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.
Redistribute the wealth
I'll wear a speedo to the beach. All 250, pasty pounds of me. What an asshole. I had $30k of Sun stock at one time; all worthless now.
The oldest recognized law in Oregon is that everyone has access to the beach, you can't impede or infringe on that right.
It was inherited from the native inhabitants, and despite it not having been written down before hand, was well recognized and benefits everyone.
Californian developers and the like that come up here and try to take over sections of the beach get a very rude legal awakening.
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 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.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Every time I drive past there it makes me sick to think that shitbird wasn't immediately run out of town. If I had lived in the area I'd have cut that lock every night.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Rich guy eats bad donut...
Requiem for the American Dream
I want privacy where I poo too.
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.
Not all rich people are evil assholes, but this jerk off definitely is an asshole to the power 1000.
The law of California states that all beaches should be open to the public up to the "mean high tide line."
In other words, that land that you call a beach is actually part of the ocean. Seems reasonable to me.
This guy was born in India, and appears to think that the corruption that is part of society there works in America also.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Even the most exclusive of beach front communities in Orange County MUST provide a PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN access path to the beach. Without exception. But if it is a private gated community then they can block vehicles from entering abd parking. But they still HAVE to allow EVERYONE who wants to walk through their neighborhood down to the beach. Also, there is NO so thing as a privately owned beach in California. They do not exist. That's why one of the many reasons why my state is the best. :) Don't bother arguing with me. If you've been here on vacation then you know I'm right.
more proof of how the mainstream media LIES to project a false understanding. In Magnum, Magnum and co actually executed some people for daring to use the beach at the base of Robin's Nest (the estate). Magum would forever refer to the beach as 'private' (as well as mention how glorious life was in Hawaii each episode as part of the contractual agreement for tourism promotion).
Now to cover themselves, the show's producers did sometimes show 'common' people walking the beach and sometimes implied it was their 'right'. But the FAKE NEWS message broadcast by the show was the 'private' status of the beach- and yes that was not just the above tide part but all the way down.
Heck, the smart thing for him would be to turn the whole property into "Khosla beach", add some nice private facilities, and close it off temporarily for "private functions" on the couple of days that he actually might have time to spend there. Instant good press.
But as far as I can tell, Sun Microsystems attracted jerks like rotten meat attracts flies.
I can imagine no greater crime against humanity than a rich and powerful person attempting to illegally steal access to land owned by the people. This piece of filth will happily support politicians in their mass murdering foreign policy use of the US military to boost US commerce. So we are literally talking about a criminal whose personal philosophy includes the murder of sub-Humans if it helps make his 'kind' richer.
But then again the USA loves its psychopaths so long as said psychos are 'friends of Israel and or Saudi Arabia' and rich.
And the very definition of 'power' is being able to get away with those crimes the poor are crucified for. Rape (especially of children), theft on the grandest scale, the degradation of the lives of the ordinary (via societal abuses of all types including the one reported here). Khosla and his buddies are monsters- but for them that is the whole point. Money is nothing in itself- it is the abuses money buys that is the thing. And Khosla will be a rock-solid Clinton supporter of course, just like so many regular posters here.
This filth and his buds ensure that his visible 'crimes' are 'civil', which as Charles Dickens would have pointed out means he can keep the court circus going for decades, and even if a judgement seemingly goes against him, he can restart the whole process again for yet more decades. And during that time he can buy judges, senators, congresscritters and local council members- ensuring new laws and ordinances are always bending things in his direction. While the ultimate judgement of the highest applicable court may be certain to be 100% against him in the end- that end may come after his natural life span.
This is why Clinton supporters were so angry when their demonic hag lost the election. She spent so much money, pulled so many strings, had so many endorsements by famous filth, and had the backing of 99.99% of the mainstream media, her people thought such abuse of power was unstoppable. To see ultimate corruption fall flat on its face to people power will have the truly wicked crying for many years to come.
Psychos and psycho lovers think their church of corruption always wins out. And in truth usually it does. But real people hate the Clintons, Blairs, Khoslas, and all the other neo-liberal monsters, and wish the Earth could be rid of them.
Before saying anything you should familiarize yourselves with the history of that beach. I was somewhat familiar with the area before the controversy. I never visited that beach, even when it was "open" because you had to pay a parking fee. I guess I could have parked on Hwy 1 and walked down without paying, but there are other beaches where you can get a lot closer without paying a parking fee.
The state itself may or may not charge a fee for lots or roads close to beaches. For example, Pigeon Point--no fee in the lot, and plenty of road parking right by the beach. OTOH, Francis Beach in Half Moon Bay charges.
So. It seems well established that they can charge for parking convenient to the beach, and for many years that's what the prior owners did.
I think this dude shut off walk-in access. If he did, that's plainly over the line. AFAIK, walk-in has been restored. What's interesting is the dispute about parking.
IIRC, the Ritz Carlton Half Moon Bay doesn't charge for beach access parking. You just tell the lot attendant what you're up to, and he directs you to a spot in the parking garage if they're available. I think they do that to spread good will in the community though--maybe it was a condition of the development permit.
In other words, when it comes to parking at convenient lots, it's all over the map. IMHO, the real question is "what's a reasonable parking fee?" and/or "Does access to the beach imply parking?" Followed by... if it turns out that *free* parking is a requirement for public access, then all the government agencies that charge could be sued too... but I don't think it'll go in that direction. A sane ruling seems like something that would bring us back to the status quo: free walk-in, reasonable parking fees comparable to what state parks charge.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Let Khosla fence off one of India's beautiful beaches.
Once upon a time long ago California was a state of the United States of America.
Today, California is a Stalinist State within the United States and it's leaders like Jerry Brown, the California Legislature in Sacramento and the Leadership of the cities of San Francisco, LA, San Diego, to name a few, are Stalinist.
Today we see the State of California and the City Governments of California denying rights to US Citizens and granting enormous, unprecedented rights to illegal aliens. Jerry Brown, the Sacramento Legislators and the Mayors of the large cities of California openly advocate the killing and slaughter of US Citizens of California, in order to make room for the New World Order, their Precious Illegal aliens.
The Stalinists of California are a human virus that has to be eradicated and quickly.
To use the word in this context from the game Halo, I advocate the "Glassing" of California by nuclear weapons. True, many good US Citizens will die but the virus, the Stalinists like Jerry Brown and the Mayors of the Cities and the Sacramento Legislators must die. I advocate the US Citizens of California to take up arms and begin a Guerrilla campaign much like the Resistance Campaign in Paris during the German Occupation of WWII to kill as many of the Stalinist in the cities as possible.
When the air-borne nuclear detonations begin and the eyes of the Patriots are burned and begin to evaporate they will know in that last second that their struggle for freedom was not in vain, and their sacrifice now fulfilled to save the United States of America.
Seems he does not normally reside at his beach home so a tsunami, rogue stingray or some Poseidon misfortune unlikely to affect the karma on this issue
That loon has been trying that for decades and has gotten slapped down at every turn,. In fact, many rich Hollywood Liberals have tried to make the claim that the beach belongs to them.
Babes even had a hissy fit when commercial Satellite pics became available of her property and tried to have those removed.
Do the Kennedy's still have armed guards on "their" beaches?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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?
or sporting clipboards, asking swimmers to stay behind the cord
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
For putting up that fence, plus $100,000 for every day the public was not able to access that beach. Though in an ideal world, this waste of skin would get a bullet to the head
So I suggest Vinod head back to his homeland if he doesn't like how it works in California.
Otherwise, he needs to learn the California ethos. I wasn't born there either but spent almost half my life there, particularly my formative years, so I feel like a Californian. I remember what it was like in the 70s and 80s before all the asshats arrived and ruined it.
I'd love to see ithe go back to how it was. Laid back, easy, slow, mellow. I really miss California. It's gone now but it could return if we educate dickheads like Vinod.
Somewhere in the New York Times obituary department, awaiting Mr. Khosla's passing, is a draft obituary that begins, "Vinod Khosla, whose battle over coastline access..." His business accomplishments won't be mentioned until the second paragraph. This fight will be the only thing for which he is known or remembered by anyone other than family and personal acquaintances.
Vinodh Khosla is just a beachgrubbing douche. At that status/money level if one must still STEAL FROM THE PUBLIC he should be branded as a THIEF and STINGEY. Silicon Valley *hates* any insult that labels them acting less-than-magnanamous, or, god-forbid, so impovrished they cannot share resources. Gary Johnson, former 2 term Governor of New Mexico ran twice for President as a libertarian. He's the kind of libertarian that says the government shouldn't be in your bedroom and should be less invasive in your wallet. Smoke whatever you want, just don't drive. First time he ran as freemarkets Republican. Second time he *WAS* the actual Libertarian presidential candidate 2016. Rand Paul is libertarian as are a few others on the Freedom Caucus -- but they have to operate as Republicans due to our 2 party system, inevitable because of First-Past-The-Post voting. There *ARE* ways to donate to libertarians in politics.
