Billionaire must let public access Martins Beach, judge rules
sfgate.com
sfgate.com
Access was in the law books before his purchase and claiming the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo as being present before the 1972 Coastal Zone law is ridiculous in the extreme. There were many other things legal in 1848 that aren't today for very good reasons.
"The judge could have fined Khosla $15,000 a day for every day the gates were shut,
but she waived all fines."
Mallach agreed with Surfrider that closing the gate amounted to “a change
in intensity of use,” That change, she said, could be considered development
under the law. As a result, she said in her ruling, Khosla must apply
for a coastal development permit if he wants to close the gate or make other
changes to the property.
prohibit homes or developments from blocking access to beaches. They essentially
make the entire coast, including all beach property below the mean high tide line,
public property.The argument was that he wasn't removing public access; he contends public access never existed: "the Deeney family, which set up the first cabin in 1918, had always charged people to access the beach, a clear indication that it was a private beach prior to 1972"
The debate around doing that in the US would be incredible. Some people would see it as being unequal treatment under law. In one way it is; in another way it isn't.
Prince Alwaleed accused Forbes of underestimating his wealth - imagine how difficult it must be when people are trying to get the lowball figure.
Well obviously, but that is true of all fines. And you cannot argue that a system where the poor person pays $1000 and the rich person $4000 is harder on the the poor person than a system where everybody pays $2500.
Often enough they're right, in practice, but not this time.
Make him think twice about being an asshole in the future?
I guess Vinod's property is the big one on the main road and he also owns the other houses/cabins on Martin's beach road.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martins+Beach,+California+...
Street view with, what I assume the barrier, and the no entrance sign :
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martins+Beach,+California+...
He bought land subject to (and whose market value is depressed by its being subject to, though it may not seem to be because of the countervailing factors driving up the price of California beachfront property) a law that is well known and has been on the books for decades, but then, having benefited from the law in the purchase of the property, flouts it.
That's being an asshole.
> If people wanted to have public access to your own garden, would you consider yourself "an asshole" for denying them that?
If I bought land in a place which had well-known laws requiring property owners to provide access to gardens on their property, where the burden of such laws were priced into the market price of garden-containing properties, yes, I would be an asshole and scofflaw to purchase the property and then proceed to deny access to the garden.
> It just so happens that his land is a beach - so maybe the problem is that someone sold him that beach in the first place?
Unless the seller misrepresented the material facts or actively concealed the applicability of the pre-existing law to the property, no, that's not the problem.
In 2000, Malibu had a population of 12,575. By 2010, the population had grown by a mere 0.55% to 12,645. Compare that to the entire state of California, which during the same period grew over 10% and added 3.5 million residents.
The shenanigans that Malibu residents do to keep outsiders away is astounding. David Geffen has his entire street side of his Malibu house covered in fake garage doors with corresponding curb cuts so you can't park there. (Technically you are allowed to park there, but try explaining that "these are fake doors and illegal curb cuts" to parking enforcement)
For that matter, if someone's not allowed to restrict access to their property, is it really their property at all, or is it the state's property?
If I were this guy, I'd appeal. I'm no lawyer, but it looks like he's got a good case the state has de facto taken his property away from him, and he's owed compensation under the US Constitution.
Everyone here seems to be against this guy, and their comments seem to be unusually vapid -- "I like going to the beach and I hate rich people" isn't a good basis for public policy.
If the private landowner has to insure and maintain the area then I can't see any reason why they should be forced to maintain access. If the state sees otherwise then the state should provide the services for the general public at the expense of the general public.
For example, from http://www.cityofboston.gov/snow/removal/snowremoval.asp we can about read the laws for Boston, which require the property owner to clear the sidewalks within 3 hours of either the end of snowfall or sunrise.
Or to pick a much smaller city in Wyoming, http://www.gillettewy.gov/index.aspx?page=300 , "The City has an ordinance (Section 18-17) requiring owners or occupants of all real estate in the city to remove snow from the sidewalks adjoining the property within 24 hours after the snowfall ends."
It doesn't surprise me that participants in a discussion board focussed largely on the computing startups prefer things to fall into crisp binary categories, but that's not how property interests in anything have ever worked, and indeed, the whole essence of a sovereign state is that all property interests within its jurisdiction are limited sets of rights granted by and subject to the sovereign.
But, in any case, the beaches themselves in California are, under the coastal laws, effectively public property, what Khosla is compelled to do is to preserve pre-exisitng access to the public to their property through his. Such requirements are actually common in property where pre-existing access to one property (public or private) is through another private property.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement (see, particularly, easement by necessity and easement by prior use)
Where I come from (Norway) a land owner needs a good reason to deny the public access to the land. Such a reason might be that the land is very small and surrounding a house (typically a garden), or there are crops planted or animals grazing on the land (typically a farm).
