19 ms·

California Sues Vinod Khosla over Martins Beach Public Access

209 points by ilamont 7y ago

nooyurrsdey 7y ago
It is infuriating that one individual A) has the audacity to believe they are entitled to such a rare publically beneficial property and B) has the power (both politically and financially) to see this battle through.
- inscionent 7y ago
  Look around the world is overflowing with individuals engaged in A and B
  - munk-a 7y ago
    All of those individuals are infuriating - they can be examined in isolation as grouping them together will lead to fatigue by volume. > If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only statistics. Let's just focus on the one for now.
- vanusa 7y ago
  Were it just one individual. Unfortunately there's a whole lot of people who adhere to the general mindset from which Khosla derives his sense of entitlement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology
  - woah 7y ago
    Incredibly far stretch to turn one guy illegally blocking a road into a straw man against an imagined political grouping from the 90’s
- whack 7y ago
  > has the power (both politically and financially) to see this battle through It is absolutely infuriating that a rich individual can get the type of "justice" that the rest of us can never hope to achieve, in the legal system. Or as Peter Thiel put it when he bankrupted Gawker: "If you're a single-digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system." Unfortunately, this suit is unlikely to make any difference in the above, and it doesn't seem like anyone cares about fixing the above problem. Maybe I'm just being a fundamentalist who's blowing it out of proportion. But my sense of fairness is constantly outraged by how ridiculously hard it is for any layperson to get justice in today's legal system.
  - mikeyouse 7y ago
    > Or as Peter Thiel put it when he bankrupted Gawker: "If you're a single-digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system." Which is amusing since the lawyer that Thiel used is constantly suing on behalf of single-digit millionaires to stifle free speech all over the country (including threatening to sue the NYT for reporting on Harvey Weinstein's crimes). Not a whole lot of principles in that group.
    - mc32 7y ago
      I think that's a bit harsh. Even people who confess and for whom the prosecution has good evidence, can and will get lawyers or public defenders. How would you feel if a public defender took the position of "nah, this gal is clearly a criminal, we have seen the footage --its a pass, let her represent herself".
      - mikeyouse 7y ago
        These are civil suits voluntarily launched by 'aggrieved' parties. I don't think there's any reasonable comparison to public defenders.
        mc32 7y ago
        Ok, what if lawyers were biased and "simply" declined to represent one class of people because I dunno, they are "debtors" and don't deserve representation against an authoshop which ripped them off.
- api 7y ago
  I really wonder why he's choosing this hill (err I mean beach!) to die on and how he doesn't see what damage this is doing to his public image. Even if he does have a point this makes him look absolutely horrible and it's not like letting a few people on the beach is going to impact his lifestyle in anything beyond the most trivial way. I just don't quibble over minutia like that. I don't get people who do. This seems like a gigantic waste of time and resources where even if you win you lose.
  - nosequel 7y ago
    You have to realize that Vinod Khosla is one of those people who is used to people just following his orders. He was successful, he owns Khosla Ventures (KV) and probably never gets called on his shit. Suddenly locals, surfers, and The Surfrider Foundation starts to push back and he thinks he can just squash them, because /s obviously he's better than them. Let's be real, he was never in that house. I'd venture to say he spent maybe 30 days per year in that house? Like any other rich asshole with a vacation house in prime territory he bought it and wanted to keep any riffraff away. He thinks he deserves it and not for one second did he think about his public image.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      Well, I, for one, have tried to avoid companies funded by Khosla Ventures since this story initially broke. I doubt a lot of people feel strongly enough to do that, but there are some.
      - bscphil 7y ago
        Given that I had never heard of the company until this post, I was surprised by how many companies I've heard of that they funded. From their portfolio page[1]: Academia.edu, AppNexus, Arista Networks, DoorDash, GitLab, HackerRank, Impossible Foods, Instacart, "Just, Inc.", Scribd, Square, Stripe, Teespring, Vox Media https://www.khoslaventures.com/portfolio/all-companies https://www.khoslaventures.com/portfolio/all-companies
- abstractbarista 7y ago
  So do we - or do we not - have decent property rights? It sounds like the land never should have been private in the first place, given how special it is. Otherwise, if I own it, I should be able to keep others off of it. You don't actually own something that you cannot control access to. If you disagree, then keep your front door unlocked, because I'm moving in with some friends later this week.
  - compiler-guy 7y ago
    Property ownership comes with easements and other legal restrictions all the time. I have to give the power company access to the power pole on my property, and I knew that when I bought it. Public easements to public beaches are quite normal.
    - abstractbarista 7y ago
      That's very reasonable. Sounds like it's time to pass a law in CA that requires property owners to have an easement offered to the public for beach access. Have such an easement recorded for all real estate parcels touching the coast. Done. I know they have that 1976 law mentioned in the article, but clearly that was not strongly written so as to force this.
      - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
        It was, but the owner is a billionaire who thinks he is above the law.
        abstractbarista 7y ago
        Oh. Well in that case I'm sure this will be quickly resolved in the public's favor. I hope it's not one of those 'feel-good' laws written like "All Californians should be able to access the beaches" (without specifying actionable frameworks like easements and such).
        7y ago
- PHGamer 7y ago
  well A makes sense if you believe in private property at all. I can see not being on his side but its true if it was not public but private property before the only way the government should legally allowed to appropriate it is via eminate domain and the compensation to the property owner.
- hummel 7y ago
  A complete jerk
- gwbas1c 7y ago
  When I read this article, it looks a lot more complicated than that. > Khosla, in legal filings, said he “was willing to give the business a go, and continued to allow members of the public to access the property upon payment of a fee. But [he] soon faced the same problem the Deeneys had faced: The business was operating at a considerable loss, as the costs of keeping the beach, the parking lot and other facilities in operable and safe condition significantly exceeded the fees the business generated.”
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    To the best of my knowledge (and a reading of the actual law text), the 1976 Coastal Access Act doesn't require private owners to provide and maintain facilities for public beaches -- it simply doesn't prevent them from doing so. The Deeneys chose to make Martins Beach a business, and more than likely started doing so before the Coastal Access Act passed. Khosla is absolutely within his rights to stop maintaining "the parking lot and other facilities in operable and safe condition"; the battle is over whether he's within his rights to block access to the beach entirely just because he can't find a way to turn a profit from it -- and whether the limited access he's currently granting is enough to meet the law's requirements.
    - sdnlafkjh34rw 7y ago
      Yes this is my understanding as well. He just needs to give access. He doesn't need to provide any infrastructure (which would be unfair to any homeowner).
      - gwbas1c 7y ago
        > Yes this is my understanding as well. He just needs to give access. He doesn't need to provide any infrastructure (which would be unfair to any homeowner) Which makes me inherently distrustful of how the media portrays this article. What does "give access" mean? I've encountered a narrow footpath path along a property line in Hawaii to "give access" that was mainly used by people in the neighborhood. If I remember correctly, both beachfront properties on either side had fences. In San Diego, I encountered a narrow stairway between two condo buildings; but there were so many public parks and streets that came up to the beach that I didn't understand the point. I'm not a lawyer, but could Vinod satisfy the law by having a narrow footpath along his property line?
- rayiner 7y ago
