7 ms·

Tech billionaire’s gnarly fight with California surfers over private beach

49 points by Mankhool 12y ago

justizin 12y ago
No such thing as a 'private beach' in CA. No matter how rich you are, you cannot own a beach in California, though you can own the adjoining land and be a real dick about closing long-standing beach access paths. Nothing new, see: Malibu.
- matthewmcg 12y ago
  Right. For a nice counterpoint to this dickish behavior, see Steve Blank's series of posts about his time on the California Coastal Commission: http://steveblank.com/category/california-coastal-commission/ http://steveblank.com/category/california-coastal-commission...
- arprocter 12y ago
  It seems ridiculous that these too-rich-for-the-law-to-apply-to-me types keep doing this - if having your own beach is important to you then go live somewhere where you can legally own one
- nhstanley 12y ago
  While there may not be any private beach under CA law, Kholsa actually tried to use a sneaky legal argument to get around that[1]. Essentially, he argued that federal land patent on the property from the 1800s superseded the California Coastal Act. It didn't work, but had it work it would have set a dangerous precedent for any properties that could make a similar claim. [1] http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county-times/ci_26142031/martins-beach-timeline-from-guadalupe-hidalgo-vinod-khosla http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county-times/ci_2614203...
  - SloopJon 12y ago
    > It didn't work, but had it work it would have set a dangerous precedent for any properties that could make a similar claim. Why do you say it didn't work? From what I've read, the court has ruled in his favor so far.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Why do you say it didn't work? From what I've read, the court has ruled in his favor so far. One court ruled in his favor on that issue in the Friends of Martins Beach v. Martins Beach LLC, the court in the later Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach LLC case did not find in his favor, and has ordered him to provide access. The former case is on appeal, and Khosla has petitioned for a new trial after losing the latter case.
- abfan1127 12y ago
  why is he the dick, when its not him using force to access property not owned by him?
  - EpicEng 12y ago
    It's owned by the people.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    Because the scope of property rights in the property he bought did not include the right to deny beach access, and the fact that it did not was factored into the market value of the property when he bought it. And because he is the one using force to prevent access to the public to property belonging to them. He wants to be treated as if he bought something that was never for sale, and which he didn't buy, and which would have added significant cost to what he actually bought had it been for sale and been included with what he bought.
- ojbyrne 12y ago
  Actually, as I understand it, there's no such thing as a 'private beach' anywhere on the US coastline. http://www.surfrider.org/programs/entry/beach-access http://www.surfrider.org/programs/entry/beach-access
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The dispute in this case is the state is demanding he allow people to walk across his private land to get the comparatively tiny public land. A right of access secured both by the Article X of the California Constitution and the Coastal Act, and a public access requirement well-known to the market when Khosla purchased the property, and whose impact was factored into the market price when he bought it.
spiritplumber 12y ago
You know, where I am from (northern Italy) if someone like this decided to antagonize their whole neighborhood like that, they'd end up having to move. Not because of threats or property damage: people would simply shun him to starvation. It's no fun to be unable to buy groceries or gas.
- w1ntermute 12y ago
  > It's no fun to be unable to buy groceries or gas. He can just use Instacart, and he probably drives a Tesla.
- bueno 12y ago
  Social justice like this is great. But If you have a 35 million dollar estate - the likelihood that he buys groceries or gas himself is slim to none.
- matthewmcg 12y ago
  That's one of the dangers of high economic inequality. There is now a class of people who are essentially insulated from the social consequences of their actions.
  - FireBeyond 12y ago
    Look at Geffen's "garage" - http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/25/4554132/david-geffens-beach-is-yours-crash-malibus-secret-oceanside-hotspots http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/25/4554132/david-geffens-beac... It's not a garage. He's had the curb shaped like it's a driveway, and painted like it is, but it's not. Everyone, including the city know it's not. But try and park there and you'll be fined like it is. Towed like it is.
    - charlesdm 12y ago
      Hah. While the fake garage he set up is a clear loss for the public, it is actually quite ingenious.
- xtrumanx 12y ago
neves 12y ago
In Brazil, all beaches are public by law. The owners are obliged to leave a path open so the public can access the beach. Not that we also don't have our bunch of billionaires, millionaires, judges and assholes in general that try to prevent it.
- EpicEng 12y ago
  It's no different in California.
- thoman23 12y ago
  So...just like California then.
- MrDom 12y ago
  The owners are obliged to leave a path open so the public can access the beach. Can you be held liable in Brazil for things that happen on your property? For example, if somebody hurts themselves on the path, can they then sue you?
sixQuarks 12y ago
Why is a Canadian newspaper covering this and not the San Francisco Chronicle? Have you guys seen sfgate.com recently? There is no news of interest anymore, it's a wannabe Buzzfeed. Unbelievable how far it has fallen.
- sp332 12y ago
  They did cover it, back when it was news. http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&searchindex=gsa&query=vinod+khosla+beach&sort=date http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&searchindex=gsa&... Looks like 50+ articles on there, from March 2013 to January 6, just a couple weeks ago. Edit: better link
- lupinglade 12y ago
  Because we have similar unresolved issues on beaches here in Canada (on Georgian Bay, for example).
GuiA 12y ago
I wonder if this is just a big misunderstanding and if Vinod Khosla is just a nice, upstanding, Old Testament kind of guy. He is a successful investor after all.
- tankenmate 12y ago
  There are studies (such as [1]) that show that the more you think about money, handle money, etc the more selfish you become. Given that logic you would have to say that most professional investors are more likely to be on the selfish end of the spectrum. [1] http://www.livescience.com/1128-mere-thought-money-people-selfish.html http://www.livescience.com/1128-mere-thought-money-people-se...
patzerhacker 12y ago
