California's beaches belong to the public

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_trespass_of_Kinder_Scou...

I'm happy to pay for someone to get bolt cutters and put them somewhere nearby for the public to use when needed.

"Break glass in case of affluenza"

You make one hell of a rant, man. Props.

There are many ways to fix that, that have been discussed a thousand times in forums across the Internet. But really, if your police are acting in the will of the general citizenry, they would be arresting anyone repeatedly breaking the law to such a large degree as this, no matter what. If they aren't you can tell the police are not loyal to the people, especially when instead they spend their time bloodying or killing people taking recreational drugs instead.

He wants to win the principle to control the access to the beach. Sorry to be pedantic, but if he would be living there full-time, he might have an argument, but he doesn't.

Regarding why he ignores the ruling, the article says he does it on "principle". Presumably, he feels it's his land and he can do whatever he wants with it. But it would be interesting to hear him defend his position himself rather than having to put words in his mouth.

As to why he gets away with it, presumably the penalties for ignoring the courts are not severe enough. Maybe he's just rich enough to pay whatever fine has been levied on him and keep access closed.

It reminds me of when Microsoft was fined by the courts something like a million dollars a day for violating antitrust regulations, and they just paid and kept violating (if I'm remembering this right). Some companies prefer to just get the law changed in their favor instead, or maybe get people elected who will defund regulating bodies or put their cronies in control, etc. When you're rich enough you have many options for evading the law.

"Scattered throughout Downtown San Francisco are public plazas, atriums, and roof gardens. Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS) hide behind secret elevators, security guards, and stairs. Their elusive trait raises the question: if they are public, then why are they hidden?

In a city where land is scarce, POPOS allocate open space to prevent overdevelopment. The 1985 Downtown Plan mandates developers build and maintain 1 sq ft of public space for each 50 sq ft of commercial space. Yet, developers hide them from the public to keep cost of maintenance low..."

[1] - https://medium.com/sf-popos/the-21-secret-parks-of-san-franc...

Here's a list of companies that Khosla ventures invested in:

http://www.khoslaventures.com/portfolio/all-companies

Is anyone who works for or owns these companies reading this? Would you be willing to quit your job or return funding so as not to support a sociopath and to help make the world a better place?

Anyone know people who work for these companies? It would be great if you could (kindly) remind them of the types of people they are working to enrich every day and how those people are using their riches to abuse society. Bet we can change a few minds!

Now what about picking the lock? If the gate or lock is not damaged it might be ok. Since the access is public it wouldn't be breaking in or trespassing?

Even more interesting if the only way out is via the gate, and his minions lock the gate there might be case for kidnapping? Call the police and claim you have been kidnapped by Khosla. Too far fetched probably...

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14679391 and marked it off-topic.

This isn't the "property rights" hill you want to die on. This is an utter jerk being an utter jerk. This is a rich man trying to use money as a substitute for following clear Law.

This is such extreme lawless behavior that every time that every time I see a company take investment from Khosla it stains that company in my mind forever.

Public access to Martins Beach, and to all land seaward of the mean high tide line in California, is guaranteed in the state’s constitution and mandated within the Coastal Act of 1976."

Unfortunately from what I witnessed there's way too much money to be made in this business, so if somebody is going to adopt someone else's approach, then it's going to be the ex-communist countries.

socialism. Socialism is when the state provides something for the people. Fire, police, roads, buses/public transport, parks, the post office .. all that is socialism.

Communism is buying a round of beers and the next person in your group buying a round of beers. It's the understood unspoken agreement between your flatmates to keep the place clean. It's the communal aspect of humanity and we all practice it every day.

The UK: https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-your-ri...

Scotland, which has even broader rights than the rest of the UK: http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/paths-and-access/england/w...

Sweden: http://www.swedishepa.se/Environmental-objectives-and-cooper...

Norway: https://www.visitnorway.com/plan-your-trip/travel-tips-a-z/r...

Public access is absolutely compatible with private land titles and liberal democracy - we just need the government to step up and implement it over the objections of the privileged few.

1. By the law of nature these things are common to mankind, the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore, provided that he respects habitationes, monuments, and buildings which are not, like the sea, subject only to the law of nations.

2. All rivers and ports are public; hence the right of fishing in a port, or in rivers, is common to all men.

3. The seashore extends as far as the greatest winter flood runs up.

4. The public use of the banks of a river is part of the law of nations, just as is that of the river itself. All persons, therefore, are as much at liberty to bring their vessels to the bank, to fasten ropes to the trees growing there, and to place any part of their cargo there, as to navigate the river itself But the banks of a river are the property of those whose land they adjoin; and consequently the trees growing on them are also the property of the same persons.

5. The public use of the seashore, too, is part of the law of nations, as is that of the sea itself; and, therefore, any person is at liberty to place on it a cottage, to which he may retreat, or to dry his nets there, and haul them from the sea; for the shores may be said to be the property of no man, but are subject to the same law as the sea itself, and the sand or ground beneath it.

TLDR: Really old Roman dude said watery stuff is public.

"Public access to Martins Beach, and to all land seaward of the mean high tide line in California, is guaranteed in the state’s constitution and mandated within the Coastal Act of 1976."

>> Public beaches are a good thing, but it's wasteful to ban ownership of all 840 miles of California coastline. Some people want private beaches, even if the law doesn't allow for it. They'll lock gates, block roads, and otherwise shirk the law to get what they want. The state then must then expend significant resources discovering and sanctioning these people.

>> A better solution would be for the state to tax private beaches. That would collect significant revenue from people like Khosla while still allowing only a small fraction of the coast to be privately-owned.

A better solution would be to change the law so the fine for blocking access is computed relative to net worth, and to allow for collection of all court costs related to enforcement and collection.

That way the state could fine Khosla $3,000,000 a day for breaking the law, plus make him pay the bill for the legal actions required to collect the money. Failure to pay the money would result in foreclosure of his property.

People like Khosla need to be reminded that they are just like the rest of us.

A simple example would be if there are an average of 100 violations per year of people blocking access that require state intervention and an average annual operating cost of $1M, then the base fine is set at $10,000.

Instead of rewarding the folks breaking the law by letting them do it and taxing it because you can't afford enforcement, shift the burden of cost of enforcement to those in violation of the law.

Also, this idea of selling off public goods is a slippery slope -- if folks see that selling a little bit of beach here and there can raise funding for projects that will get them relected it will be hard to resist dipping back in.