  In fact, the opposite is true, and the reporting around this issue is a great example of how the media doesn't care about facts but instead cares only about narratives. It's important to understand that this dispute involves two separate tracks of issues, one where Khosla has been winning, and one where he has been losing. The first issue is the property right. An ancient doctrine called the "public trust" doctrine holds that the waters and beaches up to the high tide line belongs to the public. Moreover, it holds that, generally, there is an easement across private land to access that area. However, California is a johnny-come-lately state. As a result, under Supreme Court precedent (Summa Corp. v. California), the state doesn't have easements over certain private property that dates to Mexican land grants: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2193&context=elq https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art... (p. 429-430). Based on that precedent, the California Court of Appeals has held that there is no easement (as a matter of public trust doctrine) over Khosla's property: > While the public trust doctrine can protect access rights over private land, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to extend that protection to private land certified under the 1851 federal law implementing the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, where the federal or state government had not asserted an interest in title proceeding. Therefore, the court of appeal in Friends I found that, because the Martin’s Beach property had been certified under the 1851 law without any mention of a public interest and never passed into state ownership, there could be no common law public trust easement over the land to the water. There was a subsequent suit based on an alternate theory: that although there was no common law easement, an easement arose because the previous property owner "dedicated" the road to public use. The California Court of Appeals rejected that t heory too. https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/11/ca-appellate-court-rules-publics-access-to-martins-beach-is-not-a-permanent-right https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/11/ca-appellate-court-rules.... > As such, according to the common law of public dedication, the court determined that Martin’s Beach is not dedicated to public access. Opinion here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF So now we are on the third string legal theory (from the article): > State officials have been following these cases closely and are now taking a swing at the fight. The new lawsuit asks the court to consider unexamined evidence that shows that the beach, as well as the gated road, have been historically used by the public — citing a common law doctrine known as “implied dedication.” We've gone from an easement under property law, to a "public dedication," to "implied public dedication." That brings us to the second legal issue, which is whether Khosla needs a permit to build a structure to close the road to the beach. Even though courts have repeatedly held that there is no public right to use the road, the California Coastal Commission has found that it can use its powers to control development on the coast to keep Khosla from actually vindicating his private property right. So far, the State has been successful on that front. But after last year's loss on the underlying property rights issue, that position gets harder to justify. The State can only go so long using its authority over the building of fences to keep open a public easement that courts have repeatedly held does not exist. Hence this lawsuit. As to your point (B)--it's a wonderful thing that private citizens have the financial resources to fight the State and vindicate their legitimate property rights. The opposite of that is tyranny.
- Gatsky 7y ago
  There was a profile in Forbes on Khosla or something like that, and one of his employees said something along the lines of 'Khosla is pursuing this beach matter so that anyone that deals with him knows how tough and tenacious he is.' It wasn't entirely clear if this was that employee rationalising the fact his boss is a bastard, or actually the truth. As twisted as this logic may be, I guess it is plausible some egotistical old guy would think this way. Edit: This is the quote: "The “beach issue,” as it is called internally at Khosla Ventures, has surprisingly not been a problem in the office. “It’s an incredible negotiating tool for me,” said Samir Kaul, another partner at Khosla Ventures. When a company was trying to “screw” the firm, Mr. Kaul brought up news articles about the beach at a meeting. “I said: ‘My boss is going to the Supreme Court for a beach he’s never gone to. We’re not posturing here. This guy’s not going to settle,’” Mr. Kaul said. “And then I just sat there." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/technology/vinod-khosla-beach.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/technology/vinod-khosla-b...
- ChuckMcM 7y ago
  I would agree that it is uncomfortable to watch but what the law "wants" is pretty clear, and Khosla has lost at pretty much every turn. Now the state is suing to create sanctions on him if he fails to abide by previous decisions to make the beach accessible. Rather than be infuriated, be comforted in the fact that in spite of all his money he has been unable to overturn this law. He has made a lot of lawyers rich doing it, and will have paid a chunk of San Mateo's superior court's budget this year in fees. And he still lost. Now the state and coastal commission are getting a court order so that they can start fining him without the need to go to court. Think of it as a really really regressive tax on a rich land owner. Let's say he writes it off as the cost of doing business and just keeps paying fines. Well I could single handedly double the budget that the coastal commission has available for keeping beach access open. That's a lot of resources.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    > Khosla has lost at pretty much every turn. What do you mean? He won at every turn. The courts have ruled that there's no easement, and that the public have no access to the water through his property. https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2193&context=elq https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
    - ChuckMcM 7y ago
      This article in the times (https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-martins-beach-supreme-court-20181001-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-martins-beach-supr...) which discusses that the Supreme Court left the previous ruling of access intact sounded like a win for the Costal commission.
      - xyzzyz 7y ago
        I guess you could call it a win: it required Khosla to keep the road open until he gets a fencing permit. Khosla took it to court on principle, since he believed that such injunction is already takings: indeed, since the courts affirmed that public does not have access to his property through the road, stopping him from blocking such access issues illegal. Since he has every right to get such a fencing permit (as there is no easement, right of way or any other public access through his property where he wants to fence it), in a perfect world he’d simply apply for such permit and promptly get it. In reality though, it is highly likely that the state of California will try to use the fence permitting rights it has to stop him from exercising his property rights, which is exactly what Khosla tried to ensure cannot happen in his Supreme Court petition.
thrillgore 7y ago
Good. He has no right to public beach access.
tedk-42 7y ago
Obviously looking at the bigger picture he's in the wrong. I do wonder what his motivations are to own that section of the beach though. Maybe it's the only bit of his property that's vulnerable from a security perspective and he simply wants tighter control of it. I hope the public win and he doesn't get his way.
- tempsy 7y ago
  IIRC, his argument is that the path that leads to the beach is actually his property, and he is effectively being required to pay to upkeep/monitor/secure this area on his property on his own dime.
  - aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 7y ago
    What a terrible shock that must have been for him, to realize this fact only after having purchased the property.
    - tempsy 7y ago
      Feels like an edge case to me. Not exactly something someone who buys a private property would think would be possible e.g. to have to pay for upkeep for public property. Seems like the gov’t should figure out some sort of reimbursement program in situations like this.
      - ng12 7y ago
        I'm sure a surveyor would have informed him of California law.
        tempsy 7y ago
        it's not really my point. the law is deficient in the sense that it doesn't cover this edge case. so why not address the edge case? IMO Khosla should present some numbers on how much it would reasonably cost to maintain whatever land he owns that would be used by the public to get to the beach and the gov't should agree to reimburse some reasonable expense on a quarterly basis.
munk-a 7y ago
There are some interesting questions to be answered here about the value of the view included in the pricing of beachfront property that need to be addressed (agreements to limit development including height restriction - agreements not to sell property closer to the water line to other private parties) that will get super complex as climate change continues - including the fact that erosion may shrink the size of the private rights portion of the lot on beachside property, or potentially expand it. Additionally this gets super muddled when it comes to coastal constructions, even simple jetties docks may have public safety concerns, protection of private property (if expensive boat maintenance tools or machinery are located on the jetty) - and that will evolve into questions about using coastal constructions to restrict access. Lastly, the costs - as Khosla mentioned the beach is unprofitable to run, should CA be footing that bill? Could they sublease the property to an entrepreneur that thinks they could make the beachside facilities profitable? It is entirely unreasonable (even given the excessive wealth of Khosla) for him to be forced to maintain an unprofitable entity like that and all the facility liability that goes along with it. This is a gigantic can of worms. I look forward to how this might be resolved, but it sure ain't going to be simple.
- option 7y ago
  The beaches should be accessible by public. Nothing controversial about that. His realtors knew 100% about the passage used by public which ran through the property.
- aqme28 7y ago
  > as Khosla mentioned the beach is unprofitable to run, should CA be footing that bill? Could they sublease the property to an entrepreneur that thinks they could make the beachside facilities profitable? It is entirely unreasonable (even given the excessive wealth of Khosla) for him to be forced to maintain an unprofitable entity like that and all the facility liability that goes along with it. Does he need to maintain those facilities? Could he just unblock access and move on? This feels like a cheap excuse.
  - sushisource 7y ago
    Seemingly (IANAL) he could, in fact, do that. I think his concern would be if he's not properly maintaining it, now the beach near his house is going to fill up with trash, maybe overnight campers, etc. So he's either got to foot the bill to keep it looking nice, or end up with a garbage beach. So it's definitely a sticky situation. Personally, I'd just open it up, I think people generally treat beaches OK in Cali, but I can imagine his concern. As another commenter mentions, it seems like a very reasonable expectation that the state would maintain it.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
I wonder what are the downsides of this. The Supreme Court refused to take a previous case, but I think the composition of the court was a little different then. Given that this court is even more in favor of stronger private property protections, does this lawsuit make it possible that it could eventually make it to the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court could strike down the entire California coastal access law as unconstitutional.
- learc83 7y ago
  >Supreme Court could strike down the entire California coastal access law as unconstitutional That would require a very creative reading of the constitution. Congress could pass a law overriding it, and SCOTUS could could uphold that law under the commerce clause (land value in California affects land value in Oregon etc...).
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
    From the last section of the Fifth Amendment: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      But, it was not taken. Khosla came to acquire the property well after the 1970s, which is when California law allowed the public to use all beaches.
    - ronilan 7y ago
      Under the terms of the agreement Vinod “gatekeeper” Khosla, will maintain ownership of the newly established Martins Beach Surfing Club House and will be allowed to leave his board and wetsuit on the floor without penalty. The Friends of Martins Beach agree to release Khosla from all gatekeeping shifts, provided that he learns to surf and chill. Free surf lessons for life will be provided to Vinod “dude” Khosla as compensation for Club House use by the public. Drinks will be available, for a fee, to guests over the legal drinking age. Other fees may also apply. Done.
baybal2 7y ago
Can somebody tell me where the guy gets so much of his temerity?
- dole 7y ago
  Sun Microsystems co-founder, worth $2.1B.
- option 7y ago
  got lucky in the right time in Silicon Valley. Nothing super smart or visionary. Once he got money - he revealed his true self
  - g_langenderfer 7y ago
    Are you so sure you wouldn't act the same in his shoes? We're all human.
    - s0rce 7y ago
      Restrict public access to a beach on a property I never visit (and continue to fight about it). I'm not OP but I can assure you I wouldn't do that.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The wealthier you get, the less used to "no" you get.
- m0llusk 7y ago
  That seems like a heavy interpretation of the situation. This guy bought a property that included these features and had always been treated as private with discretion for access and services provided. When told he does not actually own what he thought he bought it makes sense to have the courts make a final decision. It is a weird fluke that the extremely strong protection of coastal access in California has taken this long to resolve. It is kind of odd that people continually frame this as a problem with an individual instead of a legal clarification of land use rights. The conflicts over access and who pays for services and liabilities such as trash accumulating have always been there but were allowed to fester as long as people sort of worked things out. Realistically that situation was never stable and was always heading for some kind of forced legal resolution no matter who was owning and who was surfing. Was public access allowed or not? In the past mostly locals would have known about the spot in the first place and anyone having problems with access would have walked away and maybe tried again later. The longstanding tension does not represent full fair access.
ripvanwinkle 7y ago
I found this provided an interesting window into Vinod Khosla's style. He didn't exactly answer the question asked https://youtu.be/HZcXup7p5-8?t=2618 https://youtu.be/HZcXup7p5-8?t=2618
unapologetic 7y ago
The public should tear down his signs and simply refuse to acknowledge any ownership on his part. If he complains, take everything else he has.
RobertRoberts 7y ago
I don't live near here, can someone explain this? ( The link should open in Google maps with satellite view.) https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martin's+Beach/@37.3746238,-122.4072087,899m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x808f090cb6271353:0x3d9391e735ac292a!8m2!3d37.3736981!4d-122.4083224 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martin's+Beach/@37.3746238... What I see is a bunch of houses on the beach. How is this in issue with one person and not all those home owners? Edit: Even the reviews talk about how you can just walk to the beach without paying for parking. I don't get the problem? Is this a California beach-perspective thing? As far as I know all water front property in the US is public up to a certain distance from the water already.
- option 7y ago
  Based on CA’s constitution beaches (low to high tides) are public property. If you land lock a beach, in practice (like in the example above) there is an access route used by public which you are NOT entitled to close.
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    But this is where I am confused, if you read a bunch of the Google Map reviews on this beach you can just walk to it from the road. What was blocked? Street-view and Google maps shows a road, but it goes to a bunch of houses. Did the rich guy buy all those houses?
    - xeromal 7y ago
      The parking and road existed as public access before Vinod bought the house. The argument is where something that was public before can be made private without prior approval. Public != Free
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        So in theory, he could make another access road further down and leave that one open? Still doesn't explain all the houses and cars directly on the beach. Does he own all those houses too?
rossjudson 7y ago
This is pretty interesting: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/access/pr-access-facts.pdf https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/access/pr-access-fac... The public can do whatever it wants on the beach itself. The argument is about whether the road to the beach is implicitly public property because of prior use. That PDF provides some tests, and is useful to review prior to reading the judge's decision.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > The public can do whatever it wants on the beach itself. The public can do what it wants on the part of the beach up to the high tide line. It doesn't extend to the whole of what you'd think of as the "beach."
oisino 7y ago
Curious signaling as a VC to be involved in something so negatively publicly. The best companies/ entrepreneurs are super picky on who to raise money from and I have already heard a couple companies mention this as a reason they didn't talk to Khosla.
- ramraj07 7y ago
  Indeed. Perhaps no one has said that to his face till now?
  - oisino 7y ago
    Public reputation is a funny thing its not binary and its lagging. By the time people tell you stuff to your face usually its way too late for they have been building their beliefs around who you are way before.
kops 7y ago
The property rights are what they are. Who the owner is should not cloud the argument. If you are a middle class person and have a lawn in front of your house, would you allow the random people to use the lawn for chilling/sleeping/picnic or whatever? Well a rich person happens to own a much bigger and luxurious version of the same front lawn. If the state or whoever owned the thing once upon time sold it, then it is his. The fact that he is stinking rich and we the normal populace would love to have access to the same property is no argument. On the other hand if his purchase did not include exclusivity to the beach then by all means go there and piss around. But just being rich and owning something that most of us can not afford is no justification to snatch it from them. It is just using the justice system/democracy as a mob intent on plunder. P.S. 1. I don't care who khosla is. But looking at the whole debate it seems the whole opposition is based on the fact that he is a billionaire. I refuse to buy that line of argument. Tell me it is illegal for so an so reason and I will buy. But he is an asshole or he is a billionaire is just emotions doing the talking :-) P.S. 2. Going by the comments below, I feel compelled to clarify that my comment is not informed by the local laws. I am just a little bit puzzled by the words billionaire and asshole being used synonymously. The law should be same for everyone. A billionaire can hire more lawyers is no reason to call him an asshole in this context even if he has earned the title elsewhere unequivocally. Update: typo and added a p.s.
