While it's heartening to see a vigorous reaction to the utter contempt for the law demonstrated by Khosla and his ilk, it's also understandably discouraging to see the ease with which people with virtually unlimited resources can abuse and exploit the public. That's why it's important to remember that civil disobedience is perfectly justified to combat this kind of criminality; e.g. sit-ins occupation of the land in question, a 'March to the Sea' through the disputed access-ways, and/or direct action against the gates, locks, and signs.
I've ranted about this here before, and I'll rant again. Up and down the coast of CA there's a tremendous amount of public beach made inaccessible by wealthy property owners. Malibu is awful in this regard, with (bogus) no trespassing signs and gates everywhere. I spent a month there, for a conference in LA, and made a point of stomping around on every "no trespassing" beach I could get to, and some of them are hard to get to. But Malibu is not alone.
The thing I don't understand is why police don't simply cut the lock every time Khosla locks the damned thing. It's gone to court, he lost (as he should have), and now he continues to blatantly violate the law. Petty criminals have been shot and killed (thousands of times) over less blatant disregard of a legal order, but a rich guy can get away with a massive theft of a public resource for years without any consequences. Money may not buy happiness, but it certainly buys the right to be a truly awful human being without consequence.
Why can't a citizen simply call the police every time a gate is closed and locked? Send Khosla the bill for a locksmith or whatever it takes to restore access. Cities do it for overgrown lawns (which is harmless, IMHO), and this is causing actual harm to the public good.
> The thing I don't understand is why police don't simply cut the lock every time Khosla locks the damned thing. It's gone to court, he lost (as he should have), and now he continues to blatantly violate the law.
I'm happy to pay for someone to get bolt cutters and put them somewhere nearby for the public to use when needed.
Some years ago, in Los Altos Hills, a new landowner built a fence across a horse trail easement. The mayor and police chief went to the site and cut the fence open. It can be done.
Take a bolt cutter and unlock it yourself, and throw the thing at any of his minions who come out and complain. It seems we've entered a period of lawlessness if one is rich and powerful enough and it's time to push back.
He's in contempt of court. That gives a judge near limitless power, including the ability to jail someone until they comply, indefinitely if necessary.
A judge having "near limitless power," that sure sounds fancy, or scary depending how you look at it. But ok, I'll play: What's it all gonna cost if they decide to wield their limitless power. Financially and/or otherwise. Is it in or against their best interest to pursue?
Because I think a lot of judiciaries are just like companies in the sense of not wanting to draw unwanted attention, risk high costs or worse – having to deal with awkward situations at posh drinking events — think I got that last part from a movie.
It costs a judge absolutely nothing, as it's the judge's job. What does it "cost" when a judge jails a murderer or fines someone with unpaid parking tickets?
The scarier thing to consider is what does it cost not to hold this person in contempt of court? Much of society is built on the justice system being able to do its job and much of that ability is built on court orders being respected. What happens when some rich person sets a precedent of disobeying court orders without consequence?
It costs political/career opportunities and will continue to do so while the potential defendants is/knows the "establishment" of the judges area of jurisdiction.
It is often the case that a judge will rule that something must be restored or maintained pending the outcome of an appeal. I got the impression the current order from the court was to not restrict access to the beach; the appeal might change that, but right now the law and its interpretation currently seems to be that he needs to allow access.
Am I misinterpreting the situation? Regardless, the ethics of the thing are clear, to me. This is theft of a public resource. And, I would hope the courts would continue to agree; a billionaire can buy a lot of do-overs in the US legal system, but hopefully, he can't buy the result he wants.
Can't people just walk around the gate? The beach should be connected to the ocean which should be connected to other beaches, last I checked how those things work.
> The beach should be connected to the ocean which should be connected to other beaches, last I checked how those things work.
People can't walk on the ocean. And while, yes, beaches connect to the ocean which then connects to other beaches, beaches may not connect directly to other beaches, and even if they do, the other beaches may not be accessible due to geography irrespective of legality.
We used to have a concept of "outlawry." What it meant varied over time, but it was rooted in the reality that the court system and law enforcement had limits on how much they could do. So, they would declare someone an "outlaw" as a means to deal with this. In some times and places, this meant anyone could murder them. They were not protected by the laws of the land.
I don't know what the solution is today and I am not suggesting that we should make it legal to murder someone like Khosla, but we need a mechanism for addressing the fact that our legal system cannot control everything. Someone this rich winds up being beyond the law in far too many ways and they don't care.
I think one of the things wrong with modern life is the delusion that the legal system is in control to a greater degree than it is. This has all kinds of problematic side effects. There are far too few rules for what to do when someone is breaking all the rules and it means that rule followers are routinely crapped on by certain classes of rule breakers in a way for which there is no real remedy.
Sounds like a bandage on a more general issue of the police not representing the will of the people.
There are many ways to fix that, that have been discussed a thousand times in forums across the Internet. But really, if your police are acting in the will of the general citizenry, they would be arresting anyone repeatedly breaking the law to such a large degree as this, no matter what. If they aren't you can tell the police are not loyal to the people, especially when instead they spend their time bloodying or killing people taking recreational drugs instead.
