Can someone explain to me how one can believe in property rights and also be against this? fwiw I think property rights should be drastically scaled back.
With Supreme Court challenge, billionaire could dismantle beach access rights
11–19 of 19 posts
Re: With Supreme Court challenge, billionaire could dismantle beach access rights
#12I respect Khosla's investments, but I can't believe he isn't running the math on the negative backlash this is creating against his personal brand. Californians love their public access to nature. And it's a really nice thing.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- JFK
The hyperrich have lived outside reality for so long that they have forgotten that people have far more direct recourse than a court system that caters to money.
Re: With Supreme Court challenge, billionaire could dismantle beach access rights
#13The US really needs a freedom to roam law like Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam. Otherwise we'll soon end up with the whole country locked up by billionaires and farmers. Out in the West it's already hard to hike because a lot of land is fenced in without any way to pass though.
Re: With Supreme Court challenge, billionaire could dismantle beach access rights
#14Can someone explain to me how one can believe in property rights and also be against this? fwiw I think property rights should be drastically scaled back.
You can believe in property rights without believing that they are not subject to any limitations.
Re: With Supreme Court challenge, billionaire could dismantle beach access rights
#15Can someone explain to me how one can believe in property rights and also be against this? fwiw I think property rights should be drastically scaled back.
Like any right, there is no absolute. When your rights conflict with my rights there has to be a limit placed on one, the other, or both.
Finding a simplistic approach that will work in 100% of cases is impossible.
Once that is realized you can both hold the general idea that private property rights be respected /and/ that public access to public property be granted as well whenever possible. The idea is to minimize the encroachment of one against the other and to find a balance for each situation where the question is hazy.
Re: With Supreme Court challenge, billionaire could dismantle beach access rights
#16Can someone explain to me how one can believe in property rights and also be against this? fwiw I think property rights should be drastically scaled back.
Not sure what you mean? This is about dealing with competing property rights.. in California, the coastline itself is owned by the public, so this is about how these two property claims are resolved. This is similar to if you had a piece of property, and then someone else bought all the property around yours and cut off access to your property. Are they required to give you access or not? What sort of access?
Re: With Supreme Court challenge, billionaire could dismantle beach access rights
#17Can someone explain to me how one can believe in property rights and also be against this? fwiw I think property rights should be drastically scaled back.
I also believe in a more limited concept of private property, but setting that aside:
Property ownership in the Anglo-American legal system has always been subject to limitations. Property owners have common-law obligations both to the government (traditionally the sovereign) and to other private citizens. These are typically easements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement).
The US Constitution specifies that the government cannot take property without "just compensation". The legal dispute at issue here is whether California requiring Khosla to permit people to travel through his property to reach the beach is a "taking" or whether it is simply enforcing an existing easement that was already established at the time he purchased the property.
Re: With Supreme Court challenge, billionaire could dismantle beach access rights
#18Can someone explain to me how one can believe in property rights and also be against this? fwiw I think property rights should be drastically scaled back.
The property right in question is the public's right to the beach, which is public property; we'd have to look at the code to see where the property line ends. If there's some inlet cove or the like surrounded by cliffs, but you own all the land accessing it then generally you can't put up a fence that stops the public from accessing the beach.
Edit: remembered a notable exception, but it was on a military base
Re: With Supreme Court challenge, billionaire could dismantle beach access rights
#19What a jerk