
California Sues Vinod Khosla over Martins Beach Public Access - ilamont
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-06/martins-beach-california-lawsuit
======
RobertRoberts
I don't live near here, can someone explain this? ( The link should open in
Google maps with satellite view.)

[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martin's+Beach/@37.3746238...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martin's+Beach/@37.3746238,-122.4072087,899m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x808f090cb6271353:0x3d9391e735ac292a!8m2!3d37.3736981!4d-122.4083224)

What I see is a bunch of houses on the beach.

How is this in issue with one person and not all those home owners?

Edit: Even the reviews talk about how you can just walk to the beach without
paying for parking. I don't get the problem? Is this a California beach-
perspective thing? As far as I know all water front property in the US is
public up to a certain distance from the water already.

~~~
choppaface
There is a gate you can see in Street View. The contention started when Khosla
started locking the gate and had security arrest surfers who jumped it.

Edit: here's a timeline: [https://www.surfrider.org/pages/timeline-open-
martins-beach](https://www.surfrider.org/pages/timeline-open-martins-beach)

~~~
mindslight
If this is a public right of way, then doesn't it take just a single surfer to
come along and _improve the right of way_ by clearing obstructions? A cordless
sawzall is like $100, and bolt cutters are much less.

They'd likely end up receiving a SLAPP by Khosla, but surely there would be
some judgement-proof surfer willing to shoulder the long tail risk, and plenty
of people willing to pay for the legal defense.

~~~
bananabreakfast
Some surfers did that and then were arrested and put in jail by Khosla.

Those people willing to pay legal defense are called the Surfrider Foundation
and they're the people that keep suing Khosla to open up the beach.

It's been quite an ordeal.

~~~
refurb
Khosla put them in jail?

I assume you mean the police did?

~~~
slenk
The police, who I am sure this Vinod guy donates to/has in their pocket.

Don't trust anyone when it comes to people with "fuck you" money.

~~~
cdfky
While I would say you shouldn't fully trust some people, coming up with wild
conspiracy theories don't help.

Not trusting people with money (regardless if it's a lot) says something about
society in general. People should understand that even amongst the rich,
people are very different and diverse despite being in the same socioeconomic
class.

------
rossjudson
This is pretty interesting:
[https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/access/pr-access-
fac...](https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/access/pr-access-facts.pdf)

The public can do whatever it wants on the beach itself. The argument is about
whether the road to the beach is implicitly public property because of prior
use.

That PDF provides some tests, and is useful to review prior to reading the
judge's decision.

~~~
rayiner
> The public can do whatever it wants on the beach itself.

The public can do what it wants on the part of the beach up to the high tide
line. It doesn't extend to the whole of what you'd think of as the "beach."

------
eaguyhn
Khosla seems to say the issue is maintaining the access path.. parking,
bathrooms, etc. Is that correct? If so, would it make sense for California to
seize that part the access path via eminent domain and provide those services?

~~~
henryfjordan
Khosla is wrong, he doesn't have to provide anything except access to a path
to the beach that already exists.

And California basically already seized an easement on his land years ago when
they passed the law requiring beach access (although I'm not 100% sure how
that's structured legally).

He might have a point about needing to maintain a relatively safe path, but so
does every property owner in Malibu and they all seem to have it figured out.

~~~
sdnlafkjh34rw
I think his current argument is that he doesn't have to give access (maintain
easement) because his property is part of an 1851 sale of Mexican property
which has a treaty that supercedes Californian state law. Essentially a
federal treaty supercedes state law through judicial review. So unfortunately
the current interpretation based on the courts is that since his property is
part of the 1851 sale which is governed by a federal treaty (which is always
above the rules of state law), he doesn't have to provide easement at all.

I wonder if this means that any of the property owners involved in land as
part of the 1851 sale can now block their existing easements for beach access.

