6 ms·

I had read that too. It's clear that the beaches are public. But I would not trust a government employee. It's unclear to me that the Constitution guarantees my

I had read that too. It's clear that the beaches are public. But I would not trust a government employee. It's unclear to me that the Constitution guarantees my right to cross anybody's private property to access the public beach. Why can't people go through other properties doors, climb fences, etc. to enjoy the right to use a public beach? Why is this path considered public property, when it is clearly private? I think this is the issue.

djrogers 9y ago
It’s a simple easement issue. If he wanted to create a new path for he public to access the beach, then nobody would care if he closed this one. It’s not as if this was an after-the-fact decision, the public access path existed when he bought the property, as did the existing law and state constitution. His responsibility as a property owner there is to maintain that public access.
ScottBurson 9y ago
"An easement is a non-possessory right to use and/or enter onto the real property of another without possessing it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement
mattkrause 9y ago
> But I would not trust a government employee. That isn't really a choice. You can either going along with what the employee says, or a) appeal their decision b) change the law, or c) abide the consequences. They also presumably have records. As for why this path, California has a prescriptive right of access--if people have customarily accessed the beach through this path (for 5 years, I think), then they are permitted to continue doing so. The California Constitution also doesn't just make the beaches public, but explicitly provides for public access to them: No individual, partnership, or corporation claiming or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this state shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose and the Legislature shall enact such law as will give the most liberal construction to this provision so that access to the navigable waters of this state shall always be attainable for the people thereof.
- hyperliner 9y ago
  Very useful. Is the issue then that there is a discrepancy between property rights and access rights that needs the CA Supreme Court to resolve? The Denny's (previous owners) used to CHARGE for access to the beach, presumably supporting the case that access through this path is not a right. Source: "Joan Gallo, a former San Jose city attorney who represents the land owner, agreed that the courts should weigh in. The Deeneys had run a private business, she said, allowing invitees of their choosing onto the property, and that hadn't changed. "It seems to us that it's an important issue to be litigated," Gallo said. "I have a strong belief that the Constitution doesn't require you to give up property rights or conduct a business you don't want to conduct." Mark Massara — a surfer and attorney who is working with McClosky and the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on the case — said he believed the constitutional arguments have merit. But since that approach could drag on for years (think Geffen), his team opted for "a very narrow strike to the heart of this thing."
  - mattkrause 9y ago
    It's not totally clear to me when a fee can be charged (or who can charge it), but it's possible that the fee covered land beyond the mean high water mark or amenities, parking or something like that.
  - URSpider94 9y ago
    From what I can tell, the Deeneys essentially ran a parking lot and charged people for parking. That's not technically a fee to access the beach. I don't know if they would have tried to bar access to anyone who walked up, or who was dropped off, but if they had I'm sure someone could have taken it to the access commission. Khosla doesn't have to run a business - he doesn't have to let people park there, and he doesn't have to provide lifeguard services or security. He just has to let people access the beach. Read what I posted elsewhere, 100 years of beach access via this route creates a proscriptive easement which has legal weight.
  - Aloha 9y ago
    The prior owners only charged to park, not for access to the beach itself.

djrogers 9y ago

It’s a simple easement issue. If he wanted to create a new path for he public to access the beach, then nobody would care if he closed this one. It’s not as if this was an after-the-fact decision, the public access path existed when he bought the property, as did the existing law and state constitution. His responsibility as a property owner there is to maintain that public access.

ScottBurson 9y ago

"An easement is a non-possessory right to use and/or enter onto the real property of another without possessing it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement

mattkrause 9y ago

> But I would not trust a government employee. That isn't really a choice. You can either going along with what the employee says, or a) appeal their decision b) change the law, or c) abide the consequences. They also presumably have records. As for why this path, California has a prescriptive right of access--if people have customarily accessed the beach through this path (for 5 years, I think), then they are permitted to continue doing so. The California Constitution also doesn't just make the beaches public, but explicitly provides for public access to them: No individual, partnership, or corporation claiming or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this state shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose and the Legislature shall enact such law as will give the most liberal construction to this provision so that access to the navigable waters of this state shall always be attainable for the people thereof.

hyperliner 9y ago
Very useful. Is the issue then that there is a discrepancy between property rights and access rights that needs the CA Supreme Court to resolve? The Denny's (previous owners) used to CHARGE for access to the beach, presumably supporting the case that access through this path is not a right. Source: "Joan Gallo, a former San Jose city attorney who represents the land owner, agreed that the courts should weigh in. The Deeneys had run a private business, she said, allowing invitees of their choosing onto the property, and that hadn't changed. "It seems to us that it's an important issue to be litigated," Gallo said. "I have a strong belief that the Constitution doesn't require you to give up property rights or conduct a business you don't want to conduct." Mark Massara — a surfer and attorney who is working with McClosky and the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on the case — said he believed the constitutional arguments have merit. But since that approach could drag on for years (think Geffen), his team opted for "a very narrow strike to the heart of this thing."
- mattkrause 9y ago
  It's not totally clear to me when a fee can be charged (or who can charge it), but it's possible that the fee covered land beyond the mean high water mark or amenities, parking or something like that.
- URSpider94 9y ago
  From what I can tell, the Deeneys essentially ran a parking lot and charged people for parking. That's not technically a fee to access the beach. I don't know if they would have tried to bar access to anyone who walked up, or who was dropped off, but if they had I'm sure someone could have taken it to the access commission. Khosla doesn't have to run a business - he doesn't have to let people park there, and he doesn't have to provide lifeguard services or security. He just has to let people access the beach. Read what I posted elsewhere, 100 years of beach access via this route creates a proscriptive easement which has legal weight.
- Aloha 9y ago
  The prior owners only charged to park, not for access to the beach itself.