[kops]

The property rights are what they are. Who the owner is should not cloud the argument. If you are a middle class person and have a lawn in front of your house, would you allow the random people to use the lawn for chilling/sleeping/picnic or whatever? Well a rich person happens to own a much bigger and luxurious version of the same front lawn. If the state or whoever owned the thing once upon time sold it, then it is his. The fact that he is stinking rich and we the normal populace would love to have access to the same property is no argument. On the other hand if his purchase did not include exclusivity to the beach then by all means go there and piss around. But just being rich and owning something that most of us can not afford is no justification to snatch it from them. It is just using the justice system/democracy as a mob intent on plunder.

P.S. 1. I don't care who khosla is. But looking at the whole debate it seems the whole opposition is based on the fact that he is a billionaire. I refuse to buy that line of argument. Tell me it is illegal for so an so reason and I will buy. But he is an asshole or he is a billionaire is just emotions doing the talking :-)

P.S. 2. Going by the comments below, I feel compelled to clarify that my comment is not informed by the local laws. I am just a little bit puzzled by the words billionaire and asshole being used synonymously. The law should be same for everyone. A billionaire can hire more lawyers is no reason to call him an asshole in this context even if he has earned the title elsewhere unequivocally.

Update: typo and added a p.s.

[tathougies]

By California law, there is no such thing as ownership of a beach. All beach sands are public, by statute. You are asking who the owner is, but there is no owner of the rights of access or exclusivity, by law.

Of course, Khosla should have access to the lands he owns. Under California law, land is something that private citizens can own. A beach is not one of those things.

EDIT: that being said, private property rights do not always or even typically grant you exclusivity. Many jurisdictions have various requirements on what private landowners must allow the public to do on their land. For example, many jurisdictions have freedom to roam provisions, which ensure that the public has access to wilderness, even if privately owned. The United States does not have this in general, but it is certainly within the purview of the states to legislate such things. In many US cities, homeowners own the sidewalk and must maintain it, but allow the public access. This is written in the deed, or mandated by statue.

[Pyxl101]

The case is not about the beach itself. It's about land near the beach through which one can travel to visit it. Is Khosla obligated to provide the public with access to the beach by crossing his land? Ordinarily this kind of right is represented as an easement on the property, or as a roadway separate from the property, neither of which exist here.

The previous owner built a gate on the property, which was open and closed at their whim, posted "no trespassing" signs, and charged for access to the road and beach.

[tathougies]

Yes, you're right. I'm responding to the comment above which states that the case here is akin to forcing homeowners to allow people to picnic on their front lawn. The difference is that homeowners own their lawn, while Khosla does not own the beach. Many homeowners have easements requiring them to maintain sidewalks and allow the public to pass through (I know I certainly do). In this case, I suppose the question is if California's 1979 law implied this easement or not. Either way, it is hardly unprecedented.

[jacobr1]

Right, which is why the Supreme Count rightly refused the case. The issue isn't the general principle of beach access easements. The issue is the specifics of whether there actually is an effective easement on this particular property. Frankly, I can't tell from the article or the discussion if there actually is an easement. That fact that irrevocable easements can be created by long-term public use (called adverse possession?) makes this more complicated than it appears.

Regardless, the right thing for Kholsa to do is provide access. And further the bad press probably is causing more issues than the few folks that would be accessing it ever would.

[dragonwriter]

> That fact that irrevocable easements can be created by long-term public use (called adverse possession?) makes this more complicated than it appears.

“Easement by prescription”.

[Traster]

This isn't like owning a front lawn, this is like owning the pavement, but not the front lawn- but insisting no one else can use the front lawn because (whilst you don't own it) you can stop them accessing it. In fact in your metaphor not only does he not own the lawn, he lives in a state where it's not even possible to own the lawn, he bought the pavement knowing he could never own the lawn and has been illegally obstructing access to the lawn for decades.

And now somehow he has people on the internet arguing that a billionaire should be allowed exclusive benefit to public land- as if of all people, the billionaire is the one that needs the public handout.

