Posted on 03/06/2018 12:45:18 PM PST by BenLurkin
The California Coastal Act for decades has... declared that access to the beach was a fundamental right guaranteed to everyone.
But that very principle could be dismantled in the latest chapter of an all-out legal battle that began as a local dispute over a locked gate.
...
Khosla, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, bought the 89-acre property south of Half Moon Bay for $32.5 million.
...
A number of public interest groups have since sued Khosla. He, in turn, has sued the California Coastal Commission, the State Lands Commission and San Mateo County, over what he considered an interference of his property rights.
A San Mateo County Superior Court judge, however, dismissed his case, stating that he had to go through the commission's permit process or enforcement proceedings before he could resort to a lawsuit.
The Surfrider lawsuit, now before the Supreme Court, had challenged Khosla on the grounds of not applying for the development permit required to change public access to the coastline. A state appeals court upheld a lower court decision that Khosla must unlock the gate while the dispute continues.
...
Khosla is skipping that step altogether and arguing that the requirement to seek a permit — as well as the state court injunction to maintain the status quo of keeping the gate open while the matter is being decided — violates his rights as a property owner.
"That's a pretty stunningly broad attack on state government," Faust said. "If he were to win on that and just get a declaration that the Coastal Act could not possibly be constitutionally interpreted to require a permit for that kind of development — that would be just huge."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I drove down to the beach 15 or so years ago when I was in Half Moon Bay for training. It was honestly one of the most beautiful places I’ve ever been. The beach was accessed by a small road that had a $5 toll sign painted on plywood. I noticed it as I was driving south on Rt1 exploring after class. It was the haphazard sign that caused me to turn around and go see what was at the end of the road. You gave the $5 down at the bottom. The beach was about a half mile long and rock bluffs went out into the ocean on both sides of the beach. I was the only person walking on the beach at the time, but I felt like I was being watched. I mean I literally felt eyes on me. That was when I noticed about a dozen sea lions bobbing in the surf about 50 feet out just staring at me. It was really cool experience.
Sheriff says- Martins Beach won’t be arrested ... go around gates locked by billionaire...
Silicon Valley billionaire fights to block the public from accessing the beach his $32m mansion [tr]
There is a common law right to passage. I’m not an expert but the Brits are big on it and we got it from them. You cannot hem people in and not allow them to move. In my state you cannot sell a landlocked parcel of land. Even if you did the parcel owner would gain access in court.
He purchased the property knowing all of the limitations. He can’t cry now. Besides, it is California - he loses.
When I was a kid I went to a nude beach right in that area. People like me were known as 'cottontails'.
If he loses all his property should be condemned and confiscated for public use.
Thanks. That’s very interesting. Game, set, match for Clarence Thomas.
Ironically, surfers tend to be very hostile to other people intruding upon their public beach
I've got some small personal experiences with easements in several states (none of which are CA) related to surface rights and mineral rights so here come some opinions based on this. I'm not a lawyer so don't attempt to come at it from that perspective.
circlecity is right that easements along with other roots or concepts of USA civil law often trace down from English Common Law. ECL is a wonderful body of common sense precedent. For example, the principle that a person or company is responsible to damages caused to another traces in part to a ECL legal case where a farmer built a pond on creek thus reducing the water available to a downstream neighbor's farm and thus was required to compensate the neighbor for the loss of water.
Easements though... An easement does not relinquish ownership. Typically, an easement is voluntary. The owner agrees to an easement for a defined time, type and purpose for a mutually agreeable compensation. An examples of this are pipelines whereby the surface owner and mineral rights owner are compensated typically with an initial lump sum payment then yearly payments for as long as the easement remains in effect. Key things to take away is that the owner is normally indemnified against damages cased by the easement holder and the easement holder is responsible for remedying damages caused to the owner's property.
State law gets involved in easements by defining in what types of situations, eminent domain can be used to force a property owner to grant an easement. This is where the lawyers get involved and $$$ rack up. Depending on how the state law is written, sometimes this can be a political process, can be a legal authority delegated to a state or local commission or can be a civil court process from the start. In my limited experiences, I have not encountered a situation where a political or state commission decision on property rights is not court reviewable.
One thing to keep in mind about property rights (and this varies from state to state) is that in some states an owner can loose their property ownership or rights if they do not defend them. For example, in one state I am acquainted with a situation where a neighbor obtained title to a boundary strip of land by building a new fence that encroached a distance into his neighbor's land. After a period of years, the sneaky neighbor was allowed by state law to obtain title to the strip of land. In another case, a neighbor tried to sneak some property away by beating some foot paths through the neighboring property then planned using this beneficial use to attempt to gain title. The property owner got wise to it soon enough to nip this in the bud and in fact won a legal judgment against the sneaky neighbor (a husband and wife lawyer team).
I see the subject of beach access brought up by the OP to be ripe for some serious legal bucks by both sides of the issue since the land owner has the bucks to go head to head against the State. I don't know the answers but see a lot of arguments that can and probably will be made on both sides. Buy stock in pop corn companies.
Should have thought about that before he bought the property - fully knowing that no private citizen owns the ocean which extends to the high tide mark - seems that having 84 acres should offer plenty of privacy.
There is a preexisiting road next to his property per se. That is what people have used for years and what this foreigner is blocking off.
It’s not like it crosses his lawn.
He is actually locking the gate.
. . . legally . . .
The road is not ON his property? I can’t imagine he’d even bring the case in such a situation.
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.