3 ms·

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 bi

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.
        aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 7y ago
        That would make sense if the government had installed the beach after Khosla's purchase.
    - s0rce 7y ago
      You are responsible for making yourself aware of any public easements or responsibilities within the property before you purchase it.
    - mindslight 7y ago
      This isn't an edge case, but rather the standard experience of living somewhere that gets snow and has sidewalks. But really Khosla isn't being told that he has to maintain improvements to the right of way, but rather to simply stop obstructing it.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      Amazing that his lawyers are more versed with the concept of land deeds dating back to pre-California Mexico, than they are of easements. And the government has never demanded he maintain, at his own expense (mind you, he spent months paying $10k/day fines over this). Just that the access is there.
GhostVII 7y ago
I don't think it is obvious that he is wrong. Previously the property had a parking lot, where people could pay to park and then go to the beach. This parking lot was not profitable, so he decided to close it down. There is still public beach access, just not through that parking lot. I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that he should provide access through the road to the parking lot, and just disallow parking, but it doesn't seem obvious to me. The previous owner did not allow free access (there was a gate), so I think it is OK for the new owner to forbid access entirely.

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.
      - aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 7y ago
        That would make sense if the government had installed the beach after Khosla's purchase.
  - s0rce 7y ago
    You are responsible for making yourself aware of any public easements or responsibilities within the property before you purchase it.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    This isn't an edge case, but rather the standard experience of living somewhere that gets snow and has sidewalks. But really Khosla isn't being told that he has to maintain improvements to the right of way, but rather to simply stop obstructing it.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    Amazing that his lawyers are more versed with the concept of land deeds dating back to pre-California Mexico, than they are of easements. And the government has never demanded he maintain, at his own expense (mind you, he spent months paying $10k/day fines over this). Just that the access is there.

GhostVII 7y ago

I don't think it is obvious that he is wrong. Previously the property had a parking lot, where people could pay to park and then go to the beach. This parking lot was not profitable, so he decided to close it down. There is still public beach access, just not through that parking lot. I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that he should provide access through the road to the parking lot, and just disallow parking, but it doesn't seem obvious to me. The previous owner did not allow free access (there was a gate), so I think it is OK for the new owner to forbid access entirely.