tl;dr: The property was granted to the original owner
by the government of Mexico before California was part
of the US. The property rights were preserved by the
treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848. California's right
of access to the shoreline does not override the
pre-existing property right.
Welcome to the Southwest, and if you think this is strange,
try exploring seniority of water rights.
Don't like the situation? Write your congress-critters
and legislators, or take it to court. Other members of
the tech community might respond, but are unlikely to have
enough leverage to secure access to that beach. No, I
don't like it either.
I am adding the top comment from the original article by user petethexman:
As a former Coastal Commission staff member in the 1980s, I've seen this scenario played out over and over. The so-called issue of Spanish land grants pre-existing and somehow superceding laws like the Coastal Act isn't an issue at all -- land grants occurred in the early 1800s all over California, so Martins Beach isn't any special or privileged circumstance.
It isn't just a matter of the Coastal Act. What was alluded to regarding public access along the road involves what is known as a prescriptive right. Areas with a history of public use can have the right of access through prescriptive rights regardless of the existence of Coastal Act policies. Prescriptive rights have a lengthy history -- and by lengthy, I mean going back to English common law in the 1100s. The standards for a prescriptive easement involve, among other things, that the public use be open, "notorious" (which means well known and not secretive), and continuous for a period of time. Many prescriptive rights inure in a time period as short as 5 years or as long as 20. And it isn't just the coast. If your neighbor builds a concrete block wall between your back yards and it turned out to be on your property and not his (a very common occurrence), over that period of time, if not otherwise contested or challenged, it could become his property if he was to pursue that. So the impact of these decisions is widespread not just in terms of natural resources but also public usage of trails as well.
Access to the water is a right guaranteed not just to and along the coast but to any body of water -- lake, stream, pond, whatever. Article X Section 4 of the California Constitution, enacted shortly after statehood in 1850, states in part that the public has a right to access of "the waters of the state of California," that no person, organization, corporation, or any other entity can block access to the waters of the state, and that the Legislature, in enacting future laws, must give THE most liberal application of those rights possible.
Case in point: When I lived in Lake Arrowhead in the San Bernardino Mountains in southern California, the homeowner association there blocked public access to the lake unless you were an association member/property owner on the lake. The dam was constructed beginning in 1922 and has always been in private ownership by the association. During the drought in the early- to mid-1990s, the lake level dropped nearly 20 feet, and boat owners who didn't have docks that could adjust to fluctuating water levels couldn't launch their boats. Their solution? Not take personal responsibility, certainly. No. They had the Community Services District (for water and sewage disposal) enact an ordinance that charged everyone within the District (whose boundaries far exceeded the area of the homeowners' association) higher rates to raise $60 million to subsidize the wealthy lakefront property owners who didn't have adjustable docks -- fewer than 100 property owners, in a community with over 12,000 permanent year-round residents. This money was for purchasing water from the State Water Project through convoluted three- or four-step water swapping deals with other water districts to obtain water indirectly AND was done in a manner that avoided any approvals that could be conditioned to force public access to the lake directly.
The solution to these problems? Be vigilant. Always be vigilant. The ocean is OUR ocean, and access to the beaches and water is an integral part of the culture of California. This tiny beach, away from view, away from virtually everyone except those very few lucky individuals who live there, is important. It only takes one bad precedent, one bad court ruling, to have impacts not only on this beach, not only on all California beaches, not only all bodies of water, but to any resource belonging to the people of California, whether it be a small creek in the eastern Sierra, a forest, or a desert.
BTW, do you know (or does anyone know) the specific history of this particular parcel? The closest thing I could find was a wikipedia bit on Spanish and Mexican land grants...
various articles refer to the "original owner" who filed a claim on the land (upheld by the US courts in the mid 1800s), but I can't find anything more than that...
"The judge cited the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War and required that the U.S. recognize Mexican land grants in cases where a claim had been filed.
The original owner of the land fronting Martin's Beach had indeed filed a claim, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1859, 14 years before California drafted its first constitution."
One issue I don't understand here is why the parcel is exempt from the public easement required through the California state constitution... it makes sense that the treaty required the US to recognize existing land ownership, but it seems strange that it exempt from constitution where it comes to use. For instance, permits would still be required to build on it, land use law is still in effect, right?
I'll try to dig up the opinion and read it some time. If anyone has some interesting links, please post them.
