Billionaire Khosla Wins Ruling Threatening Public Beach Access (bloomberg.com) 130
Billionaire venture capitalist Vinod Khosla's long-running fight to block public access to a stretch of Pacific Ocean beach adjacent to his property got new life thanks to an appeals court ruling that could make it harder for surfers and sun seekers to get to the crescent-shaped cove an hour south of San Francisco. From a report: The beach had been open to the public for decades before Khosla bought the 89-acre property in 2008 for $32.5 million and shut off the lone road leading there. Many thought Khosla had hit a dead end last year when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up his cause, but the ruling Monday breathed life into it, finding the prior owners' willingness to let beach goers use the road didn't amount to a "public dedication" because they collected fees for parking. That strengthens Khosla's position if and when he obtains a permit from the California Coastal Commission to restrict the hours when a gate at the top of the road is open. The Friends of Martin's Beach, which has been sparring with the billionaire for years, wanted the court to find there was a long-established precedent for keeping the road open. Instead, the three-judge panel upheld a trial judge's ruling in Khosla's favor, finding there was substantial evidence that the previous owners didn't intend to dedicate the road for public use because they charged fees.
Billionaire Khosla Wins Ruling ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Billionaire Khosla Wins Ruling Threatening Public Beach Access
Ahhh, America where all citizens are equal, the rich ones are just more equal than the others because they walk with god (why else would they be so rich?).
Re:Billionaire Khosla Wins Ruling ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
One wonders why the County/City/whoever just uses imminent domain to acquire that road and open it up to all.
Look for the government employees driving expensive cars.
Re: (Score:2)
One wonders why the County/City/whoever just uses imminent domain to acquire that road and open it up to all.
Look for the government employees driving expensive cars.
Lest you forget, imminent domain is used on the poor and middle class that doesn't have the deep pockets to afford legal representation.
When your opponent has more financial firepower than you, the municipalities tend to step more lightly and play by the 1%er' rules.
Re: (Score:2)
One wonders why the County/City/whoever just uses imminent domain
Lest you forget, imminent domain
Eminent domain. [wikipedia.org] I can only handle one "imminent domain" or "mute point" per thread, when you start reinforcing the error I have to speak up.
That's what Kholsa is asking for (Score:2)
Kholsa wants the state to take an easement across his property, which means the state would have to pay reasonable compensation for taking that part of his property. The plaintiffs want to just drive across his street property at all hours of the night without a public easement.
Re: That's what Kholsa is asking for (Score:2)
Oh no someone might drive on a bit of an 86 acre property when the billionaire isn't away on a private jet. Boo boo.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that by allowing others to access your property you may be opening yourself up for lawsuits if they hurt themselves, etc.
"I tripped, owners should've provided lighting"
or god forbid "I was raped, owner should've provided lighting and security".
Sure, owner (or his/her insurance co) could probably beat it in court or at least get it down to "pocket change" levels of payouts (these are near billionaires....) but if you owned the property would you really want to go through that hassle all the time?
Re: That's what Kholsa is asking for (Score:2)
The road is private property, he purchased the road and nobody made a claim it was theirs. You can't just drive on private property because you feel like it or because the owner is rich, that's called theft. There is plenty of land and beaches in the US, pick another spot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Billionaire Khosla Wins Ruling ... (Score:2)
Eminent domain can only be used to open up property for public use where there are no other remedies and requires just compensation.
There is no public need for anyone to be at that particular beach given the city has more beach fronts and there is no obvious benefit society would get. If the beach is public property, you can always surf to it, there's plenty of places you can only get to by boat or by surfing.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nobody prevents boat access to the beach btw." ... for now. Seems a bunch of rich folk over in Florida are trying to keep boats from anchoring off their yards and ruining their views: https://www.soundingsonline.co... [soundingsonline.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The courts have been pretty well packed (Score:2, Informative)
Expect to see more of this as the effect of a
Re:The courts have been pretty well packed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, let's blame the GOP. This particular guy gave $1,000,000 into politics, a group called "Priorities USA"...
https://www.opensecrets.org/ou... [opensecrets.org]
Well, that "Priorities USA" must be super-conservative, right? Whoops, they spent 64 millions dollars AGAINST a GOP candidate.
https://www.opensecrets.org/ou... [opensecrets.org]
So, even when the evil dick is a democrat, the republicans are still to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
> So, even when the evil dick is a democrat, the republicans are still to blame.
