7 ms·

"State law says the public owns all coastline on the ocean side of the mean high tide line. Khosla says he shouldn't have to open up his private land without co

"State law says the public owns all coastline on the ocean side of the mean high tide line. Khosla says he shouldn't have to open up his private land without compensation to allow passage to the cove, which is buttressed by cliffs and impossible to reach otherwise except by water. " Bloomberg misses the whole point, which is that the road was an easement that had long existed before and into Khosla's ownership.

eloff 9y ago
He knew what he was buying into then. It doesn't change the legality of what he's trying to do - and I don't see any legal basis for his claim. But it certainly makes me less sympathetic to his cause. If I lived nearby I might visit the beach just out of equal parts curiosity and protest.
- yaur 9y ago
  If the easement predates his ownership of the property, hasn’t he already been “compensated” in the form of a lower price for the property?
  - eloff 9y ago
    Yes, exactly.
- rayiner 9y ago
  The previous owners ran a business allowing people to access the beach. Its not at all clear that he knew what he was buying into.” Put differently, your point is at most a standing argument. Either the previous property owners suffered the taking, or Khosla did. But somebody did.
  - gleenn 9y ago
    While I'd have some sympathy for mistakes in real estate, the guy's a billionaire. If he can't afford a good agent that would point out that obvious issue then I don't know how anyone else gets anything done in that industry. He should be talking to his agent and not the Supreme Court.
  - couchand 9y ago
    From the Court of Appeal opinion: "Prior to appellants' purchase of the Martins Beach property, appellants were told by San Mateo County that '[t]here is existing parking [and] access to the beach at Martins Beach. This access [is] also memorialized [and] required to be preserved (no exceptions) by the Local Coastal Program' and 'the access is there & will have to remain.'"
    - rayiner 9y ago
      The government can’t just say you have to keep using your property in a certain way.
      - couchand 9y ago
        Nice job moving the goalposts there.
        rayiner 9y ago
        Sorry I meant to elaborate the thought. The government can’t just tell you to keep using your property a certain way. So if you get a notice from the government claiming to exercise some power it probably doesn’t have, what exactly do you “know” you’re buying into? If the county sends you a letter saying that they want you to operate a public park out of your back yard. And then you sell your house to someone who has notice of that letter. What does that mean? That the government gets to order the new owner to operate their back yard as a public park?
        lovich 9y ago
        When it's an easement, yes. And even with the public park example there is likely case law for that. We have numerous situations where land can be taken or designated for public use even though it is privately owned. If this easement didn't exist before his purchase then he'd be a much more sympathetic chracter,but he bought this land that everyone could use with the intention of blocking everyone else out so he could privately enjoy it.
swampthing 9y ago
... and that it's not his beach, unless you are only counting the part above the high tide line (which would be an uncommon definition of the word "beach").
- DrScump 9y ago
  I haven't heard that he's tried to limit beach access from the water's side (as certain Malibu types have tried); the legal battle is over access to the road.
  - swampthing 9y ago
    I was referring to the title of the article.
  - tehlike 9y ago
    So he wont be annoyed if people constantly accessed from the water? Doesnt sound likely.
    - DrScump 9y ago
      He would lack even a veneer of acting lawfully in such a case. It would be fun if a group got together with boats and had a huge party every week or more at low tide, being right in his conceptual face regularly. Bonus points for immaculate cleanup after every time.
      - tehlike 9y ago
        That is what i was thinking pretty much. Maybe that is what needs to happen.
paloaltokid 9y ago
I used to drive that section of the coast all the time. I remember passing the Martin's Beach sign often and thinking it was kind of neat. Then one weekend, I drive by and it's a big black ugly box. I thought "that's strange..." and here we are almost 10 years later. It's really crappy what Khosla's done. That section of the coast is so beautiful, it's a real shame to see it get shut off from public access.
- rmason 9y ago
  Spent some time on Martins beach in the past and it's beautiful. It's like a hidden little nugget compared to its much more popular big brother Half Moon Bay. I was by there in early February and had planned to try and visit both, even if I had to jump the fence. But I was running late for a meetup later in the evening in SF and didn't make it. I respect Khosla but if there was ever reason for risking a ticket for civil disobedience by visiting a public beach this is the place.
  - nugget 9y ago
    I believe the sheriff's department has publicly stated that they will not ticket or arrest anyone caught using the easement to access the beach, even if they have to hop the fence or take similar measures. This situation seems ripe for some persistent civil disobedience.
    - jackfoxy 9y ago
      Except that it's not civil disobedience. It is disrespecting someone who is being civilly disobedient. Disrespect and civil disobedience, one action is not always bad, the other not always good.
      - lovich 9y ago
        The guys literally bourgeoisie taking public land that was public before he purchased it. You don't get to buy a house and then block off your sidewalk because you don't think you should have to allow access to your land without compensation. This is blatant theft from society
amarkov 9y ago
Do you have a source for this? I hadn't seen the claim that there was any previous easement.
- sidlls 9y ago
  The easement is at the very least implied by law. Consider the case where person A owns property that has no access except by crossing person B's property. There is an easement granting person A the right to cross B's property whether B agrees or not and whether or not it's recorded in the public records, etc. This is similar, although I suspect he'll try to argue alternative access exists or some other nonsense.
  - killjoywashere 9y ago
    As I recall, he has also argued that there was some sort of treaty that pre-dated the California Constitution. None of it makes sense, he's just decided this is a fight he wants to fight.
rayiner 9y ago
That’s not what the cert petition is about. The government didn’t just force Khosla to allow people to use the easement: > To be clear, all agree that petitioner owns the property in fee simple absolute. But the Coastal Commission and the County nonetheless declared the power not only to mandate that the property be kept open to the public unless petitioner obtains a permit to close it, but to dictate essential aspects of how petitioner must invite the public onto its private property—including the hours it must allow access, the absurdly low price ($2) it may charge, and even the extent of advertising alerting the public of its ability to access petitioner’s private property for a pittance.
- rtpg 9y ago
  There's a lot of court cases about how making something absurdly expensive is the same as not allowing something. The rules exist because otherwise people act in bad faith
  - metei 9y ago
    Perhaps foreigners who flagarantly and repeatedly violate our laws should be prioritized for deportation. Why should some rich foriegner be allowed to break state and federal laws for years with no serious repercussions? Edit: If you disagree, please reply with an explanation!
    - saagarjha 9y ago
      Your comment is xenophobic, and besides, Khosla is a US citizen, not a foreigner.
      - metei 9y ago
        I'm not a fan of rich foreigners buying their way into citizenship, sure. But stealing from the public is illegal, no matter how good your lawyers are. Khosla is an immigrant who has applied for and been granted citizenship, but generally for less well to do immigrants, we hold them to high standards if they wish to retain citizenship (even though that results in us creating stateless people). Why is Khosla special?