California's right of access to the shoreline does not override the pre-existing property right.
I think what you meant to say was:
"The defendant's position is that California's right of access to the shoreline does not override the pre-existing property right."
As in: this "does not override" phrase you gingerly tucked is not only far from obvious (in this use case); it's highly, highly contentious -- and requires aggressive substantiation to be tenable. In fact, it's a lot like saying:
"The title for this Brooklyn brownstone I just bought ultimately traces back to the Dutch land grants (or Lenape tribe covenants, etc; take your pick); NYC's zoning restrictions do not override the existing property rights. So if you don't like this 40-story casino-hotel-brothel complex I'm building, well, you can just bugger off."
Re: tl;dr that's what the trial court judge found, but the case is currently on appeal. It will almost certainly be heard eventually by the California Supreme Court.
Should the existing property rights only last as long as current owners? As soon as the property ownership pass to another person/entity, the current law should apply?
I probably have the unpopular opinion here but I don't like it when people try to tell me what I can do with my own property. I understand that people have been using that road for years and it was never a problem with the previous owner. But there is a new owner. He does have a problem with people using the road on his land. That sucks for those people but it is not their land and it never was. The beach is still public... just hard to get to. Once you get there, he can't do anything about it (up to the high water mark).
I'm not sure what angle they are taking with the permits on the land improvements. Those seem like unrelated issues and even if they beat him on the permits, how does that give them back the road access. Wouldn't he still be able to keep them off. Trespassing is trespassing even if the land owner violated some permit rules. If the California Coastal Commission (in charge of issuing permits) categorically denies his permits just to spite him, they'll be just as much the asshole he is.
That kind of attitude makes me very happy that my native Norway (and the rest of Scandinavia, to various extents) have the legal concept of "freedom to roam". It has also (in a much more limited version) been embedded into law in the UK where I live now, in recent years.
In Norway the concept pre-dates written law, and in its current incarnation it guarantees public right of access to most non-urban land, as well as almost all of the coast line. Basically, outside of urban areas, as long as we avoid peoples gardens, and things like tended fields, we can pretty much go where we want, whether or not it is private property, without seeking permission from the property owner (though it is considered polite to introduce yourself to the owner and seek to take their wishes into consideration if you make use of the rights in the vicinity of where they live).
We can also, with some further limitations, pretty much camp where we want. Further, tradition creates legal rights of access - if a path or a road has a history of public use (20-30 years is a typical yardstick, though frequency of use and the owners actions in the period that usage is becoming established will mattr), that access is legally protected; if a new owner decides to try to prevent continued public access, they will generally face an uphill battle.
The reasoning behind this is basically that allowing a property owner exclusive use of large areas of land would be a massive curtailment of the liberties of the population as a whole, and that maximizing public access to land is a substantially larger net positive in terms of liberty than the relatively limited negative impact for property owners.
It is considered so fundamental in Norway that it was not considered necessary to codify in law until 1957 (almost all of Norwegian law is codified), as it was seen as intrinsic to the legal system. In Sweden, their variation is protected by inclusion in their constitution.
My impression is that while existing property generally is grandfathered when regulations change, renovations then require you to bring the relevant part up to code. Thus, if you want to change stuff, like putting up a fence, then it does not seem far-fetched that you would then be required to comply with current public access rules.
If you have an old deal, that's fine. But you can't justifiably claim you both have a right to be grandfathered in while at the same time updating the property to current standards.
There is nothing unpopular about your opinion. Everyone agrees that property rights are important. But in number of cases property rights also conflicts in a way it is hard to resolve. For example you may have a smoke emitting chimney in your house which spoils the air for your neighbor. In this case your neighbor too has a good case against you because your activities in your property infringe on your neighbor's property rights.
In this particular case I think Vinod has the right to block the access to beach from his property. But at the same time Government has a responsibility to see how an access to the beach may be provided.
The problem with this reasoning is that it's based on the incorrect assumption that one can "own" land completely and outright.
This isn't true since land ownership itself is something that can only exist with the consent of the community. Unlike the fruits of one's labor, the modern concept of land ownership is just a modernization of the older mechanism of land ownership, which was enforced by the pointy end of a sharp stick. In that old model of land ownership, you'd have a lot of trouble holding onto your land if your activities on your land started poisoning the local water supply and ruining the surrounding land for everyone.
