Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, May 30, 2014

The billionaire Vinod Khosla, the co-founder of Sun Microsystems, purchased the land containing the only public access road to Martins Beach near Half Moon Bay and then closed the road. He claims the beach all the way to submerged tidelands is private property and has hired lobbyists to defeat a state bill to give the public access again. "For this guy to buy Martins Beach and deny the public access is an outrage," said former state Rep. Pete McCloskey, who enjoyed the beach growing up. "The coastal plan calls for this to be public."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Is the road paved?

#1 | Posted by Tor at 2014-05-30 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

The failure of right-libertarianism right there. The right of the one to take away the rights of the many through the use of an imaginary construct (money). Gradually we do away with the concept of the commons and hundreds of years of social advancement and equality for the new feudal nobility.

#2 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-05-30 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"The right of the one to take away the rights of the many through the use of an imaginary construct (money). " - ZeroPointer

What rights? To private property?

Historically the "town" was a private beachfront community of around 40 homes. They all paid for the road. He bought the private business out, and the town no longer exists.

The state and county told him he can't change the access on his private property.

He offered multiple times for the state to purchase it, they declined. I see nothing wrong legally or within his rights as a property owner to shut down access. He could get sued for any accident on his property, the state won't protect him will it?

#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-05-30 07:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Sounds like the plot of an old Gidget movie. Wait a minute...I smell screenplay!

#4 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-05-30 07:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"He could get sued for any accident on his property, the state won't protect him will it?
#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris"

Incorrect. If it happens on the public easement and it was not due to his negligence, he would have no exposure.

#5 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-05-30 07:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is only news because a private party purchased the land and cut off public access. Had it been the state who did it, no big deal. They do it all the time. They even cut off access public access to private property. IOW, you might own 10 acres in the River of No Return Wilderness, but have no way to get there because the government declares the roads in are off limits.

The failure of left-progressivism right there. Or a resounding success, depending on your position.

#6 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-30 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If I read it correctly, the man bought property around a public access point, and is now trying to close it, as it goes through his property - but it itself is not his property, though he is trying to claim it. (Enlighten me if I read wrong.) And yes, the right to private property gets taken too far, too often. When the use of natural resources is closed off to the public by individuals, that is a form of theft.

#7 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-05-30 07:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

The state and county told him he can't change the access on his private property.
Yes, that is right. The California Constitution prohibits landowners from blocking public access to the beach and the Coastal Commission must grant permits for any development or changed coastal use.

He offered multiple times for the state to purchase it, they declined.
The state is not obligated to purchase that access and tax dollars should not be used to line the pockets of a billionaire for no reason.

I see nothing wrong legally or within his rights as a property owner to shut down access. #3 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-05-30 07:24 PM |
Then you would see nothing wrong with violating the law as Khosla has
engaged in property development that changed coastal usage and required permits from the California Coastal Commission.

Khosla is an impressive figure who believes that the laws don't apply to him, as he has no problem repeatedly, and implausibly, claiming that he remembers nothing about instructing his employees and agents to close off access. Moreover, Khosla now claims that a public beach is his private property.

#8 | Posted by censored at 2014-05-30 08:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Coleslaw doesn't have a chance in liberal California. Why does he waste his money on the court battle?

#9 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-30 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

America is not a democracy, or a republic.

It is an auction.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-30 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

.... Concocting a Course of Action!

**** Maybe the local people there should regard Martins Beach as if it was Iraq,Afghanistan or Libya and that they are the...US Govt!

#11 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2014-05-30 09:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Khosla is an impressive figure who believes that the laws don't apply to him, as he has no problem repeatedly, and implausibly, claiming that he remembers nothing about instructing his employees and agents to close off access. Moreover, Khosla now claims that a public beach is his private property.

Yes he does. Why? You left out the reason stated in your link.

The lobbyists for Khosla are using as justification for their position a decision last October by Superior Court Judge Gerald Buchwald that said Martins Beach was still subject to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848. The treaty essentially required the United States to recognize Mexican land grants as long as the owner filed a claim. Jose Antonio Alviso, who owned the land grant at the time, filed such a claim, and a patent for the beachfront property was issued in 1865.

Judge Buchwald ruled that Alviso's patent, handed down over the generations, extinguished all public rights to the property, including beach access rights established under the public trust doctrine in the California Constitution, which was first drafted in 1879.

Here is the link to the court's decision. As a reminder, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo precluded Cliven Bundy's claim to public lands as it may now preclude public claims to private land.

#12 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-30 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

A very wealthy Republican bought an ocean front home in Rhode Island, right next to the public beach access lane(in Rhode Island beach access is open to ALL) so he built a fence across the beach access lane, the Democrats in the neighborhood tore it down. Then he brought in 2 million yards of dirt to block the lane, the blue collar folks rented 2 backhoes and dumped the dirt in his driveway. He gave up and sold the mansion at a 1/2 million dollar loss, and moved to Utah

#13 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-05-30 09:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#13

The quantity of male bovine feces is inversely proportional to the lack of citation.