- tathougies 7y ago
  By California law, there is no such thing as ownership of a beach. All beach sands are public, by statute. You are asking who the owner is, but there is no owner of the rights of access or exclusivity, by law. Of course, Khosla should have access to the lands he owns. Under California law, land is something that private citizens can own. A beach is not one of those things. EDIT: that being said, private property rights do not always or even typically grant you exclusivity. Many jurisdictions have various requirements on what private landowners must allow the public to do on their land. For example, many jurisdictions have freedom to roam provisions, which ensure that the public has access to wilderness, even if privately owned. The United States does not have this in general, but it is certainly within the purview of the states to legislate such things. In many US cities, homeowners own the sidewalk and must maintain it, but allow the public access. This is written in the deed, or mandated by statue.
option 7y ago
I regularly donate money to Surfrider foundation so that they continue fight for our beaches in California
rcpt 7y ago
Sounds great. Now let's get some real gems like Hollister Ranch and Vickers Hot Springs opened up again.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
throwawaysea 7y ago
Isn't this not about the beach but about his private property that leads to the beach? The courts previously ruled in favor of Khosla - see https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF. The conclusion is on pages 35 and 36, which notes that this particular piece of land was NOT dedicated to public access and does not fit the common law parameters for implied public access.
righteous 7y ago
I thought the nuance here was the land was titled under Spanish/Mexican land grant which predates the California constitution. Interesting to see how it plays out.
newnewpdro 7y ago
Back when I lived in Pescadero years ago I'd drive past this place very often, most of the time the gate was locked shut. It seemed completely random when it'd be open. My understanding is that his guy is a Grade A douche bag.
wuunderbar 7y ago
Does anyone have any way to illustrate to me the physics of how he is actually blocking access? Like how does this road run through this property, where is the beach in relation, etc. EDIT: I suppose this helps: https://www.google.com/search?q=vinod+khosla+road https://www.google.com/search?q=vinod+khosla+road
bazzert 7y ago
Its even worse in the north east. In Mass. and Maine property owners can (due to an old colonial era law) own property to the low tide line and deny access not only to the access, but to the beach itself.
- markdown 7y ago
  Are you sure it's colonial era law? Elsewhere in the world colonial era law ensured public access up to the high tide line.
  - bazzert 7y ago
    Exactly, in fact in the British Isles even the land above the high tide line (I forget the exact extent) is public. In New England they wanted to encourage the development of docks (to promote more commerce) and extended ownership to include the land on which docks would be built.
  - bazzert 7y ago
    Its discussed in this article. http://www.islandinstitute.org/working-waterfront/%E2%80%8Bpublic-ownership-maine%E2%80%99s-shore-courts-got-it-wrong http://www.islandinstitute.org/working-waterfront/%E2%80%8Bp... "1647 Colonial Ordinance enacted by the Massachusetts Bay Colony ceded title to all intertidal land in what would become the state of Massachusetts to upland owners to encourage “wharfing out” (marine commerce)."
- bazzert 7y ago
  This is a pretty good roundup of the topic. http://stage.mvmagazine.com/news/2007/07/01/private-beaches http://stage.mvmagazine.com/news/2007/07/01/private-beaches
IGotThroughIt 7y ago
I feel like this contentious issue has had a net negative effect on his life and that he should just sell the damn place and move on. It's been years and there's so much else to do!
eaguyhn 7y ago
Khosla seems to say the issue is maintaining the access path.. parking, bathrooms, etc. Is that correct? If so, would it make sense for California to seize that part the access path via eminent domain and provide those services?
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  Khosla is wrong, he doesn't have to provide anything except access to a path to the beach that already exists. And California basically already seized an easement on his land years ago when they passed the law requiring beach access (although I'm not 100% sure how that's structured legally). He might have a point about needing to maintain a relatively safe path, but so does every property owner in Malibu and they all seem to have it figured out.
  - 0xff00ffee 7y ago
    So does anyone that lives in a city with sidewalks. They are called easements, and if you don't maintain them, you are liable.
  - sdnlafkjh34rw 7y ago
    I think his current argument is that he doesn't have to give access (maintain easement) because his property is part of an 1851 sale of Mexican property which has a treaty that supercedes Californian state law. Essentially a federal treaty supercedes state law through judicial review. So unfortunately the current interpretation based on the courts is that since his property is part of the 1851 sale which is governed by a federal treaty (which is always above the rules of state law), he doesn't have to provide easement at all. I wonder if this means that any of the property owners involved in land as part of the 1851 sale can now block their existing easements for beach access.
    - jjeaff 7y ago
      So does the federal treaty state specifically that land sold does not have to provide easement? If not, it seems like a weak argument. By that same logic, he could also put a casino on it and say that since the land was part of the federal treaty, he no longer has to abide by any state law at all while on the property.
Animats 7y ago
Is the Zonker Harris beach accessway (yes, a real thing) in Malibu open yet?[1] It was "closed for repairs" in 2016. The battles over that were huge years ago. [1] https://beaches.lacounty.gov/zonker-harris-accessway-closed-for-repair/ https://beaches.lacounty.gov/zonker-harris-accessway-closed-...
cletus 7y ago
What I'd really like to see in cases like this is the state playing hardball with entitled billionaires. Why not use eminent domain to build a state road to the beach? I mean this will face a court battle too I'm sure but for a slice of land for a road you're not talking that much money (the property owner needs to be compensated by the Fifth Amendment) and building a few miles of road (I honestly don't know how much) also isn't that expensive. I mean we're talking lawyer fees kind of money here right? Having a state road once and for all solve this issue, no? I'm generally against governments simply placing the burden for public services onto private individuals. This is the real problem with things like rent control. If the government feels lower rents for certain individuals is a public good then why does the burden for this fall on the property owner instead of the state? So one could argue the state should provide public access to something that is currently only accessible over private land, right? California, build a road. While we're at it, I've read about this story before but had missed the detail that there was a parking lot, a store and toilets at the site built and maintained by the prior owner. How exactly is this not dedicating the road to public access? What tortured legal argument swindled the court here?
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  > While we're at it, I've read about this story before but had missed the detail that there was a parking lot, a store and toilets at the site built and maintained by the prior owner. How exactly is this not dedicating the road to public access? What tortured legal argument swindled the court here? The reasoning is that it wasn't public access, but rather a private business operating on the land. A restaurant, while "Open to the public" is not the same as a truly "public" space (like a state-owned road, or a national park).
- harryh 7y ago
  The state doesn't even need to invoke eminent domain to build such a road as Khosla has offered several times to sell them the necessary land. The issue is that the state doesn't want to pay.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    He's offered at greatly inflated cost. $30M for a small strip of land when the entire property was purchased for $32M. https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0424-lopez-khosla-beach-access-20160424-column.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0424-lopez-kh...
stevespang 7y ago
HOORAY ! SEND THAT F____k__R to the bottom of the ocean for crabs to dine on . . . .
bound008 7y ago
Context for those who are unfamiliar with the situation: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=khosla https://hn.algolia.com/?q=khosla If you search HN for "Khosla", you will see approximately half of the first page of results are regarding this issue.
freepor 7y ago
What’s weird is how Khosla doesn’t yet have the “upper class” mentality. The true upper class is obsessed with legacy and reputation and would ever allow their name to become synonymous with “asshole.” And the best he is going to get is a few bucks when the state eminent domains an easement.

