[lawtguy]

Here's Mr. Kholsa's take on it: https://medium.com/@vkhosla/martins-beach-a-matter-of-princi... And here's the Surfrider Foundations timeline of events: https://www.surfrider.org/pages/6950

It looks like the courts didn't find any right of public access to Martin's beach, but it did find that there was an existing permit for rules for accessing the beach. The court additionally found that if Mr. Kholsa wants to change those rules, he has to file a new permit. Mr. Kholsa argues that the previous owners changed the rules without filing for a new permit, so he shouldn't have to either.

Mr. Kholsa's argument strikes me as wrong on two counts: #1 just because the previous owners made changes without a permit, that doesn't mean it was legal or that he's now allowed to make changes without a permit. #2 there's quite a difference between the previous owners changing fees and hours and Mr. Kholsa ending all public access.

Mr Kholsa was informed before he bough the property that there was an existing public access to the beach and that San Mateo county expected that public access would continue. In that light, he looks a lot like someone who buys a house next to the airport and then complains about the noise from takeoffs and landings. Regardless of what principle he thinks he's fighting for, he's being a jerk.