3 ms·

You've asserted that there are "compelling 'overstep of regulatory authority' [considerations] to the case" but failed to make any points to persuade a reader t

You've asserted that there are "compelling 'overstep of regulatory authority' [considerations] to the case" but failed to make any points to persuade a reader to that conclusion. There was an existing regulation upon the property, Khosla purchased it and now is subject to the regulation. Ignorance of the law is no defense, especially when one is as fortunate and well-equipped as Khosla is.

ggm 8y ago
This. Buying your way out of public access easements, is bad law. Really, really bad precedent, to let the commons be bought.
- rayiner 8y ago
  The commons is the part up to the mean high tide line. Maybe a path to get to the high tide line. But the parking lot, etc, that the state is forcing Khosla to keep open certainly isn’t the commons.
  - couchand 8y ago
    From the Court of Appeal opinion: "In support of a different argument that the trial court's injunction forced them to operate a parking business at a net loss, appellants point to testimony from the manager of Martins Beach that improvements, including a new bathroom, would cost over $500,000, and annual costs would exceed $100,000. However, the injunction does not obligate appellants to provide staff or any amenities. Instead, it requires, 'The gate across Martins Beach Road must be unlocked and open to the same extent that it was unlocked and open at the time [appellants] purchased the property.'"
  - ggm 8y ago
    Do you understand what an easement is? Do you understand the binding quality of an easement on a purchase of freehold or leasehold land? This is like Khosla digging up the sewage line feeding his neighbours house, because he doesn't like the idea of somebody else's poop flowing under the surface of his land. He signed the contract which explicitly bound him to the easement, demanding public access through his land, to the beach. How much simpler can it get? If this part of the contract can be nullified because he doesn't want to smell poor people, then I think the USA is heading to a bigger problem than beach access. Thousands of properties across the states have easements. Nullifying them without consideration of the public interest would be horrific.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      Rayiner is a lawyer; I'm quite certain he knows what an easement is. Regardless, the state does not have an easement for the access road or parking lot, and is in talks to buy one. "Beach access" doesn't necessarily mean access by car with free/cheap parking. Fortunately for everyone, self-righteousness does not magically make property rights go away.
      - ggm 8y ago
        Property rights are highly conditional, and certainly not as absolute as many would wish. Surface rights and subsurface rights exist, water flows have conditions, and so on. I would be surprised if you can set your own price for restitution in eminent domain either. The gap between $360k and $30m stands out in that regard. Doubtless he can afford good legals to argue the price up. You are of course right regarding the easement issue, and I had misread the writeups assuming they had an easement he was seeking to sunder, not seeking an easement for a seventy year access which it turns out was fee'd and so conditional. In many jurisdictions, seventy years alone would have knocked this out: as few as ten can secure adverse possession, public right of way in the UK is established by twenty years continuity of access (with defenses such as closing it off one day a year) and Scotland has instances of crofters rights which lay dormant but reawoke unexpectedly. Maybe you're happy to be reductionist on this being invasion of his property. I've been the beneficiary of public rights to access, and I do value them more highly than simple property rights. This is not some trivium of argument around anyone's home being walked through, it's a property which he bought with a road and facilities already there, and a long period of continuous access he chose to break for his own private benefit. If he always intended alienation of access or if he just changed his mind, he interfered with communal benefits. That's pretty shitty behaviour legal or not.
rayiner 8y ago
Either the regulation is legal or it is not. Just because you buy the property with notice that the government thinks it has some right to regulate it has no bearing on whether that regulation is legal.

ggm 8y ago

This. Buying your way out of public access easements, is bad law. Really, really bad precedent, to let the commons be bought.

rayiner 8y ago
The commons is the part up to the mean high tide line. Maybe a path to get to the high tide line. But the parking lot, etc, that the state is forcing Khosla to keep open certainly isn’t the commons.
- couchand 8y ago
  From the Court of Appeal opinion: "In support of a different argument that the trial court's injunction forced them to operate a parking business at a net loss, appellants point to testimony from the manager of Martins Beach that improvements, including a new bathroom, would cost over $500,000, and annual costs would exceed $100,000. However, the injunction does not obligate appellants to provide staff or any amenities. Instead, it requires, 'The gate across Martins Beach Road must be unlocked and open to the same extent that it was unlocked and open at the time [appellants] purchased the property.'"
- ggm 8y ago
  Do you understand what an easement is? Do you understand the binding quality of an easement on a purchase of freehold or leasehold land? This is like Khosla digging up the sewage line feeding his neighbours house, because he doesn't like the idea of somebody else's poop flowing under the surface of his land. He signed the contract which explicitly bound him to the easement, demanding public access through his land, to the beach. How much simpler can it get? If this part of the contract can be nullified because he doesn't want to smell poor people, then I think the USA is heading to a bigger problem than beach access. Thousands of properties across the states have easements. Nullifying them without consideration of the public interest would be horrific.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Rayiner is a lawyer; I'm quite certain he knows what an easement is. Regardless, the state does not have an easement for the access road or parking lot, and is in talks to buy one. "Beach access" doesn't necessarily mean access by car with free/cheap parking. Fortunately for everyone, self-righteousness does not magically make property rights go away.
    - ggm 8y ago
      Property rights are highly conditional, and certainly not as absolute as many would wish. Surface rights and subsurface rights exist, water flows have conditions, and so on. I would be surprised if you can set your own price for restitution in eminent domain either. The gap between $360k and $30m stands out in that regard. Doubtless he can afford good legals to argue the price up. You are of course right regarding the easement issue, and I had misread the writeups assuming they had an easement he was seeking to sunder, not seeking an easement for a seventy year access which it turns out was fee'd and so conditional. In many jurisdictions, seventy years alone would have knocked this out: as few as ten can secure adverse possession, public right of way in the UK is established by twenty years continuity of access (with defenses such as closing it off one day a year) and Scotland has instances of crofters rights which lay dormant but reawoke unexpectedly. Maybe you're happy to be reductionist on this being invasion of his property. I've been the beneficiary of public rights to access, and I do value them more highly than simple property rights. This is not some trivium of argument around anyone's home being walked through, it's a property which he bought with a road and facilities already there, and a long period of continuous access he chose to break for his own private benefit. If he always intended alienation of access or if he just changed his mind, he interfered with communal benefits. That's pretty shitty behaviour legal or not.

rayiner 8y ago

Either the regulation is legal or it is not. Just because you buy the property with notice that the government thinks it has some right to regulate it has no bearing on whether that regulation is legal.