With Supreme Court challenge, billionaire could dismantle beach access rights(latimes.com)
latimes.com
With Supreme Court challenge, billionaire could dismantle beach access rights
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-martins-beach-supreme-court-20180306-story.html
18 comments
The US really needs a freedom to roam law like Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam. Otherwise we'll soon end up with the whole country locked up by billionaires and farmers. Out in the West it's already hard to hike because a lot of land is fenced in without any way to pass though.
That's really going to suck if he wins. It's only then a matter of time before all desirable coastline is snatched up by the rich and barred from the public.
I'm a little confused though. Is he wanting to close off the beach itself from public use or just the access road that people use to get to it? If it's the latter, it's a little more understandable and I think the state should have to chip in to maintain the access road and public utilities.
I'm a little confused though. Is he wanting to close off the beach itself from public use or just the access road that people use to get to it? If it's the latter, it's a little more understandable and I think the state should have to chip in to maintain the access road and public utilities.
This is a great example of the arrogance that makes lots of people hate silicon valley.
I respect Khosla's investments, but I can't believe he isn't running the math on the negative backlash this is creating against his personal brand.
Californians love their public access to nature. And it's a really nice thing.
Californians love their public access to nature. And it's a really nice thing.
What brand, though? Most Californians have no idea who he is, and even if they do, they probably aren’t aware of which companies he invests in.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- JFK
The hyperrich have lived outside reality for so long that they have forgotten that people have far more direct recourse than a court system that caters to money.
The hyperrich have lived outside reality for so long that they have forgotten that people have far more direct recourse than a court system that caters to money.
At his age I'm not sure he cares.
Can someone explain to me how one can believe in property rights and also be against this? fwiw I think property rights should be drastically scaled back.
I also believe in a more limited concept of private property, but setting that aside:
Property ownership in the Anglo-American legal system has always been subject to limitations. Property owners have common-law obligations both to the government (traditionally the sovereign) and to other private citizens. These are typically easements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement).
The US Constitution specifies that the government cannot take property without "just compensation". The legal dispute at issue here is whether California requiring Khosla to permit people to travel through his property to reach the beach is a "taking" or whether it is simply enforcing an existing easement that was already established at the time he purchased the property.
Property ownership in the Anglo-American legal system has always been subject to limitations. Property owners have common-law obligations both to the government (traditionally the sovereign) and to other private citizens. These are typically easements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement).
The US Constitution specifies that the government cannot take property without "just compensation". The legal dispute at issue here is whether California requiring Khosla to permit people to travel through his property to reach the beach is a "taking" or whether it is simply enforcing an existing easement that was already established at the time he purchased the property.
Not sure what you mean? This is about dealing with competing property rights.. in California, the coastline itself is owned by the public, so this is about how these two property claims are resolved. This is similar to if you had a piece of property, and then someone else bought all the property around yours and cut off access to your property. Are they required to give you access or not? What sort of access?
Like any right, there is no absolute. When your rights conflict with my rights there has to be a limit placed on one, the other, or both.
Finding a simplistic approach that will work in 100% of cases is impossible.
Once that is realized you can both hold the general idea that private property rights be respected /and/ that public access to public property be granted as well whenever possible. The idea is to minimize the encroachment of one against the other and to find a balance for each situation where the question is hazy.
Finding a simplistic approach that will work in 100% of cases is impossible.
Once that is realized you can both hold the general idea that private property rights be respected /and/ that public access to public property be granted as well whenever possible. The idea is to minimize the encroachment of one against the other and to find a balance for each situation where the question is hazy.
The property right in question is the public's right to the beach, which is public property; we'd have to look at the code to see where the property line ends. If there's some inlet cove or the like surrounded by cliffs, but you own all the land accessing it then generally you can't put up a fence that stops the public from accessing the beach.
Edit: remembered a notable exception, but it was on a military base
Edit: remembered a notable exception, but it was on a military base
You can believe in property rights without believing that they are not subject to any limitations.
Fuck Vinod Khosla. If there was any justice in this country he would be sitting in a jail cell for contempt of court.
I remember when this all first went down. My mom used to take me to Martin's Beach when I was a young pup.