Posted on 09/25/2014 9:01:29 PM PDT by Navy Patriot
A Northern California judge ruled Wednesday against a Silicon Valley billionaire who had shut down public access to a beach beloved by surfers and swimmers, ordering him to reopen his private road to the beach.
San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Barbara Mallach ruled that venture capitalist Vinod Khosla would have to obtain permission from the California Coastal Commission if he wished to close off Martin's Beach, a secluded stretch of coast south of Half Moon Bay.
The case, brought by the surfer and environmental group Surfrider Foundation, had been seen as a test of 1970s laws ensuring public access to the state's 1,100 miles of coast. It also tweaked feelings of resentment at the privileged life enjoyed by the Bay Area's growing cadres of tech and investment magnates.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfexaminer.com ...
The liberals want there to be only thirty million people on this planet. They know that it can support at least several billion because it’s doing that now. They just HATE having those “other” people on their beaches.
Its pretty amazing this jackass tried to win in court at all. Just goes to show that under the casual Silicon Valley airs, the jackboots squeek at high polish, just waiting for a chance to leap out.
Liberals. Can’t live with ‘em, over 700 star systems want to destroy ‘em.
(That’s right, hipster - you’re the friggin’ Borg.)
You say “correct ruling”, but what the judge said is that closing and locking an existing gate across the private road, constituted property development, and therefore needed permits from the state and coastal commission. It is foolish for conservatives to cheer this kind of twisted judicial activism.
Too bad most average people (who pony up their hard earned money to see a movie.) , have no clue about just how much these so called "compassionate" liberals look down on, and despise them.
Vinod Khosla needs to donate more money to the Democrat Party.
A lot of comments on this story read like Daily Kos trash.
You be wrong on this one.
The Coastal law (whether I agree with it or not), defines ocean beaches as public property and requires granting access to individual members of the public. It was passed by initiative, and has not been successfully challenged in any court, so there is no judicial activism here.
But disregarding that, the gate has been continually open under the previous property owner, so as to establish a permanent easement on the property, under general real property law.
Even the hippie surfers acted properly here, by getting a court order to open the gate, when it was impossible for them to trespass on an easement.
Lastly, I did not "cheer" anything, I noted the law.
The mistake this rich prick property owner made was he didn't bribe the California socialist scum enough to motivate them to cut the throats of their hired hippie agitators. Leftist connected Hollywood elites regularly pay more to the Rat party and lock of their public beaches as they please.
There ya go, summation in one simple sentence.
There used to be a concept called “private property rights” in the US.
It's OK to destroy a rich guy if he's a leftist, and you should have known that before you read any of that Daily Kos filth.
Yes, long ago.
Exactly. When you look at buying beachfront property in California, the first thing that your lawyer tells you is that the beach is public property and the public has an easement over your property to get the beach unless there’s an obviously easier route to get there. It’s certainly not a financial taking, or impairment of property rights, because the market prices in the lack of control when you buy the property, something easily seen when you compare to states where you can own the beach or at least most of it.
There is no law in CA that forces private property owners to allow public access across their private property to a public beach. Whether the public can be on the beach is not in dispute in this case, it is whether they have the right to use a private road to get there.
The road always had a gate, and the previous owner do not keep it open all the time, and the previous owner charged for access. There was no easement and the judge didn't rule there was.
The law was obviously on Khosla's side or the judge wouldn't have had to go through legal acrobatics to get to her decision. She literally said the closing a gate for 24hours a day (which already was closed some of the day), was "developing the property" and needed permits. That is insane judicial overreach, and a blow to private property ownership.
Should all beaches be free and open to the public? Ideally yes, but the state should retroactively be taking property from rightful owners to make that happen.
The conclusion of the Overview of California Coastal Access Law states:
While the public beach in California includes at least the portion of sand up to the mean high tide line, the actual public beach varies from lot-to-lot and break-to-break up and down the coast. California’s coastline is subject to many competing interests, and coastal property owners may face loss of their exclusive use based not only on their acts or omission, but those of their predecessors. There are steps they can take to protect their interest against the permanent creation of an easement, but these similarly involve a loss of exclusive use of the property in question. Similarly any development or use requiring a new development permit may result in an easement or expensive grant of similar property to the public. Given the state of the law, property owners rights are severely limited and only the most careful planning and use can allow the coastal property owner to maintain a fee interest in the property free of easements and other encumbrances.
Right, and it doesn’t apply retroactively. Read the part you bolded - development or new development. It doesn’t apply to existing property - see Malibu in SoCal. So what the judge did, is say the act of closing an existing gate is now “development”’so the law applies. That is blatant judicial activism, a perversion of the law, and an assault on private property.
Given the state of the law, property owners rights are severely limited and only the most careful planning and use can allow the coastal property owner to maintain a fee interest in the property free of easements and other encumbrances.
And that is the legal opinion that backs the judge.
Finally, the initiative has never been successfully challenged in court, so the entire law can be used to justify the judge.
I wish it were not so, but the law, and San Mateo County code is designed to make the smallest change a permit requiring development.
I agree 100% MrShoop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.