
Khosla Rebuffed as Supreme Court Rejects Beach-Access Appeal - kaboro
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/khosla-rebuffed-as-supreme-court-rejects-beach-access-appeal
======
jtlienwis
Back when I was a kid, there was a pay to enter beach at a nearby lake. It had
a fence on both ends running out into the water. My clever brother didn't want
to pay a quarter to get in, so he swam around the fence and into the part of
the lake where the beach was. The owners caught him and said he had to pay. He
said you own the beach, not the lake. So, as long as he didn't use their pier
or raft he was allowed.

~~~
andrewflnr
This exact approach seems applicable in this situation. People should take
boats to it, just on the principle of asserting access.

~~~
394549
> This exact approach seems applicable in this situation. People should take
> boats to it, just on the principle of asserting access.

People are already asserting access by demanding use of the beach access
easement.

~~~
andrewflnr
Sure, but why not also prove, along the way, that any victory Khosla achieves
will be worthless anyway? If the guy wants to play hardball on property law,
just win. Proving things in the real world matters, too, not just in court.

~~~
394549
IIRC, his issue is with the easement, not access to the beach itself. Forcing
the public to take a boat to reach the public land is probably sufficiently
onerous that Khosla would see it as a victory.

------
Simulacra
Perhaps I’m a little radical on this, but I think all beaches should be open
to the public, and property owners may only block access up to so many feet
from the high tide mark. Or say 100 feet from the main structure, etc.
restricting access all the way to the water just seems… Overkill.

~~~
yholio
Maybe not all open to the public - I can understand the notion of a private
beach where a 5 star hotel provides premium services for it's paying clientele
and wants to exclude the free-riders.

But for that right, the general public should be compensated with a hefty
annual rent. The concession would be awarded for a limited time to the highest
bidder just like for any other eminently public resource, for example the
airwaves. The frequency of my mobile phone is private in the sense that no one
else can use for the time I'm using it (it's illegal to even tune a receiver
at those frequencies), but it's not my private property or the network's, we
lease it from the public.

~~~
komali2
I can see the logic of your example, but I'm with the radical person - I don't
think the rich should be allowed to create "no peasants allowed zones." For
many, many reasons, but chief among which is that maybe if the hyper rich have
to share some of the public experiences we all have, they'll be more inclined
to contribute to the improvement of those resources.

~~~
taeric
I think your difficulty will be in coming up with a way that allows for any
private parks, then. And, by extension, a private yard.

You can almost get away with just defining this as something only single
families can do, but then you run afoul of some genuine community ownership
things. Want to band together into a mutual HOA so that you and your neighbors
can afford to maintain a private pool? Why/why not?

Edit: I suspect I agree with the radical on this. :)

~~~
komali2
I also sense the slippery slope present, but my understanding is that many
countries have beach-specific laws without sliding into "no private property,"
so the evidence is such that the slippery slope does not exist.

As for parks, the USA has sorted that already with the national and state park
system. Sometimes those get huge land donations from private citizens as well.

Buuuut personally, I am of the "abolish private property" mindset anyway, I
think that's way out of scope for here though. It's for the same reasons I've
listed previously.

------
NonEUCitizen
Don't take money from his VC firm and don't interview with startups that are
funded by him (and make sure the recruiter knows why).

~~~
jonny_eh
Can a startup choose to disassociate with Khosla after the fact?

------
harryh
It's important to note that Khosla can now apply for a permit for what he
wants, presumably be denied, and then the legal battle can happen all over
again on slightly different terms.

~~~
ronilan
Or he can buy a wetsuit and a board, walk out of his backyard and learn to
chill with his beach buddies. Life is full of choices.

~~~
mark212
no, that's the crazy part -- he doesn't live there and has no plans to live
there and hasn't even been to the beach more than a handful of times:

"[H]e bought the place on what he says was a whim, has never spent a single
night there, and regrets it enormously."

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/technology/vinod-
khosla-b...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/technology/vinod-khosla-
beach.html)

~~~
harryh
Despite what he has said, my hypothesis is that he purchased it as an
investment. He figured that he could buy it, do enough legal wrangling to
restrict beach access, and create a much more valuable private beach for rich
people.

