Silicon Valley Billionaire Battles Surfers Over Beach Access

http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/silicon-valley-billionaire-battles-surfers-over-beach-access/

by wavesounds • 12 years ago

169 140 12 years ago

blogs.kqed.org

This is just so disgusting, i remember thinking about this when this guy was at techcrunch disrupt last year, acting like he's trying to make the world a better place. The tech community will stay silent because nobody wants to bite the hand that feeds them.

discardorama• 12 years ago

Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7135206 ( 197 points )

dosh• 12 years ago

I remember seeing the documentary on what billionaires buy for houses and on there, the real estate agent who worked with Larry Ellison, said he literally went house after house knocking on their doors and offered a money the owners can't refuse, got multiple houses in a single row on the same beach and it became his beach.

johnny5• 12 years ago

What documentary is this?

e15ctr0n2• 12 years ago

@dosh is probably talking about 'The Fabulous Life Presents: Really Rich Real Estate'.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0870036/

It features Kurt Rappaport, the real estate agent who represented Larry Ellison on his Malibu Beach property hunt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Rappaport

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2398391/

e15ctr0n2• 12 years ago

You're probably talking about Carbon Beach, Malibu, California.

http://www.malibutimes.com/news/article_cde2956a-3ea5-11e2-a...

You can take a photographic tour of Ellison's vast real estate portfolio here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-ellison-real-estate-201...

nomadlogic3• 12 years ago

Not sure why anyone would surprised about this. It's in the same mentality that allows things like Sean Parker's wedding fiasco in Big Sur happen.

sp332• 12 years ago

I thought his explanation was pretty good. Why was it unsatisfactory? http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/27/weddings-used-to-be-sacred-...

nomadlogic3• 12 years ago

Well that explanation IMHO is just another argument as to how people in these positions have zero regard for shared spaces and others in general. I reckon the valleywag has a pretty funny response to that self serving article he wrote.

I'm not going to start a bikeshed over the technicalities covered in the coastal commission report though - my original point was how little regard many of these individuals have for others. And how no one should really be surprised that the technology community seems to represent the worst case examples of this.

PhasmaFelis2• 12 years ago

The "fiasco" where he held an event in a public space, then returned it to the condition in which he found it?

dbroockman• 12 years ago

In Hawaii all beaches are public property and maintaining public access routes (and parking!) to all beaches is required by law. If rich Californians keep up this crap, they might just inspire a voter initiative that would make things even worse for them.

cortesoft• 12 years ago

It is also the law in California; However, this property is an exception because it was given to the previous owners by the Mexican government before California became part of the United States.

scott_karana3• 12 years ago

It wasn't just given to them by the Mexican government: it was also included in the US-Mexican treaties, and ratified after an appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Makes it a lot harder to deal with.

ellyagg• 12 years ago

According to the apparently well-informed first comment[1] on that article, it's not really an exception. The first paragraph:

    As a former Coastal Commission staff member in the 1980s, 
    I've seen this scenario played out over and over. The so-called 
    issue of Spanish land grants pre-existing and somehow 
    superceding laws like the Coastal Act isn't an issue at 
    all -- land grants occurred in the early 1800s all over 
    California, so Martins Beach isn't any special or privileged 
    circumstance.

[1] http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/silicon-valley-billionai...

dmckeon3• 12 years ago

Previous discussion at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7135206

Property rights recap at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6917815

tl;dr: The property was granted to the original owner by the government of Mexico before California was part of the US. The property rights were preserved by the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848. California's right of access to the shoreline does not override the pre-existing property right.

Welcome to the Southwest, and if you think this is strange, try exploring seniority of water rights.

Don't like the situation? Write your congress-critters and legislators, or take it to court. Other members of the tech community might respond, but are unlikely to have enough leverage to secure access to that beach. No, I don't like it either.

boomzilla• 12 years ago

Should the existing property rights only last as long as current owners? As soon as the property ownership pass to another person/entity, the current law should apply?

harryh2• 12 years ago

Property is, in most cases, property. It can be bought, sold, inherited, transferred, etc.

tomp• 12 years ago

Why? Don't get me wrong, I would totally support that kind of property principles, but given how it would apply to e.g. IP rights, I don't think it's viable in the current corpocratic atmosphere.

scott_karana3• 12 years ago

That was my first impression too, but it gets tricky.

