Silicon Valley Billionaire Battles Surfers Over Beach Access(blogs.kqed.org)
blogs.kqed.org
Silicon Valley Billionaire Battles Surfers Over Beach Access
http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/silicon-valley-billionaire-battles-surfers-over-beach-access/
152 comments
I am adding the top comment from the original article by user petethexman:
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.
It isn't just a matter of the Coastal Act. What was alluded to regarding public access along the road involves what is known as a prescriptive right. Areas with a history of public use can have the right of access through prescriptive rights regardless of the existence of Coastal Act policies. Prescriptive rights have a lengthy history -- and by lengthy, I mean going back to English common law in the 1100s. The standards for a prescriptive easement involve, among other things, that the public use be open, "notorious" (which means well known and not secretive), and continuous for a period of time. Many prescriptive rights inure in a time period as short as 5 years or as long as 20. And it isn't just the coast. If your neighbor builds a concrete block wall between your back yards and it turned out to be on your property and not his (a very common occurrence), over that period of time, if not otherwise contested or challenged, it could become his property if he was to pursue that. So the impact of these decisions is widespread not just in terms of natural resources but also public usage of trails as well.
Access to the water is a right guaranteed not just to and along the coast but to any body of water -- lake, stream, pond, whatever. Article X Section 4 of the California Constitution, enacted shortly after statehood in 1850, states in part that the public has a right to access of "the waters of the state of California," that no person, organization, corporation, or any other entity can block access to the waters of the state, and that the Legislature, in enacting future laws, must give THE most liberal application of those rights possible.
Case in point: When I lived in Lake Arrowhead in the San Bernardino Mountains in southern California, the homeowner association there blocked public access to the lake unless you were an association member/property owner on the lake. The dam was constructed beginning in 1922 and has always been in private ownership by the association. During the drought in the early- to mid-1990s, the lake level dropped nearly 20 feet, and boat owners who didn't have docks that could adjust to fluctuating water levels couldn't launch their boats. Their solution? Not take personal responsibility, certainly. No. They had the Community Services District (for water and sewage disposal) enact an ordinance that charged everyone within the District (whose boundaries far exceeded the area of the homeowners' association) higher rates to raise $60 million to subsidize the wealthy lakefront property owners who didn't have adjustable docks -- fewer than 100 property owners, in a community with over 12,000 permanent year-round residents. This money was for purchasing water from the State Water Project through convoluted three- or four-step water swapping deals with other water districts to obtain water indirectly AND was done in a manner that avoided any approvals that could be conditioned to force public access to the lake directly.
The solution to these problems? Be vigilant. Always be vigilant. The ocean is OUR ocean, and access to the beaches and water is an integral part of the culture of California. This tiny beach, away from view, away from virtually everyone except those very few lucky individuals who live there, is important. It only takes one bad precedent, one bad court ruling, to have impacts not only on this beach, not only on all California beaches, not only all bodies of water, but to any resource belonging to the people of California, whether it be a small creek in the eastern Sierra, a forest, or a desert.
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.
It isn't just a matter of the Coastal Act. What was alluded to regarding public access along the road involves what is known as a prescriptive right. Areas with a history of public use can have the right of access through prescriptive rights regardless of the existence of Coastal Act policies. Prescriptive rights have a lengthy history -- and by lengthy, I mean going back to English common law in the 1100s. The standards for a prescriptive easement involve, among other things, that the public use be open, "notorious" (which means well known and not secretive), and continuous for a period of time. Many prescriptive rights inure in a time period as short as 5 years or as long as 20. And it isn't just the coast. If your neighbor builds a concrete block wall between your back yards and it turned out to be on your property and not his (a very common occurrence), over that period of time, if not otherwise contested or challenged, it could become his property if he was to pursue that. So the impact of these decisions is widespread not just in terms of natural resources but also public usage of trails as well.
Access to the water is a right guaranteed not just to and along the coast but to any body of water -- lake, stream, pond, whatever. Article X Section 4 of the California Constitution, enacted shortly after statehood in 1850, states in part that the public has a right to access of "the waters of the state of California," that no person, organization, corporation, or any other entity can block access to the waters of the state, and that the Legislature, in enacting future laws, must give THE most liberal application of those rights possible.
