10 ms·
Vinod Khosla asks for $30M for access to public beach
- sidcool 11y agoI am sure it's not legal. Is it?
- toomuchtodo 11y agoIt is not. http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/prc-access.html http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/prc-access.html http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/columns/laws-that-shaped-la/why-californias-beaches-are-open-to-everyone.html http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/columns/laws-that-shape... http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-coastal-penalties-20140630-story.html http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-coastal-penalties-20140...
- SwellJoe 11y agoIt's not, but it's not uncommon. Malibu has all sorts of difficult to reach beaches, with threatening signage about "no trespassing" and other such nonsense. All beaches are public property in California, so it's rich people being bastards when they prevent access and pretend like it's their private property. I make it a point when I'm in Malibu to stomp across several of those "private" beaches, on foot. It takes a while to get to some of them, since access routes are rare. I suspect city planners are sympathetic to the goals of the privateers...there's a few places where it is a few miles between public access. Hopefully, Half Moon Bay is less amenable to rich people skirting the law. Also, I never knew Khosla was such a dick.
- sumedh 11y agoMaybe you should put a blog with Google maps which shows the hidden routes you can take to reach those private beaches.
- rms 11y agoThere's an app called "Our Malibu Beaches" with all the relevant info
- sumedh 11y agoNice. You know you are getting old when you say there should be blog/site for that instead of saying there should be an app for that.
- rms 11y agoI mean, a site would have been fine also, but in this case the mix of information and location mapping while on the go is a perfect use case for a phone app
- SwellJoe 11y agoThat's cool! I just biked and hiked around until I found ways to get to places I wanted to go (with the help of Google maps satellite imagery). An app would have been nice.
- jlev 11y agohttps://itunes.apple.com/us/app/our-malibu-beaches/id565636167?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/our-malibu-beaches/id5656361...
- mturmon 11y agoSpearheaded by Jenny Price, a longtime activist on this issue with a record going back many years now. A real public service. The app: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/us/in-battle-over-malibu-beaches-an-app-unlocks-access.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/us/in-battle-over-malibu-b... The earlier website (2007): http://www.laobserved.com/intell/2007/08/summer_beachcraft.php http://www.laobserved.com/intell/2007/08/summer_beachcraft.p...
- SwellJoe 11y agoIt's not particularly pleasant to get to some of them, and occasionally requires going at low tide. It's a rocky area, with some natural rock outcrops that go all the way to the water, and some of the folks have built out fences and rock walls and such in a manner that means you're likely to get wet getting through if it's high tide. I happen to enjoy that kind of strenuous hiking/exploring, so it wasn't really lacking in fun for me, but I doubt people just wanting a day at the beach would consider it reasonable. It might even be dangerous in some cases. I haven't been to Malibu in a few years so mapping is not an option; I'd need to walk/bike around again to know where the "private" beaches are. But, pretty much if you walk in either direction on the beaches in Malibu, you'll find examples of it...some are more difficult than others. I feel particularly strongly about protecting the commons, like parks and beaches and waterways, and Malibu rubbed me all kinds of wrong ways, in being such a "playground of the rich" while excluding everyone else. Despite it being illegal, the entire local government seems complicit in the heist of public resources.
- thrownaway2424 11y agoSouthern California is a different planet, though. They have all kinds of bullshit going on down there, like these road signs that are lies http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02005/hollywood-sign_2005707i.jpg http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02005/hollywood-...
- dba7dba 11y agoLol. Not just fake signs. There are also Locked doors. Security guards. All illegal.
- brbsix 11y agoClearly you haven't looked over his social media if you missed that. It is full of nonsensical "progressive" posturing. https://twitter.com/vkhosla/ https://twitter.com/vkhosla/
- intellegacy 11y agohttps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.escapeapps.knowwhat.app.la.yourmalibubeaches&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.escapeapps... https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/our-malibu-beaches/id565636167?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/our-malibu-beaches/id5656361... http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-malibu-beach-app-20140607-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-malibu-beach-app...
- cromwellian 11y agoMan, Vinod is burning up every shred of street cred he had with this fight over the beach in front of his property. For someone who has often taken liberal or progressive positions on other things, this seems remarkably tone deaf. The law on public beaches in California is clear. You can't privatize a beach by trying to obstruct people from getting to it.
