4 ms·

> I think people may be misunderstanding here a bit. This case is regarding access above the high tide line. Access below the high tide line is not in question.

> I think people may be misunderstanding here a bit. This case is regarding access above the high tide line. Access below the high tide line is not in question. I'm just thinking from a lot of the comments I'm reading on both sides of this issue that people really aren't quite grasping the question being settled. It seems perfectly sensible to me to require a public access easement to reach the beach below the high tide line. It's a mockery of public access if the only access is by sea. > FOMB will likely lose their case because, as a series of judges are now making more clear, the public is only entitled to keep the beach proper public. (ie-below the high tide line.) If you're correct, the law should be amended to require a public access easement.

bilbo0s 7y ago
The issue is that even if you get the easement, it only has to be to the land below the high tide line. So either way, Khosla would be under no obligation to maintain, or even keep, the current road and parking. As all of the current infrastructure is above the high tide line. That's the essential problem. Also: >It's a mockery of public access if the only access is by sea It's the high tide line that is the marker, not the low tide line. So access is always by land. The issue is that the current custom is to access via the road and parking above the high tide line. That's what locals are accustomed to, that's what is being taken away by Khosla, and that's what the suit is about.
- beerandt 7y ago
  Not quite, because legally, whether the custom was licensed or not matters. By paying the fee to park and cross the property, the public implicitly recognized his private property rights (which means the public didn't have any presumption of a public right-of-way, or even prescriptive easement). It's the public version of squatters rights, and you can't claim squatters rights if you've been paying rent the whole time.

bilbo0s 7y ago

The issue is that even if you get the easement, it only has to be to the land below the high tide line. So either way, Khosla would be under no obligation to maintain, or even keep, the current road and parking. As all of the current infrastructure is above the high tide line. That's the essential problem. Also: >It's a mockery of public access if the only access is by sea It's the high tide line that is the marker, not the low tide line. So access is always by land. The issue is that the current custom is to access via the road and parking above the high tide line. That's what locals are accustomed to, that's what is being taken away by Khosla, and that's what the suit is about.

beerandt 7y ago
Not quite, because legally, whether the custom was licensed or not matters. By paying the fee to park and cross the property, the public implicitly recognized his private property rights (which means the public didn't have any presumption of a public right-of-way, or even prescriptive easement). It's the public version of squatters rights, and you can't claim squatters rights if you've been paying rent the whole time.