Silicon Valley Billionaire Vinod Khosla Forced To Allow Access To The Beach He Had Blocked

[Newsjock]

Source: Business Insider

San Mateo County Court Judge Barbara Mallach has ruled against Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla in a lawsuit over public access to Martin's Beach.

According to the ruling, Khosla will be required to seek a permit from the California Coastal Commission before locking gates at the beach, as well as to consult with the community to determine changes to the property and public access to the beach.

"Today’s court decision upholding the Coastal Act is an important victory for Martin’s Beach and ultimately strengthens the publics right to beach access in California," says Angela Howe, Esq., Legal Director for the Surfrider Foundation, who had filed suit against Khosla. "The Surfrider Foundation remains vigilant to protect beach access rights, not only in this case, but also in other cases where the beach is wrongfully cut off from the public."

... Khosla blocked public access to the beach after purchasing a 53-acre parcel there in 2008. He reportedly paid $37.5 million for the property.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/vinod-khosla-loses-beach-suit-2014-9

[Sivafae]

1. Awesome! n/t

[KansDem]

2. Hey, Vinod!

F*CK YOU and the rest of you Richie Riches who seek only to destroy public resources through private ownership!

Sign me: "Someone Who Grew Up in California and Has Fond Memories of Its Beautiful Beaches"

[groundloop]

3. Ohhhhhh.... poor billionaire, he has to look at commoners on 'his' beach

[HatTrick]

4. Guess he'll have to live by the same laws as the rest of us

Poor thing, he might have to see commoners

[DisgustipatedinCA]

5. Excellent. ALL of the California coast belongs to ALL of us.

Any billionaires who don't like that may wish to consider getting the hell out.

[Atman]

6. ALL beaches, everywhere, are held in public trust. Period.

Below the mean hide tide line. No one, nobody, regardless of the amount of money they have, can close a beach. It's not even up for discussion. Below the mean high tide line, it is YOUR property, just as much as it is theirs.

[NYC_SKP]

10. It's an easement issue, really. Martins beach is a good distance from the publicly maintained PCH.

I think the choices here are keep it open and don't maintain it, or keep it open and maintain it at your own cost.

I think any attempt to charge for maintenance of the easement will fail under legal challenges, and I'm pretty sure there's precedent for this.

I can list a dozen such easements, some of which I access at least once a month. None involve a charge, some are difficult to access due to parking restrictions, but none cost money to access.

I don't think that will fly.

[Xithras]

7. He still gets to charge $$ to use the trail

The ruling puts the land under the authority of the Coastal Commission, which has already acknowledged his right to charge for access (because those were the terms under which previous access was granted). Considering that Khosla is claiming that he's facing $500,000+ in operating expenses every year for the trail, you can bet that he'll get to charge far more than $2. The court isn't going to force him to operate it at a loss.

[KansDem]

11. This surprises me...

When I was in high school (California) during the late-1960s, we talked about a similar case in a government/social studies class. A group of rich folks bought the land that separated a public beach from a public highway. And, as in this case, they denied access to the beach. In essence, they were hoping a public beach would become their private beach.

A group of activists took them to court. They brought in an elderly woman who testified that as a child she crossed the very land in going to and from that same beach that the rich folks had later bought. Based on this testimony, the court ruled the property owners had to provide an easement.

I'm surprised that Richie Rich gets to charge admission. I hope a future legal action will deny him that bit of robbery.

And a half-million a year to "operate" a trail seems a little far-fetched...

[Xithras]

13. It's about establishing a history of access.

The problem with this particular beach is that it has NEVER had free public access. It was completely closed off to the public for most of the states history, until the previous owners began charging people to access it decades ago. When Khosla closed off access, the Coastal Commission and the Surfriders claimed that Khosla was changing the use of the property without filing the permits and getting the required permissions. This ruling states that the Coastal Commission was correct, and that Khosla could not close access to the property without getting a permit, because doing so changed its status.

What it means, however, is that the property must continue operating under its previous use until a change is approved. That previous use involved charging people for access, so Khosla gets to do that. The Coastal Commission wants to limit the fee to $2 per person, and wants Khosla to make all sorts of improvements to the facilities on top of that. It's unlikely that the Coastal Commission is going to win on that point in the long term, however, because the government cannot legally mandate that a business keep operating at a loss. He'll get to pass along any of his costs to the public in the form of access fees.

As for the amount of money he's claiming to spend, it may not be as far fetched as you think. The beach is narrow and has riptides. The insurance to protect against liability claims for a property like that would be horrendously expensive. Under California law, anyone hurt on the beach can sue Khosla. He has to maintain the same insurance on it that a city would maintain on a beachside park (and part of the Coastal Commissions demands are actually that he DOES need to maintain that insurance). Cities like Santa Barbara and Los Angeles spend millions of dollars a year on insurance for their seaside parks for the very same reason.

[KansDem]

15. "...until a change is approved"

Then a change is needed.

If Richie Rich can't operate a business "successfully," then he needs to get out of the "Pay for Path to Public Beach" business.

And I'm not sure I'm following what you say here--
The beach is narrow and has riptides. The insurance to protect against liability claims for a property like that would be horrendously expensive. Under California law, anyone hurt on the beach can sue Khosla.