~~~
jjeaff
So does the federal treaty state specifically that land sold does not have to
provide easement? If not, it seems like a weak argument. By that same logic,
he could also put a casino on it and say that since the land was part of the
federal treaty, he no longer has to abide by any state law at all while on the
property.

~~~
sdnlafkjh34rw
I assume if the treaty says that he can open a casino then he can open a
casino. Again, federal law supercedes state law. It's written into our
constitution:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause)

I have no idea what clause they took from that treaty to show he has the right
not to provide easements.

------
wuunderbar
Does anyone have any way to illustrate to me the physics of how he is actually
blocking access? Like how does this road run through this property, where is
the beach in relation, etc.

EDIT: I suppose this helps:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=vinod+khosla+road](https://www.google.com/search?q=vinod+khosla+road)

------
tedk-42
Obviously looking at the bigger picture he's in the wrong. I do wonder what
his motivations are to own that section of the beach though.

Maybe it's the only bit of his property that's vulnerable from a security
perspective and he simply wants tighter control of it.

I hope the public win and he doesn't get his way.

~~~
tempsy
IIRC, his argument is that the path that leads to the beach is actually his
property, and he is effectively being required to pay to upkeep/monitor/secure
this area on his property on his own dime.

~~~
aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA
What a terrible shock that must have been for him, to realize this fact only
after having purchased the property.

~~~
tempsy
Feels like an edge case to me. Not exactly something someone who buys a
private property would think would be possible e.g. to have to pay for upkeep
for public property.

Seems like the gov’t should figure out some sort of reimbursement program in
situations like this.

~~~
ng12
I'm sure a surveyor would have informed him of California law.

~~~
tempsy
it's not really my point. the law is deficient in the sense that it doesn't
cover this edge case. so why not address the edge case?

IMO Khosla should present some numbers on how much it would reasonably cost to
maintain whatever land he owns that would be used by the public to get to the
beach and the gov't should agree to reimburse some reasonable expense on a
quarterly basis.

~~~
aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA
That would make sense if the government had installed the beach after Khosla's
purchase.

------
munk-a
There are some interesting questions to be answered here about the value of
the view included in the pricing of beachfront property that need to be
addressed (agreements to limit development including height restriction -
agreements not to sell property closer to the water line to other private
parties) that will get super complex as climate change continues - including
the fact that erosion may shrink the size of the private rights portion of the
lot on beachside property, or potentially expand it.

Additionally this gets super muddled when it comes to coastal constructions,
even simple jetties docks may have public safety concerns, protection of
private property (if expensive boat maintenance tools or machinery are located
on the jetty) - and that will evolve into questions about using coastal
constructions to restrict access.

Lastly, the costs - as Khosla mentioned the beach is unprofitable to run,
should CA be footing that bill? Could they sublease the property to an
entrepreneur that thinks they could make the beachside facilities profitable?
It is entirely unreasonable (even given the excessive wealth of Khosla) for
him to be forced to maintain an unprofitable entity like that and all the
facility liability that goes along with it.

This is a gigantic can of worms.

I look forward to how this might be resolved, but it sure ain't going to be
simple.

~~~
aqme28
> as Khosla mentioned the beach is unprofitable to run, should CA be footing
> that bill? Could they sublease the property to an entrepreneur that thinks
> they could make the beachside facilities profitable? It is entirely
> unreasonable (even given the excessive wealth of Khosla) for him to be
> forced to maintain an unprofitable entity like that and all the facility
> liability that goes along with it.

Does he need to maintain those facilities? Could he just unblock access and
move on? This feels like a cheap excuse.

~~~
sushisource
Seemingly (IANAL) he could, in fact, do that. I think his concern would be if
he's not properly maintaining it, now the beach near his house is going to
fill up with trash, maybe overnight campers, etc. So he's either got to foot
the bill to keep it looking nice, or end up with a garbage beach.

So it's definitely a sticky situation. Personally, I'd just open it up, I
think people generally treat beaches OK in Cali, but I can imagine his
concern.

As another commenter mentions, it seems like a very reasonable expectation
that the state would maintain it.

~~~
iancmceachern
If I were him, I would be very thankful for what I have (as I am am anyway)
and would share my success with others. In this case it would mean opening it
up and footing the bill for the maintenance of the beach. Why not? Does he
really need more money pragmatically? It seems like the good will, feeling of
joy coming from helping your local community in which you live, and leaving
the world better than you found it would be more than enough return for the
investment. I'm a "working stiff" and happily contribute to the upkeep,
cleanliness and worthy volunteer organizations in the community I live and get
far more from such than it takes from me.