What if your descendents want to live on the same plot of land where they grew up, after your death? Does the plot regress in size?

samstave2• 12 years ago

For generations, thi is how property tax has been protected from riing; it is legal to transfer property to a blood relative without a re-assessment of the property tax. i.e. the tax level set when purchased can be maintained.

However with sale of property between strangers, there is a new assessment at each transaction. This should be the same for coding rights too, it would seem. There may be instances where this is not the case...

It would seem though that some people want to preserve such classifications when it comes to historical properties - which may be the play Khosla is taking.

(He is also claiming that his LLC owns it - and not him directly, thus he doesnt need to go to court, personally).

nailer• 12 years ago

I'm not really sure the law matters that much as ethics do in this case. If the surfers are doing something bad or illegal, fine, but otherwise: DBAA.

bradleyjg• 12 years ago

Re: tl;dr that's what the trial court judge found, but the case is currently on appeal. It will almost certainly be heard eventually by the California Supreme Court.

geebee• 12 years ago

BTW, do you know (or does anyone know) the specific history of this particular parcel? The closest thing I could find was a wikipedia bit on Spanish and Mexican land grants...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ranchos_of_California

various articles refer to the "original owner" who filed a claim on the land (upheld by the US courts in the mid 1800s), but I can't find anything more than that...

"The judge cited the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War and required that the U.S. recognize Mexican land grants in cases where a claim had been filed.

The original owner of the land fronting Martin's Beach had indeed filed a claim, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1859, 14 years before California drafted its first constitution."

One issue I don't understand here is why the parcel is exempt from the public easement required through the California state constitution... it makes sense that the treaty required the US to recognize existing land ownership, but it seems strange that it exempt from constitution where it comes to use. For instance, permits would still be required to build on it, land use law is still in effect, right?

I'll try to dig up the opinion and read it some time. If anyone has some interesting links, please post them.

tzs2• 12 years ago

From what I can see looking at the treaty, and looking at the Supreme Court case, it seems to me that you are right. I do not see how either of them prohibit what California wants to do, provided that California is not singling out Mexicans. It's also not clear to me from the treaty if it even applies to people who were not Mexicans at the time the treaty was enacted.

Note: I have not extensively researched this. I googled for the text of the treaty, and then did some searching within it to try to find the parts relevant to property rights. I also googled for the Supreme Court case and read the decision (which was short and not very informative by today's standards). In other words, I could be completely off on this.

dmckeon3• 12 years ago

It appears to be this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Ca%C3%B1ada_de_Verde_y_...

There are some other clues on this .tiff (fair warning, it bogged down my Shotwell viewer and swap space):

http://gis.co.sanmateo.ca.us/pwraster/RSMvol018/18-RSM-PG017...

Martin is on that map, and the annotations speak to the legal process of the time.

nymph• 12 years ago

California's right of access to the shoreline does not override the pre-existing property right.

I think what you meant to say was:

"The defendant's position is that California's right of access to the shoreline does not override the pre-existing property right."

As in: this "does not override" phrase you gingerly tucked is not only far from obvious (in this use case); it's highly, highly contentious -- and requires aggressive substantiation to be tenable. In fact, it's a lot like saying:

"The title for this Brooklyn brownstone I just bought ultimately traces back to the Dutch land grants (or Lenape tribe covenants, etc; take your pick); NYC's zoning restrictions do not override the existing property rights. So if you don't like this 40-story casino-hotel-brothel complex I'm building, well, you can just bugger off."

samstave2• 12 years ago

Can I have the address for said casino-hotel-brothel complex -- sounds fun.

dmckeon3• 12 years ago

Fair point - I'd edit, but the edit window time has passed. I was trying to summarize the previous discussions, but yes, this is contentious, and the outcome is not yet clear.

cratermoon2• 12 years ago

I suspect this guy's property rights to his "ancestral lands" are about as valid as Cliven Bundy's

wavefunction• 12 years ago

The "guy" (Vinod Khosla) is not advancing an argument based on "ancestral lands" as he was born in 1955 in Delhi, India.

