California Court Orders Vinod Khosla to Reopen Disputed Beach

You could make it more than just a fight over coastal access. You could make it so that he has more at stake than just this case. He publishes a list of companies his firm has a financial interest in: http://www.khoslaventures.com/portfolio/all-companies

If people truly care about this issue, they can organize public campaigns against those companies as a message to founders to avoid his money or face consequences. He may laugh off fines the court imposes, but this being a stain on his professional reputation would be more damaging.

But it would be hard to pull off. There are some HN favorites in there. How many people here are willing to avoid Stripe or Gitlab over beach access? He's betting that it's not many.

nitrogen4• 9 years ago

That kind of scorched earth tactic is simply inhumane, regardless of the target.

robohamburger• 9 years ago

I am surprised more states do not have laws like Hawaii's where you are required to provide beach access. Shame for such a nice beach to go to waste.

khazhoux4• 9 years ago

They do. He ignores and contravenes them.

goodplay• 9 years ago

Why isn't he thrown in jail, or why isn't the fence bulldozed down? Where I currently live (a somewhat well-off area), bulldozers (and self-entitled assholes) are a common occurrence.

shagie• 9 years ago

That is the law for California.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sdut-...

In 2014 the Legislature and Governor Brown gave the California Coastal Commission the authority to fine property owners who intentionally block public access to the coast. That authority was included in the 2015-2016 state budget, based on legislation I had written in 2013 to achieve the same goal.

The California Costal Commission website - https://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/prc-access.html

And then from there to https://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/pr-access-facts.pdf

The California Coastal Act, Public Resources Code Section 30211, states:
Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use, or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

sliverstorm• 9 years ago

They do. But if you can drag out litigation & appeals in the courts for a decade or three, viola, private beach.

khazhoux4• 9 years ago

I can see his point of view, though: as a rich man, he should be able to do what he wants, and lay claim to this beautiful stretch of the Pacific Ocean.

wpietri2• 9 years ago

Why stop there? As a rich man, he should be able to replace his failing liver by claiming yours.

Alas, he can't in either case, because we the people have created limiting the unchecked exercise of power.

khazhoux4• 9 years ago

Sure, there are laws limiting the totally unchecked exercise of power. Your example is too extreme, though.

In my case, I was being sarcastic... yet it's nearly true. His mega-wealth let him buy the oceanside estate to begin with, and then his mega-wealth lets him ignore fines. The laws against this abuse are (as evidence here) quite weak.

PhasmaFelis• 9 years ago

I know sarcasm is hard to nail down on the internet, but I thought that one was pretty clear.

rtpg• 9 years ago

What if Bill Gates bought the entire coastline? How does that help society?

Society has relatively little to gain from letting the super rich buy up fundamentally scarce bits of land like this. Meanwhile making it public access means way more people can appreciate the beach. Not like this VC is on the beach most of the time anyways.

alistairSH• 9 years ago

Pretty sure OP left off the <sarcasm> tags.

gotrecruit• 9 years ago

Hmm, not to say I disagree, but let's say hypothetically, instead of providing general public access to the beach, which is obviously a pity, the entire coastline was sold at the appropriate price. The money, in theory, could go into improving local infrastructure, etc, which may lead to an improvement in quality of life for people living in that area. I'm not saying that would happen, just entertaining the possibility that your proposed scenario could be positive.

pasbesoin• 9 years ago

Given all the years and precedent of access (throughout the State of California), I would hope that any stay of the order pending further litigation would be denied.

And that, if he then continues to refuse, he be jailed for contempt of court.

In my own little childhood hometown, I've watched public beach access (to a lake) become more and more locked up behind fees and limited hours of access and upscaling property values and home ownership that wants to keep things quiet and for themselves.

The quiet part, I appreciate. The "keep out" part, not so much.

The childhood memories I have of times spent there, are simply no longer possible. It's all on lockdown. Something lost in that -- something significant, in my opinion.

Animats• 9 years ago

The Zonker Harris Beach Accessway in Malibu is "closed for repairs" again.[1] Closed for over a year now.

[1] http://beaches.lacounty.gov/zonker-harris-accessway-closed-f...

fizixer• 9 years ago

Why is a beach up for sale if it's not up for private gating?

(Why doesn't California declare its coastline public property that is not-for-sale?)

edit: Just found out the answer. Beaches themselves are never for sale, even though properties right up to the edge of the beach are. Next question: Are all river banks public property too? Can you not build a manufacturing plant at a river bank? What about lakes? Are lakes public property?

DannyBee• 9 years ago

It already did. California Constitution, Title X, section 4.

toufka• 9 years ago

Many places consider the land below the high-water line of navigable waterways to be public (in midwest US at least). So if you're canoeing down the river and eat lunch on the bank, you're generally not trespassing. Smaller lakes are generally not considered navigable, though I'm not sure how it works for huge lakes like Michigan. I suspect a similar 'high-water' line is relevant.

You'd truly be pretty dense if you wanted to build a permenant structure below the high water mark.

molsongolden• 9 years ago

This holds true in most of the west as well and provides access for river paddlers/floaters/fishermen.

rhizome• 9 years ago

Just so we don't go over the same thing again, Khosla's unique claim is that the title to the land derives from a land grant from before California was a state, with which he justifies disregarding the CCC.

A year after the case was filed, however, a San Mateo County Superior Court judge dealt Friends of Martin’s Beach a setback, ruling there was no right of access. He said the property was subject to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, an agreement that ended the Mexican-American War and required the United States to recognize Mexican land grants.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-martins-beach-sn...

option• 9 years ago

What a pathetic creature really

desireco42• 9 years ago

Did anyone tried to organize a protest, show up en-masse on 'his' beach etc?

From what I understand, you could use a boat, show up at the beach, party and leave with boat and you are within legal use.

California Court Orders Vinod Khosla to Reopen Disputed Beach

Related Stories