In the new model of government enforced land-ownership, you still have to treat your land in a way that's compatible with the needs of the landowners that surround you.
I think you have a reasonable point about the beach still being public. In this case, the point of the permit battle is to make this land worth less to him since he won't be able to redevelop it. The California Coast Commission has a point of view which is to try and ensure public access to public beaches and will use their power to try and force him to negotiate.
In regards to what the tech community can do about this, how about organizing a large beach party and get some boats to ferry people in?
Per Raz, Berlin, &c., these problems of conflicting goods arise precisely because values do not form a simple taxonomy with one supreme overriding ancestor. It's hard, and messy, because we have to balance several legitimate claims.
Many technical people -- certainly including myself -- can tend towards thinking that all problems have a single solution, that those solutions are tractable, and that disagreement is a function of lack of information. That is not always the case.
I'm inclined to agree. To me the irresponsible party is the previous owner. They obviously had some sort of agreement but never codified it in law. If they had turned over an easement or otherwise established rights for the road, then this problem wouldn't exist. But they either didn't bother out of ignorance, or they didn't want to, to maximise their sale price.
There is a precedent here, and while I absolutely agree that all shoreline should be publicly accessible, if that shoreline is landlocked by private property, that's going to be too bad.
This reminds me of the 'landlord evicts squatter' type stories that spring up from time to time. The issue arises from the time someone gets established in a not-very-firm legal sense - and that is allowed to fester over time. Eventually when someone moves to implement the law as written, it results in ugly battles.
There is also lots of articles about the 'right to roam' in the UK which has similar issues. Often these have been abused by paparazzi to invade the privacy of people who, ironically, purchase remote properties to get some privacy.
Personally, if I had the $37m, I wouldn't have the stomach for this kind of fight and would have moved on. But there is probably a big win coming for establishing ownership over the entire land over the next ten years or so.
I've always found the placement of properties right on the shoreline in California and Florida somewhat surprising. Where I live, virtually nobody lives right on the shoreline like that, simply because there is little, if any, private property that close to a beach.
>I understand that people have been using that road for years and it was never a problem with the previous owner. But there is a new owner. He does have a problem with people using the road on his land. That sucks for those people but it is not their land and it never was. The beach is still public... just hard to get to. Once you get there, he can't do anything about it (up to the high water mark).
Not sure how it works in the US, but English Law has something to say about this. If your property is blocked by the property of another you get to have a right of passage through his land.
This was my first impression as well. It seems to me that if you're allowed to spend the $37m to officially "own" the property then it would logically follow that you should be allowed to alter it or decide you don't feel like having random people on it. If not, then the road should be state owned with all surrounding property private.
I recognize that there's complex case-law here that differentiates between those varying shades of grey, but that's just my (unpopular) opinion.
Honestly, I agree. However, there are often laws that protect right of ways that are already in use and things like that. Heck, people often sell property separate from mineral or water rights that have been sold separately. I don't have any problem with it if the owner bought it knowing he would have to retain public access, since then it would have been priced into the cost.
This is just so disgusting, i remember thinking about this when this guy was at techcrunch disrupt last year, acting like he's trying to make the world a better place. The tech community will stay silent because nobody wants to bite the hand that feeds them.
Sometimes I yearn for a benevolent AI to rise up and impose a communist state upon the world, employing robots to free humanity from its labours.
This yearning mostly comes when I'm reminded that there are a small number of people who've not only managed to accumulate such an obscene amount of wealth that the title "billionaire" can be bestowed upon them, but that they use that wealth for predominantly selfish outcomes.
And it's only going to get worse. When the enduring puzzle of longevity is finally cracked and death can be reliably cheated, it's not going to be those living in abject poverty, or the dogged grafters, or even the skilled professionals who benefit. No, it'll be that small group of rich and powerful who'll use it to further promote this monumental inequality of wealth.
It's not the triviality of some beach access that is really the issue, it's just a distraction. It's this vile aristocracy of gold and greed that is the enduring problem, the manifestation of which is the source of countless suffering amongst humanity.
But if you work 70 hours a week for the rest of your life you to might attain this status my friend! Think of all the riches and power you'd have for yourself! And because people are taught that massive amounts of wealth concentrated into single entities is a noble thing to strive for you will be respected by all!
