Judge orders billionaire to open gate to Martins Beach
Source: SF Chronicle
The billionaire owner of a Peninsula beach was ordered Friday by a San Mateo County judge to open the gates to the sandy haven, which he insists is his exclusive property.
Judge Barbara Mallach issued her final order in the contentious case, specifically telling venture capitalist Vinod Khosla that he had to reopen the gate to popular Martins Beach, a crescent-shaped inlet 5 miles south of Half Moon Bay.
Khosla, who closed the gate four years ago, was told by the court in July that his failure to obtain a permit before blocking access to Martins Beach was illegal. Khosla, however, argued in legal briefs after the trial that he did not believe he had to open the gate until after he had made an application to the Coastal Commission and he had been told by commission authorities to do so. The gate has been closed since the trial ended five months ago, but surfers and other beachgoers have been walking around it.
Mallach said in her final judgment Friday that Khosla was wrong and that he had to immediately open the gate, said Joe Cotchett, lead attorney for the Surfrider Foundation, which filed a lawsuit demanding public access.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-orders-billionaire-to-open-gate-to-Martins-5938974.php
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I once went to an awesome party on this beach, it was a smaller "burn" by people who frequent Burning Man (there are a number of such events out here year-round). Next time I drive down that way I'll stop by to see if it's open again.
It seemed wrong for it to be closed to the public, the ocean and the beaches belong to all of us.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Maybe we can get that changed. [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
jillan
(39,451 posts)I just love it when billionaires don't get their way - don't you?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)He owns the property through which the easiest way to get to the beach runs, and he put a gate up. He's never claimed he owns the beach.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)was trying to prevent access to the beach pure and simple.
paleotn
(17,918 posts)...I initially thought, what strange laws California has on beach access. In NC, public access extends beyond the mean high tide mark all the way to the vegetation line.
jillan
(39,451 posts)property.
He can easily put up a gate and some tall bushes to make sure there is no access to his home or yard.
Or he can be a dick. Obviously the courts thought the later.
dballance
(5,756 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)He claims to own the dirt road people use to get there (and he does in fact own it, but CA law requires him to provide a ROW easement if people were commonly using the route in IIRC 1972).
KansDem
(28,498 posts)This has happened before. When I was in high school in southern California during the late 1960s, we studied an example of how rich folks there bought the land between a public road and public beach and essentially blocked access from one to the other. They, in essence, had their own "private beach."
A group of concerned citizens challenged these rich f*cks and took them to court. They found an elderly woman who used to travel across that land before it was "privatized." The judge ruled the rich f*cks had to provide an easement and the beach was once again open to the public.
The sense of entitlement the rich f*cks possess is appalling...
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Yeah, that's the precedent being used here. The rich fuck was claiming there wasn't historical use; the users proved otherwise.
Brother Buzz
(36,439 posts)Oh, he's also a partner in the law firm that filed the original lawsuit against Martins Beach LLC.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_22790967/pete-mccloskey-hits-martins-beach
dballance
(5,756 posts)I guess "YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN" was not sufficient for him.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)He is not claiming he owns the beach. He is claiming he is not required to provide a right of way easement to it.
dballance
(5,756 posts)In the article at hand the "journalist" and editors lede was:
The billionaire owner of a Peninsula beach was ordered Friday by a San Mateo County judge to open the gates to the sandy haven, which he insists is his exclusive property.
Then never backs up that claim by referring to court filings.
I don't know whether or not in the past his attorneys have made such claims.
In this case, regarding this particular article it was very misleading.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Millions and millions of people benefit from access to California's beaches and from the preservation of coastal views! It is a wonderful law and an exemplar of what is meant by the phrases, "The Commons"--what we all own together--and "the common good"--what our society should be aimed at.
Too much beach access in California has been stolen by billionaires, and also by the highly destructive state policy of "'beach fees" and "parking fees" (disguised "beach fees" . And, as we've learned with the University of California, State Universities and Community Colleges, once you let the state start charging us for that which we commonly own and that which SHOULD BE FREE, the bureaucrats and politicians WILL start using it as a 'milk cow' and keep raising the fees higher and higher and higher, so that, in the end, only the rich can enjoy "the commons." I am appalled at what the California Coastal Commission has permitted, in this regard, at our state beaches. Southern California is basically one red "no parking" curb from Malibu to San Diego, forcing citizens into high-fee state parking lots. It is disgusting!
But the Coastal Act still works SOMETIMES, though a non-profit group had to go to court to get it enforced. I applaud the Surfrider Foundation for their work on this matter, and Judge Mallach for upholding the law!
