4 ms·

In Hawaii all beaches are public property and maintaining public access routes (and parking!) to all beaches is required by law. If rich Californians keep up th

In Hawaii all beaches are public property and maintaining public access routes (and parking!) to all beaches is required by law. If rich Californians keep up this crap, they might just inspire a voter initiative that would make things even worse for them.

cortesoft 12y ago
It is also the law in California; However, this property is an exception because it was given to the previous owners by the Mexican government before California became part of the United States.
- scott_karana 12y ago
  It wasn't just given to them by the Mexican government: it was also included in the US-Mexican treaties, and ratified after an appeal to the US Supreme Court. Makes it a lot harder to deal with.
- ellyagg 12y ago
  According to the apparently well-informed first comment[1] on that article, it's not really an exception. The first paragraph: As a former Coastal Commission staff member in the 1980s, I've seen this scenario played out over and over. The so-called issue of Spanish land grants pre-existing and somehow superceding laws like the Coastal Act isn't an issue at all -- land grants occurred in the early 1800s all over California, so Martins Beach isn't any special or privileged circumstance. [1] http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/silicon-valley-billionaire-battles-surfers-over-beach-access/#comment-1199530619 http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/silicon-valley-billionai...
  - Torgo 12y ago
    It's not clear to me if he understands that the current court case is invoking federal supremacy of US treaties over California law/constitution, which seems to be a brand-new argument. He compares it to a private homeowners association barring access to waterfront, which to me seems completely irrelevant.
  - Sundog 12y ago
    I suspect the biggest issue here is that whoever sold him the property talked those lands right up as a selling point and he's discovering the reality is more complicated
    - fredophile 12y ago
      I suspect he has lawyers to deal with that sort of thing. Do you really think he spent nearly $40 million based on what the seller told him about a treaty without checking with a lawyer?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

cortesoft 12y ago

It is also the law in California; However, this property is an exception because it was given to the previous owners by the Mexican government before California became part of the United States.

scott_karana 12y ago
It wasn't just given to them by the Mexican government: it was also included in the US-Mexican treaties, and ratified after an appeal to the US Supreme Court. Makes it a lot harder to deal with.
ellyagg 12y ago
According to the apparently well-informed first comment[1] on that article, it's not really an exception. The first paragraph: As a former Coastal Commission staff member in the 1980s, I've seen this scenario played out over and over. The so-called issue of Spanish land grants pre-existing and somehow superceding laws like the Coastal Act isn't an issue at all -- land grants occurred in the early 1800s all over California, so Martins Beach isn't any special or privileged circumstance. [1] http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/silicon-valley-billionaire-battles-surfers-over-beach-access/#comment-1199530619 http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/silicon-valley-billionai...
- Torgo 12y ago
  It's not clear to me if he understands that the current court case is invoking federal supremacy of US treaties over California law/constitution, which seems to be a brand-new argument. He compares it to a private homeowners association barring access to waterfront, which to me seems completely irrelevant.
- Sundog 12y ago
  I suspect the biggest issue here is that whoever sold him the property talked those lands right up as a selling point and he's discovering the reality is more complicated
  - fredophile 12y ago
    I suspect he has lawyers to deal with that sort of thing. Do you really think he spent nearly $40 million based on what the seller told him about a treaty without checking with a lawyer?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]