
Vinod Khosla asks for $30M for access to public beach - chauzer
http://www.abc10.com/news/local/california/billionaire-asks-for-30m-for-access-to-public-beach/50023553
======
jmspring
Tone deaf as usual. Roughly 90 acres purchased in 2008 for $32.5mil, easement
according to [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Vinod-Khosla-
wants-30-...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Vinod-Khosla-
wants-30-million-for-Martins-Beach-6847689.php) is about an acre. That's quite
a bit of appreciation.

Khosla is wrong in this one and continues to be an example of tone deafness on
access rights and how the Bay Area sees beach access as compared to Malibu,
etc. (They have similar fights down there, but, well, the gentrification and
blockage is more established).

~~~
1024core
Khosla has always been tone deaf. Back in the 90s, when California was having
one of its droughts, Khosla was the biggest violater of the water use
restrictions in the Bay Area.

In an ideal world, the tech world would boycotts Khosla and startups refuse to
take a dime from him. That would knock some sense into him. But this is not an
ideal world, and people will continue lining up outside his door, hat in hand.
He knows money is king, and he has lots of it.

~~~
NonEUCitizen
How about boycotting his startups? Don't take a job with them and don't buy
from them.

------
cromwellian
Man, Vinod is burning up every shred of street cred he had with this fight
over the beach in front of his property. For someone who has often taken
liberal or progressive positions on other things, this seems remarkably tone
deaf.

The law on public beaches in California is clear. You can't privatize a beach
by trying to obstruct people from getting to it.

~~~
w1ntermute
> The law on public beaches in California is clear.

Apparently not[0]:

> In a recent battle between tourists, fishermen, surfers, other members of
> the public, and venture capitalist billionaire Vinod Khosla, San Mateo
> County Superior Court Judge Gerald J. Buchwald invoked the 1848 Treaty of
> Guadalupe Hidalgo to deny public access to a portion of the California
> coastline. See, Friends of Martin's Beach v. Martin's Beach 1, LLC, San
> Mateo County Civil Case #CIV517634. Despite the California State
> Constitution's specific provision enabling members of the public to access
> the beach, Judge Buchwald ruled that the Treaty trumped the California
> Coastal Act because it predated it, and officially ended a century of access
> to Martins Beach in Half Moon Bay, CA.

0:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo#Ad...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo#Additional_issues)

~~~
jmspring
Yes, he is hoping to loop in the old Spanish Land Grant treaties and cases. In
the end he will lose. He has enough money and $30mil for 1/89th of the
property? I really do miss people like Gordon Moore, etc. where they did have
their enclaves, but did so much public good with their holdings.

~~~
w1ntermute
Whether or not he will lose (if he doesn't settle) is up to the courts -
neither of us can claim to know the outcome. The fact that there is direct
precedent for this specific property[0] means that it's definitely possible
that he could win.

0:
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/64/318](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/64/318)

~~~
cromwellian
Even if he wins, he will lose, in the sense that he is vilifying himself by
trying to abuse the legal system against the "spirit" of the CA law. No one's
going to love him for doing this.

~~~
Pyxl101
> trying to abuse the legal system against the "spirit" of the CA law

How is using the legal system "abusing" the legal system? He makes his
arguments for his position, and the court rules, one hopes, according to the
law.

The law should be a stable foundation on which society can rest. If the treaty
in question does actually govern property rights, and the people who bought
property relied on the fact that it does so, and has done so in previous cases
(thus establishing precedent), then it is unfair and abusive to change the
status quo out from under them arbitrarily by popular opinion. That's not
justice, that's tyranny by the majority.

------
prawn
Not familiar with the area. Is it feasible for a group to fund/arrange free
boat transport to constantly bring people to the beach to enjoy it regardless
of the easement?

~~~
brbsix
The surf there is treacherous. It's not the sort of place you'd want to ferry
people to. Besides, there is other beach access in the area that is accessible
from land. Perhaps such an action would have value as a form of protest. I'd
take the trip, but I wouldn't want grandma and the kids coming along.

~~~
look_lookatme
Assuming you can traverse the waterline (don't know what California's access
laws are, but I assume you are free to walk along it) how far of a walk is it
from the nearest accessible beach?

~~~
brbsix
Per the California Coastal Act, you're free to walk along the waterline (below
the high tide line). However this particular beach is surrounded by rocky
cliffs so it's unlikely you'd get very far. Closest access would probably be
via kayak from San Gregorio State Beach 3-5 miles south. Though there are lots
of pullouts along that stretch of Highway 1.

------
notatoad
What's the eminent domain situation in California? Could the government just
decide that allowing the public to access the public beach is in the public
interest and take his whole property?

~~~
andkenneth
With eminent domain they still have to compensate the owner for the land. In
my own country they call it "compulsory purchase" instead, which seems to
describe it a bit better.

~~~
NonEUCitizen
Which country calls it "compulsory purchase?" It is indeed much clearer.

~~~
mryan
UK

~~~
andkenneth
NZ does as well, where I am.

------
elangoc
If we invoke the ancient European idea of the "public trust doctrine" to
bolster the justness of the argument that Vinod Khosla should create a path on
his private land for the public use -- then why can't California invoke that
same reasoning to overturn the antequated water ownership laws that give
private, transferrable ownership of ground resources (including water) for
large landowners who control a large portion of the state's water sources?

The attitude about California's ground water is, "Hey, they own the water
based on the laws on the books, what can you do?" Much of the public would
rather they not use all that water on almonds and alfalfa and whatnot, just to
export elsewhere. Why can't the rest of the country grow that stuff? How can
someone exclusively own the groundwater like that??

Whatever law that applies to Vinod Khosla should apply to those large water-
wasting water-owners.

