3 ms·

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

by 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

jackfoxy 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y ago
The guys literally bourgeoisie taking public land Not public land: public access to a de facto right of way.

by lovich 9y ago

jackfoxy 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y ago

The guys literally bourgeoisie taking public land Not public land: public access to a de facto right of way.