Just so we're clear since I see a lot of comments here about stealing and "blatant" criminality.
He was ordered to private access at $2 per car, with no adjustment for inflation, across his property to a beach, by a government entity. This despite some reasonable case law on the idea that if you charge people to access something, you can change that price or go out of that business if you want.
In addition, he WON this case in CALIFORNIA at the beginning, though I thought on a bit of a ridiculous approach
To catch folks up, he's now been on a super long losing streak, and the US Supreme Court did not take up the case. It's a bit hard to see the state getting the road they want for $300K they claim it's worth, and they are passing law after law to try and get it. My guess is it ends up more in the 1.5M range?
Now if the government REALLY wanted to give the public access to nature - they'd ban all the STUPID parking restrictions near natural resources. Every rich area in California has some kind of state park or regional park maintained by all our government dollars, but the rich people living near it do this totally wild weekend only parking restriction on these major roads all around the entrance to the park, so no one but the rich folks living right there can access the park. It's kind of genius. You literally have a huge wide road, with parking on the sides NORMALLY during the week, but during weekends to keep poor folks from parking on the road and using the park, they ban weekend parking on this main road and all side streets for a few miles from park entrance.
I think that part of the article might be confused.
The Coastal Act requires that you provide access. It encourages cheap parking and other amenities and the owner can charge for these—as the previous one did. Improvements to these can also be requested/required if you want to further develop the property. However, I don’t think they force you to offer parking. This email from the city, which was part of the trial, mentions both the parking and the access, but only notes, repeatedly, that the access needs to be preserved:
Yeah, a lot of the details are getting lost in the noise.
Firstly, should the government give the person a right to charge at all for access to the beach? If they have the right, do they have a commensurate responsibility (provide a bathroom)? If they have both, how do we decide what the fair value is?
The problem is someone reading this thinks "no, don't charge, and no bathroom. That works for me!" Someone else thinks "Of course they should charge a fair amount. What are we? Animals?"
But this isn't supposed to be a battle of our moods and desires. Its supposed to be a principled discussion. What is the principle? At least VK puts one forward: he thinks private property rights should trump some others. Surf riders also has a principle: the public should have access to the beaches.
I agree with both. So lets say that we think private property rights should be respected AND beach access preserved. What is the best way to balance it? Perhaps the minimal private property rights consistent with beach access? Or the minimal access consistent with property rights?
As you have eluded, the entire case arises from a fundamental contradiction: You cannot charge for access if you want to provide equal access. Any non-zero access fee will exclude some part of the population. Once you fix the law by stipulating that private property owners must ensure free access to the beach, Khosla has no case. If borders of the private property violates the constraints set in constitution, those borders becomes invalid.
I'm amazed that general public is US is perfectly fine with government charging public to enter in to their own public land, sometime with outrageous fees that would be unaffordable by people on subsistence and who would like to live off the grid. No one takes an issue that public is already paying taxes for this! Using public lands is not a privilege but the fundamental right of the people. In many European countries it is actually prohibited to charge access to public lands in their constitution.
If the government REALLY wanted to give public access to the beach, they could have negotiated a footpath across this guy's property and build a parking nearby.
The government doesn't have to negotiate for anything: the law is that access must be provided. The law doesn't specify anything about amenities, just access.
Access doesn't mean a road is required. He simply cannot prevent people from accessing the beach, whether by foot, bicycle or other means typically employed.
If Vinod supplies a road he'd be responsible for maintenance. The other questions are handled already: he'd do the same thing as if someone died in his house or a car was stolen from his driveway. Any member of the public who observes crimes like this can also report them
>>Access doesn't mean a road is required. He simply cannot prevent people from accessing the beach, whether by foot, bicycle or other means typically employed.
So you can use all his property to access the beach, including unnecessarily zig-zags and passing right by his front door, 100 (or whatever) feet away from the beach? Why not require him to give people 80% of the rooms in his house too?
If people have to use his property it has to be done with a delicate balance between public and PRIVATE property rights. That's what courts are for. Judging by some of the comments here, I'm kinda glad he sued.
The law is not a dumb computer that executes code. It doesn't have to specify the means and constraints on access to the level of detail you are arguing for, nor should it be required to: the law when written could not account for all possible scenarios and it is not rational to have that expectation.
The law has existed since the '70s, I'm pretty sure these issues have been settled before.
"Access 24/7?" in particular is one of the point in the discussion: the law says he can change the hours, but must get a permit, which he refuses to do.
If they really wanted a footpath, and pre-existing law didn't already mandate maintaining access, they would take it (either in fee simple, or just an easement) by eminent domain.
What parks are you talking about? Any park I'm aware of with parking restrictions has them because the roads are narrow and people suck at parking. They become so crowded that the road becomes impossible to navigate.
