3 ms·
This is a very interesting and complicated case. The judge's ruling skirts the fundamental conflict between the rights of private property owners and the right
by caseyf7 13y ago
This 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.
- michaelt 13y agowhat can the state really do if someone rightfully owns property blocking access that doesn't contain an easement? Claiming property for public use, such as the construction of roads, is the purpose of eminent domain [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
- msandford 13y agoAnd this isn't even the bullshitty "a larger tax base is a valid use of eminent domain" argument either, where the state takes something for cheap, then sells it for cheap to a developer who then builds a giant resort. This is the ACTUAL, PROPER use of such an authorization in the law.
- muyuu 13y agoI'd be totally okay with this. If I owned a beach the last thing I'd do is to build a condo there. Just keep the current infrastructure (looks way more than enough) and maybe bring a sleeping bag if you want to sleep under the stars.