Sometimes, putting a bandage on it yourself is the correct answer. Imagine a world in which we could do nothing medical for ourselves at all and could ONLY call an ambulance any time we had a problem.
I am fine with the courts and legal system trying to come up with solutions that say, in essence, "for little things, you are allowed to bandage it yourself and here is the list of approved remedies."
Allowing people to murder him is going way too far. There is already a simple legal solution to people who willfully defy court orders: put him in jail for contempt until he complies with the order. This is simply a failure of the legal system to apply the law equally to the rich and powerful as it does to the poor and powerless.
He has lawyers to get him out of that / delay it indefinitely. It would be unfortunate if it came to this, but since he's clearly not interested in adherence to the law or an amicable solution (build a pathway or bridge or take the gate out or whatever), I doubt he'd get much sympathy if someone were to park a truck in the street at the end of his driveway every day, paying the tickets and ignoring any future orders to remove it, until the gate is removed.
Thinking about this more, a suitable punishment at this point IMO would be something like revoking his driver's license, not allowing renewal of any vehicle registration, denying tax returns, etc. Why does he continue to be allowed to use the public roads while denying the public access to a space?
Actually, forget all that, use that stretch of beach to hold public surf contests all the time (assuming there's a decent break there). Failing that, beach party every day.
Sounds like the sort of thing where a tech solution could play a part. A website prominently advertising the location and fun daily activities comes to mind.
The thing I find most fascinating about Khosla is that he is so obsessed with limiting access to public property, that he will be remembered years later for that instead of anything else he has done. He already has a reputation as an asshole in the VC community (which is saying something), this just cinches it to permanently tarnish his reputation. Of course he obviously doesn't care - he just wants that beach.
He wants to win the principle to control the access to the beach. Sorry to be pedantic, but if he would be living there full-time, he might have an argument, but he doesn't.
I'm not sure if you're asking why he ignores the ruling or why he's allowed to get away with it.
Regarding why he ignores the ruling, the article says he does it on "principle". Presumably, he feels it's his land and he can do whatever he wants with it. But it would be interesting to hear him defend his position himself rather than having to put words in his mouth.
As to why he gets away with it, presumably the penalties for ignoring the courts are not severe enough. Maybe he's just rich enough to pay whatever fine has been levied on him and keep access closed.
It reminds me of when Microsoft was fined by the courts something like a million dollars a day for violating antitrust regulations, and they just paid and kept violating (if I'm remembering this right). Some companies prefer to just get the law changed in their favor instead, or maybe get people elected who will defund regulating bodies or put their cronies in control, etc. When you're rich enough you have many options for evading the law.
> presumably the penalties for ignoring the courts are not severe enough
And this is the crux of it. Khosla is a multi billionaire. He could afford to pay a fine of $10,000 a day for the rest of his life.
At what point does this become contempt of court and lead to jail time? Unfortunately, in the US, the answer is likely "never, because he has too much net worth".
In this case it could simply be a sizable fraction of the value of the land. Apparently he values this strip of access at $30,000,000 so that's where the fine should be based. Hey, it's his measure of the value.
"The court seeks fines on the order of 1/365th of the terrain's value per day of continued denied access and will repossess the land in 1 year and 1 day if this ruling is not complied with"
Yeah, repossessing the land seems the right course of action here for continued and blatant disregard for the law for so long. Monetary fines will do nothing against him, so take away something he can't buy (the right to occupy property). From the sound of it, he seems to have a "come at me bro" attitude towards the government and law enforcement, so this too would likely get delayed and fought indefinitely in courts. At the end when he loses, he'd probably just sell it somehow (for a profit) and move to a different place, then do the same thing.
A lot of money shouldn't mean a lot of potential to cause a lot of strife for a lot of people.
The actual income of many extremely wealthy people is pretty small to non-existant compared to their net worth (not even counting assets they may have squirreled away in secret accounts, under their family member's names, or other creative accounting tricks).
The purpose of sanctions in a situation like this is to compel the recipient of those sanctions to do the court's bidding. They should just ratchet the sanctions up until he does what has been ordered. If ten thousand dollars won't do it, make it a hundred. If that doesn't do it, multiply it by ten again. Eventually he'll either comply or no longer have any assets. Either way, the problem will be solved.
in my dream-world, these hypothetical fines would be levied on Khosla, collected by the court, and then donated to an account controlled by Surfrider Foundation.
then, in the near future, when the government eminent-domains the land, it would use that same money to make the payment ... not all of it, of course ... maybe 25% of it.
the remaining 75% could go toward building a parking lot and some bathroom facilities for the public.
If not fines, then imprisonment for contempt of court is a remedy judges have at their disposal. I'm sure it would not take very long for Kholsa to get the point.
I would dream of finally seeing those SWAT teams used for the benefit of public good. Please, local police, videotape the scene and underline it with "Nobody is above the law", that will restore a bit of the credit that police has lost...
In this respect the income-dependent fines used in (amongst others) Sweden works better. The sentence will be for a certain number of 'dagsböter' (day-fines, [1]), the amount payable for which depends on the income of the payee. While a 'day fine' for someone who lives on the dole might be 150 kr (~$17), someone like Khosla might be looking at a day fine of more than 100.000 kr.