Aristos, this is an interesting debate. Can you provide an example or two of what you mean by someone who takes a short term 'liberty' position that results in long term loss of liberty? When I think about this first thing that comes to mind is 'Patriot Act' which was supposed to give us 'Freedom from Terror' but really has moved the government towards the police state. Next in mind is LBJ's great society. Generations later blacks are now more highly regulated than any other race group (more stop & frisk, greater incarceration, more out-of-wedlock mothers forced to buy gov't approved food via WIC program, lousy black youth employment rates) when pre 1950 both black marriage AND black youth employment rates where HIGHER than White rates. (see Economist Thomas Sowell for research summaries). Corporatism sucks too as well. Corporatism is where the gov't favors & protects corporations. That's what we have in the USA, not really capitalism. A really egregious corporatist example comes from Mexico where VOIP is illegal in to protect Carlos Slim's telecom monopoly. None of the above is freemarkets, classical liberal, or libertarian. Yet as I am human my knowledge base is limited by both scope and bias. So I would like to learn more. Can you give me some examples of how you're thinking about this so that I can better understand your position? Thanks! Rock on.
Drinky -- What kind of lock and what kind of gate? I mean -- *lots* of us have tools that can cut metal or open locks with degrees of stealth ranging from ninja through angle-grinder. Although a spark-filled flurry in a photo would be the picturesque one. A large part of this group are hackers and SOME will live in the area with a valid reason to be there if they are obtuse enough to attract authorities. Lots of hack whatever is hackable...higher status and robin-hood hacks are the MOST satisfying. Why isn't this gate being hacked on a regular basis? (Not speaking of myself of course. Hacking is ILLEGAL and I would NEVER EVER EVER DO IT I SWEAR. My dog swears too. Hell I don't even know nuthin' of the Linicks operating table or whatever its called. My penguin swears.)
"In a law book which your dumb ass should've read."
If everyone did that (read the law books), a lot of lawyers would be out of work. Why are you so against lawyers, anyway?
(I'd be joking if it wasn't so true!)
PlaynBass
But I would pay good money to punch Vinod Khosla in the mouth.
doctorvo - I appreciate your reply to Aristos. I engaged him in the discussion with the goal of discovering how to improve this specific dialectic to a place where it can be easily conveyed and understood that real (small l politcally) Libertarianism aka Classical Liberalism isn't evil snobbish rent-seeking regulatory-capturing money-grubbing pauper-stomping greed. He responded cooperatively so that I may better understand his position. The discussion topic, roughly paraphrased is, "Libertarian choices that champion short-term liberty ultimately result in permanent losses of freedom." Threaded below of course. Your reply was lucid and clear. I seek to understand the cultural pathology that equates libertarianism with negative traits, and thus reduces chances that entire classes of humans can learn about the personal and societal benefits of self determination. (WTF 'libertarianism' isn't a word in my spellcheck? Possibly due to again, cultural resources being choked off to libertarian memes) Anyway - I provided examples of my point to Aristos. He responded. I'm cueing you to the discussion because, in the interest of improving human rationality, it may be valuable for me to bounce some ideas off of you as I endeavor to solve this particular linguistic chasm. Which recurs over...and over...and over... As well I am also exploring the validity of the ideas I hold and seek to improve my positions where the facts do not support my current conclusions. Which is why I'm asking him to show me why I should adopt his position and doing same in return. Slashdot is comprised primarily of smart people who are more data-driven, math oriented and scientific-process using than the average human. I think there is lots of unexplored value in finding out why community members (including myself) hold opposing conclusions. I am particularly interested in finding out where I am wrong. That's really quite exciting. Probably the most exciting thing to me, at this time, about the Grand Central Terminal of Brains that exists here. Thanks.
I feel we are discussing whether Libertarianism is
vs.
I think we can learn why our sides differ so much by summarizing this as
Vampires vs. Villagers
My above definitions of Vampires and Villagers are meant to encompass 80% of what each side of this debate feels. 80% should be enough of handle to figure out the meta of the disagreement. So before we move forward -- Aristos Pls fill me in on what's lacking in Vampires. I do not possess confidence in hitting 80% as I am still learning the borders of your position. Doctorvo, if you will, please let me know what i left out of the Villager that you think is pertinent to making this analogy meet thresshold of workability.
Thanks for helping me through this. I appreciate the discourse you both had previously which provided me a compass to guide us towards a possible analogy.