5 ms·

There 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

There 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 ago
The "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 ago
  That 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 ago
    A 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 ago
      He won his first case.
rfrey 8y ago
I'd love to hear precisely which principle that is.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Rule of law.
- genericone 8y ago
  I think the principle that he is looking at is like this, someone please correct me if something is factually incorrect: He didn't buy the beach, you can't own beach in CA afterall, but the beach truly is inaccessible by any means other than through the private property which he does own. The previous owners of the property allowed people to enter the private property on their way to the public property, and had done so for so long that people have never had to think about it, but the new owner doesn't feel he is obligated to do that, so the loss shocked a lot of people who have been using the private access road. Their supporters feel that because the previous owners allowed it, that the future owner should be obligated in some way to allow it as well. Khosla disagrees.
  - harryh 8y ago
    It's more than that. The previous owners didn't allow unfettered access to the beach. Sometimes the gate was closed. And when it was open they ran a for-pay parking lot. And Khosla's dispute isn't just about access. He also wants to stop running the for-pay parking lot and restrict access to the sandy beach above the high tide line (which marks the border of his property with public land). His argument seems quite strong on these latter two points imho.
    - genericone 8y ago
      That's interesting, and we'll see what CA gov does and how far the CA politicians think they can go with this. If they mandate simply that Khosla must ALLOW access, how much can/will he charge for that access, lets say something stupidly large like $200? Would he be within his rights to do so? And since it is his property, he should be able to close the parking lots, bathrooms, and general store too, especially if he were to be liable for maintenence, upkeep, accident liability, etc?
    - cjensen 8y ago
drb91 8y ago
“Principle” meaning he’s just stubborn here, I’m assuming.

There 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 ago

The "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 ago
That 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 ago
  A 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 ago
    He won his first case.

rfrey 8y ago

I'd love to hear precisely which principle that is.

SamReidHughes 8y ago
Rule of law.
genericone 8y ago
I think the principle that he is looking at is like this, someone please correct me if something is factually incorrect: He didn't buy the beach, you can't own beach in CA afterall, but the beach truly is inaccessible by any means other than through the private property which he does own. The previous owners of the property allowed people to enter the private property on their way to the public property, and had done so for so long that people have never had to think about it, but the new owner doesn't feel he is obligated to do that, so the loss shocked a lot of people who have been using the private access road. Their supporters feel that because the previous owners allowed it, that the future owner should be obligated in some way to allow it as well. Khosla disagrees.
- harryh 8y ago
  It's more than that. The previous owners didn't allow unfettered access to the beach. Sometimes the gate was closed. And when it was open they ran a for-pay parking lot. And Khosla's dispute isn't just about access. He also wants to stop running the for-pay parking lot and restrict access to the sandy beach above the high tide line (which marks the border of his property with public land). His argument seems quite strong on these latter two points imho.
  - genericone 8y ago
    That's interesting, and we'll see what CA gov does and how far the CA politicians think they can go with this. If they mandate simply that Khosla must ALLOW access, how much can/will he charge for that access, lets say something stupidly large like $200? Would he be within his rights to do so? And since it is his property, he should be able to close the parking lots, bathrooms, and general store too, especially if he were to be liable for maintenence, upkeep, accident liability, etc?
  - cjensen 8y ago

drb91 8y ago

“Principle” meaning he’s just stubborn here, I’m assuming.