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.
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.'"
I'm not familiar with this particular case, but I'm guessing that the road was already there and may have already had an easement attached to it at the time of sale, in which case the new owner would still need to abide by it.
> Why is a public easement required across private land?
Because it's the fucking law, that's why.
Martin's beach is a noted California landmark, and yes, access had long been open. This prick knew of its importance to the region when he bought it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
As it turns out, that is illegal in California. It's only that landowners need to keep an access path to the public beach. It's permissible for the legislature to distinguish suffocating people their home in dome and requiring an open access road.
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.
Venezuela is economically crippled because it is a government by and for thieves, hiding under the rhetoric of Marxism. The vulnerability to petroleum prices is just window dressing.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
This is not California-specific. In common-law countries (the US is one), the one-two punch of land rights ending at a mean tide line, and a public right-of-way to access the sea, are literally *ancient*. As in, the common-law rights go back to the actual Byzantine Empire and have been inherited into legal systems descended from it, of which the US is one.
This is why the guy's trying all sorts of weird arguments in hope of seeing what sticks. IIRC his latest was trying to claim that the land he wants to close off shouldn't have been covered by this because of some random detail of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
Most parts of the US which have tidal waters have basically the same rule to guarantee public water access from the land, and unless he can come up with something truly stupendous he's not going to overturn 1500-ish years of how common-law systems work. He's also going to have a hard time arguing for a taking here, since it's not like this is an unknown or new thing. Just as when you purchase land with any other kind of easement or right-of-way, that comes as part of the deal.
Citation needed.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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"?
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?
FTFY
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.
Well, no. It's illegal for him to close the right of way, period, whether he is there or not. The smart thing for him to do would be to fuck right off and move somewhere else because he is forever going to be known at a fuckbag. People will be taking a shit and throwing it onto his property, throwing beer bottles at his house and the like forever more. Especially when it comes to beaches, many Californians are passionate about public access.
Californians are used to rich taking their beaches. Go try to find a public one in Malibu? If you get on the beach you will be prompted by security asking how you got here and arrested for trespassing or beat up by the rich locals for going on their turf etc.
In their mind they paid good money for it and it is their god given right. Hell, Nixon's former residence new owner has a cannon who shoots potatos at surfers who dare go on his beach.
Same in Florida. It maybe law but the developers are selling their homes with a promise of private or community beach access and feel ripped off when rift raft or strangers walk in front of their houses.
The trick now is owning the roads and putting up gates so the public can't drive to access the beaches even if they are public
http://saveie6.com/