Surely the personal happiness of a few hundred human beings who worked hard and got lucky (or were born to someone who worked hard and got lucky) weighs more than the hunger of millions in the third world. I mean if they were really that hungry they would get a job and feed their family, right my friend?
It's particularly annoying that there's no statement from Khosla. It's hard to believe that he's not in any way sensitive to these issues, or didn't think anyone would notice.
I spend a lot of time along that stretch of coast in the ocean. Anyone even remotely familiar with the place should know that this kind of thing wont go over very well. It almost seems foolish.
I agree. He should have just left the road open. I go to HMB all the time and had never heard of this beach. Now I want to go check it out with my dogs.
If he wins and gets to keep the public out, I guarantee the locals will figure out someway to really annoy him. Maybe do a special daily boat trip, bringing homeless people from SF on a field trip to the beach.
Note this appears to just concern access by land. I believe that the public still has access rights to the beach between the low and high tide marks if they can get there without crossing his land.
This could be a nice little summer money-making opportunity for some college students, as long as Khosla is able to keep land access closed. Get a boat, and for, say, $20 per head ferry people to the beach and back. I bet a lot of people would pay that, assuming that you don't ferry so many people as to make the beach as crowded as other beaches. You could probably make $1000/day at this, at least.
Regardless of the law, I just don't understand why Khosla is going into this PR disaster. Which entrepreneur who has a choice (and 99% of successful entrepreneurs have a choice) between Khosla and another VC would choose Khosla after that?
In Hawaii all beaches are public property and maintaining public access routes (and parking!) to all beaches is required by law. If rich Californians keep up this crap, they might just inspire a voter initiative that would make things even worse for them.
It is also the law in California; However, this property is an exception because it was given to the previous owners by the Mexican government before California became part of the United States.
> Think of it as a David-and-Goliath battle waged entirely in paperwork, between a billionaire and the chronically-unfunded agency in charge of issuing these permits, the California Coastal Commission.
Ah yes, that plucky underdog, the State of California.
There's a difference between the State of California and the California Coastal Commission. The Commission is a public agency (i.e. a group of people representing the best interests of the public) which happens to be funded by the legislature. Specifically, a legislature which is underfunding them.
I've been going to Martin's Beach since before I could walk (or swim). It's a location that has been pseudo public access for generations. That part of San Mateo County has been extremely effective when it comes to preventing unwanted development and opening up areas for public access. Khosla is in for a real battle, no matter who wins the current court case.
It has happened before where someone rich and powerful decides to battle locals only to find that their legal power can only go so far. I liken it to an elephant trying to fight a swarm of army ants. If you just live near the ants and leave them alone, all's well. You step on their nest and you're in for a hell of a fight (one that lawyers and money can't necessarily bail you out of).
I remember seeing the documentary on what billionaires buy for houses and on there, the real estate agent who worked with Larry Ellison, said he literally went house after house knocking on their doors and offered a money the owners can't refuse, got multiple houses in a single row on the same beach and it became his beach.
There's a very interesting analogy here to cloud services: if you don't own something, don't assume you'll be able to use it indefinitely under the same terms. The owner can change their mind at any time, or sell to someone else with a different policy.
So... I don't actually live if the Bay Area, but stories like this always make me curious. Is there any wonder out there why not-tech workers seem to hate the tech sector? People literally protest google's buses, that's a lot of animosity towards an industry that have disconnected and distanced themselves so much that other people have no better recourse than to protest a bus.
One makes money to make a living, but you only truly enrich your life if you share some of what you have .... there is no other way, everything else is delusion. I know, I tried hard the other way.
Hmm. Sounds like someone whose tripped-over their own super ego. We must help him! Everyone get out! I'm going to call in for a tsunami to re-level the playing-field :-)
"Nancy Cave and her staff want to keep Martins Beach open to the public. Khosla will need permits from the Commission if he wants to do almost anything on the property."
Are they inferring that they will screw with his permits in order to force him into giving access?
What if it were for less nefarious reasons? Perhaps he's planning on shutting the entire area down from human access completely and letting some flora and fauna having a refuge area.
[+] [-] dmckeon|12 years ago|reply
Property rights recap at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6917815
tl;dr: The property was granted to the original owner by the government of Mexico before California was part of the US. The property rights were preserved by the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848. California's right of access to the shoreline does not override the pre-existing property right.
Welcome to the Southwest, and if you think this is strange, try exploring seniority of water rights.
