7 ms·

> the three-judge panel upheld a trial judge’s ruling in Khosla’s favor, finding there was substantial evidence that the previous owners didn’t intend to dedica

> the three-judge panel upheld a trial judge’s ruling in Khosla’s favor, finding there was substantial evidence that the previous owners didn’t intend to dedicate the road for public use because they charged fees. Why does it matter what the previous owner(s) did? The law states there must be public access to the beach. This is an 89 acre parcel of land, providing not even a single access point sounds like the owner could be blocking an appreciable amount of ocean frontage.

chrisseaton 7y ago
> The law states there must be public access to the beach. Can you not access it by boat? Does that count?
- ghaff 7y ago
  Not sure why the downvotes. It's actually a reasonable question, the answer to which can vary by state. The details vary but, in some cases, having only water access to property--even if not an island--is considered access for purposes of the law. (For example, I believe in Maine it's OK to own a property that doesn't have a legal right of way by land.)
  - mrguyorama 7y ago
    >I believe in Maine it's OK to own a property that doesn't have a legal right of way by land. Maybe that's state law but legal easement is required in many municipalities, for example Kennebunkport will not let you surround a property with other people's property with no access to public property (the road)
- yourapostasy 7y ago
  It would be ironic if Khosla woke up one day to find a continuously-growing fleet of recreational and commercial boats including party barges with beach anchors, lights, speakers, generators and tons of booze using the beach, ferrying anyone who desired it to get to the beach from nearby beaches/docks, turning it into the worst destination party-scape he was trying to avoid tepid versions of in the first place. He just made it clear via the case that water access was permitted, he doesn't privately own the beach itself, and there are plenty of waterborne partiers in CA who would take him up on the "offer" of partying on an "exclusive" beach. People pay big bucks on cruises to get to "exclusive" beaches, and there are any number of "entrepreneurs" who will jump at the chance to turn a quick dollar to ferry people to exactly such a beach (albeit created through a legal technicality than natural features), plus throw in the gratuitous "ogle a billionaire's house" in marketing schticks on top to goose the customer buy rate. There might be a corollary of the Streisand Effect at work here...
  - cwkoss 7y ago
    Or someone could anchor a dinghy with a billboard insulting Khosola and a bunch of cameras to livestream Khosolas property 24/7 online
    - yourapostasy 7y ago
      He probably could take that into court and have that action taken down. However, I'm not so clear that third parties wouldn't capitalize upon the exclusivity he just de jure created by restricting land access. But without actual ownership of the beach itself to turn it into private property, he might have unintentionally triggered a tragedy of the commons scenario, where he's raised the attractiveness of that particular spot of the beach without being able to charge and throttle access for it, and those third parties will be able to deliver that access and charge for it, without having to pay for the beach capex and opex itself. This has the potential to be environmentally terrible, and I'd rather truly not see that happen, even though if it does happen it would make others in this thread happy on how much a Pyrrhic victory it would represent for Khosla.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      That sounds more like harassment rather than legitimate use of the right to access a beach.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  I'm sure they'll then get you with noise complaints that the motors are too loud, then have boats banned from being within any meaningful distance of the beach.
cjensen 7y ago
The law is not implemented like that. Basically if there is a property which does not provide through-access to the beach, the law does not require them to provide it. If any change is made to the property, including improvements, then as part of the permitting process a requirement will be made to provide the access. This is why at California beach areas and piers, old buildings have no access, but all remodeled ones do. That all said, still amazingly entitled behavior by Khosla.
- baggy_trough 7y ago
  He is literally entitled, because he owns the land.
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    The concept that property is so religiously sacred that simply owning of a thing entitles one to cause external harm using that thing, even passively, is sickening.
    - solotronics 7y ago
      Would you be upset if people came into your house uninvited?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        This is a reduction to absurdity. Would you like it if anyone could just wander into your kitchen and take from the fridge? How about lie in bed with your spouse? Nobody’s proposing that. The California state constitution is pretty clear that beaches are public access. Khosla more than most knew that going in, well before he was in a position to grab his rake and run up and down the beach yelling at sunbathers. This wasn’t a shocker. He wanted to litigate this case well before the ink was dry on the purchase papers, and kicked it off arguing the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo that ended the Mexican-American war superseded the state constitution. Fun fact: it did not. Other jurisdictions like Australia have public access to beach rules. In much of Europe the same rules apply to much more inland areas too. And you know what? It works great there, and surprisingly, you can’t sleep with the spouse or anyone who owns beachfront property there either. Your slippery slope is flat and dry.
sjg007 7y ago
Some of beach front lands were in private ownership before the access law passed. One notable example is Hollister ranch another is Martins beach. This lawsuit means that there's no pre-existing or effective easement for the road because the previous owners charged for access / parking. So as much as we want this land to be open and accessible, it is not. You can also legally access the beach by boat.