209 points by ilamont 7y ago

It is infuriating that one individual A) has the audacity to believe they are entitled to such a rare publically beneficial property and B) has the power (both politically and financially) to see this battle through.

inscionent 7y ago
Look around the world is overflowing with individuals engaged in A and B
- munk-a 7y ago
  All of those individuals are infuriating - they can be examined in isolation as grouping them together will lead to fatigue by volume. > If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only statistics. Let's just focus on the one for now.
vanusa 7y ago
Were it just one individual. Unfortunately there's a whole lot of people who adhere to the general mindset from which Khosla derives his sense of entitlement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology
- woah 7y ago
  Incredibly far stretch to turn one guy illegally blocking a road into a straw man against an imagined political grouping from the 90’s
whack 7y ago
> has the power (both politically and financially) to see this battle through It is absolutely infuriating that a rich individual can get the type of "justice" that the rest of us can never hope to achieve, in the legal system. Or as Peter Thiel put it when he bankrupted Gawker: "If you're a single-digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system." Unfortunately, this suit is unlikely to make any difference in the above, and it doesn't seem like anyone cares about fixing the above problem. Maybe I'm just being a fundamentalist who's blowing it out of proportion. But my sense of fairness is constantly outraged by how ridiculously hard it is for any layperson to get justice in today's legal system.
- mikeyouse 7y ago
  > Or as Peter Thiel put it when he bankrupted Gawker: "If you're a single-digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system." Which is amusing since the lawyer that Thiel used is constantly suing on behalf of single-digit millionaires to stifle free speech all over the country (including threatening to sue the NYT for reporting on Harvey Weinstein's crimes). Not a whole lot of principles in that group.
  - mc32 7y ago
    I think that's a bit harsh. Even people who confess and for whom the prosecution has good evidence, can and will get lawyers or public defenders. How would you feel if a public defender took the position of "nah, this gal is clearly a criminal, we have seen the footage --its a pass, let her represent herself".
    - mikeyouse 7y ago
      These are civil suits voluntarily launched by 'aggrieved' parties. I don't think there's any reasonable comparison to public defenders.
      - mc32 7y ago
        Ok, what if lawyers were biased and "simply" declined to represent one class of people because I dunno, they are "debtors" and don't deserve representation against an authoshop which ripped them off.
api 7y ago
I really wonder why he's choosing this hill (err I mean beach!) to die on and how he doesn't see what damage this is doing to his public image. Even if he does have a point this makes him look absolutely horrible and it's not like letting a few people on the beach is going to impact his lifestyle in anything beyond the most trivial way. I just don't quibble over minutia like that. I don't get people who do. This seems like a gigantic waste of time and resources where even if you win you lose.
- nosequel 7y ago
  You have to realize that Vinod Khosla is one of those people who is used to people just following his orders. He was successful, he owns Khosla Ventures (KV) and probably never gets called on his shit. Suddenly locals, surfers, and The Surfrider Foundation starts to push back and he thinks he can just squash them, because /s obviously he's better than them. Let's be real, he was never in that house. I'd venture to say he spent maybe 30 days per year in that house? Like any other rich asshole with a vacation house in prime territory he bought it and wanted to keep any riffraff away. He thinks he deserves it and not for one second did he think about his public image.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Well, I, for one, have tried to avoid companies funded by Khosla Ventures since this story initially broke. I doubt a lot of people feel strongly enough to do that, but there are some.
    - bscphil 7y ago
      Given that I had never heard of the company until this post, I was surprised by how many companies I've heard of that they funded. From their portfolio page[1]: Academia.edu, AppNexus, Arista Networks, DoorDash, GitLab, HackerRank, Impossible Foods, Instacart, "Just, Inc.", Scribd, Square, Stripe, Teespring, Vox Media https://www.khoslaventures.com/portfolio/all-companies https://www.khoslaventures.com/portfolio/all-companies
abstractbarista 7y ago
So do we - or do we not - have decent property rights? It sounds like the land never should have been private in the first place, given how special it is. Otherwise, if I own it, I should be able to keep others off of it. You don't actually own something that you cannot control access to. If you disagree, then keep your front door unlocked, because I'm moving in with some friends later this week.
- compiler-guy 7y ago
  Property ownership comes with easements and other legal restrictions all the time. I have to give the power company access to the power pole on my property, and I knew that when I bought it. Public easements to public beaches are quite normal.
  - abstractbarista 7y ago
    That's very reasonable. Sounds like it's time to pass a law in CA that requires property owners to have an easement offered to the public for beach access. Have such an easement recorded for all real estate parcels touching the coast. Done. I know they have that 1976 law mentioned in the article, but clearly that was not strongly written so as to force this.
    - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
      It was, but the owner is a billionaire who thinks he is above the law.
      - abstractbarista 7y ago
        Oh. Well in that case I'm sure this will be quickly resolved in the public's favor. I hope it's not one of those 'feel-good' laws written like "All Californians should be able to access the beaches" (without specifying actionable frameworks like easements and such).
        7y ago
PHGamer 7y ago
well A makes sense if you believe in private property at all. I can see not being on his side but its true if it was not public but private property before the only way the government should legally allowed to appropriate it is via eminate domain and the compensation to the property owner.
hummel 7y ago
A complete jerk
gwbas1c 7y ago
When I read this article, it looks a lot more complicated than that. > Khosla, in legal filings, said he “was willing to give the business a go, and continued to allow members of the public to access the property upon payment of a fee. But [he] soon faced the same problem the Deeneys had faced: The business was operating at a considerable loss, as the costs of keeping the beach, the parking lot and other facilities in operable and safe condition significantly exceeded the fees the business generated.”
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  To the best of my knowledge (and a reading of the actual law text), the 1976 Coastal Access Act doesn't require private owners to provide and maintain facilities for public beaches -- it simply doesn't prevent them from doing so. The Deeneys chose to make Martins Beach a business, and more than likely started doing so before the Coastal Access Act passed. Khosla is absolutely within his rights to stop maintaining "the parking lot and other facilities in operable and safe condition"; the battle is over whether he's within his rights to block access to the beach entirely just because he can't find a way to turn a profit from it -- and whether the limited access he's currently granting is enough to meet the law's requirements.
  - sdnlafkjh34rw 7y ago
    Yes this is my understanding as well. He just needs to give access. He doesn't need to provide any infrastructure (which would be unfair to any homeowner).
    - gwbas1c 7y ago
      > Yes this is my understanding as well. He just needs to give access. He doesn't need to provide any infrastructure (which would be unfair to any homeowner) Which makes me inherently distrustful of how the media portrays this article. What does "give access" mean? I've encountered a narrow footpath path along a property line in Hawaii to "give access" that was mainly used by people in the neighborhood. If I remember correctly, both beachfront properties on either side had fences. In San Diego, I encountered a narrow stairway between two condo buildings; but there were so many public parks and streets that came up to the beach that I didn't understand the point. I'm not a lawyer, but could Vinod satisfy the law by having a narrow footpath along his property line?
rayiner 7y ago
In fact, the opposite is true, and the reporting around this issue is a great example of how the media doesn't care about facts but instead cares only about narratives. It's important to understand that this dispute involves two separate tracks of issues, one where Khosla has been winning, and one where he has been losing. The first issue is the property right. An ancient doctrine called the "public trust" doctrine holds that the waters and beaches up to the high tide line belongs to the public. Moreover, it holds that, generally, there is an easement across private land to access that area. However, California is a johnny-come-lately state. As a result, under Supreme Court precedent (Summa Corp. v. California), the state doesn't have easements over certain private property that dates to Mexican land grants: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2193&context=elq https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art... (p. 429-430). Based on that precedent, the California Court of Appeals has held that there is no easement (as a matter of public trust doctrine) over Khosla's property: > While the public trust doctrine can protect access rights over private land, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to extend that protection to private land certified under the 1851 federal law implementing the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, where the federal or state government had not asserted an interest in title proceeding. Therefore, the court of appeal in Friends I found that, because the Martin’s Beach property had been certified under the 1851 law without any mention of a public interest and never passed into state ownership, there could be no common law public trust easement over the land to the water. There was a subsequent suit based on an alternate theory: that although there was no common law easement, an easement arose because the previous property owner "dedicated" the road to public use. The California Court of Appeals rejected that t heory too. https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/11/ca-appellate-court-rules-publics-access-to-martins-beach-is-not-a-permanent-right https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/11/ca-appellate-court-rules.... > As such, according to the common law of public dedication, the court determined that Martin’s Beach is not dedicated to public access. Opinion here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF So now we are on the third string legal theory (from the article): > State officials have been following these cases closely and are now taking a swing at the fight. The new lawsuit asks the court to consider unexamined evidence that shows that the beach, as well as the gated road, have been historically used by the public — citing a common law doctrine known as “implied dedication.” We've gone from an easement under property law, to a "public dedication," to "implied public dedication." That brings us to the second legal issue, which is whether Khosla needs a permit to build a structure to close the road to the beach. Even though courts have repeatedly held that there is no public right to use the road, the California Coastal Commission has found that it can use its powers to control development on the coast to keep Khosla from actually vindicating his private property right. So far, the State has been successful on that front. But after last year's loss on the underlying property rights issue, that position gets harder to justify. The State can only go so long using its authority over the building of fences to keep open a public easement that courts have repeatedly held does not exist. Hence this lawsuit. As to your point (B)--it's a wonderful thing that private citizens have the financial resources to fight the State and vindicate their legitimate property rights. The opposite of that is tyranny.
Gatsky 7y ago
There was a profile in Forbes on Khosla or something like that, and one of his employees said something along the lines of 'Khosla is pursuing this beach matter so that anyone that deals with him knows how tough and tenacious he is.' It wasn't entirely clear if this was that employee rationalising the fact his boss is a bastard, or actually the truth. As twisted as this logic may be, I guess it is plausible some egotistical old guy would think this way. Edit: This is the quote: "The “beach issue,” as it is called internally at Khosla Ventures, has surprisingly not been a problem in the office. “It’s an incredible negotiating tool for me,” said Samir Kaul, another partner at Khosla Ventures. When a company was trying to “screw” the firm, Mr. Kaul brought up news articles about the beach at a meeting. “I said: ‘My boss is going to the Supreme Court for a beach he’s never gone to. We’re not posturing here. This guy’s not going to settle,’” Mr. Kaul said. “And then I just sat there." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/technology/vinod-khosla-beach.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/technology/vinod-khosla-b...
ChuckMcM 7y ago
I would agree that it is uncomfortable to watch but what the law "wants" is pretty clear, and Khosla has lost at pretty much every turn. Now the state is suing to create sanctions on him if he fails to abide by previous decisions to make the beach accessible. Rather than be infuriated, be comforted in the fact that in spite of all his money he has been unable to overturn this law. He has made a lot of lawyers rich doing it, and will have paid a chunk of San Mateo's superior court's budget this year in fees. And he still lost. Now the state and coastal commission are getting a court order so that they can start fining him without the need to go to court. Think of it as a really really regressive tax on a rich land owner. Let's say he writes it off as the cost of doing business and just keeps paying fines. Well I could single handedly double the budget that the coastal commission has available for keeping beach access open. That's a lot of resources.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  > Khosla has lost at pretty much every turn. What do you mean? He won at every turn. The courts have ruled that there's no easement, and that the public have no access to the water through his property. https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2193&context=elq https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
  - ChuckMcM 7y ago
    This article in the times (https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-martins-beach-supreme-court-20181001-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-martins-beach-supr...) which discusses that the Supreme Court left the previous ruling of access intact sounded like a win for the Costal commission.
    - xyzzyz 7y ago
      I guess you could call it a win: it required Khosla to keep the road open until he gets a fencing permit. Khosla took it to court on principle, since he believed that such injunction is already takings: indeed, since the courts affirmed that public does not have access to his property through the road, stopping him from blocking such access issues illegal. Since he has every right to get such a fencing permit (as there is no easement, right of way or any other public access through his property where he wants to fence it), in a perfect world he’d simply apply for such permit and promptly get it. In reality though, it is highly likely that the state of California will try to use the fence permitting rights it has to stop him from exercising his property rights, which is exactly what Khosla tried to ensure cannot happen in his Supreme Court petition.

