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.

Comments

Still blocked

[rossz]

The bastard is ignoring the court ruling and is keeping the access way blocked. I'd like to see the judge issue an arrest warrant for contempt of court.

Re:Still blocked

[rtb61]

A class action law suit for the lost value of the beach to the public for the period of time they were illegally prevented access to it based on the claimed value put forward by the egoistic prick himself. So the rent on a claimed $30 million dollar asset plus penalties, likely doubling or tripling that, for the period access was denied and that money going to the local government as representatives of that community.

Re:Still blocked

[Kjella]

The bastard is ignoring the court ruling and is keeping the access way blocked. I'd like to see the judge issue an arrest warrant for contempt of court.

Well until the judgement is final it's not final. Though I like the approach they typically take to this type of cases here in Norway, which is to impose daily fines. They typically can't be stayed so you can delay and appeal all you like but the claim against you is constantly accumulating and if you eventually lose it's going to be pretty massive. It's the same for missing building permits and such too, they can't ask you to raze anything. But if you've built it illegally and want to drag it out through the court system a few years, it's going to cost you dearly.

Someone from CA explain...

[msauve]

So, "'The law of California states that all beaches should be open to the public up to the "mean high tide line.'" That's normal admiralty law pretty much everywhere.

But, the reports I've seen require that a gate be opened and the public allowed to travel an access road across private land. That's a completely different thing.

Access to the beach is available from the water side - bring a boat. Why is a public easement required across private land? At the very least, that's a "taking."

Re: Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

At the earliest moment when both the deed and the law were simultaneously in effect, the deed became defective as it lacked a required easement. The billionaire needs to put in a claim to his title insurance company because that is what has happened here: there is a pre-existing claim that is valid and must be satisfied. The title insurance the guy paid when he bought the property will compensate him for any drop in value. That's what it's for; and they should have seen this coming.

Re:The oldest law

[Obfuscant]

was well recognized and benefits everyone.

Not everyone. There are times when it will impede the neighboring landowner from taking preventive measures to stop the erosion of his property by the ocean that everyone has access to. Putting in rip rap need not impede the public access to the beach, but it is prohibited anyway.

They've also tried to sue for "loss of value", but they always lose because the property they bought never included the beach in the first place.

The issue is when the property itself becomes "beach" because the owner cannot make any attempts at stopping it. Tell someone who used to have an acre of oceanfront property who now has no oceanfront property that he has lost nothing of value.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[ShanghaiBill]

Hawaii's beach access law is even stronger than California's. Not only is the beach public up to the highest wash of the waves, but the public is allowed to cross private land to reach the beach, and landowners cannot block their path.

This is the law of the land because a little boy was unable to reach the beach near his home and had to walk for miles to swim in the ocean. Then that little boy grew up, and became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Hawaii.

California vs. Arizona

[swb]

In Arizona, they would just rip the fence down.

My dad lived in a development in the foothills that abutted BLM land. They had large lots (20 acres minimum) and most lots extended down into the canyons. One guy decided he didn't want anyone in his canyon wash, so he drove pilings in and fenced it off with locked metal gate. Within his right, but his house was 100 feet or more above the wash and about a half-mile drive up the wash and back down the road to his house.

Within about two weeks, the pilings and gate he put up were *gone*. Someone with a powerful truck and/or winch had yanked them up and taken them away.

My dad said that around there, you just didn't block "public" access into BLM lands, and if you tried, they would knock the gates down. It was fruitless, one guy tried steel I-beams and found them cut off with an acetylene torch.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[dryeo]

Since when do judges create laws? I think your history has a few issues.

Assuming you live in the USA or a Commonwealth (including most exCommonwealth) country, for close to the last millennium. We're all common law countries, which means that, to quote wiki

Common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law or case law) is the body of law developed by judges, courts, and similar tribunals.

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

Though over the last few hundred years, much law has been legislated, still the courts interpret those laws, some of which are very vague, often on purpose as the legislature expects the courts to sort things out.

I don't see a problem

[stabiesoft]

Fine him 1 billion dollars and see if he wants to keep it restricted. Still no, fine him another billion for each and every week he fails to comply with the law. I forget which country, but one in europe adjusts fines based on worth. Super rich are not bothered by laws unless you make it hurt like it does for the rest of us. Isn't that really the point of a fine anyway?