Case in point: When I lived in Lake Arrowhead in the San Bernardino Mountains in southern California, the homeowner association there blocked public access to the lake unless you were an association member/property owner on the lake. The dam was constructed beginning in 1922 and has always been in private ownership by the association. During the drought in the early- to mid-1990s, the lake level dropped nearly 20 feet, and boat owners who didn't have docks that could adjust to fluctuating water levels couldn't launch their boats. Their solution? Not take personal responsibility, certainly. No. They had the Community Services District (for water and sewage disposal) enact an ordinance that charged everyone within the District (whose boundaries far exceeded the area of the homeowners' association) higher rates to raise $60 million to subsidize the wealthy lakefront property owners who didn't have adjustable docks -- fewer than 100 property owners, in a community with over 12,000 permanent year-round residents. This money was for purchasing water from the State Water Project through convoluted three- or four-step water swapping deals with other water districts to obtain water indirectly AND was done in a manner that avoided any approvals that could be conditioned to force public access to the lake directly.
The solution to these problems? Be vigilant. Always be vigilant. The ocean is OUR ocean, and access to the beaches and water is an integral part of the culture of California. This tiny beach, away from view, away from virtually everyone except those very few lucky individuals who live there, is important. It only takes one bad precedent, one bad court ruling, to have impacts not only on this beach, not only on all California beaches, not only all bodies of water, but to any resource belonging to the people of California, whether it be a small creek in the eastern Sierra, a forest, or a desert.
It'd be nice for someone to verify that, but apparently "The Surfrider Foundation San Mateo County Chapter has been engaged in an effort to reestablish public access to Martin's Beach".
They can be found at: http://smc.surfrider.org Looks like they are doing the right thing. And I guess it wouldn't harm writing that I've also just donated a token $100 to them.
They can be found at: http://smc.surfrider.org Looks like they are doing the right thing. And I guess it wouldn't harm writing that I've also just donated a token $100 to them.
Interesting! Is this limited to only naturally occurring bodies of water or does it include artificial?
I'm guessing artificial lakes are not included, as there are plenty of examples where gated communities restrict access, such as Lake Sherwood in the Los Angeles suburb of Westlake Village.
I'm guessing artificial lakes are not included, as there are plenty of examples where gated communities restrict access, such as Lake Sherwood in the Los Angeles suburb of Westlake Village.
A prescriptive easement has to be without permission by the owner. Since the previous owner was charging $10 to park, I would argue they had permission.
BTW, do you know (or does anyone know) the specific history of this particular parcel? The closest thing I could find was a wikipedia bit on Spanish and Mexican land grants...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ranchos_of_California
various articles refer to the "original owner" who filed a claim on the land (upheld by the US courts in the mid 1800s), but I can't find anything more than that...
"The judge cited the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War and required that the U.S. recognize Mexican land grants in cases where a claim had been filed.
The original owner of the land fronting Martin's Beach had indeed filed a claim, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1859, 14 years before California drafted its first constitution."
One issue I don't understand here is why the parcel is exempt from the public easement required through the California state constitution... it makes sense that the treaty required the US to recognize existing land ownership, but it seems strange that it exempt from constitution where it comes to use. For instance, permits would still be required to build on it, land use law is still in effect, right?
I'll try to dig up the opinion and read it some time. If anyone has some interesting links, please post them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ranchos_of_California
various articles refer to the "original owner" who filed a claim on the land (upheld by the US courts in the mid 1800s), but I can't find anything more than that...
"The judge cited the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War and required that the U.S. recognize Mexican land grants in cases where a claim had been filed.
The original owner of the land fronting Martin's Beach had indeed filed a claim, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1859, 14 years before California drafted its first constitution."
One issue I don't understand here is why the parcel is exempt from the public easement required through the California state constitution... it makes sense that the treaty required the US to recognize existing land ownership, but it seems strange that it exempt from constitution where it comes to use. For instance, permits would still be required to build on it, land use law is still in effect, right?
I'll try to dig up the opinion and read it some time. If anyone has some interesting links, please post them.
From what I can see looking at the treaty, and looking at the Supreme Court case, it seems to me that you are right. I do not see how either of them prohibit what California wants to do, provided that California is not singling out Mexicans. It's also not clear to me from the treaty if it even applies to people who were not Mexicans at the time the treaty was enacted.
Note: I have not extensively researched this. I googled for the text of the treaty, and then did some searching within it to try to find the parts relevant to property rights. I also googled for the Supreme Court case and read the decision (which was short and not very informative by today's standards). In other words, I could be completely off on this.
Note: I have not extensively researched this. I googled for the text of the treaty, and then did some searching within it to try to find the parts relevant to property rights. I also googled for the Supreme Court case and read the decision (which was short and not very informative by today's standards). In other words, I could be completely off on this.
It appears to be this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Ca%C3%B1ada_de_Verde_y_...