Ross - streets that have plenty of free parking (the houses there are mansions) and these streets HAVE SPACES for parking on them, have Sat, Sun and Holidays no parking signs from 6AM to 6PM.
I'd be curious how well off places like ross are, seems like a different set of rules up there.
Just because you've contributed an infinitesimal amount to a road doesn't necessarily mean you have a right to it, just as how I don't have a right to drive a tank around because my taxes are funding it. Taxes are not the 1:1 transactional relationship that it's commonly conceptualized as - it's part of the whole social contract, and different groups benefit differently.
This article may have been on here yesterday and seems relevant [1]. For this guy it's probably not about fighting for what he believes is "right", it's all about winning. He bought land, a fight ensued, and now he relishes the opportunity to crush his opponent (average people).
> now he relishes the opportunity to crush his opponent (average people).
It seems to me that he's the underdog here: his opponents not only also have the resources to drag this fight on for a decade, they also have the state legislature and the governor on their side. At this point, the state is prepared to use armed force (which is what eminent domain ultimately is) to take his property, and if he tries to physically resist its agents will use violence to subdue him. Ignoring the accountable government, it's remarkable that an unaccountable non-profit has the resources to fight one of the richest men in the world for years, and it's sobering to think of how little chance you or I would have if a similar nonprofit attacked us.
I have no idea if he's legally in the right or wrong, although given that the state has had to change the law, it sounds like he was originally in the right. And I wonder at what point laws aimed at a single person's situation become too akin to bills of attainder to pass constitutional muster.
> He frames the struggle in the Silicon Valley patois of contrarianism. “I’d rather do the right hard things now that I’m in,” he says, “than the wrong easy things.”
Based on his fallacious belief that he knows what is the right thing in a societal domain outside of his subject matter expertise.
"He has bought his way to citizenship". Are you going to unload that charge on every foreign born entrepreneur who purchases property that's subject to a dispute? You can disagree with his position but the "bought his way to citizenship" allegation is a fairly transparent way of saying something else.
No, just those that literally pay to get citizenship. Vinod didn't marry an American, but instead was awarded his citizenship based on his wealth.
I'm supportive of loosening the immigration and naturalization laws, but we shouldn't allow people to bypass almost the entire process by spending money. As is, people like Pramila Jayapal and Vinod are only getting citizenship as its easily purchaseable, rather than going through the naturalization process.
There's nothing on the record that supports your contention that he was awarded his citizenship based on his wealth. He appears to have followed the tried and true path of many other Indo-Americans - he arrived as a student, worked for an American company and then decided the grass was greener on the entrepreneurial side of the fence. It's more likely than not that somewhere along his journey either he or an employer petitioned for permanent resident status, a fairly normal and non-wealth related step.
And yet every commentator here thinks they are an expert and that Vinod is wrong.
Vinod, at least, has been actively involved in the litigation, has probably read the briefs, knows the issues and the laws well, etc. The commentators here (including you) that assume he is wrong and just full of hubris have likely only read a few articles that poorly summarize all of the history and complexity of the case.
That’s not to say I have a view on the underlying case. He may still be an asshole and wrong. But maybe he’s right.
Have you read the court opinions? Do you know what was really at issue? Is it fair to say "multiple courts" ruling against him makes him arrogant, just because he exercised his right to appeal? Does a contrary court decision really mean that one is wrong or acting with hubris -- how many gay rights cases have lost around the country before things shifted?
Without spending more than 5 minutes looking into this (so this could be an inaccurate or unfair summary), it looks like:
1. Per Vinod's blog post (https://medium.com/@vkhosla/martins-beach-a-matter-of-princi...), multiple courts have actually agreed with him that there is no right of public access at Martin’s Beach, finding in favor of Vinod on 7 different legal theories that were brought.
2. In Vinod's view, the plaintiffs then only succeeded based on a claim in a separate case they brought that changing the access hours to a voluntary gate constituted "development" under the Coastal Act that required a permit. If you read the law at issue and the facts of this case, I don't think Vinod's view that this was a "technicality" is totally unreasonable.
3. When he lost on the above, he appealed. Appealing a decision by a lower court that you disagree with is normal -- lower court decisions are often overturned.
4. You then have to consider why he lost the appeal. For example, the appellate court said one of his constitutional claims was not ripe, not necessarily wrong. Higher courts merely declined to hear the case.
1) Sure, there's no abstract right to access the beach, but there's still a right, rooted in the fact that the access already existed, and he can't change it willy-nilly
2) The definition of "development" in the law in question includes “change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto”, which seems precisely what he did. The fact that this doesn't sound like the common definition of the word is irrelevant.
