Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Valley Billionaire Fails To Prevent Access To Public Beach (theguardian.com)
Robotron23 writes: Vinod Khosla, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, has lost his appeal to privatize Martins Beach -- a publicly-owned strip of coastline in California. Having previously fenced off the land in a bid to render the area private, Khosla has been ordered to restore access by a California court. Khosla had previously demanded the government pay him $30 million to reopen the gate to the beachfront. The law of California states that all beaches should be open to the public up to the "mean high tide line." "The decision this week, affirming a lower court ruling, stems from a lawsuit filed by the Surfrider Foundation, a not-for-profit group that says the case could have broader implications for beach access across the U.S.," reports The Guardian.
And hardcore libertarians when someone dares ask them to share.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
> Why is a public easement required across private land?
Because it's the fucking law, that's why.
Tell someone who used to have an acre of oceanfront property who now has no oceanfront property that he has lost nothing of value.
It wasn't taken by the state or the people, and you can't sue the ocean. I'd tell them what I would tell anyone who buys oceanfront property: if you can't afford to lose it, you can't afford to buy it. I come from Santa Cruz, where there are a few houses literally on the beach on pilings (actually I think they are technically in an unincorporated area) and they get smashed up now and again and then the wealthy owners rebuild, because that's how it works. And with ice melting and oceans warming, the coast is an even less tenable position than ever before in human history.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The lesson: Buy land adjacent to bodies of water at your own risk.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Their economy is in the tank because they have an economic monoculture and the oil price has tanked - a mistake all *isms can make, it's just bad management. See also things like Detroit depending on a single industry for examples.
Other problems though are a direct result of how the place is run.
Easements based on historical usage have been a thing in English Common Law for several centuries. In CA, like most US states, English Common Law precedents apply unless explicitly changed by legislative action.
Failure of the property owner to understand the law of the land is not a taking under the Constitution.
Why is a public easement required across private land? At the very least, that's a "taking."
The public easement has always been required, so no owner has ever had exclusive rights to this type of land, and nothing has been taken. You can't "take" something from a person if they don't have it in the first place.