A land owner can't just put up a fence, but is free to develop the land (within county restrictions) or sell it and pocket the money.
Yeah, too bad for introvert billionaires, but hey, most people aren't and that's democracy for ya.
For the same reason that ownership of a car equals the right to restrict who gets to drive the car: that's what ownership means.
> Where I come from (Norway) a land owner needs a good reason to deny the public access to the land.
Then no one really owns land in Norway. The government owns he land and grants people development rights.
One could argue that this is how things ought to be (e.g. http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm). But such theories are historically unpopular in the U.S.
It's always interesting to see the reactions of people who view property ownership as some kind of natural law when you present them with systems of property ownership that differ on fundamental points. Property ownership is entirely a social construct that differs significantly across different cultures. I don't see what basis you have for calling your preferred legal system the one true meaning of ownership.
Nobody really 'owns' land anywhere. It's always a set of rights granted to you by the government, unless you are an absolute monarch yourself.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_(Scotland)_Act_200...
The source of ownership rights is orthogonal to the meaning of the word "ownership". In common usage, ownership means: a perpetual and transferrable right to dispose of something as one sees fit. (Some would argue that the adjective "unencumbered" should also be added to the list, and that the existence of property taxes in the U.S. means that no one "really" owns land there either.) If the right is not perpetual and transferrable, then you are a lessor, not an owner. If the right is not to dispose of the thing as you see fit then what you own is not the thing but some sort of restricted use license on the thing.
In this narrow case (public access to the Martin's Beach), I'd say Khosla still clearly owns the land. He's just not allowed to use land ownership to cut people off from the coast. The court has required an easement, based on historical access routes. Nobody is allowed to wander off that trail and hang out in Khosla's garden or living room. In this sense, public access is limited, and provided to the minimal extent necessary to ensure that public ownership of the coast is meaningful ("minimal" could be debated, some might claim that our ability to get to this coast on a kayak is good enough, but courts clearly have interpreted this to mean land-based easements).
My understanding is that in Norway and some other nordic countries, land ownership does not include the right to prevent people from reasonable travel across it. That may even include camping on the land briefly. That's definitely a more limited concept of land ownership than you typically see in the US, but even that doesn't really mean you don't "own" the land, as the owner clearly has greater rights to it than the public.
I don't think the car analogy advances the argument much here, as there are clearly different kinds of property rights ("if I can't lock the doors and prevent people from sitting in the driver's seat, clearly I don't own the lyrics to the song I just wrote…").
To go along with your car example, there are relationships which trump ownership. In the US, if a uniformed police officer approaches you and requests the use of your car in order to prevent a serious crime, you must comply. The cop's dire need to access your vehicle trumps the ownership of your car. Sure, you still own your car, but somebody else needs it a lot more right now.
Same thing in Norway regarding land ownership. Sure, you own it, but public access to that land may in some cases trump ownership.
Which leaves us with discussing what reasonable circumstance is.
You'd argue that fencing off a five mile long beautiful beach so that nobody else can enjoy this land is reasonable. I'd argue to the contrary, and it seems judge Barbara Mallach, at least, is with me on that one.
No, absolutely not! I'm happy the judge rules as she did. The disagreement is merely about terminology. I just don't think it's reasonable to say you "own" land that you can't keep people off of.
If so, it seems like your example of what it means to "own" something is actually a counter-example.
Actually, children and drunk people can legally drive, just not on public roads. There are a lot of restrictions on behavior in the interests of public safety that trump certain property rights under certain circumstances. That doesn't mean I don't own my car.
My mistake was interpreting that to include "where".
By parallel construction, "ownership of a bottle of vodka equals the right to restrict who gets to use the bottle of vodka", doesn't it? We do not allow children to use a bottle of vodka in the same way that adults can use it.
Your parallel construction should be "ownership of a gun equals the right to restrict who gets to use the gun", but you instead countered with "ownership of a gun equals the right to restrict how it can be used."
Isn't that a similar mistake to the one I made? Prohibitions on the target are "a restriction on behavior in the interests of public safety that trump certain property rights", and not a restriction on who can shoot it, no?
No. Ownership (IMO) includes the right to restrict. It's necessary, but not sufficient. But the converse is not necessary. It is not necessary that I be able to allow anyone to drive my car in order to say that I own it. I can't, for example, allow an unlicensed driver to drive my car, but that doesn't mean I don't own my car.
