4 ms·

> 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,

> 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 ago
Yes, 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 ago
  Whether 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
  - cromwellian 11y ago
    Even if he wins, he will lose, in the sense that he is vilifying himself by trying to abuse the legal system against the "spirit" of the CA law. No one's going to love him for doing this.
    - w1ntermute 11y ago
      I don't think anyone "loves" VCs to begin with. Respects? Fears? Sure. Loves? Not anyone outside his family and close friends.
    - Pyxl101 11y ago
      > trying to abuse the legal system against the "spirit" of the CA law How is using the legal system "abusing" the legal system? He makes his arguments for his position, and the court rules, one hopes, according to the law. The law should be a stable foundation on which society can rest. If the treaty in question does actually govern property rights, and the people who bought property relied on the fact that it does so, and has done so in previous cases (thus establishing precedent), then it is unfair and abusive to change the status quo out from under them arbitrarily by popular opinion. That's not justice, that's tyranny by the majority.
    - hkmurakami 11y ago
      Khlosa has always had a reputation as not exactly he nicest of people in his profession and that hasn't prevented his success. I doubt this will change anything.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- roflchoppa 11y ago
  yeah i dont see how he these old Spanish land grants are applicable to him anyway. He recently got the space, which the old tenants let the public use the beach, and hes not Mexican or Spanish, so he cant pull the oh its my peoples land. From what I read in the link above, the people were using the land since 1805.
trhway 11y ago
>Judge Buchwald found that the treaty, which settled the Mexican–American War, granted the 200-acre beach property to Jose Antonio Alviso before California's Constitution in 1879 established the public trust doctrine that preserved access to such areas for all state residents. until there is a grandfathering provision, wouldn't be the point of new Constitution is to establish new rules which override the old ones?
- andymcsherry 11y ago
  IANAL, but the treaty is federal law, which supersedes state law.
  - trhway 11y ago
    then why would it matter that the treaty predates the Act? : >Judge Buchwald ruled that the Treaty trumped the California Coastal Act because it predated it
- cperciva 11y ago
  > the point of new Constitution is to establish new rules which override the old ones? The Supremacy clause states that a treaty made by the United States takes precedence over the constitution of any individual state.

jmspring 11y ago

Yes, 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 ago
Whether 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
- cromwellian 11y ago
  Even if he wins, he will lose, in the sense that he is vilifying himself by trying to abuse the legal system against the "spirit" of the CA law. No one's going to love him for doing this.
  - w1ntermute 11y ago
    I don't think anyone "loves" VCs to begin with. Respects? Fears? Sure. Loves? Not anyone outside his family and close friends.
  - Pyxl101 11y ago
    > trying to abuse the legal system against the "spirit" of the CA law How is using the legal system "abusing" the legal system? He makes his arguments for his position, and the court rules, one hopes, according to the law. The law should be a stable foundation on which society can rest. If the treaty in question does actually govern property rights, and the people who bought property relied on the fact that it does so, and has done so in previous cases (thus establishing precedent), then it is unfair and abusive to change the status quo out from under them arbitrarily by popular opinion. That's not justice, that's tyranny by the majority.
  - hkmurakami 11y ago
    Khlosa has always had a reputation as not exactly he nicest of people in his profession and that hasn't prevented his success. I doubt this will change anything.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
roflchoppa 11y ago
yeah i dont see how he these old Spanish land grants are applicable to him anyway. He recently got the space, which the old tenants let the public use the beach, and hes not Mexican or Spanish, so he cant pull the oh its my peoples land. From what I read in the link above, the people were using the land since 1805.

trhway 11y ago

>Judge Buchwald found that the treaty, which settled the Mexican–American War, granted the 200-acre beach property to Jose Antonio Alviso before California's Constitution in 1879 established the public trust doctrine that preserved access to such areas for all state residents. until there is a grandfathering provision, wouldn't be the point of new Constitution is to establish new rules which override the old ones?

andymcsherry 11y ago
IANAL, but the treaty is federal law, which supersedes state law.
- trhway 11y ago
  then why would it matter that the treaty predates the Act? : >Judge Buchwald ruled that the Treaty trumped the California Coastal Act because it predated it
cperciva 11y ago
> the point of new Constitution is to establish new rules which override the old ones? The Supremacy clause states that a treaty made by the United States takes precedence over the constitution of any individual state.