4 ms·

Well, if Khosla paid for the land the road is built on, I agree that the state should pay the fair price for the road. Seems straightforward and fair to me. Can

Well, if Khosla paid for the land the road is built on, I agree that the state should pay the fair price for the road. Seems straightforward and fair to me. Can someone help me understand why this is not that simple? And then we should have a law that prohibits private ownership of any land that is the sole connector between two public pieces of land. i.e, there should always be a pathway at least enough for 2 cars to pass through that connects 2 pieces of land. This should be verified every time a new land deal is registered. That should prevent such mishaps in future.

metei 9y ago
Public access laws like what California and Washington State have require the property owner to allow access to the beach. This means a property owner has to provide a reasonable right of way to access shoreline on their property. Anything less is illegal, up here in Seattle people get hauled to court (or worse if they refuse to allow access repeatedly). Stealing a beach from the public domain is illegal, and Cali seems to have serious enforcement problems. No property owner has a right to steal public beaches
- raz32dust 9y ago
  But then, the state should not have allowed the sale, right? What is the meaning of ownership if the land is not really yours?
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > What is the meaning of ownership if the land is not really yours? You can't own the beach. And you can't de facto own the beach by buying all the land around it and then restricting access. These were both well-understood when Khosla bought the land. He knew exactly how California interpreted land rights in this particular case. Land purchases regularly come with both private (contractual) and public (statutory) limitations/restrictions on use. Landowners are not kings, and private properties are not sovereign borders. > But then, the state should not have allowed the sale, right? I guess that's one way the state could react to these sorts of lawsuits. That would be unfortunate, because it'd probably end up meaning that one asshole prevented a whole bunch of reasonable people from buying beachfront views with their hard-earned money.
    - raz32dust 8y ago
      > meaning that one asshole prevented a whole bunch of reasonable people from buying beachfront views with their hard-earned money. I don't understand this point. You don't have to purchase the road leading to the beach to own beachfront property.
      - throwawayjava 8y ago
        But in practice many developments do have the effect of blocking off access to a piece of beachfront. The state doesn't interfere with those developments, working off of the assumption that the owners are reasonable folks and will follow public access laws. If the only way to get people to behave reasonably is to not issue building permits, then everyone loses. What you're suggesting is that California should choose the defect/defect quadrant of a game. But there's a more optimal solution -- just tell people like Khosla they're not allowed to defect on this question. In other words, why should I be prohibited from owning certain types of land or having the chance to purchase into certain types of developments just because Khosla's being an ass about restrictions he knew about when he bought the property? What you're proposing is the "if I can't have it then burn it all down" solution. Which I guess is a way to vindicate Khosla in a sort of pyrrhic way, but everyone else loses.
  - metei 8y ago
    The state cannot sell the beach itself. State law requires public access to all shoreline be permitted. The state makes no attempt to hide this either.
taysic 9y ago
I like the law that you proposed. I think likely the laws on how beaches are public need to be clarified. Why are they public only up to the high tide line? That seems difficult to enforce. Not very informed on this topic - but why isn't the whole natural sandy part public by default? Seems like he doesn't want anyone on the beach and it's as simple as that.
- raz32dust 9y ago
  I guess "high-tide line" is assumed to be somewhat constant, and therefore a good demarcator. We need a better way to enforce land boundaries in this day and age (especially in the bay area, which is prone to earthquakes and faults). But that's a longer story. Yeah, he clearly doesn't want anyone on the beach. But he does offer to sell it for fair price. Just taking it away from him doesn't seem fair to me either if it wasn't enforced when the purchase happened.
ende 8y ago
> And then we should have a law that prohibits private ownership of any land that is the sole connector between two public pieces of land. i.e, there should always be a pathway at least enough for 2 cars to pass through that connects 2 pieces of land. What a great idea. Maybe we could call it an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement

metei 9y ago

Public access laws like what California and Washington State have require the property owner to allow access to the beach. This means a property owner has to provide a reasonable right of way to access shoreline on their property. Anything less is illegal, up here in Seattle people get hauled to court (or worse if they refuse to allow access repeatedly). Stealing a beach from the public domain is illegal, and Cali seems to have serious enforcement problems. No property owner has a right to steal public beaches

raz32dust 9y ago
But then, the state should not have allowed the sale, right? What is the meaning of ownership if the land is not really yours?
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > What is the meaning of ownership if the land is not really yours? You can't own the beach. And you can't de facto own the beach by buying all the land around it and then restricting access. These were both well-understood when Khosla bought the land. He knew exactly how California interpreted land rights in this particular case. Land purchases regularly come with both private (contractual) and public (statutory) limitations/restrictions on use. Landowners are not kings, and private properties are not sovereign borders. > But then, the state should not have allowed the sale, right? I guess that's one way the state could react to these sorts of lawsuits. That would be unfortunate, because it'd probably end up meaning that one asshole prevented a whole bunch of reasonable people from buying beachfront views with their hard-earned money.
  - raz32dust 8y ago
    > meaning that one asshole prevented a whole bunch of reasonable people from buying beachfront views with their hard-earned money. I don't understand this point. You don't have to purchase the road leading to the beach to own beachfront property.
    - throwawayjava 8y ago
      But in practice many developments do have the effect of blocking off access to a piece of beachfront. The state doesn't interfere with those developments, working off of the assumption that the owners are reasonable folks and will follow public access laws. If the only way to get people to behave reasonably is to not issue building permits, then everyone loses. What you're suggesting is that California should choose the defect/defect quadrant of a game. But there's a more optimal solution -- just tell people like Khosla they're not allowed to defect on this question. In other words, why should I be prohibited from owning certain types of land or having the chance to purchase into certain types of developments just because Khosla's being an ass about restrictions he knew about when he bought the property? What you're proposing is the "if I can't have it then burn it all down" solution. Which I guess is a way to vindicate Khosla in a sort of pyrrhic way, but everyone else loses.
- metei 8y ago
  The state cannot sell the beach itself. State law requires public access to all shoreline be permitted. The state makes no attempt to hide this either.

taysic 9y ago

I like the law that you proposed. I think likely the laws on how beaches are public need to be clarified. Why are they public only up to the high tide line? That seems difficult to enforce. Not very informed on this topic - but why isn't the whole natural sandy part public by default? Seems like he doesn't want anyone on the beach and it's as simple as that.

raz32dust 9y ago
I guess "high-tide line" is assumed to be somewhat constant, and therefore a good demarcator. We need a better way to enforce land boundaries in this day and age (especially in the bay area, which is prone to earthquakes and faults). But that's a longer story. Yeah, he clearly doesn't want anyone on the beach. But he does offer to sell it for fair price. Just taking it away from him doesn't seem fair to me either if it wasn't enforced when the purchase happened.

ende 8y ago

> And then we should have a law that prohibits private ownership of any land that is the sole connector between two public pieces of land. i.e, there should always be a pathway at least enough for 2 cars to pass through that connects 2 pieces of land. What a great idea. Maybe we could call it an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement