
Billionaire must let public access Martins Beach, judge rules - kqr2
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Billionaire-must-allow-public-to-access-Martins-5778533.php
======
eksith
At the risk of sounding indelicate, why did he buy the property when the real
possibility of maintaining public access was there? I can understand he wanted
some peace and solitude, but if that's the case, there are options available
to him as a billionaire that aren't available to the vast majority of the
populace.

Access was in the law books before his purchase and claiming the 1848 Treaty
of Guadalupe Hidalgo as being present before the 1972 Coastal Zone law is
ridiculous in the extreme. There were many other things legal in 1848 that
aren't today for very good reasons.

    
    
      "The judge could have fined Khosla $15,000 a day for every day the gates were shut, 
      but she waived all fines."
    

Why?

~~~
NoPiece
The judge had to twist the law to get the decision everyone wanted. She said
closing the gate was "development" and therefore needed a permit which he
didn't get. That's already quite a stretch, it would have been capricious to
tack on a fine.

~~~
eksith
You're referring to :

    
    
      Mallach agreed with Surfrider that closing the gate amounted to “a change 
      in intensity of use,” That change, she said, could be considered development 
      under the law. As a result, she said in her ruling, Khosla must apply 
      for a coastal development permit if he wants to close the gate or make other 
      changes to the property.
    

Removing public access means he intends to use the land privately. While what
constitutes "use" is debatable, these are moot points considering the laws
passed in 1972 and 1976:

    
    
      prohibit homes or developments from blocking access to beaches. They essentially 
      make the entire coast, including all beach property below the mean high tide line, 
      public property.

~~~
bradly
> Removing public access means he intends to use the land privately

The argument was that he wasn't removing public access; he contends public
access never existed: "the Deeney family, which set up the first cabin in
1918, had always charged people to access the beach, a clear indication that
it was a private beach prior to 1972"

------
idlewords
Alternative framing: rich guy closed access to a California public beach for
four years and pays no penalty.

~~~
Hytosys
I like your spin, but what good would punishment do?

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "what good would punishment do?"

Make him think twice about being an asshole in the future?

~~~
gambiting
I genuinely don't see how he is being "an asshole". I guess literally everyone
who owns land in US would want to protect it. If people wanted to have public
access to your own garden, would you consider yourself "an asshole" for
denying them that? It just so happens that his land is a beach - so maybe the
problem is that someone sold him that beach in the first place? In many
countries you literally can't buy beaches, no matter how much money you have.

~~~
seren
Correct me if I am wrong, but from my understanding, he does not own the beach
itself, but only the road allowing to access it. It is a bit different. It
sounds more like a right of way issue.

I guess Vinod's property is the big one on the main road and he also owns the
other houses/cabins on Martin's beach road.

[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martins+Beach,+California+...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martins+Beach,+California+94019/@37.3749497,-122.4071547,240m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x808f097345ba3ed5:0x2153a636d0b993fc)

Street view with, what I assume the barrier, and the no entrance sign :

[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martins+Beach,+California+...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martins+Beach,+California+94019/@37.3765344,-122.4039575,3a,28.4y,247.94h,77.85t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZFSJ5O-pRdmaWybsxhqIvQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x808f097345ba3ed5:0x2153a636d0b993fc)

------
sprokolopolis
Down here in Los Angeles we have many rich homeowners who use fences,
fake/unlawful signs to keep the public out of local beaches. Many of these
beaches are in Malibu he seem to think they are above the law. There are now
mobile apps that tell you where these secret beaches are and how to access
them (some access routes are very hidden).

~~~
clarkm
Not only do the residents of Malibu do an amazing job of keeping the general
public off their public-access beaches, they also seem to have a knack for
crafting ordinances and environmental regulations that keep outsiders from
moving in.

In 2000, Malibu had a population of 12,575. By 2010, the population had grown
by a mere 0.55% to 12,645. Compare that to the entire state of California,
which during the same period grew over 10% and added 3.5 million residents.

