Mogul Seeks $30 Million From California to Give Beach Access

[Red Oak]

Keeping historic beaches closed - It's how the 1% rolls....


"A Silicon Valley venture capitalist (Vinod Khosla), locked in a battle with the State of California over access to a prime stretch of beach that was popular with surfers, swimmers and fishermen before he bought it and closed it, has proposed a price to restore public access: $30 million.

The offer by lawyers for the billionaire, Vinod Khosla, was the latest salvo in a case that has touched a nerve in California as resentment grows over issues of wealth, privilege and public land use. The case has generated years of protests as it wound its way through state courts, where two lawsuits aim to force Mr. Khosla, who does not live on the property, to let the public back in."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/business/tech-mogul-asks-for-30-million-to-reopen-martins-beach.html?contentCollection=weekendreads&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=c-column-middle-span-region&region=c-column-middle-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-middle-span-region&_r=0

[MagickMuffin]

1. So, he wants the State of California to buy back the access at a tune of $30 million

And yet, he doesn't even live there!

Screw Mr. Khosla, and his Sun Microsystems!

And their excuse of not wanting to share the beach is extremely lame, because his lawyer insist not many people use the beach. Which is now security guards keep people out.

This is one instance where I do believe in eminent domain, which the state is considering!

[kentauros]

28. And once they do apply eminent domain,

California should adopt and adapt the Texas Open Beaches Act to their state (as well as beef it up from the version that now exists thanks to stupid political decisions.)

[branford]

29. If the state suddenly passed such a law,

and permitted public access to private property thereby diminishing its value, it would likely still be a taking, and potentially expose the state to billions in claims.

[LittleBlue]

2. He owns the rights to the beach. If they wanted it to remain public

don't sell the land. I don't see the issue.

[kcr]

4. It doesn't work that way for coastal property. Public access is often protected.

As it should be. Rich people should not be able to buy it all up and lock everyone out.

[LittleBlue]

5. I read the article and it appears it was protected retroactively

A law passed in 2015, it said, after he made the purchase. It was probably not a good idea to allow for the privatization of beaches in the first place.

[kcr]

6. There was a law passed in 2015, but it was a public beach long before then

With a public road leading to it, and it was against the law for him to close that access. This fight has been going on for much longer than that.

[branford]

8. The article implies that it was a private beach,

but the prior owners permitted access to the public without any formal easement or estate that would reduce the fair market value of the property. That is far different from an actual public beach.

If the state wants to formally convert the beach for public use, they can do so, but it will likely cost millions, and that apparently is the subject of the lawsuits.

[kcr]

9. The article implies a lot of things.

It's not heavy on explicit details. All beaches up to the tide line in California are public beaches. It's the access that is private. The fight is over the public access and whether he had a right to close that road off.

[branford]

10. The article is indeed vague on some matters,

but the lawsuits do appear to be arguments over fair market value.

Regardless, the state's demand for an effective easement over private property to permit access to the beach by without regard to ownership of the beach itself would substantially diminish the value of Khosa's property and requires compensation for such loss. Given the value of the property based on what Khosa paid, such access would be worth millions, and California cannot obviate the necessity to pay fair market compensation through any statute or other means.

It appears the state wants access to and/or ownership of the beach, but doesn't want to pay for it, and is attempting to use publicity to pressure Khosa for a favorable settlement.

[kcr]

11. Have you read anything about this other than that article?

Regardless of the market value, the public had access to the beach via that road and per the law he simply could not close that off just because he bought it. That easement already existed. That would have already impacted the property value. He already knew that public access was there when he bought it.

[branford]

12. It appears that the public had access with the consent of the prior owner,

but the state did not appear have an easement, no less one that would survive a sale of the property. If the state had such unequivocal entitles legal access, I imagine this matter would have been resolved long ago and there would be no discussion about the fair market value of such access. Just because the public had prior access through the Khosla's property doesn't necessarily mean they are now legally entitled to that particular access, no less without compensation.