I believe that's the crux of Khosla's defense and why he is holding out. He seeks an eminent domain payment from the public -- $30 million -- to have access to Martins Beach via his property. It's unclear if this "principle" of requiring eminent domain for easements is consistent with the Coastal Act of 1976.
Exactly. My gut tells me that the constitution guarantees beaches are public, but it does not guarantee the right to trespass on private property to exercise the beach right. But I have asked this question to understand if my understanding is correct.
Bottom line, property law derives a lot from English Common Law. It's possible for people to obtain rights that are not documented in any contract through customary use, or via common sense (e.g. If you sell someone a parcel of land completely surrounded by your land, you must grant them access to their property).
The down-side for both parties is that common law is up to even more interpretation than statutory law.
Reminds also when there were these water shortages and you could not even shame these types into cutting back.
Simple solution, set fine to a percentage of income or wealth. Require that penalty to be under the three strikes and you are out. So we hit you with 0.0025% of your wealth at three strikes and keep moving the decimal to the right until you play ball.
>> "the penalties for ignoring the courts are not severe enough"
- This seems to violate state's constitution. How can this be something anyone can regularly get away with?!
If you want an example of providing access across private property in the bay area drive up to Genentech. You can drive right through their campus to access the public beach and there are several public parking spaces provided here.
I'd be curious if there's a story there. If Genentech knew they needed to do this and just did it or if it was settled after. Either way it would be good to know.
On the other hand, I tried walking in the Dogpatch area of San Francisco near the end of 25th street along the water and was warned off. When I called the government to check why that wasn't public I was told not all coastline is public.
This reminds me of the Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS) in San Francisco.[1]
"Scattered throughout Downtown San Francisco are public plazas, atriums, and roof gardens. Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS) hide behind secret elevators, security guards, and stairs. Their elusive trait raises the question: if
they are public, then why are they hidden?
In a city where land is scarce, POPOS allocate open space to prevent overdevelopment. The 1985 Downtown Plan mandates developers build and maintain 1 sq ft of public space for each 50 sq ft of commercial space. Yet, developers hide them from the public to keep cost of maintenance low..."
Today I found the Ritz Carleton hotel in half moon bay provided access and free parking! I was having trouble finding even paid beachside parking today and stumbled on this.
Sometimes I write emails to tell corporations that they are famous because they did a positive thing. I believe it encourages them, even if the email is eaten by the receptionist, if you can somehow demonstrate in the email that it brings them customers ("I always recommend XYZCorp because of that thing you did for the community").
I wonder if the public opinion (in SV) can be turned enough against Khosla for this. To the point it'll hurt his businesses. Much like it was (deservedly) turned against Uber for their behavior.
Is anyone who works for or owns these companies reading this? Would you be willing to quit your job or return funding so as not to support a sociopath and to help make the world a better place?
Anyone know people who work for these companies? It would be great if you could (kindly) remind them of the types of people they are working to enrich every day and how those people are using their riches to abuse society. Bet we can change a few minds!
You'll likely need an angle grinder with a metal cutoff blade (bolt cutters can't handle a good lock, though if it's on a chain, the chain might be a weak link).
The article said there's security on the premises, so be prepared for that sort of trouble (make sure you've got an emergency number and people who know what's going on in case you're arrested). Though, I have a hard time seeing how restoring legal public access could be considered a crime. Maybe just bringing witnesses and cameras will be enough to protect you from security.
So, i should advise you that the most likely outcome here is that you'll be arrested.
If security causes you to be arrested and imprisoned, you, and everyone else file civil lawsuits against Khosla.
The more interesting question is whether you'll be prosecuted. If I was the DA, i wouldn't bring charges against anyone who did this (which would be completely within my discretion). This would result in Khosla having to be forced to file civil lawsuits for trespass or something (which he'd lose). It would also mean the police would likely stop arresting you.
But i don't know whether the DA in Khosla's part of town is in favor of the billionaires or the beach access folks.
You want one of the portable battery powered high speed die grinders and some metal cut off discs, you cut most locks and heavy duty chains with them in seconds. There are numerous youtube videos demonstrating them. Couple hundred dollars at home depot and no larger than a cordless drill.
Not endorsing this action, but for everyone's sake, treat these tools with the same respect you would if you had grown up around them. They can be very dangerous if misused.
Exactly this. Be very very careful approaching some rich asshole's security with a a tool mike this.
If it's on the beach itself just grab some shovels and dig under/ over. Make fences pointless!
Vinod Khosla is clearly a despicable example of a mega-wealthy individual, but is not the problem here the existence of the ultra-rich? Anyone allowed by society to accrue that much wealth will be above the law almost by definition. If we value the rule of law, why do we think it good to produce billionaires?
The "principle" he's adhering to is property rights, with a healthy dose of welching on your agreements.
All we need here is 5,000 people to show up at the same time, 4,999 of them carrying beach towels, and one of them carrying bolt-cutters and a beach towel, and then they enjoy a day at the beach.
Or several days, resupplied occasionally with food and so forth by the GoFundMe campaign.
It's public access, Khosla doesn't get to decide if it's trespassing. That would be a complaint lodged by the local authorities against someone if they were accessing the land in prohibited hours.