He's claiming that the original owner of the property was granted it in whole by the government of Mexico, which precedes any claims or legal statutes enacted by the US or California governments. I think the property should be confiscated to be held in trust as a lesson to this guy and the rest of the ultra-rich that this is our planet too.

nashequilibrium2• 12 years ago

I am adding the top comment from the original article by user petethexman:

As a former Coastal Commission staff member in the 1980s, I've seen this scenario played out over and over. The so-called issue of Spanish land grants pre-existing and somehow superceding laws like the Coastal Act isn't an issue at all -- land grants occurred in the early 1800s all over California, so Martins Beach isn't any special or privileged circumstance.

It isn't just a matter of the Coastal Act. What was alluded to regarding public access along the road involves what is known as a prescriptive right. Areas with a history of public use can have the right of access through prescriptive rights regardless of the existence of Coastal Act policies. Prescriptive rights have a lengthy history -- and by lengthy, I mean going back to English common law in the 1100s. The standards for a prescriptive easement involve, among other things, that the public use be open, "notorious" (which means well known and not secretive), and continuous for a period of time. Many prescriptive rights inure in a time period as short as 5 years or as long as 20. And it isn't just the coast. If your neighbor builds a concrete block wall between your back yards and it turned out to be on your property and not his (a very common occurrence), over that period of time, if not otherwise contested or challenged, it could become his property if he was to pursue that. So the impact of these decisions is widespread not just in terms of natural resources but also public usage of trails as well.

Access to the water is a right guaranteed not just to and along the coast but to any body of water -- lake, stream, pond, whatever. Article X Section 4 of the California Constitution, enacted shortly after statehood in 1850, states in part that the public has a right to access of "the waters of the state of California," that no person, organization, corporation, or any other entity can block access to the waters of the state, and that the Legislature, in enacting future laws, must give THE most liberal application of those rights possible.

Case in point: When I lived in Lake Arrowhead in the San Bernardino Mountains in southern California, the homeowner association there blocked public access to the lake unless you were an association member/property owner on the lake. The dam was constructed beginning in 1922 and has always been in private ownership by the association. During the drought in the early- to mid-1990s, the lake level dropped nearly 20 feet, and boat owners who didn't have docks that could adjust to fluctuating water levels couldn't launch their boats. Their solution? Not take personal responsibility, certainly. No. They had the Community Services District (for water and sewage disposal) enact an ordinance that charged everyone within the District (whose boundaries far exceeded the area of the homeowners' association) higher rates to raise $60 million to subsidize the wealthy lakefront property owners who didn't have adjustable docks -- fewer than 100 property owners, in a community with over 12,000 permanent year-round residents. This money was for purchasing water from the State Water Project through convoluted three- or four-step water swapping deals with other water districts to obtain water indirectly AND was done in a manner that avoided any approvals that could be conditioned to force public access to the lake directly.

The solution to these problems? Be vigilant. Always be vigilant. The ocean is OUR ocean, and access to the beaches and water is an integral part of the culture of California. This tiny beach, away from view, away from virtually everyone except those very few lucky individuals who live there, is important. It only takes one bad precedent, one bad court ruling, to have impacts not only on this beach, not only on all California beaches, not only all bodies of water, but to any resource belonging to the people of California, whether it be a small creek in the eastern Sierra, a forest, or a desert.

sologoub• 12 years ago

Interesting! Is this limited to only naturally occurring bodies of water or does it include artificial?

I'm guessing artificial lakes are not included, as there are plenty of examples where gated communities restrict access, such as Lake Sherwood in the Los Angeles suburb of Westlake Village.

joshuaheard2• 12 years ago

A prescriptive easement has to be without permission by the owner. Since the previous owner was charging $10 to park, I would argue they had permission.

dchichkov• 12 years ago

It'd be nice for someone to verify that, but apparently "The Surfrider Foundation San Mateo County Chapter has been engaged in an effort to reestablish public access to Martin's Beach".

They can be found at: http://smc.surfrider.org Looks like they are doing the right thing. And I guess it wouldn't harm writing that I've also just donated a token $100 to them.

ww520• 12 years ago

I believe eminent domain trumped property right in most if not all cases. The property right "inherited" from Mexico is just property right. Eminent domain is for public good. A court can always grant easement access to the coast to the public using eminent domain.

pcl3• 12 years ago

Last time this came up on KQED, I think that Khosla's lawyers were saying something about being amenable to an eminent domain argument, under which CA would need to compensate Khosla for the access. Evidently, the argument that the Coastal Commission approach has made does not require compensation.

