11 ms·

Billionaire must let public access Martins Beach, judge rules

• bruceb 12y ago
  Good California. Funny how some smart and generally good people can also forget the law applies to all equally (or at least it should).
  • deciplex 12y ago
    I can't believe this is being downvoted? I hope it's not due to disagreement (which is already a pretty stupid reason to downvote, FYI). But the comment also contributes to the discussion - or at least it does more than an anonymous downvote does - so there really is no reason for it to be downvoted. I have canceled out one of the downvotes, hopefully there will not be a great many more.
    • smtddr 12y ago
      (which is already a pretty stupid reason to downvote, FYI). >> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 "I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness." ---pg _You_ might not like it, but there it is.
      • deciplex 12y ago
        I was already aware of the pg quote when I made my previous post. I stand by my assertion. FWIW, I have the same opinion of upvotes expressed merely to signal agreement.
  • _ZeD_ 12y ago
    Funny how you conflate "rich" with "smart and generally good"
• idlewords 12y ago
  Alternative framing: rich guy closed access to a California public beach for four years and pays no penalty.
  • curiousHacker 12y ago
    May you never know a lawyer or their billing. What about political costs?
  • Hytosys 12y ago
    I like your spin, but what good would punishment do?
    • k-mcgrady 12y ago
      >> "what good would punishment do?" Make him think twice about being an asshole in the future?
      • scintill76 12y ago
        And everyone else in his position. Not that I necessarily agree 100%, but isn't deterrence the rationale for some punishments?
      • gambiting 12y ago
        I genuinely don't see how he is being "an asshole". I guess literally everyone who owns land in US would want to protect it. If people wanted to have public access to your own garden, would you consider yourself "an asshole" for denying them that? It just so happens that his land is a beach - so maybe the problem is that someone sold him that beach in the first place? In many countries you literally can't buy beaches, no matter how much money you have.
        • seren 12y ago
          Correct me if I am wrong, but from my understanding, he does not own the beach itself, but only the road allowing to access it. It is a bit different. It sounds more like a right of way issue. I guess Vinod's property is the big one on the main road and he also owns the other houses/cabins on Martin's beach road. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martins+Beach,+California+94019/@37.3749497,-122.4071547,240m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x808f097345ba3ed5:0x2153a636d0b993fc https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martins+Beach,+California+... Street view with, what I assume the barrier, and the no entrance sign : https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martins+Beach,+California+94019/@37.3765344,-122.4039575,3a,28.4y,247.94h,77.85t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZFSJ5O-pRdmaWybsxhqIvQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x808f097345ba3ed5:0x2153a636d0b993fc https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martins+Beach,+California+...
• jrapdx3 12y ago
  Very good! "Open access" is the normal, default rule for the length of the coast here in Oregon. Always seemed like the sensible approach to me. The concept of a "private beach" would be strikingly alien and unnatural in any ethical universe. It's an idea that should have been abandoned long ago.
  • eurleif 12y ago
    >The concept of a "private beach" would be strikingly alien and unnatural in any ethical universe. What's so special about beaches? Or do you want to do away with all forms of private property?
    • benjohnson 12y ago
      Public access to beaches and waterways is an ancient idea - Institutes of (Emperor) Justinian in the 6th century are often cited: By the law of nature these things are common to mankind, the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore, provided that he respects habitationes, monuments, and buildings which are not, like the sea, subject only to the law of nations. 2. All rivers and ports are public; hence the right of fishing in a port, or in rivers, is common to all men. 3. The seashore extends as far as the greatest winter flood runs up.
      • yummyfajitas 12y ago
        Also, we should strip citizenship from anyone who is not a Christian, and punish participation in pagan rituals as severely as murder. This is an ancient idea - Institutes of (Emperor) Justinian in the 6th century are often cited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis If you want to appeal to authority rather than answer the question, pretty much any Roman emperor makes an odd choice.