There are some other clues on this .tiff (fair warning, it bogged down my Shotwell viewer and swap space):
http://gis.co.sanmateo.ca.us/pwraster/RSMvol018/18-RSM-PG017...
Martin is on that map, and the annotations speak to the legal process of the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Ca%C3%B1ada_de_Verde_y_...
There are some other clues on this .tiff (fair warning, it bogged down my Shotwell viewer and swap space):
http://gis.co.sanmateo.ca.us/pwraster/RSMvol018/18-RSM-PG017...
Martin is on that map, and the annotations speak to the legal process of the time.
California's right of access to the shoreline does not override the pre-existing property right.
I think what you meant to say was:
"The defendant's position is that California's right of access to the shoreline does not override the pre-existing property right."
As in: this "does not override" phrase you gingerly tucked is not only far from obvious (in this use case); it's highly, highly contentious -- and requires aggressive substantiation to be tenable. In fact, it's a lot like saying:
"The title for this Brooklyn brownstone I just bought ultimately traces back to the Dutch land grants (or Lenape tribe covenants, etc; take your pick); NYC's zoning restrictions do not override the existing property rights. So if you don't like this 40-story casino-hotel-brothel complex I'm building, well, you can just bugger off."
I think what you meant to say was:
"The defendant's position is that California's right of access to the shoreline does not override the pre-existing property right."
As in: this "does not override" phrase you gingerly tucked is not only far from obvious (in this use case); it's highly, highly contentious -- and requires aggressive substantiation to be tenable. In fact, it's a lot like saying:
"The title for this Brooklyn brownstone I just bought ultimately traces back to the Dutch land grants (or Lenape tribe covenants, etc; take your pick); NYC's zoning restrictions do not override the existing property rights. So if you don't like this 40-story casino-hotel-brothel complex I'm building, well, you can just bugger off."
Re: tl;dr that's what the trial court judge found, but the case is currently on appeal. It will almost certainly be heard eventually by the California Supreme Court.
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?
Property is, in most cases, property. It can be bought, sold, inherited, transferred, etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In general, in California, in US? Those are not as self-evident and obvious things.
Nebraska for a while had a allodial title system up until 2005. Yeah you could basically pay a huge chunk of property taxes ahead and then be "free from property taxes". Well free as long as they didn't die. So yeah property is property is not as simple.
Nebraska for a while had a allodial title system up until 2005. Yeah you could basically pay a huge chunk of property taxes ahead and then be "free from property taxes". Well free as long as they didn't die. So yeah property is property is not as simple.
For generations, thi is how property tax has been protected from riing; it is legal to transfer property to a blood relative without a re-assessment of the property tax. i.e. the tax level set when purchased can be maintained.
However with sale of property between strangers, there is a new assessment at each transaction. This should be the same for coding rights too, it would seem. There may be instances where this is not the case...
It would seem though that some people want to preserve such classifications when it comes to historical properties - which may be the play Khosla is taking.
(He is also claiming that his LLC owns it - and not him directly, thus he doesnt need to go to court, personally).
However with sale of property between strangers, there is a new assessment at each transaction. This should be the same for coding rights too, it would seem. There may be instances where this is not the case...
It would seem though that some people want to preserve such classifications when it comes to historical properties - which may be the play Khosla is taking.
(He is also claiming that his LLC owns it - and not him directly, thus he doesnt need to go to court, personally).
Why? Don't get me wrong, I would totally support that kind of property principles, but given how it would apply to e.g. IP rights, I don't think it's viable in the current corpocratic atmosphere.
That was my first impression too, but it gets tricky.
What if your descendents want to live on the same plot of land where they grew up, after your death? Does the plot regress in size?
What if your descendents want to live on the same plot of land where they grew up, after your death? Does the plot regress in size?
I believe eminent domain trumped property right in most if not all cases. The property right "inherited" from Mexico is just property right. Eminent domain is for public good. A court can always grant easement access to the coast to the public using eminent domain.
Last time this came up on KQED, I think that Khosla's lawyers were saying something about being amenable to an eminent domain argument, under which CA would need to compensate Khosla for the access. Evidently, the argument that the Coastal Commission approach has made does not require compensation.
I'm not really sure the law matters that much as ethics do in this case. If the surfers are doing something bad or illegal, fine, but otherwise: DBAA.
I suspect this guy's property rights to his "ancestral lands" are about as valid as Cliven Bundy's
The "guy" (Vinod Khosla) is not advancing an argument based on "ancestral lands" as he was born in 1955 in Delhi, India.
He's claiming that the original owner of the property was granted it in whole by the government of Mexico, which precedes any claims or legal statutes enacted by the US or California governments. I think the property should be confiscated to be held in trust as a lesson to this guy and the rest of the ultra-rich that this is our planet too.
He's claiming that the original owner of the property was granted it in whole by the government of Mexico, which precedes any claims or legal statutes enacted by the US or California governments. I think the property should be confiscated to be held in trust as a lesson to this guy and the rest of the ultra-rich that this is our planet too.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
As someone who vacations frequently in Norway and Switzerland I quite love that. I always found it super ironic that to have the freedom to roam I have to leave the USA :)
I feel like the general population in Norway and Switzerland are more educated and tend to respect each other more. In the US, you always have riff-raff that ruin it for the rest of us.
My impression is that while existing property generally is grandfathered when regulations change, renovations then require you to bring the relevant part up to code. Thus, if you want to change stuff, like putting up a fence, then it does not seem far-fetched that you would then be required to comply with current public access rules.
If you have an old deal, that's fine. But you can't justifiably claim you both have a right to be grandfathered in while at the same time updating the property to current standards.
If you have an old deal, that's fine. But you can't justifiably claim you both have a right to be grandfathered in while at the same time updating the property to current standards.
Great point
There is nothing unpopular about your opinion. Everyone agrees that property rights are important. But in number of cases property rights also conflicts in a way it is hard to resolve. For example you may have a smoke emitting chimney in your house which spoils the air for your neighbor. In this case your neighbor too has a good case against you because your activities in your property infringe on your neighbor's property rights.
In this particular case I think Vinod has the right to block the access to beach from his property. But at the same time Government has a responsibility to see how an access to the beach may be provided.
In this particular case I think Vinod has the right to block the access to beach from his property. But at the same time Government has a responsibility to see how an access to the beach may be provided.
> Everyone agrees that property rights are important.
I think you will find not everyone agrees with that. Since well before Proudhon's "property is theft" (from "What is property?", 1840), there have been ideological arguments against property rights on the basis that the limit the liberty of the population as a whole. And while wholesale rejection of property rights is not common, it most certainly exist, and has a history pre-dating our written legal systems.
Careful about generalisations.
I think you will find not everyone agrees with that. Since well before Proudhon's "property is theft" (from "What is property?", 1840), there have been ideological arguments against property rights on the basis that the limit the liberty of the population as a whole. And while wholesale rejection of property rights is not common, it most certainly exist, and has a history pre-dating our written legal systems.
Careful about generalisations.
The problem with this reasoning is that it's based on the incorrect assumption that one can "own" land completely and outright.
This isn't true since land ownership itself is something that can only exist with the consent of the community. Unlike the fruits of one's labor, the modern concept of land ownership is just a modernization of the older mechanism of land ownership, which was enforced by the pointy end of a sharp stick. In that old model of land ownership, you'd have a lot of trouble holding onto your land if your activities on your land started poisoning the local water supply and ruining the surrounding land for everyone.
In the new model of government enforced land-ownership, you still have to treat your land in a way that's compatible with the needs of the landowners that surround you.
This isn't true since land ownership itself is something that can only exist with the consent of the community. Unlike the fruits of one's labor, the modern concept of land ownership is just a modernization of the older mechanism of land ownership, which was enforced by the pointy end of a sharp stick. In that old model of land ownership, you'd have a lot of trouble holding onto your land if your activities on your land started poisoning the local water supply and ruining the surrounding land for everyone.
In the new model of government enforced land-ownership, you still have to treat your land in a way that's compatible with the needs of the landowners that surround you.
We have codes and ordinances so people don't just go willy-nilly doing any old thing. I'm not against some regulation. So in most cases I would agree with you. But this isn't one of them. His locking his gate didn't poison anyone's well or burn down anyone's house. All he did was stop random anybodies from entering his land. He didn't even mess up the beach or anything. No surrounding land was touched. He locked his gate. The fact that the people were entering his land to get to a public beach is irrelevant to me. I firmly believe any land owner should have 100% full right to block any person from entering their land (aside from proper police authority). Just like many times before and many times to come... people are butt hurt that something they used but didn't own was suddenly taken away from them.
If someone buys every house around yours, do you lose the right to traverse their land to get to and from your own?
[deleted]
I think you have a reasonable point about the beach still being public. In this case, the point of the permit battle is to make this land worth less to him since he won't be able to redevelop it. The California Coast Commission has a point of view which is to try and ensure public access to public beaches and will use their power to try and force him to negotiate.