- w1ntermute 11y ago> The law on public beaches in California is clear. Apparently not[0]: > In a recent battle between tourists, fishermen, surfers, other members of the public, and venture capitalist billionaire Vinod Khosla, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Gerald J. Buchwald invoked the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to deny public access to a portion of the California coastline. See, Friends of Martin's Beach v. Martin's Beach 1, LLC, San Mateo County Civil Case #CIV517634. Despite the California State Constitution's specific provision enabling members of the public to access the beach, Judge Buchwald ruled that the Treaty trumped the California Coastal Act because it predated it, and officially ended a century of access to Martins Beach in Half Moon Bay, CA. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo#Additional_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo#Ad...
- jmspring 11y agoYes, he is hoping to loop in the old Spanish Land Grant treaties and cases. In the end he will lose. He has enough money and $30mil for 1/89th of the property? I really do miss people like Gordon Moore, etc. where they did have their enclaves, but did so much public good with their holdings.
- w1ntermute 11y agoWhether or not he will lose (if he doesn't settle) is up to the courts - neither of us can claim to know the outcome. The fact that there is direct precedent for this specific property[0] means that it's definitely possible that he could win. 0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/64/318 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/64/318
- jmspring 11y agoTone deaf as usual. Roughly 90 acres purchased in 2008 for $32.5mil, easement according to http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Vinod-Khosla-wants-30-million-for-Martins-Beach-6847689.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Vinod-Khosla-wants-30-... is about an acre. That's quite a bit of appreciation. Khosla is wrong in this one and continues to be an example of tone deafness on access rights and how the Bay Area sees beach access as compared to Malibu, etc. (They have similar fights down there, but, well, the gentrification and blockage is more established).
- 1024core 11y agoKhosla has always been tone deaf. Back in the 90s, when California was having one of its droughts, Khosla was the biggest violater of the water use restrictions in the Bay Area. In an ideal world, the tech world would boycotts Khosla and startups refuse to take a dime from him. That would knock some sense into him. But this is not an ideal world, and people will continue lining up outside his door, hat in hand. He knows money is king, and he has lots of it.
- NonEUCitizen 11y agoHow about boycotting his startups? Don't take a job with them and don't buy from them.
- wdr1 11y agoMalibu residents are fairly tone deaf as well. Fake garage doors. Fake "No Parking" signs. Fake red-painted curbs. Rent-a-cops with real guns. And that's to keep the public away from existing public beach access points. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/us/billionaires-beach-malibu-public-access/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/us/billionaires-beach-malibu-p...
- jmspring 11y agoYes. My point was, it's bad down there and actions like Khosla's are the norm rather than the exception. It is the reverse up here, for now. Not sure what the recent upheaval with the California Coastal Commission will mean down the road (though, they also aren't saints in any way).
- prawn 11y agoNot familiar with the area. Is it feasible for a group to fund/arrange free boat transport to constantly bring people to the beach to enjoy it regardless of the easement?
- brbsix 11y agoThe surf there is treacherous. It's not the sort of place you'd want to ferry people to. Besides, there is other beach access in the area that is accessible from land. Perhaps such an action would have value as a form of protest. I'd take the trip, but I wouldn't want grandma and the kids coming along.
- look_lookatme 11y agoAssuming you can traverse the waterline (don't know what California's access laws are, but I assume you are free to walk along it) how far of a walk is it from the nearest accessible beach?
- brbsix 11y agoPer the California Coastal Act, you're free to walk along the waterline (below the high tide line). However this particular beach is surrounded by rocky cliffs so it's unlikely you'd get very far. Closest access would probably be via kayak from San Gregorio State Beach 3-5 miles south. Though there are lots of pullouts along that stretch of Highway 1.
- sadface 11y agoThe trouble is you can't really traverse the waterline because there are lots of cliffs on either side of the beach - hence the importance of this access road.
- la6470 11y agoSo there are no access road to the beach beside going through his property? Or is this because the city finds a brown man owning the property unpleasant?
- incepted 11y agoThis is an old story, going back at least a year: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Martins-Beach-owner-challenges-judge-s-order-to-5963587.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Martins-Beach-owner-ch...
- simonebrunozzi 11y agoIt's Vinod, not Vinad. Someone please correct the title.
- notatoad 11y agoWhat's the eminent domain situation in California? Could the government just decide that allowing the public to access the public beach is in the public interest and take his whole property?
- andkenneth 11y agoWith eminent domain they still have to compensate the owner for the land. In my own country they call it "compulsory purchase" instead, which seems to describe it a bit better.
- NonEUCitizen 11y agoWhich country calls it "compulsory purchase?" It is indeed much clearer.
- mryan 11y agoUK
- andkenneth 11y agoNZ does as well, where I am.
