Replies

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.

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.

Both you guys aren't getting the full details of the case, and of course the San Francisco papers aren't sharing info that support property rights.

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.