6 ms·

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/

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?
      - markdown 7y ago
        > So in theory, he could make another access road further down and leave that one open? I'm not sure about the law in the US and California, but in some jurisdictions you can't just move an easement. There was an easement running through his property from the road to a specific point on the beach. He can't just move the ending point of the easement to a different spot on the beach.
    - Pyxl101 7y ago
      The previous owner of the property erected a gate along their private road, posted "no tresspassing signs", charged for access, and opened/closed the gate at their discretion (leaving it closed for months during winter). I don't have a horse in this race, but that doesn't sound like public access any more than an amusement park is public access. Yes, it's my understanding that Khosla owns the entire compound and all of the houses. It's one property and was operated as a business by the former owners, the Deeney family. The previous court case that (SCOTUS declined to hear) was really about whether Khosla needs to apply for a permit for his development work that changes public access to his property. SCOTUS declining to hear the case essentially means that Khosla needs to apply for the permit for these changes -- the implication is that until this happens, the case is not actually ripe for review. If he's unable to obtain the permit, then Khosla may be able to pursue his argument that the state's mandated public access is an unconstitutional "taking" of private property. (IANAL)
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        Thanks for clarifying this. I've read a few articles and for some reason much of these details seem to be spread out in small bits. It seems if he had been more careful with his approach he could have kept the beach clear during winter just like the previous owner did without any legal hassles.
  - option 7y ago
    he placed the gates and guards. The state has fined him for doing so and ordered to restore access. But since he is rich and the fine is small - he did not comply and was just paying the fine and keeps fighting in courts
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      Looking at the map, I see what looks like one decent road to the beach. Couldn't the state just come in and make their own road? Where I live access roads are common on private property, but the are on the borders of the property between private owners. Is he just that petty that he truly doesn't want others to have access to the beach? Or is it more complicated than that?
      - blackhaz 7y ago
        It looks like this person is an asshole.
      - hstreet 7y ago
        I don't have a horse in this race either (from Toronto, couldn't care less), but I am a map nerd. I had the same confusion as RobertRoberts when looking at the street view too. Either I'm vastly underestimating how much property on Martins Beach Rd that Khosla owns, or it's poor journalism with a half explanation of the issue. The 3D map view shows it better. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martin's+Beach/@37.3749952,-122.4103335,171a,35y,67.19h,57.49t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x808f090cb6271353:0x3d9391e735ac292a!8m2!3d37.3736981!4d-122.4083224 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martin's+Beach/@37.3749952... From what I can see, it's either: 1. The stretch of Martins Beach Rd that runs along the beach, or 2. The tiny road above the row of houses that runs parallel to the stretch of Martins Beach Rd that runs along the beach. I don't know how it would be 1, as Martins Beach Rd would be a government funded and managed road. According to the map though, both roads are named the same. Somehow I doubt this though, and one of these roads is private, the other is the real Martins Beach Rd. However, it still doesn't answer why Khosla would be able to close a whole private road when there's what looks like 22 properties on the upper Martins Beach Rd, and 13 properties on the lower Martins Beach Rd - does he own all of them? Really confusing!
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
eitally 7y ago
You can make a long walk to the beach from Rt1 if you park roadside at the top. If you don't want to do that, you can pay $10-20 for private parking in a small lot about halfway down to the beach. The parking lot only holds perhaps 15-20 vehicles, so capacity at the beach is already tightly constrained.
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  I read some articles on this, but something still isn't clear. Is he being sued to keep a parking lot open? I can understand blocking access to the beach being illegal, but being forced to run a private enterprise seems odd...
  - plussed_reader 7y ago
    To preserve public access to the coast.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    He locked the gate at the entrance. He doesn't have to allow parking, but he has to allow people to get to the beach somehow. His argument seems to be that he HAS to maintain the beach and parking lot, which he doesn't want to do because it loses money.. but I am not sure where that idea comes from. He could just close the parking lot and leave the road open. I am not sure about the liability concerns.
    - markdown 7y ago
      > I am not sure about the liability concerns. There shouldn't be any liability concerns related to the use of a public easement.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        He's rich. Someone will find an excuse to sue him, public easement or not. (Not saying they'll win, but they will sue.) I actually not on Khosla's side of this issue, but in the current lawsuit-as-lottery-ticket climate, liability concerns are in fact a reasonable issue.
choppaface 7y ago
There is a gate you can see in Street View. The contention started when Khosla started locking the gate and had security arrest surfers who jumped it. Edit: here's a timeline: https://www.surfrider.org/pages/timeline-open-martins-beach https://www.surfrider.org/pages/timeline-open-martins-beach
- mindslight 7y ago
  If this is a public right of way, then doesn't it take just a single surfer to come along and improve the right of way by clearing obstructions? A cordless sawzall is like $100, and bolt cutters are much less. They'd likely end up receiving a SLAPP by Khosla, but surely there would be some judgement-proof surfer willing to shoulder the long tail risk, and plenty of people willing to pay for the legal defense.
  - bananabreakfast 7y ago
    Some surfers did that and then were arrested and put in jail by Khosla. Those people willing to pay legal defense are called the Surfrider Foundation and they're the people that keep suing Khosla to open up the beach. It's been quite an ordeal.
    - refurb 7y ago
      Khosla put them in jail? I assume you mean the police did?
      - slenk 7y ago
        The police, who I am sure this Vinod guy donates to/has in their pocket. Don't trust anyone when it comes to people with "fuck you" money.
        cdfky 7y ago
        While I would say you shouldn't fully trust some people, coming up with wild conspiracy theories don't help. Not trusting people with money (regardless if it's a lot) says something about society in general. People should understand that even amongst the rich, people are very different and diverse despite being in the same socioeconomic class.
bananabreakfast 7y ago
There are no home owners. Vinod owns literally all of those houses and their land.
- leoh 7y ago
  Really? Can you back that up?
  - shhshahassa 7y ago
    It's easily google-able.