> you instead countered with "ownership of a gun equals the right to restrict how it can be used."
No, you got this backwards. Ownership stands even in the face of (some) restrictions on how it can be used.
Is that statement invalid? If so, how?
I believe your thesis, and in my words, is that in Norway "the government owns all land, but it allows people to control parcels of land within certain limits."
I have a hard time coming up with a good definition which says the first is incorrect but the second is correct.
While an enticing conjecture, I suspect the relative population sparsity of those countries, where property damages of the right to roam are within the capacity of the land to handle, is a greater reason.
Examples involving consumable or personal goods, like a car or bottle of vodka, don't have the same capacity.
As a related example, in Minnesota and likely elsewhere, boaters may use the lake surface even though the lake bottom is jointly owned by all of the landowners surrounding the lake. (See http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/Pardon_Me_M... .)
In some countries this may be different - in some eu countries if you cause an accident while drunk while on private property, you might be prosecuted.
While the rights of property owners are important, they're not absolute. It's prudent to recognize that there can be compelling (yet possibly competing) interests that require limits and restrictions to be placed on those rights.
As an example, say you own a piece of land. Someone else buys the land that completely surrounds it. What prevents the other landowner from fencing you in, effectively denying you access to and from the property that you own?
The only way to legally guarantee this doesn't happen is to limit the rights of the other owner (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement for more).
Some other limitations/examples:
The air rights over your land - aircraft are free to fly over your land without needing your explicit consent
Zoning and occupancy restrictions - you're not free to build a strip club in the middle of a suburban housing development
Safety of others - you're not free to booby trap the path to your front door, since that would foreseeably endanger people who are legally visiting your property (for instance, mailmen, public servants, and even pesky door-to-door salesmen)
This is not to say that all of these limitations are fair, or that every competing interest has merit. However, there are enough of these interests that many of these limits are codified into law.
[edited for readability]
In UK you can't even booby trap inside of your house. Even killing someone who is trying to kill you is not recommended.
He doesn't. He chooses to, because insurance is more regular and predictable than the risk of liability.
> He should try to seek declaratory judgment that he's not voluntarily opening the land to the public, and therefore the state must indemnify him for any liability created by doing so.
That would likely be a waste of the money that he was paying to his lawyer to pursue such a suit; the law at issue was in place when he purchased the property, so the effect it had on the value of the property (including any associated liability risk) was part of what he chose to purchase.
> For that matter, if someone's not allowed to restrict access to their property, is it really their property at all, or is it the state's property?
"Property" is always a limited set of rights with respect to the subject of the property interest granted by the state.
> I'm no lawyer, but it looks like he's got a good case the state has de facto taken his property away from him, and he's owed compensation under the US Constitution.
Had he owned the property prior to the relevant laws being passed in the 1970s, there'd be some argument to be made that he had been subject to a taking. But he didn't buy the property until 2008, so, insofar as any public taking occurred with the public acccess provisions, they occurred prior to his taking ownership and were priced into the sale when the prior owner sold the property to Khosla. So, there's no reason even if the coastal laws were a regulatory taking, that Khosla would be entitled to any compensation. Khosla -- by virtue of the effect of the restriction on the market price of the land -- would be a beneficiary of the taking, not a victim.
That being said, I think this decision was the right one. Public access to the beach trumps someone's concern about liability.
I have canceled out one of the downvotes, hopefully there will not be a great many more.
>> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 "I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness." ---pg
_You_ might not like it, but there it is.
Vinod has a very negative reputation in the Valley. He used to be known as the biggest anti-founder VC when he was at Kleiner. He'd come in, use sharp elbows to push founders around and out, then companies would crumble. He's learned but not enough.
His new marketing of himself has helped (as has Rabois), but you can't change who he is. When given a chance, he'll take advantage of early stage startups. That's why you don't see many companies he's made. And he's been at it a long time - 27 years! He gets in the way because it's all about him and his huge, insatiable ego. He's much more old school VC in that way - but in the Tom Perkins vein, not Don Valentine. It's his way because it's his money.
The only way to keep Vinod honest is to get other investors. If he's your lead, the knife isn't far from your back.
The concept of a "private beach" would be strikingly alien and unnatural in any ethical universe. It's an idea that should have been abandoned long ago.
What's so special about beaches? Or do you want to do away with all forms of private property?
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis
If you want to appeal to authority rather than answer the question, pretty much any Roman emperor makes an odd choice.
But here, Justinian's argument is given. Seas and rivers are part of the commonwealth, so nobody should be denied access.
