12 ms·
Vinod Khosla Wants Californians To Keep Out of Martins Beach
- augustocallejas 13y agoCalifornia should have adopted public access rights like Hawaii a long time ago. For example, from http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/public-access-rights http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/public-access-rights: Q: How should the public access beaches and shorelines that are blocked by houses? A: If private homeowners are obstructing existing public rights-of-way to the shoreline, HRS § 115-9 provides a remedy and up to a $2000 penalty for that kind of situation.
- rosser 13y agoBecause a $2000 fine is totally going to deter a billionaire.
- rdl 13y agoSomething like how California does prop 65 warnings would be awesome; 50% of an $x000 fine for each violation reported by each person, per day. I'd be happy to spend an hour or two every morning racking up a new violation (and swimming), and I'm sure busloads of poor people could do the same.
- smnrchrds 13y agoI think the important part is the remedy.
- crusty 13y agoI lived on the island of Hawaii for years and around the western side of the southern tip, there's a large area of lava fields, with sparse development and larger land-holders, presumably speculating that hotels will eventually want to buy big tracts of coastal property. There are still a number of beautiful, mostly deserted beaches along that coast and great fishing spots, accessible only by boat or across rough ground-down lava tracts. Property owners would put up large iron gates blocking the paths every once in a while, and without fail, a few days later you'd drive down the path past the gate flung off to the side after someone brought down an Oxy-fuel setup and just cut it to pieces. It is well understood, ocean access is primary, no one will wait for court battles and fines to mount. Just cut it down and get to the ocean. Whether it's NJ towns that charge a fee to even be on the beach or states that allow exclusive ownership or allow owners to block public access, there's nothing by the people, for the people in any of it. It's a stain on our notion of a democratic-self. If a regulation exists that's clearly against the interest of 99+% of the people, then there's clearly something inherently wrong with the system that allows it. bonus - one of my favourites: http://goo.gl/maps/wqe8t http://goo.gl/maps/wqe8t
- pbreit 13y agoWith only a couple of very narrow exceptions (Malibu, Stinson), California beaches are indeed publicly accessible by law (which is the main point of this situation).
- girvo 13y agoI truly don't understand how this can be an okay state of affairs... Beaches, at least here in Australia (and at least where I live in south east Queensland) are public. Even though yeah there are millionaires that own beautiful properties on the beaches here on the Gold Coast, we all get to use them, and access them via paths that the city council own. Can someone explain how blocking off access to a beach works here? Is it because the access paths are privately owned?
- techsupporter 13y agoIt isn't an OK state of affairs. The gentleman is apparently breaking the law but the only remedy within the law is through the state agency that is preparing to sue him.
- masklinn 13y agoIt looks like he's not technically breaking the law: the beach remains public, the issue is gaining access to it, which there's apparently no public mandate for (the article notes that previous owners of the property charged a small fee to go through).
- joonix 13y agoThe government should be able to sue to get an easement to the beach. Easements are not a new or exotic thing by any meabs.
- toomuchtodo 13y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
- a3n 13y agoReal estate law varies from place to place. It's common to require that a blocking property allow access to the blocked property (an easement). This guy's property seems to be blocking access to public property. Lawyers will huddle, and I'm guessing in the end that people will again have access to public property.
- stefan_kendall 13y agoIt's his property. And the state is threatening to reject his development permits if he doesn't cave to their will. Fuck the city government. I hope he can keep his private land private.
- refurb 13y agoI'm going to guess that if this goes to court, it will be decided in favor of the public. If California has a law stating beaches are public land, it doesn't really make much sense if someone else is allow to prevent you from accessing it. It's sort of like saying you have "freedom of speech", but then banning all forms of communication.
- kevinchen 13y agoBingo, you are correct. Beaches are public property in CA, although apparently there is nothing preventing people from hiding the entrances or putting up "Private Property: Beware of Dogs" signs.
- yapcguy 13y agoI remember reading this story a few years ago, maybe two or three. Why hasn't this gone to court already?
- aliston 13y agoDid you read the story? -- it went to court and Khosla won. Apparently the land rights stem from the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which predates California statehood, therefore the CA Constitution doesn't apply.
- yapcguy 13y agoYes just skimmed it again. Maybe I missed a reference but I can't see it. I did read the MercuryNews link posted elsewhere, interesting stuff, but my conclusion is still the same: Vinod Khosla is being a real jerk here.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ballard 13y agoIt depends on how much $upport Vinod gives to reelection campaign$ vs. public vocality. If there's enough sustained outrage, it could force their hand or at least slap it in the direction of honesty.
- marquis 13y agoA phone app helps the public find access further south in Malibu. http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201308091630/b http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201308091630/b
- adamnemecek 13y agoMaybe he does not want to be disturbed while sunbathing on the beach so that he can really enjoy the Sun.
