Spent some time on Martins beach in the past and it's beautiful. It's like a hidden little nugget compared to its much more popular big brother Half Moon Bay.
I was by there in early February and had planned to try and visit both, even if I had to jump the fence. But I was running late for a meetup later in the evening in SF and didn't make it.
I respect Khosla but if there was ever reason for risking a ticket for civil disobedience by visiting a public beach this is the place.
I believe the sheriff's department has publicly stated that they will not ticket or arrest anyone caught using the easement to access the beach, even if they have to hop the fence or take similar measures. This situation seems ripe for some persistent civil disobedience.
Except that it's not civil disobedience. It is disrespecting someone who is being civilly disobedient. Disrespect and civil disobedience, one action is not always bad, the other not always good.
The guys literally bourgeoisie taking public land that was public before he purchased it. You don't get to buy a house and then block off your sidewalk because you don't think you should have to allow access to your land without compensation. This is blatant theft from society
It was never public. Not even the state is claiming that it is public. It was always operated as private property accessible to the public for a fee as a business. The state is saying they can tell Khosla to keep running it that way until he gets a permit to change.
Its like someone ran a popular restaurant in town, and sold it, and the historical preservation commission told the new owner they had to keep running it as a restaurant until they got a permit to change the use.
I thought that all CA beaches were public? What made this one different?
EDIT: Ah, It's not really the beach being public that is in dispute. It's the extra "sandy beach" space above the high tide line and the parking lot as you explain here:
This story does not make it at all clear that the suit isn't so much about a road, but also a parking lot and access to a sandy beach above the high tide mark.
Your analogy still sidesteps the matter of the property owner providing an access to the public beach? Sure, maybe there's some secondary issue related to some of the surrounding features that are part of the property, but ultimately the question is whether the gate to the beach is closed.
Khosla shouldn’t have closed the road to the beach. But that’s not the primary issue. The county and public interest groups didn’t just want an easement to access the water. They wanted someone to operate a public beach there with parking and places for sunbathing, etc. But they don’t want to have to pay for that property. Public trust doctrine doesn’t get them that. So that’s why this coastal development permit rigamarole happened.
He is disobeying through means of prolonged legal actions. I hope he gets the sh!t sanctioned out of him in the end. Alternatively, isn't there grounds for a class action suite? Can a class file a suite against an individual?
Not sure I follow your distinction. There's a "no trespassing" sign and a law against trespassing. If I trespass, in violation of that law, how is that not civil disobedience? (Conversely if I'm not breaking the law, then how would lawful use of the easement be disrespectful?) The landowner may also be participating in civil disobedience (refusing to grant access to the beach, in violation of a law which requires it).
The sidewalk in front of a house inside a "parking strip" is on private property (generally), but you can't chain it off with No Trespassing signs... because the sidewalk is on an easement.
I was by there in early February and had planned to try and visit both, even if I had to jump the fence. But I was running late for a meetup later in the evening in SF and didn't make it.
I respect Khosla but if there was ever reason for risking a ticket for civil disobedience by visiting a public beach this is the place.