So it would be murder. Who knows, maybe Khosla wants to hunt humans for the sport of it but probably he just wants to keep paying miniscule fines hoping to wear the public down.
I'd lodge the fines in the form of the land he owns abutting the easement.
from what I remember, Khosla and his lawyers were real jerks to the county and throughout the trials but I think their biggest problem was he has to pay for a relatively expensive liability insurance policy for public passage on the private access road that runs on his property, the only "easy" access to Martins Beach. The previous owners just sort of let things fly w/o insurance.
If the road was owned by the county and he gated it somehow he wouldn't have a leg to stand on but the problem is more nuanced ... Should he personally have to incur a large cost to maintain a public good b/c of proximity? It does seem arbitrary. A better man might sell the road to the county or come to some other compromise but he's become obsessed with the principle of the matter.
I don't know if what you said about the insurance is correct or not, but if it is then that should have been factored into the price that Khosla paid to get the land (and possibly the government's assessment of the land value). Nobody forced him to buy that property.
Not only was this part of the deal when purchasing the land, I'm sure if the insurance costs were an issue, he could work out a compromise with the State of California to donate the access path land.
Wish judges would/could find contempt of court and toss these selfish recalcitrants in jail. No release until public access is (re)secured. After all, that was the court's finding -- that public access was/is required.
I think eventually we'll have to push the reset button on capitalism. The government should repossess all shares of public and large private companies and redistribute them to everyone based on some formula.
I don't understand why this hasn't happened yet. Probably 95% of us would be better off and it would make things interesting again. It would open up many new opportunities for everyone.
Why do the majority of people who are not wealthy vote for things which benefit wealthy people? Those same wealthy people who only care about themselves.
The fact that this comment will probably get down-voted by lower and middle-class people is mind-boggling to me.
Khosla is from India and people from that region have utter disregard for the law. These rich indians took our jobs and are not taking over our land. (I am a person of Indian origin so I think it okay to have this opinion). Wrest back beaches that belong to the people.
I wouldn't take Khosla's money if they offered it to me, so terrible is his behavior regarding public access to the beach at his house. He has thugs chasing people off from public access.
I really appreciate the direct-action interest on behalf of the public here in these comments. In my commentary however, i just cant get over how selfish someone would have to be.
I'd feel terrible if i somehow blocked somebody's family picnic. Yet here is someone doing this to hundreds of people, probably, every weekend. There are possibly thousands who grew up in the region and went to that beach regularly. I simply cant personally imagine being so completely void of consideration.
Thought of that too. But since he built the gate, it might still fall under destruction of property or vandalism.
Now what about picking the lock? If the gate or lock is not damaged it might be ok. Since the access is public it wouldn't be breaking in or trespassing?
Even more interesting if the only way out is via the gate, and his minions lock the gate there might be case for kidnapping? Call the police and claim you have been kidnapped by Khosla. Too far fetched probably...
I wish we had this law in Washington State. Most beaches here are privately owned and many of the few public beaches here are laughably tiny - 150' to 200' wide with threatening signs on either end.
Is there no scope to prosecute someone who illegally locks up public land under false imprisonment laws, i.e. I am being falsely imprisoned in the part of the world which doesn't include the locked up bit?
"Joan Gallo, a former San Jose city attorney who represents the land owner, agreed that the courts should weigh in. The Deeneys had run a private business, she said, allowing invitees of their choosing onto the property, and that hadn't changed.
"It seems to us that it's an important issue to be litigated," Gallo said. "I have a strong belief that the Constitution doesn't require you to give up property rights or conduct a business you don't want to conduct."
Mark Massara — a surfer and attorney who is working with McClosky and the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on the case — said he believed the constitutional arguments have merit. But since that approach could drag on for years (think Geffen), his team opted for "a very narrow strike to the heart of this thing."
You've done staggering damage to this thread, posting something like 20 comments, most of which were inflammatory and several of which were copied and pasted. If you behave like this again on HN we're going to have to ban you. It leads straight to flamewars and this one was particularly wretched.
The Denney's (previous owners) used to charge for people using their property to go into the beach. Maybe you should read instead of calling names and getting bent out of shape?
"Joan Gallo, a former San Jose city attorney who represents the land owner, agreed that the courts should weigh in. The Deeneys had run a private business, she said, allowing invitees of their choosing onto the property, and that hadn't changed.
"It seems to us that it's an important issue to be litigated," Gallo said. "I have a strong belief that the Constitution doesn't require you to give up property rights or conduct a business you don't want to conduct."
Mark Massara — a surfer and attorney who is working with McClosky and the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on the case — said he believed the constitutional arguments have merit. But since that approach could drag on for years (think Geffen), his team opted for "a very narrow strike to the heart of this thing."
Sorry, but you are wrong. Khosla could have maintained the property in the old state where he charged admission and made no changes to the property. He was warned about this when he bought the property. California law is extremely clear about this, and a cursor check of case law would have confirmed this. Khosla knowingly violated the law in an attempt to remove public access using thin and unlikely legal excuses involving pre-US law. He had his day in court and lost. He has received a court order and continues to be defiant.
This isn't the "property rights" hill you want to die on. This is an utter jerk being an utter jerk. This is a rich man trying to use money as a substitute for following clear Law.