I may be missing something but he doesn't own the beach so why does he have to maintain insurance for it? I can understand how cities like Santa Barbara and Los Angeles can spend millions of dollars each year for insurance, but those are public entities overseeing public resources so it's important to oversee and maintain public health and safety. Another excellent reason to outlaw this kind of private land-grabbing of public resources. The Richie Riches of the world simply don't give a damn about the public.

[Celebration]

16. It is the ACCESS to the beach that he owns

He probably should donate the access to the beach to the city, and let them maintain it. He shouldn't be required to pay this. I bet the previous owners operated it without insurance.

[JI7]

21. why can't he just move somewhere else ?

[Auggie]

8. Great news!

[NYC_SKP]

9. Good. I'd considered buying one of the little shacks down that way, but....

...they weren't really ownership properties, just some kind of weird lease thing.

Plus, not really that close to any kind of work.

Add to these things, tsunamis and Sharknados.

I've been watching this story and glad that it's been resolved in the CORRECT MANNER. The beaches belong to the people.

[drmeow]

12. He claims

to have paid between $500,000 and $600,000 a year in costs for maintenance, liability insurance, and infrastructure, among other expenses.

If you don't want to have to pay to maintain it, don't buy the beach access road. And it you didn't do your homework and learn about what your responsibilities would be if you bought the property, that's not the public's fault. Cry me a river, rich boy. Or, better yet, cry me an ocean.

[TeamPooka]

24. He knew his responsibilities but thought his money could buy his way out and take the beach away

from the people

[tomm2thumbs]

14. He can just go pound sand!

he's got a lot to try it on

[toby jo]

17. Make his little spit of sand a well-known landing place for folks with boats.

Make it as accessible, public, comfortable, and inviting for boaters & beach combers of ALL stripes.

If he doesn't want the few by land, he can have the many by sea.

[valerief]

18. A helicopter biz might make money shuttling people back and forth. And the billionaire

would have to listen to the whirlybird.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

19. Having lived right on the beach I have mixed feelings about this

Public is all well and good until you find that a specific area presents some pretty serious challenges to accommodating the public and that a lot of people far from their own neighborhood are more likely to behave like complete savages.

The parking, the garbage, the noise, the drunkenness, the bonfires that force you to keep every window closed in the middle of July, the people peeing anywhere and everywhere because they're too lazy to walk five minutes to the bathroom. To say nothing of the "surf bros" and the associated violence, vandalism, theft and squatting.

[JI7]

20. so maybe he should buy a home somewhere else

this isn't a case of some struggling individual with limited options.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

22. I don't care if you're a widow in a cottage or Bill Gates

Forget about the beach and move the associated externalities to any other community and see if people tolerate them.

One of my friends lives near a college football stadium and nobody has made a federal case about the police closing residential streets to non-local traffic on game days.

[JI7]

23. those are temporary closures for certain events

and people usually know ahead of time .

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

25. It's the same issue, nuisance.

Why is one neighborhood more worthy of consideration in this regard than another? Is a residential street where curb parking is legal any less public than a beach?

I don't think it's a question of whether beaches should be public or not, just that it might not always be practical or reasonable. I'm not saying people should be arrested for trespassing, just don't encourage people to congregate where there is no real way to accommodate them.

If it is unreasonable to allow thousands of people to block every inch of street parking for several blocks around a football stadium, why is it reasonable to allow it near a beach every single day from May till October?

[JI7]

26. no, there is a difference between temporary closures, restrictions etc and permanent

the guy needs to move somewhere else if he doesn't want to deal with it.

i have no sympathy for him as he can easily move unlike others with limited resources .

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

27. Temporary problems need temporary fixes, permanent problems need permanent ones.

I acknowledge a billionaire isn't the most sympathetic example, but I don't think people who just happen to live near a deposit of sand should be expected to tolerate issues that nobody anywhere else would be expected to.

[JI7]

28. most people don't live by the beach, he can easily move somewhere else

including a beach area where he doesn't have to deal with this. he should do so

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

30. or... cities, states and counties can build parking and other amenities

in beach locations where the general public can be reasonably accommodated.

[JI7]

31. or not

[lonestarnot]

33. Mostly not.

[LTX]

34. "I don't think people who just happen to live near a deposit of sand . . ."

Frankly, I don't know how it happened. I was sitting in my living room one morning having a cup of coffee, and I just happened to look outside. Lo and behold, I was living on a beach! Somehow, I just happened to buy a house on a beach -- with sand, and people, and something about state mandated public access. I gave my real estate agent a really good talking to.

[Orsino]

37. Billionaires can also move to where governments don't restrict...

...their control of the commons.

The situation is no doubt irksome to a man who thought he really owned the beach, but a lawyer he could afford could have explained his legal responsibilities in full.

[Eleanors38]

29. Hell, I don't think this billy could do that in Florida.

[lonestarnot]

32. Take that richie rich pig.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

35. Good. If you want your own beach, go buy your own F*ing island. nt

[hughee99]

36. Or just move to Massachusetts. The wealthy people here know how to keep the "riff-raff"

off their beach.