Edit: That's what I get for not reading carefully enough! Maharaj is the protestor, not the owner, and as such my comment below is inaccurate and erroneous. Thanks to mortoc for pointing this out to me. Off to get a coffee and focus... >“You can’t thwart a billionaire,” Maharaj said in an interview after a stroll along the deserted sandy coastline on Jan. 15, a day when the gate leading to the beach was locked. One day you'll get what's coming to you if you keep up that attitude, plutocrat. Noblesse oblige is the only thing that spared Andrew Carnegie and is sparing Bill Gates the universal, effortless scorn and ridicule they would otherwise deserve. You'd do well to remember that.
- EliRivers 12y ago
  Scorn and ridicule? Try simply being killed. Nobody's bulletproof. I'm not advocating murder; it's just what can eventually happen.
  - thoman23 12y ago
    Not sure why this is being downvoted. It's a simple reality that at a certain point of inequality and general unfairness, the main thing that the elite need to fear for is their own safety. Look at Brazil. The wealthy have bullet-proofed their Mercedes cars.
- mortoc 12y ago
  "Maharaj" is a protester, the billionaire is "Khosla". I think you got them mixed up here. Khosla is still a dick though, so the rest of your point is valid.
  - imjk 12y ago
    Not sure why you're being downvoted. You're absolutely correct that OP misinterpreted that.
Wohlf 12y ago
I don't understand why you wouldn't want to make the best of the situation and turn a profit with the beach.
- burntsushi 12y ago
  One possible explanation is that he values the privacy more than any gain he could receive from turning a profit on the beach.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    If he values privacy so highly, he probably shouldn't have bought coastal property in a jurisdiction with public access laws to which that property was subject. Basic due diligence shouldn't be a foreign concept to a VC.
- wavefunction 12y ago
  I understand what you mean but I hardly think that's the "best of the situation." He could have just allowed access as has been the historical case.
tptacek 12y ago
Is there any other side to this story, or is Khosla really a third-tier Bond villain? Usually, news stories that read as black-and-white as this one are spun somehow. But here I can't figure out how. Beyond it being odd for a billionaire to embark on a legally futile quest to kick people off a beach at the expense of nearly his entire reputation.
- nostromo 12y ago
  I'll play devil's advocate and argue his position (even though it's not my own): People hang out all day around Khosla's house. In order to access the beach, they have to cross his property. It feels like trespassing, although it's legal in this case. Sometimes they park where they shouldn't. Sometimes they are loud and disrespectful. Sometimes someone litters. Quite often people trespass on his portion of the beach, as there is no clear markings delineating public and private property. The gate that leads to the beach is clearly his, so he has decided not to open it and facilitate access anymore. Leaving the gate open at night is perhaps seen by his security staff to be inviting problems. Now, here's my actual position: don't like surfers? Don't buy beach property in California.
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    Does he actually live there?
- pavlov 12y ago
  He's only risking his reputation in the eyes of the public, not his peers. Probably there are quite a few rich Californians who would be happy to see Khosla win, are backing him privately and are grateful to him for volunteering as the public villain.
- MiguelVieira 12y ago
  Here it is http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Vinod-Khosla-blames-costly-demands-for-Martins-5645423.php http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Vinod-Khosla-blames-co... "Khosla said he kept the beach open after the sale despite the $500,000 to $600,000 a year in costs for maintenance, liability insurance, infrastructure and other expenses. He said insurance alone was $30,000 a year, but he kept the beach open for two years even though he was losing money....Most of the beach has eroded away over the years and it is often dangerous, with sneaker waves and riptides, he said. He said only two or three people a day were visiting the beach and it was unreasonable to expect him to pay the costs to maintain public access....Khosla said he tried for three years to get a hearing with the Coastal Commission in an attempt to come up with a reasonable solution, but the organization refused."
ck425 12y ago
One of the best things about living in Scotland is that stuff like this is illegal. Everyone has non-motorized right of access to almost all land and water, with notable exceptions such as gardens, airfields, golf clubs and crop fields. If someone tried that here I could legally just hop the fence.
- thoman23 12y ago
  It's illegal here too. Didn't stop Khosla and his billions.
brandonmenc 12y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the public can get on the beach if they go around his property, but they want to be able to go through it?
- slouch 12y ago
  As I understand, the situation is precisely unique because that is not an option. The beach is not easily accessible otherwise because of cliffs.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > First off, this guy feels entitled to be able to trudge across private property against the owner's wishes to get to "public" wet sand area. There is plenty of private property that welcomes people to trudge across it. Why does he need to on this specific person's property? Because state law in fact requires such access to be maintained for the public, specifies a process that must be adhered to for substantial changes to such access, and because access via the particular property in question was, in fact, provided through the property in question for a century prior to the present dispute. The "entitlement" here is entirely on the part of Khosla, who feels that he should be freed without cost from limitations on the scope of property rights applicable to the property he acquired, when those limitations were well known in the market when the property was sold and priced into the price when he purchased it.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Sure it does, now. But that law was just passed last year Article X of the State Constitution and the Coastal Act have required it for quite a long time. > Before this law was passed there were no penalties for blocking beach access. No, before one of the new laws passed last year, the Coastal Commission could not issue fines. Compliance could be ordered by a court, and failure to comply with such court orders could be punished as contempt. So, there was a longer route to penalties, but they were not absent. > Bills of attainder are forbidden by the U.S. Constitution A bill of attainder is a law declaring someone guilty of a criminal offense. It is not a law inspired by difficulty in addressing one persons conduct that creates a generally-applicable penalty, nor is it a law which enables a state agency to use the power of eminent domain (subject to the Constitutional requirement for compensation) to acquire some additional interest to that already controlled by the public for public use (which are the two new provisions of law passed in the last year motivated by the Khosla case.)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

