Hacker News Reader

Comment by justizin | Hacker News Reader

No such thing as a 'private beach' in CA. No matter how rich you are, you cannot own a beach in California, though you can own the adjoining land and be a real dick about closing long-standing beach access paths.

Nothing new, see: Malibu.

View on HN

Right.

For a nice counterpoint to this dickish behavior, see Steve Blank's series of posts about his time on the California Coastal Commission:

http://steveblank.com/category/california-coastal-commission...

While there may not be any private beach under CA law, Kholsa actually tried to use a sneaky legal argument to get around that[1]. Essentially, he argued that federal land patent on the property from the 1800s superseded the California Coastal Act. It didn't work, but had it work it would have set a dangerous precedent for any properties that could make a similar claim.

[1] http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county-times/ci_2614203...

> It didn't work, but had it work it would have set a dangerous precedent for any properties that could make a similar claim.

Why do you say it didn't work? From what I've read, the court has ruled in his favor so far.

> Why do you say it didn't work? From what I've read, the court has ruled in his favor so far.

One court ruled in his favor on that issue in the Friends of Martins Beach v. Martins Beach LLC, the court in the later Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach LLC case did not find in his favor, and has ordered him to provide access. The former case is on appeal, and Khosla has petitioned for a new trial after losing the latter case.

It seems ridiculous that these too-rich-for-the-law-to-apply-to-me types keep doing this - if having your own beach is important to you then go live somewhere where you can legally own one

Actually, as I understand it, there's no such thing as a 'private beach' anywhere on the US coastline.

http://www.surfrider.org/programs/entry/beach-access

why is he the dick, when its not him using force to access property not owned by him?

It's owned by the people.

Because the scope of property rights in the property he bought did not include the right to deny beach access, and the fact that it did not was factored into the market value of the property when he bought it.

And because he is the one using force to prevent access to the public to property belonging to them.

He wants to be treated as if he bought something that was never for sale, and which he didn't buy, and which would have added significant cost to what he actually bought had it been for sale and been included with what he bought.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com