thrillgore 7y ago

Good. He has no right to public beach access.

tedk-42 7y ago

Obviously looking at the bigger picture he's in the wrong. I do wonder what his motivations are to own that section of the beach though. Maybe it's the only bit of his property that's vulnerable from a security perspective and he simply wants tighter control of it. I hope the public win and he doesn't get his way.

tempsy 7y ago
IIRC, his argument is that the path that leads to the beach is actually his property, and he is effectively being required to pay to upkeep/monitor/secure this area on his property on his own dime.
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 7y ago
  What a terrible shock that must have been for him, to realize this fact only after having purchased the property.
  - tempsy 7y ago
    Feels like an edge case to me. Not exactly something someone who buys a private property would think would be possible e.g. to have to pay for upkeep for public property. Seems like the gov’t should figure out some sort of reimbursement program in situations like this.
    - ng12 7y ago
      I'm sure a surveyor would have informed him of California law.
      - tempsy 7y ago
        it's not really my point. the law is deficient in the sense that it doesn't cover this edge case. so why not address the edge case? IMO Khosla should present some numbers on how much it would reasonably cost to maintain whatever land he owns that would be used by the public to get to the beach and the gov't should agree to reimburse some reasonable expense on a quarterly basis.

munk-a 7y ago

There are some interesting questions to be answered here about the value of the view included in the pricing of beachfront property that need to be addressed (agreements to limit development including height restriction - agreements not to sell property closer to the water line to other private parties) that will get super complex as climate change continues - including the fact that erosion may shrink the size of the private rights portion of the lot on beachside property, or potentially expand it. Additionally this gets super muddled when it comes to coastal constructions, even simple jetties docks may have public safety concerns, protection of private property (if expensive boat maintenance tools or machinery are located on the jetty) - and that will evolve into questions about using coastal constructions to restrict access. Lastly, the costs - as Khosla mentioned the beach is unprofitable to run, should CA be footing that bill? Could they sublease the property to an entrepreneur that thinks they could make the beachside facilities profitable? It is entirely unreasonable (even given the excessive wealth of Khosla) for him to be forced to maintain an unprofitable entity like that and all the facility liability that goes along with it. This is a gigantic can of worms. I look forward to how this might be resolved, but it sure ain't going to be simple.

