7 ms·

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 prov

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on the purchase papers, and kicked it off arguing the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo that ended the Mexican-American war superseded the state constitution.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.
    - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
      Nobody is going into Khosla's house uninvited.
    - peteey 7y ago
      Coming into your house isn't even almost the same thing as walking through someone's yard. Walking through someone's yard isn't a good comparison wither because a medium plot of land is maybe 4 thousand square feet and his property is 4 million square feet.
      - vidarh 7y ago
        Coming from Norway, where this is a concept that is being taught from primary school, because we have extensively legally protected rights to access private land ("freedom to roam"), it always surprises me how difficult this distinction is to get for people. We had it hammered into us from childhood, and it boiled down to getting us to think about what would affect us if people wanted to access our land, and what would have only minor effect, and what kind of access we might want to have that would have at most minor affect on the owner. It takes minimal prompting to get kids to come up with trade-offs that deals with the distinction of "walking through someone's yard" vs. "grant access to larger areas of land".
        solotronics 7y ago
        It was a founding priciple of America that we have the fundamental right to private property. We have no king/monarchy so private citizens can have complete ownership of the land as if they were a king.
      - adrr 7y ago
        Better comparison would be easements. Utility companies can dig up your hard because the city has granted them an easement. Some properties are land locked by other private properties so there is easement for access. Go anywhere in rural America and these easements are quite common. Granting easements for passage to a public resource follows the same principles.
  - 12elephant 7y ago
    How is not building an access road to a private beach causing harm? The fact that people feel entitled to tell others what to do with their own private property is sickening.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      You must live in a different world than the real one, where restrictions on land use and ownership are quite common. Land is a finite natural resource, coastline even more so. Restrictions that even the playing field such that the rich aren't able to privatize all the beachfront seems like a great idea to me.
      - 12elephant 7y ago
        Those darn rich people!
    - ssalazar 7y ago
      If it wasn't for California's strong environmental restrictions there would be no coastline for Khosla to appreciate from his private property, or rather it would be a much different landscape. Everyone else plays by these same rules. Khosla is very conspicuously using his outsized monetary influence to the pervert the spirit of the law.
      - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
        People seem to forget that as recently as the 1950's, this is what Venice Beach looked like: https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2014/08/the-urban-oil-fields-of-los-angeles/u03_3b39506u/main_900.jpg?1420498884 https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2014/08/t... Oil rigs on the sand, not many yards away from the tide.
    - felipelemos 7y ago
      Like being fined for not mowing your lawn?
  - wil421 7y ago
    The concept of property being sacred is what drew a lot of people to America in the beginning. Instead of paying a Lord you could literally come to America and be given free land by the Federal government. It was a huge reason we rebelled against England in the first place. In this situation is sucks for regular people but in a lot more situations it benefits everyone else.
    - api 7y ago
      That's how it was a long long time ago in Europe, too. Then they got Lords. How do you think that happened?
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Basically perpetuating the same abuse against others that had been done to them and their forebears. Limiting the power of individuals to completely dictate land use seems like it's better for the populous as a whole.
      - wil421 7y ago
        If the county wants to allow beach access they should build it or buy land. If it becomes a serious problem they should use eminent domain. The home owners shouldn’t be forced to build access.
    - ak217 7y ago
      I don't think so. The concept of having spare land, sure. Private ownership of land is and always has been a social construct, subject to limits imposed by both society and physics. To claim that it is "sacred" is to misunderstand the nature of society. Accordingly, modern (sub)urban land ownership has very little to do with Spanish and English colonial land grants or US settlers. It comes with huge social benefits and is encumbered by extensive permitting, taxation, and use limits. You'll notice that Vinod Khosla isn't interested in exchanging his Half Moon Bay property for, say, an equivalent amount of land in North Dakota, where he might be permitted to block public access all day long.
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
- stale2002 7y ago
  People are entitled to have access to the beach, actually. It is the law, that many beaches are public.
  - baggy_trough 7y ago
    I was mostly making a pun on 'entitled' since he has title to the land, but I guess that was too subtle for the HN beach access downvote brigade.
- cjensen 7y ago
  You're right the he is legally entitled. I wasn't clear enough: he is acting morally entitled. In this sense, "entitled" means a person who feels it is reasonable to use their wealth and power to do anything they want and other peoples wants are irrelevant.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    His legal entitlement is still TBD. This suit has many more legs outstanding.
  - nguoi 7y ago
    This is why this definition of entitled irritates me, it's used to mean 'not entitled but thinks they are entitled'.
- orthecreedence 7y ago
  He doesn't own the land. Nobody in the US owns land. They are given exclusive access to land, with restrictions, but ownership is a myth.
jmvoodoo 7y ago
What I don't understand is why the road isn't an easement by necessity on the land with the dominant estate being the public beach. If the beach were private property the owner of the beach could certainly claim an easement exists and that the servient estate (Khoslas) illegally terminated the easement. Is there some kind of exclusion for easements by necessity for public lands? Edit: fixed autocorrect
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  It may be that that's the next step here.
- azernik 7y ago
  Because the law was written at a time when some beaches were already private property, and so its provisions were written to grandfather in existing private beaches while preventing future ones from being created. So many legal arguments end up centering on the original usage of the land.
  - cjensen 7y ago
    That's not correct. The California Constitution has always made beaches public[1]. The Coastal Commission was established in 1972 to improve access. The act grandfathered in properties with no access, but requires any improvement or change to pull a permit with the Commission. The Commission requires public access when approving any permit. [1] Tidal beaches only. Beaches on lakes can be private
- beerandt 7y ago
  Because legally, charging a fee means it wasn't a public easement, it was licensed access across private land. If you're arguing that it should be "taken" as an easement of necessity, that's separate, and a more political question. Easements by necessity are granted generally when no other access is possible; they're not for convenience. Additionally, (for private party transactions anyway) the party that creates the encumbrance is who is responsible for granting access. If you're not responsible for isolating the tract of land, then there's not (usually) any requirement to grant an easement. And even if there is, it wouldn't be a public easement. And by responsible, I mean in terms of land transactions and changes in law, not putting up a gate.
shay_ker 7y ago
Part of me can see the argument that he bought that property thinking (and being told) that the beach was not public. Another part of me is like - what's it to him? It seems like it'd only help him to make the beach public and be the good guy.

