[anon1385]

The same applies in Scotland as well [1].

It's always interesting to see the reactions of people who view property ownership as some kind of natural law when you present them with systems of property ownership that differ on fundamental points. Property ownership is entirely a social construct that differs significantly across different cultures. I don't see what basis you have for calling your preferred legal system the one true meaning of ownership.

Nobody really 'owns' land anywhere. It's always a set of rights granted to you by the government, unless you are an absolute monarch yourself.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_(Scotland)_Act_200...

[gabemart]

Land rights in Scotland are even less restrictive - the 'right to roam' encompasses most agricultural land. Naturally, people are still prohibited from damaging crops or interfering with livestock.

[lisper]

> Nobody really 'owns' land anywhere. It's always a set of rights granted to you by the government

The source of ownership rights is orthogonal to the meaning of the word "ownership". In common usage, ownership means: a perpetual and transferrable right to dispose of something as one sees fit. (Some would argue that the adjective "unencumbered" should also be added to the list, and that the existence of property taxes in the U.S. means that no one "really" owns land there either.) If the right is not perpetual and transferrable, then you are a lessor, not an owner. If the right is not to dispose of the thing as you see fit then what you own is not the thing but some sort of restricted use license on the thing.

[ThomPete]

So you are agreeing with the parent right?

[lisper]

Not really. I think there is a useful place to draw a line and call it "ownership" even if there are some restrictions involved. For example, I feel like it's fair to say that I own my house and the land it sits on despite the fact that I have to pay rent on it (property taxes) and I can't tear down the house and build a gas station instead. But IMO, one of the necessary conditions for ownership is the ability to restrict access. Again, I use cars as an analogy: if I can't lock the doors and prevent people from sitting in the driver's seat on a whim, I don't think I can reasonably say I "own" the car.

[geebee]

Ownership can be subjective, but I'd agree that you don't have meaningful "ownership" of the land if you have no ability whatsoever to limit access. There's a wide range of in between, though.

In this narrow case (public access to the Martin's Beach), I'd say Khosla still clearly owns the land. He's just not allowed to use land ownership to cut people off from the coast. The court has required an easement, based on historical access routes. Nobody is allowed to wander off that trail and hang out in Khosla's garden or living room. In this sense, public access is limited, and provided to the minimal extent necessary to ensure that public ownership of the coast is meaningful ("minimal" could be debated, some might claim that our ability to get to this coast on a kayak is good enough, but courts clearly have interpreted this to mean land-based easements).

My understanding is that in Norway and some other nordic countries, land ownership does not include the right to prevent people from reasonable travel across it. That may even include camping on the land briefly. That's definitely a more limited concept of land ownership than you typically see in the US, but even that doesn't really mean you don't "own" the land, as the owner clearly has greater rights to it than the public.

I don't think the car analogy advances the argument much here, as there are clearly different kinds of property rights ("if I can't lock the doors and prevent people from sitting in the driver's seat, clearly I don't own the lyrics to the song I just wrote…").

[ThomPete]

Sure so you have one definition someone else have another. The Norwegian model just have a different treshold than the US but both are not really ownership but rather as was said renting.