
Every Generation Gets the Beach Villain It Deserves - rrauenza
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/technology/vinod-khosla-beach.html
======
news_to_me
I really don't understand the kind of mentality Mr. Khosla is portrayed having
in this article. Doesn't he care about other people? Why can't he just allow
access to the beach for other people? I can see why he might not want people
trapesing over his land, but surely a reasonable person can see there's a
middle ground where citizens are allowed access to common land that they are
entitled to.

Maybe some successful tech founder types here can help me out. Is it simply a
lack of empathy with folks who don't happen to get rich?

~~~
WorldMaker
It mostly just sounds like Good Old Fashioned Stubbornness to me. Choice pull
quotes:

> Mr. Khosla says he does not even want to triumph. “If I were to ever win in
> the Supreme Court, I’d be depressed about it,” he says. “I support the
> Coastal Act; I don’t want to weaken it by winning. But property rights are
> even more important.”

> “But once you’re there in principle, you can’t give up principle.”

Another case of Old Man Yells at the Sea (and also for some reason the Supreme
Court)?

------
lawtguy
Here's Mr. Kholsa's take on it: [https://medium.com/@vkhosla/martins-beach-a-
matter-of-princi...](https://medium.com/@vkhosla/martins-beach-a-matter-of-
principle-property-rights-b32f4de1c97) And here's the Surfrider Foundations
timeline of events:
[https://www.surfrider.org/pages/6950](https://www.surfrider.org/pages/6950)

It looks like the courts didn't find any right of public access to Martin's
beach, but it did find that there was an existing permit for rules for
accessing the beach. The court additionally found that if Mr. Kholsa wants to
change those rules, he has to file a new permit. Mr. Kholsa argues that the
previous owners changed the rules without filing for a new permit, so he
shouldn't have to either.

Mr. Kholsa's argument strikes me as wrong on two counts: #1 just because the
previous owners made changes without a permit, that doesn't mean it was legal
or that he's now allowed to make changes without a permit. #2 there's quite a
difference between the previous owners changing fees and hours and Mr. Kholsa
ending all public access.

Mr Kholsa was informed before he bough the property that there was an existing
public access to the beach and that San Mateo county expected that public
access would continue. In that light, he looks a lot like someone who buys a
house next to the airport and then complains about the noise from takeoffs and
landings. Regardless of what principle he thinks he's fighting for, he's being
a jerk.

