3 ms·

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 (

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.

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.