JoshTriplett• 12 years ago

There's a very interesting analogy here to cloud services: if you don't own something, don't assume you'll be able to use it indefinitely under the same terms. The owner can change their mind at any time, or sell to someone else with a different policy.

gpcz• 12 years ago

I assume you mean free cloud services. If you're a paying customer with a contract, it's harder to pull that stunt.

ar7hur2• 12 years ago

Regardless of the law, I just don't understand why Khosla is going into this PR disaster. Which entrepreneur who has a choice (and 99% of successful entrepreneurs have a choice) between Khosla and another VC would choose Khosla after that?

selmnoo4• 12 years ago

A lot, when it comes to money. Because, it's all about the Money and Khosla has a lot of it.

Also, as it happens, KV is an investor of YC startups: http://blog.ycombinator.com/khosla-ventures-is-joining-the-y...

ar7hur2• 12 years ago

YC W14 startups have all received this investment from a fund "YCVC" that includes KV (I know this first hand, we are one of them!). That doesn't mean any of us chose KV.

That being said, I want to moderate my comment. Until now, the situation is still under control, but it could become worse and then start to be a PR problem for KV. It's still time for them to do something.

harryh2• 12 years ago

Stripe, to pick a HN favorite, recently raised a big round in which Khosla was a major investor.

aaron695• 12 years ago

TL;DR People have become so lazy they now think they have a right to drive to everything including a tucked away beach that is awesome in it's self because people have to get a boat to visit it.

PhasmaFelis2• 12 years ago

You're getting downvoted because you didn't RTFA. The beach became popular in the first place because it was accessible. If the access road had never existed, no one would know or care now.

forgottenpass2• 12 years ago

So... I don't actually live if the Bay Area, but stories like this always make me curious. Is there any wonder out there why not-tech workers seem to hate the tech sector? People literally protest google's buses, that's a lot of animosity towards an industry that have disconnected and distanced themselves so much that other people have no better recourse than to protest a bus.

tptacek4• 12 years ago

This has nothing to do with the actions of anyone who works at Google. The line you've drawn between bus protests and beach access is nonsensical.

selmnoo4• 12 years ago

I think what 'forgottenpass was probably getting to was the idea that a regular joe doesn't know much the difference between the all-glorious tech company 'Google' and the tech guy 'Khosla'. Right now Khosla is making all of SV tech place and beyond look bad. Khosla is in some way coloring the perceptions of all tech people, all tech companies, etc. in the hearts and minds of regular joes. It's kind of the way people work - not that there's anything wrong about being ill-informed, a lot of folks don't have time and resources to get good information. We just have to work with what we've got -- and I think this is one of the reasons we should strongly denounce Khosla's douchebaginess and make normal people understand that we're not all like him.

michaelt2• 12 years ago

I think it's like people see some bankers triggering a financial crisis, and some bankers taking home huge bonuses, and decide bankers are assholes.

Likewise for politicians, cops, CEOs, lawyers etc.

Fortunately, the reputation of us techies isn't yet as bad as the reputation of bankers, politicians and lawyers! Just as well, as it's not clear to me that we have the will or ability to improve or manage our collective reputation.

tippytop• 12 years ago

If you're ever in Mountain View and walk by the Google campus around 4-4:30p, you can witness the vast network of Google buses picking up their colonist cargo ready for dispersal throughout the Bay Area. It's not just one or two buses, the road is literally backed up with them, each with a little LCD display to let you know what town or neighborhood they're going to. It really is a sight to behold. I can understand why locals view them as an invading army.

state• 12 years ago

It's particularly annoying that there's no statement from Khosla. It's hard to believe that he's not in any way sensitive to these issues, or didn't think anyone would notice.

I spend a lot of time along that stretch of coast in the ocean. Anyone even remotely familiar with the place should know that this kind of thing wont go over very well. It almost seems foolish.

sixQuarks2• 12 years ago

I agree. He should have just left the road open. I go to HMB all the time and had never heard of this beach. Now I want to go check it out with my dogs.