This is such extreme lawless behavior that every time that every time I see a company take investment from Khosla it stains that company in my mind forever.
Is the question here not that Public Access if guaranteed constitutionally, but whether a single citizen should bear the cost of the public having to go through his property to access the beach?
I can't tell what the Constitution says about which path the public must use to access a beach.
Is it the case that the State or municipalities failed to secure or purchase property to build a path, and now want a single citizen to pay for this path?
"e had been warned by San Mateo County and the California Coastal Commission – before and after buying the property – that he would be required to keep the public access open.
Public access to Martins Beach, and to all land seaward of the mean high tide line in California, is guaranteed in the state’s constitution and mandated within the Coastal Act of 1976."
I had read that too. It's clear that the beaches are public. But I would not trust a government employee. It's unclear to me that the Constitution guarantees my right to cross anybody's private property to access the public beach. Why can't people go through other properties doors, climb fences, etc. to enjoy the right to use a public beach? Why is this path considered public property, when it is clearly private? I think this is the issue.
That isn't really a choice. You can either going along with what the employee says, or a) appeal their decision b) change the law, or c) abide the consequences. They also presumably have records.
As for why this path, California has a prescriptive right of access--if people have customarily accessed the beach through this path (for 5 years, I think), then they are permitted to continue doing so. The California Constitution also doesn't just make the beaches public, but explicitly provides for public access to them:
No individual, partnership, or corporation claiming or
possessing the frontage or tidal lands
of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable
water in this state shall be permitted to
exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is
required for any public purpose and
the Legislature shall enact such law as will give the
most liberal construction to this
provision so that access to the navigable waters of
this state shall always be attainable for
the people thereof.
Is the issue then that there is a discrepancy between property rights and access rights that needs the CA Supreme Court to resolve?
The Denny's (previous owners) used to CHARGE for access to the beach, presumably supporting the case that access through this path is not a right.
Source: "Joan Gallo, a former San Jose city attorney who represents the land owner, agreed that the courts should weigh in. The Deeneys had run a private business, she said, allowing invitees of their choosing onto the property, and that hadn't changed.
"It seems to us that it's an important issue to be litigated," Gallo said. "I have a strong belief that the Constitution doesn't require you to give up property rights or conduct a business you don't want to conduct."
Mark Massara — a surfer and attorney who is working with McClosky and the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on the case — said he believed the constitutional arguments have merit. But since that approach could drag on for years (think Geffen), his team opted for "a very narrow strike to the heart of this thing."
It's not totally clear to me when a fee can be charged (or who can charge it), but it's possible that the fee covered land beyond the mean high water mark or amenities, parking or something like that.
From what I can tell, the Deeneys essentially ran a parking lot and charged people for parking. That's not technically a fee to access the beach. I don't know if they would have tried to bar access to anyone who walked up, or who was dropped off, but if they had I'm sure someone could have taken it to the access commission.
Khosla doesn't have to run a business - he doesn't have to let people park there, and he doesn't have to provide lifeguard services or security. He just has to let people access the beach. Read what I posted elsewhere, 100 years of beach access via this route creates a proscriptive easement which has legal weight.
It’s a simple easement issue. If he wanted to create a new path for he public to access the beach, then nobody would care if he closed this one.
It’s not as if this was an after-the-fact decision, the public access path existed when he bought the property, as did the existing law and state constitution. His responsibility as a property owner there is to maintain that public access.
"An easement is a non-possessory right to use and/or enter onto the real property of another without possessing it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement
You've posted this at least 4 times in this thread. Why?
This is a clearly established matter of both state law, and the common law, and every time a property owner has fought, they've lost, at considerable expense to both them, and the taxpayer.
This is California. California has a court system, and the property owner has access to the courts. Given the price of land in Los Altos, I suspect money to go to court is not a problem. So, where exactly is the banana republic?
It's funny to see people here trying to protect something "because the Constitution" when the right to bear arms in the US Cobstitution is "archaic and should be changed."
It is amazing how people "just don't get it". Laws can (and ocassionaly) should be changed. They should not be violated. The discussion here is about a person constantly violating the law, court order and just getting away with it.
We're talking about the California Constitution, and no one has mentioned guns or the second amendment of the United States Constitution, except for the above nonsequitur. WTF are you talking about?
The article says Khosla doesn't even live there. As someone else in this thread pointed out, his whole motivation for doing this is probably just to get the state to buy the disputed part of the property from him for millions of dollars. Comparing this to someone breaking in to your your house is ridiculous.
California courts have ruled it not his property several times. Despite mounting throwing never ending $$ to stall in court and mounting ridiculous legal theories of literally citing Pirate Law from the 1700s, he keeps losing again and again. It's a public beach, it's always been a public beach. It wasn't like it was a secret when he bought the property, he just thought he was special and smart enough and rich enough to get his way.
This isn't about big evil government encroaching on property rights. It's keeping land that was already public land public. If you owned a house and I bought up all the property around your house and then put a gate across and locked your driveway, you'd still own and have legal access to your house. That's what Kholsa is trying to do.
> He does not need to live there to want to protect his property.