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.
  - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
    Nobody is going into Khosla's house uninvited.
  - peteey 7y ago
    Coming into your house isn't even almost the same thing as walking through someone's yard. Walking through someone's yard isn't a good comparison wither because a medium plot of land is maybe 4 thousand square feet and his property is 4 million square feet.
    - vidarh 7y ago
      Coming from Norway, where this is a concept that is being taught from primary school, because we have extensively legally protected rights to access private land ("freedom to roam"), it always surprises me how difficult this distinction is to get for people. We had it hammered into us from childhood, and it boiled down to getting us to think about what would affect us if people wanted to access our land, and what would have only minor effect, and what kind of access we might want to have that would have at most minor affect on the owner. It takes minimal prompting to get kids to come up with trade-offs that deals with the distinction of "walking through someone's yard" vs. "grant access to larger areas of land".
      - solotronics 7y ago
        It was a founding priciple of America that we have the fundamental right to private property. We have no king/monarchy so private citizens can have complete ownership of the land as if they were a king.
    - adrr 7y ago
      Better comparison would be easements. Utility companies can dig up your hard because the city has granted them an easement. Some properties are land locked by other private properties so there is easement for access. Go anywhere in rural America and these easements are quite common. Granting easements for passage to a public resource follows the same principles.
- 12elephant 7y ago
  How is not building an access road to a private beach causing harm? The fact that people feel entitled to tell others what to do with their own private property is sickening.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    You must live in a different world than the real one, where restrictions on land use and ownership are quite common. Land is a finite natural resource, coastline even more so. Restrictions that even the playing field such that the rich aren't able to privatize all the beachfront seems like a great idea to me.
    - 12elephant 7y ago
      Those darn rich people!
  - ssalazar 7y ago
    If it wasn't for California's strong environmental restrictions there would be no coastline for Khosla to appreciate from his private property, or rather it would be a much different landscape. Everyone else plays by these same rules. Khosla is very conspicuously using his outsized monetary influence to the pervert the spirit of the law.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
      People seem to forget that as recently as the 1950's, this is what Venice Beach looked like: https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2014/08/the-urban-oil-fields-of-los-angeles/u03_3b39506u/main_900.jpg?1420498884 https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2014/08/t... Oil rigs on the sand, not many yards away from the tide.
  - felipelemos 7y ago
    Like being fined for not mowing your lawn?
- wil421 7y ago
  The concept of property being sacred is what drew a lot of people to America in the beginning. Instead of paying a Lord you could literally come to America and be given free land by the Federal government. It was a huge reason we rebelled against England in the first place. In this situation is sucks for regular people but in a lot more situations it benefits everyone else.
  - api 7y ago
    That's how it was a long long time ago in Europe, too. Then they got Lords. How do you think that happened?
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Basically perpetuating the same abuse against others that had been done to them and their forebears. Limiting the power of individuals to completely dictate land use seems like it's better for the populous as a whole.
    - wil421 7y ago
      If the county wants to allow beach access they should build it or buy land. If it becomes a serious problem they should use eminent domain. The home owners shouldn’t be forced to build access.
  - ak217 7y ago
    I don't think so. The concept of having spare land, sure. Private ownership of land is and always has been a social construct, subject to limits imposed by both society and physics. To claim that it is "sacred" is to misunderstand the nature of society. Accordingly, modern (sub)urban land ownership has very little to do with Spanish and English colonial land grants or US settlers. It comes with huge social benefits and is encumbered by extensive permitting, taxation, and use limits. You'll notice that Vinod Khosla isn't interested in exchanging his Half Moon Bay property for, say, an equivalent amount of land in North Dakota, where he might be permitted to block public access all day long.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
stale2002 7y ago
People are entitled to have access to the beach, actually. It is the law, that many beaches are public.
- baggy_trough 7y ago
  I was mostly making a pun on 'entitled' since he has title to the land, but I guess that was too subtle for the HN beach access downvote brigade.
cjensen 7y ago
You're right the he is legally entitled. I wasn't clear enough: he is acting morally entitled. In this sense, "entitled" means a person who feels it is reasonable to use their wealth and power to do anything they want and other peoples wants are irrelevant.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  His legal entitlement is still TBD. This suit has many more legs outstanding.
- nguoi 7y ago
  This is why this definition of entitled irritates me, it's used to mean 'not entitled but thinks they are entitled'.
orthecreedence 7y ago
He doesn't own the land. Nobody in the US owns land. They are given exclusive access to land, with restrictions, but ownership is a myth.