Edited- spelling error.

~~~
colonwqbang
Charity is commendable. But if you are being forced by law to do something, it
is not charity.

------
oisino
Curious signaling as a VC to be involved in something so negatively publicly.
The best companies/ entrepreneurs are super picky on who to raise money from
and I have already heard a couple companies mention this as a reason they
didn't talk to Khosla.

~~~
ramraj07
Indeed. Perhaps no one has said that to his face till now?

~~~
oisino
Public reputation is a funny thing its not binary and its lagging. By the time
people tell you stuff to your face usually its way too late for they have been
building their beliefs around who you are way before.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I wonder what are the downsides of this. The Supreme Court refused to take a
previous case, but I think the composition of the court was a little different
then. Given that this court is even more in favor of stronger private property
protections, does this lawsuit make it possible that it could eventually make
it to the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court could strike down the
entire California coastal access law as unconstitutional.

~~~
learc83
>Supreme Court could strike down the entire California coastal access law as
unconstitutional

That would require a very creative reading of the constitution. Congress could
pass a law overriding it, and SCOTUS could could uphold that law under the
commerce clause (land value in California affects land value in Oregon
etc...).

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
From the last section of the Fifth Amendment:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

~~~
tathougies
But, it was not taken. Khosla came to acquire the property well after the
1970s, which is when California law allowed the public to use all beaches.

------
bazzert
Its even worse in the north east. In Mass. and Maine property owners can (due
to an old colonial era law) own property to the _low_ tide line and deny
access not only to the access, but to the beach itself.

~~~
markdown
Are you sure it's colonial era law? Elsewhere in the world colonial era law
ensured public access up to the high tide line.

~~~
bazzert
Exactly, in fact in the British Isles even the land above the high tide line
(I forget the exact extent) is public. In New England they wanted to encourage
the development of docks (to promote more commerce) and extended ownership to
include the land on which docks would be built.

------
cletus
What I'd really like to see in cases like this is the state playing hardball
with entitled billionaires.

Why not use eminent domain to build a state road to the beach? I mean this
will face a court battle too I'm sure but for a slice of land for a road
you're not talking that much money (the property owner needs to be compensated
by the Fifth Amendment) and building a few miles of road (I honestly don't
know how much) also isn't that expensive.

I mean we're talking lawyer fees kind of money here right? Having a state road
once and for all solve this issue, no?

I'm generally against governments simply placing the burden for public
services onto private individuals. This is the real problem with things like
rent control. If the government feels lower rents for certain individuals is a
public good then why does the burden for this fall on the property owner
instead of the state?

So one could argue the state should provide public access to something that is
currently only accessible over private land, right?

California, build a road.

While we're at it, I've read about this story before but had missed the detail
that there was a parking lot, a store and toilets at the site built and
maintained by the prior owner.

How exactly is this not dedicating the road to public access? What tortured
legal argument swindled the court here?

~~~
harryh
The state doesn't even need to invoke eminent domain to build such a road as
Khosla has offered several times to sell them the necessary land. The issue is
that the state doesn't want to pay.

~~~
ceejayoz
He's offered _at greatly inflated cost_. $30M for a small strip of land when
the entire property was purchased for $32M.

[https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0424-lopez-
kh...](https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0424-lopez-khosla-beach-
access-20160424-column.html)

~~~
harryh
What is the value of a giant private beach? What is the value of that same
beach with public access?

It seems to me that the difference between those two numbers could easily be
$30M.

~~~
sdnlafkjh34rw
The beach isn't owned by Khosla and is not private so I don't understand this
argument. The value of the strip of land should be assessed at the market
value of having a land route to an already public beach that previously didn't
have land access (the beach has always been public, the argument is whether
Khosla needs to provide access to it). Given its a tiny beach with moderate
attendance, I'd argue the NPV is way less than $30m.

