
Silicon Valley Billionaire Battles Surfers Over Beach Access - wavesounds
http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/silicon-valley-billionaire-battles-surfers-over-beach-access/
======
dmckeon
Previous discussion at:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7135206](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7135206)

Property rights recap at:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6917815](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6917815)

tl;dr: The property was granted to the original owner by the government of
Mexico before California was part of the US. The property rights were
preserved by the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848. California's right of
access to the shoreline does not override the pre-existing property right.

Welcome to the Southwest, and if you think this is strange, try exploring
seniority of water rights.

Don't like the situation? Write your congress-critters and legislators, or
take it to court. Other members of the tech community might respond, but are
unlikely to have enough leverage to secure access to that beach. No, I don't
like it either.

~~~
boomzilla
Should the existing property rights only last as long as current owners? As
soon as the property ownership pass to another person/entity, the current law
should apply?

~~~
harryh
Property is, in most cases, property. It can be bought, sold, inherited,
transferred, etc.

~~~
michaelt
I assume boomzilla doesn't mean confiscating the entire property, simply that
with its transfer the california constitution should apply - including article
X, which guarantees public access to beaches.

In the UK, which has a long and sometimes poorly recorded legal history, there
are procedures for this sort of thing. If land has some unusual legal status
conferred on it by a 500 year old law, the government can simply pass a law
saying "not any more it doesn't" and the unusual legal status is removed.

I dread to think how complicated land ownership would end up after multiple
hundreds or thousands of years if there were no way to change or update the
laws made by our long-dead ancestors.

~~~
jfoutz
In the US, treaties with other countries become part of the "supreme law of
the land" along with all the other federal stuff congress passes. Individual
states don't have the right to alter those (effectively federal) laws.

Sure, it could be changed, California is a big powerful state, but their
representatives are busy people, and i'm sure billionaires can donate a few
thousand dollars to ensure the issue never really comes up at the federal
level.

------
jack-r-abbit
I probably have the unpopular opinion here but I don't like it when people try
to tell me what I can do with my own property. I understand that people have
been using that road for years and it was never a problem with the previous
owner. But there is a new owner. He does have a problem with people using the
road on his land. That sucks for those people but it is not their land and it
never was. The beach is still public... just hard to get to. Once you get
there, he can't do anything about it (up to the high water mark).

I'm not sure what angle they are taking with the permits on the land
improvements. Those seem like unrelated issues and even if they beat him on
the permits, how does that give them back the road access. Wouldn't he still
be able to keep them off. Trespassing is trespassing even if the land owner
violated some permit rules. If the California Coastal Commission (in charge of
issuing permits) categorically denies his permits just to spite him, they'll
be just as much the asshole he is.

~~~
vidarh
That kind of attitude makes me very happy that my native Norway (and the rest
of Scandinavia, to various extents) have the legal concept of "freedom to
roam". It has also (in a much more limited version) been embedded into law in
the UK where I live now, in recent years.

In Norway the concept pre-dates written law, and in its current incarnation it
guarantees public right of access to most non-urban land, as well as almost
all of the coast line. Basically, outside of urban areas, as long as we avoid
peoples gardens, and things like tended fields, we can pretty much go where we
want, whether or not it is private property, without seeking permission from
the property owner (though it is considered polite to introduce yourself to
the owner and seek to take their wishes into consideration if you make use of
the rights in the vicinity of where they live).

We can also, with some further limitations, pretty much camp where we want.
Further, tradition creates legal rights of access - if a path or a road has a
history of public use (20-30 years is a typical yardstick, though frequency of
use and the owners actions in the period that usage is becoming established
will mattr), that access is legally protected; if a new owner decides to try
to prevent continued public access, they will generally face an uphill battle.

The reasoning behind this is basically that allowing a property owner
exclusive use of large areas of land would be a massive curtailment of the
liberties of the population as a whole, and that maximizing public access to
land is a substantially larger net positive in terms of liberty than the
relatively limited negative impact for property owners.

It is considered so fundamental in Norway that it was not considered necessary
to codify in law until 1957 (almost all of Norwegian law is codified), as it
was seen as intrinsic to the legal system. In Sweden, their variation is
protected by inclusion in their constitution.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
> _limited negative impact for property owners_

I guess then you don't have a huge problem with vandalism and litter. It is
hard to find a public space here where some dickwad hasn't left a beer can,
used condom or cigarette butt. We also like to sue the crap out of each other.
So anytime someone is on your land, you are subject to getting sued when they
get hurt. So I don't blame people for trying to keep other people off their
land. It would be nice if we had what you describe. But I think that ship has
sailed here.