In regards to what the tech community can do about this, how about organizing a large beach party and get some boats to ferry people in?
In regards to what the tech community can do about this, how about organizing a large beach party and get some boats to ferry people in?
"how about organizing a large beach party and get some boats to ferry people in?"
What would be the point? Vinod is not living there so he would be indifferent to it, at least until 2021.
What would be the point? Vinod is not living there so he would be indifferent to it, at least until 2021.
Per Raz, Berlin, &c., these problems of conflicting goods arise precisely because values do not form a simple taxonomy with one supreme overriding ancestor. It's hard, and messy, because we have to balance several legitimate claims.
Many technical people -- certainly including myself -- can tend towards thinking that all problems have a single solution, that those solutions are tractable, and that disagreement is a function of lack of information. That is not always the case.
Many technical people -- certainly including myself -- can tend towards thinking that all problems have a single solution, that those solutions are tractable, and that disagreement is a function of lack of information. That is not always the case.
I'm inclined to agree. To me the irresponsible party is the previous owner. They obviously had some sort of agreement but never codified it in law. If they had turned over an easement or otherwise established rights for the road, then this problem wouldn't exist. But they either didn't bother out of ignorance, or they didn't want to, to maximise their sale price.
There is a precedent here, and while I absolutely agree that all shoreline should be publicly accessible, if that shoreline is landlocked by private property, that's going to be too bad.
This reminds me of the 'landlord evicts squatter' type stories that spring up from time to time. The issue arises from the time someone gets established in a not-very-firm legal sense - and that is allowed to fester over time. Eventually when someone moves to implement the law as written, it results in ugly battles.
There is also lots of articles about the 'right to roam' in the UK which has similar issues. Often these have been abused by paparazzi to invade the privacy of people who, ironically, purchase remote properties to get some privacy.
Personally, if I had the $37m, I wouldn't have the stomach for this kind of fight and would have moved on. But there is probably a big win coming for establishing ownership over the entire land over the next ten years or so.
I've always found the placement of properties right on the shoreline in California and Florida somewhat surprising. Where I live, virtually nobody lives right on the shoreline like that, simply because there is little, if any, private property that close to a beach.
There is a precedent here, and while I absolutely agree that all shoreline should be publicly accessible, if that shoreline is landlocked by private property, that's going to be too bad.
This reminds me of the 'landlord evicts squatter' type stories that spring up from time to time. The issue arises from the time someone gets established in a not-very-firm legal sense - and that is allowed to fester over time. Eventually when someone moves to implement the law as written, it results in ugly battles.
There is also lots of articles about the 'right to roam' in the UK which has similar issues. Often these have been abused by paparazzi to invade the privacy of people who, ironically, purchase remote properties to get some privacy.
Personally, if I had the $37m, I wouldn't have the stomach for this kind of fight and would have moved on. But there is probably a big win coming for establishing ownership over the entire land over the next ten years or so.
I've always found the placement of properties right on the shoreline in California and Florida somewhat surprising. Where I live, virtually nobody lives right on the shoreline like that, simply because there is little, if any, private property that close to a beach.
>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).
Not sure how it works in the US, but English Law has something to say about this. If your property is blocked by the property of another you get to have a right of passage through his land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement
Not sure how it works in the US, but English Law has something to say about this. If your property is blocked by the property of another you get to have a right of passage through his land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement
There are similar laws in the US, but in this case the owner is arguing that the treaty in which the US acquired California from Mexico in the 1800's (requiring the US let the people who already owned land in California keep it) supersedes the California law requiring public access.
This was my first impression as well. It seems to me that if you're allowed to spend the $37m to officially "own" the property then it would logically follow that you should be allowed to alter it or decide you don't feel like having random people on it. If not, then the road should be state owned with all surrounding property private.
I recognize that there's complex case-law here that differentiates between those varying shades of grey, but that's just my (unpopular) opinion.
I recognize that there's complex case-law here that differentiates between those varying shades of grey, but that's just my (unpopular) opinion.
If your property was no connected to all the rest of the property on earth, the resources under the earth, and the air above it, I might agree.
Are you saying that since all land is connected that no one should be able to have any say about their own land? I hope not because that seems a bit ridiculous.
Pretty sure that's not what he's saying; nice strawman, though.
Then what did he mean? Obviously all land is connected to all the rest of the property on earth, the resources under the earth, and the air above it. I don't have an option for it not to be. But he said if it wasn't connected then he might agree with me. So clearly he will never agree with me because it will always be connected. I can only assume he doesn't feel it is ok for me to dislike when others try to tell me what I can do with my property. From that I can assume then he feels this way about everyone and not just me. No attempt at a strwman. just trying to infer his meaning.