~~~
harryh
A person has something worth X. The government wants to take a piece of that
thing that reduces its value to Y. Therefore the government has to give the
person (X-Y) dollars.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable way to value what the government is
taking away via eminent domain.

~~~
cletus
So if he paid $32M for the land and is arguing the government is destroying
$30M of value by making a public beach (by law), well, public then he's
arguing the property after the fact is worth $2M.

So he should take $2M for it right? Or he'd have no object to the State giving
him $32M and simply taking the whole thing, right?

I'd be somewhat OK with these inflated property values estimates with eminent
domain if the owner was forced to take $X-$Y for the remainder from any buyer.

~~~
sdnlafkjh34rw
That's not even how eminent domain works. You get the market value for the
asset seized, not the delta in the market value for the asset remaining post
seizure.

~~~
harryh
To the degree that this is true, that seems awfully unfair to people forced to
give their property to the government without their consent. The government
can just make you poorer overnight? That sounds bad.

------
Animats
Is the Zonker Harris beach accessway (yes, a real thing) in Malibu open
yet?[1] It was "closed for repairs" in 2016. The battles over that were huge
years ago.

[1] [https://beaches.lacounty.gov/zonker-harris-accessway-
closed-...](https://beaches.lacounty.gov/zonker-harris-accessway-closed-for-
repair/)

------
throwawaysea
Isn't this not about the beach but about his private property that leads to
the beach? The courts previously ruled in favor of Khosla - see
[https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF).
The conclusion is on pages 35 and 36, which notes that this particular piece
of land was NOT dedicated to public access and does not fit the common law
parameters for implied public access.

------
IGotThroughIt
I feel like this contentious issue has had a net negative effect on his life
and that he should just sell the damn place and move on.

It's been years and there's so much else to do!

------
option
I regularly donate money to Surfrider foundation so that they continue fight
for _our_ beaches in California

------
freepor
What’s weird is how Khosla doesn’t yet have the “upper class” mentality. The
true upper class is obsessed with legacy and reputation and would ever allow
their name to become synonymous with “asshole.” And the best he is going to
get is a few bucks when the state eminent domains an easement.

------
bound008
Context for those who are unfamiliar with the situation:
[https://hn.algolia.com/?q=khosla](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=khosla)

If you search HN for "Khosla", you will see approximately half of the first
page of results are regarding this issue.

------
ripvanwinkle
I found this provided an interesting window into Vinod Khosla's style. He
didn't exactly answer the question asked
[https://youtu.be/HZcXup7p5-8?t=2618](https://youtu.be/HZcXup7p5-8?t=2618)

------
rcpt
Sounds great.

Now let's get some real gems like Hollister Ranch and Vickers Hot Springs
opened up again.

------
nooyurrsdey
It is infuriating that one individual

A) has the audacity to believe they are entitled to such a rare publically
beneficial property and

B) has the power (both politically and financially) to see this battle
through.

~~~
abstractbarista
So do we - or do we not - have decent property rights? It sounds like the land
never should have been private in the first place, given how special it is.

Otherwise, if I own it, I should be able to keep others off of it. You don't
actually own something that you cannot control access to.

If you disagree, then keep your front door unlocked, because I'm moving in
with some friends later this week.

~~~
freepor
Land ownership is a social construct. It's not like ownership over something
you make with your hands or your mind, and in the US, all of the land is
stolen property anyways so there's no rational claim to any of it.

So land ownership is a right afforded by society to society, like any other
kind of legal framework, and part of that is limitations. In earlier parts of
human history, if you tried to cut off a population's access to a valuable
resource like water by claiming land ownership, they'd just come with sharp
implements, impale you on them, and take the land back from you. In modern
times, we need to accomplish the same end, but with hopefully no bloodshed.

~~~
rayiner
Yes, land ownership is a social construct, but that's not the issue here. The
issue here is that, once the ink has dried on the "social contract," the State
cannot change the bargain just because it doesn't like the deal it made.

In this case, there is a public trust doctrine, which says that public beaches
(up to the high tide line) are dedicated to the use of the public. But the
California Court of Appeals has held that this doctrine doesn't apply here,
due to an oddity in the history of Khosla's land. It dates from a Mexican land
grant: v[https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/04/27/martins-beach-
appeal...](https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/04/27/martins-beach-appeals-
court-hands-khosla-win-and-loss).