Again, as indicated in the below article and others, the state can forcibly demand access via the relevant statutes under its eminent domain power, but this does not obviate the need to compensate the landowner.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ad516961-754d-4cf5-9b38-7cdafaf3b4c9

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/23/vinod-khosla-martins-beach-silicon-valley-billionaire-public-access-beach

[kcr]

13. Where do you get that the state did not appear to have an easement?

And nothing in either of those links disputes what I said. They just repeat the claims of the owner.

[branford]

16. Where does the state claim they had an easement?

After you prior post, I further researched the matter. I couldn find many references about the public's earlier access, but all with the consent and cooperation of the prior owner, not by operation of law. Similarly, none of the references to the lawsuits refer to the state's alleged current legal right to access the property which would require an easement, but rather if they can settle with Khosla or need to use eminent domain, and what would be the fair market value to acquire such easement.

Simply, if the state already had an easement, no one would be talking about, no less litigating, the fair market value of an easement. All articles essentially are discussions about how much the state needs to pay for access, and how mean Khosla is for not just granting it as was done before.

Lastly, as a legal matter, the state bears the burden of proving they had a legal easement. Khosla does not need to prove that an easement does not exist.

[kcr]

18. Prescriptive easement exists and has for a long time. No, he doesn't need to prove it

But he was already ruled to have broken the law when he locked the gate, in 2014. He locked it two years after he bought the property, through a public access road that existed when he bought it. This isn't a case where he had this private property, was minding his own business when all of a sudden these people started barging in on his beach and started lowering the value.

[branford]

20. If the prior owners consented to access, there would be no prescriptive easement.

Given the discussion about parking fees and similar matters, the states cooperation with the prior owners would seem to make an adverse possession claim all but impossible

Do you have any links to either the pertinent pleadings or more in-depth articles where the state actually claims a prescriptive easement obviating the need to pay compensation for access?

The articles indicate that the dispute is not whether the state already has an easement, but how much they need to pay for it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. ....

"No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose, not to destroy or obstruct the free navigation of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such laws as will give the most liberal construction to this provision so that access to the navigable waters of this State shall always be attainable for the people thereof."
--Article X, Sec. 4, Constitution of the State of California

In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum
access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the
people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property
owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.
(Amended by Ch. 1075, Stats. 1978.)
Section 30211 Development not to interfere with access
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.
Section 30212 New development projects
(a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be
provided in new development projects except where: (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military
security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or, (3)
agriculture would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public
use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability
of the accessway.

--Coastal Act, 1975.

So yes, there is in fact a prescriptive easement, and blocking public access is in violation of established California laws.

[branford]

27. There are a lot of issues that the cited regulations do not appear to address,

many of which are fact specific to this case, and include issues of compensation that cannot be obviated by statute. That is likely the reason why this matter is still in litigation and the state has chosen to negotiate the financial value of the access, including an actual offer to purchase the easement and threats of eminent domain, both obviously requiring payment. The state may indeed have a good case, but the issues are do not appear to be as certain as you suggest.

After now reading too many articles on this matter, my legal instincts tell me that the state is not entirely confident about the current appeal, and might be afraid that someone of Khosla's legal and financial resources could ultimately fight any number of issues in both state and federal court, drag this out for ages, and even establish precedents that could potentially disturb the entire beach access regime in CA. If I were to guess about a resolution, I believe the parties will ultimately settle as CA doesn't want to use eminent domain which will lead to years more of litigation and uncertain outcomes, and Khosa probably doesn't care all that much about beach access, understands he may lose, and really just seems to be negotiating a better deal.

We should revisit this in about 60 to 90 days, right before the start of summer.

[Recursion]

15. It's about the access road, not the beach itself. I think all CA beaches are public

And you can boat to the beach right now. The track from the road to the beach goes through his property, which I agree would require an easement of some sort.