Honestly, I agree. However, there are often laws that protect right of ways that are already in use and things like that. Heck, people often sell property separate from mineral or water rights that have been sold separately. I don't have any problem with it if the owner bought it knowing he would have to retain public access, since then it would have been priced into the cost.
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.
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/
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/
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.
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.
But if you work 70 hours a week for the rest of your life you to might attain this status my friend! Think of all the riches and power you'd have for yourself! And because people are taught that massive amounts of wealth concentrated into single entities is a noble thing to strive for you will be respected by all!
Surely the personal happiness of a few hundred human beings who worked hard and got lucky (or were born to someone who worked hard and got lucky) weighs more than the hunger of millions in the third world. I mean if they were really that hungry they would get a job and feed their family, right my friend?
Surely the personal happiness of a few hundred human beings who worked hard and got lucky (or were born to someone who worked hard and got lucky) weighs more than the hunger of millions in the third world. I mean if they were really that hungry they would get a job and feed their family, right my friend?
Communism? Really? Sorry, no thanks. I'm fine without being murdered by my own government for having unclean thoughts. Long live the individual.
Communism == Execution for Thought Crime, apparently.
Yes, this point is not in dispute. A small sample : http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/gulags-reveal-awf...
It's most certainly in dispute. I'm disputing it right now.
You seem to think that communism is the same thing as "communism under Stalin", and that's incorrect.
You seem to think that communism is the same thing as "communism under Stalin", and that's incorrect.
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.
Indeed I think it would be about as close to utopian as we're ever going to get.
Yeah, but who get's to decide what's "benevolent" in the first place?
One man's benevolent ruler is another's tyrannical despot.
One man's benevolent ruler is another's tyrannical despot.
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.
Or, you could try a liberal democracy with a strong constitution and separation of powers, based on common law and strong rights of individuals.
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.
Unfortunately, the current implementations of this ideal fall far short.
It's a pretty safe bet that an AI dictatorship would employ humanity to spare the robots from their labors.
I suppose it depends on the personality of the AI, and how it was programmed or evolved. Maybe it, and its robots, would be highly motivated by such work?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
Also, as it happens, KV is an investor of YC startups: http://blog.ycombinator.com/khosla-ventures-is-joining-the-y...
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.
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.
Stripe, to pick a HN favorite, recently raised a big round in which Khosla was a major investor.
[deleted](2)
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.
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.
It wasn't just given to them by the Mexican government: it was also included in the US-Mexican treaties, and ratified after an appeal to the US Supreme Court.
Makes it a lot harder to deal with.
Makes it a lot harder to deal with.
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.
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
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?
It's not clear to me if he understands that the current court case is invoking federal supremacy of US treaties over California law/constitution, which seems to be a brand-new argument. He compares it to a private homeowners association barring access to waterfront, which to me seems completely irrelevant.
[deleted]
> 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.
Ah yes, that plucky underdog, the State of California.
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.
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.
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).
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.
You're probably talking about Carbon Beach, Malibu, California.
http://www.malibutimes.com/news/article_cde2956a-3ea5-11e2-a...
You can take a photographic tour of Ellison's vast real estate portfolio here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-ellison-real-estate-201...
http://www.malibutimes.com/news/article_cde2956a-3ea5-11e2-a...
You can take a photographic tour of Ellison's vast real estate portfolio here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-ellison-real-estate-201...
What documentary is this?
@dosh is probably talking about 'The Fabulous Life Presents: Really Rich Real Estate'.
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
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2398391/
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
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2398391/
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.
I assume you mean free cloud services. If you're a paying customer with a contract, it's harder to pull that stunt.
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.
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.
I think what 'forgottenpass was probably getting to was the idea that a regular joe doesn't know much the difference between the all-glorious tech company 'Google' and the tech guy 'Khosla'. Right now Khosla is making all of SV tech place and beyond look bad. Khosla is in some way coloring the perceptions of all tech people, all tech companies, etc. in the hearts and minds of regular joes. It's kind of the way people work - not that there's anything wrong about being ill-informed, a lot of folks don't have time and resources to get good information. We just have to work with what we've got -- and I think this is one of the reasons we should strongly denounce Khosla's douchebaginess and make normal people understand that we're not all like him.
The categories in play here are wrong. It's not tech that leads people like Khosla to appropriate what should be public property; it's extreme wealth. The distinction should be between billionaires and everyone else; Khosla's peer group is oil barons, hedge fund managers, and Saudi princes, not startup founders.
