California Court Orders Vinod Khosla to Reopen Disputed Beach | Hacker News Reader

California Court Orders Vinod Khosla to Reopen Disputed Beach

npr.org

110 pointsworkerIbe45 comments

Given all the years and precedent of access (throughout the State of California), I would hope that any stay of the order pending further litigation would be denied.

And that, if he then continues to refuse, he be jailed for contempt of court.

In my own little childhood hometown, I've watched public beach access (to a lake) become more and more locked up behind fees and limited hours of access and upscaling property values and home ownership that wants to keep things quiet and for themselves.

The quiet part, I appreciate. The "keep out" part, not so much.

The childhood memories I have of times spent there, are simply no longer possible. It's all on lockdown. Something lost in that -- something significant, in my opinion.

The Zonker Harris Beach Accessway in Malibu is "closed for repairs" again.[1] Closed for over a year now.

[1] http://beaches.lacounty.gov/zonker-harris-accessway-closed-f...

Just so we don't go over the same thing again, Khosla's unique claim is that the title to the land derives from a land grant from before California was a state, with which he justifies disregarding the CCC.

A year after the case was filed, however, a San Mateo County Superior Court judge dealt Friends of Martin’s Beach a setback, ruling there was no right of access. He said the property was subject to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, an agreement that ended the Mexican-American War and required the United States to recognize Mexican land grants.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-martins-beach-sn...

What a pathetic creature really

Previous discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14984639

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14984770

I am surprised more states do not have laws like Hawaii's where you are required to provide beach access. Shame for such a nice beach to go to waste.

They do. He ignores and contravenes them.

Why isn't he thrown in jail, or why isn't the fence bulldozed down? Where I currently live (a somewhat well-off area), bulldozers (and self-entitled assholes) are a common occurrence.

I wonder if the property is on his name, or some shelter company.

That is the law for California.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sdut-...

> In 2014 the Legislature and Governor Brown gave the California Coastal Commission the authority to fine property owners who intentionally block public access to the coast. That authority was included in the 2015-2016 state budget, based on legislation I had written in 2013 to achieve the same goal.

The California Costal Commission website - https://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/prc-access.html

And then from there to https://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/pr-access-facts.pdf

> The California Coastal Act, Public Resources Code Section 30211, states:

> Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use, or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

They do. But if you can drag out litigation & appeals in the courts for a decade or three, viola, private beach.

> One year later, his management companies closed the gate and put up a no-access sign. A billboard that had advertised beach access was painted over.

What a jerk.

Christ, what an asshole!

Have you met Vinod? He's..... intense.

Who hasn't met Vinod?! I was just Vinodding myself the other day, and I thought "why not call Vinod, do some Vinod together?" Of course he's out in Vinod, doing some Vinod with friends. That Vinod...intense is a good word for Vinod!

It sounds like you have a story to tell. Do tell it.

Did anyone tried to organize a protest, show up en-masse on 'his' beach etc?

From what I understand, you could use a boat, show up at the beach, party and leave with boat and you are within legal use.

So, how do we make sure that he never tries to pull this stunt again? The level of fines the law allows doesn't seem to be doing anything.

You could make it more than just a fight over coastal access. You could make it so that he has more at stake than just this case. He publishes a list of companies his firm has a financial interest in: http://www.khoslaventures.com/portfolio/all-companies

If people truly care about this issue, they can organize public campaigns against those companies as a message to founders to avoid his money or face consequences. He may laugh off fines the court imposes, but this being a stain on his professional reputation would be more damaging.

But it would be hard to pull off. There are some HN favorites in there. How many people here are willing to avoid Stripe or Gitlab over beach access? He's betting that it's not many.

That kind of scorched earth tactic is simply inhumane, regardless of the target.

How is it inhumane?

It's barbaric overkill. It affects other parties far more than the target. It's emblematic of a vicious vindictiveness that is unbecoming of members of a cohesive society. It's simply disgusting to dig into unrelated matters over a relatively petty dispute. It shows no sense of proportionality, charity, or kindness. It is ultimately counterproductive to the creation of the kind of world we all ought to be creating for our mutual benefit.

It's clear from downvotes and lack of replies that some parts of this community have a long way to go before deserving the moral high ground the community tries to claim.

There is no justice in mob justice.