- ktsmith 13y agoI would hope (though I'm probably wrong) that people would know his history with Sun.
- caseyf7 13y agoThis is a very interesting and complicated case. The judge's ruling skirts the fundamental conflict between the rights of private property owners and the rights of Californians to access the shoreline. Instead, Judge Buchwald rooted his decision in the land's history during the mid-19th century. Since there was no public easement attached to the property at the time the United States acquired California from Mexico, the judge reasoned, the question of whether the California Constitution now guarantees access to the beach is immaterial. The original owner of the property was Jose Maria Alviso, who received a provisional land grant from the Mexican government in the late 1830s. He later transferred the property to his brother, Jose Antonio Alviso, whose rights to the property were upheld under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War. The U.S. government challenged Alviso's land patent, but the Supreme Court confirmed Alviso's ownership in 1859. All that complicated history led Buchwald to a basic conclusion: The nation's high court exempted this property from the full reach of California law. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24380282/vinod-khosla-wins-key-martins-beach-battle http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24380282/vinod-k...
- aliston 13y agoIf you read on, the situation is actually even more complicated than just this part of the explanation. Yes, the state Constitution guarantees access, but what can the state really do if someone rightfully owns property blocking access that doesn't contain an easement? It sounds to me like the typical course of action is that the costal commission won't issue permits for any modifications without strings attached (i.e. an easement). So, Khosla may be able to hang on to his land with no easement, but he won't be able to do anything with it, close the road, or build on it without negotiating with the CC. There is a second lawsuit pending regarding the closure of the road that may make more headway on this basis.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Shinkei 13y agoI think this is the smartest solution. It would be a pyrrhic victory if he continues on this course. Not to mention, he could cause a higher court ruling that he doesn't want.
- boomzilla 13y ago'The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed.' --Mahatma Gandhi
- potch 13y agoSounds like a great spot to set up a hacker commune!
- prawn 13y agoDrag the Google barge there.
- cromwellian 13y agoI think Vinod's kinda being a douche here. All of the positive street cred he is getting for his promotion of green energy is being lost to this fight. I mean, is it worth having the private beach? Why not keep it open to the public, upgrade the access, and actually reap some positive PR from this? This is the kind of stuff protesters hate about rich techies. Apparently, this beach was historically used for a long time to teach surfing by local surf schools. A guy swoops in, who probably will rarely use this beach/vacation home, buys up the land, and closes off access. Attempts to "hack" the legal system through a loophole to achieve an exception to the state wide public beach system. If he had been appreciative of the history of the beach and local surfers, he could have actually got some benefit out of it, maybe built some local facilities people would pay to use, add some exhibits on Khosla investments, etc. It would have generated positive press and positive externalities instead of negative press and negative externalities. I like Vinod, but this just comes off as being a rich jerk.
- jmspring 13y agoIn this case, using old Spanish/Mexican land grants/law to get around historical community access makes Vinod a giant douche. The approach to being above the community and it's history is a prime example fueling frustration amongst many against the riches Silicon Valley has helped fuel. I had hoped he would be above being an ass, understanding community, history, and honoring the way things were. Nope, hiding behind a holding company? Par for the course it seems. Edit: At least Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs were up front with changes they wanted to make with historic properties - constructive or not.
- Crito 13y ago> "I mean, is it worth having the private beach?" Honestly, if I was given the option of appearing to be a massive dick to the general public in exchange for a private beach, I'd probably take it.
- cromwellian 13y agoWould you really have a relaxing stay on your beach with protesters chanting from nearby and blockading roads near your house?
- __pThrow 13y agoI have to say, this puts Vinod Khosla markedly ahead of Tom Perkins.
- CurtMonash 13y agoVinod is a very, very hardball negotiator. Having taken money from him myself, I advise that nobody else ever do so.
- rdl 13y agoStory time? I've heard that he's "incredibly cheap" (i.e. valuation sensitive), but haven't heard anything particularly negative other than that. If you're going to make a non-specific accusation, why not be more specific?
- CurtMonash 13y agoAs noted in my add-on post above, that's part of it.
- almosnow 13y agoyeah dude, story time
- sandGorgon 13y agowhy - was it the terms or (as I have more commonly heard), him "helping" the founders to manage the company?
