8 ms·

It seems on-the-face-of-it unlikely that any significant population imagines that they will one day be able to own a private beach, even if they are unjustifiab

It seems on-the-face-of-it unlikely that any significant population imagines that they will one day be able to own a private beach, even if they are unjustifiably optimistic about their future wealth. I've been around a lot of people who have hopes about their level of future wealth, and that's not a level anyone thought they would achieve. So, look, have you considered that when you try to make common cause with the whatever non-super-elite class of people you're trying to make common cause with, you do it in a way that doesn't make you a patronizing asshole? Because you're assuming that people are too dumb or brainwashed to "vote their interests" rather than that they have a different conception of their interests than you do

arcticbull 7y ago
You are of course right that I was being neither tactful nor political and wasn’t really expecting to sway anyone already committed to the idea. However I’ll ask openly and genuinely: what does anyone stand to gain by allowing a wealthy individual to cudgel away their right to access a large swath of beachfront as enshrined in the California state constitution? To what benefit to ones self can you possibly point?
- satyrnein 7y ago
  Some people may view it as a matter of right and wrong; that forcing a public accommodation onto a private citizen is unjust, even if they would benefit from it. I say, forget what the previous owners thought. If the public needs a way to access some public land (the beach), build a public road. If the way is blocked by private land, that's what eminent domain is for. Seize some land and compensate Khosla. That's what would happen to regular people.
  - bnjms 7y ago
    That's what was done before he bought the land though? An easement was placed on it allowing for people to pass through to the beach right? It's the same situation as having a sidewalk in front of your house.
    - jonathlee 7y ago
      No, the actual previous owners of the were running access to the beach as a business. It was a road (driveway) they built and charged fees to use, not public.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        That may have been illegal too, honestly.
- Excel_Wizard 7y ago
  Living in a state that respects property rights has benefits. When you know that your state respects other individuals' property rights, you know it's less likely that they will trample your rights as well. The case hinges on the previous landowner performing "public dedication" of the road by letting people use it. The concept of "public dedication" without the previous owners of the land creating any legal documentation, and possibly unaware of the legal consequences, that they are willingly performing public dedication of the road is absurd.
  - nothal 7y ago
    I wish I could find the resource I read but common law paths and easements have existed for a long time and it's not absurd that long-standing tradition can reflect intent or legal obligation. Domestic marriage after a certain number of years is one example.
    - aetherson 7y ago
      Note that there is no common law marriage in California. The question of whether this dude's property rights do or ought to trump public access to the beach is a detailed point of law, and, I mean, clearly is not as black and white as some posters are making out (neither side trivially prevailed in a summary judgment through the courts). But this subthread is not whether the case was decided correctly on its merits, but whether people who think that Khosla should be able to fence access to the beach through his property are deluded idiots who wrongly imagine that they will someday own beaches themselves, and are agitating for this particular wholly imaginary self-interest, or whether they might have other reasons to believe as they do.
- aetherson 7y ago
  As other people suggested, they may see it as more likely that a state that allows someone to put a gate up on their property that leads to a public beach will allow them to put up a fence around their yard, or cut down a tree on their property, or demolish a building on their property that they do not want.
  - supercanuck 7y ago
    if someone buys property surrounding a public property, and don't allow access to it. Is it still public? That is the issue, not property rights.
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    When you buy a house with an HOA, you agree that the HOA can say what you can and can’t do to your house. When you buy a property in California, you are agreeing to follow the laws regarding public property. Maybe not explicitly, but they’re laws nonetheless.