~~~
vidarh
The right is contingent on a duty to leave the land in a comparable state to
what you found it. If you were to vandalise or litter, you could not be
charged with trespass but you could most certainly be prosecuted for vandalism
and littering and a land owner taking action would certainly be the one to get
the sympathy.

I think the freedom to roam in general has a substantial impact on reducing
this problem - we're taught about these rights in primary school, but also
taught about the corresponding duty to leave campsites etc. as we found them,
and to be considerate about how we exercise these rights.

Of course, there's always _some_ assholes.

------
nashequilibrium
This is just so disgusting, i remember thinking about this when this guy was
at techcrunch disrupt last year, acting like he's trying to make the world a
better place. The tech community will stay silent because nobody wants to bite
the hand that feeds them.

------
aliston
For those interested, the opening arguments are taking place tomorrow in
Redwood City for the Surfrider case:

Late yesterday, Surfrider's case was assigned to a judge and room. Here's the
scoop: Hall of Justice & Records

What: Opening arguments in Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach I, LLC and
Martins Beach II, LLC

When: 2pm on Wednesday, May 7

Where: San Mateo County Superior Court, 400 County Center, Redwood City
Department 22, Courtroom 8A

Photo credit Rob Caughlan

Superior Court Judge Barbara J. Mallach presiding

It is likely that at some point there will be a court sanctioned site visit to
Martin's Beach. At present, the date and time of such visit is unknown.

If you attend, please show your support by wearing blue! Thanks!!

[http://martinsbeach.blogspot.com/](http://martinsbeach.blogspot.com/)

------
quasque
Sometimes I yearn for a benevolent AI to rise up and impose a communist state
upon the world, employing robots to free humanity from its labours.

This yearning mostly comes when I'm reminded that there are a small number of
people who've not only managed to accumulate such an obscene amount of wealth
that the title "billionaire" can be bestowed upon them, but that they use that
wealth for predominantly selfish outcomes.

And it's only going to get worse. When the enduring puzzle of longevity is
finally cracked and death can be reliably cheated, it's not going to be those
living in abject poverty, or the dogged grafters, or even the skilled
professionals who benefit. No, it'll be that small group of rich and powerful
who'll use it to further promote this monumental inequality of wealth.

It's not the triviality of some beach access that is really the issue, it's
just a distraction. It's this vile aristocracy of gold and greed that is the
enduring problem, the manifestation of which is the source of countless
suffering amongst humanity.

~~~
brc
Communism? Really? Sorry, no thanks. I'm fine without being murdered by my own
government for having unclean thoughts. Long live the individual.

~~~
quasque
But if it was run by a benevolent robot intelligence rather than humans, it
would probably work out really well.

Indeed I think it would be about as close to utopian as we're ever going to
get.

~~~
learc83
Yeah, but who get's to decide what's "benevolent" in the first place?

One man's benevolent ruler is another's tyrannical despot.

~~~
quasque
That's a very interesting point. Perhaps, to ensure that a range of ethical
frameworks have been taken into consideration (each with their varying ideas
of what benevolence really means) a more equitable situation would be a
plurality of utopias each with its own ruling AI? And free movement of
individual humans to whichever aligns best to their own personal code of
ethics.

~~~
brc
Or, you could try a liberal democracy with a strong constitution and
separation of powers, based on common law and strong rights of individuals.

~~~
quasque
If such a system was incorruptible, constructed such that it would be
impossible for a small group of individuals to hoard the majority of the
global wealth, and guaranteed a pleasant and equitable standard of living for
all - then it might work.

Unfortunately, the current implementations of this ideal fall far short.

------
state
It's particularly annoying that there's no statement from Khosla. It's hard to
believe that he's not in any way sensitive to these issues, or didn't think
anyone would notice.