49 points by Mankhool 12y ago

No such thing as a 'private beach' in CA. No matter how rich you are, you cannot own a beach in California, though you can own the adjoining land and be a real dick about closing long-standing beach access paths. Nothing new, see: Malibu.

matthewmcg 12y ago
Right. For a nice counterpoint to this dickish behavior, see Steve Blank's series of posts about his time on the California Coastal Commission: http://steveblank.com/category/california-coastal-commission/ http://steveblank.com/category/california-coastal-commission...
arprocter 12y ago
It seems ridiculous that these too-rich-for-the-law-to-apply-to-me types keep doing this - if having your own beach is important to you then go live somewhere where you can legally own one
nhstanley 12y ago
While there may not be any private beach under CA law, Kholsa actually tried to use a sneaky legal argument to get around that[1]. Essentially, he argued that federal land patent on the property from the 1800s superseded the California Coastal Act. It didn't work, but had it work it would have set a dangerous precedent for any properties that could make a similar claim. [1] http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county-times/ci_26142031/martins-beach-timeline-from-guadalupe-hidalgo-vinod-khosla http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county-times/ci_2614203...
- SloopJon 12y ago
  > It didn't work, but had it work it would have set a dangerous precedent for any properties that could make a similar claim. Why do you say it didn't work? From what I've read, the court has ruled in his favor so far.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Why do you say it didn't work? From what I've read, the court has ruled in his favor so far. One court ruled in his favor on that issue in the Friends of Martins Beach v. Martins Beach LLC, the court in the later Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach LLC case did not find in his favor, and has ordered him to provide access. The former case is on appeal, and Khosla has petitioned for a new trial after losing the latter case.
abfan1127 12y ago
why is he the dick, when its not him using force to access property not owned by him?
- EpicEng 12y ago
  It's owned by the people.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Because the scope of property rights in the property he bought did not include the right to deny beach access, and the fact that it did not was factored into the market value of the property when he bought it. And because he is the one using force to prevent access to the public to property belonging to them. He wants to be treated as if he bought something that was never for sale, and which he didn't buy, and which would have added significant cost to what he actually bought had it been for sale and been included with what he bought.
ojbyrne 12y ago
Actually, as I understand it, there's no such thing as a 'private beach' anywhere on the US coastline. http://www.surfrider.org/programs/entry/beach-access http://www.surfrider.org/programs/entry/beach-access
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The dispute in this case is the state is demanding he allow people to walk across his private land to get the comparatively tiny public land. A right of access secured both by the Article X of the California Constitution and the Coastal Act, and a public access requirement well-known to the market when Khosla purchased the property, and whose impact was factored into the market price when he bought it.