Cha
(297,252 posts)easychoice
(1,043 posts)Bob Dylan and some clown named Geffen tried to re-invent the beach in Malibu and got told to stop and restore the shoreline.Dylan is a GENUINE asshole from what they tell me.
Howard Schultz - the slave driver from Starbucks had a driveway to his house built right through a CITY PARK here in Seattle.He lawyered up and tried to refuse to repair the damage he caused to the park.T he City prevailed and it cost him a few million in fees and repairs.Schultz is a scumbag.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Don't let anyone ever tell you that money doesn't run our legal system.
packman
(16,296 posts)doing the same. Tried to claim the beach in Kennebunkport as theirs to keep the rif-raf out and the Secret Service enforced it until the state ruled otherwise.
Ineeda
(3,626 posts)Hyannisport = Kennedy
Kennebunkport = Bush
Not Googling for you, but which is it? Did the Kennedys do this or did the Bushes (or both)?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)"the beach", at least out to the low tied line. If I understand correctly, Maine law is much closer to MA law than CA law.
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)These billionaires are me, me, me until some kinds of disaster happens and then it's 'Come rescue me and my property first, whaaaa"
MADem
(135,425 posts)The shoreline is for EVERYONE.
Fuck these people who think otherwise, pardon my French.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Not criticizing you, alp227. Just wondering whether the San Francisco Chronicle accurately describes the facts. 'The billionaire owner of a Peninsula beach...'
I don't know a damn thing about this case other than what I've read here.
Shouldn't it read something like 'A billionaire was ordered....'
Malraiders
(444 posts)the beach where the sand is damp is common ground for anyone to enjoy.
From: http://www.onthecommons.org/who-owns-beach
The first U.S. court to articulate the public trust was the New Jersey Supreme Court, in a case involving oyster beds. [W]here the tide ebbs and flows, the ports, the bays, the coasts of the sea, including both the water and the land under the water
are common to all the people, the N.J. court said in the 19th-century case of Arnold v Mundy. Each person, it added, has a right to use them according to his pleasure.
Grab your swimsuits, folks.
The U.S. Supreme Court embraced the doctrine in 1892 in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, which involved the attempt of the Illinois legislature to transfer shoreline along Lake Michigan to that corporation. Public trust lands are held in trust for public uses, the Court said; and these uses are always paramount. The railroad didnt get the land. In another case, the Supreme Court embraced the ebb and flow rule, which defines the area of public access to that defined by high and low tides.
From: http://www.beachapedia.org/Coastal_Access_in_California
In cases where there are one or more large coastal landowners, access is often difficult. A famous such area is "The Ranch" between Gaviota and Point Conception. Currently, access is only possible for residents and their guests, or by boat. In some coastal locations, surfers and other beach goers have established and used trails across private property for years without action by the property owner to restrict that access. In many such cases, courts have held that such long-term unimpeded access has created a de facto coastal access trail, and that the property owner (or a new owner) must allow that access to continue. Evidence (through personal accounts and photographs) of long-term (typically 5 years or more) beach access has been key to securing several coastal access trails.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Thanks for sharing.
I'll remember to walk where the sand is damp!
24601
(3,962 posts)equate to enough influence to ensure a locked gate.
From Open Secrets: https://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=Khosla&cycle=2014
(Note that he did give $5200 to Orin Hatch)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 6/10/13 $32,400 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 6/5/14 $4,800 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 3/17/14 $9,800 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte (D)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 6/30/13 $2,600 McNerney, Jerry (D)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 6/30/13 $2,600 McNerney, Jerry (D)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 3/19/13 $32,400 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte (D)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 8/6/13 $2,600 Hatch, Orrin G (R)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSTA VENTURES 5/13/14 $2,500 Markey, Ed (D)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 8/6/13 $2,600 Hatch, Orrin G (R)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 3/14/14 $2,600 Pelosi, Nancy (D)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 1/15/13 $2,500 Garamendi, John (D)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 8/27/14 $2,500 Science Energy & Environment Change PAC (D)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 6/5/14 $2,600 Hagan, Kay R (D)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 4/8/13 $2,500 Udall, Tom (D)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 6/30/14 $2,600 Walsh, John (D)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 10/8/14 $2,600 Bera, Ami (D)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 9/30/14 $2,600 Lofgren, Zoe (D)
KHOSLA, VINOD KHOSLA VENTURES 3/14/14 $2,600 Pelosi, Nancy (D)