Did you read the article? It is not his property, it is public access to a public beach. He deserves compensation for losing in court and continue to break the law with which the court upheld? I'm confused, did we read the same article?
"So the coastal commission tried to broker a compromise, chief of enforcement Lisa Haage said. Officials offered to consider moving the access road, to find a nonprofit to operate the entry and to close on rainy days when the beach was muddy. But the talks went nowhere."
If it was clear cut, why is the Chief of Enforcement accommodating alternatives?
She's not trying to crush him. Her goal is to provide access to the beach--which these solutions would. It would obviously be great if he just went along with the legal requirements, but moving the road or getting a non-profit to operate a gate is better than a protracted court battle, and it wouldn't hurt if everyone ended up happy at the end.
Resolving the dispute in a way that everyone is happy with may reinforce bad behavior in that you can get away with closing the path for N years; but at the end of the day, if there is equivalent access to the beach with the old path and a new path that the landowner is happier with, the public still has the same access going forward as they did before, and it likely would have been allowed if he had gone through permits.
So it also shows that in the end, even billionaires need to follow the law; and that its probably a better use of their time to work with the commission to find a good solution, instead of to fight the law.
> If it was clear cut, why is the Chief of Enforcement accommodating alternatives?
Because the Commission has finite resources and devoting them to dealing with a billionaire that's devoted to tying up the legal system as long as possible isn't efficient use of them if a compromise can be reached at far less cost in litigation and the remaining resources directed to other priorities.
The constitution does not guarantee access to OP's house, but it does for the beach. The courts have not ordered toomuchtodo to give the public access to his house.
Let's say your house abuts a public park, providing access to an area that's hard to reach from the public entrance. You let kids walk down your driveway and through your back yard to the park. You frequently sit on the porch and wave to them as they walk through. On busy days, you sell parking in your front yard to park-goers. One day, after 50 years, you decide you don't like those kids walking though your yard any more and you lock the gate. Or, to tailor the analogy more closely, the Simpsons' Mr. Burns buys your house and locks the gate.
If someone took you (or the new owner) to court to re-open the gate, you'd probably lose.
That's incorrect! Routine use of a path over your property over a large amount of time is a classic case where a public easement is created without the owner's consent. See "Prescriptive Easements"[1]. You absolutely will be required to re-open the path.
There was a post on /r/legaladvice where someone's neighbor sold a plot of land, causing them to effectively be landlocked, but there was a road through OP's land connected to the seller's property with a locked gate to which the seller was demanding access. Basically everyone was telling OP not to allow the seller access, even once, as that would set a precedent.
There is nothing unclear in this story. California's beaches are a public resource, as codified in the California constitution. Blocking access to public beaches is against the law, no matter how much property you own or how much money you have. Khosla is breaking the law, and a court has confirmed that.
Common law (still a thing in America) has the concept of an implied easement. If people have been relying on this path for the past century to gain access to the beach, then you can't just discontinue access.
When I was a child, my church owned a plot of land across the street from the main building. The land was vacant, and students from a nearby college used to cut across it to get to class. Once a year, church members would stand at the corners of the property to bar access to the pedestrians - so that the church could maintain that it had not ceded access to the path, in the event that the church wanted to make use of the lot at a later date.
Folks, half of this conversation is now so greyed out I can't even properly read it. Regardless of whether you agree or not - please stop downvoting. A person's asking legitimate questions. Don't silence the questions. Don't punish people who just talk within the discourse.
There's no one being attacked here. No one's being objectionally rude. It's just an exchange of ideas and viewpoints. Let those be.
You're arguing opinions as facts and making me debate semantics. I don't agree that this was trolling by the least.
Also – since these are just opinions, they are worth equally much. The truth isn't something you or anyone else owns. And what do you mean, 'deserves.'
This isn't trolling. This person is arguing, is what I think. Arguing civilly which is what this is, should be possible out here in the boonies (whith which I mean HN, in the most amical way).
I question the sincerity of their arguments. The same person posted at least one ridiculous nonsequitur (about guns), quoted the same passage several times in several places with demonstrably incorrect explanation of its meaning (even after being corrected about what California law says about the subject, with references), made silly analogies about living rooms, and all around pulled a Gish Gallop spread across a couple dozen comments.
If a "civil" argument is designed to mislead and intended to make the conversation incomprehensible, can it be anything other than a troll? This is a trolling tactic and has been forever. Look up "forum sliding", for another fun explanation of one of the tactics hyperliner is using.
If he didn't keep posting and reposting the same blurb about whomever is representing the defendant, I might more reasonably consider his point of view. Until then, I'm really considering him just to be trolling.
The only greyed out posts I see aren't worth reading anyway. Mostly just ignoring anyone that makes points to counter their arguments, it's like having a conversation with our President.
As much as I hate to say this - I must say it: this was one of the few good things (maybe the only one?) about communism - public beaches for all seas, lakes and rivers. Nobody could own first 4 meters from the water. And many tourist from non-communist countries came and enjoyed and marvelled this freedom they didn't have in their own countries. Western countries could copy this...
You don't need communism to have the concept of public lands and public rights-of-way across private land. A huge part of the western USA and Alaska, after all, is public lands.