option 7y ago
The beaches should be accessible by public. Nothing controversial about that. His realtors knew 100% about the passage used by public which ran through the property.
aqme28 7y ago
> as Khosla mentioned the beach is unprofitable to run, should CA be footing that bill? Could they sublease the property to an entrepreneur that thinks they could make the beachside facilities profitable? It is entirely unreasonable (even given the excessive wealth of Khosla) for him to be forced to maintain an unprofitable entity like that and all the facility liability that goes along with it. Does he need to maintain those facilities? Could he just unblock access and move on? This feels like a cheap excuse.
- sushisource 7y ago
  Seemingly (IANAL) he could, in fact, do that. I think his concern would be if he's not properly maintaining it, now the beach near his house is going to fill up with trash, maybe overnight campers, etc. So he's either got to foot the bill to keep it looking nice, or end up with a garbage beach. So it's definitely a sticky situation. Personally, I'd just open it up, I think people generally treat beaches OK in Cali, but I can imagine his concern. As another commenter mentions, it seems like a very reasonable expectation that the state would maintain it.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

I wonder what are the downsides of this. The Supreme Court refused to take a previous case, but I think the composition of the court was a little different then. Given that this court is even more in favor of stronger private property protections, does this lawsuit make it possible that it could eventually make it to the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court could strike down the entire California coastal access law as unconstitutional.

learc83 7y ago
>Supreme Court could strike down the entire California coastal access law as unconstitutional That would require a very creative reading of the constitution. Congress could pass a law overriding it, and SCOTUS could could uphold that law under the commerce clause (land value in California affects land value in Oregon etc...).
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  From the last section of the Fifth Amendment: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    But, it was not taken. Khosla came to acquire the property well after the 1970s, which is when California law allowed the public to use all beaches.
  - ronilan 7y ago
    Under the terms of the agreement Vinod “gatekeeper” Khosla, will maintain ownership of the newly established Martins Beach Surfing Club House and will be allowed to leave his board and wetsuit on the floor without penalty. The Friends of Martins Beach agree to release Khosla from all gatekeeping shifts, provided that he learns to surf and chill. Free surf lessons for life will be provided to Vinod “dude” Khosla as compensation for Club House use by the public. Drinks will be available, for a fee, to guests over the legal drinking age. Other fees may also apply. Done.

baybal2 7y ago

Can somebody tell me where the guy gets so much of his temerity?

dole 7y ago
Sun Microsystems co-founder, worth $2.1B.
option 7y ago
got lucky in the right time in Silicon Valley. Nothing super smart or visionary. Once he got money - he revealed his true self
- g_langenderfer 7y ago
  Are you so sure you wouldn't act the same in his shoes? We're all human.
  - s0rce 7y ago
    Restrict public access to a beach on a property I never visit (and continue to fight about it). I'm not OP but I can assure you I wouldn't do that.
ceejayoz 7y ago
The wealthier you get, the less used to "no" you get.
m0llusk 7y ago
That seems like a heavy interpretation of the situation. This guy bought a property that included these features and had always been treated as private with discretion for access and services provided. When told he does not actually own what he thought he bought it makes sense to have the courts make a final decision. It is a weird fluke that the extremely strong protection of coastal access in California has taken this long to resolve. It is kind of odd that people continually frame this as a problem with an individual instead of a legal clarification of land use rights. The conflicts over access and who pays for services and liabilities such as trash accumulating have always been there but were allowed to fester as long as people sort of worked things out. Realistically that situation was never stable and was always heading for some kind of forced legal resolution no matter who was owning and who was surfing. Was public access allowed or not? In the past mostly locals would have known about the spot in the first place and anyone having problems with access would have walked away and maybe tried again later. The longstanding tension does not represent full fair access.

ripvanwinkle 7y ago

I found this provided an interesting window into Vinod Khosla's style. He didn't exactly answer the question asked https://youtu.be/HZcXup7p5-8?t=2618 https://youtu.be/HZcXup7p5-8?t=2618

unapologetic 7y ago

The public should tear down his signs and simply refuse to acknowledge any ownership on his part. If he complains, take everything else he has.

RobertRoberts 7y ago

I don't live near here, can someone explain this? ( The link should open in Google maps with satellite view.) https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martin's+Beach/@37.3746238,-122.4072087,899m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x808f090cb6271353:0x3d9391e735ac292a!8m2!3d37.3736981!4d-122.4083224 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martin's+Beach/@37.3746238... What I see is a bunch of houses on the beach. How is this in issue with one person and not all those home owners? Edit: Even the reviews talk about how you can just walk to the beach without paying for parking. I don't get the problem? Is this a California beach-perspective thing? As far as I know all water front property in the US is public up to a certain distance from the water already.

option 7y ago
Based on CA’s constitution beaches (low to high tides) are public property. If you land lock a beach, in practice (like in the example above) there is an access route used by public which you are NOT entitled to close.
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  But this is where I am confused, if you read a bunch of the Google Map reviews on this beach you can just walk to it from the road. What was blocked? Street-view and Google maps shows a road, but it goes to a bunch of houses. Did the rich guy buy all those houses?
  - xeromal 7y ago
    The parking and road existed as public access before Vinod bought the house. The argument is where something that was public before can be made private without prior approval. Public != Free
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      So in theory, he could make another access road further down and leave that one open? Still doesn't explain all the houses and cars directly on the beach. Does he own all those houses too?

rossjudson 7y ago

This is pretty interesting: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/access/pr-access-facts.pdf https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/access/pr-access-fac... The public can do whatever it wants on the beach itself. The argument is about whether the road to the beach is implicitly public property because of prior use. That PDF provides some tests, and is useful to review prior to reading the judge's decision.

rayiner 7y ago
> The public can do whatever it wants on the beach itself. The public can do what it wants on the part of the beach up to the high tide line. It doesn't extend to the whole of what you'd think of as the "beach."

oisino 7y ago

Curious signaling as a VC to be involved in something so negatively publicly. The best companies/ entrepreneurs are super picky on who to raise money from and I have already heard a couple companies mention this as a reason they didn't talk to Khosla.

ramraj07 7y ago
Indeed. Perhaps no one has said that to his face till now?
- oisino 7y ago
  Public reputation is a funny thing its not binary and its lagging. By the time people tell you stuff to your face usually its way too late for they have been building their beliefs around who you are way before.

kops 7y ago

The property rights are what they are. Who the owner is should not cloud the argument. If you are a middle class person and have a lawn in front of your house, would you allow the random people to use the lawn for chilling/sleeping/picnic or whatever? Well a rich person happens to own a much bigger and luxurious version of the same front lawn. If the state or whoever owned the thing once upon time sold it, then it is his. The fact that he is stinking rich and we the normal populace would love to have access to the same property is no argument. On the other hand if his purchase did not include exclusivity to the beach then by all means go there and piss around. But just being rich and owning something that most of us can not afford is no justification to snatch it from them. It is just using the justice system/democracy as a mob intent on plunder. P.S. 1. I don't care who khosla is. But looking at the whole debate it seems the whole opposition is based on the fact that he is a billionaire. I refuse to buy that line of argument. Tell me it is illegal for so an so reason and I will buy. But he is an asshole or he is a billionaire is just emotions doing the talking :-) P.S. 2. Going by the comments below, I feel compelled to clarify that my comment is not informed by the local laws. I am just a little bit puzzled by the words billionaire and asshole being used synonymously. The law should be same for everyone. A billionaire can hire more lawyers is no reason to call him an asshole in this context even if he has earned the title elsewhere unequivocally. Update: typo and added a p.s.

