6 ms·

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 (a

by 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.
  - Reelin 7y ago
    > it seems like a very reasonable expectation that the state would maintain it As a matter of principle I'm inclined to agree. However many (possibly most?) US cities require the property owner to maintain the sidewalk fronting their property; this situation might be similar.
  - wayoutthere 7y ago
    > So he's either got to foot the bill to keep it looking nice, or end up with a garbage beach. Seems like a perfectly fine tradeoff to me. The beach belongs to the public, and not all beaches are well-maintained. If he wants to keep the views on this beach (that he does not own) nice, he can pay to maintain them. Pretty sure running the beach for the next 100 years would be a drop in the bucket for him anyway.
  - iancmceachern 7y ago
    If I were him, I would be very thankful for what I have (as I am am anyway) and would share my success with others. In this case it would mean opening it up and footing the bill for the maintenance of the beach. Why not? Does he really need more money pragmatically? It seems like the good will, feeling of joy coming from helping your local community in which you live, and leaving the world better than you found it would be more than enough return for the investment. I'm a "working stiff" and happily contribute to the upkeep, cleanliness and worthy volunteer organizations in the community I live and get far more from such than it takes from me. Edited- spelling error.
JustSomeNobody 7y ago
> Lastly, the costs - as Khosla mentioned the beach is unprofitable to run It's a beach. Why does it have to be profitable? > should CA be footing that bill? You mean for cleanup and maintenance? Sure, why not? If Californians what their beaches, then their tax dollars should be taking care of them.
eitally 7y ago
One might agree with you if one hadn't actually been to Martin's Beach [recently]. There are no facilities. There used to be a beachfront snack shack but it's been closed since the property traded hands. There is no public restroom, and there is only private parking. There are no piers, jetties or other beach/ocean construction at the beach. Moreover, the road leading to the beach is lined with a dozen or so private residences. Khosla is not bearing any significant burden in allowing beachgoers to continue to access the beach. TBH, the beach is small enough and there is so little capacity for traffic to it that I don't see how it could ever be "profitable" as a cash generator for anyone.
- vanusa 7y ago
  I don't see how it could ever be "profitable" as a cash generator for anyone. Nor should it be. It's a public benefit. As such, it should be revenue-neutral.
cjensen 7y ago
This "gigantic can of worms" is 40-year old settled law. All the appeals and considerations that can be thought of were worked out over 20 years ago. All your "could they" and "can they" questions have already been asked and answered.
RangerScience 7y ago
I appreciate your comment. I want to push back on > Could they sublease the property to an entrepreneur that thinks they could make the beachside facilities profitable? with https://climateandcapitalism.com/2008/08/25/debunking-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/ https://climateandcapitalism.com/2008/08/25/debunking-the-tr...

by munk-a 7y ago

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.
- Reelin 7y ago
  > it seems like a very reasonable expectation that the state would maintain it As a matter of principle I'm inclined to agree. However many (possibly most?) US cities require the property owner to maintain the sidewalk fronting their property; this situation might be similar.
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  > So he's either got to foot the bill to keep it looking nice, or end up with a garbage beach. Seems like a perfectly fine tradeoff to me. The beach belongs to the public, and not all beaches are well-maintained. If he wants to keep the views on this beach (that he does not own) nice, he can pay to maintain them. Pretty sure running the beach for the next 100 years would be a drop in the bucket for him anyway.
- iancmceachern 7y ago
  If I were him, I would be very thankful for what I have (as I am am anyway) and would share my success with others. In this case it would mean opening it up and footing the bill for the maintenance of the beach. Why not? Does he really need more money pragmatically? It seems like the good will, feeling of joy coming from helping your local community in which you live, and leaving the world better than you found it would be more than enough return for the investment. I'm a "working stiff" and happily contribute to the upkeep, cleanliness and worthy volunteer organizations in the community I live and get far more from such than it takes from me. Edited- spelling error.

JustSomeNobody 7y ago

> Lastly, the costs - as Khosla mentioned the beach is unprofitable to run It's a beach. Why does it have to be profitable? > should CA be footing that bill? You mean for cleanup and maintenance? Sure, why not? If Californians what their beaches, then their tax dollars should be taking care of them.

eitally 7y ago

One might agree with you if one hadn't actually been to Martin's Beach [recently]. There are no facilities. There used to be a beachfront snack shack but it's been closed since the property traded hands. There is no public restroom, and there is only private parking. There are no piers, jetties or other beach/ocean construction at the beach. Moreover, the road leading to the beach is lined with a dozen or so private residences. Khosla is not bearing any significant burden in allowing beachgoers to continue to access the beach. TBH, the beach is small enough and there is so little capacity for traffic to it that I don't see how it could ever be "profitable" as a cash generator for anyone.

vanusa 7y ago
I don't see how it could ever be "profitable" as a cash generator for anyone. Nor should it be. It's a public benefit. As such, it should be revenue-neutral.

cjensen 7y ago

This "gigantic can of worms" is 40-year old settled law. All the appeals and considerations that can be thought of were worked out over 20 years ago. All your "could they" and "can they" questions have already been asked and answered.

RangerScience 7y ago

I appreciate your comment. I want to push back on > Could they sublease the property to an entrepreneur that thinks they could make the beachside facilities profitable? with https://climateandcapitalism.com/2008/08/25/debunking-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/ https://climateandcapitalism.com/2008/08/25/debunking-the-tr...