Public access is absolutely compatible with private land titles and liberal democracy - we just need the government to step up and implement it over the objections of the privileged few.
The rights to to beach access can also be traced to the Code of Justinian in the 6th century:
1. By the law of nature these things are common to mankind, the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore, provided that he respects habitationes, monuments, and buildings which are not, like the sea, subject only to the law of nations.
2. All rivers and ports are public; hence the right of fishing in a port, or in rivers, is common to all men.
3. The seashore extends as far as the greatest winter flood runs up.
4. The public use of the banks of a river is part of the law of nations, just as is that of the river itself. All persons, therefore, are as much at liberty to bring their vessels to the bank, to fasten ropes to the trees growing there, and to place any part of their cargo there, as to navigate the river itself But the banks of a river are the property of those whose land they adjoin; and consequently the trees growing on them are also the property of the same persons.
5. The public use of the seashore, too, is part of the law of nations, as is that of the sea itself; and, therefore, any person is at liberty to place on it a cottage, to which he may retreat, or to dry his nets there, and haul them from the sea; for the shores may be said to be the property of no man, but are subject to the same law as the sea itself, and the sand or ground beneath it.
TLDR: Really old Roman dude said watery stuff is public.
socialism. Socialism is when the state provides something for the people. Fire, police, roads, buses/public transport, parks, the post office .. all that is socialism.
Communism is buying a round of beers and the next person in your group buying a round of beers. It's the understood unspoken agreement between your flatmates to keep the place clean. It's the communal aspect of humanity and we all practice it every day.
> Socialism is when the state provides something for the people
No, socialism has nothing to do with the state. It just describes a social-economic system where workers collectively own the capital goods they use to produce value, rather than members of the capitalist class. This is why kibbutzes could be described as "socialist" despite being entirely private and not related to the Israeli state.
Social democracy and "welfare states" are what you're thinking of.
Coming from an ex-communist country I was amazed to see that privately owned beaches with an entrance fee are even a thing.
Unfortunately from what I witnessed there's way too much money to be made in this business, so if somebody is going to adopt someone else's approach, then it's going to be the ex-communist countries.
The trick they use in my ex-communist country is to make a really really nice beach, and charge exorbitant fees for services like chair and sunshade rental. Oh you don't want that? Too bad, beach is covered in them, no room for your towel unless you wanna invade people's personal space I'm afraid. Maybe you should find a different beach eh buddy?
It's important to notice that any argument in favor of public access to beaches can be applied to any kind of desirable land. One could make an isomorphic argument about mountaintops: "The concept of a private mountaintop is backwards and unethical. Why should rich people be able to restrict others from hiking to the top and enjoying scenic views?" Should we ban private ownership of mountaintops?
Public beaches are a good thing, but it's wasteful to ban ownership of all 840 miles of California coastline. Some people want private beaches, even if the law doesn't allow for it. They'll lock gates, block roads, and otherwise shirk the law to get what they want. The state then must then expend significant resources discovering and sanctioning these people.
A better solution would be for the state to tax private beaches. That would collect significant revenue from people like Khosla while still allowing only a small fraction of the coast to be privately-owned.
Edit: I'm not saying we should ban public beaches. I'm saying allow something like 20 miles of private coastline and auction off the rights every year. The other 820 miles of coastline would remain public, and the state would collect millions in revenue to be used for social welfare.
>> Public beaches are a good thing, but it's wasteful to ban ownership of all 840 miles of California coastline. Some people want private beaches, even if the law doesn't allow for it. They'll lock gates, block roads, and otherwise shirk the law to get what they want. The state then must then expend significant resources discovering and sanctioning these people.
>> A better solution would be for the state to tax private beaches. That would collect significant revenue from people like Khosla while still allowing only a small fraction of the coast to be privately-owned.
A better solution would be to change the law so the fine for blocking access is computed relative to net worth, and to allow for collection of all court costs related to enforcement and collection.
That way the state could fine Khosla $3,000,000 a day for breaking the law, plus make him pay the bill for the legal actions required to collect the money. Failure to pay the money would result in foreclosure of his property.
People like Khosla need to be reminded that they are just like the rest of us.
A better solution, instead of giving in to the demands of sociopathic people, might be to calculate the total cost needed to enforce and keep the beaches open and then set fines in such a way that they generate the revenue needed.
A simple example would be if there are an average of 100 violations per year of people blocking access that require state intervention and an average annual operating cost of $1M, then the base fine is set at $10,000.
Instead of rewarding the folks breaking the law by letting them do it and taxing it because you can't afford enforcement, shift the burden of cost of enforcement to those in violation of the law.
Also, this idea of selling off public goods is a slippery slope -- if folks see that selling a little bit of beach here and there can raise funding for projects that will get them relected it will be hard to resist dipping back in.
Such fines would not collect nearly as much revenue as a tax. Consider the case of fining people for possession of marijuana versus legalizing and taxing it. States that tax collect several orders of magnitude more revenue, which they use to benefit the less fortunate. Fines have another disadvantage: Unlike taxes, fines are regressive and selectively enforced.