Remember, the median Republican thinks that Democrats are misinformed and erroneous in judgment while the median Democrat believes that Republicans are evil. Yes, Google it.
The relative stridency of each camp is understandable from this perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
Median Republicans think Democrat leadership is evil. And the same for Republican leadership.
Re:The courts have been pretty well packed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Read more history. That's been going on since the founding of the nation. It's gotten a bit more intense the last half century as the Federal Budget got bigger and bigger, and thus worth more to people donating to the right causes (for which read: bribing the right pols)....
And it will continue to be a problem, because $5T+ is worth buying a few dozen pols to get a piece of the pie....
Re: The courts have been pretty well packed (Score:2)
Its gone on since government was a thing.
You can't take x out of politics unless x is not part of society, goes for money, people, power, influence, bribery...
Re: (Score:2)
It's hardly a case where the beliefs are mutually exclusive.
Re: The courts have been pretty well packed (Score:2)
Bearing in mind my comment only purported to define the beliefs of one group, what's the other group you refer to?
And yes, I can believe the political leadership in America is mostly evil or incompetent, with very few notable exceptions...
Re: The courts have been pretty well packed (Score:2)
Interesting because the deep state has literally been on TV over the last two weeks. Lt. Col. Vindman literally said to Congress "I make policy and I give the president his talking points and he didn't follow them so I filed a complaint"
You will note I also called out the Third Way Dems (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, in capitalism, there are winners and losers. We would be much better under socialism, where everybody is a loser (except for the guys running the government, they are still winners.
America is one of the richest nations in the world. Our average standard of living is a source of envy to many countries. We got that way from capitalism. Every single person to have ever set foot on the moon is an American. The transistor was invented here. The microprocessor, the cell phone, and the internet were in
Re: (Score:2)
A liberal sees a mansion and says, "everybody should live like that."
A conservative sees a mansion and says, "I should live like that."
Re: (Score:2)
It proves the misinformation is the primary tool for russian... um... tools
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the beach lovers in that area want to be pissed off at anyone, it's the prior owners. Sure Khosla could create a lot of community goodwill by honoring the stupid decision of
Re: (Score:2)
Except, that a person who can only afford a $200k house does not have the financial means to afford a lawyer to spend years litigating their complaints
You take the title jobslave, but suck up to the rich... you really take your job seriously
Re: (Score:2)
Some people buy only as much house as they need rather than the most they can afford.
Re: (Score:3)
It's kind of stupid that there's a plot of public land that can only be accessed through private property, though. Maybe the state could exercise eminent domain and make a legitimately public road to it.
Re: (Score:2)
The article doesn't say that, it only says they charged for parking.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't find it now, but I recall that there was a case about coastal access where the final outcome was that allowing access to hotel guests constituted allowing access to the public. This would imply that charging a parking fee constitutes allowing public access.
Also, they charged for parking, not access. If you walked down the road, or someone drove down, dropped you, then drove back, you would not have to pay. Surely that is open access?
Re: (Score:3)
“Payment of a fee to access or use property implies that such use is not a matter of right but instead is a permitted use,” the San Francisco-based appeals court said. “A party who pays for a privilege and is granted the privilege in exchange for the payment is not acting as though he or she had an unfettered right to exercise the privilege.”
Are you really going to try to argue that San Francisco court system has been overrun with pro-corporate judges or unduly influenced by the GOP? I mean don't let the facts get in the way of a good screed, but if you're going to make claims like this that beggar all belief at least post some evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Leave the lights on (Score:2)
Now let's move on to everyone's favorite game of figuring out his political affiliation and using that to smear everyone even remotely close to him. Bonus points if you can drag any ethnic or relig
Simple Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple solution, remove the gate. Just take gate down and toss it beside the post and access the beach as you always have. Sure the police will show up but if enough people just simply ignore them and the judge, then they will take the hint.
Public disobedience has been a tool of the public since time begin.