- CurtMonash 13y agoAs noted in my add-on post above, that's part of it.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- gesman 13y agoNever put yourself in position asking for money from hardballs. Build yourself in a position for others to come to you for money (exclusing IRS :) )
- CurtMonash 13y agoIt looks like some explanation is in order. :) 1. I founded a company called Evernet in the 1980s, funded by Kleiner Perkins and others. Vinod negotiated against at least one founder, me, hard. Then KP made sad but traditional VC errors along the lines of changing the company's strategy from a good idea to a bad one, bringing in the wrong operating management and all that. 2. So I tracked news and anecdotes. Vinod prided himself on being a tough negotiator on behalf of his portfolio companies. But various other stories of negotiating hard against entrepreneurs were out there. I should clarify that in the 1980s, even more than recently, there was a general screw-the-founder philosophy among VCs. I once asked a popular and likeable VC what some rules of thumb were for equity splits. After some back and forth, the VC said "You don't get it, Curt -- it's whatever we can get away with." But Vinod seemed like a particularly tough exemplar of the trend. 3. I advise 20-30+ tech companies at a time. Most are VC-backed startups. Khosla is the 2nd-worst target of negative VC anecdotes I hear, details of which must however remain confidential.
- gdg92989 13y agoAs a bay area tech worker I'm hurt twice by this. First I'm robbed of access to a beautiful beach and second my standing in the community is tarnished further. With leaders like Perkins and Khosla I can hardly blame bay area natives for thinking we're all entitled and out of touch. The worst part is we have to take the brunt of the rage while we get on the bus to make more money for these people.
- ballard 13y agoHave you seen what happens when holiday food drive barrels are brought front-and-center to techie venues? Basically empty. Go to any Midwestern state whether an office or a supermarket, and these same barrels are most often overflowing. The generosity and consideration of the less fortunate should shame and humble more people than it does.
- throwaway092834 13y agoI can't speak for other techies but I will never buy canned food for food drives. It's one of the least efficient ways to donate. Instead I write a check which helps far, far more. Here's an article on the subject: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/12/food_drives_charities_need_your_money_not_your_random_old_food_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/12/food... An overflowing food barrel represents very little in value, compared to the large cash donations made by wealthy techies. Cash donations are buying entire warehouses of food that you just aren't seeing.
- techsupporter 13y agoUnderstood and agreed with, but you know as well as I do that advertising matters. You said it yourself, people "just aren't seeing" the entire warehouses of food. Empty donation bin means a snap judgement to "heartless." According to the weekly Kroger ad for their store in north Fort Worth (Texas), a can of Simply Organic beans (very tasty beans, I should add) is $1 with a Kroger card; the same goes for a can of Hormel chili (no beans in chili, please). My back-of-the-mousepad calculations say that approximately 37 regular cans will fit in a 55-gallon drum, the kind usually used for these food drives. That means that, in a regular 8-story office building with two deposit locations per floor, filling all of them to the brim will cost $592. If you go the other way and just put three cans in the areas visible to the public, that's $111 to make a small but visible impact. Yep, it's advertising and showmanship, but that food also does go to people who will actually use it, so it has the benefit of doing a little bit of good, unlike most advertising.
- tn13 13y agoBeaches have to be public in almost all countries. It is a very sensible thing to do. Private Property rights are sacrosanct but if every buyer knows that he can not have a private beach, he can refrain from buying it in first place.
- ballard 13y agoMalibu has similar problems, except residents put up fake signs and blocked/obscured access. A nice lady even made an iPhone app to document this knowledge: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/our-malibu-beaches/id565636167?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/our-malibu-beaches/id5656361...
- mturmon 13y agoYes, that was Jenny Price. Here's an article she wrote about this issue in 2003. The app was released last year. This is a long-term fight. http://www.californiacoastaltrail.info/cms/pages/trail/price.html http://www.californiacoastaltrail.info/cms/pages/trail/price...
- swampthing 13y agoIt'd be interesting to see the government just build a road to the beach as a workaround. If there is the political will, the government can win regardless - they could, if for no other reason than to deter future land-owners, make a tourist attraction out of this beach and completely ruin it for the land-owner.
- tzs 13y agoNote that he can only keep people out who want to cross his land to reach the beach. If they come in by boat, and stay between the ocean and the high tide mark, he's got nothing. I wonder if one could make a profit with a shuttle boat service to bring people to and from the beach for a small fee?
- malandrew 13y agoI think it would be better to set up a homeless shelter there and take supplies there to keep it operating.
- rdl 13y agoTwice a day you'd need to move (and during any heavy waves); you have to stay below high-tide. Building structures in the water itself is itself a CC permit activity (as well as potentially involving the coast guard and army corps of engineers).
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- JonnieCache 13y ago24 hour beach rave anyone? What are california's noise pollution ordinances like? Point a couple of these at his house and he'll soon see sense: http://www.voidaudio.com/products/installation/incubus/incubus-overview.html http://www.voidaudio.com/products/installation/incubus/incub... EDIT: Or, yeah, a homeless shelter. Perhaps a better idea.
- joezydeco 13y agoJust name it after Streisand.
- tunnuz 13y agoOff topic: the cliff in the first picture totally looks like the place where the Jackie Treehorn party is being held in The Big Lebowski. Is that it?
