4 ms·

Vinod Khosla wins key Martins Beach battle

30 points by john_w_t_b 13y ago

_delirium 13y ago
Weird, seems to be a kind of "squatter's rights" for rich people applied here. It's illegal to exclusively possess a public beach by impeding all access to it, but the courts rule that since it was done for many years, it is legal in this case.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  Not exactly, the court ruled that the land grant rights that Alviso got from the Mexican Government before California existed as a state, "extinguished" the right of California to change the rules. It will be interesting to watch on appeal. The reason you would rule that way is because California can't simply go in and change your property rights, at least not without compensating you and using eminent domain. That has been established for a long time. So for the same reason they cannot just decide to give access to the minerals under your house to Chevron. So it isn't "squatters rights" at all, rather it is property holder rights. If this is upheld it could have some interesting repercussions on water rights in the Central Valley if I remember, some of those were parts of Mexican land grants as well.
  - ggchappell 13y ago
    I don't see why the reasoning didn't go like the following. California law requires the property owner to give up rights. The eminent-domain laws require the state to compensate property owners when forcing them to give up rights. Conclusion: The property owner must allow beach access to the public, and the state must pay the property owner for allowing this. EDIT: The comment by gojomo would seem to explain this.
    - ChuckMcM 13y ago
      Yup, the question is whether or not the treaty trumps California law otherwise it would have worked exactly that way. I like the idea of working out a 'patch' to the treaty, although I don't think I've heard of that ever happening in practice, new treaties yes, but patching an old one not so much.
    - ballard 13y ago
      Adverse possession may be used to force an easement on the grounds that the access road was itself de-facto public. If not an easement maybe forced in any case.
  - sedev 13y ago
    > If this is upheld it could have some interesting repercussions on water rights in the Central Valley > if I remember, some of those were parts of Mexican land grants as well. That's both news to me and a wincing moment of "wow, California politics really do come down to water issues 90% of the time".
    - jfb 13y ago
      I remember telling a friend's kid, in ~2000, that if she really wanted a totally secure future, that she should quit computer programming and become a riparian lawyer. I maintain that this is still the best advice I've ever given.
      - alabut 13y ago
        It absolutely is. I took a California Government class in college that blew my mind about how much of bipartisan political scheming is about water, to this day, because there's so much money in it. His oft repeated quote was "when politicians agree on something and it stays out of the news, it's usually not in the public interest". People like to make fun of Las Vegas as a city that wouldn't exist without imported water but most of So Cal wouldn't either. The bad guy in the film Chinatown is loosely based on William Mulholland, the chief engineer for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars
- gojomo 13y ago
  I think it's more subtle than that, deriving not from a tradition of possession but rather an international treaty that predates California as a state. If the US promised, in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, to honor in perpetuity the property grants of Mexico in the conquered/ceded territories, maybe that promise still applies. And if the Supreme Court already ruled (in 1859!) that California law can't alter those rights, just as state law is limited in other international and interstate affairs... well, it's an interesting case. Would love to see Volokh Conspiracy or Popehat discuss it. Khosla may yet want to cede this claim, even if it's legally legitimate, to not appear like a robber baron buying up eccentric anti-democratic privileges that were created by ancient wars. Update: And another thought... maybe if the US and California now view the coast – and the water-rights angle that ChuckMcM mentions – as requiring a new approach, they can negotiate a treaty-patch with Mexico? :)
  - pyoung 13y ago
    So this whole ordeal is pretty confusing. State law says that the public is allowed access to the coast below the median high tide line, but it does not necessarily give you the right to cross through private land. So technically, you could boat or swim over to Martins Beach and you wouldn't be trespassing. However because the previous owner allowed public access (for a small fee), I guess he set some precedent to access which is covered by state law (although apparently treaties with Mexico supercede that). To make things even weirder, there are a bunch of cottages/houses on the property that are being leased to occupants (this was done by the previous owner). From what I understand, they have a few more years on those leases before they can be evicted (I am very rough on these details). So if you know someone in those units, they can hook you up with access to the beach (I think). Bascially, it's a crappy situation for everyone. I get that Khosla wants some private beach front property to dump his money into. And really, the previous owner should have set up an easement (easements are the primary reason Malibu is still publicly accessible), although he probably would have got a much lower sales price. And of course, if Khosla gets his way, the public will be getting screwed over pretty bad. With the growing population, beach/coastal access is getting harder and harder (try going to the beach on a warm, sunny weekend, it can be a parking/traffic nightmare). Reducing the number of coastal access points is just going to make things worse, and it is going to continue to have an impact on the next generation of Californians.
smutticus 13y ago
Regardless of what the law says, we shouldn't forget that this is assholish behavior. And Vinod Khosla should be ashamed of himself. Not that he cares or that I'm trying to incite anything. It's just important that we not forget this important point.
- einarvollset 13y ago
  Yupp. Relevant: http://www.surfrider.org/campaigns/entry/open-martins-beach http://www.surfrider.org/campaigns/entry/open-martins-beach
arepb 13y ago
It's clear Vinod Khosla really cares about the environment.
auctiontheory 13y ago
Wouldn't it be great if all of us could choose (only when it suited us) to live our lives according to mid-19th century laws.
sashagim 13y ago
This quote from Wikipedia describes it as a particularly bully like behavior. "Martin's Beach was previously a popular family beach and surf spot before Khosla purchased the property adjacent to the beach and blocked access." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla

30 points by john_w_t_b 13y ago

Weird, seems to be a kind of "squatter's rights" for rich people applied here. It's illegal to exclusively possess a public beach by impeding all access to it, but the courts rule that since it was done for many years, it is legal in this case.

