Weird, seems to be a kind of "squatter's rights" for rich people applied here. It's illegal to exclusively possess a public beach by impeding all access to it, but the courts rule that since it was done for many years, it is legal in this case.
Not exactly, the court ruled that the land grant rights that Alviso got from the Mexican Government before California existed as a state, "extinguished" the right of California to change the rules. It will be interesting to watch on appeal.
The reason you would rule that way is because California can't simply go in and change your property rights, at least not without compensating you and using eminent domain. That has been established for a long time. So for the same reason they cannot just decide to give access to the minerals under your house to Chevron.
So it isn't "squatters rights" at all, rather it is property holder rights. If this is upheld it could have some interesting repercussions on water rights in the Central Valley if I remember, some of those were parts of Mexican land grants as well.
I think it's more subtle than that, deriving not from a tradition of possession but rather an international treaty that predates California as a state.
If the US promised, in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, to honor in perpetuity the property grants of Mexico in the conquered/ceded territories, maybe that promise still applies. And if the Supreme Court already ruled (in 1859!) that California law can't alter those rights, just as state law is limited in other international and interstate affairs... well, it's an interesting case. Would love to see Volokh Conspiracy or Popehat discuss it.
Khosla may yet want to cede this claim, even if it's legally legitimate, to not appear like a robber baron buying up eccentric anti-democratic privileges that were created by ancient wars.
Update: And another thought... maybe if the US and California now view the coast – and the water-rights angle that ChuckMcM mentions – as requiring a new approach, they can negotiate a treaty-patch with Mexico? :)
[+] [-] smutticus|12 years ago|reply
Not that he cares or that I'm trying to incite anything. It's just important that we not forget this important point.
[+] [-] einarvollset|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _delirium|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|12 years ago|reply
The reason you would rule that way is because California can't simply go in and change your property rights, at least not without compensating you and using eminent domain. That has been established for a long time. So for the same reason they cannot just decide to give access to the minerals under your house to Chevron.
So it isn't "squatters rights" at all, rather it is property holder rights. If this is upheld it could have some interesting repercussions on water rights in the Central Valley if I remember, some of those were parts of Mexican land grants as well.
[+] [-] gojomo|12 years ago|reply
If the US promised, in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, to honor in perpetuity the property grants of Mexico in the conquered/ceded territories, maybe that promise still applies. And if the Supreme Court already ruled (in 1859!) that California law can't alter those rights, just as state law is limited in other international and interstate affairs... well, it's an interesting case. Would love to see Volokh Conspiracy or Popehat discuss it.
Khosla may yet want to cede this claim, even if it's legally legitimate, to not appear like a robber baron buying up eccentric anti-democratic privileges that were created by ancient wars.
Update: And another thought... maybe if the US and California now view the coast – and the water-rights angle that ChuckMcM mentions – as requiring a new approach, they can negotiate a treaty-patch with Mexico? :)
[+] [-] arepb|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sashagim|12 years ago|reply
"Martin's Beach was previously a popular family beach and surf spot before Khosla purchased the property adjacent to the beach and blocked access."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla
[+] [-] auctiontheory|12 years ago|reply