- dmix 11y agoLawyers always ask for way more money than they expect to get. In almost every situation like this in the past they settle for 10% of the amount and everyone walks away happy. This is like the endless use of maximum sentences in headlines: "hacker faces 100 years in prison!"... when they almost always end up getting <10yrs at the end of the trial. Sad to see HN fall into this trap once again. Whether he's wrong in demanding compensation is a fair debate, don't get me wrong, but I don't think he expects to get anywhere near that price.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- thrownaway2424 11y agoI don't know what's wrong with this guy, but I do know that the state should just go to war with him. Why should there be a road leading to this guy's house?
- elangoc 11y agoIf we invoke the ancient European idea of the "public trust doctrine" to bolster the justness of the argument that Vinod Khosla should create a path on his private land for the public use -- then why can't California invoke that same reasoning to overturn the antequated water ownership laws that give private, transferrable ownership of ground resources (including water) for large landowners who control a large portion of the state's water sources? The attitude about California's ground water is, "Hey, they own the water based on the laws on the books, what can you do?" Much of the public would rather they not use all that water on almonds and alfalfa and whatnot, just to export elsewhere. Why can't the rest of the country grow that stuff? How can someone exclusively own the groundwater like that?? Whatever law that applies to Vinod Khosla should apply to those large water-wasting water-owners. (And it follows that however dastardly Vinod Khosla may seem, the large water-owners in California are irrevocably screwing over California's future generations' water resources, and are thus in my book, much more worthy of scorn and "public trust doctrine" action.)
- jdmichal 11y ago> Why can't the rest of the country grow that stuff? Yea... That's not how plants work. Plants have zones that they grow in, and some are even more restrictive. Where I live, even if I grew cherry and apple trees, I would never get fruit off of them because it's too hot here. I like the way you're thinking though. As an avid gardener, I just had to dig against this one a little.
- redblacktree 11y agoI think we could live with fewer almonds, speaking as someone in the midwest. It's a waste of water in a place where it's increasingly scarce. We'll just eat something else.
- jdmichal 11y agoThe problem isn't directly with the amount of almonds. They're a fungible commodity; market pricing will take care of that. The root problem is that the main input to almond production, water, is being drastically subsidized below what market price would be, meaning that almond growers aren't getting the correct market feedback to properly scale production. If the growers were charged a market rate for water, and almond demand didn't change despite the price increase, then there's no reason for them to produce less.
- tedmiston 11y agoJust to play devil's advocate here... I believe last time this came up he raised a fuss about him having to maintain the road, or he had spent $x on it already, or something like that. Was their substance to that, or just an attempt to drag out the process?
- abbottmaverick 11y agoMy my is this still going on? The beach exclusion principles employed by Mr Khosla make him sound like a dick. Gareth Morgan tried something similar recently and it backfired, although he was only trying to raise awareness for the public effort to purchase the Abel Tasman, New Zealand beach for the public, which may have succeeded. His response was "I will donate 600k if I can keep a private residence". 30M sounds like a lot of money for the right of access here. Not the California I remember. I am on the fence on this one, but think a solution should exist which respects both parties concerns and doesn't cost either more than a million. It is not uncommon to restrict access to beaches via private land in New Zealand, but the neighbourly thing to do is come to some arrangement that is mutually beneficial, and I don't know what the laws are with respect to trespass in California. If the property was to be developed by Mr Khosla and it was in New Zealand, the council would likely require a public access way to be gifted. As a pilot, devils advocate, not a lawyer, the first thing that springs to mind is can you legally land a helicopter or a drone on the beach to see what all the fuss is about? ;)
- piyushpr134 11y agoAmericans are very easy to govern people. There is so much elitist stuff that happens there and people have no voice at all. I saw so many things there that should be protested. For instance, my friend(native there) had this phone from AT&T, a stock android phone (or so I assumed) but you cannot share internet on it! Or that the govt rarely builds any usable public transport is just crazy...(car companies have strong lobby may be ?) Store do not keep smaller sizes of anything (soaps, shampoos, food items) and force everybody to buy large.
- MichaelBurge 11y agoDid this guy actually buy the beach itself? If so, people should get off his lawn - it's his property and this America. If not, then I imagine there's just a road going through his property. I tend to think of the streets as being publicly owned: The city should consider paving an alternate access route to the beach and paying for its maintenance out of the local property taxes. That said, it's common for cities to have codes governing parking and such, and it's plausible to me that guaranteeing access to a beach is along the same lines. It seems weird to force him to maintain the road though.