4 ms·

This is just me, a non lawyer, talking. But I kinda feel like the SCOTUS cases you reference were wrongly decided. When CA asserted its public easement over tid

by harryh 7y ago

This is just me, a non lawyer, talking. But I kinda feel like the SCOTUS cases you reference were wrongly decided. When CA asserted its public easement over tidal lands it's hard for me to see why a taking from a regular piece of land should be any different than a piece of land that happened to be governed by the Mexican government over a century ago. At some point doesn't the past have to become the past? I think Khosla should be allowed to shut down the parking lot, but be required to maintain some sort of minimal road/path easement. I should really read the full SCOTUS decision though before feeling confident in this POV.

vageli 7y ago
> This is just me, a non lawyer, talking. But I kinda feel like the SCOTUS cases you reference were wrongly decided. When CA asserted its public easement over tidal lands it's hard for me to see why a taking from a regular piece of land should be any different than a piece of land that happened to be governed by the Mexican government over a century ago. Because part of the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo were that Mexicans residing in land ceded to the US at the time would retain certain rights.
- 205guy 7y ago
  Is Khosla Mexican or descended from the Mexican landowners? Why were the special property rights of the Mexican landowners under the treaty passed to subsequent US owners of the land? So now there is land in CA that is not federal or native-American land, but it is not subject to CA laws. That's the part that doesn't seem logical in this. Also maybe how CA could end this situation: pass a law that all current property rights are guaranteed, but only rights recognized under current CA law are conveyed at sale. Or maybe it needs to be a US law--or a treaty amendment with Mexico. It's the least we could do for Khosla.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    >pass a law that all current property rights are guaranteed, but only rights recognized under current CA law are conveyed at sale. Part of a right of ownership is to be able sell or otherwise dispose of property (or the rights thereof). Saying you can own it, but not sell it isn't ownership. At best, it's usufruct.
    - ip26 7y ago
      In CA I can't sell my current property tax rate.
  - vageli 7y ago
    > So now there is land in CA that is not federal or native-American land, but it is not subject to CA laws. That's the part that doesn't seem logical in this. Just wanted to point out that this kind of arrangement exists already for things like embassies. > Also maybe how CA could end this situation: pass a law that all current property rights are guaranteed, but only rights recognized under current CA law are conveyed at sale. Or maybe it needs to be a US law--or a treaty amendment with Mexico. I don't sympathize with Khosla and admit that I haven't fully researched the impacts of the treaty but it does seem like something most easily resolved by the federal government.

by harryh 7y ago

vageli 7y ago

> This is just me, a non lawyer, talking. But I kinda feel like the SCOTUS cases you reference were wrongly decided. When CA asserted its public easement over tidal lands it's hard for me to see why a taking from a regular piece of land should be any different than a piece of land that happened to be governed by the Mexican government over a century ago. Because part of the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo were that Mexicans residing in land ceded to the US at the time would retain certain rights.

205guy 7y ago
Is Khosla Mexican or descended from the Mexican landowners? Why were the special property rights of the Mexican landowners under the treaty passed to subsequent US owners of the land? So now there is land in CA that is not federal or native-American land, but it is not subject to CA laws. That's the part that doesn't seem logical in this. Also maybe how CA could end this situation: pass a law that all current property rights are guaranteed, but only rights recognized under current CA law are conveyed at sale. Or maybe it needs to be a US law--or a treaty amendment with Mexico. It's the least we could do for Khosla.
- beerandt 7y ago
  >pass a law that all current property rights are guaranteed, but only rights recognized under current CA law are conveyed at sale. Part of a right of ownership is to be able sell or otherwise dispose of property (or the rights thereof). Saying you can own it, but not sell it isn't ownership. At best, it's usufruct.
  - ip26 7y ago
    In CA I can't sell my current property tax rate.
- vageli 7y ago
  > So now there is land in CA that is not federal or native-American land, but it is not subject to CA laws. That's the part that doesn't seem logical in this. Just wanted to point out that this kind of arrangement exists already for things like embassies. > Also maybe how CA could end this situation: pass a law that all current property rights are guaranteed, but only rights recognized under current CA law are conveyed at sale. Or maybe it needs to be a US law--or a treaty amendment with Mexico. I don't sympathize with Khosla and admit that I haven't fully researched the impacts of the treaty but it does seem like something most easily resolved by the federal government.