[genericone]

I think the principle that he is looking at is like this, someone please correct me if something is factually incorrect:

He didn't buy the beach, you can't own beach in CA afterall, but the beach truly is inaccessible by any means other than through the private property which he does own. The previous owners of the property allowed people to enter the private property on their way to the public property, and had done so for so long that people have never had to think about it, but the new owner doesn't feel he is obligated to do that, so the loss shocked a lot of people who have been using the private access road. Their supporters feel that because the previous owners allowed it, that the future owner should be obligated in some way to allow it as well. Khosla disagrees.

[harryh]

It's more than that. The previous owners didn't allow unfettered access to the beach. Sometimes the gate was closed. And when it was open they ran a for-pay parking lot.

And Khosla's dispute isn't just about access. He also wants to stop running the for-pay parking lot and restrict access to the sandy beach above the high tide line (which marks the border of his property with public land). His argument seems quite strong on these latter two points imho.

[cjensen]

That's a silly dispute. Any change in access and any change to a coastal property has to be approved by the Coastal Commission under California Law. And under California Law, the Coastal Commission is required to force the land-owner to provide beach access in order to gain permission for a change.

While at first glance that may seem unlawful, it has been thoroughly tested in the Courts. This is not an unusual occurrence; everywhere along the California coast you will find land and businesses who provide coastal access as a routine matter.

I assume Khosla has competent legal counsel who would have told him all this before he bought the property.

[genericone]

That's interesting, and we'll see what CA gov does and how far the CA politicians think they can go with this. If they mandate simply that Khosla must ALLOW access, how much can/will he charge for that access, lets say something stupidly large like $200? Would he be within his rights to do so?

And since it is his property, he should be able to close the parking lots, bathrooms, and general store too, especially if he were to be liable for maintenence, upkeep, accident liability, etc?