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.
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.'"
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.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
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.
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
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.