[kops]

>And now somehow he has people on the internet arguing that a billionaire should be allowed exclusive benefit to public land- as if of all people, the billionaire is the one that needs the public handout.

No I didn't say that. If the exclusivity is not part of the sale then it should be trivial to kick his butt. The fact it isn't is confounding to me. Perhaps because I am not an American.

[cortesoft]

What? California beaches have been public property since 1976. He bought the house knowing he doesn't own the beach, and that the public has a right to that beach.

No one is allowed to own a beach in California. This isn't about mob rule, this is about a choice Californians made many years ago that says beaches are public.

The beach is not his.

[kops]

Then he should be kicked out of the court in a less than 5 minutes. Why is it being discussed?

[colejohnson66]

Because he’s not blocking access to the beach, technically. Just blocking that pathway. But it’s surrounded by cliffs, so the only way to access it is through the path he’s blocking.

[cortesoft]

Are these questions based on reading the article or not? A lot of the things are discussed in the article... the question is not whether the beach is public, it is about what access requirements he has to meet. Does he have to provide a road? Parking?

[colejohnson66]

No he doesn’t have to provide parking. But he does have to allow access.

[markdown]

> California beaches have been public property since 1976.

Wow, how did it take the public so long to wake up? I thought the default was that it was public property in most places on earth.

[bananabreakfast]

This has nothing to do with him being rich. This has everything to do with the fact that he is an asshole. He has no property rights to the beach but is spending his money trying to change that.

He has no right to do what he is doing but the only reason we are talking about it at all is because he is rich.

[strbean]

> Who the owner is should not cloud the argument.

Fair point, but...

> On the other hand if his purchase did not include exclusivity to the beach then by all means go there and piss around.

This, by law, does not exist in any form in California (unless the beach is on a lake rather than the ocean).

This is simply a case of someone flaunting the law.

[kops]

> (unless the beach is on a lake rather than the ocean).

And there I see why he has hopes. If it is legal on a lake then someone would wonder why not on ocean. Rather than asking the nice people on internet one might as well go to a court of law.

Why are people angry that he went to court. Where I come from people settle these kind of questions in less civilised ways. Court is better i think.

[chrisdhoover]

Some argue, Nial Ferguson comes to mind, that private property rights and rule of law are what has brought success to civilization. It is funny reading this thread. Your post pointedly reminds us that we could live under regimes that have no qualms in seizing our property. I’m reminded that in the US our founders wrote of life, liberty, and happiness. There was an earlier version, life, liberty, and property.

[strbean]

As a tech billionaire, he should know how to do a simple internet search.

https://www.google.com/search?q=california+private+beaches

[kops]

#1. Internet is no longer the source of truth. I can buy it by CPC or CPM.

#2. Within the first paragraph of the first hit on search results, a policeman is enforcing the restriction. I would be encouraged to dig in if I were in a similar situation instead of being intimidated.

#3. I am not on either side. Just watching and weighing in from far away as an indifferent observer.

[alextheparrot]

His monopoly on land is granted at the discretion of and subject to regulation by the state, just as many other actions are.

My front lawn can be eminent domained to build new power lines, so clearly the state has greater authority over property than your argument represents.

[ggreer]

Then the state should use eminent domain to take his road, then upkeep the beach, the parking lot, and the bathrooms themselves. Instead, the state is trying to force him to run a business that loses money.

[klyrs]

> If you are a middle class person and have a lawn in front of your house, would you allow the random people to use the lawn for chilling/sleeping/picnic or whatever?

That's not the issue. If you own property that's completely encircled by other properties, you're entitled to an easement through a neighboring property. Conversely, if you own a parcel of land that participates in the blockade of another parcel, you very well might be required to let the owners of that other parcel to walk on your lawn to get to their property. You'll probably want to maintain a walkway, because if their daily use turns your lawn to mud, you'll probably be liable for any injuries they sustain.

https://patch.com/california/napavalley/4-types-easements

[xeromal]

Water rights aren't your average yard. If water rights aren't protected, the rich could buy up the entire coastline and you'd have no where to access the beach.