Including pay the same entrance fee? I prefer free (Score:2)
> Just take gate down and toss it beside the post and access the beach as you always have.
Are you going to keep pay the entrance fee to the previous owners as you always did?
I think I'd actually prefer to go to the beach for free, as this guy wants to do. I don't need to party on the beach late at night, so I'm cool with not driving in his property at night.
> Sure the police will show up but if enough people just simply ignore them and the judge, then they will take the hint.
Actually if you I the judg
Re: (Score:3)
Actually if you I the judge, you go to jail. Until YOU take the hint. Well this California, so maybe you can just ignore the law.
Sure he can and probably will. But how important is access to this beach to people? The Civil Rights protesters used Civil disobedience to end decades of racist laws and practices, that where legal a the time. Some went to jail for it, multiple times.
This guy is a billionaire, you are not going to beat him in a court of law. You have to beat him in the court of public option. It's all up to how much are they willing to fight for what they believe is right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like the way you think. Environmentally thinking. Good way to recycle someone else's garbage.
Re:Simple Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, only a portion of the beach itself is public [ca.gov] (that being below the mean high tide line, meaning sand that gets wet).
And access is to be provided consistent with the "rights of private property owners" [ca.gov].
The way to do this, legally (per California State Law and the US Constitution 5th Amendment) is to use eminent domain and pay Khosla for the land takings. Trying to just claim it and ignore the rights of the property owner violates State law, and the US Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
The way to do this, legally (per California State Law
Per California state law, it's illegal to close off access to a beach when access has formerly been permitted.
and pay Khosla for the land takings.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and he should have known he was required to permit access when he bought the land.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called a prescriptive easement [dirtlawyer.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's exactly what I said above - adverse possession (from your link):
Think of prescriptive easements as the acquisition of an easement by adverse possession
And that does not apply here because it was NOT adverse. It was granted, but on condition of the owner, and with knowledge and open approval of the owner. Adverse possession [cornell.edu] does not apply here, because no single individual continuously occupied it, they did not occupy it exclusively, and it was not hostile as access was granted by the owner.
Additionally, from your own link:
The elements necessary to establish ownership (legal title) through adverse possession are very similar to elements necessary to establish prescriptive easements, but there is one additional requirement. To acquire title to property in California through adverse possession, one must pay property taxes on the property. As a result, adverse possession, for all practical purposes, does not exist in California.
Emphasis added. So who paid the property taxes on that pro
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your analysis is that he locked a gate across the road and attempted to deny everyone access. Also, no one is attempting to gain title, only access. You're not actually speaking to the situation at hand. As usual.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is you don't understand
That is literally the converse of the problem.
it's HIS PRIVATE ROAD on his OWN property.
That's either a deliberate or dumbshit misrepresentation of the facts. It's a road to which there has historically been public access. That is in fact the root of the argument here, which you are either willfully or idiotically ignoring.
It was NEVER a public road.
No one is claiming otherwise. The claim, which has been repeated ad nauseam, is that access to the road has historically been public.
Previous owner let people go through if they paid a fee
Also false. Prior owner permitted people to park if they paid a fee. Anyone could walk in.
but that is not public access
Since
Re: (Score:2)
Previous owner let people go through if they paid a fee - but that is not public access - it is still a PRIVATE road.
Almost. You are incorrect in one detail...and it is important.
The previous owners of the property charged a fee for parking, not for transiting the property. People had previously been free to park along the public road and walk down the private road to the parking area, and down the trail to the beach.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Per California state law, it's illegal to close off access to a beach when access has formerly been permitted.
Maybe you should read the ruling rather than making up some conclusion of your own. Specifically look at the details of what it means to permit access.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that by California State Law, the Beach itself and the foot path the leads to it is considered PUBLIC LAND.
Actually no, according to the application of the law by a judge the footpath and road leading to it is expressly *not* considered public land. This is not up for debate. A random slashdot poster doesn't somehow have some higher authority than a judge on the core component of this case.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't public land before.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't public land before.