> In a 52-page opinion, the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco
> upheld the main element of San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Gerald
> Buchwald’s 2014 decision in Khosla’s favor. _The court found the public does
> not have the right under the California constitution to cross Khosla’s
> property to reach the shoreline._

The California court reached a decision about what the property rights are.
The State didn't like the result, so now it's been looking for _other ways to
do the same thing._ Even if you don't like Khosla, you shouldn't be happy
about that.

~~~
xenadu02
The state can simply modify the rules to require access, which seems like one
possible outcome of this case.

~~~
rayiner
Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution contain special
protections for private property rights. What you're describing--"requir[ing]
access"\--is a property right called an "easement." The State cannot "simply
modify the rules" to give itself a property right that didn't exist before.

There is a constitutional way for the state to acquire a property right
against a property owner's will: eminent domain. But that requires "just
compensation" ( _i.e._ California will have to pay Khosla for the easement).
California is hesitant to do that because it would rather try to bully Khosla
into giving up the property for free.

~~~
freepor
They should eminent domain a teeny narrow strip right across the center of the
property, and try to get it assessed as pro rata on acreage. Maybe two very
narrow strips in different places for one way traffic in each direction.

~~~
rayiner
That would be a perfectly reasonable and legal thing to do. But California
doesn’t want to set the precedent of having to actually pay for property
rights. Ever since Penn Central gutted the Fifth Amendment, states prefer to
use regulation to take private property for public use.

------
baybal2
Can somebody tell me where the guy gets so much of his temerity?

~~~
option
got lucky in the right time in Silicon Valley. Nothing super smart or
visionary.

Once he got money - he revealed his true self

~~~
g_langenderfer
Are you so sure you wouldn't act the same in his shoes? We're all human.

~~~
s0rce
Restrict public access to a beach on a property I never visit (and continue to
fight about it). I'm not OP but I can assure you I wouldn't do that.

------
thrillgore
Good. He has no right to public beach access.

------
newnewpdro
Back when I lived in Pescadero years ago I'd drive past this place very often,
most of the time the gate was locked shut. It seemed completely random when
it'd be open.

My understanding is that his guy is a Grade A douche bag.

------
kops
The property rights are what they are. Who the owner is should not cloud the
argument. If you are a middle class person and have a lawn in front of your
house, would you allow the random people to use the lawn for
chilling/sleeping/picnic or whatever? Well a rich person happens to own a much
bigger and luxurious version of the same front lawn. If the state or whoever
owned the thing once upon time sold it, then it is his. The fact that he is
stinking rich and we the normal populace would love to have access to the same
property is no argument. On the other hand if his purchase did not include
exclusivity to the beach then by all means go there and piss around. But just
being rich and owning something that most of us can not afford is no
justification to snatch it from them. It is just using the justice
system/democracy as a mob intent on plunder.

P.S. 1. I don't care who khosla is. But looking at the whole debate it seems
the whole opposition is based on the fact that he is a billionaire. I refuse
to buy that line of argument. Tell me it is illegal for so an so reason and I
will buy. But he is an asshole or he is a billionaire is just emotions doing
the talking :-)

P.S. 2. Going by the comments below, I feel compelled to clarify that my
comment is not informed by the local laws. I am just a little bit puzzled by
the words billionaire and asshole being used synonymously. The law should be
same for everyone. A billionaire can hire more lawyers is no reason to call
him an asshole in this context even if he has earned the title elsewhere
unequivocally.

Update: typo and added a p.s.

~~~
cortesoft
What? California beaches have been public property since 1976. He bought the
house knowing he doesn't own the beach, and that the public has a right to
that beach.

No one is allowed to own a beach in California. This isn't about mob rule,
this is about a choice Californians made many years ago that says beaches are
public.

The beach is not his.

~~~
kops
Then he should be kicked out of the court in a less than 5 minutes. Why is it
being discussed?

~~~
cortesoft
Are these questions based on reading the article or not? A lot of the things
are discussed in the article... the question is not whether the beach is
public, it is about what access requirements he has to meet. Does he have to
provide a road? Parking?

~~~
colejohnson66
No he doesn’t have to provide parking. But he does have to allow access.