~~~
interpol_p
That minuscule amount of population growth makes me think the existing
population just had a few children.

~~~
mahmud
Or new maids.

------
csense
If the city / state is forcing the owner open the beach to the public, why
does the guy have to pay liability insurance? He should try to seek
declaratory judgment that he's not voluntarily opening the land to the public,
and therefore the state must indemnify him for any liability created by doing
so.

For that matter, if someone's not allowed to restrict access to their
property, is it really their property at all, or is it the state's property?

If I were this guy, I'd appeal. I'm no lawyer, but it looks like he's got a
good case the state has _de facto_ taken his property away from him, and he's
owed compensation under the US Constitution.

Everyone here seems to be against this guy, and their comments seem to be
unusually vapid -- "I like going to the beach and I hate rich people" isn't a
good basis for public policy.

~~~
sitharus
Despite being a socialist in most respects, I have to agree with you. Property
is either public, with the state responsible for all incidents and
maintenance, or private with a landowner responsible and within their rights
to control access.

If the private landowner has to insure and maintain the area then I can't see
any reason why they should be forced to maintain access. If the state sees
otherwise then the state should provide the services for the general public at
the expense of the general public.

~~~
thu
It's not necessarily black or white. Here in Belgium, the sidewalk in front of
your house is public but the house owner has to take some care of it. E.g.
when there is snow or ice, it's the house owner responsibility to remove it
(and is responsible if someone get injured by sliding on it).

~~~
dalke
That's also the case in the US, not known for its strong socialist leanings.

For example, from
[http://www.cityofboston.gov/snow/removal/snowremoval.asp](http://www.cityofboston.gov/snow/removal/snowremoval.asp)
we can about read the laws for Boston, which require the property owner to
clear the sidewalks within 3 hours of either the end of snowfall or sunrise.

Or to pick a much smaller city in Wyoming,
[http://www.gillettewy.gov/index.aspx?page=300](http://www.gillettewy.gov/index.aspx?page=300)
, "The City has an ordinance (Section 18-17) requiring owners or occupants of
all real estate in the city to remove snow from the sidewalks adjoining the
property within 24 hours after the snowfall ends."

------
bruceb
Good California. Funny how some smart and generally good people can also
forget the law applies to all equally (or at least it should).

~~~
deciplex
I can't believe this is being downvoted? I hope it's not due to disagreement
(which is already a pretty stupid reason to downvote, FYI). But the comment
also contributes to the discussion - or at least it does more than an
anonymous downvote does - so there really is no reason for it to be downvoted.

I have canceled out one of the downvotes, hopefully there will not be a great
many more.

~~~
smtddr
_(which is already a pretty stupid reason to downvote, FYI)._

 _> >
[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171)
"I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously
the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable
that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness." \---pg_

_You_ might not like it, but there it is.

~~~
deciplex
I was already aware of the pg quote when I made my previous post. I stand by
my assertion. FWIW, I have the same opinion of upvotes expressed _merely_ to
signal agreement.

------
coleslawfail
Repeating as public service announcement of what folks in the know tell each
other:

Vinod has a _very_ negative reputation in the Valley. He used to be known as
the biggest anti-founder VC when he was at Kleiner. He'd come in, use sharp
elbows to push founders around and out, then companies would crumble. He's
learned but not enough.

His new marketing of himself has helped (as has Rabois), but you can't change
who he is. When given a chance, he'll take advantage of early stage startups.
That's why you don't see many companies he's made. And he's been at it a long
time - 27 years! He gets in the way because it's all about him and his huge,
insatiable ego. He's much more old school VC in that way - but in the Tom
Perkins vein, not Don Valentine. It's his way because it's his money.

The only way to keep Vinod honest is to get other investors. If he's your
lead, the knife isn't far from your back.

------
jrapdx3
Very good! "Open access" is the normal, default rule for the length of the
coast here in Oregon. Always seemed like the sensible approach to me.

The concept of a "private beach" would be strikingly alien and unnatural in
any ethical universe. It's an idea that should have been abandoned long ago.

~~~
eurleif
>The concept of a "private beach" would be strikingly alien and unnatural in
any ethical universe.

