Bloomberg misses the whole point, which is that the road was an easement that had long existed before and into Khosla's ownership.
I was by there in early February and had planned to try and visit both, even if I had to jump the fence. But I was running late for a meetup later in the evening in SF and didn't make it.
I respect Khosla but if there was ever reason for risking a ticket for civil disobedience by visiting a public beach this is the place.
Its like someone ran a popular restaurant in town, and sold it, and the historical preservation commission told the new owner they had to keep running it as a restaurant until they got a permit to change the use.
EDIT: Ah, It's not really the beach being public that is in dispute. It's the extra "sandy beach" space above the high tide line and the parking lot as you explain here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16909487
Got it.
The press on this case has been horrible at explaining the actual dispute.
The press on this case has been horrible at explaining the actual dispute
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/24/martins-beach-supreme...
This story does not make it at all clear that the suit isn't so much about a road, but also a parking lot and access to a sandy beach above the high tide mark.
The guys literally bourgeoisie taking public land
"Prior to appellants' purchase of the Martins Beach property, appellants were told by San Mateo County that '[t]here is existing parking [and] access to the beach at Martins Beach. This access [is] also memorialized [and] required to be preserved (no exceptions) by the Local Coastal Program' and 'the access is there & will have to remain.'"
If the county sends you a letter saying that they want you to operate a public park out of your back yard. And then you sell your house to someone who has notice of that letter. What does that mean? That the government gets to order the new owner to operate their back yard as a public park?
There is an easement here--it's the right of way that arises allowing the public to cross private property in order to get to the sea shore. If that was what the litigation was about, Khosla would definitely be in the wrong. But the state is going way beyond that--it's forcing him to keep open the parking lot, allow access to the beach above the mean high tide line, etc. That goes way beyond the easement that exists.
And the state admits that. There is no dispute in this case that the parking lot and sandy beach are not part of the easement. That's why the state had to go through a backdoor route: they're saying that he can't change the use of his undisputedly private property without getting a permit to do so.
> To be clear, all agree that petitioner owns the property in fee simple absolute. But the Coastal Commission and the County nonetheless declared the power not only to mandate that the property be kept open to the public unless petitioner obtains a permit to close it, but to dictate essential aspects of how petitioner must invite the public onto its private property—including the hours it must allow access, the absurdly low price ($2) it may charge, and even the extent of advertising alerting the public of its ability to access petitioner’s private property for a pittance.
He bought an asset, and is now trying to take value from the public to increase his own enjoyment of the asset and the value of that asset. An essentially private beach in California, and enforced by Supreme Court decision would be pretty cool, and insanely valuable.
He should have no control over the access and should be liable for any attempt he makes to hinder or hide access.
I’d totally make regular visits if I lived in the area.
That isn’t legal, as determined by the trial court, the appeals court, and the CA Supreme Court.
That’s why the case isn’t just about an easement. The county wants Khosla to keep operating it as a beach, not just to let people get to the water.
I didn’t find anything that said the county wouldn’t let him just open the access.
I found lots of references that said people used to have reasonable to access the beach, but he bought the property and locked the gate.
The agency forced him to not only allow access down the road, but keep running the existing parking lot. Nobody disputes the parking lot is private.
From that same document and everything else I've seen, he hasn't even applied for the permit to close it. If he applies, and if he's denied, then he can assert that allowing public access is a "taking" of his property rights, rather than just protecting the public's right of access.
But he has to apply for the permit before the commission can decide to allow or forbid it.
"[Surfrider has] kept it real simple,...It’s always been ‘Mr. Khosla, do you have a permit for that gate or don’t you?’”
In September, after this decision, the commission began an enforcement action, which could cost Khosla over $4 million per year, and Khosla opened the gate, in addition to filing his appeals. http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/NE/20171004/NEWS/17...
It's also not an absurdly low price considering it only allows access to a public area.
"In most states, all land below the mean high tide line belongs to the state and citizens have the right to unrestricted access to that land. Intuition would indicate that this “line” is where the sand changes from wet to dry during high tide. This, however, is not always the case. The mean high tide line is actually the arithmetic average of high-water heights observed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) over an 18.6-year Metonic cycle. It is the line that is formed by the intersection of the tidal plane of the mean high tide with the shore. It is not an easy line to determine, and it is an even harder one to see. From standing on the beach watching the waves, there is no way of knowing exactly where the mean high tide line falls, or where public land begins and ends, making enforcement a difficult and controversial task. "
http://www.beachapedia.org/Beach_Access (From Surfrider, a party to the lawsuits)
The rules exist because otherwise people act in bad faith
If this is the case, then my sympathies have switched to Khosla.
If there is no dispute about the existence of the easement then this case could be closed immediately and people would have access to the beach.
It would be fun if a group got together with boats and had a huge party every week or more at low tide, being right in his conceptual face regularly. Bonus points for immaculate cleanup after every time.