
Court orders tech billionaire to open up Martins Beach - coloneltcb
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/10/martins-beach-ordered-open-to-public-by-appeals-court/
======
cjensen
For anyone new to this issue: keep in mind that when Khosla bought the
property, California Law and prior Caselaw were crystal clear that there is
absolutely no legal way for Khosla to close or reduce pre-existing beach
access. This is not a case where someone is fighting a gray area of law. This
is a tried-and-true legal rule system that has been in place for 50 years.

It is equally clear under California law that if he wants to develop any new
structures on the land or augment existing structures, he will be required to
open up access even further than it already is.

You can think this system of law is good or bad, but nevertheless it is the
law.

~~~
mark212
There is a larger question as to whether that California law violates the US
Constitution or not. I think not, but we will probably see what the USSC has
to say about it.

If he wanted less surfers traipsing across his property, seems like the easier
solution would've been to drastically increase the parking fees. As I
understand it, it's almost impossible to walk to the beach down that road so
access to the parking would've been much easier to restrict under the costal
access law. So this is almost certainly done as a provocation to see if he can
change the law via the courts

~~~
DannyBee
" but we will probably see what the USSC has to say about it."

Actually, we will probably not. They almost certainly will not take the case.
This is a matter of state constitutional law, and well settled law at that.
The big problem for Khosla is: It's been that way since 1976, and the supreme
court has not, in that time period, said there was anything wrong with the
provision.

This is part of the California constitution:

"No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the
frontage of 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, nor to destroy or
obstruct free navigation of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such
laws as will give the most liberal construction to this provision so that
access to the navigable water of this State shall always be attainable for the
people thereof." \- California Constitution, Article X, section 4

At worst, they will be forced to pay market rate. They will then argue over
market rate. Khosla may be a billionaire, but bureaucracy generally doesn't
care.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I appreciate your contributions in these Khosla threads. Thank you!

> Khosla may be a billionaire, but bureaucracy generally doesn't care.

I genuinely enjoy that California can outlast Khosla, and that access to the
beach will return _eventually_. The level of wealthy arrogance _is too damn
high_.

------
chmaynard
"On the other side, numerous prominent organizations lined up to file briefs
in support of Khosla’s position, including the Pacific Legal Foundation,
California Farm Bureau Federation, California Cattlemen‘s Association,
California Association of Realtors. and California Business Properties
Association."

Why?

~~~
qbrass
The realtors don't want stuff like this to devalue properties and make things
a harder sell. Farmers and cattlemen don't want people with cameras to have an
excuse to walk through their properties. Business property owners don't want
the extra liability and upkeep costs associated with it. Lawyers just want to
draw the fight out as long as possible since they're being paid.

~~~
mark212
Pacific Legal Foundation is a non-profit in Sacramento that files lawsuits to
push the law in ways that protect private property and personal freedom (as
they definite it; I'm neither a fan nor a supporter but want to be neutral).
They're kind of an anti-ACLU or anti-Sierra Club in a sense that they use
strategic litigation for political reasons.

~~~
jacknews
"private property and personal freedom". Ultimately, these are incompatible,
IMHO.

~~~
Cerium
I agree with you, but take it they believe in the personal freedom of private
property owners over those with a lack thereof.

------
throwaway2016a
My first thought when reading this is wouldn't that road be set up as an
easement?

Turns out that is addressed in the first part of the article:

> the State Lands Commission has been in negotiations with Khosla... to
> purchase an easement to allow public access over the private road.

Sounds like a huge mistake by the state to not have that set up as an easement
decades ago. Could have avoided the whole mess.

