
California's beaches belong to the public - pmoriarty
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-nelsen-public-access-martins-beach-surfrider-vinod-khosla-20170630-story.html
======
blackbagboys
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.

~~~
randycupertino
If someone organized something like that, I'd happily go!

~~~
all_usernames
Same.

------
SwellJoe
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.

~~~
Animats
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.

~~~
hkmurakami
Well as you surely know, residents like to joke that horses come before humans
in LAH. Also, the pathway committee seems to have quite a bit of power.

------
Mz
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.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
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.

~~~
seanp2k2
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?

~~~
seanp2k2
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.

~~~
Mz
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.

------
Judgmentality
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.

~~~
jsemrau
> 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.

~~~
all_usernames
> He wants to win the principle to control the access to the beach.

Which is _much worse_ than just wanting the beach, because he's fighting a
battle to set a precedent that is directly contrary to the public good.

------
option
So the court ruled he must restore the access and he just ignores the ruling.
Can someone explain again why?

And, of course, as a surfer and computer scientist I find Mr. Khosla
disgusting because of this.

~~~
pmoriarty
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.

~~~
FireBeyond
> 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".

~~~
desdiv
>Khosla is a multi billionaire. He could afford to pay a fine of $10,000 a day
for the rest of his life.

I believe that for a fine to be fair, it must be based on a percentage basis
of disposable income[0].

[0]
[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-
home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/)

~~~
obstinate
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.

~~~
KGIII
The law may only allow for fines up to a certain amount, no matter what a
judge may want.

~~~
obstinate
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.

~~~
tajen
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...

------
greggman
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.

[https://goo.gl/maps/hAyPMsWvJV52](https://goo.gl/maps/hAyPMsWvJV52)

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.

[https://goo.gl/maps/VVRNoHyKkSk](https://goo.gl/maps/VVRNoHyKkSk)

A better example of that I'm pretty sure you can't access the shoreline around
SFO.

~~~
codezero
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.

~~~
tajen
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").

------
option
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.

~~~
xxSparkleSxx
I bet it can, so let's get started!

Here's a list of companies that Khosla ventures invested in:

[http://www.khoslaventures.com/portfolio/all-
companies](http://www.khoslaventures.com/portfolio/all-companies)

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!

~~~
komali2
Eh, I'd rather just drive out to the gate and cut the lock.

Where is it exactly? I'll do it next week.

~~~
SwellJoe
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.

~~~
s0rce
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.

~~~
michaelchisari
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.

Power Hand Tool Safety - Die Grinder Use

[https://www.jlab.org/ehs/toolbox_files/GrindingTools.pdf](https://www.jlab.org/ehs/toolbox_files/GrindingTools.pdf)

~~~
zdkl
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!

------
all_usernames
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?

------
handedness
The only saving grace is that the gate is low and easily passed:

1\.
[http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/45/63/00/9908283/3/1024x1024.jpg](http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/45/63/00/9908283/3/1024x1024.jpg)

2\.
[http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/32/27/65/6913369/19/rawImage.jpg](http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/32/27/65/6913369/19/rawImage.jpg)

------
rdiddly
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.

------
atomical
This man does not have the personality of Warren Buffet or Charlie Munger.

~~~
bsg75
If the gate and trespass warnings are invalid, what happens to citizens who
ignore them, and cut the lock themselves?

~~~
hyperliner
If they are valid, and he shots and kills an intruder, would that be
trespassing and he fearing for his life be a valid legal defense?

~~~
wavefunction
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.

------
jakelarkin
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.

~~~
hudibras
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.

------
pasbesoin
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.

------
jondubois
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.

~~~
usaphp
Because media is owned by rich people and they trick regular people into
believing that what they are doing is for their own good

~~~
jondubois
...Or maybe for some higher principle.

Though it's ironic given that the majority of wealthy people have no
principles themselves; yet they are very good at teaching them to other
people.

~~~
weirdstuff
The rich have principles. They're just more sociopathic principles, IMO.

------
chasing
This is one of those situations that can be summed up rather succinctly:

Christ, what an asshole.

------
Camillo
Why can't they go to the gate with the court order and a sheriff and cut the
lock?

~~~
just4themoney
Because he appealed the order and the appeal hasn't been decided yet.

------
hi41
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.

------
all_usernames
There's a FB group for those who might be interested in mobilizing:
[https://www.facebook.com/groups/friendsofmartinsbeach/](https://www.facebook.com/groups/friendsofmartinsbeach/)

------
rjurney
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.

------
banku_brougham
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.

------
Animats
Malibu’s Zonker Harris beach accessway is "closed for repair". Again. Since
summer 2016.

------
robbiemitchell
Genuinely surprised no one has simply removed the gate or otherwise rendered
it useless.

~~~
rdtsc
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...

------
diyseguy
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.

------
hanoz
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?

------
CoachRufus87
Parks too?

[http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/11-a-good-walk-
spoile...](http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/11-a-good-walk-spoiled)

------
hyperliner
"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."

~~~
dang
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.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14679391](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14679391)
and marked it off-topic.

------
hyperliner
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."

~~~
dang
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14679505](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14679505)
and marked it off-topic.

------
hyperliner
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?

~~~
johnmarcus
"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."

~~~
hyperliner
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.

~~~
mattkrause
> But I would not trust a government employee.

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.

~~~
hyperliner
Very useful.

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."

~~~
mattkrause
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.

------
jedmeyers
Police chief? Los Altos Hills does not have a police department.

~~~
randycupertino
Probably was a county sheriff. Why is it necessary to split hairs?

~~~
80211
Because it's never ok to be sloppy with facts.

~~~
khazhoux
Yes, society MUST be protected.

~~~
honestoHeminway
Captain Nitpick, he arrived just in time to save us all!

<BAM>

Im so sorry for forgetting about the quotation marks - Captain Nitpick!

<WHAM!>

AND NOW FOR THE VILLIANS!

~~~
dang
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN?

------
hyperliner
You mean trespassing into private property without a warrant?

~~~
cylinder
Are you dense? It's not private property, that's the whole point!

~~~
dang
Please don't respond to bad comments by making the thread even worse. We ban
accounts that make personal attacks.

------
hyperliner
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."

~~~
SwellJoe
What does this conversation have to do with the second amendment? Who has
brought up guns here, except you? Are you intentionally trolling?

~~~
refurb
I think it's a fair comment. I would expect everyone who supports the
constitution to just as vigorously support the 2nd Amendment.

Or is it a pick and choose document?

~~~
SwellJoe
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?

------
SSLy
Why is this on _hacker_ news?

~~~
greglindahl
Because the landowner discussed in the article is a part of the SV tech
community.

~~~
SSLy
Sigh. I guess flagging and going on my merry way is the only thing to do here.

------
valuearb
California's beaches are publicly owned. Which is also why they are toilets.

------
pulse7
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...

~~~
djsumdog
> communism

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.

~~~
tomjakubowski
> 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.

------
chroma
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.

~~~
rebootthesystem
I think you missed this part:

"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."

~~~
chroma
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.

~~~
johnmarcus
Right, but currently what is lawful is also the most conductive for human
flourishing. Hence, it should be enforced, not changed.

~~~
chroma
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?

~~~
johnmarcus
Why only 2% of the coastline? once you start allowing it, everyone is going to
want to privatize their beaches, and it won't stop at 2%.