> The categories in play here are wrong. It's not tech that leads people like Khosla to appropriate what should be public property; it's extreme wealth.
That's just grossly twisting and simplying things to get a view that you like. It is tech that produces extreme wealth [1]. Google's Brin and Page, MS's Gates, FB's Zuckerberg, Oracle's Ellison, etc. They're all companies that're there and being driven by and with extremely wealthy individuals at the helm. If Page and Brin were doing similarly douchebaggy things, I would be completely okay with folks blocking Google buses. How else do you get attention and reparation of your woes these days when you've got little else that you can practically do?
[1]: The most pernicious variation is that new one known as the 'sharing economy', which is all about easy rent-seeking and exploiting society by profiting from externalities.
That's just grossly twisting and simplying things to get a view that you like. It is tech that produces extreme wealth [1]. Google's Brin and Page, MS's Gates, FB's Zuckerberg, Oracle's Ellison, etc. They're all companies that're there and being driven by and with extremely wealthy individuals at the helm. If Page and Brin were doing similarly douchebaggy things, I would be completely okay with folks blocking Google buses. How else do you get attention and reparation of your woes these days when you've got little else that you can practically do?
[1]: The most pernicious variation is that new one known as the 'sharing economy', which is all about easy rent-seeking and exploiting society by profiting from externalities.
Of the top 20 billionaires on Forbes ranked list, 6 are from tech, if you call Michael Bloomberg a tech billionaire (I would). Your argument gets even weaker as you widen the window to 30 or 40.
Take all the billionares from tech form the Forbes list, and try to distill out the egregious actions of that pool of billionaires.
Now rope the oil barons, Saudi princes, ball bearing magnates, Koch brothers, and Wal-Mart founders up, and distill out their egregious actions.
Prediction: the tech founders will be marked by things like "donating all their money to charitable foundations", and the rest of the billionaires will be known for things like "organizing efforts to disenfranchise large blocs of voters".
Furthermore, your jab at "the sharing economy", which I have qualms with as well (punch my name and "Airbnb" in the search box below; or, do the same with "Uber") is a red herring. Whatever you might think of Uber, their founders aren't restricting California beaches.
Take all the billionares from tech form the Forbes list, and try to distill out the egregious actions of that pool of billionaires.
Now rope the oil barons, Saudi princes, ball bearing magnates, Koch brothers, and Wal-Mart founders up, and distill out their egregious actions.
Prediction: the tech founders will be marked by things like "donating all their money to charitable foundations", and the rest of the billionaires will be known for things like "organizing efforts to disenfranchise large blocs of voters".
Furthermore, your jab at "the sharing economy", which I have qualms with as well (punch my name and "Airbnb" in the search box below; or, do the same with "Uber") is a red herring. Whatever you might think of Uber, their founders aren't restricting California beaches.
[deleted]
Do you know that the Koch brothers are actually pretty big philanthropists? The way you and I are going at this, we're getting nowhere. Of course extreme inequality and oil barons are bad (I'm all for highly progressive taxing schemes to rectify that problem), but tech and tech giants are not without some serious stains -- tactlessly spending millions on weddings (destroying ecologically sensitive areas, cutting down trees without permits), being a culturally homogeneous monolith that keeps "others" away, etc. etc. Clearly both tech and extreme wealth disparities are problems. We can do something about the tech part though -- don't work for them, denounce them for their immoral behavior, try to convince the regular folks that we're just working 9 to 5 to put food on our kids' plates, etc.
[deleted]
Yep, I'm glad you could see where I was going with that, I had a hard time finding the words to use. And while Khosla's out of touch with the community dick move is HUGE, it does cast suspicion over the rest of the people in tech. And plenty of them are perfectly willing to confirm it with much much smaller, out of touch dick moves.
I think it's like people see some bankers triggering a financial crisis, and some bankers taking home huge bonuses, and decide bankers are assholes.
Likewise for politicians, cops, CEOs, lawyers etc.
Fortunately, the reputation of us techies isn't yet as bad as the reputation of bankers, politicians and lawyers! Just as well, as it's not clear to me that we have the will or ability to improve or manage our collective reputation.
Likewise for politicians, cops, CEOs, lawyers etc.
Fortunately, the reputation of us techies isn't yet as bad as the reputation of bankers, politicians and lawyers! Just as well, as it's not clear to me that we have the will or ability to improve or manage our collective reputation.
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.
If you're ever near Sindelfingen (Germany), take a look at the buses at shift changes.
More than twenty bus companies are shuttling workers to and from the factory.
