5 ms·

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

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
        Winning on most of the merits doesn't really matter if you still lose on one of them.
        harryh 7y ago
        Courts have so far ruled that, for various reasons, the 1976 California Coastal Act doesn't apply at all to this piece of land. They have also ruled that the previous use of the land didn't create any sort of government easement over the property. I'm not sure what else really matters here?
  - 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?

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
        Winning on most of the merits doesn't really matter if you still lose on one of them.
        harryh 7y ago
        Courts have so far ruled that, for various reasons, the 1976 California Coastal Act doesn't apply at all to this piece of land. They have also ruled that the previous use of the land didn't create any sort of government easement over the property. I'm not sure what else really matters here?
- 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?