eloff 9y ago

He knew what he was buying into then. It doesn't change the legality of what he's trying to do - and I don't see any legal basis for his claim. But it certainly makes me less sympathetic to his cause. If I lived nearby I might visit the beach just out of equal parts curiosity and protest.

yaur 9y ago
If the easement predates his ownership of the property, hasn’t he already been “compensated” in the form of a lower price for the property?
- eloff 9y ago
  Yes, exactly.
rayiner 9y ago
The previous owners ran a business allowing people to access the beach. Its not at all clear that he knew what he was buying into.” Put differently, your point is at most a standing argument. Either the previous property owners suffered the taking, or Khosla did. But somebody did.
- gleenn 9y ago
  While I'd have some sympathy for mistakes in real estate, the guy's a billionaire. If he can't afford a good agent that would point out that obvious issue then I don't know how anyone else gets anything done in that industry. He should be talking to his agent and not the Supreme Court.
- couchand 9y ago
  From the Court of Appeal opinion: "Prior to appellants' purchase of the Martins Beach property, appellants were told by San Mateo County that '[t]here is existing parking [and] access to the beach at Martins Beach. This access [is] also memorialized [and] required to be preserved (no exceptions) by the Local Coastal Program' and 'the access is there & will have to remain.'"
  - rayiner 9y ago
    The government can’t just say you have to keep using your property in a certain way.
    - couchand 9y ago
      Nice job moving the goalposts there.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        Sorry I meant to elaborate the thought. The government can’t just tell you to keep using your property a certain way. So if you get a notice from the government claiming to exercise some power it probably doesn’t have, what exactly do you “know” you’re buying into? If the county sends you a letter saying that they want you to operate a public park out of your back yard. And then you sell your house to someone who has notice of that letter. What does that mean? That the government gets to order the new owner to operate their back yard as a public park?
        lovich 9y ago
        When it's an easement, yes. And even with the public park example there is likely case law for that. We have numerous situations where land can be taken or designated for public use even though it is privately owned. If this easement didn't exist before his purchase then he'd be a much more sympathetic chracter,but he bought this land that everyone could use with the intention of blocking everyone else out so he could privately enjoy it.

swampthing 9y ago

... and that it's not his beach, unless you are only counting the part above the high tide line (which would be an uncommon definition of the word "beach").