I spend a lot of time along that stretch of coast in the ocean. Anyone even
remotely familiar with the place should know that this kind of thing wont go
over very well. It almost seems foolish.

~~~
sixQuarks
I agree. He should have just left the road open. I go to HMB all the time and
had never heard of this beach. Now I want to go check it out with my dogs.

If he wins and gets to keep the public out, I guarantee the locals will figure
out someway to really annoy him. Maybe do a special daily boat trip, bringing
homeless people from SF on a field trip to the beach.

------
tzs
Note this appears to just concern access by land. I believe that the public
still has access rights to the beach between the low and high tide marks if
they can get there without crossing his land.

This could be a nice little summer money-making opportunity for some college
students, as long as Khosla is able to keep land access closed. Get a boat,
and for, say, $20 per head ferry people to the beach and back. I bet a lot of
people would pay that, assuming that you don't ferry so many people as to make
the beach as crowded as other beaches. You could probably make $1000/day at
this, at least.

------
ar7hur
Regardless of the law, I just don't understand why Khosla is going into this
PR disaster. Which entrepreneur who has a choice (and 99% of successful
entrepreneurs have a choice) between Khosla and another VC would choose Khosla
after that?

~~~
selmnoo
A lot, when it comes to money. Because, it's all about the Money and Khosla
has a lot of it.

Also, as it happens, KV is an investor of YC startups:
[http://blog.ycombinator.com/khosla-ventures-is-joining-
the-y...](http://blog.ycombinator.com/khosla-ventures-is-joining-the-ycvc-
program)

~~~
ar7hur
YC W14 startups have all received this investment from a fund "YCVC" that
includes KV (I know this first hand, we are one of them!). That doesn't mean
any of us _chose_ KV.

That being said, I want to moderate my comment. Until now, the situation is
still under control, but it could become worse and then start to be a PR
problem for KV. It's still time for them to do something.

------
dbroockman
In Hawaii all beaches are public property and maintaining public access routes
(and parking!) to all beaches is required by law. If rich Californians keep up
this crap, they might just inspire a voter initiative that would make things
even worse for them.

~~~
cortesoft
It is also the law in California; However, this property is an exception
because it was given to the previous owners by the Mexican government before
California became part of the United States.

~~~
ellyagg
According to the apparently well-informed first comment[1] on that article,
it's not really an exception. The first paragraph:

    
    
        As a former Coastal Commission staff member in the 1980s, 
        I've seen this scenario played out over and over. The so-called 
        issue of Spanish land grants pre-existing and somehow 
        superceding laws like the Coastal Act isn't an issue at 
        all -- land grants occurred in the early 1800s all over 
        California, so Martins Beach isn't any special or privileged 
        circumstance.
    

[1] [http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/silicon-valley-
billionai...](http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/silicon-valley-billionaire-
battles-surfers-over-beach-access/#comment-1199530619)

~~~
Sundog
I suspect the biggest issue here is that whoever sold him the property talked
those lands right up as a selling point and he's discovering the reality is
more complicated

~~~
fredophile
I suspect he has lawyers to deal with that sort of thing. Do you really think
he spent nearly $40 million based on what the seller told him about a treaty
without checking with a lawyer?

------
vilhelm_s
> Think of it as a David-and-Goliath battle waged entirely in paperwork,
> between a billionaire and the chronically-unfunded agency in charge of
> issuing these permits, the California Coastal Commission.

Ah yes, that plucky underdog, the State of California.

~~~
jdpage
There's a difference between the State of California and the California
Coastal Commission. The Commission is a public agency (i.e. a group of people
representing the best interests of the public) which happens to be funded by
the legislature. Specifically, a legislature which is underfunding them.

------
whyenot
I've been going to Martin's Beach since before I could walk (or swim). It's a
location that has been pseudo public access for generations. That part of San
Mateo County has been extremely effective when it comes to preventing unwanted
development and opening up areas for public access. Khosla is in for a real
battle, no matter who wins the current court case.

~~~
orthecreedence
It has happened before where someone rich and powerful decides to battle
locals only to find that their legal power can only go so far. I liken it to
an elephant trying to fight a swarm of army ants. If you just live near the
ants and leave them alone, all's well. You step on their nest and you're in
for a hell of a fight (one that lawyers and money can't necessarily bail you
out of).

------
dosh
I remember seeing the documentary on what billionaires buy for houses and on
there, the real estate agent who worked with Larry Ellison, said he literally
went house after house knocking on their doors and offered a money the owners
can't refuse, got multiple houses in a single row on the same beach and it
became his beach.