If he wins and gets to keep the public out, I guarantee the locals will figure out someway to really annoy him. Maybe do a special daily boat trip, bringing homeless people from SF on a field trip to the beach.

jack-r-abbit7• 12 years ago

I probably have the unpopular opinion here but I don't like it when people try to tell me what I can do with my own property. I understand that people have been using that road for years and it was never a problem with the previous owner. But there is a new owner. He does have a problem with people using the road on his land. That sucks for those people but it is not their land and it never was. The beach is still public... just hard to get to. Once you get there, he can't do anything about it (up to the high water mark).

I'm not sure what angle they are taking with the permits on the land improvements. Those seem like unrelated issues and even if they beat him on the permits, how does that give them back the road access. Wouldn't he still be able to keep them off. Trespassing is trespassing even if the land owner violated some permit rules. If the California Coastal Commission (in charge of issuing permits) categorically denies his permits just to spite him, they'll be just as much the asshole he is.

calbear81• 12 years ago

I think you have a reasonable point about the beach still being public. In this case, the point of the permit battle is to make this land worth less to him since he won't be able to redevelop it. The California Coast Commission has a point of view which is to try and ensure public access to public beaches and will use their power to try and force him to negotiate.

In regards to what the tech community can do about this, how about organizing a large beach party and get some boats to ferry people in?

redm• 12 years ago

"how about organizing a large beach party and get some boats to ferry people in?"

What would be the point? Vinod is not living there so he would be indifferent to it, at least until 2021.

lutorm6• 12 years ago

My impression is that while existing property generally is grandfathered when regulations change, renovations then require you to bring the relevant part up to code. Thus, if you want to change stuff, like putting up a fence, then it does not seem far-fetched that you would then be required to comply with current public access rules.

If you have an old deal, that's fine. But you can't justifiably claim you both have a right to be grandfathered in while at the same time updating the property to current standards.

sscalia3• 12 years ago

Great point

cratermoon2• 12 years ago

If your property was no connected to all the rest of the property on earth, the resources under the earth, and the air above it, I might agree.

jack-r-abbit7• 12 years ago

Are you saying that since all land is connected that no one should be able to have any say about their own land? I hope not because that seems a bit ridiculous.

tn132• 12 years ago

There is nothing unpopular about your opinion. Everyone agrees that property rights are important. But in number of cases property rights also conflicts in a way it is hard to resolve. For example you may have a smoke emitting chimney in your house which spoils the air for your neighbor. In this case your neighbor too has a good case against you because your activities in your property infringe on your neighbor's property rights.

In this particular case I think Vinod has the right to block the access to beach from his property. But at the same time Government has a responsibility to see how an access to the beach may be provided.

vidarh3• 12 years ago

Everyone agrees that property rights are important.

I think you will find not everyone agrees with that. Since well before Proudhon's "property is theft" (from "What is property?", 1840), there have been ideological arguments against property rights on the basis that the limit the liberty of the population as a whole. And while wholesale rejection of property rights is not common, it most certainly exist, and has a history pre-dating our written legal systems.

Careful about generalisations.

cmapes• 12 years ago

This was my first impression as well. It seems to me that if you're allowed to spend the $37m to officially "own" the property then it would logically follow that you should be allowed to alter it or decide you don't feel like having random people on it. If not, then the road should be state owned with all surrounding property private.

I recognize that there's complex case-law here that differentiates between those varying shades of grey, but that's just my (unpopular) opinion.

lnanek2• 12 years ago

Honestly, I agree. However, there are often laws that protect right of ways that are already in use and things like that. Heck, people often sell property separate from mineral or water rights that have been sold separately. I don't have any problem with it if the owner bought it knowing he would have to retain public access, since then it would have been priced into the cost.

vidarh3• 12 years ago

That kind of attitude makes me very happy that my native Norway (and the rest of Scandinavia, to various extents) have the legal concept of "freedom to roam". It has also (in a much more limited version) been embedded into law in the UK where I live now, in recent years.

In Norway the concept pre-dates written law, and in its current incarnation it guarantees public right of access to most non-urban land, as well as almost all of the coast line. Basically, outside of urban areas, as long as we avoid peoples gardens, and things like tended fields, we can pretty much go where we want, whether or not it is private property, without seeking permission from the property owner (though it is considered polite to introduce yourself to the owner and seek to take their wishes into consideration if you make use of the rights in the vicinity of where they live).

