4 ms·

The case is not about the beach itself. It's about land near the beach through which one can travel to visit it. Is Khosla obligated to provide the public with

The case is not about the beach itself. It's about land near the beach through which one can travel to visit it. Is Khosla obligated to provide the public with access to the beach by crossing his land? Ordinarily this kind of right is represented as an easement on the property, or as a roadway separate from the property, neither of which exist here. The previous owner built a gate on the property, which was open and closed at their whim, posted "no trespassing" signs, and charged for access to the road and beach.

tathougies 7y ago
Yes, you're right. I'm responding to the comment above which states that the case here is akin to forcing homeowners to allow people to picnic on their front lawn. The difference is that homeowners own their lawn, while Khosla does not own the beach. Many homeowners have easements requiring them to maintain sidewalks and allow the public to pass through (I know I certainly do). In this case, I suppose the question is if California's 1979 law implied this easement or not. Either way, it is hardly unprecedented.
- jacobr1 7y ago
  Right, which is why the Supreme Count rightly refused the case. The issue isn't the general principle of beach access easements. The issue is the specifics of whether there actually is an effective easement on this particular property. Frankly, I can't tell from the article or the discussion if there actually is an easement. That fact that irrevocable easements can be created by long-term public use (called adverse possession?) makes this more complicated than it appears. Regardless, the right thing for Kholsa to do is provide access. And further the bad press probably is causing more issues than the few folks that would be accessing it ever would.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > That fact that irrevocable easements can be created by long-term public use (called adverse possession?) makes this more complicated than it appears. “Easement by prescription”.

tathougies 7y ago

Yes, you're right. I'm responding to the comment above which states that the case here is akin to forcing homeowners to allow people to picnic on their front lawn. The difference is that homeowners own their lawn, while Khosla does not own the beach. Many homeowners have easements requiring them to maintain sidewalks and allow the public to pass through (I know I certainly do). In this case, I suppose the question is if California's 1979 law implied this easement or not. Either way, it is hardly unprecedented.

jacobr1 7y ago
Right, which is why the Supreme Count rightly refused the case. The issue isn't the general principle of beach access easements. The issue is the specifics of whether there actually is an effective easement on this particular property. Frankly, I can't tell from the article or the discussion if there actually is an easement. That fact that irrevocable easements can be created by long-term public use (called adverse possession?) makes this more complicated than it appears. Regardless, the right thing for Kholsa to do is provide access. And further the bad press probably is causing more issues than the few folks that would be accessing it ever would.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > That fact that irrevocable easements can be created by long-term public use (called adverse possession?) makes this more complicated than it appears. “Easement by prescription”.