What's so special about beaches? Or do you want to do away with all forms of
private property?

~~~
benjohnson
Public access to beaches and waterways is an ancient idea - Institutes of
(Emperor) Justinian in the 6th century are often cited:

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.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Also, we should strip citizenship from anyone who is not a Christian, and
punish participation in pagan rituals as severely as murder. This is an
ancient idea - Institutes of (Emperor) Justinian in the 6th century are often
cited.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis)

If you want to appeal to authority rather than answer the question, pretty
much any Roman emperor makes an odd choice.

~~~
KC8ZKF
It's not an appeal to authority. "Because Justinian said so, and he's emperor
so he should know." is an appeal to an authority.

But here, Justinian's argument is given. Seas and rivers are part of the
commonwealth, so nobody should be denied access.

~~~
yummyfajitas
What is Justinian's argument? He doesn't actually mention the "commonwealth"
at all. He merely appeals to the "law of nature".

In any case, if there is some principle underlying Justinian's edict, what is
it? How did he determine that the sea is part of the "commonwealth", but that
a mountain or someone's house is not? This is hardly explained in the given
quote.

~~~
KC8ZKF
This doesn't really answer your question, but I think it's interesting to note
that Institutes of Justinian are doing two things here. First, they are
announcing to the Romans that the seas and running waters are part of the
commonwealth. Second they are making the seas and running waters part of the
commonwealth. _They are simultaneously making a declaration and changing the
world to fit that declaration._

In short, seas were part of the commonwealth because Justinian said so. An
<ahem> appeal to authority. But an appeal that Justinian made, not benjohnson.

------
chasing
$1.5 billion. Enough money to live like a king for the rest of your life. And
for several generations beyond that.

And yet willing to put up such a fight to prevent other people -- poorer
people -- from having an enjoyment entitled to them by law.

I'm having a hard time framing this in such a way that doesn't make Khosla
seem phenomenally greedy.

I really don't understand.

~~~
onion2k
If we're generous in our opinion of him, it's doubtful Khosla wanted to
prevent the public from using the beach. What he probably wanted was to
prevent the press getting exceptionally close to him and his family, from
having founders 'accidentally' meeting him when he was at home, and so on.

There is a thing called the 'principle of double effect' (thought up by Thomas
Aquinas back in the 13th century; it's not a new thing) that's incredibly
important to understanding the world around us - nothing we do has a single,
isolated effect. Ever. There are always several causes for things, and many
effects. Picking one and assuming that was the reason, or even just the most
important reason, is wrong. In this case it's reasonable to think Khosla
closed access to the beach for several reasons, and that had several effects,
_one of which was preventing public access_ which is why it ended up in court.

~~~
michaelt

      What he probably wanted was to prevent [...] founders 
      'accidentally' meeting him when he was at home, and so on.
    

If a guy buys a house next door to a fire station, and he's woken up by fire
engine sirens, I feel a bit bad for him. But he knew when he brought the house
there was a fire station opposite.

I think the same thing about Khosla's beach access - I feel bad if he's having
problems, but he knew the beach access was there when he brought the property.

------
burtonator
Wow. This is a really douchey thing to do... I mean even if people DID use the
beach, how many people are going to be on it??? It's not going to be an
eyesore.

I'm firmly in the camp that lakes, streams, coastlines, can't be property.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam)

"The freedom to roam, or everyman's right is the general public's right to
access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise. The
right is sometimes called the right of public access to the wilderness or the
right to roam."

~~~
andyhmltn
>The freedom to roam, or everyman's right is the general public's right to
access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise. The
right is sometimes called the right of public access to the wilderness or the
right to roam.

Not quite sure what it's like in other countries, but here in the UK we have
'public paths' that sometimes go through private land. You're well within your
rights to use them at any time of day even though it's private.

------
perlgeek
> Buchwald’s decision, which is being appealed, did not outlaw public access
> to the beach, but left the ocean as the only way for the public to get
> there.

Shuttle boats to the beach as a (new?) business?

(If my now-retired father lived close there, I could very well imagine him
doing that to earn a few bucks extra, and to give families access to a nice
beach).

------
diogenescynic
Can't wait to head there with a stereo now.