When it comes to lakes, mountains, woods, waterfalls, caves, cliffs, and other majestic natural phenomena, we're fine with some being privately-owned and some being public. We have mechanisms in place to ensure that we make the right trade-offs (eg: natural parks, nature preserves, zoning). Plenty of states and countries allow private beaches and they do just fine. I don't see why the coastline is so special that we must ban all private ownership, even if it means sacrificing valuable revenue for social programs.
> Such fines would not collect nearly as much revenue as a tax
Who said anyone cared about turning sociopaths into a revenue stream? (Although to my eye, it beats some of the others the state has...) The goal is to stop the sociopathic behavior.
Frankly, I am more of a mind with those advocating the bolt-cutter option. Make it an every-Saturday, media-friendly community event - a trip to the beach. Make it fun - bring clowns. Private security won't go too far with that many cameras around, and a few people willing to risk a jail visit would go a long way.
one could make that argument, and should. If it serves the common good, and there are other opportunities to own land (and of course their are), than we should dissallow it as a society. Getting some theoretical tax dollars and giving my son or daughter an opportunity to feel sand in their tows and waves on their chest and salt in their mouth, etc, are for more worthy than some tax dollars. We should not create a society where only the wealthy get to enjoy common properties and delights of the earth.
This is a strawman. Nobody is arguing in favor of 100% private beaches. Apparently I hold the most extreme view in this thread, and I'm proposing privatizing 2% of the coastline and taxing the hell out of it. The other 98% would remain public.
Remember: This proposal would mean millions more for social programs. I think things like education and health care are more important than ensuring everyone's right to access 100% of the entire coastline. (Which isn't even the case today, as the law rarely enforced.)
> Remember: This proposal would mean millions more for social programs.
Why not just skip the middleman and raise capital gains and estate taxes? Also what would keep the 2% landowners from paying lobbyists and politicians to lower the coastline taxes, like they have paid to lower capital gains and estate taxes?
Remember that this is a state policy, so it's pretty easy to keep the wealth out of state and avoid the taxes. California already has the highest capital gains taxes in the US and 2nd-highest in the world, so such tax avoidance is extremely common. Coastline can't be moved or hidden, making it much harder to avoid the tax.
"Public access to Martins Beach, and to all land seaward of the mean high tide line in California, is guaranteed in the state’s constitution and mandated within the Coastal Act of 1976."
So it's the right to bear arms in the US Constitution, but that does not stop us from wondering whether it is archaic and whether it should be changed.
If we are of the opinion that everything should be private, then why not privatize Central Park?!
What could go wrong if some poor kids will never get to see the beach? It makes it even more of an incentive to work hard, am I right? /sarcasm
The truth is that the bigger the disparities between rich and poor the more violent the environment gets. So, let those poor kids access to the beach and you'll be able to enjoy your wealth.
Nobody in this thread is arguing that all beaches should be private. I'm arguing in favor of privatizing a tiny fraction of coastline, taxing the hell out of it to pay for other social programs, and keeping the rest public.
I look forward for your initiative to change the California constitution to appear on the ballet. Until then, maybe we should obey what the courts say the constitution means?
Nobody is doing that. I'm talking about bad arguments, not bad policies.
Also, read my comments. If anything, my proposed idea would reduce the number of de-facto private beaches and increase wealth transfer to the less fortunate.
I don't think that's your true reason for supporting a ban on private beaches. Until the courts struck it down, California's constitution also banned same-sex marriage. I don't think that 5 years ago, you would have argued against gay marriage because of what was in the state constitution.
If what is lawful differs from what is most conducive to human flourishing, it is the law that should be changed.
The law existed before the property was bought. And regardless of your opinions about the morality of the law, for same-sex marriage, the law was being enforced before it was repealed. This law isn't being enforced.
>> If what is lawful differs from what is most conducive to human flourishing, it is the law that should be changed.
If we're talking about laws being conducive to human flourishing, then the law is perfect as is, and in fact, should have even more teeth to make it easier to enforce.
The current law is designed for the exact purpose of human flourishing. Specifically, the flourishing of ALL the citizens of California and visitors thereto.
The law, as is, prioritizes the flourishing of millions of people over the flourishing of a very few extremely wealthy individuals.
Nobody here is proposing privatizing the entire coast. Apparently I hold the most extreme views in this thread and my example was 2% of the coastline. Do you think things would be worse if 98% of the coastline was public and millions more in tax revenue went to social programs?
well thank goodness someone here on hackernews dot com is looking out for the interests of the wealthy property owners who want to violate California law.
What? At no point did I defend Khosla's actions or the interests of the wealthy.
Right now, the law banning private ownership of beaches is all but unenforced. One can currently buy a private beach for the cost of a fence and a gate. I'm saying we should tax private beaches so that:
1. The state has an incentive to enforce the law. (Just like any business, law enforcement favors profit centers to cost centers.)
2. We can limit private beaches to a small fraction of the total coastline.
3. The revenue collected can be used for social programs benefiting the less fortunate.
If anything, that's the opposite of "...looking out for the interests of the wealthy property owners who want to violate California law."
Another thing: "It violates California law" is not a good reason to condemn something. For five years, same-sex marriage was a violation of the state constitution. When I voiced my opposition to that law, social conservatives the same argument as you. (Though they were less snarky about it.)
I think your comment is uncharitable, untrue, and unkind.