4) The court still ruled against him on the question at hand - whether he can simply close access as he wishes. The "not ripe" decision is about a different (if related) question.
Of course not. That's what is being litigated in courts, whether what he wants is legal or not. Doesn't change the fact that he's not going to come off not looking like an asshole either way.
Instead of "objective standards of morality" which may or may not exist (different countries and cultures, etc.), how about using "strong preferences of the community". That way your point still stands (as I understand it), but any discussion on morals risks getting bogged down by unrelated hot topics.
It is a little vague on who is part of the community and who is not, but usually a good enough definition is easy. For a beach, maybe consider those who care and live within a day trip distance.
Yes, you're pretty much free to do whatever you want on this earth, within the bounds of what's physically possible. Of course if society disagrees with your actions then you may be fined, imprisoned, or even killed in the case of capital punishment.
But that hubris is where progress originates from. You can't separate one from the other, unfortunately. You have to be that stubborn about things you believe you are right about, in order to prove the world wrong. (Even if it is him that is wrong in this instance.)
Respectfully disagree. Yes, naiveté (which disruptive thinking is operationalizing in a sometimes-good way) is a positive characteristic to cultivate in society (ie. systems), to enter domains with a little bit of incredulity.
But if it exists perpetually in one person on one topic in one set of observations and conditions, then they are simply a stubborn asshole.
I'm not talking about naiveté. I'm talking about the scientific and philosophical arrogance of following your own models regardless of societal or cultural conventions. This is quite difference from naiveté which is a sort of ignorance from inexperience. People who consistently make revolutionary progress, rather than just get lucky once, are the sorts that "know better" but don't care.
'“A billionaire is a bad word in this country now,” he says, as his tea cools. “And that pains me.”'
Maybe if fewer of them thought of themselves as being better than everyone else and, more importantly, stopped acting like they thought that way, their reputation would improve.
But I don't believe that pains him. This isn't new. We've seen this kind of attitude in the wealthy time and again here in the US and every other society where a wealth gap as big as ours has existed. The results tend to not favor anyone, but the very wealthy tend to lose the most.
>created Java, the programming language that formed the
>foundation for much of today’s internet
How did Java help the enable the Internet?
There’s a discussion to be had about it’s significance to programming languages, but I don’t see how the Internet would have flourished any less without it.
Seems it could be argued Java was an obstacle to the Internet w.r.t. it’s role in the history of various fat tech ideas that tried and failed to become a defacto browser standard.
With all due respect to his successes, I’m not quite sure which of those is the source of getting credit for creating the foundation of the Internet.
Sun didn’t invent HTTP and didn’t sell the only computers that could run a web server.
It's a good time to be a lawyer. These days there are lots of highly paid shareholders and investors with massive egos, unlimited free time and 0 concern for society.
With increased automation, we will all become lawyers.
We will make a living litigating against the minions of other rich people to seek damages from whoever it was that spilled their drink on the billionaire's carpet... It will not be about the money; it will be a matter of principle.
The ridiculous part is that the law existed prior to his acquiring the property. He could have (and arguably he should have) known his obligations ahead of time. Even if he didn’t understand the California law, at the very least he could have questioned the existence of easements for coastal access and/or the possibility of some kind of “squatter’s rights” on the grounds that surfers and beachgoers have been using that path for decades.
No, I’m not buying that this is an unfortunate surprise for him. He picked this fight intentionally.
His hypocrisy is beyond baffling. "A billionaire is a bad word in this country now" - and you are doing exactly what to mitigate this? Become a professional Mister Beach Asshole (tm)? Just a lucky billionaire with a giant ego.
“Here’s the thing about Vinod,” Mr. Kaul said. “He just doesn’t care.”
This is what's frightening. A person with billion dollars have enormous leverage to wield his will, beliefs, principles - whether wrong or right - on public. They can buy large properties on whims, put up walls, close roads, setup perma-construction zones and make them disappear from the map for all intent and purposes. They can buy up political system to put in place laws that can hurt thousands for generations, hurt environment, empty out valuable resources. Even if they are mistaken in their beliefs, they can outspend opponents in litigation driving them to bankruptcy. All the while any losses in these fights is not even noticeable to their fortunes.
I'm not against capitalism but I think there is a fundamental bug in our system that gives rise to these symptoms. Perhaps in hundred years this "bug" will get fixed and our future generations will look back on us marvelling that billionaires existed in our world just like we marvel Pharaohs existed in the previous age.
IIRC, people want to use a road on his private property to access the public beach part. So Khosla is saying, come to the beach all you want, but not by using the road on my private property. Cute.
Maybe the state should just launch eminent domain like proceedings and let courts decide on the price. He's not saying (that all) the beach is his, just don't come through my land to go to the public part. It has the same effect but it's different.
