California Sues Vinod Khosla over Martins Beach Public Access

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-06/martins-beach-california-lawsuit

by ilamont • 7 years ago

209 244 7 years ago

latimes.com

nooyurrsdey• 7 years ago

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.

inscionent• 7 years ago

Look around the world is overflowing with individuals engaged in A and B

munk-a2• 7 years ago

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.

vanusa2• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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.

mikeyouse4• 7 years ago

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.

FireBeyond6• 7 years ago

Hogan had plenty of access to the legal system. He'd even settled with Gawker before Thiel's interference.

Gawker was a muckraking institution with little of worth. But Hogan had settled for 0.005% of what he asked of Gawker with the other involved party, and was amenable to taking an ownership share of the Gawker empire.

Don't paint Thiel in some white knight suit just helping embattled people "fight the power".

api• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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.

harryh9• 7 years ago

It's obviously impossible to know his mind but it is worth pointing out that beachfront property with, effectively, a private beach is probably worth a lot more money that beachfront property on a public beach. Ignoring for a moment any ethical or PR concerns, that's a pretty big incentive for him to continue his fight.

abstractbarista3• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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.

freepor4• 7 years ago

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.

jdblair2• 7 years ago

He doesn't own the beach, and an easement to access public land is a normal, non-controversial thing.

PHGamer• 7 years ago

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.

gwbas1c2• 7 years ago

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_coyote2• 7 years ago

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.

rayiner16• 7 years ago

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.

It's important to understand that this dispute involves two separate tracks of issues, one where Khosla has been winning, and one where he has been losing.

The first issue is the property right. An ancient doctrine called the "public trust" doctrine holds that the waters and beaches up to the high tide line belongs to the public. Moreover, it holds that, generally, there is an easement across private land to access that area.

However, California is a johnny-come-lately state. As a result, under Supreme Court precedent (Summa Corp. v. California), the state doesn't have easements over certain private property that dates to Mexican land grants: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art... (p. 429-430). Based on that precedent, the California Court of Appeals has held that there is no easement (as a matter of public trust doctrine) over Khosla's property:

While the public trust doctrine can protect access rights over private land, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to extend that protection to private land certified under the 1851 federal law implementing the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, where the federal or state government had not asserted an interest in title proceeding. Therefore, the court of appeal in Friends I found that, because the Martin’s Beach property had been certified under the 1851 law without any mention of a public interest and never passed into state ownership, there could be no common law public trust easement over the land to the water.

There was a subsequent suit based on an alternate theory: that although there was no common law easement, an easement arose because the previous property owner "dedicated" the road to public use. The California Court of Appeals rejected that t heory too. 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

So now we are on the third string legal theory (from the article):

State officials have been following these cases closely and are now taking a swing at the fight. The new lawsuit asks the court to consider unexamined evidence that shows that the beach, as well as the gated road, have been historically used by the public — citing a common law doctrine known as “implied dedication.”

We've gone from an easement under property law, to a "public dedication," to "implied public dedication."

That brings us to the second legal issue, which is whether Khosla needs a permit to build a structure to close the road to the beach. Even though courts have repeatedly held that there is no public right to use the road, the California Coastal Commission has found that it can use its powers to control development on the coast to keep Khosla from actually vindicating his private property right. So far, the State has been successful on that front. But after last year's loss on the underlying property rights issue, that position gets harder to justify. The State can only go so long using its authority over the building of fences to keep open a public easement that courts have repeatedly held does not exist. Hence this lawsuit.

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.

CalChris3• 7 years ago

Until today, Khosla wasn't fighting the State.

FireBeyond6• 7 years ago

Come on.

The previous owners had been allowing public access, as is the (not) "ancient" standard and law.

And Khosla's best argument is the property deed is based on Mexican land grants prior to California being ratified as a state?!? I'm sure he had precisely zero idea of that, and the fact that his lawyers are using that as an argument shows just how grasping it is.