In any case, if there is some principle underlying Justinian's edict, what is it? How did he determine that the sea is part of the "commonwealth", but that a mountain or someone's house is not? This is hardly explained in the given quote.
In short, seas were part of the commonwealth because Justinian said so. An <ahem> appeal to authority. But an appeal that Justinian made, not benjohnson.
That we continue to accept some historical precedents as good, but have discarded others is not at all odd, and does not invalidate the historical importance placed on access to waterways just because the same people also had lots of ideas we consider idiotic today.
A long historical precedent is however sufficient to explain it's modern day existence, which is what happened here.
You appear to have an uncanny ability to read far more into messages than what were intended.
Of course not. Cities, states, regions need to preserve public spaces for the public good. The beach is a rare and precious natural asset that can't be duplicated, so logically ought to be open to the public.
Once you've seen the Pacific Ocean from most anywhere in the Upper Left Coast you'll know it's beautiful and inspiring. Furthermore, it's an important recreational resource and since ancient times a source of food for many people and remains so to this day.
Despite having many differing political points of view in our state, AFAIK no one has ever suggested closing off beach access to the public. If such ideas were broached at the state level, I expect it would set off quite a loud and negative reaction.
There's also no need to do away with private property to guarantee access. Consider the principle of Freedom to Roam [1], which is today most protected in Scandinavia, but used to be more widely recognized (and have in fact in recent years gotten more recognition, with the expansion of legal rights in the UK)
Basically, when I grew up in Norway, everyone expected that we were free to walk in any forest, access any beach, and in general have unfettered access to nature, irrespective of property rights to those areas. This includes protections to prevent property owners from blocking access. Trying to limit such access is pretty much seen as morally similar to theft.
The modern justification is that any restriction of access is a substantial limitation of the freedom of the public, and that if you wish to maximize freedom, you must limit the ability of property owners and find a balance that protects their ability to secure their home and business and protect their privacy but without taking away public freedoms that predates even our written laws. (In Sweden, this right is even part of the constitution)
For one thing they usually abut the sea which is generally public access. In the UK we have no private beaches. Seems to work fine. You don't get many protesters saying won't you please think of the billionaires.
The argument for private ownership of land is usually that it makes it possible for people to invest in long-term improvements to the land, e.g. building houses there, or irrigating it for agriculture. But that doesn't really apply to beaches; most of us think that beaches provide more value to society when they're public than if you built houses or grew crops there.
So yes, beaches are special - they're unusually valuable as public property, relative to their value as private property.
Instead of being so absolutist, why not impose high property taxes on such lands? The revenue collected can be used for things that more than offset the harm caused by private ownership. And it wouldn't be hard to set taxes at a level such that only a fraction of mountaintops and beaches would be privately owned.
Also, the surfers would beat anyone senseless who tried that crap, so it's a pointless debate.
And yet willing to put up such a fight to prevent other people -- poorer people -- from having an enjoyment entitled to them by law.
I'm having a hard time framing this in such a way that doesn't make Khosla seem phenomenally greedy.
I really don't understand.
The truly "vast" networth starts at above $10 billion. At that point you are making $100,000 every waking hour or more.
"Give a man a hundred million dollars and you make a frustrated billionaire."
There is a thing called the 'principle of double effect' (thought up by Thomas Aquinas back in the 13th century; it's not a new thing) that's incredibly important to understanding the world around us - nothing we do has a single, isolated effect. Ever. There are always several causes for things, and many effects. Picking one and assuming that was the reason, or even just the most important reason, is wrong. In this case it's reasonable to think Khosla closed access to the beach for several reasons, and that had several effects, one of which was preventing public access which is why it ended up in court.
What he probably wanted was to prevent [...] founders
'accidentally' meeting him when he was at home, and so on.
I think the same thing about Khosla's beach access - I feel bad if he's having problems, but he knew the beach access was there when he brought the property.
Except it's the opposite. People had public access, then he bought it, then he tried to unlawfully take away public access. If he doesn't want people on his property, he shouldn't have bought property that has a preexisting public easement.
I'm firmly in the camp that lakes, streams, coastlines, can't be property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
"The freedom to roam, or everyman's right is the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise. The right is sometimes called the right of public access to the wilderness or the right to roam."
Not quite sure what it's like in other countries, but here in the UK we have 'public paths' that sometimes go through private land. You're well within your rights to use them at any time of day even though it's private.
Shuttle boats to the beach as a (new?) business?
(If my now-retired father lived close there, I could very well imagine him doing that to earn a few bucks extra, and to give families access to a nice beach).