We can also, with some further limitations, pretty much camp where we want. Further, tradition creates legal rights of access - if a path or a road has a history of public use (20-30 years is a typical yardstick, though frequency of use and the owners actions in the period that usage is becoming established will mattr), that access is legally protected; if a new owner decides to try to prevent continued public access, they will generally face an uphill battle.

The reasoning behind this is basically that allowing a property owner exclusive use of large areas of land would be a massive curtailment of the liberties of the population as a whole, and that maximizing public access to land is a substantially larger net positive in terms of liberty than the relatively limited negative impact for property owners.

It is considered so fundamental in Norway that it was not considered necessary to codify in law until 1957 (almost all of Norwegian law is codified), as it was seen as intrinsic to the legal system. In Sweden, their variation is protected by inclusion in their constitution.

jack-r-abbit7• 12 years ago

limited negative impact for property owners

I guess then you don't have a huge problem with vandalism and litter. It is hard to find a public space here where some dickwad hasn't left a beer can, used condom or cigarette butt. We also like to sue the crap out of each other. So anytime someone is on your land, you are subject to getting sued when they get hurt. So I don't blame people for trying to keep other people off their land. It would be nice if we had what you describe. But I think that ship has sailed here.

base698• 12 years ago

As someone who vacations frequently in Norway and Switzerland I quite love that. I always found it super ironic that to have the freedom to roam I have to leave the USA :)

jfb• 12 years ago

Per Raz, Berlin, &c., these problems of conflicting goods arise precisely because values do not form a simple taxonomy with one supreme overriding ancestor. It's hard, and messy, because we have to balance several legitimate claims.

Many technical people -- certainly including myself -- can tend towards thinking that all problems have a single solution, that those solutions are tractable, and that disagreement is a function of lack of information. That is not always the case.

lumberjack• 12 years ago

I understand that people have been using that road for years and it was never a problem with the previous owner. But there is a new owner. He does have a problem with people using the road on his land. That sucks for those people but it is not their land and it never was. The beach is still public... just hard to get to. Once you get there, he can't do anything about it (up to the high water mark).

Not sure how it works in the US, but English Law has something to say about this. If your property is blocked by the property of another you get to have a right of passage through his land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement

TheCoelacanth• 12 years ago

There are similar laws in the US, but in this case the owner is arguing that the treaty in which the US acquired California from Mexico in the 1800's (requiring the US let the people who already owned land in California keep it) supersedes the California law requiring public access.

brc4• 12 years ago

I'm inclined to agree. To me the irresponsible party is the previous owner. They obviously had some sort of agreement but never codified it in law. If they had turned over an easement or otherwise established rights for the road, then this problem wouldn't exist. But they either didn't bother out of ignorance, or they didn't want to, to maximise their sale price.

There is a precedent here, and while I absolutely agree that all shoreline should be publicly accessible, if that shoreline is landlocked by private property, that's going to be too bad.

This reminds me of the 'landlord evicts squatter' type stories that spring up from time to time. The issue arises from the time someone gets established in a not-very-firm legal sense - and that is allowed to fester over time. Eventually when someone moves to implement the law as written, it results in ugly battles.

There is also lots of articles about the 'right to roam' in the UK which has similar issues. Often these have been abused by paparazzi to invade the privacy of people who, ironically, purchase remote properties to get some privacy.

Personally, if I had the $37m, I wouldn't have the stomach for this kind of fight and would have moved on. But there is probably a big win coming for establishing ownership over the entire land over the next ten years or so.

I've always found the placement of properties right on the shoreline in California and Florida somewhat surprising. Where I live, virtually nobody lives right on the shoreline like that, simply because there is little, if any, private property that close to a beach.

qq662• 12 years ago

The problem with this reasoning is that it's based on the incorrect assumption that one can "own" land completely and outright.

This isn't true since land ownership itself is something that can only exist with the consent of the community. Unlike the fruits of one's labor, the modern concept of land ownership is just a modernization of the older mechanism of land ownership, which was enforced by the pointy end of a sharp stick. In that old model of land ownership, you'd have a lot of trouble holding onto your land if your activities on your land started poisoning the local water supply and ruining the surrounding land for everyone.

In the new model of government enforced land-ownership, you still have to treat your land in a way that's compatible with the needs of the landowners that surround you.

jack-r-abbit7• 12 years ago

We have codes and ordinances so people don't just go willy-nilly doing any old thing. I'm not against some regulation. So in most cases I would agree with you. But this isn't one of them. His locking his gate didn't poison anyone's well or burn down anyone's house. All he did was stop random anybodies from entering his land. He didn't even mess up the beach or anything. No surrounding land was touched. He locked his gate. The fact that the people were entering his land to get to a public beach is irrelevant to me. I firmly believe any land owner should have 100% full right to block any person from entering their land (aside from proper police authority). Just like many times before and many times to come... people are butt hurt that something they used but didn't own was suddenly taken away from them.

abalone• 12 years ago

What a douche canoe. Which is now ironically the only way to access the beach.

marquis• 12 years ago

What if it were for less nefarious reasons? Perhaps he's planning on shutting the entire area down from human access completely and letting some flora and fauna having a refuge area.

wankerrific• 12 years ago

Even if it were for that, Vinod has been a bad actor here, so if this were the case the ends wouldn't have justified the means. First he fought to not reveal who had bought the land, and now he has been trying to overpower the people (represented by the govt) via his wealth and litigation.

For the record, its not that great of a surf spot, but this is more about letting someone establish precedent and thus leading to more beach access rights (Malibu...) getting chipped away at slowly but surely.

It would be great if we had Hawaii's right-of-way laws...

And to the original poster - not sure why you were down voted for asking a question.

hsod• 12 years ago

and now he has been trying to overpower the people (represented by the govt) via his wealth and litigation.

Alternatively, he's "defending himself against a power-hungry government determined to curtail his property rights"

whyenot• 12 years ago

I've been going to Martin's Beach since before I could walk (or swim). It's a location that has been pseudo public access for generations. That part of San Mateo County has been extremely effective when it comes to preventing unwanted development and opening up areas for public access. Khosla is in for a real battle, no matter who wins the current court case.

orthecreedence2• 12 years ago

It has happened before where someone rich and powerful decides to battle locals only to find that their legal power can only go so far. I liken it to an elephant trying to fight a swarm of army ants. If you just live near the ants and leave them alone, all's well. You step on their nest and you're in for a hell of a fight (one that lawyers and money can't necessarily bail you out of).

sscalia3• 12 years ago

Don't be like this man.

There are people on here, reading this comment right now, who will become fantastically rich.

Minimize externalities to your behavior. Be considerate, be thoughtful, be kind.

Be the opposite of Vinod Khosla.

sscalia3• 12 years ago

Ah, yes -- the down vote has come.

tzs2• 12 years ago

Note this appears to just concern access by land. I believe that the public still has access rights to the beach between the low and high tide marks if they can get there without crossing his land.

This could be a nice little summer money-making opportunity for some college students, as long as Khosla is able to keep land access closed. Get a boat, and for, say, $20 per head ferry people to the beach and back. I bet a lot of people would pay that, assuming that you don't ferry so many people as to make the beach as crowded as other beaches. You could probably make $1000/day at this, at least.

vilhelm_s2• 12 years ago

Think of it as a David-and-Goliath battle waged entirely in paperwork, between a billionaire and the chronically-unfunded agency in charge of issuing these permits, the California Coastal Commission.

Ah yes, that plucky underdog, the State of California.

jdpage• 12 years ago

There's a difference between the State of California and the California Coastal Commission. The Commission is a public agency (i.e. a group of people representing the best interests of the public) which happens to be funded by the legislature. Specifically, a legislature which is underfunding them.

alexeisadeski3• 12 years ago

I'm sure everyone here would love to have a public road going through their back yard.

orthecreedence2• 12 years ago

It's one thing to buy a property and have someone say "guess what, we're building a road in your backyard lol!!" and an entirely different scenario to buy a property that already has a road going through and force the locals off a piece of land they've used for decades, bypassing the local laws to do so.

