4 ms·
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 som
by 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 agoThe 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 agoYou'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"
- NoPiece 12y agoAs I understand it, this ruling hinged on the former, not the latter. I think a fine would have been unreasonable - this a disagreement over technicalities in the law. On the other hand, what guys like David Geffen are doing in Malibu is blatant knowing disregard for the law, and fines would be completely appropriate in cases like that.
- thejosh 12y agoA $22 million fine would have been a great lesson.
- enraged_camel 12y agoDoubtful. The dude has a net worth of $1.5 billion. He would have made back the $22 million as interest from his investments within a matter of weeks.
- golemotron 12y agoIn Iceland they have an interesting idea. Many fines are assessed as a percentage of your income rather than being a fixed amount. The debate around doing that in the US would be incredible. Some people would see it as being unequal treatment under law. In one way it is; in another way it isn't.
- jdminhbg 12y agoIf your net worth is $1.5 billion, what % of your annual income would serve as a deterrent?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- golemotron 12y agoYou're right. It should be tied to net worth rather than income.
- brandonmenc 12y agoNet worth is difficult to calculate, which is why schemes like wealth (vs. income) taxes are likely impossible to implement. Prince Alwaleed accused Forbes of underestimating his wealth - imagine how difficult it must be when people are trying to get the lowball figure.
- 12y ago
- PhasmaFelis 12y agoBecause some folks think that laws only apply to people who can't afford good lawyers. Often enough they're right, in practice, but not this time.