>There is no justice in mob justice.

you can't have it both ways. The other side refused to accept the form of the justice of the civilized society, ie. the court of law justice. Do you have any other form of justice in mind, other than the two already mentioned - the court of law and the mob ones? Please do tell if you do.

The courts have mechanisms for dealing with land access disputes and uncooperative people, which have not been exhausted. And it's just a beach. While coastal access is an important right, it's not worth throwing away all the other aspects of civilized society to try to make a point.

I still don't see how it would be any different than a boycott. If it's big enough to be successful even when the companies he funds are providing value, then that means everyone involved is saying that stopping what he's done is worth enough to give up on the value from those companies. Are people supposed to just lay back and let the wealthy do what they want without a fight anymore? It's not like violence is being advocated, just voting with your dollar

Without reading the article, I know this is Vinod Khosla. The title should reflect that: put his name there, and save us a click to know who he is.

is there a vote2edit feature? /rockthevote

I can see his point of view, though: as a rich man, he should be able to do what he wants, and lay claim to this beautiful stretch of the Pacific Ocean.

Why stop there? As a rich man, he should be able to replace his failing liver by claiming yours.

Alas, he can't in either case, because we the people have created limiting the unchecked exercise of power.

Sure, there are laws limiting the totally unchecked exercise of power. Your example is too extreme, though.

In my case, I was being sarcastic... yet it's nearly true. His mega-wealth let him buy the oceanside estate to begin with, and then his mega-wealth lets him ignore fines. The laws against this abuse are (as evidence here) quite weak.

That's the thing about fines. To really be punitive, they should be indexed to the wealth of the offender.

Confiscate his land. Problem solved.

I know sarcasm is hard to nail down on the internet, but I thought that one was pretty clear.

You'd think so but I've met people who havr, in total seriousness, stated that a dollar of their money was worth more than 10,000 human lives and they shouldn't have to pay any taxes to help out other citizens. Some people truly believe that if you have more money, you are a better person

Unfortunately, the use of irony on HN often fails, because apparently we don't trust any more that the members here are intelligent and ethical.

Maybe I've spent too long here, but I have run across far too many advocates for the unchecked exercise of power by the powerful.

What if Bill Gates bought the entire coastline? How does that help society?

Society has relatively little to gain from letting the super rich buy up fundamentally scarce bits of land like this. Meanwhile making it public access means way more people can appreciate the beach. Not like this VC is on the beach most of the time anyways.

Pretty sure OP left off the <sarcasm> tags.

Hmm, not to say I disagree, but let's say hypothetically, instead of providing general public access to the beach, which is obviously a pity, the entire coastline was sold at the appropriate price. The money, in theory, could go into improving local infrastructure, etc, which may lead to an improvement in quality of life for people living in that area. I'm not saying that would happen, just entertaining the possibility that your proposed scenario could be positive.

It could, but once sold it might never again be accessible to the public.

I prefer the Scandinavian approach: Non built up land can be freely accessed by anyone regardless of owner in most cases, and the coast is by default protected against people building down to it in Norway at least. Dispensations do get given, but if you block access without applying for planning consent, it will be struck down.

The basis is simple: Restricting access to a scarce resource like the land is equivalent to taking away or liberty. This is a right we've had since time immemorial - in Sweden it's a constitutional right. In Norway it was not codified into law until the 60's as it used to be seen as so self-evident that it wasn't necessary.

Why is a beach up for sale if it's not up for private gating?

(Why doesn't California declare its coastline public property that is not-for-sale?)

edit: Just found out the answer. Beaches themselves are never for sale, even though properties right up to the edge of the beach are. Next question: Are all river banks public property too? Can you not build a manufacturing plant at a river bank? What about lakes? Are lakes public property?

It already did. California Constitution, Title X, section 4.

Many places consider the land below the high-water line of navigable waterways to be public (in midwest US at least). So if you're canoeing down the river and eat lunch on the bank, you're generally not trespassing. Smaller lakes are generally not considered navigable, though I'm not sure how it works for huge lakes like Michigan. I suspect a similar 'high-water' line is relevant.

You'd truly be pretty dense if you wanted to build a permenant structure below the high water mark.

This holds true in most of the west as well and provides access for river paddlers/floaters/fishermen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com