

Vinod Khosla wins key Martins Beach battle - john_w_t_b
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24380282/vinod-khosla-wins-key-martins-beach-battle

======
smutticus
Regardless of what the law says, we shouldn't forget that this is assholish
behavior. And Vinod Khosla should be ashamed of himself.

Not that he cares or that I'm trying to incite anything. It's just important
that we not forget this important point.

~~~
einarvollset
Yupp. Relevant: [http://www.surfrider.org/campaigns/entry/open-martins-
beach](http://www.surfrider.org/campaigns/entry/open-martins-beach)

------
_delirium
Weird, seems to be a kind of "squatter's rights" for rich people applied here.
It's illegal to exclusively possess a public beach by impeding all access to
it, but the courts rule that since it was done for many years, it is legal in
this case.

~~~
gojomo
I think it's more subtle than that, deriving not from a tradition of
possession but rather an international treaty that predates California as a
state.

If the US promised, in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, to honor in
perpetuity the property grants of Mexico in the conquered/ceded territories,
maybe that promise still applies. And if the Supreme Court already ruled (in
1859!) that California law can't alter those rights, just as state law is
limited in other international and interstate affairs... well, it's an
interesting case. Would love to see Volokh Conspiracy or Popehat discuss it.

Khosla may yet want to cede this claim, even if it's legally legitimate, to
not appear like a robber baron buying up eccentric anti-democratic privileges
that were created by ancient wars.

 _Update:_ And another thought... maybe if the US and California now view the
coast – and the water-rights angle that ChuckMcM mentions – as requiring a new
approach, they can negotiate a treaty-patch with Mexico? :)

~~~
nraynaud
I don't get it, from my understanding they clipped (somehow in a geometric
sense) an international treaty with a constitution, normally it's sorry for
the treaty.

~~~
_delirium
Under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause [1], it's the other way around:
treaties signed by the U.S. government take precedence over state
constitutions.

[1] _This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the
judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or
laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding._

~~~
nraynaud
Hum ok, sorry. The doctrine in France is that the Constitution has supremacy.
But the trick is that our Constitution is only 55 years old, so somehow we
don't have that many "cadavers in our closets", previous treaties (and I guess
it's mostly treaties signed 1945 -> 1958) were taken care of explicitly in our
Constitution, the rest is recent history.

It's not to say that it doesn't haunt our government, European Court Of Human
Rights is just a treaty after all, and it fundamentally changed our criminal
procedure a few years ago, but we integrated this treaty inside our
Constitution, and allowed it to hit us on top of our laws.

------
arepb
It's clear Vinod Khosla really cares about the environment.

------
sashagim
This quote from Wikipedia describes it as a particularly bully like behavior.

"Martin's Beach was previously a popular family beach and surf spot before
Khosla purchased the property adjacent to the beach and blocked access."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla)

------
auctiontheory
Wouldn't it be great if all of us could choose (only when it suited us) to
live our lives according to mid-19th century laws.