- nyxxie 7y ago
  I couldn't care less about this rich person's beach nor the people who want to surf on it, but I do care about the property rights issue at play here and how it intermingles with popular perception and treatment of "rich people" (a relative term that, for most people reading this, almost certainly is applied pejoratively to them by those who have less than they do). I don't like the idea that someone feeling entitled to something I own factors into the question of control over that thing -- I worked and paid for it, I should get to do what I want with it. It seems to me that this simple principle is thrown out when the owner is deemed "rich", which is frightening to me. > To what benefit to ones self can you possibly point? I worry that tolerating the entitlement of the many over the rights of the few will result in a degrading of those rights. It's this dude's beach today, what about a website that I suddenly charge for tomorrow? Or hey, lets be realistic here, what about my future beach when that aforementioned website makes me my billions :)
  - nothal 7y ago
    It's not the billionaire's beach. He has no legal right to the beach front which is guaranteed as public by California law. I don't think your second point is reflective of this situation and I think your first is only somewhat reflective of the formerly public road.
  - geebee 7y ago
    I agree with you generally about property rights and "rich"people, though I'm not sure, based on this thread, if you know what is actually happening in this particular case. In California, you can't use private property to prevent people from reaching the ocean past the median tide line, which is public land by the state constitution. Every bit of this was in place and well understood when Khosla purchased this land. The easement already existed. This isn't as situation where the government is coming in and seizing someone's private land, it's simply enforcing the easement that has existed for the last 100 years. I apologize if you are aware of all this and are making a narrower point, that property rights shouldn't stop mattering because the person who owns it falls within the category of "rich people". However, there are all kinds of land use laws (another is "freedom to roam"[1]) that predate and preclude certain types of ownership. In other words, you can own property, and you have broad rights to do "what [you] want with it", but if you purchased it under conditions that were reasonably knowable at the time you made the purchase, it doesn't make sense to complain about it later. Lastly, yeah, there is a problem here with rich. We're talking about a Silicon Valley billionaire showing up and denying access to a beach that the surrounding community had access to - as guaranteed by the California constitution - for the last 100 years. I'd say Khosla created his own popular perception of "rich" people in this case. It's the sort of thing were I can image other "rich" people cringing, like, dude, Americans still don't resent the wealthy, what are you doing here. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
- eadmund 7y ago
  I can't speak for others, but I consider it a benefit to live under the rule of law — all law, which includes the U.S. Constitution (which makes itself and treaties the supreme law of the land), the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (which protects land rights as they were prior the the Mexican-American War) as well as the California state constitution. I think I benefit if the rules are explicit, well-written and apply to all players, without a 'we want to screw this rich guy' escape clause. I would also like it were it easier for everyone, not just a really magnificently rich guy, to defend his legal rights and privileges against the government. I'll never have more than a rounding error of his wealth, but I may every well someday be the recipient of the same sort of bile that he's receiving, and I think that in that case I would benefit from a fair government and laws, rather than a howling mob. The French Revolution is not a good example of good behaviour.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > I would also like it were it easier for everyone, not just a really magnificently rich guy, to defend his legal rights and privileges against the government. The government is the reification of will of the people, including yourself. It acts out the will of the people, and the will of the people is that the beaches are everyone's property. Sometimes the government is right, sometimes wrong, and having processes to mitigate and remedy is important, however it's not some towering obelisk of Mordor smiting left and right.

