12 ms·
Khosla Rebuffed as Supreme Court Rejects Beach-Access Appeal
- harryh 8y agoIt's important to note that Khosla can now apply for a permit for what he wants, presumably be denied, and then the legal battle can happen all over again on slightly different terms.
- ronilan 8y agoOr he can buy a wetsuit and a board, walk out of his backyard and learn to chill with his beach buddies. Life is full of choices.
- harryh 8y agoTrue! Though Khosla making that choice seems.....unlikely.
- mark212 8y agono, that's the crazy part -- he doesn't live there and has no plans to live there and hasn't even been to the beach more than a handful of times: "[H]e bought the place on what he says was a whim, has never spent a single night there, and regrets it enormously." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/technology/vinod-khosla-beach.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/technology/vinod-khosla-b...
- harryh 8y agoDespite what he has said, my hypothesis is that he purchased it as an investment. He figured that he could buy it, do enough legal wrangling to restrict beach access, and create a much more valuable private beach for rich people.
- webkike 8y agoI was just thinking, what’s the point in having a beach no one else can use? Host a barbecue and make yourself some friends!
- dragonwriter 8y agoExclusivity increases value; had he created exclusivity attached to the propertt that did not exist when he bought the property, it would have greatly enhanced its resale value, increasing his return on investment. IMO, the most plausible explanation for the whole affair was that this was the whole point of his buying the property, applying what he saw as a legal hack that would allow him to convert the property into a much more valuable one and resell it.
- fermienrico 8y agoI wonder if billionaires think that they, in the case of Kholsa, will live another 2-3 decades and will leave this planet for good. Why fight over petty things? I understand that he bought a property, but man why piss off people and go into revenge mode if you could just let go of your high privilege and allow public access? Or buy a property somewhere else. They won’t have the time to spend their earnings before they die.
- stygiansonic 8y agoI presume they care about generational wealth.
- fermienrico 8y agoAt what expense? In this case, Goodwill. He is on Bloomberg.
- pound 8y agobecause he doesn't want to let go of his high privilege. it's not a matter of whether he will have time to spend earning before dying or enjoy something, it's about how dare some peasants even consider that they can impose any restrictions on elite demigods.
- fermienrico 8y agoI think my point was about perspective. When you’re so high up, you’d think they get some perspective of which fights to pick and which ones aren’t worth their time.
- pound 8y agowell, that's exactly the thing - if you have to consider general public (choose what will work and what's not worth it) - you're not above it. This is a case of power and having it your way, not looking for reasonable outcomes
- 8y ago
- triviatise 8y agoIt seems like a prescriptive easement could come into play. In california it seems like it only takes 5 years. In texas no beaches are private and all waterways are public.
- sidlls 8y agoAll waterways are public in California as well, so there is already an easement on the access for any property that includes waterway access.
- tokyodude 8y agoAFAICT they actually aren't. Go down to the dogpatch in SF, end of 24th street. Walk through the park to the water, turn right, come to sign saying No Trespassing. Call city, get told all waterways are not public. (or at least in 2013)
- harryh 8y agoThere is no existing easement. The courts might create one, but there isn't one right now.
- labster 8y agoAll natural waterways.
- mark212 8y agocan't get a prescriptive easement in California unless the access is "hostile to the true owner." And posting a sign wipes out that hostility, per Civ. Code section 1008: No use by any person or persons, no matter how long continued, of any land, shall ever ripen into an easement by prescription, if the owner of such property posts at each entrance to the property or at intervals of not more than 200 feet along the boundary a sign reading substantially as follows: “Right to pass by permission, and subject to control, of owner: Section 1008, Civil Code.”
- doodlebugging 8y agoThis is mostly true. One can wander - botaing, fishing, camping, etc. - between the banks of any waterway of any size in Texas and they will be considered to be remaining on public property unless the stream, creek, river, etc. has its entire length from headwaters to terminus with larger stream on property belonging to one owner. In other words, if the stream you're following begins and ends on property belonging to one owner and no part of that stream is owned or shared with a second party then that stream is entirely private property and access would require permission. Therefore, short feeder streams in the watersheds may be private property but the majority of waters in Texas are public property between the banks. People still need to respect the land owner's rights to ask them to tone down parties, control size of any fires, etc. so that their activities don't adversely impact the landowner's property. They also need to remain between the banks unless they have permission to wander around the floodplain, woods, or pastures.
