6 ms·

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 ha

by nugget 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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
  - jackfoxy 8y ago
    He is disobeying through means of prolonged legal actions. I hope he gets the sh!t sanctioned out of him in the end. Alternatively, isn't there grounds for a class action suite? Can a class file a suite against an individual?
  - rayiner 8y ago
    It was never public. Not even the state is claiming that it is public. It was always operated as private property accessible to the public for a fee as a business. The state is saying they can tell Khosla to keep running it that way until he gets a permit to change. Its like someone ran a popular restaurant in town, and sold it, and the historical preservation commission told the new owner they had to keep running it as a restaurant until they got a permit to change the use.
    - harryh 8y ago
      I thought that all CA beaches were public? What made this one different? EDIT: Ah, It's not really the beach being public that is in dispute. It's the extra "sandy beach" space above the high tide line and the parking lot as you explain here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16909487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16909487 Got it. The press on this case has been horrible at explaining the actual dispute.
      - DrScump 8y ago
        The press on this case has been horrible at explaining the actual dispute I don't count Bloomberg as "press". The situation has been covered in depth locally for years (e.g. by the Mercury).
        harryh 8y ago
        The Mercury isn't doing a good job either. See this example from today: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/24/martins-beach-supreme-court-moves-closer-to-taking-case-over-billionaire-vinod-khoslas-attempt-to-block-public-access/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/24/martins-beach-supreme... This story does not make it at all clear that the suit isn't so much about a road, but also a parking lot and access to a sandy beach above the high tide mark.
    - ende 8y ago
      Your analogy still sidesteps the matter of the property owner providing an access to the public beach? Sure, maybe there's some secondary issue related to some of the surrounding features that are part of the property, but ultimately the question is whether the gate to the beach is closed.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        Khosla shouldn’t have closed the road to the beach. But that’s not the primary issue. The county and public interest groups didn’t just want an easement to access the water. They wanted someone to operate a public beach there with parking and places for sunbathing, etc. But they don’t want to have to pay for that property. Public trust doctrine doesn’t get them that. So that’s why this coastal development permit rigamarole happened.
  - DrScump 8y ago
    The guys literally bourgeoisie taking public land Not public land: public access to a de facto right of way.
- nugget 8y ago
  Not sure I follow your distinction. There's a "no trespassing" sign and a law against trespassing. If I trespass, in violation of that law, how is that not civil disobedience? (Conversely if I'm not breaking the law, then how would lawful use of the easement be disrespectful?) The landowner may also be participating in civil disobedience (refusing to grant access to the beach, in violation of a law which requires it).
  - DrScump 8y ago
    The sidewalk in front of a house inside a "parking strip" is on private property (generally), but you can't chain it off with No Trespassing signs... because the sidewalk is on an easement.

by nugget 8y ago

jackfoxy 8y 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 8y 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
- jackfoxy 8y ago
  He is disobeying through means of prolonged legal actions. I hope he gets the sh!t sanctioned out of him in the end. Alternatively, isn't there grounds for a class action suite? Can a class file a suite against an individual?
- rayiner 8y ago
  It was never public. Not even the state is claiming that it is public. It was always operated as private property accessible to the public for a fee as a business. The state is saying they can tell Khosla to keep running it that way until he gets a permit to change. Its like someone ran a popular restaurant in town, and sold it, and the historical preservation commission told the new owner they had to keep running it as a restaurant until they got a permit to change the use.
  - harryh 8y ago
    I thought that all CA beaches were public? What made this one different? EDIT: Ah, It's not really the beach being public that is in dispute. It's the extra "sandy beach" space above the high tide line and the parking lot as you explain here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16909487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16909487 Got it. The press on this case has been horrible at explaining the actual dispute.
    - DrScump 8y ago
      The press on this case has been horrible at explaining the actual dispute I don't count Bloomberg as "press". The situation has been covered in depth locally for years (e.g. by the Mercury).
      - harryh 8y ago
        The Mercury isn't doing a good job either. See this example from today: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/24/martins-beach-supreme-court-moves-closer-to-taking-case-over-billionaire-vinod-khoslas-attempt-to-block-public-access/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/24/martins-beach-supreme... This story does not make it at all clear that the suit isn't so much about a road, but also a parking lot and access to a sandy beach above the high tide mark.
  - ende 8y ago
    Your analogy still sidesteps the matter of the property owner providing an access to the public beach? Sure, maybe there's some secondary issue related to some of the surrounding features that are part of the property, but ultimately the question is whether the gate to the beach is closed.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      Khosla shouldn’t have closed the road to the beach. But that’s not the primary issue. The county and public interest groups didn’t just want an easement to access the water. They wanted someone to operate a public beach there with parking and places for sunbathing, etc. But they don’t want to have to pay for that property. Public trust doctrine doesn’t get them that. So that’s why this coastal development permit rigamarole happened.
- DrScump 8y ago
  The guys literally bourgeoisie taking public land Not public land: public access to a de facto right of way.
nugget 8y ago
Not sure I follow your distinction. There's a "no trespassing" sign and a law against trespassing. If I trespass, in violation of that law, how is that not civil disobedience? (Conversely if I'm not breaking the law, then how would lawful use of the easement be disrespectful?) The landowner may also be participating in civil disobedience (refusing to grant access to the beach, in violation of a law which requires it).
- DrScump 8y ago
  The sidewalk in front of a house inside a "parking strip" is on private property (generally), but you can't chain it off with No Trespassing signs... because the sidewalk is on an easement.