------
triviatise
It seems like a prescriptive easement could come into play. In california it
seems like it only takes 5 years.

In texas no beaches are private and all waterways are public.

~~~
sidlls
All waterways are public in California as well, so there is already an
easement on the access for any property that includes waterway access.

~~~
tokyodude
AFAICT they actually aren't. Go down to the dogpatch in SF, end of 24th
street. Walk through the park to the water, turn right, come to sign saying No
Trespassing. Call city, get told all waterways are not public. (or at least in
2013)

------
harryh
Prediction:

On the access road, Khosla will continue to lose.

On the sandy beach above the high tide line & the parking lot, Khosla will
eventually win.

~~~
cjensen
No, it's end of the road for him. His appeals are pretty much done and the
prosecutor in the case has already expressed a willingness to lock him up.

~~~
harryh
That is incorrect as I have described here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18114099](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18114099)

~~~
cjensen
You're nitpicking. I say end of the road, while you say he must do one thing
first before he can fight further. He has no remaining arguments that he can
litigate further.

~~~
harryh
Yes, he has to do a very minor thing (file a simple form) and then, unless the
State gives him everything he wants (which is very very unlikely) he can
litigate further.

I do not think that is nitpicking.

------
fermienrico
I wonder if billionaires think that they, in the case of Kholsa, will live
another 2-3 decades and will leave this planet for good. Why fight over petty
things? I understand that he bought a property, but man why piss off people
and go into revenge mode if you could just let go of your high privilege and
allow public access? Or buy a property somewhere else. They won’t have the
time to spend their earnings before they die.

~~~
pound
because he doesn't want to let go of his high privilege. it's not a matter of
whether he will have time to spend earning before dying or enjoy something,
it's about how dare some peasants even consider that they can impose any
restrictions on elite demigods.

~~~
fermienrico
I think my point was about perspective. When you’re so high up, you’d think
they get some perspective of which fights to pick and which ones aren’t worth
their time.

~~~
majormajor
If you have that much money you don't _have_ to pick your battles. You can pay
people to fight _all_ your battles, even the relatively unimportant ones.

That's one big way money distorts politics. A rich person's 20th priority will
get more attention than a hundred poor person's 1st priority.

------
ajtaylor
There was an article I read recently about this fight where Khosla said he's
now continuing the legal battle simply on principle. He doesn't actually care
(that much) about public access any more.

~~~
cjensen
The "principle" he's fighting for had already been fully vetted by the justice
system. He didn't have a leg to stand on, and any competent lawyer would have
told him so. His position is literally "your laws don't apply to me."

~~~
harryh
That is not an accurate representation of his case. He's had a mixed record in
court so far, and is likely to win on some points in the end.

~~~
cjensen
A mixed record? He has literally lost every single argument he's made, most of
which had already been thoroughly litigated in prior. The very few novel
arguments he's made were just legal fanfic like "well I have rights because of
Mexican law before California became part of the US."

~~~
harryh
He won his first case.

------
eps
Should've kept it simple and bought an island.

~~~
hyperbovine
Obligatory:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudsgwjNN64](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudsgwjNN64)

------
densone
Not surprised. This guy invested in a company I founded. I had a friend call
me and basically say “this dude is horrible, don’t let him invest”. I could
write a book about how that investment ended up working out for me personally.

------
vladislav
"As soon as you get any degree of success, you disappear up your own arse and
you lose it forever" \- Thom Yorke

------
vikingcaffiene
Man, I know that conversations on HN are supposed to be constructive, but can
I just say: __EFF this guy __. I 've been keeping tabs on this story. This
dude just ignores the rulings and locks his gates anyway. He can afford the
fines and does not care. Total tale of two cities stuff. Being very wealthy
does not exclude you from the rules of the society you choose to live in.
People that behave this way are a cancer and its a shame that there aren't
more robust means to hold them to account.

~~~
sgift
> He can afford the fines and does not care

That's the reason that a) fines should be a percentage of your net worth and
b) escalating.

I'm pretty sure if the first 50 million go down the gutter he'll start to
notice.