tathougies 7y ago
By California law, there is no such thing as ownership of a beach. All beach sands are public, by statute. You are asking who the owner is, but there is no owner of the rights of access or exclusivity, by law. Of course, Khosla should have access to the lands he owns. Under California law, land is something that private citizens can own. A beach is not one of those things. EDIT: that being said, private property rights do not always or even typically grant you exclusivity. Many jurisdictions have various requirements on what private landowners must allow the public to do on their land. For example, many jurisdictions have freedom to roam provisions, which ensure that the public has access to wilderness, even if privately owned. The United States does not have this in general, but it is certainly within the purview of the states to legislate such things. In many US cities, homeowners own the sidewalk and must maintain it, but allow the public access. This is written in the deed, or mandated by statue.

option 7y ago

I regularly donate money to Surfrider foundation so that they continue fight for our beaches in California

rcpt 7y ago

Sounds great. Now let's get some real gems like Hollister Ranch and Vickers Hot Springs opened up again.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

throwawaysea 7y ago

Isn't this not about the beach but about his private property that leads to the beach? The courts previously ruled in favor of Khosla - see https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF. The conclusion is on pages 35 and 36, which notes that this particular piece of land was NOT dedicated to public access and does not fit the common law parameters for implied public access.

righteous 7y ago

I thought the nuance here was the land was titled under Spanish/Mexican land grant which predates the California constitution. Interesting to see how it plays out.

newnewpdro 7y ago

Back when I lived in Pescadero years ago I'd drive past this place very often, most of the time the gate was locked shut. It seemed completely random when it'd be open. My understanding is that his guy is a Grade A douche bag.

wuunderbar 7y ago

Does anyone have any way to illustrate to me the physics of how he is actually blocking access? Like how does this road run through this property, where is the beach in relation, etc. EDIT: I suppose this helps: https://www.google.com/search?q=vinod+khosla+road https://www.google.com/search?q=vinod+khosla+road

bazzert 7y ago

Its even worse in the north east. In Mass. and Maine property owners can (due to an old colonial era law) own property to the low tide line and deny access not only to the access, but to the beach itself.

markdown 7y ago
Are you sure it's colonial era law? Elsewhere in the world colonial era law ensured public access up to the high tide line.
- bazzert 7y ago
  Exactly, in fact in the British Isles even the land above the high tide line (I forget the exact extent) is public. In New England they wanted to encourage the development of docks (to promote more commerce) and extended ownership to include the land on which docks would be built.
- bazzert 7y ago
  Its discussed in this article. http://www.islandinstitute.org/working-waterfront/%E2%80%8Bpublic-ownership-maine%E2%80%99s-shore-courts-got-it-wrong http://www.islandinstitute.org/working-waterfront/%E2%80%8Bp... "1647 Colonial Ordinance enacted by the Massachusetts Bay Colony ceded title to all intertidal land in what would become the state of Massachusetts to upland owners to encourage “wharfing out” (marine commerce)."
bazzert 7y ago
This is a pretty good roundup of the topic. http://stage.mvmagazine.com/news/2007/07/01/private-beaches http://stage.mvmagazine.com/news/2007/07/01/private-beaches

IGotThroughIt 7y ago

I feel like this contentious issue has had a net negative effect on his life and that he should just sell the damn place and move on. It's been years and there's so much else to do!

eaguyhn 7y ago

Khosla seems to say the issue is maintaining the access path.. parking, bathrooms, etc. Is that correct? If so, would it make sense for California to seize that part the access path via eminent domain and provide those services?

henryfjordan 7y ago
Khosla is wrong, he doesn't have to provide anything except access to a path to the beach that already exists. And California basically already seized an easement on his land years ago when they passed the law requiring beach access (although I'm not 100% sure how that's structured legally). He might have a point about needing to maintain a relatively safe path, but so does every property owner in Malibu and they all seem to have it figured out.
- 0xff00ffee 7y ago
  So does anyone that lives in a city with sidewalks. They are called easements, and if you don't maintain them, you are liable.
- sdnlafkjh34rw 7y ago
  I think his current argument is that he doesn't have to give access (maintain easement) because his property is part of an 1851 sale of Mexican property which has a treaty that supercedes Californian state law. Essentially a federal treaty supercedes state law through judicial review. So unfortunately the current interpretation based on the courts is that since his property is part of the 1851 sale which is governed by a federal treaty (which is always above the rules of state law), he doesn't have to provide easement at all. I wonder if this means that any of the property owners involved in land as part of the 1851 sale can now block their existing easements for beach access.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    So does the federal treaty state specifically that land sold does not have to provide easement? If not, it seems like a weak argument. By that same logic, he could also put a casino on it and say that since the land was part of the federal treaty, he no longer has to abide by any state law at all while on the property.

Animats 7y ago

Is the Zonker Harris beach accessway (yes, a real thing) in Malibu open yet?[1] It was "closed for repairs" in 2016. The battles over that were huge years ago. [1] https://beaches.lacounty.gov/zonker-harris-accessway-closed-for-repair/ https://beaches.lacounty.gov/zonker-harris-accessway-closed-...

cletus 7y ago

What I'd really like to see in cases like this is the state playing hardball with entitled billionaires. Why not use eminent domain to build a state road to the beach? I mean this will face a court battle too I'm sure but for a slice of land for a road you're not talking that much money (the property owner needs to be compensated by the Fifth Amendment) and building a few miles of road (I honestly don't know how much) also isn't that expensive. I mean we're talking lawyer fees kind of money here right? Having a state road once and for all solve this issue, no? I'm generally against governments simply placing the burden for public services onto private individuals. This is the real problem with things like rent control. If the government feels lower rents for certain individuals is a public good then why does the burden for this fall on the property owner instead of the state? So one could argue the state should provide public access to something that is currently only accessible over private land, right? California, build a road. While we're at it, I've read about this story before but had missed the detail that there was a parking lot, a store and toilets at the site built and maintained by the prior owner. How exactly is this not dedicating the road to public access? What tortured legal argument swindled the court here?

henryfjordan 7y ago
> While we're at it, I've read about this story before but had missed the detail that there was a parking lot, a store and toilets at the site built and maintained by the prior owner. How exactly is this not dedicating the road to public access? What tortured legal argument swindled the court here? The reasoning is that it wasn't public access, but rather a private business operating on the land. A restaurant, while "Open to the public" is not the same as a truly "public" space (like a state-owned road, or a national park).
harryh 7y ago
The state doesn't even need to invoke eminent domain to build such a road as Khosla has offered several times to sell them the necessary land. The issue is that the state doesn't want to pay.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  He's offered at greatly inflated cost. $30M for a small strip of land when the entire property was purchased for $32M. https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0424-lopez-khosla-beach-access-20160424-column.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0424-lopez-kh...

stevespang 7y ago

HOORAY ! SEND THAT F____k__R to the bottom of the ocean for crabs to dine on . . . .

bound008 7y ago

Context for those who are unfamiliar with the situation: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=khosla https://hn.algolia.com/?q=khosla If you search HN for "Khosla", you will see approximately half of the first page of results are regarding this issue.

freepor 7y ago

What’s weird is how Khosla doesn’t yet have the “upper class” mentality. The true upper class is obsessed with legacy and reputation and would ever allow their name to become synonymous with “asshole.” And the best he is going to get is a few bucks when the state eminent domains an easement.