The beach was and is public land, and use of the road was permitted by prior owners. It's not legal to shut off a publicly-used access. He's taking access away from the public, where they most certainly did have it before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then he just shoots you with his high end .50 BMG from his balcony because breaking and entering is a felony. Once someone knocks a gate down, they are fair game. He can even sue the next of kin for the cost of the .50 round as well.
Or maybe someone gets him first when he dares leave his gated compound. Who says the game has to be fair?
Judge is a moron (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, because there's no distinction between a private individual charging fees and the Federal government charging fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Since you agree with Comboman, I don't see any problem here.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to change the battery in your sarcasm detector.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to change your sarcasm writing style.
Re: (Score:2)
governments are people too, my friend
Re: (Score:2)
governments are people too, my friend
Now that's a revelation! Governments are staffed by people! At least, until the singularity, right? Now then, can you explain the connection between this and the distinction between Federal agencies and private individuals? Can we blame Citizens United? Or Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
National parks charge fees, so I guess they are not dedicated to public use either.
National parks aren't privately owned.
If you want to abolish private ownership, well, that's a position. But take responsibility for holding it.
Re: (Score:2)
You just don't get it. People have a right to keep doing whatever they want. When I bought my house, I thought I had property rights, but nope. My neighbor Sam was allowed to come in without knocking and raid the fridge from the previous home owner, so of course I can't lock my doors or expect Sam to stop. I was going to put a fence up to protect my lawn, but it turns out kids are in the habit of cutting across it, so I'll just have to leave it unfenced. I think the thing that most shocked me was that the p
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
National parks charge fees, so I guess they are not dedicated to public use either.
Don't kid yourself - they're not. National parks in the US are the most rule-bound, restricted-access places outside of military bases. They let people in only when they feel like, on the prices they choose to charge, close them arbitrarily, and impose all kinds of rules on what you can and can't do there.
Reminds me of the old story about the delegation of Soviet workers who visited a US car factory. "Who does the factory belong to?", they ask. "Mr. Ford" the guide replies. "And whose automobiles are thes
Hey msmash (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't "news for nerds" in any way, shape, or form. The SJW crap around here is tired enough as it is, at least there's usually some angle that makes it news for nerds. This? Nope, nothing.
Please return slashdot to "news for nerds", which probably means you find a job elsewhere. Which, I understand, probably won't be easy.
Re: (Score:2)
I get my "news for nerds" on hackaday now. Slashdot has been dead for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
We have this shit article while I still have yet to see anything on /. about yesterday's Threadripper launch. Its huge news given Intel now has no segment they lead in anymore. But instead of that we have articles about entitled surfer bros in Socal.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't "news for nerds" in any way, shape, or form.
"Nerds don't surf!" -- Colonel Kilgore
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't "news for nerds" in any way, shape, or form. The SJW crap around here is tired enough as it is, at least there's usually some angle that makes it news for nerds. This? Nope, nothing.
Vinod was a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, and we've been discussing this issue on here since he first closed down the road. If you don't like it, why don't you just participate in a discussion you do care about?
On topic, it's been illegal to close down publicly used beach access roads in California for decades. This ruling is a travesty. Fuck Vinod Khosla twice. I hope this lawsuit wrangling gives him a heart attack. People like him represent everything wrong with billionaires.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't "news for nerds" in any way, shape, or form.
Huh? Are you joking? There's few things Slashdot nerds love more than making their own legal interpretations of the law and then arguing about it. There's a reason this is one of the most active posts on the front page.
Get off my lawn, hippies! (Score:5, Insightful)
Previous owner let them cross his land for a fee, had a gate. Current owner wants to restrict access to certain hours. Surfers claim a right of way across the land. Judge disagrees.
Nothing to see here, folks. Just someone fishing for an outrage button. Note the huge ads that pop up when you click the link.
Re:Get off my lawn, hippies! (Score:4, Informative)
Crossing the land was free, parking cost money. There's a difference there.
some perspective (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
kids these days don't even know their Douglas Adams.
Crying shame.
At the root of this is property rights (Score:2)
And many states with beaches on their coasts solve this by guaranteeing access based on public v private distinctions.
Some consider beach below the high water mark (tide mark for ocean beaches) to be public and accessible. Above that a private owner can assert their rights based on frontage. This usually dictates that some form of easement or access be provided through, often, the private owner's property, as an easement, so you can actually get to that public beach space.
