3 ms·

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 acces

by 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]

by option 7y ago

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]