DrScump 9y ago
I haven't heard that he's tried to limit beach access from the water's side (as certain Malibu types have tried); the legal battle is over access to the road.
- swampthing 9y ago
  I was referring to the title of the article.
- tehlike 9y ago
  So he wont be annoyed if people constantly accessed from the water? Doesnt sound likely.
  - DrScump 9y ago
    He would lack even a veneer of acting lawfully in such a case. It would be fun if a group got together with boats and had a huge party every week or more at low tide, being right in his conceptual face regularly. Bonus points for immaculate cleanup after every time.
    - tehlike 9y ago
      That is what i was thinking pretty much. Maybe that is what needs to happen.

paloaltokid 9y ago

I used to drive that section of the coast all the time. I remember passing the Martin's Beach sign often and thinking it was kind of neat. Then one weekend, I drive by and it's a big black ugly box. I thought "that's strange..." and here we are almost 10 years later. It's really crappy what Khosla's done. That section of the coast is so beautiful, it's a real shame to see it get shut off from public access.

rmason 9y ago
Spent some time on Martins beach in the past and it's beautiful. It's like a hidden little nugget compared to its much more popular big brother Half Moon Bay. I was by there in early February and had planned to try and visit both, even if I had to jump the fence. But I was running late for a meetup later in the evening in SF and didn't make it. I respect Khosla but if there was ever reason for risking a ticket for civil disobedience by visiting a public beach this is the place.
- nugget 9y ago
  I believe the sheriff's department has publicly stated that they will not ticket or arrest anyone caught using the easement to access the beach, even if they have to hop the fence or take similar measures. This situation seems ripe for some persistent civil disobedience.
  - jackfoxy 9y ago
    Except that it's not civil disobedience. It is disrespecting someone who is being civilly disobedient. Disrespect and civil disobedience, one action is not always bad, the other not always good.
    - lovich 9y ago
      The guys literally bourgeoisie taking public land that was public before he purchased it. You don't get to buy a house and then block off your sidewalk because you don't think you should have to allow access to your land without compensation. This is blatant theft from society

amarkov 9y ago

Do you have a source for this? I hadn't seen the claim that there was any previous easement.

sidlls 9y ago
The easement is at the very least implied by law. Consider the case where person A owns property that has no access except by crossing person B's property. There is an easement granting person A the right to cross B's property whether B agrees or not and whether or not it's recorded in the public records, etc. This is similar, although I suspect he'll try to argue alternative access exists or some other nonsense.
- killjoywashere 9y ago
  As I recall, he has also argued that there was some sort of treaty that pre-dated the California Constitution. None of it makes sense, he's just decided this is a fight he wants to fight.

rayiner 9y ago

That’s not what the cert petition is about. The government didn’t just force Khosla to allow people to use the easement: > To be clear, all agree that petitioner owns the property in fee simple absolute. But the Coastal Commission and the County nonetheless declared the power not only to mandate that the property be kept open to the public unless petitioner obtains a permit to close it, but to dictate essential aspects of how petitioner must invite the public onto its private property—including the hours it must allow access, the absurdly low price ($2) it may charge, and even the extent of advertising alerting the public of its ability to access petitioner’s private property for a pittance.

rtpg 9y ago
There's a lot of court cases about how making something absurdly expensive is the same as not allowing something. The rules exist because otherwise people act in bad faith
- metei 9y ago
  Perhaps foreigners who flagarantly and repeatedly violate our laws should be prioritized for deportation. Why should some rich foriegner be allowed to break state and federal laws for years with no serious repercussions? Edit: If you disagree, please reply with an explanation!
  - saagarjha 9y ago
    Your comment is xenophobic, and besides, Khosla is a US citizen, not a foreigner.
    - metei 9y ago
      I'm not a fan of rich foreigners buying their way into citizenship, sure. But stealing from the public is illegal, no matter how good your lawyers are. Khosla is an immigrant who has applied for and been granted citizenship, but generally for less well to do immigrants, we hold them to high standards if they wish to retain citizenship (even though that results in us creating stateless people). Why is Khosla special?