arcticbull 7y ago

You are of course right that I was being neither tactful nor political and wasn’t really expecting to sway anyone already committed to the idea. However I’ll ask openly and genuinely: what does anyone stand to gain by allowing a wealthy individual to cudgel away their right to access a large swath of beachfront as enshrined in the California state constitution? To what benefit to ones self can you possibly point?

satyrnein 7y ago
Some people may view it as a matter of right and wrong; that forcing a public accommodation onto a private citizen is unjust, even if they would benefit from it. I say, forget what the previous owners thought. If the public needs a way to access some public land (the beach), build a public road. If the way is blocked by private land, that's what eminent domain is for. Seize some land and compensate Khosla. That's what would happen to regular people.
- bnjms 7y ago
  That's what was done before he bought the land though? An easement was placed on it allowing for people to pass through to the beach right? It's the same situation as having a sidewalk in front of your house.
  - jonathlee 7y ago
    No, the actual previous owners of the were running access to the beach as a business. It was a road (driveway) they built and charged fees to use, not public.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      That may have been illegal too, honestly.
Excel_Wizard 7y ago
Living in a state that respects property rights has benefits. When you know that your state respects other individuals' property rights, you know it's less likely that they will trample your rights as well. The case hinges on the previous landowner performing "public dedication" of the road by letting people use it. The concept of "public dedication" without the previous owners of the land creating any legal documentation, and possibly unaware of the legal consequences, that they are willingly performing public dedication of the road is absurd.
- nothal 7y ago
  I wish I could find the resource I read but common law paths and easements have existed for a long time and it's not absurd that long-standing tradition can reflect intent or legal obligation. Domestic marriage after a certain number of years is one example.
  - aetherson 7y ago
    Note that there is no common law marriage in California. The question of whether this dude's property rights do or ought to trump public access to the beach is a detailed point of law, and, I mean, clearly is not as black and white as some posters are making out (neither side trivially prevailed in a summary judgment through the courts). But this subthread is not whether the case was decided correctly on its merits, but whether people who think that Khosla should be able to fence access to the beach through his property are deluded idiots who wrongly imagine that they will someday own beaches themselves, and are agitating for this particular wholly imaginary self-interest, or whether they might have other reasons to believe as they do.
aetherson 7y ago
As other people suggested, they may see it as more likely that a state that allows someone to put a gate up on their property that leads to a public beach will allow them to put up a fence around their yard, or cut down a tree on their property, or demolish a building on their property that they do not want.
- supercanuck 7y ago
  if someone buys property surrounding a public property, and don't allow access to it. Is it still public? That is the issue, not property rights.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  When you buy a house with an HOA, you agree that the HOA can say what you can and can’t do to your house. When you buy a property in California, you are agreeing to follow the laws regarding public property. Maybe not explicitly, but they’re laws nonetheless.
nyxxie 7y ago
I couldn't care less about this rich person's beach nor the people who want to surf on it, but I do care about the property rights issue at play here and how it intermingles with popular perception and treatment of "rich people" (a relative term that, for most people reading this, almost certainly is applied pejoratively to them by those who have less than they do). I don't like the idea that someone feeling entitled to something I own factors into the question of control over that thing -- I worked and paid for it, I should get to do what I want with it. It seems to me that this simple principle is thrown out when the owner is deemed "rich", which is frightening to me. > To what benefit to ones self can you possibly point? I worry that tolerating the entitlement of the many over the rights of the few will result in a degrading of those rights. It's this dude's beach today, what about a website that I suddenly charge for tomorrow? Or hey, lets be realistic here, what about my future beach when that aforementioned website makes me my billions :)
- nothal 7y ago
  It's not the billionaire's beach. He has no legal right to the beach front which is guaranteed as public by California law. I don't think your second point is reflective of this situation and I think your first is only somewhat reflective of the formerly public road.
- geebee 7y ago
  I agree with you generally about property rights and "rich"people, though I'm not sure, based on this thread, if you know what is actually happening in this particular case. In California, you can't use private property to prevent people from reaching the ocean past the median tide line, which is public land by the state constitution. Every bit of this was in place and well understood when Khosla purchased this land. The easement already existed. This isn't as situation where the government is coming in and seizing someone's private land, it's simply enforcing the easement that has existed for the last 100 years. I apologize if you are aware of all this and are making a narrower point, that property rights shouldn't stop mattering because the person who owns it falls within the category of "rich people". However, there are all kinds of land use laws (another is "freedom to roam"[1]) that predate and preclude certain types of ownership. In other words, you can own property, and you have broad rights to do "what [you] want with it", but if you purchased it under conditions that were reasonably knowable at the time you made the purchase, it doesn't make sense to complain about it later. Lastly, yeah, there is a problem here with rich. We're talking about a Silicon Valley billionaire showing up and denying access to a beach that the surrounding community had access to - as guaranteed by the California constitution - for the last 100 years. I'd say Khosla created his own popular perception of "rich" people in this case. It's the sort of thing were I can image other "rich" people cringing, like, dude, Americans still don't resent the wealthy, what are you doing here. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
eadmund 7y ago
I can't speak for others, but I consider it a benefit to live under the rule of law — all law, which includes the U.S. Constitution (which makes itself and treaties the supreme law of the land), the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (which protects land rights as they were prior the the Mexican-American War) as well as the California state constitution. I think I benefit if the rules are explicit, well-written and apply to all players, without a 'we want to screw this rich guy' escape clause. I would also like it were it easier for everyone, not just a really magnificently rich guy, to defend his legal rights and privileges against the government. I'll never have more than a rounding error of his wealth, but I may every well someday be the recipient of the same sort of bile that he's receiving, and I think that in that case I would benefit from a fair government and laws, rather than a howling mob. The French Revolution is not a good example of good behaviour.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > I would also like it were it easier for everyone, not just a really magnificently rich guy, to defend his legal rights and privileges against the government. The government is the reification of will of the people, including yourself. It acts out the will of the people, and the will of the people is that the beaches are everyone's property. Sometimes the government is right, sometimes wrong, and having processes to mitigate and remedy is important, however it's not some towering obelisk of Mordor smiting left and right.