end up with a garbage beach.
|
| So it's definitely a sticky situation. Personally, I'd just
| open it up, I think people generally treat beaches OK in
| Cali, but I can imagine his concern.
|
| As another commenter mentions, it seems like a very
| reasonable expectation that the state would maintain it.
| mikestew wrote:
| _So he 's either got to foot the bill to keep it looking
| nice, or end up with a garbage beach._
|
| AFAICT, nothing about this has changed since his purchase
| of the property, and therefore should have been a
| consideration before purchase. Arguments to the contrary,
| such as the owner is currently making, reminds me of people
| who move next to an existing motorsports raceway and
| complain about the noise (which has been documented to have
| _actually_ happened in several locations).
| Reelin wrote:
| > it seems like a very reasonable expectation that the
| state would maintain it
|
| As a matter of principle I'm inclined to agree. However
| many (possibly most?) US cities require the property owner
| to maintain the sidewalk fronting their property; this
| situation might be similar.
| wayoutthere wrote:
| > So he's either got to foot the bill to keep it looking
| nice, or end up with a garbage beach.
|
| Seems like a perfectly fine tradeoff to me. The beach
| belongs to the public, and not all beaches are well-
| maintained. If he wants to keep the views on _this_ beach
| (that he does not own) nice, he can pay to maintain them.
| Pretty sure running the beach for the next 100 years would
| be a drop in the bucket for him anyway.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| If I were him, I would be very thankful for what I have (as
| I am am anyway) and would share my success with others. In
| this case it would mean opening it up and footing the bill
| for the maintenance of the beach. Why not? Does he really
| need more money pragmatically? It seems like the good will,
| feeling of joy coming from helping your local community in
| which you live, and leaving the world better than you found
| it would be more than enough return for the investment. I'm
| a "working stiff" and happily contribute to the upkeep,
| cleanliness and worthy volunteer organizations in the
| community I live and get far more from such than it takes
| from me.
|
| Edited- spelling error.
| colonwqbang wrote:
| Charity is commendable. But if you are being forced by
| law to do something, it is not charity.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| > Lastly, the costs - as Khosla mentioned the beach is
| unprofitable to run
|
| It's a beach. Why does it have to be profitable?
|
| > should CA be footing that bill?
|
| You mean for cleanup and maintenance?
|
| Sure, why not? If Californians what their beaches, then their
| tax dollars should be taking care of them.
| eitally wrote:
| One might agree with you if one hadn't actually been to
| Martin's Beach [recently]. There are no facilities. There used
| to be a beachfront snack shack but it's been closed since the
| property traded hands. There is no public restroom, and there
| is only private parking. There are no piers, jetties or other
| beach/ocean construction at the beach. Moreover, the road
| leading to the beach is lined with a dozen or so private
| residences. Khosla is not bearing any significant burden in
| allowing beachgoers to continue to access the beach.
|
| TBH, the beach is small enough and there is so little capacity
| for traffic to it that I don't see how it could ever be
| "profitable" as a cash generator for anyone.
| vanusa wrote:
| _I don 't see how it could ever be "profitable" as a cash
| generator for anyone._
|
| Nor should it be. It's a _public benefit_.
|
| As such, it should be revenue-neutral.
| cjensen wrote:
| This "gigantic can of worms" is 40-year old settled law. All
| the appeals and considerations that can be thought of were
| worked out over 20 years ago. All your "could they" and "can
| they" questions have already been asked and answered.
| RangerScience wrote:
| I appreciate your comment. I want to push back on
|
| > Could they sublease the property to an entrepreneur that
| thinks they could make the beachside facilities profitable?
|
| with
|
| https://climateandcapitalism.com/2008/08/25/debunking-the-tr...
| Animats wrote:
| Is the Zonker Harris beach accessway (yes, a real thing) in
| Malibu open yet?[1] It was "closed for repairs" in 2016. The
| battles over that were huge years ago.
|
| [1] https://beaches.lacounty.gov/zonker-harris-accessway-
| closed-...
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| I wonder what are the downsides of this. The Supreme Court
| refused to take a previous case, but I think the composition of
| the court was a little different then. Given that this court is
| even more in favor of stronger private property protections, does
| this lawsuit make it possible that it could eventually make it to
| the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court could strike down
| the entire California coastal access law as unconstitutional.
| learc83 wrote:
| >Supreme Court could strike down the entire California coastal
| access law as unconstitutional
|
| That would require a very creative reading of the constitution.
| Congress could pass a law overriding it, and SCOTUS could could
| uphold that law under the commerce clause (land value in
| California affects land value in Oregon etc...).
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| From the last section of the Fifth Amendment:
|
| nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
| just compensation.
| ronilan wrote:
| _Under the terms of the agreement Vinod "gatekeeper"
| Khosla, will maintain ownership of the newly established
| Martins Beach Surfing Club House and will be allowed to
| leave his board and wetsuit on the floor without penalty.
| The Friends of Martins Beach agree to release Khosla from
| all gatekeeping shifts, provided that he learns to surf and
| chill. Free surf lessons for life will be provided to Vinod
| "dude" Khosla as compensation for Club House use by the
| public. Drinks will be available, for a fee, to guests over
| the legal drinking age. Other fees may also apply._
|
| Done.
| tathougies wrote:
| But, it was not taken. Khosla came to acquire the property
| well after the 1970s, which is when California law allowed
| the public to use all beaches.
| nofunsir wrote:
| John Locke would like a word with you.
| option wrote:
| I regularly donate money to Surfrider foundation so that they
| continue fight for _our_ beaches in California
| baybal2 wrote:
| Can somebody tell me where the guy gets so much of his temerity?
| dole wrote:
| Sun Microsystems co-founder, worth $2.1B.
| option wrote:
| got lucky in the right time in Silicon Valley. Nothing super
| smart or visionary.
|
| Once he got money - he revealed his true self
| g_langenderfer wrote:
| Are you so sure you wouldn't act the same in his shoes? We're
| all human.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The wealthier you get, the less used to "no" you get.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-01-06 23:00 UTC)