        • KC8ZKF 12y ago
          It's not an appeal to authority. "Because Justinian said so, and he's emperor so he should know." is an appeal to an authority. But here, Justinian's argument is given. Seas and rivers are part of the commonwealth, so nobody should be denied access.
• sprokolopolis 12y ago
  Down here in Los Angeles we have many rich homeowners who use fences, fake/unlawful signs to keep the public out of local beaches. Many of these beaches are in Malibu he seem to think they are above the law. There are now mobile apps that tell you where these secret beaches are and how to access them (some access routes are very hidden).
  • clarkm 12y ago
    Not only do the residents of Malibu do an amazing job of keeping the general public off their public-access beaches, they also seem to have a knack for crafting ordinances and environmental regulations that keep outsiders from moving in. In 2000, Malibu had a population of 12,575. By 2010, the population had grown by a mere 0.55% to 12,645. Compare that to the entire state of California, which during the same period grew over 10% and added 3.5 million residents.
    • interpol_p 12y ago
      That minuscule amount of population growth makes me think the existing population just had a few children.
      • mahmud 12y ago
        Or new maids.
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  • IvyMike 12y ago
    "Our Malibu Beaches" app for Android and iOS: http://escapeapps.com/malibuapp http://escapeapps.com/malibuapp The shenanigans that Malibu residents do to keep outsiders away is astounding. David Geffen has his entire street side of his Malibu house covered in fake garage doors with corresponding curb cuts so you can't park there. (Technically you are allowed to park there, but try explaining that "these are fake doors and illegal curb cuts" to parking enforcement)
• eksith 12y ago
  At the risk of sounding indelicate, why did he buy the property when the real possibility of maintaining public access was there? I can understand he wanted some peace and solitude, but if that's the case, there are options available to him as a billionaire that aren't available to the vast majority of the populace. Access was in the law books before his purchase and claiming the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo as being present before the 1972 Coastal Zone law is ridiculous in the extreme. There were many other things legal in 1848 that aren't today for very good reasons. "The judge could have fined Khosla $15,000 a day for every day the gates were shut, but she waived all fines." Why?
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  • NoPiece 12y ago
    The judge had to twist the law to get the decision everyone wanted. She said closing the gate was "development" and therefore needed a permit which he didn't get. That's already quite a stretch, it would have been capricious to tack on a fine.
    • eksith 12y ago
      You're referring to : Mallach agreed with Surfrider that closing the gate amounted to “a change in intensity of use,” That change, she said, could be considered development under the law. As a result, she said in her ruling, Khosla must apply for a coastal development permit if he wants to close the gate or make other changes to the property. Removing public access means he intends to use the land privately. While what constitutes "use" is debatable, these are moot points considering the laws passed in 1972 and 1976: prohibit homes or developments from blocking access to beaches. They essentially make the entire coast, including all beach property below the mean high tide line, public property.
      • bradly 12y ago
        > Removing public access means he intends to use the land privately The argument was that he wasn't removing public access; he contends public access never existed: "the Deeney family, which set up the first cabin in 1918, had always charged people to access the beach, a clear indication that it was a private beach prior to 1972"
• burtonator 12y ago
  Wow. This is a really douchey thing to do... I mean even if people DID use the beach, how many people are going to be on it??? It's not going to be an eyesore. I'm firmly in the camp that lakes, streams, coastlines, can't be property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam "The freedom to roam, or everyman's right is the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise. The right is sometimes called the right of public access to the wilderness or the right to roam."
  • andyhmltn 12y ago
    >The freedom to roam, or everyman's right is the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise. The right is sometimes called the right of public access to the wilderness or the right to roam. Not quite sure what it's like in other countries, but here in the UK we have 'public paths' that sometimes go through private land. You're well within your rights to use them at any time of day even though it's private.
• diogenescynic 12y ago
  Can't wait to head there with a stereo now.
• chasing 12y ago
  $1.5 billion. Enough money to live like a king for the rest of your life. And for several generations beyond that. And yet willing to put up such a fight to prevent other people -- poorer people -- from having an enjoyment entitled to them by law. I'm having a hard time framing this in such a way that doesn't make Khosla seem phenomenally greedy. I really don't understand.
