5 ms·

I don't see how Vinod is any different than the Sea Ranch authority in the mid 1970s. Precedent is not in Vinod's favor. The California Coastal Access law was

by maire 7y ago

I don't see how Vinod is any different than the Sea Ranch authority in the mid 1970s. Precedent is not in Vinod's favor. The California Coastal Access law was based on Sea Ranch blocking access to the ocean in the mid 1970s. All building at Sea Ranch was blocked until Sea Ranch put in access trails to the beach. The temporary Coastal Access law was then made permanent. I don't feel sorry for someone of means buying property without any understanding of California state law. Vinod is claiming property rights he never had.

rayiner 7y ago
Khosla won on the key point of California state law: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1733249.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1733249.html The appellate court held that his beach was not subject to California’s “public trust” doctrine due to title tracing back to a Mexican land grant before California statehood. That was in 2016. All the litigation since then had been only a different, much weaker theory that the Martin’s beach owners dedicated the property to public use. Khosla just won that battle too.
- bananabreakfast 7y ago
  Why are you so ardently defending a man who is so clearly in the wrong here? He is so much of an asshole about this that he's proud of it and boasts about it to look tough in VC meetings. The spirit of the law in California is very obviously to provide public access to all beaches without exception. Good job on his lawyers on finding a weird ancient technicality to lean millions of dollars on but it's bullshit and he and everyone else knows it. Vinod is literally the evil heartless corporate billionaire in 80's movies who wants to bulldoze the small town rec center. He arrests surfers trying to go to their own public beach and brags that he's never even set foot on the property and couldn't care less about it besides the "principal" of property rights.
  - m0llusk 7y ago
    Why are you making this about character and personality. Vinod bought a property advertised as having particular rights associated. Does it have these or not? Clearly the courts should decide. Want to visit this beach urgently? Get a kayak.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Khosla is clearly in the right. First, Khosla won in court on his "weird ancient technicality": https://landuselawblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/282/2016/06/Friends-of-Martin_s-Beach-v_-Martin_s-Beach-1_-LLC.pdf https://landuselawblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/upload.... Second, since the time of Justinian (527-565 AD), the public trust doctrine applied to the land up to the high tide line, and covered navigation and fishing. Then in 1971 the California Supreme Court discovered the right to surf and sunbathe in that ancient doctrine. Gee, it was hiding in there the whole time! California 100% deserved to be one-upped by Khosla. The fact that Khosla did so by invoking his rights under a treaty that pre-dated the state of California itself just makes it all more delicious. Third, the California Coastal Commission proved itself the bad guys. It wasn't happy with even the California Supreme Court's made-up version of the public trust doctrine. It's inconvenient to sunbathe on just the tidal land, so the CCC demanded that Khosla run a public beach on his property. An unelected agency extracting concessions from a private property owner beyond what the law provides for is third-world country levels of government abuse. The only thing that could make this better would be if Khosla sued the CCC for wasting his time and money.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - maire 7y ago
      This is very confusing. In California I am pretty sure that private property starts at high tide for the ocean and low tide for other bodies of water. So you are not talking about proposition 20 which starts at high tide and extends 1000 yards inland, you are talking about the land between high tide and low tide which I am pretty sure Vinod does not own. I am not sure what you think he won in this particular case. Proposition 20 still holds (from everything I can tell). To overthrow prop 20 he would have to overthrow the will of the people. This is (by the way) why most of us oppose Vinod. He might be a great guy in other ways.
  - wutbrodo 7y ago
    Is this your first introduction to how the rule of law works? It turns out that law, properly applied, doesn't care if the person it's being applied to is "evil and heartless". And pointing out what the law says isn't anywhere near a defense (ardent or otherwise) of the person whose favor it falls in.
- maire 7y ago
  If I understand the case correctly (I am not a lawyer) Vinod still needs approval of the California Coastal Commission to restrict access. I believe the case only struck down the argument that the previous owner formed a precedent since they charged for parking. I will go back to not worrying about this case. I was worried Vinod was overturning California law which would really irk me.

by maire 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

Khosla won on the key point of California state law: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1733249.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1733249.html The appellate court held that his beach was not subject to California’s “public trust” doctrine due to title tracing back to a Mexican land grant before California statehood. That was in 2016. All the litigation since then had been only a different, much weaker theory that the Martin’s beach owners dedicated the property to public use. Khosla just won that battle too.

bananabreakfast 7y ago
Why are you so ardently defending a man who is so clearly in the wrong here? He is so much of an asshole about this that he's proud of it and boasts about it to look tough in VC meetings. The spirit of the law in California is very obviously to provide public access to all beaches without exception. Good job on his lawyers on finding a weird ancient technicality to lean millions of dollars on but it's bullshit and he and everyone else knows it. Vinod is literally the evil heartless corporate billionaire in 80's movies who wants to bulldoze the small town rec center. He arrests surfers trying to go to their own public beach and brags that he's never even set foot on the property and couldn't care less about it besides the "principal" of property rights.
- m0llusk 7y ago
  Why are you making this about character and personality. Vinod bought a property advertised as having particular rights associated. Does it have these or not? Clearly the courts should decide. Want to visit this beach urgently? Get a kayak.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 7y ago
  Khosla is clearly in the right. First, Khosla won in court on his "weird ancient technicality": https://landuselawblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/282/2016/06/Friends-of-Martin_s-Beach-v_-Martin_s-Beach-1_-LLC.pdf https://landuselawblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/upload.... Second, since the time of Justinian (527-565 AD), the public trust doctrine applied to the land up to the high tide line, and covered navigation and fishing. Then in 1971 the California Supreme Court discovered the right to surf and sunbathe in that ancient doctrine. Gee, it was hiding in there the whole time! California 100% deserved to be one-upped by Khosla. The fact that Khosla did so by invoking his rights under a treaty that pre-dated the state of California itself just makes it all more delicious. Third, the California Coastal Commission proved itself the bad guys. It wasn't happy with even the California Supreme Court's made-up version of the public trust doctrine. It's inconvenient to sunbathe on just the tidal land, so the CCC demanded that Khosla run a public beach on his property. An unelected agency extracting concessions from a private property owner beyond what the law provides for is third-world country levels of government abuse. The only thing that could make this better would be if Khosla sued the CCC for wasting his time and money.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - maire 7y ago
    This is very confusing. In California I am pretty sure that private property starts at high tide for the ocean and low tide for other bodies of water. So you are not talking about proposition 20 which starts at high tide and extends 1000 yards inland, you are talking about the land between high tide and low tide which I am pretty sure Vinod does not own. I am not sure what you think he won in this particular case. Proposition 20 still holds (from everything I can tell). To overthrow prop 20 he would have to overthrow the will of the people. This is (by the way) why most of us oppose Vinod. He might be a great guy in other ways.
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  Is this your first introduction to how the rule of law works? It turns out that law, properly applied, doesn't care if the person it's being applied to is "evil and heartless". And pointing out what the law says isn't anywhere near a defense (ardent or otherwise) of the person whose favor it falls in.
maire 7y ago
If I understand the case correctly (I am not a lawyer) Vinod still needs approval of the California Coastal Commission to restrict access. I believe the case only struck down the argument that the previous owner formed a precedent since they charged for parking. I will go back to not worrying about this case. I was worried Vinod was overturning California law which would really irk me.