3 ms·

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 pro

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
    Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution contain special protections for private property rights. What you're describing--"requir[ing] access"--is a property right called an "easement." The State cannot "simply modify the rules" to give itself a property right that didn't exist before. There is a constitutional way for the state to acquire a property right against a property owner's will: eminent domain. But that requires "just compensation" (i.e. California will have to pay Khosla for the easement). California is hesitant to do that because it would rather try to bully Khosla into giving up the property for free.
    - freepor 7y ago
      They should eminent domain a teeny narrow strip right across the center of the property, and try to get it assessed as pro rata on acreage. Maybe two very narrow strips in different places for one way traffic in each direction.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        That would be a perfectly reasonable and legal thing to do. But California doesn’t want to set the precedent of having to actually pay for property rights. Ever since Penn Central gutted the Fifth Amendment, states prefer to use regulation to take private property for public use.
      - thaumasiotes 7y ago
        > They should eminent domain a teeny narrow strip right across the center of the property I'm envisioning them doing this while simultaneously denying Khosla's application to subdivide the property along that strip.
  - vageli 7y ago
    If the state wants to modify the rules after the fact, they typically have to provide consideration for that. This plays out all the time with imminent domain. Otherwise this is a plain and simple taking.
- freepor 7y ago
  The very nature of The State is that it can do whatever it wants. The only issue here is that there are incompatible sets of rules that the State is going by, and has to resolve these to proceed.
refurb 7y ago
Yes and laws are social constructs too, and we’ve all agreed that disagreements get settled in a court of law (like this issue), not with sharp instruments.
conanbatt 7y ago
> Land ownership is a social construct It's a legal construct. Just like the country is.

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
  Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution contain special protections for private property rights. What you're describing--"requir[ing] access"--is a property right called an "easement." The State cannot "simply modify the rules" to give itself a property right that didn't exist before. There is a constitutional way for the state to acquire a property right against a property owner's will: eminent domain. But that requires "just compensation" (i.e. California will have to pay Khosla for the easement). California is hesitant to do that because it would rather try to bully Khosla into giving up the property for free.
  - freepor 7y ago
    They should eminent domain a teeny narrow strip right across the center of the property, and try to get it assessed as pro rata on acreage. Maybe two very narrow strips in different places for one way traffic in each direction.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      That would be a perfectly reasonable and legal thing to do. But California doesn’t want to set the precedent of having to actually pay for property rights. Ever since Penn Central gutted the Fifth Amendment, states prefer to use regulation to take private property for public use.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      > They should eminent domain a teeny narrow strip right across the center of the property I'm envisioning them doing this while simultaneously denying Khosla's application to subdivide the property along that strip.
- vageli 7y ago
  If the state wants to modify the rules after the fact, they typically have to provide consideration for that. This plays out all the time with imminent domain. Otherwise this is a plain and simple taking.
freepor 7y ago
The very nature of The State is that it can do whatever it wants. The only issue here is that there are incompatible sets of rules that the State is going by, and has to resolve these to proceed.

refurb 7y ago

Yes and laws are social constructs too, and we’ve all agreed that disagreements get settled in a court of law (like this issue), not with sharp instruments.

conanbatt 7y ago

> Land ownership is a social construct It's a legal construct. Just like the country is.