And it's no big deal. Of course you curse them when you happen to be in traffic right behind several of those, but they evoke no hatred in the populace, but even some kind of pride.
But, of course, there's not much jealousy involved when it comes to Daimler. Everyone knows someone working there. And the workers there don't generally carry the stigma of being filthy rich.
Google is more elite, I guess.
But the problem is certainly not the buses or the traffic per se.
More than twenty bus companies are shuttling workers to and from the factory.
And it's no big deal. Of course you curse them when you happen to be in traffic right behind several of those, but they evoke no hatred in the populace, but even some kind of pride.
But, of course, there's not much jealousy involved when it comes to Daimler. Everyone knows someone working there. And the workers there don't generally carry the stigma of being filthy rich.
Google is more elite, I guess.
But the problem is certainly not the buses or the traffic per se.
> I can understand why locals view them as an invading army.
I can't. The comparisons to colonialism are laughable, at best. Tech employees are predominantly Americans who chose to live in Silicon Valley. So apparently moving within your own country and establishing a lasting presence (including friends and family) in your home is colonialism and military invasion now?
What exactly makes tech workers not locals? Many tech workers have lived in the Valley for over a decade. I surely hope that's long enough to establish that they are, in fact, locals.
This is just ridiculous.
I can't. The comparisons to colonialism are laughable, at best. Tech employees are predominantly Americans who chose to live in Silicon Valley. So apparently moving within your own country and establishing a lasting presence (including friends and family) in your home is colonialism and military invasion now?
What exactly makes tech workers not locals? Many tech workers have lived in the Valley for over a decade. I surely hope that's long enough to establish that they are, in fact, locals.
This is just ridiculous.
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 :-)
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 :-)
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?
"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?
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.
So basically they'll refuse to provide valid permits because of another, completely unrelated issue in order to "get back" at him?
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.
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.
> 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.
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...
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...
That is interesting, since it appears to be in direct conflict with the California Constitution Article 10, Sec 4 quoted at the top:
No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water ...
No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water ...
But he is playing by the rules, the courts agreed with him.
At any rate, nothing pisses me off more than some petty bureaucrat who uses his limited power to bully someone for an entirely different reason.
If you don't like that fact he is refusing beach access, then petition the gov't to change the rules. Don't start abusing your power. What's next? They'll "accidentally" disconnect his municipal water?
At any rate, nothing pisses me off more than some petty bureaucrat who uses his limited power to bully someone for an entirely different reason.
If you don't like that fact he is refusing beach access, then petition the gov't to change the rules. Don't start abusing your power. What's next? They'll "accidentally" disconnect his municipal water?
Except it seems that the rules, in the form of the CA Constitution, already say that no one can prevent right of way if that is needed to be able to access the water. So in that sense, the "petty bureaucrats" are, in fact, working to uphold the State Constitution.
Other courts (higher than the Coastal Commission) have already determined ownership of that particular piece of land, specifically, is exempt from that.
So does this only extend to denying people the right to access the water, or does he also not have to abide by things like electrical and earthquake building codes, since those were surely not in place when this treaty was established? In fact, why does he need building permits at all, if the State of California has no jurisdiction over this piece of land?
I don't know. You'd need to ask the Supreme Court about that. But I don't think that they ruled that the land was exempt from all California building codes and such.
Yes, the Coastal Commission has been doing this for decades.
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.
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.
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.
> 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"
Alternatively, he's "defending himself against a power-hungry government determined to curtail his property rights"
Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7135206 ( 197 points )
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...
This shapes up to be an epic battle among the two men, the venture capitalist and the entrepreneur. My money is on Steve.
http://steveblank.com/2013/06/28/in-defense-of-unreasonablen...
This shapes up to be an epic battle among the two men, the venture capitalist and the entrepreneur. My money is on Steve.
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
Perhaps Steve will join the fray?
Perhaps Steve will join the fray?
What a douche canoe. Which is now ironically the only way to access the beach.
I'm sure everyone here would love to have a public road going through their back yard.
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.
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.
[deleted]
I'm sure everyone here would also love to have property with direct beach access. Maybe there's no such thing as a (very expensive) free lunch.
This just in: most billionaires are assholes.
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.
I thought his explanation was pretty good. Why was it unsatisfactory? http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/27/weddings-used-to-be-sacred-...
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.
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.
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?
Do you feel he's a really convinicing liar too, or genuine?
no just a self centered rich kid.
The "fiasco" where he held an event in a public space, then returned it to the condition in which he found it?
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.
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.
Property rights recap at: 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.