So the court ruled he must restore the access and he just ignores the ruling. Can someone explain again why?
And, of course, as a surfer and computer scientist I find Mr. Khosla disgusting because of this.
And, of course, as a surfer and computer scientist I find Mr. Khosla disgusting because of this.
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.
And this is the crux of it. Khosla is a multi billionaire. He could afford to pay a fine of $10,000 a day for the rest of his life.
At what point does this become contempt of court and lead to jail time? Unfortunately, in the US, the answer is likely "never, because he has too much net worth".
I believe that for a fine to be fair, it must be based on a percentage basis of disposable income[0].
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...
Schadenfreude all around.
A lot of money shouldn't mean a lot of potential to cause a lot of strife for a lot of people.
then, in the near future, when the government eminent-domains the land, it would use that same money to make the payment ... not all of it, of course ... maybe 25% of it.
the remaining 75% could go toward building a parking lot and some bathroom facilities for the public.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Vinod-Khosla-wants-30-...
Bottom line, property law derives a lot from English Common Law. It's possible for people to obtain rights that are not documented in any contract through customary use, or via common sense (e.g. If you sell someone a parcel of land completely surrounded by your land, you must grant them access to their property).
The down-side for both parties is that common law is up to even more interpretation than statutory law.
Simple solution, set fine to a percentage of income or wealth. Require that penalty to be under the three strikes and you are out. So we hit you with 0.0025% of your wealth at three strikes and keep moving the decimal to the right until you play ball.