Don't like the situation? Write your congress-critters and legislators, or take it to court. Other members of the tech community might respond, but are unlikely to have enough leverage to secure access to that beach. No, I don't like it either.
[+] [-] nashequilibrium|12 years ago|reply
As a former Coastal Commission staff member in the 1980s, I've seen this scenario played out over and over. The so-called issue of Spanish land grants pre-existing and somehow superceding laws like the Coastal Act isn't an issue at all -- land grants occurred in the early 1800s all over California, so Martins Beach isn't any special or privileged circumstance.
It isn't just a matter of the Coastal Act. What was alluded to regarding public access along the road involves what is known as a prescriptive right. Areas with a history of public use can have the right of access through prescriptive rights regardless of the existence of Coastal Act policies. Prescriptive rights have a lengthy history -- and by lengthy, I mean going back to English common law in the 1100s. The standards for a prescriptive easement involve, among other things, that the public use be open, "notorious" (which means well known and not secretive), and continuous for a period of time. Many prescriptive rights inure in a time period as short as 5 years or as long as 20. And it isn't just the coast. If your neighbor builds a concrete block wall between your back yards and it turned out to be on your property and not his (a very common occurrence), over that period of time, if not otherwise contested or challenged, it could become his property if he was to pursue that. So the impact of these decisions is widespread not just in terms of natural resources but also public usage of trails as well.
Access to the water is a right guaranteed not just to and along the coast but to any body of water -- lake, stream, pond, whatever. Article X Section 4 of the California Constitution, enacted shortly after statehood in 1850, states in part that the public has a right to access of "the waters of the state of California," that no person, organization, corporation, or any other entity can block access to the waters of the state, and that the Legislature, in enacting future laws, must give THE most liberal application of those rights possible.
Case in point: When I lived in Lake Arrowhead in the San Bernardino Mountains in southern California, the homeowner association there blocked public access to the lake unless you were an association member/property owner on the lake. The dam was constructed beginning in 1922 and has always been in private ownership by the association. During the drought in the early- to mid-1990s, the lake level dropped nearly 20 feet, and boat owners who didn't have docks that could adjust to fluctuating water levels couldn't launch their boats. Their solution? Not take personal responsibility, certainly. No. They had the Community Services District (for water and sewage disposal) enact an ordinance that charged everyone within the District (whose boundaries far exceeded the area of the homeowners' association) higher rates to raise $60 million to subsidize the wealthy lakefront property owners who didn't have adjustable docks -- fewer than 100 property owners, in a community with over 12,000 permanent year-round residents. This money was for purchasing water from the State Water Project through convoluted three- or four-step water swapping deals with other water districts to obtain water indirectly AND was done in a manner that avoided any approvals that could be conditioned to force public access to the lake directly.
The solution to these problems? Be vigilant. Always be vigilant. The ocean is OUR ocean, and access to the beaches and water is an integral part of the culture of California. This tiny beach, away from view, away from virtually everyone except those very few lucky individuals who live there, is important. It only takes one bad precedent, one bad court ruling, to have impacts not only on this beach, not only on all California beaches, not only all bodies of water, but to any resource belonging to the people of California, whether it be a small creek in the eastern Sierra, a forest, or a desert.
[+] [-] geebee|12 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ranchos_of_California
various articles refer to the "original owner" who filed a claim on the land (upheld by the US courts in the mid 1800s), but I can't find anything more than that...
"The judge cited the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War and required that the U.S. recognize Mexican land grants in cases where a claim had been filed.
The original owner of the land fronting Martin's Beach had indeed filed a claim, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1859, 14 years before California drafted its first constitution."
One issue I don't understand here is why the parcel is exempt from the public easement required through the California state constitution... it makes sense that the treaty required the US to recognize existing land ownership, but it seems strange that it exempt from constitution where it comes to use. For instance, permits would still be required to build on it, land use law is still in effect, right?
I'll try to dig up the opinion and read it some time. If anyone has some interesting links, please post them.
[+] [-] nymph|12 years ago|reply
I think what you meant to say was:
"The defendant's position is that California's right of access to the shoreline does not override the pre-existing property right."