- vikingcaffiene 8y agoMan, I know that conversations on HN are supposed to be constructive, but can I just say: EFF this guy. I've been keeping tabs on this story. This dude just ignores the rulings and locks his gates anyway. He can afford the fines and does not care. Total tale of two cities stuff. Being very wealthy does not exclude you from the rules of the society you choose to live in. People that behave this way are a cancer and its a shame that there aren't more robust means to hold them to account.
- ryguytilidie 8y agoDoesn't stop the people in this community from working for his startups and making him richer unfortunately. I worked for a Khosla company a few years ago and it was pretty depressing to know that if we struck gold, I might get a few million dollars to set my family up, but Vinod would get hundreds of millions to trample on people who werent millionaires. There's no winning in that situation.
- i_am_nomad 8y agoIf it makes you feel any better, you probably wouldn’t have ever seen that few million bucks, even if the company had succeeded.
- api 8y agoI sometimes wonder if I would be any better if you gave me a billion dollars. It seems like effectively unlimited wealth does something to people. I wonder if it's a result of what it does to the people around you. Basically you end up surrounded by sycophants and people saying what you want to hear because they want some of your money, so it's not unlike the ego trip cult leaders and gurus get. You no longer get any balanced social feedback. Same probably applies to power of a more political sort. Are dictators dictators because they're dictators or does placing a human in a dictatorial office turn them into one?
- ZeroGravitas 8y agoI was wondering the same about these mysterious big money donors that fund reactionary stuff. You could think of them as bond villains from a Handmaid's Tale or you could just think of them as the juiciest targets in the Fox viewers demographic. Why try to scare money out of thousands of sheltered old people when you can go for the big score and terrufy one super rich sheltered old person.
- jtlienwis 8y agoBack when I was a kid, there was a pay to enter beach at a nearby lake. It had a fence on both ends running out into the water. My clever brother didn't want to pay a quarter to get in, so he swam around the fence and into the part of the lake where the beach was. The owners caught him and said he had to pay. He said you own the beach, not the lake. So, as long as he didn't use their pier or raft he was allowed.
- tomcam 8y agoBrilliant. I’d love to know what he’s doing with that brain now!
- andrewflnr 8y agoThis exact approach seems applicable in this situation. People should take boats to it, just on the principle of asserting access.
- 394549 8y ago> This exact approach seems applicable in this situation. People should take boats to it, just on the principle of asserting access. People are already asserting access by demanding use of the beach access easement.
- andrewflnr 8y agoSure, but why not also prove, along the way, that any victory Khosla achieves will be worthless anyway? If the guy wants to play hardball on property law, just win. Proving things in the real world matters, too, not just in court.
- 394549 8y agoIIRC, his issue is with the easement, not access to the beach itself. Forcing the public to take a boat to reach the public land is probably sufficiently onerous that Khosla would see it as a victory.
- harryh 8y agoPrediction: On the access road, Khosla will continue to lose. On the sandy beach above the high tide line & the parking lot, Khosla will eventually win.
- cjensen 8y agoNo, it's end of the road for him. His appeals are pretty much done and the prosecutor in the case has already expressed a willingness to lock him up.
- harryh 8y agoThat is incorrect as I have described here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18114099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18114099
- cjensen 8y agoYou're nitpicking. I say end of the road, while you say he must do one thing first before he can fight further. He has no remaining arguments that he can litigate further.
- ajtaylor 8y agoThere was an article I read recently about this fight where Khosla said he's now continuing the legal battle simply on principle. He doesn't actually care (that much) about public access any more.
- cjensen 8y agoThe "principle" he's fighting for had already been fully vetted by the justice system. He didn't have a leg to stand on, and any competent lawyer would have told him so. His position is literally "your laws don't apply to me."
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- harryh 8y agoThat is not an accurate representation of his case. He's had a mixed record in court so far, and is likely to win on some points in the end.
- cjensen 8y agoA mixed record? He has literally lost every single argument he's made, most of which had already been thoroughly litigated in prior. The very few novel arguments he's made were just legal fanfic like "well I have rights because of Mexican law before California became part of the US."
- harryh 8y agoHe won his first case.
- rfrey 8y agoI'd love to hear precisely which principle that is.
- 8y ago
- draw_down 8y agoWhat a bum.
- NonEUCitizen 8y agoDon't take money from his VC firm and don't interview with startups that are funded by him (and make sure the recruiter knows why).
- jonny_eh 8y agoCan a startup choose to disassociate with Khosla after the fact?
- eps 8y agoShould've kept it simple and bought an island.