The cases lost by the governments were also very careful in not trying to make some of the claims you say they do. They were very narrow in focus. Which is why California is still able to pursue this.

tschwimmer• 7 years ago

Your application of the term tyranny here is an insult to those that have actually lived under it.

A deontological (or partially deontological) system like ours fails its people when it fails to ensure outcomes for the common good. Otherwise you get a system where the powerful can hide in the shadow of legal complexity that exactly overlaps their own personal interest.

The state trying to force a billionaire to open up a beach is not tyranny. It is undoubtedly not in the billionaire's interest but there is no world where it is tyrannical.

Gatsky• 7 years ago

There was a profile in Forbes on Khosla or something like that, and one of his employees said something along the lines of 'Khosla is pursuing this beach matter so that anyone that deals with him knows how tough and tenacious he is.' It wasn't entirely clear if this was that employee rationalising the fact his boss is a bastard, or actually the truth.

As twisted as this logic may be, I guess it is plausible some egotistical old guy would think this way.

Edit: This is the quote:

"The “beach issue,” as it is called internally at Khosla Ventures, has surprisingly not been a problem in the office. “It’s an incredible negotiating tool for me,” said Samir Kaul, another partner at Khosla Ventures.

When a company was trying to “screw” the firm, Mr. Kaul brought up news articles about the beach at a meeting. “I said: ‘My boss is going to the Supreme Court for a beach he’s never gone to. We’re not posturing here. This guy’s not going to settle,’” Mr. Kaul said. “And then I just sat there."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/technology/vinod-khosla-b...

ChuckMcM2• 7 years ago

I would agree that it is uncomfortable to watch but what the law "wants" is pretty clear, and Khosla has lost at pretty much every turn. Now the state is suing to create sanctions on him if he fails to abide by previous decisions to make the beach accessible.

Rather than be infuriated, be comforted in the fact that in spite of all his money he has been unable to overturn this law. He has made a lot of lawyers rich doing it, and will have paid a chunk of San Mateo's superior court's budget this year in fees. And he still lost.

Now the state and coastal commission are getting a court order so that they can start fining him without the need to go to court. Think of it as a really really regressive tax on a rich land owner. Let's say he writes it off as the cost of doing business and just keeps paying fines. Well I could single handedly double the budget that the coastal commission has available for keeping beach access open. That's a lot of resources.

xyzzyz5• 7 years ago

Khosla has lost at pretty much every turn.

What do you mean? He won at every turn. The courts have ruled that there's no easement, and that the public have no access to the water through his property.

https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...

thrillgore• 7 years ago

Good. He has no right to public beach access.

tedk-42• 7 years ago

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.

tempsy3• 7 years ago

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.

aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA2• 7 years ago

What a terrible shock that must have been for him, to realize this fact only after having purchased the property.

GhostVII• 7 years ago

I don't think it is obvious that he is wrong. Previously the property had a parking lot, where people could pay to park and then go to the beach. This parking lot was not profitable, so he decided to close it down. There is still public beach access, just not through that parking lot.

I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that he should provide access through the road to the parking lot, and just disallow parking, but it doesn't seem obvious to me. The previous owner did not allow free access (there was a gate), so I think it is OK for the new owner to forbid access entirely.

munk-a2• 7 years ago

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.

option5• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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.

JustSomeNobody• 7 years ago

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.

eitally2• 7 years ago

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.

vanusa2• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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...

RcouF1uZ4gsC2• 7 years ago

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.

learc833• 7 years ago

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...).

RcouF1uZ4gsC2• 7 years ago

From the last section of the Fifth Amendment:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

nofunsir2• 7 years ago

John Locke would like a word with you.

baybal2• 7 years ago

Can somebody tell me where the guy gets so much of his temerity?

dole• 7 years ago

Sun Microsystems co-founder, worth $2.1B.

option5• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

Are you so sure you wouldn't act the same in his shoes? We're all human.

ceejayoz8• 7 years ago

The wealthier you get, the less used to "no" you get.

m0llusk2• 7 years ago

That seems like a heavy interpretation of the situation. This guy bought a property that included these features and had always been treated as private with discretion for access and services provided. When told he does not actually own what he thought he bought it makes sense to have the courts make a final decision. It is a weird fluke that the extremely strong protection of coastal access in California has taken this long to resolve.

