6 ms·

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 judg

by 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
    [deleted]
  - anon1385 12y ago
    The same applies in Scotland as well [1]. It's always interesting to see the reactions of people who view property ownership as some kind of natural law when you present them with systems of property ownership that differ on fundamental points. Property ownership is entirely a social construct that differs significantly across different cultures. I don't see what basis you have for calling your preferred legal system the one true meaning of ownership. Nobody really 'owns' land anywhere. It's always a set of rights granted to you by the government, unless you are an absolute monarch yourself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_(Scotland)_Act_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_(Scotland)_Act_200...
    - lisper 12y ago
      > Nobody really 'owns' land anywhere. It's always a set of rights granted to you by the government The source of ownership rights is orthogonal to the meaning of the word "ownership". In common usage, ownership means: a perpetual and transferrable right to dispose of something as one sees fit. (Some would argue that the adjective "unencumbered" should also be added to the list, and that the existence of property taxes in the U.S. means that no one "really" owns land there either.) If the right is not perpetual and transferrable, then you are a lessor, not an owner. If the right is not to dispose of the thing as you see fit then what you own is not the thing but some sort of restricted use license on the thing.
      - ThomPete 12y ago
        So you are agreeing with the parent right?
        lisper 12y ago
        Not really. I think there is a useful place to draw a line and call it "ownership" even if there are some restrictions involved. For example, I feel like it's fair to say that I own my house and the land it sits on despite the fact that I have to pay rent on it (property taxes) and I can't tear down the house and build a gas station instead. But IMO, one of the necessary conditions for ownership is the ability to restrict access. Again, I use cars as an analogy: if I can't lock the doors and prevent people from sitting in the driver's seat on a whim, I don't think I can reasonably say I "own" the car.
sitharus 12y ago
Despite being a socialist in most respects, I have to agree with you. Property is either public, with the state responsible for all incidents and maintenance, or private with a landowner responsible and within their rights to control access. If the private landowner has to insure and maintain the area then I can't see any reason why they should be forced to maintain access. If the state sees otherwise then the state should provide the services for the general public at the expense of the general public.
- thu 12y ago
  It's not necessarily black or white. Here in Belgium, the sidewalk in front of your house is public but the house owner has to take some care of it. E.g. when there is snow or ice, it's the house owner responsibility to remove it (and is responsible if someone get injured by sliding on it).
  - dalke 12y ago
    That's also the case in the US, not known for its strong socialist leanings. For example, from http://www.cityofboston.gov/snow/removal/snowremoval.asp http://www.cityofboston.gov/snow/removal/snowremoval.asp we can about read the laws for Boston, which require the property owner to clear the sidewalks within 3 hours of either the end of snowfall or sunrise. Or to pick a much smaller city in Wyoming, http://www.gillettewy.gov/index.aspx?page=300 http://www.gillettewy.gov/index.aspx?page=300 , "The City has an ordinance (Section 18-17) requiring owners or occupants of all real estate in the city to remove snow from the sidewalks adjoining the property within 24 hours after the snowfall ends."
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Despite being a socialist in most respects, I have to agree with you. Property is either public, with the state responsible for all incidents and maintenance, or private with a landowner responsible and within their rights to control access. It doesn't surprise me that participants in a discussion board focussed largely on the computing startups prefer things to fall into crisp binary categories, but that's not how property interests in anything have ever worked, and indeed, the whole essence of a sovereign state is that all property interests within its jurisdiction are limited sets of rights granted by and subject to the sovereign. But, in any case, the beaches themselves in California are, under the coastal laws, effectively public property, what Khosla is compelled to do is to preserve pre-exisitng access to the public to their property through his. Such requirements are actually common in property where pre-existing access to one property (public or private) is through another private property. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement (see, particularly, easement by necessity and easement by prior use)
harywilke 12y ago
As long as there are property taxes, it's not yours. you are renting it from the government.
SillyJawa 12y ago
IANAL, but I am a property owner in the US. While the rights of property owners are important, they're not absolute. It's prudent to recognize that there can be compelling (yet possibly competing) interests that require limits and restrictions to be placed on those rights. As an example, say you own a piece of land. Someone else buys the land that completely surrounds it. What prevents the other landowner from fencing you in, effectively denying you access to and from the property that you own? The only way to legally guarantee this doesn't happen is to limit the rights of the other owner (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement for more). Some other limitations/examples: The air rights over your land - aircraft are free to fly over your land without needing your explicit consent Zoning and occupancy restrictions - you're not free to build a strip club in the middle of a suburban housing development Safety of others - you're not free to booby trap the path to your front door, since that would foreseeably endanger people who are legally visiting your property (for instance, mailmen, public servants, and even pesky door-to-door salesmen) This is not to say that all of these limitations are fair, or that every competing interest has merit. However, there are enough of these interests that many of these limits are codified into law. [edited for readability]
- CmonDev 12y ago
  "you're not free to booby trap the path to your front door" In UK you can't even booby trap inside of your house. Even killing someone who is trying to kill you is not recommended.
  - cafard 12y ago
    Nor can you booby trap inside your house in the US.
  - ASneakyFox 12y ago
    this holds true for most of the US too. If some one gets hurt on your property youre usually liable. Each state varies a little on this though.
dragonwriter 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 doesn't. He chooses to, because insurance is more regular and predictable than the risk of liability. > 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. That would likely be a waste of the money that he was paying to his lawyer to pursue such a suit; the law at issue was in place when he purchased the property, so the effect it had on the value of the property (including any associated liability risk) was part of what he chose to purchase. > 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? "Property" is always a limited set of rights with respect to the subject of the property interest granted by the state. > 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. Had he owned the property prior to the relevant laws being passed in the 1970s, there'd be some argument to be made that he had been subject to a taking. But he didn't buy the property until 2008, so, insofar as any public taking occurred with the public acccess provisions, they occurred prior to his taking ownership and were priced into the sale when the prior owner sold the property to Khosla. So, there's no reason even if the coastal laws were a regulatory taking, that Khosla would be entitled to any compensation. Khosla -- by virtue of the effect of the restriction on the market price of the land -- would be a beneficiary of the taking, not a victim.
ropman76 12y ago
I agree in that if the law mandates you have to allow certain parts of your property for public use then it should also protect you from liability if a member of the public gets injured on that part of the property. That being said, I think this decision was the right one. Public access to the beach trumps someone's concern about liability.