ChuckMcM 13y ago
Not exactly, the court ruled that the land grant rights that Alviso got from the Mexican Government before California existed as a state, "extinguished" the right of California to change the rules. It will be interesting to watch on appeal. The reason you would rule that way is because California can't simply go in and change your property rights, at least not without compensating you and using eminent domain. That has been established for a long time. So for the same reason they cannot just decide to give access to the minerals under your house to Chevron. So it isn't "squatters rights" at all, rather it is property holder rights. If this is upheld it could have some interesting repercussions on water rights in the Central Valley if I remember, some of those were parts of Mexican land grants as well.
- ggchappell 13y ago
  I don't see why the reasoning didn't go like the following. California law requires the property owner to give up rights. The eminent-domain laws require the state to compensate property owners when forcing them to give up rights. Conclusion: The property owner must allow beach access to the public, and the state must pay the property owner for allowing this. EDIT: The comment by gojomo would seem to explain this.
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    Yup, the question is whether or not the treaty trumps California law otherwise it would have worked exactly that way. I like the idea of working out a 'patch' to the treaty, although I don't think I've heard of that ever happening in practice, new treaties yes, but patching an old one not so much.
  - ballard 13y ago
    Adverse possession may be used to force an easement on the grounds that the access road was itself de-facto public. If not an easement maybe forced in any case.
- sedev 13y ago
  > If this is upheld it could have some interesting repercussions on water rights in the Central Valley > if I remember, some of those were parts of Mexican land grants as well. That's both news to me and a wincing moment of "wow, California politics really do come down to water issues 90% of the time".
  - jfb 13y ago
    I remember telling a friend's kid, in ~2000, that if she really wanted a totally secure future, that she should quit computer programming and become a riparian lawyer. I maintain that this is still the best advice I've ever given.
    - alabut 13y ago
      It absolutely is. I took a California Government class in college that blew my mind about how much of bipartisan political scheming is about water, to this day, because there's so much money in it. His oft repeated quote was "when politicians agree on something and it stays out of the news, it's usually not in the public interest". People like to make fun of Las Vegas as a city that wouldn't exist without imported water but most of So Cal wouldn't either. The bad guy in the film Chinatown is loosely based on William Mulholland, the chief engineer for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars
gojomo 13y ago
I think it's more subtle than that, deriving not from a tradition of possession but rather an international treaty that predates California as a state. If the US promised, in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, to honor in perpetuity the property grants of Mexico in the conquered/ceded territories, maybe that promise still applies. And if the Supreme Court already ruled (in 1859!) that California law can't alter those rights, just as state law is limited in other international and interstate affairs... well, it's an interesting case. Would love to see Volokh Conspiracy or Popehat discuss it. Khosla may yet want to cede this claim, even if it's legally legitimate, to not appear like a robber baron buying up eccentric anti-democratic privileges that were created by ancient wars. Update: And another thought... maybe if the US and California now view the coast – and the water-rights angle that ChuckMcM mentions – as requiring a new approach, they can negotiate a treaty-patch with Mexico? :)
- pyoung 13y ago
  So this whole ordeal is pretty confusing. State law says that the public is allowed access to the coast below the median high tide line, but it does not necessarily give you the right to cross through private land. So technically, you could boat or swim over to Martins Beach and you wouldn't be trespassing. However because the previous owner allowed public access (for a small fee), I guess he set some precedent to access which is covered by state law (although apparently treaties with Mexico supercede that). To make things even weirder, there are a bunch of cottages/houses on the property that are being leased to occupants (this was done by the previous owner). From what I understand, they have a few more years on those leases before they can be evicted (I am very rough on these details). So if you know someone in those units, they can hook you up with access to the beach (I think). Bascially, it's a crappy situation for everyone. I get that Khosla wants some private beach front property to dump his money into. And really, the previous owner should have set up an easement (easements are the primary reason Malibu is still publicly accessible), although he probably would have got a much lower sales price. And of course, if Khosla gets his way, the public will be getting screwed over pretty bad. With the growing population, beach/coastal access is getting harder and harder (try going to the beach on a warm, sunny weekend, it can be a parking/traffic nightmare). Reducing the number of coastal access points is just going to make things worse, and it is going to continue to have an impact on the next generation of Californians.

smutticus 13y ago

Regardless of what the law says, we shouldn't forget that this is assholish behavior. And Vinod Khosla should be ashamed of himself. Not that he cares or that I'm trying to incite anything. It's just important that we not forget this important point.

einarvollset 13y ago
Yupp. Relevant: http://www.surfrider.org/campaigns/entry/open-martins-beach http://www.surfrider.org/campaigns/entry/open-martins-beach

arepb 13y ago

It's clear Vinod Khosla really cares about the environment.

auctiontheory 13y ago

Wouldn't it be great if all of us could choose (only when it suited us) to live our lives according to mid-19th century laws.

sashagim 13y ago

This quote from Wikipedia describes it as a particularly bully like behavior. "Martin's Beach was previously a popular family beach and surf spot before Khosla purchased the property adjacent to the beach and blocked access." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla