Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California Court Orders Vinod Khosla to Reopen Disputed Beach

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: California Court Orders Vinod Khosla to Reopen Disputed Beach

#11

Post by pasbesoin »

Given all the years and precedent of access (throughout the State of California), I would hope that any stay of the order pending further litigation would be denied.

And that, if he then continues to refuse, he be jailed for contempt of court.

In my own little childhood hometown, I've watched public beach access (to a lake) become more and more locked up behind fees and limited hours of access and upscaling property values and home ownership that wants to keep things quiet and for themselves.

The quiet part, I appreciate. The "keep out" part, not so much.

The childhood memories I have of times spent there, are simply no longer possible. It's all on lockdown. Something lost in that -- something significant, in my opinion.

Re: California Court Orders Vinod Khosla to Reopen Disputed Beach

#12

Post by rtpg »

khazhoux wrote: post #9

I can see his point of view, though: as a rich man, he should be able to do what he wants, and lay claim to this beautiful stretch of the Pacific Ocean.

What if Bill Gates bought the entire coastline? How does that help society?

Society has relatively little to gain from letting the super rich buy up fundamentally scarce bits of land like this. Meanwhile making it public access means way more people can appreciate the beach. Not like this VC is on the beach most of the time anyways.

Re: California Court Orders Vinod Khosla to Reopen Disputed Beach

#15

Post by khazhoux »

wpietri wrote: post #10
khazhoux wrote: post #9

I can see his point of view, though: as a rich man, he should be able to do what he wants, and lay claim to this beautiful stretch of the Pacific Ocean.

Why stop there? As a rich man, he should be able to replace his failing liver by claiming yours. Alas, he can't in either case, because we the people have created limiting the unchecked exercise of power.

Sure, there are laws limiting the totally unchecked exercise of power. Your example is too extreme, though.

In my case, I was being sarcastic... yet it's nearly true. His mega-wealth let him buy the oceanside estate to begin with, and then his mega-wealth lets him ignore fines. The laws against this abuse are (as evidence here) quite weak.

Re: California Court Orders Vinod Khosla to Reopen Disputed Beach

#16

Post by alistairSH »

rtpg wrote: post #12
khazhoux wrote: post #9

I can see his point of view, though: as a rich man, he should be able to do what he wants, and lay claim to this beautiful stretch of the Pacific Ocean.

What if Bill Gates bought the entire coastline? How does that help society? Society has relatively little to gain from letting the super rich buy up fundamentally scarce bits of land like this. Meanwhile making it public access means way more people can appreciate the beach. Not like this VC is on the beach most of the time anyways.

Pretty sure OP left off the tags.

Re: California Court Orders Vinod Khosla to Reopen Disputed Beach

#17

Post by shagie »

robohamburger wrote: post #7

I am surprised more states do not have laws like Hawaii's where you are required to provide beach access. Shame for such a nice beach to go to waste.

That is the law for California.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sdut-...

> In 2014 the Legislature and Governor Brown gave the California Coastal Commission the authority to fine property owners who intentionally block public access to the coast. That authority was included in the 2015-2016 state budget, based on legislation I had written in 2013 to achieve the same goal.

The California Costal Commission website - https://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/prc-access.html

And then from there to https://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/pr-access-facts.pdf

> The California Coastal Act, Public Resources Code Section 30211, states:

> Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use, or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

Re: California Court Orders Vinod Khosla to Reopen Disputed Beach

#18

Post by gotrecruit »

rtpg wrote: post #12
khazhoux wrote: post #9

I can see his point of view, though: as a rich man, he should be able to do what he wants, and lay claim to this beautiful stretch of the Pacific Ocean.

What if Bill Gates bought the entire coastline? How does that help society? Society has relatively little to gain from letting the super rich buy up fundamentally scarce bits of land like this. Meanwhile making it public access means way more people can appreciate the beach. Not like this VC is on the beach most of the time anyways.

Hmm, not to say I disagree, but let's say hypothetically, instead of providing general public access to the beach, which is obviously a pity, the entire coastline was sold at the appropriate price. The money, in theory, could go into improving local infrastructure, etc, which may lead to an improvement in quality of life for people living in that area. I'm not saying that would happen, just entertaining the possibility that your proposed scenario could be positive.

Re: California Court Orders Vinod Khosla to Reopen Disputed Beach

#19

Post by ams6110 »

khazhoux wrote: post #15
wpietri wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why stop there? As a rich man, he should be able to replace his failing liver by claiming yours. Alas, he can't in either case, because we the people have created limiting the unchecked exercise of power.

Sure, there are laws limiting the totally unchecked exercise of power. Your example is too extreme, though. In my case, I was being sarcastic... yet it's nearly true. His mega-wealth let him buy the oceanside estate to begin with, and then his mega-wealth lets him ignore fines. The laws against this abuse are (as evidence here) quite weak.

That's the thing about fines. To really be punitive, they should be indexed to the wealth of the offender.

Re: California Court Orders Vinod Khosla to Reopen Disputed Beach

#20

Post by vidarh »

gotrecruit wrote: post #18
rtpg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if Bill Gates bought the entire coastline? How does that help society? Society has relatively little to gain from letting the super rich buy up fundamentally scarce bits of land like this. Meanwhile making it public access means way more people can appreciate the beach. Not like this VC is on the beach most of the time anyways.

Hmm, not to say I disagree, but let's say hypothetically, instead of providing general public access to the beach, which is obviously a pity, the entire coastline was sold at the appropriate price. The money, in theory, could go into improving local infrastructure, etc, which may lead to an improvement in quality of life for people living in that area. I'm not saying that would happen, just entertaining the possibili…

It could, but once sold it might never again be accessible to the public.

I prefer the Scandinavian approach: Non built up land can be freely accessed by anyone regardless of owner in most cases, and the coast is by default protected against people building down to it in Norway at least. Dispensations do get given, but if you block access without applying for planning consent, it will be struck down.

The basis is simple: Restricting access to a scarce resource like the land is equivalent to taking away or liberty. This is a right we've had since time immemorial - in Sweden it's a constitutional right. In Norway it was not codified into law until the 60's as it used to be seen as so self-evident that it wasn't necessary.

Post reply on HN