3 ms·

I would agree that it is uncomfortable to watch but what the law "wants" is pretty clear, and Khosla has lost at pretty much every turn. Now the state is suing

I would agree that it is uncomfortable to watch but what the law "wants" is pretty clear, and Khosla has lost at pretty much every turn. Now the state is suing to create sanctions on him if he fails to abide by previous decisions to make the beach accessible. Rather than be infuriated, be comforted in the fact that in spite of all his money he has been unable to overturn this law. He has made a lot of lawyers rich doing it, and will have paid a chunk of San Mateo's superior court's budget this year in fees. And he still lost. Now the state and coastal commission are getting a court order so that they can start fining him without the need to go to court. Think of it as a really really regressive tax on a rich land owner. Let's say he writes it off as the cost of doing business and just keeps paying fines. Well I could single handedly double the budget that the coastal commission has available for keeping beach access open. That's a lot of resources.

xyzzyz 7y ago
> Khosla has lost at pretty much every turn. What do you mean? He won at every turn. The courts have ruled that there's no easement, and that the public have no access to the water through his property. https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2193&context=elq https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
- ChuckMcM 7y ago
  This article in the times (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...) which discusses that the Supreme Court left the previous ruling of access intact sounded like a win for the Costal commission.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    I guess you could call it a win: it required Khosla to keep the road open until he gets a fencing permit. Khosla took it to court on principle, since he believed that such injunction is already takings: indeed, since the courts affirmed that public does not have access to his property through the road, stopping him from blocking such access issues illegal. Since he has every right to get such a fencing permit (as there is no easement, right of way or any other public access through his property where he wants to fence it), in a perfect world he’d simply apply for such permit and promptly get it. In reality though, it is highly likely that the state of California will try to use the fence permitting rights it has to stop him from exercising his property rights, which is exactly what Khosla tried to ensure cannot happen in his Supreme Court petition.

xyzzyz 7y ago

> Khosla has lost at pretty much every turn. What do you mean? He won at every turn. The courts have ruled that there's no easement, and that the public have no access to the water through his property. https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2193&context=elq https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...

ChuckMcM 7y ago
This article in the times (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...) which discusses that the Supreme Court left the previous ruling of access intact sounded like a win for the Costal commission.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  I guess you could call it a win: it required Khosla to keep the road open until he gets a fencing permit. Khosla took it to court on principle, since he believed that such injunction is already takings: indeed, since the courts affirmed that public does not have access to his property through the road, stopping him from blocking such access issues illegal. Since he has every right to get such a fencing permit (as there is no easement, right of way or any other public access through his property where he wants to fence it), in a perfect world he’d simply apply for such permit and promptly get it. In reality though, it is highly likely that the state of California will try to use the fence permitting rights it has to stop him from exercising his property rights, which is exactly what Khosla tried to ensure cannot happen in his Supreme Court petition.