5 ms·

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. Othe

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).
      - bananabreakfast 7y ago
        No this is a very specific law requiring easements exactly as you said. It is not getting resolved quickly because every time Vinod loses (and that's been every time so far) he just baselessly appeals the ruling again and again.
        harryh 7y ago
        You are exactly backwards in this statement. Vinod keeps winning and then he keeps getting sued again (by a different party or under a different theory).
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        That doesn't appear to be true. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-martins-beach-supreme-court-20180306-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-martins-beach-supr... > The squabble has spurred a spate of lawsuits that now focus on whether Khosla needs state permission to gate off the road — and a string of California courts has said he does. 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... > In a significant victory for coastal access rights in California, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a Silicon Valley billionaire’s appeal to keep a beach to himself. Wiki indicates the same; some early wins, all overturned on appeal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla#Martins_Beach_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla#Martins_Beach_dis...
        harryh 7y ago
        The reporting on this topic (especially headlines) has been generally quite poor. You really have to dig in to understand what is going on. See this cousin comment for details on how he has won on most of the merits: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21974524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21974524
        ceejayoz 7y ago
    - m0llusk 7y ago
      That is the precise opposite of what is happening. Vinod bought a property with certain rights attached. Although the previous owners had allowed some access they had also denied access under some circumstances as well. What Vinod is doing is getting the law to resolve who exactly owns what and has what rights and obligations. If someone had the guts to demand that level of clarification in the past then we would not have this mess now.
  - refurb 7y ago
    They could do that, but not without just compensation for the easement. And for that I’m thankful. The last thing you want is the govt to be able to take property by declaration.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > Public easements to public beaches are quite normal. Except this particular beach happens to be a very abnormal one. This issue was resolved years ago, and Khosla won: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/04/27/martins-beach-appeals-court-hands-khosla-win-and-loss https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/04/27/martins-beach-appeal.... In 2016, the California Court of Appeals held that, because Khosla's property dates from a Mexican land grant, and the state never reserved an easement, there is no public easement on Khosla's property. In 2019, the same court rejected the alternate theory that an easement had been created by the property owner "dedicating the easement to public use." See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-26/billionaire-khosla-wins-ruling-threatening-public-beach-access https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-26/billionai... As you recognize, the "public easement" theory is what applies here. But California lost on that theory. There is no easement here. California has been attempting to keep the beach open using unrelated regulatory powers. (Basically, there is no public easement, but through our powers to regulate what can be built on the beach, we can keep you from building anything to keep the public out.) If it wasn't for the wildly misleading reporting, everyone would recognize this as overreach and abuse by the State.
  - atomi 7y ago
    Generally speaking, people want public access to the whole of the California coastline. Any legal findings impeding access are a failing of law.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      What you're describing is not "law." Law is defining rights based on rules everyone agrees to ahead of time. Changing the rules after the fact based on what "people want" isn't law, it's tyranny. California litigated this issue--what rights it has in land subject to the treaty with Mexico--in front of the United States Supreme Court in 1984, and lost. That is "the law."
      - atomi 7y ago
        I don't follow. Are you suggesting laws or treaties are immutable?
freepor 7y ago
Land ownership is a social construct. It's not like ownership over something you make with your hands or your mind, and in the US, all of the land is stolen property anyways so there's no rational claim to any of it. So land ownership is a right afforded by society to society, like any other kind of legal framework, and part of that is limitations. In earlier parts of human history, if you tried to cut off a population's access to a valuable resource like water by claiming land ownership, they'd just come with sharp implements, impale you on them, and take the land back from you. In modern times, we need to accomplish the same end, but with hopefully no bloodshed.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Yes, land ownership is a social construct, but that's not the issue here. The issue here is that, once the ink has dried on the "social contract," the State cannot change the bargain just because it doesn't like the deal it made. In this case, there is a public trust doctrine, which says that public beaches (up to the high tide line) are dedicated to the use of the public. But the California Court of Appeals has held that this doctrine doesn't apply here, due to an oddity in the history of Khosla's land. It dates from a Mexican land grant: vhttps://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/04/27/martins-beach-appeals-court-hands-khosla-win-and-loss https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/04/27/martins-beach-appeal.... > In a 52-page opinion, the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco upheld the main element of San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Gerald Buchwald’s 2014 decision in Khosla’s favor. The court found the public does not have the right under the California constitution to cross Khosla’s property to reach the shoreline. The California court reached a decision about what the property rights are. The State didn't like the result, so now it's been looking for other ways to do the same thing. Even if you don't like Khosla, you shouldn't be happy about that.
  - xenadu02 7y ago
    The state can simply modify the rules to require access, which seems like one possible outcome of this case.
    - rayiner 7y ago
jdblair 7y ago
He doesn't own the beach, and an easement to access public land is a normal, non-controversial thing.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- refurb 7y ago
  Not in this case. The land came from a Mexican land grant and pre-dates the State of California. As a part of the settlement of the Mexican-American war, the US has to respect existing land ownership in perpetuity.
  - jdblair 7y ago
    Reviewing this history of the legal case, this does seem to be exactly where this case is stuck. The treaty doesn't apply to the beach below mean high tide, but the road does.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

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).
    - bananabreakfast 7y ago
      No this is a very specific law requiring easements exactly as you said. It is not getting resolved quickly because every time Vinod loses (and that's been every time so far) he just baselessly appeals the ruling again and again.
      - harryh 7y ago
        You are exactly backwards in this statement. Vinod keeps winning and then he keeps getting sued again (by a different party or under a different theory).
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        That doesn't appear to be true. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-martins-beach-supreme-court-20180306-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-martins-beach-supr... > The squabble has spurred a spate of lawsuits that now focus on whether Khosla needs state permission to gate off the road — and a string of California courts has said he does. 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... > In a significant victory for coastal access rights in California, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a Silicon Valley billionaire’s appeal to keep a beach to himself. Wiki indicates the same; some early wins, all overturned on appeal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla#Martins_Beach_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla#Martins_Beach_dis...
        harryh 7y ago
        The reporting on this topic (especially headlines) has been generally quite poor. You really have to dig in to understand what is going on. See this cousin comment for details on how he has won on most of the merits: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21974524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21974524
        ceejayoz 7y ago
  - m0llusk 7y ago
    That is the precise opposite of what is happening. Vinod bought a property with certain rights attached. Although the previous owners had allowed some access they had also denied access under some circumstances as well. What Vinod is doing is getting the law to resolve who exactly owns what and has what rights and obligations. If someone had the guts to demand that level of clarification in the past then we would not have this mess now.
- refurb 7y ago
  They could do that, but not without just compensation for the easement. And for that I’m thankful. The last thing you want is the govt to be able to take property by declaration.
rayiner 7y ago
> Public easements to public beaches are quite normal. Except this particular beach happens to be a very abnormal one. This issue was resolved years ago, and Khosla won: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/04/27/martins-beach-appeals-court-hands-khosla-win-and-loss https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/04/27/martins-beach-appeal.... In 2016, the California Court of Appeals held that, because Khosla's property dates from a Mexican land grant, and the state never reserved an easement, there is no public easement on Khosla's property. In 2019, the same court rejected the alternate theory that an easement had been created by the property owner "dedicating the easement to public use." See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-26/billionaire-khosla-wins-ruling-threatening-public-beach-access https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-26/billionai... As you recognize, the "public easement" theory is what applies here. But California lost on that theory. There is no easement here. California has been attempting to keep the beach open using unrelated regulatory powers. (Basically, there is no public easement, but through our powers to regulate what can be built on the beach, we can keep you from building anything to keep the public out.) If it wasn't for the wildly misleading reporting, everyone would recognize this as overreach and abuse by the State.
- atomi 7y ago
  Generally speaking, people want public access to the whole of the California coastline. Any legal findings impeding access are a failing of law.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    What you're describing is not "law." Law is defining rights based on rules everyone agrees to ahead of time. Changing the rules after the fact based on what "people want" isn't law, it's tyranny. California litigated this issue--what rights it has in land subject to the treaty with Mexico--in front of the United States Supreme Court in 1984, and lost. That is "the law."
    - atomi 7y ago
      I don't follow. Are you suggesting laws or treaties are immutable?

freepor 7y ago

Land ownership is a social construct. It's not like ownership over something you make with your hands or your mind, and in the US, all of the land is stolen property anyways so there's no rational claim to any of it. So land ownership is a right afforded by society to society, like any other kind of legal framework, and part of that is limitations. In earlier parts of human history, if you tried to cut off a population's access to a valuable resource like water by claiming land ownership, they'd just come with sharp implements, impale you on them, and take the land back from you. In modern times, we need to accomplish the same end, but with hopefully no bloodshed.

rayiner 7y ago
Yes, land ownership is a social construct, but that's not the issue here. The issue here is that, once the ink has dried on the "social contract," the State cannot change the bargain just because it doesn't like the deal it made. In this case, there is a public trust doctrine, which says that public beaches (up to the high tide line) are dedicated to the use of the public. But the California Court of Appeals has held that this doctrine doesn't apply here, due to an oddity in the history of Khosla's land. It dates from a Mexican land grant: vhttps://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/04/27/martins-beach-appeals-court-hands-khosla-win-and-loss https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/04/27/martins-beach-appeal.... > In a 52-page opinion, the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco upheld the main element of San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Gerald Buchwald’s 2014 decision in Khosla’s favor. The court found the public does not have the right under the California constitution to cross Khosla’s property to reach the shoreline. The California court reached a decision about what the property rights are. The State didn't like the result, so now it's been looking for other ways to do the same thing. Even if you don't like Khosla, you shouldn't be happy about that.
- xenadu02 7y ago
  The state can simply modify the rules to require access, which seems like one possible outcome of this case.
  - rayiner 7y ago

jdblair 7y ago

He doesn't own the beach, and an easement to access public land is a normal, non-controversial thing.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
refurb 7y ago
Not in this case. The land came from a Mexican land grant and pre-dates the State of California. As a part of the settlement of the Mexican-American war, the US has to respect existing land ownership in perpetuity.
- jdblair 7y ago
  Reviewing this history of the legal case, this does seem to be exactly where this case is stuck. The treaty doesn't apply to the beach below mean high tide, but the road does.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]