Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Silicon Valley Billionaire Fails To Prevent Access To Public Beach (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the broad-implications dept.

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.

9 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. They're liberal when it suits them by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And hardcore libertarians when someone dares ask them to share.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:They're liberal when it suits them by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:They're liberal when it suits them by dryeo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  2. The oldest law by meerling · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:The oldest law by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.'"
  3. Re:Someone from CA explain... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.'"
  4. Re:KILL the billionaire by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Someone from CA explain... by ubernostrum · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:the guy is a f=ing turd by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not all rich people are evil assholes

    Citation needed.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.