chrisseaton 7y ago

> The law states there must be public access to the beach. Can you not access it by boat? Does that count?

ghaff 7y ago
Not sure why the downvotes. It's actually a reasonable question, the answer to which can vary by state. The details vary but, in some cases, having only water access to property--even if not an island--is considered access for purposes of the law. (For example, I believe in Maine it's OK to own a property that doesn't have a legal right of way by land.)
- mrguyorama 7y ago
  >I believe in Maine it's OK to own a property that doesn't have a legal right of way by land. Maybe that's state law but legal easement is required in many municipalities, for example Kennebunkport will not let you surround a property with other people's property with no access to public property (the road)
yourapostasy 7y ago
It would be ironic if Khosla woke up one day to find a continuously-growing fleet of recreational and commercial boats including party barges with beach anchors, lights, speakers, generators and tons of booze using the beach, ferrying anyone who desired it to get to the beach from nearby beaches/docks, turning it into the worst destination party-scape he was trying to avoid tepid versions of in the first place. He just made it clear via the case that water access was permitted, he doesn't privately own the beach itself, and there are plenty of waterborne partiers in CA who would take him up on the "offer" of partying on an "exclusive" beach. People pay big bucks on cruises to get to "exclusive" beaches, and there are any number of "entrepreneurs" who will jump at the chance to turn a quick dollar to ferry people to exactly such a beach (albeit created through a legal technicality than natural features), plus throw in the gratuitous "ogle a billionaire's house" in marketing schticks on top to goose the customer buy rate. There might be a corollary of the Streisand Effect at work here...
- cwkoss 7y ago
  Or someone could anchor a dinghy with a billboard insulting Khosola and a bunch of cameras to livestream Khosolas property 24/7 online
  - yourapostasy 7y ago
    He probably could take that into court and have that action taken down. However, I'm not so clear that third parties wouldn't capitalize upon the exclusivity he just de jure created by restricting land access. But without actual ownership of the beach itself to turn it into private property, he might have unintentionally triggered a tragedy of the commons scenario, where he's raised the attractiveness of that particular spot of the beach without being able to charge and throttle access for it, and those third parties will be able to deliver that access and charge for it, without having to pay for the beach capex and opex itself. This has the potential to be environmentally terrible, and I'd rather truly not see that happen, even though if it does happen it would make others in this thread happy on how much a Pyrrhic victory it would represent for Khosla.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    That sounds more like harassment rather than legitimate use of the right to access a beach.
hanniabu 7y ago
I'm sure they'll then get you with noise complaints that the motors are too loud, then have boats banned from being within any meaningful distance of the beach.

cjensen 7y ago

The law is not implemented like that. Basically if there is a property which does not provide through-access to the beach, the law does not require them to provide it. If any change is made to the property, including improvements, then as part of the permitting process a requirement will be made to provide the access. This is why at California beach areas and piers, old buildings have no access, but all remodeled ones do. That all said, still amazingly entitled behavior by Khosla.

baggy_trough 7y ago
He is literally entitled, because he owns the land.
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  The concept that property is so religiously sacred that simply owning of a thing entitles one to cause external harm using that thing, even passively, is sickening.
  - solotronics 7y ago
    Would you be upset if people came into your house uninvited?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      This is a reduction to absurdity. Would you like it if anyone could just wander into your kitchen and take from the fridge? How about lie in bed with your spouse? Nobody’s proposing that. The California state constitution is pretty clear that beaches are public access. Khosla more than most knew that going in, well before he was in a position to grab his rake and run up and down the beach yelling at sunbathers. This wasn’t a shocker. He wanted to litigate this case well before the ink was dry on the purchase papers, and kicked it off arguing the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo that ended the Mexican-American war superseded the state constitution. Fun fact: it did not. Other jurisdictions like Australia have public access to beach rules. In much of Europe the same rules apply to much more inland areas too. And you know what? It works great there, and surprisingly, you can’t sleep with the spouse or anyone who owns beachfront property there either. Your slippery slope is flat and dry.

sjg007 7y ago

Some of beach front lands were in private ownership before the access law passed. One notable example is Hollister ranch another is Martins beach. This lawsuit means that there's no pre-existing or effective easement for the road because the previous owners charged for access / parking. So as much as we want this land to be open and accessible, it is not. You can also legally access the beach by boat.