~~~
johnny5
What documentary is this?

~~~
e15ctr0n
@dosh is probably talking about 'The Fabulous Life Presents: Really Rich Real
Estate'.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0870036/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0870036/)

It features Kurt Rappaport, the real estate agent who represented Larry
Ellison on his Malibu Beach property hunt.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Rappaport](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Rappaport)

[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2398391/](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2398391/)

------
JoshTriplett
There's a very interesting analogy here to cloud services: if you don't own
something, don't assume you'll be able to use it indefinitely under the same
terms. The owner can change their mind at any time, or sell to someone else
with a different policy.

~~~
gpcz
I assume you mean free cloud services. If you're a paying customer with a
contract, it's harder to pull that stunt.

------
forgottenpass
So... I don't actually live if the Bay Area, but stories like this always make
me curious. Is there any wonder out there why not-tech workers seem to hate
the tech sector? People literally protest google's buses, that's a lot of
animosity towards an industry that have disconnected and distanced themselves
so much that other people have no better recourse than to protest a bus.

~~~
tptacek
This has nothing to do with the actions of anyone who works at Google. The
line you've drawn between bus protests and beach access is nonsensical.

~~~
tippytop
If you're ever in Mountain View and walk by the Google campus around 4-4:30p,
you can witness the vast network of Google buses picking up their colonist
cargo ready for dispersal throughout the Bay Area. It's not just one or two
buses, the road is literally backed up with them, each with a little LCD
display to let you know what town or neighborhood they're going to. It really
is a sight to behold. I can understand why locals view them as an invading
army.

~~~
tptacek
What a shocking, egregious display of carpooling.

~~~
pcl
Hopefully, Google burns coal out back as a carbon offset.

------
antifragile
One makes money to make a living, but you only truly enrich your life if you
share some of what you have .... there is no other way, everything else is
delusion. I know, I tried hard the other way.

Hmm. Sounds like someone whose tripped-over their own super ego. We must help
him! Everyone get out! I'm going to call in for a tsunami to re-level the
playing-field :-)

------
refurb
I don't get this part of the article:

 _" Nancy Cave and her staff want to keep Martins Beach open to the public.
Khosla will need permits from the Commission if he wants to do almost anything
on the property."_

Are they inferring that they will screw with his permits in order to force him
into giving access?

~~~
pcl
Yes -- Coastal Commission approval is required to get construction permits on
coastal lands, and my understanding is that the commission uses this approval
to obtain access concessions.

~~~
refurb
So basically they'll refuse to provide valid permits because of another,
completely unrelated issue in order to "get back" at him?

~~~
lutorm
In what sense is it unrelated if it relates to the property in question?
Besides, if you are not in compliance with rules and regulations, it's
generally a bad idea to go to the authorities and ask for something.

~~~
vilhelm_s
I guess in this sense (quoting Wikipedia):

> The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the 1987 case of Nollan v.
> California Coastal Commission that if the state of California through its
> regulatory agency, the California Coastal Commission, thinks an easement on
> private land is a good idea and a valuable public purpose, they should use
> eminent domain and pay for it, as opposed to demanding concessions from a
> land owner in exchange for a building permit. The court considered that "an
> out and out plan of extortion" of property. In the case, the owners of
> beachfront property were required to grant an easement for public access to
> facilitate pedestrian access to public beaches as a condition of permit
> approval to enlarge their home. The court, in a narrow decision, ruled that
> an "essential nexus" must exist between the asserted "legitimate state
> interest” and the permit condition imposed by government.

~~~
pyoung
Ignoring that fact that precedent can be overturned, this ruling still leaves
open the possibility of using eminent domain to get public control of the
access road (which has been mentioned as a possibility in other comments). My
guess is that they are going to withhold approval until the issue is resolved.
So they aren't necessarily demanding easement concessions, but they aren't
going to issue permits until the dispute has either been settled in the
courts, eminent domain has been used, or a settlement is reached.

EDIT: Actually, if you dig a little deeper into that case, the ruling has
little impact on the Martin's Beach case. In the Nollan case, the CCC was
requesting an access road/path where none had previously existed. The CCC's
argument was actually pretty weak, they were claiming that the development
would result in "psychological impediments to public access" which gave them
the right to demand concessions. In the Martin's Beach case, the CCC should
have the power to demand public access concessions if the road historically
served as a public access point (assuming the federal treaty issues don't
negate that power).
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nollan_v._California_Coastal_Co...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nollan_v._California_Coastal_Commission)

------
marquis
What if it were for less nefarious reasons? Perhaps he's planning on shutting
the entire area down from human access completely and letting some flora and
fauna having a refuge area.