spiritplumber 12y ago

You know, where I am from (northern Italy) if someone like this decided to antagonize their whole neighborhood like that, they'd end up having to move. Not because of threats or property damage: people would simply shun him to starvation. It's no fun to be unable to buy groceries or gas.

w1ntermute 12y ago
> It's no fun to be unable to buy groceries or gas. He can just use Instacart, and he probably drives a Tesla.
bueno 12y ago
Social justice like this is great. But If you have a 35 million dollar estate - the likelihood that he buys groceries or gas himself is slim to none.
matthewmcg 12y ago
That's one of the dangers of high economic inequality. There is now a class of people who are essentially insulated from the social consequences of their actions.
- FireBeyond 12y ago
  Look at Geffen's "garage" - http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/25/4554132/david-geffens-beach-is-yours-crash-malibus-secret-oceanside-hotspots http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/25/4554132/david-geffens-beac... It's not a garage. He's had the curb shaped like it's a driveway, and painted like it is, but it's not. Everyone, including the city know it's not. But try and park there and you'll be fined like it is. Towed like it is.
  - charlesdm 12y ago
    Hah. While the fake garage he set up is a clear loss for the public, it is actually quite ingenious.
xtrumanx 12y ago

neves 12y ago

In Brazil, all beaches are public by law. The owners are obliged to leave a path open so the public can access the beach. Not that we also don't have our bunch of billionaires, millionaires, judges and assholes in general that try to prevent it.

EpicEng 12y ago
It's no different in California.
thoman23 12y ago
So...just like California then.
MrDom 12y ago
The owners are obliged to leave a path open so the public can access the beach. Can you be held liable in Brazil for things that happen on your property? For example, if somebody hurts themselves on the path, can they then sue you?

sixQuarks 12y ago

Why is a Canadian newspaper covering this and not the San Francisco Chronicle? Have you guys seen sfgate.com recently? There is no news of interest anymore, it's a wannabe Buzzfeed. Unbelievable how far it has fallen.

sp332 12y ago
They did cover it, back when it was news. http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&searchindex=gsa&query=vinod+khosla+beach&sort=date http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&searchindex=gsa&... Looks like 50+ articles on there, from March 2013 to January 6, just a couple weeks ago. Edit: better link
lupinglade 12y ago
Because we have similar unresolved issues on beaches here in Canada (on Georgian Bay, for example).

GuiA 12y ago

I wonder if this is just a big misunderstanding and if Vinod Khosla is just a nice, upstanding, Old Testament kind of guy. He is a successful investor after all.

tankenmate 12y ago
There are studies (such as [1]) that show that the more you think about money, handle money, etc the more selfish you become. Given that logic you would have to say that most professional investors are more likely to be on the selfish end of the spectrum. [1] http://www.livescience.com/1128-mere-thought-money-people-selfish.html http://www.livescience.com/1128-mere-thought-money-people-se...

patzerhacker 12y ago

Edit: That's what I get for not reading carefully enough! Maharaj is the protestor, not the owner, and as such my comment below is inaccurate and erroneous. Thanks to mortoc for pointing this out to me. Off to get a coffee and focus... >“You can’t thwart a billionaire,” Maharaj said in an interview after a stroll along the deserted sandy coastline on Jan. 15, a day when the gate leading to the beach was locked. One day you'll get what's coming to you if you keep up that attitude, plutocrat. Noblesse oblige is the only thing that spared Andrew Carnegie and is sparing Bill Gates the universal, effortless scorn and ridicule they would otherwise deserve. You'd do well to remember that.

EliRivers 12y ago
Scorn and ridicule? Try simply being killed. Nobody's bulletproof. I'm not advocating murder; it's just what can eventually happen.
- thoman23 12y ago
  Not sure why this is being downvoted. It's a simple reality that at a certain point of inequality and general unfairness, the main thing that the elite need to fear for is their own safety. Look at Brazil. The wealthy have bullet-proofed their Mercedes cars.
mortoc 12y ago
"Maharaj" is a protester, the billionaire is "Khosla". I think you got them mixed up here. Khosla is still a dick though, so the rest of your point is valid.
- imjk 12y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted. You're absolutely correct that OP misinterpreted that.