by csense 12y ago

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
  [deleted]
- anon1385 12y ago
  The same applies in Scotland as well [1]. It's always interesting to see the reactions of people who view property ownership as some kind of natural law when you present them with systems of property ownership that differ on fundamental points. Property ownership is entirely a social construct that differs significantly across different cultures. I don't see what basis you have for calling your preferred legal system the one true meaning of ownership. Nobody really 'owns' land anywhere. It's always a set of rights granted to you by the government, unless you are an absolute monarch yourself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_(Scotland)_Act_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_(Scotland)_Act_200...
  - lisper 12y ago
    > Nobody really 'owns' land anywhere. It's always a set of rights granted to you by the government The source of ownership rights is orthogonal to the meaning of the word "ownership". In common usage, ownership means: a perpetual and transferrable right to dispose of something as one sees fit. (Some would argue that the adjective "unencumbered" should also be added to the list, and that the existence of property taxes in the U.S. means that no one "really" owns land there either.) If the right is not perpetual and transferrable, then you are a lessor, not an owner. If the right is not to dispose of the thing as you see fit then what you own is not the thing but some sort of restricted use license on the thing.
    - ThomPete 12y ago
      So you are agreeing with the parent right?
      - lisper 12y ago
        Not really. I think there is a useful place to draw a line and call it "ownership" even if there are some restrictions involved. For example, I feel like it's fair to say that I own my house and the land it sits on despite the fact that I have to pay rent on it (property taxes) and I can't tear down the house and build a gas station instead. But IMO, one of the necessary conditions for ownership is the ability to restrict access. Again, I use cars as an analogy: if I can't lock the doors and prevent people from sitting in the driver's seat on a whim, I don't think I can reasonably say I "own" the car.

sitharus 12y ago

Despite being a socialist in most respects, I have to agree with you. Property is either public, with the state responsible for all incidents and maintenance, or private with a landowner responsible and within their rights to control access. If the private landowner has to insure and maintain the area then I can't see any reason why they should be forced to maintain access. If the state sees otherwise then the state should provide the services for the general public at the expense of the general public.