As in: this "does not override" phrase you gingerly tucked is not only far from obvious (in this use case); it's highly, highly contentious -- and requires aggressive substantiation to be tenable. In fact, it's a lot like saying:
"The title for this Brooklyn brownstone I just bought ultimately traces back to the Dutch land grants (or Lenape tribe covenants, etc; take your pick); NYC's zoning restrictions do not override the existing property rights. So if you don't like this 40-story casino-hotel-brothel complex I'm building, well, you can just bugger off."
[+] [-] bradleyjg|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boomzilla|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jack-r-abbit|12 years ago|reply
I'm not sure what angle they are taking with the permits on the land improvements. Those seem like unrelated issues and even if they beat him on the permits, how does that give them back the road access. Wouldn't he still be able to keep them off. Trespassing is trespassing even if the land owner violated some permit rules. If the California Coastal Commission (in charge of issuing permits) categorically denies his permits just to spite him, they'll be just as much the asshole he is.
[+] [-] vidarh|12 years ago|reply
In Norway the concept pre-dates written law, and in its current incarnation it guarantees public right of access to most non-urban land, as well as almost all of the coast line. Basically, outside of urban areas, as long as we avoid peoples gardens, and things like tended fields, we can pretty much go where we want, whether or not it is private property, without seeking permission from the property owner (though it is considered polite to introduce yourself to the owner and seek to take their wishes into consideration if you make use of the rights in the vicinity of where they live).
We can also, with some further limitations, pretty much camp where we want. Further, tradition creates legal rights of access - if a path or a road has a history of public use (20-30 years is a typical yardstick, though frequency of use and the owners actions in the period that usage is becoming established will mattr), that access is legally protected; if a new owner decides to try to prevent continued public access, they will generally face an uphill battle.
The reasoning behind this is basically that allowing a property owner exclusive use of large areas of land would be a massive curtailment of the liberties of the population as a whole, and that maximizing public access to land is a substantially larger net positive in terms of liberty than the relatively limited negative impact for property owners.
It is considered so fundamental in Norway that it was not considered necessary to codify in law until 1957 (almost all of Norwegian law is codified), as it was seen as intrinsic to the legal system. In Sweden, their variation is protected by inclusion in their constitution.
[+] [-] lutorm|12 years ago|reply
If you have an old deal, that's fine. But you can't justifiably claim you both have a right to be grandfathered in while at the same time updating the property to current standards.
[+] [-] tn13|12 years ago|reply
In this particular case I think Vinod has the right to block the access to beach from his property. But at the same time Government has a responsibility to see how an access to the beach may be provided.
[+] [-] qq66|12 years ago|reply
This isn't true since land ownership itself is something that can only exist with the consent of the community. Unlike the fruits of one's labor, the modern concept of land ownership is just a modernization of the older mechanism of land ownership, which was enforced by the pointy end of a sharp stick. In that old model of land ownership, you'd have a lot of trouble holding onto your land if your activities on your land started poisoning the local water supply and ruining the surrounding land for everyone.
In the new model of government enforced land-ownership, you still have to treat your land in a way that's compatible with the needs of the landowners that surround you.
[+] [-] calbear81|12 years ago|reply
In regards to what the tech community can do about this, how about organizing a large beach party and get some boats to ferry people in?
[+] [-] jfb|12 years ago|reply
Many technical people -- certainly including myself -- can tend towards thinking that all problems have a single solution, that those solutions are tractable, and that disagreement is a function of lack of information. That is not always the case.
[+] [-] brc|12 years ago|reply
There is a precedent here, and while I absolutely agree that all shoreline should be publicly accessible, if that shoreline is landlocked by private property, that's going to be too bad.
This reminds me of the 'landlord evicts squatter' type stories that spring up from time to time. The issue arises from the time someone gets established in a not-very-firm legal sense - and that is allowed to fester over time. Eventually when someone moves to implement the law as written, it results in ugly battles.
There is also lots of articles about the 'right to roam' in the UK which has similar issues. Often these have been abused by paparazzi to invade the privacy of people who, ironically, purchase remote properties to get some privacy.
Personally, if I had the $37m, I wouldn't have the stomach for this kind of fight and would have moved on. But there is probably a big win coming for establishing ownership over the entire land over the next ten years or so.
I've always found the placement of properties right on the shoreline in California and Florida somewhat surprising. Where I live, virtually nobody lives right on the shoreline like that, simply because there is little, if any, private property that close to a beach.