#14 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-30 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

That anyone would defend this billionaire's "right" to block Americans from enjoying this beach which they have enjoyed for decades makes me wonder where your sensibilities really lie. My suspicion, they hope that somewhere in the future a billionaire will hire them, help them become rich, etc. Therefore they are willing to carry his water today, and will be willing to carry whatever he demands in the future. In other words. the defenders of this billionaire are really just sychophants of a billionaire and not really deserving of any respect from the rest of us.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-30 10:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

That anyone would defend this...

So, your criticism is grounded in what theory of US real property law discussed in the court's opinion?

My suspicion...

Oh, I see, it's grounded in your "suspicion" and what you think someone is "willing" to do. It has nothing to do with applicable law. www.youtube.com

#16 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-30 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the government has paved the road in the last decade it's clearly not a private road.

#17 | Posted by Tor at 2014-05-30 10:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

What the hell, just let the billionaires buy all the beaches, the national parks, everything. It will fit the new idiotic libertarian view of things but it will be idiotic. We the people require access to our natural resources even if the billionaire few would prefer we allowed them total privacy.
F**k them. They have certainly had their turn at f*****g us.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-30 10:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

F**k them. They have certainly had their turn at f*****g us.

I knew it, you didn't read the opinion. The Treaty only applies to a select few parcels of land, as the judge says. The parcels are unique because of the Treaty, see also the Supremacy Clause. But instead of grappling with the legal exception to the rule, you just spew your true "Feelings." Keep on being Danni, you expose the ignorant. Good job.

#19 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-30 11:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

That anyone would defend this billionaire's "right" to block Americans from enjoying this beach which they have enjoyed for decades makes me wonder where your sensibilities really lie.

Et_Al is here to teach virtual law school.
If the laws are just isn't part of the curriculum.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-31 01:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

The fact that the state is even considering legislation to "re-open" the access road suggests to me that Kosla had a right to close it. Otherwise, the governor would have authorized the state police to re-open the road and warn Kosla that subsequent attempts to close it would result in criminal charges.

#21 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2014-05-31 06:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Are the people here who are whining about public access to private land the same ones who whined about public access to public land in Nevada?

#22 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-05-31 07:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The parcels are unique because of the Treaty, see also the Supremacy Clause."

Going back further the Mexicans and before them the Spaniards had no right to grant land grants, it wasn't their land to begin with. Don't even quote Mexican land grants as precedent when we both know the real owners of the land are Native Americans who would never dream of depriving any of the real citizens of their nation access to this beach.
IT could be accurately said that this foreigner is now trying to deprive the real owners of this land access to their own property.
If you want to base arguments on property rights then you have to acknowledge the earliest property owners or else your arguments are just bureaucratic nonsense designed to grant privelege to the few at the expense of the rest.
There is a beach in Newport, RI, known as Bailey's Beach. For about fifty years it was thought to be owned by the Bailey's Beach Club which was a club for the very wealthy aristocrats living in Newport. Then someone decided to do a title search and it turned out these rich folks were just squatters, claiming to own that which they did not own, and the beach was made public much to the chagrin of the wealthy thieves.
Millions of acres across this country have been claimed by wealthy folks, and they didn't pay for much of it.
Taking away this greedy fool's privacy on this beach should be something we all enjoy, it's fun to see real justice occur even if it rarely happens in this country.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-31 08:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Americans, think about this, coastal law in Spain prohibits ALL water front properties. The coast belongs to the people of Spain. I know of one restaurant, constructed prior to the law, that was torn down. Properties located on cliffs are not included.

#24 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2014-05-31 08:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Americans, think about this, coastal law in Spain prohibits ALL water front properties. The coast belongs to the people of Spain. I know of one restaurant, constructed prior to the law, that was torn down. Properties located on cliffs are not included.

#25 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2014-05-31 08:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Khosla is an impressive figure who believes that the laws don't apply to him,
#8 | Posted by censored

And you know what? They don't.

#26 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2014-05-31 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

As a beachfront property owner in TX, I sympathize with this guy. The public sucks. In general, visitors to the beach don't give a damn about the condition they leave it in. Last weekend (Memorial day) was horrific. It looked like a garbage dump in front of our house and for miles down the beach. My kids and their friends spent an hour cleaning up beer cans and empty beer boxes, cigarettes, plastic bags, empty water and gatorade bottles, broken chairs and EZUPs. It was despicable. And although the DR lefties will call me names and claim BS and racism, it was the mexicans and blacks who were the worst. If you don't believe me, I invite you all down on Labor day to see for yourself - Surfside Beach, TX. If you don't show, then keep your traps shut about my claim because I have seen it first hand the last five years on the "big three" weekends (Memorial, 4th, and Labor).

Until 2 years ago, they could camp on the beach - no facilities were there so I had the "privilege" of seeing people crap in the dune in front of our house. Luckily I had a hand in getting rid of overnight camping within the city limits - although it still happens during the day even with the port o potties the city now places on the beach (another nice view btw).

DANNI et al who scream for public access and public property - the social CONTRACT goes two ways. With great freedom comes great responsibility. Somehow the left only ever sees the first part of that statement. Until the "public" can manage to act like adults, I have no problem with restricting access to "public" lands via private property.

#27 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-06-01 03:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort