3 ms·

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

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.

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.