3 ms·

Until today, Khosla wasn't fighting the State.

• rayiner 7y ago
  You're correct that Friends of Martins Beach is technically the plaintiff in the two earlier Court of Appeals cases, but the issue in those cases is the State of California's property rights in Khosla's property. The Coastal Commission continued to press ahead with its regulatory efforts despite two appeals court rulings saying it didn't have a public easement as to Khosla's property.
  • CalChris 7y ago
    Not the State of California's property rights, the public rights. https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF
    • rayiner 7y ago
      No, it's California's rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine > The public trust doctrine is the principle that the sovereign holds in trust for public use some resources such as shoreline between the high and low tide lines, regardless of private property ownership California - the sovereign - holds the property rights. It must use the property rights for the benefit of the public, but like any other trustee it is the legal owner of the property and what is to the public "benefit" is substantially within its discretion.
      • CalChris 7y ago
        I was quoting public rights from the opinion I cited. The property rights that decision mentioned were private. The court didn’t contrast private vs state but rather private vs public.
      • m463 7y ago
        I think this is about the easement, not the beach.