Vinod Khosla wins key Martins Beach battle
mercurynews.com
Vinod Khosla wins key Martins Beach battle
1–10 of 20 posts
Re: Vinod Khosla wins key Martins Beach battle
#2Weird, seems to be a kind of "squatter's rights" for rich people applied here. It's illegal to exclusively possess a public beach by impeding all access to it, but the courts rule that since it was done for many years, it is legal in this case.
Re: Vinod Khosla wins key Martins Beach battle
#3Weird, seems to be a kind of "squatter's rights" for rich people applied here. It's illegal to exclusively possess a public beach by impeding all access to it, but the courts rule that since it was done for many years, it is legal in this case.
Not exactly, the court ruled that the land grant rights that Alviso got from the Mexican Government before California existed as a state, "extinguished" the right of California to change the rules. It will be interesting to watch on appeal.
The reason you would rule that way is because California can't simply go in and change your property rights, at least not without compensating you and using eminent domain. That has been established for a long time. So for the same reason they cannot just decide to give access to the minerals under your house to Chevron.
So it isn't "squatters rights" at all, rather it is property holder rights. If this is upheld it could have some interesting repercussions on water rights in the Central Valley if I remember, some of those were parts of Mexican land grants as well.
Re: Vinod Khosla wins key Martins Beach battle
#4Weird, seems to be a kind of "squatter's rights" for rich people applied here. It's illegal to exclusively possess a public beach by impeding all access to it, but the courts rule that since it was done for many years, it is legal in this case.
I think it's more subtle than that, deriving not from a tradition of possession but rather an international treaty that predates California as a state.
If the US promised, in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, to honor in perpetuity the property grants of Mexico in the conquered/ceded territories, maybe that promise still applies. And if the Supreme Court already ruled (in 1859!) that California law can't alter those rights, just as state law is limited in other international and interstate affairs... well, it's an interesting case. Would love to see Volokh Conspiracy or Popehat discuss it.
Khosla may yet want to cede this claim, even if it's legally legitimate, to not appear like a robber baron buying up eccentric anti-democratic privileges that were created by ancient wars.
Update: And another thought... maybe if the US and California now view the coast – and the water-rights angle that ChuckMcM mentions – as requiring a new approach, they can negotiate a treaty-patch with Mexico? :)
Re: Vinod Khosla wins key Martins Beach battle
#5Weird, seems to be a kind of "squatter's rights" for rich people applied here. It's illegal to exclusively possess a public beach by impeding all access to it, but the courts rule that since it was done for many years, it is legal in this case.
Not exactly, the court ruled that the land grant rights that Alviso got from the Mexican Government before California existed as a state, "extinguished" the right of California to change the rules. It will be interesting to watch on appeal. The reason you would rule that way is because California can't simply go in and change your property rights, at least not without compensating you and using eminent domain. That h…
I don't see why the reasoning didn't go like the following.
California law requires the property owner to give up rights. The eminent-domain laws require the state to compensate property owners when forcing them to give up rights.
Conclusion: The property owner must allow beach access to the public, and the state must pay the property owner for allowing this.
EDIT: The comment by gojomo would seem to explain this.
Re: Vinod Khosla wins key Martins Beach battle
#6Weird, seems to be a kind of "squatter's rights" for rich people applied here. It's illegal to exclusively possess a public beach by impeding all access to it, but the courts rule that since it was done for many years, it is legal in this case.
Not exactly, the court ruled that the land grant rights that Alviso got from the Mexican Government before California existed as a state, "extinguished" the right of California to change the rules. It will be interesting to watch on appeal. The reason you would rule that way is because California can't simply go in and change your property rights, at least not without compensating you and using eminent domain. That h…
> If this is upheld it could have some interesting repercussions on water rights in the Central Valley
> if I remember, some of those were parts of Mexican land grants as well.
That's both news to me and a wincing moment of "wow, California politics really do come down to water issues 90% of the time".
Re: Vinod Khosla wins key Martins Beach battle
#7Weird, seems to be a kind of "squatter's rights" for rich people applied here. It's illegal to exclusively possess a public beach by impeding all access to it, but the courts rule that since it was done for many years, it is legal in this case.
I think it's more subtle than that, deriving not from a tradition of possession but rather an international treaty that predates California as a state. If the US promised, in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, to honor in perpetuity the property grants of Mexico in the conquered/ceded territories, maybe that promise still applies. And if the Supreme Court already ruled (in 1859!) that California law can't alter th…
So this whole ordeal is pretty confusing. State law says that the public is allowed access to the coast below the median high tide line, but it does not necessarily give you the right to cross through private land. So technically, you could boat or swim over to Martins Beach and you wouldn't be trespassing. However because the previous owner allowed public access (for a small fee), I guess he set some precedent to access which is covered by state law (although apparently treaties with Mexico supercede that).
To make things even weirder, there are a bunch of cottages/houses on the property that are being leased to occupants (this was done by the previous owner). From what I understand, they have a few more years on those leases before they can be evicted (I am very rough on these details). So if you know someone in those units, they can hook you up with access to the beach (I think).
Bascially, it's a crappy situation for everyone. I get that Khosla wants some private beach front property to dump his money into. And really, the previous owner should have set up an easement (easements are the primary reason Malibu is still publicly accessible), although he probably would have got a much lower sales price. And of course, if Khosla gets his way, the public will be getting screwed over pretty bad. With the growing population, beach/coastal access is getting harder and harder (try going to the beach on a warm, sunny weekend, it can be a parking/traffic nightmare). Reducing the number of coastal access points is just going to make things worse, and it is going to continue to have an impact on the next generation of Californians.
Re: Vinod Khosla wins key Martins Beach battle
#8Weird, seems to be a kind of "squatter's rights" for rich people applied here. It's illegal to exclusively possess a public beach by impeding all access to it, but the courts rule that since it was done for many years, it is legal in this case.
I think it's more subtle than that, deriving not from a tradition of possession but rather an international treaty that predates California as a state. If the US promised, in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, to honor in perpetuity the property grants of Mexico in the conquered/ceded territories, maybe that promise still applies. And if the Supreme Court already ruled (in 1859!) that California law can't alter th…
>Khosla may yet want to cede this claim, even if it's legally legitimate, to not appear like a robber baron buying up eccentric anti-democratic privileges that were created by ancient wars.
For the sake of the community and historic use he should restore the access rights that were there. It is the right thing...but, hey, it's his property.
Re: Vinod Khosla wins key Martins Beach battle
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not exactly, the court ruled that the land grant rights that Alviso got from the Mexican Government before California existed as a state, "extinguished" the right of California to change the rules. It will be interesting to watch on appeal. The reason you would rule that way is because California can't simply go in and change your property rights, at least not without compensating you and using eminent domain. That h…
> If this is upheld it could have some interesting repercussions on water rights in the Central Valley > if I remember, some of those were parts of Mexican land grants as well. That's both news to me and a wincing moment of "wow, California politics really do come down to water issues 90% of the time".
I remember telling a friend's kid, in ~2000, that if she really wanted a totally secure future, that she should quit computer programming and become a riparian lawyer. I maintain that this is still the best advice I've ever given.
Re: Vinod Khosla wins key Martins Beach battle
#10Regardless of what the law says, we shouldn't forget that this is assholish behavior. And Vinod Khosla should be ashamed of himself.
Not that he cares or that I'm trying to incite anything. It's just important that we not forget this important point.