thu 12y ago
It's not necessarily black or white. Here in Belgium, the sidewalk in front of your house is public but the house owner has to take some care of it. E.g. when there is snow or ice, it's the house owner responsibility to remove it (and is responsible if someone get injured by sliding on it).
- dalke 12y ago
  That's also the case in the US, not known for its strong socialist leanings. For example, from http://www.cityofboston.gov/snow/removal/snowremoval.asp http://www.cityofboston.gov/snow/removal/snowremoval.asp we can about read the laws for Boston, which require the property owner to clear the sidewalks within 3 hours of either the end of snowfall or sunrise. Or to pick a much smaller city in Wyoming, http://www.gillettewy.gov/index.aspx?page=300 http://www.gillettewy.gov/index.aspx?page=300 , "The City has an ordinance (Section 18-17) requiring owners or occupants of all real estate in the city to remove snow from the sidewalks adjoining the property within 24 hours after the snowfall ends."
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Despite being a socialist in most respects, I have to agree with you. Property is either public, with the state responsible for all incidents and maintenance, or private with a landowner responsible and within their rights to control access. It doesn't surprise me that participants in a discussion board focussed largely on the computing startups prefer things to fall into crisp binary categories, but that's not how property interests in anything have ever worked, and indeed, the whole essence of a sovereign state is that all property interests within its jurisdiction are limited sets of rights granted by and subject to the sovereign. But, in any case, the beaches themselves in California are, under the coastal laws, effectively public property, what Khosla is compelled to do is to preserve pre-exisitng access to the public to their property through his. Such requirements are actually common in property where pre-existing access to one property (public or private) is through another private property. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement (see, particularly, easement by necessity and easement by prior use)

harywilke 12y ago

As long as there are property taxes, it's not yours. you are renting it from the government.

SillyJawa 12y ago

IANAL, but I am a property owner in the US. While the rights of property owners are important, they're not absolute. It's prudent to recognize that there can be compelling (yet possibly competing) interests that require limits and restrictions to be placed on those rights. As an example, say you own a piece of land. Someone else buys the land that completely surrounds it. What prevents the other landowner from fencing you in, effectively denying you access to and from the property that you own? The only way to legally guarantee this doesn't happen is to limit the rights of the other owner (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement for more). Some other limitations/examples: The air rights over your land - aircraft are free to fly over your land without needing your explicit consent Zoning and occupancy restrictions - you're not free to build a strip club in the middle of a suburban housing development Safety of others - you're not free to booby trap the path to your front door, since that would foreseeably endanger people who are legally visiting your property (for instance, mailmen, public servants, and even pesky door-to-door salesmen) This is not to say that all of these limitations are fair, or that every competing interest has merit. However, there are enough of these interests that many of these limits are codified into law. [edited for readability]

CmonDev 12y ago
"you're not free to booby trap the path to your front door" In UK you can't even booby trap inside of your house. Even killing someone who is trying to kill you is not recommended.
- cafard 12y ago
  Nor can you booby trap inside your house in the US.
- ASneakyFox 12y ago
  this holds true for most of the US too. If some one gets hurt on your property youre usually liable. Each state varies a little on this though.

dragonwriter 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 doesn't. He chooses to, because insurance is more regular and predictable than the risk of liability. > 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. That would likely be a waste of the money that he was paying to his lawyer to pursue such a suit; the law at issue was in place when he purchased the property, so the effect it had on the value of the property (including any associated liability risk) was part of what he chose to purchase. > 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? "Property" is always a limited set of rights with respect to the subject of the property interest granted by the state. > 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. Had he owned the property prior to the relevant laws being passed in the 1970s, there'd be some argument to be made that he had been subject to a taking. But he didn't buy the property until 2008, so, insofar as any public taking occurred with the public acccess provisions, they occurred prior to his taking ownership and were priced into the sale when the prior owner sold the property to Khosla. So, there's no reason even if the coastal laws were a regulatory taking, that Khosla would be entitled to any compensation. Khosla -- by virtue of the effect of the restriction on the market price of the land -- would be a beneficiary of the taking, not a victim.

ropman76 12y ago

I agree in that if the law mandates you have to allow certain parts of your property for public use then it should also protect you from liability if a member of the public gets injured on that part of the property. That being said, I think this decision was the right one. Public access to the beach trumps someone's concern about liability.