- auvrw 13y ago"stay out of malibu, lebowski!"
- keeptrying 13y agoTime to build a bridge over vinod's property!
- aaron695 13y agoI'm sorry but I'm just sick of the fat fks who need to drive to a beach then trespass across someone else land because they are so lazy any attempt at adventure doesn't satisfy their need for instant gratification. Why not leave the beach as it is, a secluded beach you need to kayak to, or take a motor boat if you really must be lazy. Things earned have value, this constant need to have a road to everything I find so sad.
- MRSallee 13y agoI wonder what the future is of the homes on Martins Beach. A few years ago, I was considering buying a home near Half Moon Bay, and at the time a few different "houses" on Martins Beach were available...for incredibly low prices. Forget that the homes are basically one bedroom cottages, they're on the beach! I inquired about it and learned that the homes are on leased land, and the leases were guaranteed only for another 12 years. No idea what happens when they expire, and if this deal is something Khosola is interested in continuing.
- abalone 13y agoWhat everyone needs to do is call up Khosla Ventures and ask to borrow Vinod's "douche canoe" so they can paddle to the beach.
- eschaton 13y agoThis assumes the title of the "original owner" of the land was valid. Somehow I think there just may be some legitimate claims that go further back than to someone of Spanish descent in the 1830s.
- VladRussian2 13y agoSounds like Khosla aren't going to invest in flying cars :)
- hownottowrite 13y agohttp://books.google.com/books/about/To_Have_Or_To_Be.html?id=JvG85s966koC http://books.google.com/books/about/To_Have_Or_To_Be.html?id...
- gaius 13y agoInterestingly Khosla is a former partner in Kleiner Perkins who invested in... Google. So this sort of thing runs in the family.
- powertower 13y agoThe story is - he closed off a private road on his private land that leads to the "public" beach. Before him, the previous owner charged a fee to use the private road/property. The media seems to be avoiding these points at all costs, which completely changes the story.
- waterlesscloud 13y agoSomeone will eventually break down the gate and just drive down the road anyway. It will be interesting to see if the cops prioritize showing up when they do.
- rayiner 13y agoThis sort of thing has been happening in the U.S. probably ever since there has been a U.S. At common law, the waters of the state were held in trust by the state for the public, and the beach between the water and high tide line were part of this trust. People were held to have a right to access and use this public property for purposes like fishing, bathing, cleaning clothes, etc. This concept dates back to Roman times. There is an amusing case in 1892, where the Supreme Court reversed a sale by the City of Chicago of the submerged land along the shore of Lake Michigan to a railroad company, holding that the transfer was invalid because the public trust land could not be alienated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Central_Railroad_v._Illinois http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Central_Railroad_v._Il.... Because this concept is well-entrenched, rich people, have resorted to buying up the land adjacent to the public beaches and cutting off access that way. Some states have responded by requiring private property owners adjacent to beaches to provide reasonable access to the public through their property. This particular conflict isn't any different than conflicts that are happening all over the country over beach access. Incidentally, it's quite amusing to me to watch Silicon Valley techies' sense of "but no, really, we're different!" idealism slowly come crashing down as they realize that there is nothing new under the sun. "Rich guy tries to block beach access" wouldn't even elicit a reaction from a Floridian.
- mankypro 13y agoHaha, I'm going this weekend...
- michaelochurch 13y agoAs far as I'm concerned, this sort of move merits Paris 1793 treatment. The new good-ol'-boy network, the cancer cells of humanity's body, have made a statement: "We're going to take more and more every day, and we're not going away unless you force us". Time for some hard-core chemo. It's painful, but sometimes it's the only option for survival. The statement is clear. So why waste time arguing? Why foolishly believe that you can peacefully outperform them when they will fund your competitors to spite you, use their own social contacts to ruin your reputation, and continue to corrupt every institution (high-minded or base) from government to education to business? Time to fuck some shit up. If there is a God, these are times to live by his (or her, or its) law.
- amalag 13y agoThe problem is with the California law which should not only make the beach public, but there must be reasonable access to that beach.
- skylar 13y agoThe first comment on the article is brilliant. Let's crowdsource helicopter rides to the beach for an all-day surf party.
- meerab 13y agoVinod Khosala should allow public access to the beach with slight modification. Just charge $3000 access fee per person. If state didn't mind previous owner charging $3, charging $3000 should not be issue.
- AnimalMuppet 13y agoWhat's that I smell? It smells like... opportunity! Find a parking lot somewhere along the coast. Run a boat from there to Martin's Beach. Charge enough that you make a bit of money, but don't be greedy. You'll get to be on the beach every day, making money while you're at it. Yeah, I know, you're going to have to get a commercial license and all, but... somebody ought to go for this.
- bonemachine 13y agoWow. Talk about showing one's true colors.