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?
    - markdown 7y ago
      > So in theory, he could make another access road further down and leave that one open? I'm not sure about the law in the US and California, but in some jurisdictions you can't just move an easement. There was an easement running through his property from the road to a specific point on the beach. He can't just move the ending point of the easement to a different spot on the beach.
  - Pyxl101 7y ago
    The previous owner of the property erected a gate along their private road, posted "no tresspassing signs", charged for access, and opened/closed the gate at their discretion (leaving it closed for months during winter). I don't have a horse in this race, but that doesn't sound like public access any more than an amusement park is public access. Yes, it's my understanding that Khosla owns the entire compound and all of the houses. It's one property and was operated as a business by the former owners, the Deeney family. The previous court case that (SCOTUS declined to hear) was really about whether Khosla needs to apply for a permit for his development work that changes public access to his property. SCOTUS declining to hear the case essentially means that Khosla needs to apply for the permit for these changes -- the implication is that until this happens, the case is not actually ripe for review. If he's unable to obtain the permit, then Khosla may be able to pursue his argument that the state's mandated public access is an unconstitutional "taking" of private property. (IANAL)
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      Thanks for clarifying this. I've read a few articles and for some reason much of these details seem to be spread out in small bits. It seems if he had been more careful with his approach he could have kept the beach clear during winter just like the previous owner did without any legal hassles.
- option 7y ago
  he placed the gates and guards. The state has fined him for doing so and ordered to restore access. But since he is rich and the fine is small - he did not comply and was just paying the fine and keeps fighting in courts
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    Looking at the map, I see what looks like one decent road to the beach. Couldn't the state just come in and make their own road? Where I live access roads are common on private property, but the are on the borders of the property between private owners. Is he just that petty that he truly doesn't want others to have access to the beach? Or is it more complicated than that?
    - blackhaz 7y ago
      It looks like this person is an asshole.
    - hstreet 7y ago
      I don't have a horse in this race either (from Toronto, couldn't care less), but I am a map nerd. I had the same confusion as RobertRoberts when looking at the street view too. Either I'm vastly underestimating how much property on Martins Beach Rd that Khosla owns, or it's poor journalism with a half explanation of the issue. The 3D map view shows it better. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martin's+Beach/@37.3749952,-122.4103335,171a,35y,67.19h,57.49t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x808f090cb6271353:0x3d9391e735ac292a!8m2!3d37.3736981!4d-122.4083224 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martin's+Beach/@37.3749952... From what I can see, it's either: 1. The stretch of Martins Beach Rd that runs along the beach, or 2. The tiny road above the row of houses that runs parallel to the stretch of Martins Beach Rd that runs along the beach. I don't know how it would be 1, as Martins Beach Rd would be a government funded and managed road. According to the map though, both roads are named the same. Somehow I doubt this though, and one of these roads is private, the other is the real Martins Beach Rd. However, it still doesn't answer why Khosla would be able to close a whole private road when there's what looks like 22 properties on the upper Martins Beach Rd, and 13 properties on the lower Martins Beach Rd - does he own all of them? Really confusing!
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

