Martins Beach billionaire owner takes fight over public access to US Supreme Court

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Hat tip, AboveTheLaw: Non-Sequiturs: 02.25.18

Previously at DU: Martins Beach access bill headed to governor

Martins Beach billionaire owner takes fight over public access to US Supreme Court

By Bob Egelko and Jenna Lyons Updated 5:21 pm, Friday, February 23, 2018

California courts say Martins Beach, a picturesque haven near Half Moon Bay, should have its gates opened to the public, despite the objections of its billionaire owner. Sometime in the next few months, the nation’s highest court will decide whether to weigh in.

“No property right is more fundamental than the right to exclude,” lawyers for Vinod Khosla said Thursday in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review of the case. They said the state courts, in their rulings against Khosla, wrongly decided that “owners of private beachfront property in California may not exercise that right without first obtaining the government’s permission.”

Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, bought Martins Beach and surrounding coastal lands from their longtime owners for $32.5 million in 2008. He shut the public access gate in September 2010, citing the cost of maintenance and liability insurance. The previous owners had admitted the public for at least 70 years.

After a series of back-and-forth rulings, a San Mateo County judge ruled in 2014 that Khosla should have obtained a development permit from the California Coastal Commission before shutting the gates. A state appeals court agreed in August, saying the closure was a type of property development that required the commission’s approval.
....

Bob Egelko and Jenna Lyons are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. Email: [e-mail], [e-mail] Twitter: @BobEgelko, @JennaJourno

[Faux pas]

1. If that's his

biggest problem....ef him.

[Farmer-Rick]

2. No one really owns the beach

If he wanted beach access control he should of bought land in Florida or another foreign country

Actually throughout the US you can not own the beach. All you can own is access through the property you own in front of the beach. People can still land boats on the beach in front of your property. Florida routinely allows owners to prevent access to the beach in front of their property. California not so much.

This is all about buyer be ware. He is not king and can't own anything his little self thinks up. He knew when he bought the property that it had an access road.

[hatrack]

4. In California, everything below the high tide line is public property, IIRC

.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. Sounds right, but the access road with locked gate is above the high tide line.

So, does the public have the right to use a private road (I assume it's not a public road) on someone's property? An interesting question.

[Farmer-Rick]

7. California guarantees public access to all mean high tide beaches in their state constitution

And I think they codified it 1976. Unlike Florida and numerous other states, beach access to the public through land connections is not sold off to property owners. In Florida you can control access to the beach along your property and even prevent the public from using the beach. Not so in California.

He should have bought a beach in another state.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

9. If he can't "own" the road that goes through his property, ...

... then hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court will decline to hear his case.

[Farmer-Rick]

10. Oh he can own the road, he just can't own the access.

If he wants to stop maintaining the road that was there when he bought the land, he needs to apply for a permit. Which he refuses to do because he claims it will be denied. It's like refusing to file your taxes because you know it will be wrong.

It's as if you own 100 acres but don't own the mineral rights. If an oil corporation knows there is oil in the middle of your land, the state will allow them access to that oil through your property.

So if he does not put up a gate and lets the road deteriorate, probably no one would have cared. But he insists on blocking with fencing and gates the access to that beach.

I'm not sure the Supremes are in favor of beach access as a state controlled right. It kind of depends on who has paid for their last speaking engagements or who their wife works for.

[dhill926]

3. fuck 'im....

[JI7]

6. Fuck him

The rules regarding access to the beach was known. He should not have bought it if he had a problem with it.

[stuffmatters]

8. I hope SCOTUS respects Ca courts & upholds clear & longstanding Ca State law

Just another glaring example of spoiled billionaires using our courts&, wasting our precious taxpayer money for their own greedy egos.
It's what they do, and WE have to pay for this shit instead of real priorities...(eg. more public defenders)