~~~
gist
> a) fines should be a percentage of your net worth

Not an easy process to determine net worth of anyone let alone someone like
Vinod. Most likely he does not even know his net worth.

For one, things that you own can vary greatly in value. Now multiply that by
hundreds or even thousands of things that are owned by a wealthy person (I
don't mean the furniture in the house either).

And it simply does and should not work that way. Because what that means is
that someone who is poor and has nothing does not get dinged much because they
are poor and have nothing (hence they have 'nothing to lose'). Sure you could
adjust the penalties but just the same simply not the way it works.

Even Elon Musk, so big deal $20m fine for someone worth billions (non liquid
of course). So what is the correct 'fine'? And what if he was in bankruptcy?
Then what is the correct fine?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Simply adopt the Finnish model - everyone's tax return is public, and fines
are based on income in your last return. I think Sweden operates similarly.

$100,000 speeding fine anyone?
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1759791.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1759791.stm)
and that was in 2002!

~~~
charlesdm
Ridiculously flawed system in itself, as income can easily be faked. In this
case, he's a well paid executive that receives most of his income as income.

However, the genuine wealthy will receive most of their income as capital
gains and dividends, and will hold most assets through companies.

Income wise, they are often paupers in comparison to their (true) net worth.

~~~
everdev
An entrepreneur might make a few million one year selling a company, then
almost nothing for a few years after if they take a break. Maybe average the
last ten years of income to get a better picture?

Either way, it's not perfect. Hundred dollar speeding tickets are brutal for
low income families.

------
drb91
Man I’m tempted to make a trip to camp on this section.

~~~
swalling
What would happen if everyone who wanted to recreate on this beach simply
ignored his signs, took down the gate, and treated the road like the public
right of way it should be? The police already declined to press charges on one
group of surfers who "trespassed" right?

Ultimately, he doesn't have the power to physically prevent people from going
to the beach, and if enough people ignored his buffoonery the state would
probably not consider it a useful expenditure of policing resources to enforce
it.

------
throw2016
The problem here seem to be inadequate laws around public access. Since this
kind of publicity makes one look petty and small minded one can only assume
like a lot of SV billionaires he is a libertarian with 'religious' views on
property.

Most other countries have well established laws regarding public access, some
things are not for sale. Without the laws or a 'public oriented' justice
system a wealthy person can keep on litigating for decades. In the interim the
local community do not have access or informal sporadic access and will not
have the time or resources to persevere for decades.

Because this is connected to property rights few in the political or justice
system will touch an issue that would ideally be fixed in days in a proper
democracy. The community now chastened may have a new perspective on absolute
property rights come elections but they will find few mainstream candidates
support their position. In many ways like the justice system, democracy too
will fail them.

------
s73v3r_
Good. There is zero reason why that person should be able to close off access
to the beach. It is crazy that, because of his wealth, he's able to just eat
the fine that comes from doing so.

~~~
toss1
I recall hearing that this is the same phenomena that resulted in finally
ending the 'Blue Laws' requiring all stores to be closed on Sunday.

IIR the story, the Blue Law fine in NYC for opening on Sunday was $500/day.
Woolworths just decided to open anyway and pay it, since they's make more than
that. Due to competitive pressure, everyone soon decided to open, and just
fight it. The laws soon officially ended.

Here's a NYT archive story
[https://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/19/nyregion/sunday-
shopping-...](https://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/19/nyregion/sunday-shopping-a-
way-of-life-for-millions.html)

------
parliament32
This isn't about the beach itself, it's about whether he's obligated to keep
open (and presumably maintain) a private access road that runs through his
property. If the state wants to keep the road open, they should negotiate an
easement and maintain the road themselves -- it doesn't make much sense that a
property owner be obligated to provide a road for the public without some sort
of compensation.

~~~
olliej
He purchased the property knowing that the beach was public property, and that
he had to leave an access way to that property. He then barred access anyway.
If he didn’t want people crossing his property he could have bought property
elsewhere. His intent however was clearly to create a de facto private beach
by violating the laws he agreed to when buying the property.