[+] [-] lumberjack|12 years ago|reply
Not sure how it works in the US, but English Law has something to say about this. If your property is blocked by the property of another you get to have a right of passage through his land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement
[+] [-] cmapes|12 years ago|reply
I recognize that there's complex case-law here that differentiates between those varying shades of grey, but that's just my (unpopular) opinion.
[+] [-] cratermoon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lnanek2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nashequilibrium|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aliston|12 years ago|reply
Late yesterday, Surfrider's case was assigned to a judge and room. Here's the scoop: Hall of Justice & Records
What: Opening arguments in Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach I, LLC and Martins Beach II, LLC
When: 2pm on Wednesday, May 7
Where: San Mateo County Superior Court, 400 County Center, Redwood City Department 22, Courtroom 8A
Photo credit Rob Caughlan
Superior Court Judge Barbara J. Mallach presiding
It is likely that at some point there will be a court sanctioned site visit to Martin's Beach. At present, the date and time of such visit is unknown.
If you attend, please show your support by wearing blue! Thanks!!
http://martinsbeach.blogspot.com/
[+] [-] quasque|12 years ago|reply
This yearning mostly comes when I'm reminded that there are a small number of people who've not only managed to accumulate such an obscene amount of wealth that the title "billionaire" can be bestowed upon them, but that they use that wealth for predominantly selfish outcomes.
And it's only going to get worse. When the enduring puzzle of longevity is finally cracked and death can be reliably cheated, it's not going to be those living in abject poverty, or the dogged grafters, or even the skilled professionals who benefit. No, it'll be that small group of rich and powerful who'll use it to further promote this monumental inequality of wealth.
It's not the triviality of some beach access that is really the issue, it's just a distraction. It's this vile aristocracy of gold and greed that is the enduring problem, the manifestation of which is the source of countless suffering amongst humanity.
[+] [-] Jochim|12 years ago|reply
Surely the personal happiness of a few hundred human beings who worked hard and got lucky (or were born to someone who worked hard and got lucky) weighs more than the hunger of millions in the third world. I mean if they were really that hungry they would get a job and feed their family, right my friend?
[+] [-] brc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stephencanon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] state|12 years ago|reply
I spend a lot of time along that stretch of coast in the ocean. Anyone even remotely familiar with the place should know that this kind of thing wont go over very well. It almost seems foolish.
[+] [-] sixQuarks|12 years ago|reply
If he wins and gets to keep the public out, I guarantee the locals will figure out someway to really annoy him. Maybe do a special daily boat trip, bringing homeless people from SF on a field trip to the beach.
[+] [-] tzs|12 years ago|reply
This could be a nice little summer money-making opportunity for some college students, as long as Khosla is able to keep land access closed. Get a boat, and for, say, $20 per head ferry people to the beach and back. I bet a lot of people would pay that, assuming that you don't ferry so many people as to make the beach as crowded as other beaches. You could probably make $1000/day at this, at least.
[+] [-] ar7hur|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] selmnoo|12 years ago|reply
Also, as it happens, KV is an investor of YC startups: http://blog.ycombinator.com/khosla-ventures-is-joining-the-y...
[+] [-] harryh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbroockman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cortesoft|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vilhelm_s|12 years ago|reply
Ah yes, that plucky underdog, the State of California.
[+] [-] jdpage|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whyenot|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orthecreedence|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dosh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e15ctr0n|12 years ago|reply
http://www.malibutimes.com/news/article_cde2956a-3ea5-11e2-a...
You can take a photographic tour of Ellison's vast real estate portfolio here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-ellison-real-estate-201...
[+] [-] johnny5|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoshTriplett|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gpcz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgottenpass|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antifragile|12 years ago|reply
Hmm. Sounds like someone whose tripped-over their own super ego. We must help him! Everyone get out! I'm going to call in for a tsunami to re-level the playing-field :-)
[+] [-] refurb|12 years ago|reply
"Nancy Cave and her staff want to keep Martins Beach open to the public. Khosla will need permits from the Commission if he wants to do almost anything on the property."
Are they inferring that they will screw with his permits in order to force him into giving access?
[+] [-] marquis|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] discardorama|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmason|12 years ago|reply
http://steveblank.com/2013/06/28/in-defense-of-unreasonablen...
This shapes up to be an epic battle among the two men, the venture capitalist and the entrepreneur. My money is on Steve.
[+] [-] abalone|12 years ago|reply