  • jc123 12y ago
    Power can corrupt and wealth is a form of power.
  • eps 12y ago
    It's not greed. It's entitlement stemming from a general feeling of exclusivity and superiority.
  • sytelus 12y ago
    $1.5B is lot but is not enough for what you described. If you really want to live like a king, you want to have multiple properties around the world that are awe inspiring, probably costing few 100 million dollars by itself. Then you would want to have well appointed custom made 777 or may be two. Then may be a couple of fighter jets and small planes. Then may be a huge yatch with hopefully a sub and a heli which usually runs around $200M or more. And remember most of you money you need to keep in investments anyway so you can't spend principal, only the dividends/interests/gains which typically would be under 10% of your networth. Then you need about permanent staff of 100 to maintain all these all the time which itself would cost few million dollars in pay check a month. The truly "vast" networth starts at above $10 billion. At that point you are making $100,000 every waking hour or more.
    • waterlesscloud 12y ago
      This reminds me of a quote from the movie DISCLOSURE (which is otherwise forgettable, outside of horror movie worthy kiss from Donald Sutherland)- "Give a man a hundred million dollars and you make a frustrated billionaire."
  • 12y ago
• csense 12y ago
  If the city / state is forcing the owner open the beach to the public, why does the guy have to pay liability insurance? He should try to seek declaratory judgment that he's not voluntarily opening the land to the public, and therefore the state must indemnify him for any liability created by doing so. For that matter, if someone's not allowed to restrict access to their property, is it really their property at all, or is it the state's property? If I were this guy, I'd appeal. I'm no lawyer, but it looks like he's got a good case the state has de facto taken his property away from him, and he's owed compensation under the US Constitution. Everyone here seems to be against this guy, and their comments seem to be unusually vapid -- "I like going to the beach and I hate rich people" isn't a good basis for public policy.
  • thomax 12y ago
    Why should ownership of land be equal to the right to restrict access to said land? Where I come from (Norway) a land owner needs a good reason to deny the public access to the land. Such a reason might be that the land is very small and surrounding a house (typically a garden), or there are crops planted or animals grazing on the land (typically a farm). A land owner can't just put up a fence, but is free to develop the land (within county restrictions) or sell it and pocket the money. Yeah, too bad for introvert billionaires, but hey, most people aren't and that's democracy for ya.
    • lisper 12y ago
      > Why should ownership of land be equal to the right to restrict access to said land? For the same reason that ownership of a car equals the right to restrict who gets to drive the car: that's what ownership means. > Where I come from (Norway) a land owner needs a good reason to deny the public access to the land. Then no one really owns land in Norway. The government owns he land and grants people development rights. One could argue that this is how things ought to be (e.g. http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm). But such theories are historically unpopular in the U.S.
      • deleted 12y ago
• perlgeek 12y ago
  > Buchwald’s decision, which is being appealed, did not outlaw public access to the beach, but left the ocean as the only way for the public to get there. Shuttle boats to the beach as a (new?) business? (If my now-retired father lived close there, I could very well imagine him doing that to earn a few bucks extra, and to give families access to a nice beach).
• coleslawfail 12y ago
  Repeating as public service announcement of what folks in the know tell each other: Vinod has a very negative reputation in the Valley. He used to be known as the biggest anti-founder VC when he was at Kleiner. He'd come in, use sharp elbows to push founders around and out, then companies would crumble. He's learned but not enough. His new marketing of himself has helped (as has Rabois), but you can't change who he is. When given a chance, he'll take advantage of early stage startups. That's why you don't see many companies he's made. And he's been at it a long time - 27 years! He gets in the way because it's all about him and his huge, insatiable ego. He's much more old school VC in that way - but in the Tom Perkins vein, not Don Valentine. It's his way because it's his money. The only way to keep Vinod honest is to get other investors. If he's your lead, the knife isn't far from your back.