4 ms·

And yet every commentator here thinks they are an expert and that Vinod is wrong. Vinod, at least, has been actively involved in the litigation, has probably r

And yet every commentator here thinks they are an expert and that Vinod is wrong. Vinod, at least, has been actively involved in the litigation, has probably read the briefs, knows the issues and the laws well, etc. The commentators here (including you) that assume he is wrong and just full of hubris have likely only read a few articles that poorly summarize all of the history and complexity of the case. That’s not to say I have a view on the underlying case. He may still be an asshole and wrong. But maybe he’s right.

ramraj07 8y ago
Maybe he is right. But as the Dude said, he's still an asshole.
- AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
  Being an asshole is not illegal.
  - mcphage 8y ago
    > I don't think anyone was suggesting he be thrown in jail.
  - ramraj07 8y ago
    Of course not. That's what is being litigated in courts, whether what he wants is legal or not. Doesn't change the fact that he's not going to come off not looking like an asshole either way.
icebraining 8y ago
have likely only read a few articles that poorly summarize all of the history and complexity of the case. And, you know, the multiple courts that have ruled against him.
- berberous 8y ago
  Have you read the court opinions? Do you know what was really at issue? Is it fair to say "multiple courts" ruling against him makes him arrogant, just because he exercised his right to appeal? Does a contrary court decision really mean that one is wrong or acting with hubris -- how many gay rights cases have lost around the country before things shifted? Without spending more than 5 minutes looking into this (so this could be an inaccurate or unfair summary), it looks like: 1. Per Vinod's blog post (https://medium.com/@vkhosla/martins-beach-a-matter-of-principle-property-rights-b32f4de1c97 https://medium.com/@vkhosla/martins-beach-a-matter-of-princi...), multiple courts have actually agreed with him that there is no right of public access at Martin’s Beach, finding in favor of Vinod on 7 different legal theories that were brought. 2. In Vinod's view, the plaintiffs then only succeeded based on a claim in a separate case they brought that changing the access hours to a voluntary gate constituted "development" under the Coastal Act that required a permit. If you read the law at issue and the facts of this case, I don't think Vinod's view that this was a "technicality" is totally unreasonable. 3. When he lost on the above, he appealed. Appealing a decision by a lower court that you disagree with is normal -- lower court decisions are often overturned. 4. You then have to consider why he lost the appeal. For example, the appellate court said one of his constitutional claims was not ripe, not necessarily wrong. Higher courts merely declined to hear the case.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    1) Sure, there's no abstract right to access the beach, but there's still a right, rooted in the fact that the access already existed, and he can't change it willy-nilly 2) The definition of "development" in the law in question includes “change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto”, which seems precisely what he did. The fact that this doesn't sound like the common definition of the word is irrelevant. 4) The court still ruled against him on the question at hand - whether he can simply close access as he wishes. The "not ripe" decision is about a different (if related) question.

ramraj07 8y ago

Maybe he is right. But as the Dude said, he's still an asshole.

AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
Being an asshole is not illegal.
- mcphage 8y ago
  > I don't think anyone was suggesting he be thrown in jail.
- ramraj07 8y ago
  Of course not. That's what is being litigated in courts, whether what he wants is legal or not. Doesn't change the fact that he's not going to come off not looking like an asshole either way.

icebraining 8y ago

have likely only read a few articles that poorly summarize all of the history and complexity of the case. And, you know, the multiple courts that have ruled against him.

berberous 8y ago
Have you read the court opinions? Do you know what was really at issue? Is it fair to say "multiple courts" ruling against him makes him arrogant, just because he exercised his right to appeal? Does a contrary court decision really mean that one is wrong or acting with hubris -- how many gay rights cases have lost around the country before things shifted? Without spending more than 5 minutes looking into this (so this could be an inaccurate or unfair summary), it looks like: 1. Per Vinod's blog post (https://medium.com/@vkhosla/martins-beach-a-matter-of-principle-property-rights-b32f4de1c97 https://medium.com/@vkhosla/martins-beach-a-matter-of-princi...), multiple courts have actually agreed with him that there is no right of public access at Martin’s Beach, finding in favor of Vinod on 7 different legal theories that were brought. 2. In Vinod's view, the plaintiffs then only succeeded based on a claim in a separate case they brought that changing the access hours to a voluntary gate constituted "development" under the Coastal Act that required a permit. If you read the law at issue and the facts of this case, I don't think Vinod's view that this was a "technicality" is totally unreasonable. 3. When he lost on the above, he appealed. Appealing a decision by a lower court that you disagree with is normal -- lower court decisions are often overturned. 4. You then have to consider why he lost the appeal. For example, the appellate court said one of his constitutional claims was not ripe, not necessarily wrong. Higher courts merely declined to hear the case.
- icebraining 8y ago
  1) Sure, there's no abstract right to access the beach, but there's still a right, rooted in the fact that the access already existed, and he can't change it willy-nilly 2) The definition of "development" in the law in question includes “change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto”, which seems precisely what he did. The fact that this doesn't sound like the common definition of the word is irrelevant. 4) The court still ruled against him on the question at hand - whether he can simply close access as he wishes. The "not ripe" decision is about a different (if related) question.