It's not a case of personal liberty, it's a case of someone with a lot of money overstepping their bounds because they think nobody will do anything about it.

stormbrew• 12 years ago

I'm sure everyone here would also love to have property with direct beach access. Maybe there's no such thing as a (very expensive) free lunch.

aliston• 12 years ago

For those interested, the opening arguments are taking place tomorrow in Redwood City for the Surfrider case:

Late yesterday, Surfrider's case was assigned to a judge and room. Here's the scoop: Hall of Justice & Records

What: Opening arguments in Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach I, LLC and Martins Beach II, LLC

When: 2pm on Wednesday, May 7

Where: San Mateo County Superior Court, 400 County Center, Redwood City Department 22, Courtroom 8A

Photo credit Rob Caughlan

Superior Court Judge Barbara J. Mallach presiding

It is likely that at some point there will be a court sanctioned site visit to Martin's Beach. At present, the date and time of such visit is unknown.

If you attend, please show your support by wearing blue! Thanks!!

http://martinsbeach.blogspot.com/

beedogs2• 12 years ago

This just in: most billionaires are assholes.

refurb3• 12 years ago

I don't get this part of the article:

"Nancy Cave and her staff want to keep Martins Beach open to the public. Khosla will need permits from the Commission if he wants to do almost anything on the property."

Are they inferring that they will screw with his permits in order to force him into giving access?

pcl3• 12 years ago

Yes -- Coastal Commission approval is required to get construction permits on coastal lands, and my understanding is that the commission uses this approval to obtain access concessions.

refurb3• 12 years ago

So basically they'll refuse to provide valid permits because of another, completely unrelated issue in order to "get back" at him?

joshuaheard2• 12 years ago

Yes, the Coastal Commission has been doing this for decades.

quasque5• 12 years ago

Sometimes I yearn for a benevolent AI to rise up and impose a communist state upon the world, employing robots to free humanity from its labours.

This yearning mostly comes when I'm reminded that there are a small number of people who've not only managed to accumulate such an obscene amount of wealth that the title "billionaire" can be bestowed upon them, but that they use that wealth for predominantly selfish outcomes.

And it's only going to get worse. When the enduring puzzle of longevity is finally cracked and death can be reliably cheated, it's not going to be those living in abject poverty, or the dogged grafters, or even the skilled professionals who benefit. No, it'll be that small group of rich and powerful who'll use it to further promote this monumental inequality of wealth.

It's not the triviality of some beach access that is really the issue, it's just a distraction. It's this vile aristocracy of gold and greed that is the enduring problem, the manifestation of which is the source of countless suffering amongst humanity.

brc4• 12 years ago

Communism? Really? Sorry, no thanks. I'm fine without being murdered by my own government for having unclean thoughts. Long live the individual.

quasque5• 12 years ago

But if it was run by a benevolent robot intelligence rather than humans, it would probably work out really well.

Indeed I think it would be about as close to utopian as we're ever going to get.

justinreeves2• 12 years ago

Communism == Execution for Thought Crime, apparently.

Jochim• 12 years ago

But if you work 70 hours a week for the rest of your life you to might attain this status my friend! Think of all the riches and power you'd have for yourself! And because people are taught that massive amounts of wealth concentrated into single entities is a noble thing to strive for you will be respected by all!

Surely the personal happiness of a few hundred human beings who worked hard and got lucky (or were born to someone who worked hard and got lucky) weighs more than the hunger of millions in the third world. I mean if they were really that hungry they would get a job and feed their family, right my friend?

stephencanon• 12 years ago

It's a pretty safe bet that an AI dictatorship would employ humanity to spare the robots from their labors.

quasque5• 12 years ago

I suppose it depends on the personality of the AI, and how it was programmed or evolved. Maybe it, and its robots, would be highly motivated by such work?

rmason• 12 years ago

Did you know that Steve Blank is on the California Coastal Commission? Steve's positions on similar cases are well known.

http://steveblank.com/2013/06/28/in-defense-of-unreasonablen...

This shapes up to be an epic battle among the two men, the venture capitalist and the entrepreneur. My money is on Steve.

jasonmonberg• 12 years ago

Unfortunately, it looks like Steve resigned from the commission as mentioned in that post and from the roster:http://www.coastal.ca.gov/roster.html

Perhaps Steve will join the fray?

antifragile• 12 years ago

One makes money to make a living, but you only truly enrich your life if you share some of what you have .... there is no other way, everything else is delusion. I know, I tried hard the other way.

Hmm. Sounds like someone whose tripped-over their own super ego. We must help him! Everyone get out! I'm going to call in for a tsunami to re-level the playing-field :-)

Silicon Valley Billionaire Battles Surfers Over Beach Access

Related Stories