(And it follows that however dastardly Vinod Khosla may seem, the large water-
owners in California are irrevocably screwing over California's future
generations' water resources, and are thus in my book, much more worthy of
scorn and "public trust doctrine" action.)

~~~
jdmichal
> Why can't the rest of the country grow that stuff?

Yea... That's not how plants work. Plants have zones that they grow in, and
some are even more restrictive. Where I live, even if I grew cherry and apple
trees, I would never get fruit off of them because it's too hot here.

I like the way you're thinking though. As an avid gardener, I just had to dig
against this one a little.

~~~
elangoc
Yeah, just wanted to drop in and affirm that I already knew that not
everything can grow everywhere.

(Ex: apples can grow in Appalachia, but they're famous in Washington state;
potatoes may not grow well in Florida, and oranges wouldn't grow well at all
in Idaho...) But almonds must grow in at least one other place where there is
more water than in California's Central Valley.

So I think we're on the same wavelength.

And I remember hearing 10 years ago that water will be the new resource that
people fight over, if oil was the resource that people fought over for the
last half-century. And that agriculture trade would be a form of trading
water. That's sort of already happening. Call me naive, but we should cut down
on California's production of some crops, and use good Midwest farmland more
efficiently by growing more non-meat agriculture instead of meat.

~~~
jdmichal
Sure; I tried to couch the response and it seems like that was effective. It's
probably just redirected anger at not being able to have beautiful cherry and
Hass avocado trees where I live. :-\

------
MichaelBurge
Did this guy actually buy the beach itself? If so, people should get off his
lawn - it's his property and this America.

If not, then I imagine there's just a road going through his property. I tend
to think of the streets as being publicly owned: The city should consider
paving an alternate access route to the beach and paying for its maintenance
out of the local property taxes.

That said, it's common for cities to have codes governing parking and such,
and it's plausible to me that guaranteeing access to a beach is along the same
lines. It seems weird to force him to maintain the road though.

------
dmix
Lawyers _always_ ask for way more money than they expect to get. In almost
every situation like this in the past they settle for 10% of the amount and
everyone walks away happy.

This is like the endless use of maximum sentences in headlines: "hacker faces
100 years in prison!"... when they almost always end up getting <10yrs at the
end of the trial. Sad to see HN fall into this trap once again.

Whether he's wrong in demanding compensation is a fair debate, don't get me
wrong, but I don't think he expects to get anywhere near that price.

------
abbottmaverick
My my is this still going on? The beach exclusion principles employed by Mr
Khosla make him sound like a dick. Gareth Morgan tried something similar
recently and it backfired, although he was only trying to raise awareness for
the public effort to purchase the Abel Tasman, New Zealand beach for the
public, which may have succeeded. His response was "I will donate 600k if I
can keep a private residence". 30M sounds like a lot of money for the right of
access here. Not the California I remember. I am on the fence on this one, but
think a solution should exist which respects both parties concerns and doesn't
cost either more than a million. It is not uncommon to restrict access to
beaches via private land in New Zealand, but the neighbourly thing to do is
come to some arrangement that is mutually beneficial, and I don't know what
the laws are with respect to trespass in California. If the property was to be
developed by Mr Khosla and it was in New Zealand, the council would likely
require a public access way to be gifted. As a pilot, devils advocate, not a
lawyer, the first thing that springs to mind is can you legally land a
helicopter or a drone on the beach to see what all the fuss is about? ;)

------
piyushpr134
Americans are very easy to govern people. There is so much elitist stuff that
happens there and people have no voice at all. I saw so many things there that
should be protested.

For instance, my friend(native there) had this phone from AT&T, a stock
android phone (or so I assumed) but you cannot share internet on it! Or that
the govt rarely builds any usable public transport is just crazy...(car
companies have strong lobby may be ?) Store do not keep smaller sizes of
anything (soaps, shampoos, food items) and force everybody to buy large.

------
incepted
This is an old story, going back at least a year:
[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Martins-Beach-owner-
ch...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Martins-Beach-owner-challenges-
judge-s-order-to-5963587.php)

------
tedmiston
Just to play devil's advocate here... I believe last time this came up he
raised a fuss about him having to maintain the road, or he had spent $x on it
already, or something like that.

Was their substance to that, or just an attempt to drag out the process?

------
thrownaway2424
I don't know what's wrong with this guy, but I do know that the state should
just go to war with him. Why should there be a road leading to this guy's
house?

------
simonebrunozzi
It's Vinod, not Vinad. Someone please correct the title.

------
sidcool
I am sure it's not legal. Is it?

~~~
SwellJoe
It's not, but it's not uncommon. Malibu has all sorts of difficult to reach
beaches, with threatening signage about "no trespassing" and other such
nonsense. All beaches are public property in California, so it's rich people
being bastards when they prevent access and pretend like it's their private
property.

I make it a point when I'm in Malibu to stomp across several of those
"private" beaches, on foot. It takes a while to get to some of them, since
access routes are rare. I suspect city planners are sympathetic to the goals
of the privateers...there's a few places where it is a few miles between
public access.

Hopefully, Half Moon Bay is less amenable to rich people skirting the law.

Also, I never knew Khosla was such a dick.

~~~
sumedh
Maybe you should put a blog with Google maps which shows the hidden routes you
can take to reach those private beaches.

~~~
rms
There's an app called "Our Malibu Beaches" with all the relevant info

~~~
sumedh
Nice.

You know you are getting old when you say there should be blog/site for that
instead of saying there should be an app for that.

~~~
rms
I mean, a site would have been fine also, but in this case the mix of
information and location mapping while on the go is a perfect use case for a
phone app