Wohlf 12y ago

I don't understand why you wouldn't want to make the best of the situation and turn a profit with the beach.

burntsushi 12y ago
One possible explanation is that he values the privacy more than any gain he could receive from turning a profit on the beach.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  If he values privacy so highly, he probably shouldn't have bought coastal property in a jurisdiction with public access laws to which that property was subject. Basic due diligence shouldn't be a foreign concept to a VC.
wavefunction 12y ago
I understand what you mean but I hardly think that's the "best of the situation." He could have just allowed access as has been the historical case.

tptacek 12y ago

Is there any other side to this story, or is Khosla really a third-tier Bond villain? Usually, news stories that read as black-and-white as this one are spun somehow. But here I can't figure out how. Beyond it being odd for a billionaire to embark on a legally futile quest to kick people off a beach at the expense of nearly his entire reputation.

nostromo 12y ago
I'll play devil's advocate and argue his position (even though it's not my own): People hang out all day around Khosla's house. In order to access the beach, they have to cross his property. It feels like trespassing, although it's legal in this case. Sometimes they park where they shouldn't. Sometimes they are loud and disrespectful. Sometimes someone litters. Quite often people trespass on his portion of the beach, as there is no clear markings delineating public and private property. The gate that leads to the beach is clearly his, so he has decided not to open it and facilitate access anymore. Leaving the gate open at night is perhaps seen by his security staff to be inviting problems. Now, here's my actual position: don't like surfers? Don't buy beach property in California.
- foobarqux 12y ago
  Does he actually live there?
pavlov 12y ago
He's only risking his reputation in the eyes of the public, not his peers. Probably there are quite a few rich Californians who would be happy to see Khosla win, are backing him privately and are grateful to him for volunteering as the public villain.
MiguelVieira 12y ago
Here it is http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Vinod-Khosla-blames-costly-demands-for-Martins-5645423.php http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Vinod-Khosla-blames-co... "Khosla said he kept the beach open after the sale despite the $500,000 to $600,000 a year in costs for maintenance, liability insurance, infrastructure and other expenses. He said insurance alone was $30,000 a year, but he kept the beach open for two years even though he was losing money....Most of the beach has eroded away over the years and it is often dangerous, with sneaker waves and riptides, he said. He said only two or three people a day were visiting the beach and it was unreasonable to expect him to pay the costs to maintain public access....Khosla said he tried for three years to get a hearing with the Coastal Commission in an attempt to come up with a reasonable solution, but the organization refused."

ck425 12y ago

One of the best things about living in Scotland is that stuff like this is illegal. Everyone has non-motorized right of access to almost all land and water, with notable exceptions such as gardens, airfields, golf clubs and crop fields. If someone tried that here I could legally just hop the fence.

thoman23 12y ago
It's illegal here too. Didn't stop Khosla and his billions.

brandonmenc 12y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the public can get on the beach if they go around his property, but they want to be able to go through it?

slouch 12y ago
As I understand, the situation is precisely unique because that is not an option. The beach is not easily accessible otherwise because of cliffs.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 12y ago
> First off, this guy feels entitled to be able to trudge across private property against the owner's wishes to get to "public" wet sand area. There is plenty of private property that welcomes people to trudge across it. Why does he need to on this specific person's property? Because state law in fact requires such access to be maintained for the public, specifies a process that must be adhered to for substantial changes to such access, and because access via the particular property in question was, in fact, provided through the property in question for a century prior to the present dispute. The "entitlement" here is entirely on the part of Khosla, who feels that he should be freed without cost from limitations on the scope of property rights applicable to the property he acquired, when those limitations were well known in the market when the property was sold and priced into the price when he purchased it.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Sure it does, now. But that law was just passed last year Article X of the State Constitution and the Coastal Act have required it for quite a long time. > Before this law was passed there were no penalties for blocking beach access. No, before one of the new laws passed last year, the Coastal Commission could not issue fines. Compliance could be ordered by a court, and failure to comply with such court orders could be punished as contempt. So, there was a longer route to penalties, but they were not absent. > Bills of attainder are forbidden by the U.S. Constitution A bill of attainder is a law declaring someone guilty of a criminal offense. It is not a law inspired by difficulty in addressing one persons conduct that creates a generally-applicable penalty, nor is it a law which enables a state agency to use the power of eminent domain (subject to the Constitutional requirement for compensation) to acquire some additional interest to that already controlled by the public for public use (which are the two new provisions of law passed in the last year motivated by the Khosla case.)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]