And then it becomes ugly. People wa
That's the law in California (Score:3)
California law is that the beach itself is open to the public.
California law does NOT say you're allowed to drive through this guy's yard to get to the beach at midnight.
That's the dispute - he wants to limit the hours that people can drive through his property to get it the beach.
Re: (Score:2)
The state takes an easement to provide public access to the public beach. The public is no longer driving on his property. Solved.
Re: (Score:2)
And pay for the taking, ie by eminent domain.
And then we will know what it's really worth.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. The other solution would be for CA to offer to sell the beach for a fair price, maybe a cool half billion or something.
Re: That's the law in California (Score:2)
Sell what, the beach between high and low water? What's that worth? To the frontage owner, not much. To anyone else, you've sold a 'landlocked' (in the real estate sense) asset.
And of course the lawsuits...
Yeah he's asking for the state to do an easement (Score:2)
Yep, that's his position - the state should do an easement under eminent domain.
The state has decided instead to force him to keep the company open, and require him to have the same prices and hours that the previous owners had in 1979.
Why the state is fighting that I don't know. If you want public access, make a public easement. Simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that's his position - the state should do an easement under eminent domain.
The state has decided instead to force him to keep the company open, and require him to have the same prices and hours that the previous owners had in 1979.
Why the state is fighting that I don't know. If you want public access, make a public easement. Simple.
I couldn't agree more. California .....
California ... (Score:2)
Not sure what the relevant laws are in CA, but if the beach is in fact not a private beach, then the state should have a responsibility to ensure there is a legal way for the public to access it. If the beach is a private beach then the public should respect this. From what I could gather in a quick read, this guy bought a large property that envelopes a public beach, and now wants to effectively make it a private beach.
If that's the case, he's in the wrong, and so were the previous owners if they were real
Re: (Score:2)
The previous owners used the property as a business, maintaining restrooms and a small convenience store.
From TFA and he is not looking to close the road or parking just restrict the hours it's open. That way he doesn't have to worry about what people are doing on his property at 3AM.
Re: (Score:2)
Solution still holds: eminent domain, then it's not his property to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA and he is not looking to close the road or parking just restrict the hours it's open.
Except he locked a gate across the road, I've seen it myself while driving by.
Re: (Score:2)
At this juncture I would point out that there is always free public access to a public beech and there is no about of land ownership can deny one access to it. Sure it is a bit harder but there is nothing to stop you getting a boat of some description and sail it up to the beach and get out.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what the relevant laws are in CA, but if the beach is in fact not a private beach, then the state should have a responsibility to ensure there is a legal way for the public to access it. If the beach is a private beach then the public should respect this. From what I could gather in a quick read, this guy bought a large property that envelopes a public beach, and now wants to effectively make it a private beach.
No, he wants the government to buy the road that leads to the beach from him, using eminent domain. Solves every single problem, but costs $$$.
Rich people are dicks (Score:2)
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Access it from the sea. (Score:2)
Make the service available to ALL the beaches abutting ALL the billionaire owned properties. The other bigger fish will be annoyed by this little fish and squat him down.
Uber boat tax service. Lyft too. Ola too. Depending on the traffic they can even drag a
Re: (Score:2)
California coast and a lawsuit brought by surfers. Don't think the water will be nice and calm and smooth to allow a party barge (or really any barge with a sane captain) to anchor up and park.
At least, that is what I remember about my one trip to the beach in Malibu compared to what I see around my home here in N Florida near the gulf coast. Heck thinking about it I've seen larger waves on the Great Lakes on a average nice summer day than what I see on Florida's Gulf Coast (NW part, near Crystal River/Ce
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on the traffic they can even drag a large floating warf right in for larger parties!
Let's bring in a large Worf with a bat'leth instead.
Why is this on Slashdot? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have those laws here, too. The prior owner of the road charged for parking, but anyone could walk in. Vinod locked a gate across the road and didn't want to permit anyone to come in, period. No doubt he's hoping to be able to cut of all access again by pointing to some people who use the road outside of his chosen time period.