- hyperbovine 8y agoObligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudsgwjNN64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudsgwjNN64
- parliament32 8y agoThis isn't about the beach itself, it's about whether he's obligated to keep open (and presumably maintain) a private access road that runs through his property. If the state wants to keep the road open, they should negotiate an easement and maintain the road themselves -- it doesn't make much sense that a property owner be obligated to provide a road for the public without some sort of compensation.
- olliej 8y agoHe purchased the property knowing that the beach was public property, and that he had to leave an access way to that property. He then barred access anyway. If he didn’t want people crossing his property he could have bought property elsewhere. His intent however was clearly to create a de facto private beach by violating the laws he agreed to when buying the property.
- throw2016 8y agoThe problem here seem to be inadequate laws around public access. Since this kind of publicity makes one look petty and small minded one can only assume like a lot of SV billionaires he is a libertarian with 'religious' views on property. Most other countries have well established laws regarding public access, some things are not for sale. Without the laws or a 'public oriented' justice system a wealthy person can keep on litigating for decades. In the interim the local community do not have access or informal sporadic access and will not have the time or resources to persevere for decades. Because this is connected to property rights few in the political or justice system will touch an issue that would ideally be fixed in days in a proper democracy. The community now chastened may have a new perspective on absolute property rights come elections but they will find few mainstream candidates support their position. In many ways like the justice system, democracy too will fail them.
- drb91 8y agoMan I’m tempted to make a trip to camp on this section.
- swalling 8y agoWhat would happen if everyone who wanted to recreate on this beach simply ignored his signs, took down the gate, and treated the road like the public right of way it should be? The police already declined to press charges on one group of surfers who "trespassed" right? Ultimately, he doesn't have the power to physically prevent people from going to the beach, and if enough people ignored his buffoonery the state would probably not consider it a useful expenditure of policing resources to enforce it.
- vladislav 8y ago"As soon as you get any degree of success, you disappear up your own arse and you lose it forever" - Thom Yorke
- Simulacra 8y agoPerhaps I’m a little radical on this, but I think all beaches should be open to the public, and property owners may only block access up to so many feet from the high tide mark. Or say 100 feet from the main structure, etc. restricting access all the way to the water just seems… Overkill.
- fake-name 8y agoThat's basically what the california law already is. This case was an asshole who bought land with a public easement that provided access, and then (illegally) closed the easement.
- komali2 8y agoThe anti-California line on Twitter is that somehow this is about property rights, that a road being on this guy's property means he somehow is responsible for its upkeep, so he should be allowed to do with it what he wants. Except... He's not responsible. I just find it interesting that hundreds of suspicious Twitter accounts are taking this opportunity to try to trend hashtags like "#socialismkills"
- rmason 8y agoUnder California Coastal Commission rules the property owner must continue to maintain beach access. You also cannot deny beach access which Barbara Streisand among others learned in Malibu years ago. I wish Michigan had been so farsighted.
- komali2 8y agoI thought the definition of "maintain" was determined to be "not prevent previous access routes?" Meh, clearly just need to look at the casework, I'm no lawyer.
- ChoGGi 8y agoYeah, he sure went about it the wrong way. I would've cleared out all the old buildings/parking lot, built my house and stuck private property signs just around it, that way I'm not blocking access to the beach. The hassle of finding somewhere to park would get rid of most visitors, then you can just start calling the cops on suspicious cars parked near your house :)
- s73v3r_ 8y agoGood. There is zero reason why that person should be able to close off access to the beach. It is crazy that, because of his wealth, he's able to just eat the fine that comes from doing so.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> because of his wealth, he's able to just eat the fine that comes from doing so Now we have solid precedent. I see that as something of a public good this billionaire financed.
- toss1 8y agoI recall hearing that this is the same phenomena that resulted in finally ending the 'Blue Laws' requiring all stores to be closed on Sunday. IIR the story, the Blue Law fine in NYC for opening on Sunday was $500/day. Woolworths just decided to open anyway and pay it, since they's make more than that. Due to competitive pressure, everyone soon decided to open, and just fight it. The laws soon officially ended. Here's a NYT archive story https://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/19/nyregion/sunday-shopping-a-way-of-life-for-millions.html https://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/19/nyregion/sunday-shopping-...
- densone 8y agoNot surprised. This guy invested in a company I founded. I had a friend call me and basically say “this dude is horrible, don’t let him invest”. I could write a book about how that investment ended up working out for me personally.