People are legally entitled to use the road on his property to access the beach, which is slightly different.
I can see this being weird if the access rights were addded after you bought the land, but if the easement long predates your ownership, as it allegedly does in this case, I don’t really see why “property rights” should be allow you to wiggle out of it. That easement is part and parcel of the property you bought—-it may have cost even more if it weren’t included!
>>People are legally entitled to use the road on his property to access the beach, which is slightly different.
To be fair, the courts are deciding this as we speak and maybe in the next 20 years :). The person has the right to argue this in courts, until the doors are slammed in his face.
Before or after they are ways to do this--legally, price is the only issue.
From the article I assume the issue is going around Martins Beach Road in Half Moon Bay, CA.
This road is roughly half a mile long.
Paving it would be around 100k. Add the lane marking, gutters, sidewalks, ADA-friendly ramps, brail plates on each crossing and the bill can easily get up to half a million.
Is it fair to slap someone with a half a million bill just because "he's rich anyway"?
If it is in the disclosure when you buy the property, or basic law your real estate agent should inform you of, yes, rich or poor. If his agent never educated him he should sue his agent for negligence.
That said, I have walked that road many times. There are other properties there that require a road so he would not need to pay for everything. There is already garbage pickup service there so I assume like any other private road it would need to be maintained by all the property owners for basic services and emergency access.
The issue was that he kept the gate locked and was trying to have the police aggressively evict pedestrians. There is a small parking lot at the beginning of the road and if he had been a decent neighbor and allowed people to park there and walk, I doubt this would have ever become such an issue. But he took that path of most resistance.
Morally I think open access to beaches is the right thing. It is a public asset and the beauty a reminder of how important our stewardship is. On the other side of the coin, having been there over the years and now seeing how the public is trashing what was a super pristine amazing place with litter and feces, i would give him the right to charge a $10000 cleaning fee to anyone caught littering (or worse!)
My impression was that the law requires access. Upgraded infrastructure can be part of a quid-pro-quo for other development in the area, but the coastal comission can’t, as far as I know, insist on improvements out of the blue.
There's no reason to think that issue even exists - Khosla certainly doesn't mention it, nor do the court fillings - so why do you assume there's anything for the journalist to investigate?
Disappointing this comment was flagged. It's all that really needs to be said, and sums him and the article's thesis on him quite nicely. The world would be a terrible place if it were filled only with Vinod Khoslas.
Hopefully the newer generation can jettison the decades of systemic libertarian propaganda and fabricated individualism that justifies self obsession and sociopathy to instead build a society that is more humane and connected like most human societies are supposed to be. And we can see very early signs on it.
No one is threatening your individualism, if you don't like other people and the concept of cooperative society you can always go and live in the forest alone. This is possible for every single human being on the planet but no one takes it.
Because this fake individualism generates its identity not on the rugged individualism of standing alone but taking advantage of all the resources, benefits and skills of millions in societal human cooperation and then stand apart merely to legitimize petty self interest and exploiting others without remorse. In essence all the benefits of cooperation but none of the responsibilities.
This is people like Vinod Khosla in a nutshell and if your society is full of such 'individuals' and legitimizes their ideology you have to consider whether you have a 'society' worth fighting for. What is the motivation? Because these kind of individuals do not believe in the larger good, only self interest.
At the end of the day, everyone's only in it for themselves one way or another. People at the top want to secure their spot, people at the bottom want everyone to share, and there's some people who are up but can't sleep at night if someone think poorly of them.
But in all cases, it's all different sides of the same coin.
He was ordered to private access at $2 per car, with no adjustment for inflation, across his property to a beach, by a government entity. This despite some reasonable case law on the idea that if you charge people to access something, you can change that price or go out of that business if you want.
In addition, he WON this case in CALIFORNIA at the beginning, though I thought on a bit of a ridiculous approach
To catch folks up, he's now been on a super long losing streak, and the US Supreme Court did not take up the case. It's a bit hard to see the state getting the road they want for $300K they claim it's worth, and they are passing law after law to try and get it. My guess is it ends up more in the 1.5M range?
Now if the government REALLY wanted to give the public access to nature - they'd ban all the STUPID parking restrictions near natural resources. Every rich area in California has some kind of state park or regional park maintained by all our government dollars, but the rich people living near it do this totally wild weekend only parking restriction on these major roads all around the entrance to the park, so no one but the rich folks living right there can access the park. It's kind of genius. You literally have a huge wide road, with parking on the sides NORMALLY during the week, but during weekends to keep poor folks from parking on the road and using the park, they ban weekend parking on this main road and all side streets for a few miles from park entrance.