3 ms·

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).

by harryh 7y ago

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?
    - rayiner 7y ago
      That's only true if you're talking about different arguments for the same issue. Here, there are multiple issues: (1) does Khosla need a permit; and (2) does the public have an easement across his land? It's worth reading Surfrider Foundation's opposition to Khosla's Supreme Court certiorari petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1198/50086/20180613142143057_SCt%20BIO--Surfrider%20FINAL.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1198/50086/2018.... Their #1 argument was that the Supreme Court shouldn't take this case now because Khosla hasn't even applied for a permit. (He was just fighting an injunction that keeps him from closing the road until he gets a permit.) But eventually, the State will have to deny Khosla the permit, and justify doing so. It will be very hard for the State to say "we are going to keep you from building a fence to close this road," while simultaneously acknowledging "the public doesn't actually have a right to use this road." If the State uses its permitting power to effectively give itself an easement that doesn't otherwise exist, that will tee up the takings argument that was only theoretical in the Supreme Court petition. And I like Khosla's odds on prevailing on that argument.

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).

by 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?
  - rayiner 7y ago
    That's only true if you're talking about different arguments for the same issue. Here, there are multiple issues: (1) does Khosla need a permit; and (2) does the public have an easement across his land? It's worth reading Surfrider Foundation's opposition to Khosla's Supreme Court certiorari petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1198/50086/20180613142143057_SCt%20BIO--Surfrider%20FINAL.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1198/50086/2018.... Their #1 argument was that the Supreme Court shouldn't take this case now because Khosla hasn't even applied for a permit. (He was just fighting an injunction that keeps him from closing the road until he gets a permit.) But eventually, the State will have to deny Khosla the permit, and justify doing so. It will be very hard for the State to say "we are going to keep you from building a fence to close this road," while simultaneously acknowledging "the public doesn't actually have a right to use this road." If the State uses its permitting power to effectively give itself an easement that doesn't otherwise exist, that will tee up the takings argument that was only theoretical in the Supreme Court petition. And I like Khosla's odds on prevailing on that argument.