[branford]

17. Upon further research you appear to be correct.

The issue is not beach ownership, but rather access to the beach. However, without an easement, the beach is effectively private.

The state obviously does not want to pay millions for public beach access, but may ultimately have no choice.

[kcr]

19. No, they won't. It's just is own assertion that it's worth that.

The state will have no problem finding that a prescriptive easement exists, and now that Scalia is gone he'll find a less favorable SCOTUS waiting at the top to hear his right wing property rights arguments if it even gets that far.

[branford]

21. See my post # 20.

I also imagine this case will be decided in state, not federal courts, and Scalia's absence will be totally irrelevant.

Further, as a practical matter, if the easement is as obvious as you suggest, why hasn't this matter been settled by injunction and motion for summary judgment quite some time ago?

Do you have some interest in this case and are you a California attorney?

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Can't do that in Oregon, all 363 miles of coast are free and open to the public.....

nt

[branford]

7. There's no dispute that Khosla owns the property.

Last edited Sat Feb 27, 2016, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

He legally bought the property for a substantial sum, and it's his to do as he pleases. That is the nature of private property. The state depriving him of his exclusive private property rights by statute or otherwise at this point would no doubt be an effective taking.

Either his company and the State of CA can mutually agree on a settlement that might open the beach to the public or the state can take the property by eminent domain. Either way, by law the state will have to compensate Khosa for its full fair market value (and possibly for the dimishment in value of connecting and related properties owned by Khosa), and it does indeed appear to be valued at $30 million or more.

The lawsuits do not appear to be about the public's right to access, rather they're arguments about the actual fair market value of the property and likely the state's unwillingness to pay tens of millions of dollars from an already stretched budget for an infrequently used beach.

The state is free to make more beaches public. If they take private property to do so, they need to pay for it.


Edit: As per my later posts, the dispute appears to be about granting an easement for access to the beach rather than ownership of the beach itself. However, the monetary value of the easement is still quite substantial, and the basic points remain mostly unchanged.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

22. I'm not completely unsympathetic to him

I have lived right on the beach and the degree to which the general public could be total fucking savages can't be understated.

[denbot]

30. Yeah, we're total fucking savages..

Maybe you're one of those hero's who set supposed hobo's on fire, just to cleanse you tide-line. It's not like the citizens of California have a right to access our shoreline.

By the way your excellency, I live in Manhattan Beach, and even though we are but mere peons to your Trump like magnificence, we manage to let our fellow humans (AKA total fucking savages) access to the shore.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

31. Philosophically I agree with you

But the willingness with which people will shit in someone else's backyard, both literally and figuratively wears on your idealism.

[Cal Carpenter]

23. Fuck him. He is a fucking BILLIONAIRE.

He is trying to sell us what is ours. This is why people bemoan private property and ownership. This is the end result.

Cognitive-dissonance-brain-exploding nonsense to me.

SEIZE THE COMMONS!

[branford]

24. "People bemoan private property and ownership?"

I imagine some few do, but they're hardly a sizable population in the USA, and it certainly doesn't reflect the positions of the Democratic Party.

Whether you like it or not, we have private property in the USA, and there's no real movement to change this reality.

More importantly, under most circumstances, the state can indeed seize private land. However, the 5th Amendment, its state constitutional analogs, and innumerable federal, state and local laws, require the government to compensate the owner of such property in the amount of its fair market value. The mandate that the government must pay you when it takes your stuff is hardly controversial, and widely supported by virtually all Americans.

Mr. Kholsa's wealth also has no bearing on the merit of his or the State of CA's claims or defenses in any legal proceeding.

[Travis_0004]

26. If its a private road he is free to lock the gate

People may have a right to the beach, but they dont have a right to trample through his yard. In the same sense, my house backs up to a national forrest. Access to some parts is difficult for anybody but me. People are free to roam around all day and night back there, but they gotta find a way in that doesnt involve my property.

[AxionExcel]

33. Republican values up the wazoo