It is kind of odd that people continually frame this as a problem with an individual instead of a legal clarification of land use rights. The conflicts over access and who pays for services and liabilities such as trash accumulating have always been there but were allowed to fester as long as people sort of worked things out. Realistically that situation was never stable and was always heading for some kind of forced legal resolution no matter who was owning and who was surfing. Was public access allowed or not? In the past mostly locals would have known about the spot in the first place and anyone having problems with access would have walked away and maybe tried again later. The longstanding tension does not represent full fair access.

ripvanwinkle• 7 years ago

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

RobertRoberts6• 7 years ago

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.

option5• 7 years ago

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.

RobertRoberts6• 7 years ago

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?

eitally2• 7 years ago

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.

RobertRoberts6• 7 years ago

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...

choppaface• 7 years ago

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

mindslight3• 7 years ago

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.

bananabreakfast5• 7 years ago

There are no home owners. Vinod owns literally all of those houses and their land.

leoh• 7 years ago

Really? Can you back that up?

rossjudson• 7 years ago

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.

rayiner16• 7 years ago

The public can do whatever it wants on the beach itself.

The public can do what it wants on the part of the beach up to the high tide line. It doesn't extend to the whole of what you'd think of as the "beach."

oisino2• 7 years ago

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.

ramraj07• 7 years ago

Indeed. Perhaps no one has said that to his face till now?

oisino2• 7 years ago

Public reputation is a funny thing its not binary and its lagging. By the time people tell you stuff to your face usually its way too late for they have been building their beliefs around who you are way before.

kops5• 7 years ago

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.

tathougies3• 7 years ago

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.

Pyxl1012• 7 years ago

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.

xeromal2• 7 years ago

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.

strbean2• 7 years ago

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.

kops5• 7 years ago

(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.

bananabreakfast5• 7 years ago

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.

cortesoft4• 7 years ago

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.

kops5• 7 years ago

Then he should be kicked out of the court in a less than 5 minutes. Why is it being discussed?

markdown4• 7 years ago

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.

Traster• 7 years ago

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.

kops5• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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.

ggreer• 7 years ago

Then the state should use eminent domain to take his road, then upkeep the beach, the parking lot, and the bathrooms themselves. Instead, the state is trying to force him to run a business that loses money.

klyrs• 7 years ago

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?

That's not the issue. If you own property that's completely encircled by other properties, you're entitled to an easement through a neighboring property. Conversely, if you own a parcel of land that participates in the blockade of another parcel, you very well might be required to let the owners of that other parcel to walk on your lawn to get to their property. You'll probably want to maintain a walkway, because if their daily use turns your lawn to mud, you'll probably be liable for any injuries they sustain.

https://patch.com/california/napavalley/4-types-easements

option5• 7 years ago

I regularly donate money to Surfrider foundation so that they continue fight for our beaches in California

rcpt• 7 years ago

Sounds great.

Now let's get some real gems like Hollister Ranch and Vickers Hot Springs opened up again.

throwawaysea• 7 years ago

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.

newnewpdro• 7 years ago

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.

wuunderbar• 7 years ago

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

bazzert4• 7 years ago

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.

markdown4• 7 years ago

Are you sure it's colonial era law? Elsewhere in the world colonial era law ensured public access up to the high tide line.

bazzert4• 7 years ago

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.

bazzert4• 7 years ago

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)."

bazzert4• 7 years ago

This is a pretty good roundup of the topic. http://stage.mvmagazine.com/news/2007/07/01/private-beaches

IGotThroughIt• 7 years ago

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!

eaguyhn• 7 years ago

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?

