
Tech billionaire’s gnarly fight with California surfers over private beach - Mankhool
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-news/tech-billionaires-gnarly-fight-with-california-surfers-over-private-beach/article22601381/
======
justizin
No such thing as a 'private beach' in CA. No matter how rich you are, you
cannot own a beach in California, though you can own the adjoining land and be
a real dick about closing long-standing beach access paths.

Nothing new, see: Malibu.

~~~
abfan1127
why is he the dick, when its not him using force to access property not owned
by him?

~~~
dragonwriter
Because the scope of property rights in the property he bought did not include
the right to deny beach access, and the fact that it did not was factored into
the market value of the property when he bought it.

And because he is the one using force to prevent access to the public to
property belonging to them.

He wants to be treated as if he bought something that was never for sale, and
which he didn't buy, and which would have added significant cost to what he
actually bought had it been for sale and been included with what he bought.

------
tptacek
Is there _any_ other side to this story, or is Khosla really a third-tier Bond
villain?

Usually, news stories that read as black-and-white as this one are spun
somehow. But here I can't figure out how. Beyond it being odd for a
billionaire to embark on a legally futile quest to kick people off a beach at
the expense of nearly his entire reputation.

~~~
MiguelVieira
Here it is [http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Vinod-Khosla-blames-
co...](http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Vinod-Khosla-blames-costly-
demands-for-Martins-5645423.php)

"Khosla said he kept the beach open after the sale despite the $500,000 to
$600,000 a year in costs for maintenance, liability insurance, infrastructure
and other expenses. He said insurance alone was $30,000 a year, but he kept
the beach open for two years even though he was losing money....Most of the
beach has eroded away over the years and it is often dangerous, with sneaker
waves and riptides, he said. He said only two or three people a day were
visiting the beach and it was unreasonable to expect him to pay the costs to
maintain public access....Khosla said he tried for three years to get a
hearing with the Coastal Commission in an attempt to come up with a reasonable
solution, but the organization refused."

~~~
mhomde
Wait I'm confused, does he own the beach or just the gate which accesses the
beach? And why is he responsible and needs to be insured for people using the
beach, or maintain it?

It feels like either you own the beach and can do whatever the heck you
please, or you don't, and then it's not your dime nor your responsibility...

PR nightmare though, anyone made a flash-game where you try to sneak upon
Khosla's beach while being hunted by him and his security guards yet?

~~~
mcphage
> does he own the beach or just the gate which accesses the beach?

Just the gate. All beaches in CA are public property.

------
spiritplumber
You know, where I am from (northern Italy) if someone like this decided to
antagonize their whole neighborhood like that, they'd end up having to move.
Not because of threats or property damage: people would simply shun him to
starvation. It's no fun to be unable to buy groceries or gas.

~~~
cylinder
I've found Americans pretty apathetic about injustice like this. They just
think there's nothing they can do, nobody raises a fuss... currently dealing
with this on the opposite coast...

~~~
r00fus
Well when many effective firebrands like MLK, RFK, MalcomX and the like keep
getting assassinated, you get a population that knows it shouldn't get uppity.

~~~
cylinder
Not even talking about grand scale things like that. Little things -- the
construction next door has been negligent and constantly wreaking havoc on
neighbors, the environment, etc. Nobody other than me complains. Nobody files
complaints. Nobody cares. Police don't care. Americans are brainwashed into
thinking complainers are losers/weak and we all just have to "suck it up" and
deal with it.

------
patzerhacker
Edit: That's what I get for not reading carefully enough! Maharaj is the
protestor, not the owner, and as such my comment below is inaccurate and
erroneous. Thanks to mortoc for pointing this out to me. Off to get a coffee
and focus...

>“You can’t thwart a billionaire,” Maharaj said in an interview after a stroll
along the deserted sandy coastline on Jan. 15, a day when the gate leading to
the beach was locked.

One day you'll get what's coming to you if you keep up that attitude,
plutocrat. Noblesse oblige is the only thing that spared Andrew Carnegie and
is sparing Bill Gates the universal, effortless scorn and ridicule they would
otherwise deserve. You'd do well to remember that.

~~~
mortoc
"Maharaj" is a protester, the billionaire is "Khosla". I think you got them
mixed up here.

Khosla is still a dick though, so the rest of your point is valid.

~~~
imjk
Not sure why you're being downvoted. You're absolutely correct that OP
misinterpreted that.

------
neves
In Brazil, all beaches are public by law. The owners are obliged to leave a
path open so the public can access the beach. Not that we also don't have our
bunch of billionaires, millionaires, judges and assholes in general that try
to prevent it.

~~~
MrDom
_The owners are obliged to leave a path open so the public can access the
beach._

Can you be held liable in Brazil for things that happen on your property? For
example, if somebody hurts themselves on the path, can they then sue you?

------
GuiA
I wonder if this is just a big misunderstanding and if Vinod Khosla is just a
nice, upstanding, Old Testament kind of guy. He is a successful investor after
all.

~~~
tankenmate
There are studies (such as [1]) that show that the more you think about money,
handle money, etc the more selfish you become. Given that logic you would have
to say that most professional investors are more likely to be on the selfish
end of the spectrum.

[1] [http://www.livescience.com/1128-mere-thought-money-people-
se...](http://www.livescience.com/1128-mere-thought-money-people-selfish.html)

------
ck425
One of the best things about living in Scotland is that stuff like this is
illegal. Everyone has non-motorized right of access to almost all land and
water, with notable exceptions such as gardens, airfields, golf clubs and crop
fields. If someone tried that here I could legally just hop the fence.

~~~
thoman23
It's illegal here too. Didn't stop Khosla and his billions.

------
brandonmenc
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the public can get on the beach if they go around
his property, but they want to be able to go through it?

~~~
slouch
As I understand, the situation is precisely unique because that is not an
option. The beach is not easily accessible otherwise because of cliffs.

------
Wohlf
I don't understand why you wouldn't want to make the best of the situation and
turn a profit with the beach.

~~~
burntsushi
One possible explanation is that he values the privacy more than any gain he
could receive from turning a profit on the beach.

~~~
dragonwriter
If he values privacy so highly, he probably shouldn't have bought coastal
property in a jurisdiction with public access laws to which that property was
subject.

Basic due diligence shouldn't be a foreign concept to a VC.

------
sixQuarks
Why is a Canadian newspaper covering this and not the San Francisco Chronicle?
Have you guys seen sfgate.com recently? There is no news of interest anymore,
it's a wannabe Buzzfeed. Unbelievable how far it has fallen.

~~~
sp332
They did cover it, back when it was news.
[http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&searchindex=gsa&...](http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&searchindex=gsa&query=vinod+khosla+beach&sort=date)
Looks like 50+ articles on there, from March 2013 to January 6, just a couple
weeks ago. Edit: better link

