4 ms·

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 pr

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.
- rhizome 7y ago
  >Easements by necessity are granted generally when no other access is possible; they're not for convenience. The only reason this seems unusual is because a rich person is affected this time.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    When faced with the nearly limitless resources of a government agency, most people put in a similar situation have no choice but surrender or face bankruptcy. It's only unusual because when having a disagreement with the government, 99.99% of us can't afford to fight the government based on principle.

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.

rhizome 7y ago
>Easements by necessity are granted generally when no other access is possible; they're not for convenience. The only reason this seems unusual is because a rich person is affected this time.
- beerandt 7y ago
  When faced with the nearly limitless resources of a government agency, most people put in a similar situation have no choice but surrender or face bankruptcy. It's only unusual because when having a disagreement with the government, 99.99% of us can't afford to fight the government based on principle.