big_chungus• 7 years ago

It would be right for California to purchase the property via eminent domain. There is an existing mechanism, and I don't see why California doesn't do this rather than demanding a private citizen open his private property at a loss. This is like that bookstore in NYC, only Khosla is a Big Bad Billionaire so I see very different attitudes of "Oh, he can afford it." I'm not saying Khosla should keep the beach, but right is right; if California wants a public beach, she should re-purchase and pay for it.

ceejayoz8• 7 years ago

He didn't purchase the beach. It was already California's beach.

jjeaff2• 7 years ago

Sure, if that was the law. But I don't think California law requires ca to purchase the land via eminent domain. The law is especially for this case where an easement is a defacto requirement when dealing with beach access. The legal process of emminent domain would be far too cumbersome for the many hundreds of miles of California beach line.

henryfjordan2• 7 years ago

Khosla is wrong, he doesn't have to provide anything except access to a path to the beach that already exists.

And California basically already seized an easement on his land years ago when they passed the law requiring beach access (although I'm not 100% sure how that's structured legally).

He might have a point about needing to maintain a relatively safe path, but so does every property owner in Malibu and they all seem to have it figured out.

0xff00ffee• 7 years ago

So does anyone that lives in a city with sidewalks. They are called easements, and if you don't maintain them, you are liable.

sdnlafkjh34rw8• 7 years ago

I think his current argument is that he doesn't have to give access (maintain easement) because his property is part of an 1851 sale of Mexican property which has a treaty that supercedes Californian state law. Essentially a federal treaty supercedes state law through judicial review. So unfortunately the current interpretation based on the courts is that since his property is part of the 1851 sale which is governed by a federal treaty (which is always above the rules of state law), he doesn't have to provide easement at all.

I wonder if this means that any of the property owners involved in land as part of the 1851 sale can now block their existing easements for beach access.

Animats• 7 years ago

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-...

cletus2• 7 years ago

What I'd really like to see in cases like this is the state playing hardball with entitled billionaires.

Why not use eminent domain to build a state road to the beach? I mean this will face a court battle too I'm sure but for a slice of land for a road you're not talking that much money (the property owner needs to be compensated by the Fifth Amendment) and building a few miles of road (I honestly don't know how much) also isn't that expensive.

I mean we're talking lawyer fees kind of money here right? Having a state road once and for all solve this issue, no?

I'm generally against governments simply placing the burden for public services onto private individuals. This is the real problem with things like rent control. If the government feels lower rents for certain individuals is a public good then why does the burden for this fall on the property owner instead of the state?

So one could argue the state should provide public access to something that is currently only accessible over private land, right?

California, build a road.

While we're at it, I've read about this story before but had missed the detail that there was a parking lot, a store and toilets at the site built and maintained by the prior owner.

How exactly is this not dedicating the road to public access? What tortured legal argument swindled the court here?

henryfjordan2• 7 years ago

While we're at it, I've read about this story before but had missed the detail that there was a parking lot, a store and toilets at the site built and maintained by the prior owner. How exactly is this not dedicating the road to public access? What tortured legal argument swindled the court here?

The reasoning is that it wasn't public access, but rather a private business operating on the land. A restaurant, while "Open to the public" is not the same as a truly "public" space (like a state-owned road, or a national park).

harryh9• 7 years ago

The state doesn't even need to invoke eminent domain to build such a road as Khosla has offered several times to sell them the necessary land. The issue is that the state doesn't want to pay.

ceejayoz8• 7 years ago

He's offered at greatly inflated cost. $30M for a small strip of land when the entire property was purchased for $32M.

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0424-lopez-kh...

bound008• 7 years ago

Context for those who are unfamiliar with the situation: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=khosla

If you search HN for "Khosla", you will see approximately half of the first page of results are regarding this issue.

freepor4• 7 years ago

What’s weird is how Khosla doesn’t yet have the “upper class” mentality. The true upper class is obsessed with legacy and reputation and would ever allow their name to become synonymous with “asshole.” And the best he is going to get is a few bucks when the state eminent domains an easement.

California Sues Vinod Khosla over Martins Beach Public Access

Related Stories