eitally 7y ago

You can make a long walk to the beach from Rt1 if you park roadside at the top. If you don't want to do that, you can pay $10-20 for private parking in a small lot about halfway down to the beach. The parking lot only holds perhaps 15-20 vehicles, so capacity at the beach is already tightly constrained.

RobertRoberts 7y ago
I read some articles on this, but something still isn't clear. Is he being sued to keep a parking lot open? I can understand blocking access to the beach being illegal, but being forced to run a private enterprise seems odd...
- plussed_reader 7y ago
  To preserve public access to the coast.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  He locked the gate at the entrance. He doesn't have to allow parking, but he has to allow people to get to the beach somehow. His argument seems to be that he HAS to maintain the beach and parking lot, which he doesn't want to do because it loses money.. but I am not sure where that idea comes from. He could just close the parking lot and leave the road open. I am not sure about the liability concerns.
  - markdown 7y ago
    > I am not sure about the liability concerns. There shouldn't be any liability concerns related to the use of a public easement.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      He's rich. Someone will find an excuse to sue him, public easement or not. (Not saying they'll win, but they will sue.) I actually not on Khosla's side of this issue, but in the current lawsuit-as-lottery-ticket climate, liability concerns are in fact a reasonable issue.

choppaface 7y ago

There is a gate you can see in Street View. The contention started when Khosla started locking the gate and had security arrest surfers who jumped it. Edit: here's a timeline: https://www.surfrider.org/pages/timeline-open-martins-beach https://www.surfrider.org/pages/timeline-open-martins-beach

mindslight 7y ago
If this is a public right of way, then doesn't it take just a single surfer to come along and improve the right of way by clearing obstructions? A cordless sawzall is like $100, and bolt cutters are much less. They'd likely end up receiving a SLAPP by Khosla, but surely there would be some judgement-proof surfer willing to shoulder the long tail risk, and plenty of people willing to pay for the legal defense.
- bananabreakfast 7y ago
  Some surfers did that and then were arrested and put in jail by Khosla. Those people willing to pay legal defense are called the Surfrider Foundation and they're the people that keep suing Khosla to open up the beach. It's been quite an ordeal.
  - refurb 7y ago
    Khosla put them in jail? I assume you mean the police did?
    - slenk 7y ago
      The police, who I am sure this Vinod guy donates to/has in their pocket. Don't trust anyone when it comes to people with "fuck you" money.
      - cdfky 7y ago
        While I would say you shouldn't fully trust some people, coming up with wild conspiracy theories don't help. Not trusting people with money (regardless if it's a lot) says something about society in general. People should understand that even amongst the rich, people are very different and diverse despite being in the same socioeconomic class.

bananabreakfast 7y ago

There are no home owners. Vinod owns literally all of those houses and their land.

leoh 7y ago
Really? Can you back that up?
- shhshahassa 7y ago
  It's easily google-able.