jmvoodoo 7y ago

What I don't understand is why the road isn't an easement by necessity on the land with the dominant estate being the public beach. If the beach were private property the owner of the beach could certainly claim an easement exists and that the servient estate (Khoslas) illegally terminated the easement. Is there some kind of exclusion for easements by necessity for public lands? Edit: fixed autocorrect

ceejayoz 7y ago
It may be that that's the next step here.
azernik 7y ago
Because the law was written at a time when some beaches were already private property, and so its provisions were written to grandfather in existing private beaches while preventing future ones from being created. So many legal arguments end up centering on the original usage of the land.
- cjensen 7y ago
  That's not correct. The California Constitution has always made beaches public[1]. The Coastal Commission was established in 1972 to improve access. The act grandfathered in properties with no access, but requires any improvement or change to pull a permit with the Commission. The Commission requires public access when approving any permit. [1] Tidal beaches only. Beaches on lakes can be private
beerandt 7y ago
Because legally, charging a fee means it wasn't a public easement, it was licensed access across private land. If you're arguing that it should be "taken" as an easement of necessity, that's separate, and a more political question. Easements by necessity are granted generally when no other access is possible; they're not for convenience. Additionally, (for private party transactions anyway) the party that creates the encumbrance is who is responsible for granting access. If you're not responsible for isolating the tract of land, then there's not (usually) any requirement to grant an easement. And even if there is, it wouldn't be a public easement. And by responsible, I mean in terms of land transactions and changes in law, not putting up a gate.

shay_ker 7y ago

Part of me can see the argument that he bought that property thinking (and being told) that the beach was not public. Another part of me is like - what's it to him? It seems like it'd only help him to make the beach public and be the good guy.