~~~
wankerrific
Even if it were for that, Vinod has been a bad actor here, so if this were the
case the ends wouldn't have justified the means. First he fought to not reveal
who had bought the land, and now he has been trying to overpower the people
(represented by the govt) via his wealth and litigation.

For the record, its not that great of a surf spot, but this is more about
letting someone establish precedent and thus leading to more beach access
rights (Malibu...) getting chipped away at slowly but surely.

It would be great if we had Hawaii's right-of-way laws...

And to the original poster - not sure why you were down voted for asking a
question.

~~~
hsod
> and now he has been trying to overpower the people (represented by the govt)
> via his wealth and litigation.

Alternatively, he's "defending himself against a power-hungry government
determined to curtail his property rights"

------
discardorama
Previously on HN:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7135206](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7135206)
( 197 points )

------
rmason
Did you know that Steve Blank is on the California Coastal Commission? Steve's
positions on similar cases are well known.

[http://steveblank.com/2013/06/28/in-defense-of-
unreasonablen...](http://steveblank.com/2013/06/28/in-defense-of-
unreasonableness-saving-the-california-coast/)

This shapes up to be an epic battle among the two men, the venture capitalist
and the entrepreneur. My money is on Steve.

~~~
jasonmonberg
Unfortunately, it looks like Steve resigned from the commission as mentioned
in that post and from the
roster:[http://www.coastal.ca.gov/roster.html](http://www.coastal.ca.gov/roster.html)

Perhaps Steve will join the fray?

------
abalone
What a douche canoe. Which is now ironically the only way to access the beach.

------
alexeisadeski3
I'm sure everyone here would love to have a public road going through their
back yard.

~~~
orthecreedence
It's one thing to buy a property and have someone say "guess what, we're
building a road in your backyard lol!!" and an entirely different scenario to
buy a property that already has a road going through and force the locals off
a piece of land they've used for decades, bypassing the local laws to do so.

It's not a case of personal liberty, it's a case of someone with a lot of
money overstepping their bounds because they think nobody will do anything
about it.

------
beedogs
This just in: most billionaires are assholes.

------
sscalia
Don't be like this man.

There are people on here, reading this comment right now, who will become
fantastically rich.

Minimize externalities to your behavior. Be considerate, be thoughtful, be
kind.

Be the opposite of Vinod Khosla.

~~~
sscalia
Ah, yes -- the down vote has come.

------
nomadlogic
Not sure why anyone would surprised about this. It's in the same mentality
that allows things like Sean Parker's wedding fiasco in Big Sur happen.

~~~
sp332
I thought his explanation was pretty good. Why was it unsatisfactory?
[http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/27/weddings-used-to-be-
sacred-...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/27/weddings-used-to-be-sacred-and-
other-lessons-about-internet-journalism/)

~~~
nomadlogic
Well that explanation IMHO is just another argument as to how people in these
positions have zero regard for shared spaces and others in general. I reckon
the valleywag has a pretty funny response to that self serving article he
wrote.

I'm not going to start a bikeshed over the technicalities covered in the
coastal commission report though - my original point was how little regard
many of these individuals have for others. And how no one should really be
surprised that the technology community seems to represent the worst case
examples of this.

~~~
scott_karana
Considering how clearly Sean Parker's high regard for redwood forests is
described in his article...

Do you feel he's a really convinicing liar too, or genuine?

~~~
nomadlogic
no just a self centered rich kid.

------
aaron695
TL;DR People have become so lazy they now think they have a right to drive to
everything including a tucked away beach that is awesome in it's self because
people have to get a boat to visit it.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
You're getting downvoted because you didn't RTFA. The beach became popular in
the first place _because_ it was accessible. If the access road had never
existed, no one would know or care now.

