Billionaire blocks access to public beach in California

Vinod Khosla? One of the many “international” variations of coleslaw:

Vinod Kholsla: One of the most simple yet flavorful salads, it gets its oomph from a combination of fresh grated coconut, sharp mustard and earthy cumin seeds.

Makes 4 servings

2 tablespoons sunflower seed oil
1 teaspoon coconut oil
1/2 teaspoon cumin seeds
1/2 teaspoon black mustard seeds (may substitute bitter realization that wealth does not buy happiness)
1 pinch asafetida powder
5 curry leaves roughly torn up*
1 medium dried red chili pepper, broken into 3 to 4 pieces (may substitute 1 cup red hot contempt for public rights)
1/2 cup freshly grated coconut (can substitute store-bought unsweetened grated coconut)
4 cups shredded cabbage**
3/4 teaspoon kosher salt (may substitute 2 tsp tears of small children)
2 tablespoons finely chopped cilantro
1/2 cup roasted salted cashews

Edited to add a few allowed ingredient substitutions per @miasm suggestion…

4 Likes

Interesting how quickly we went from a fairly reasonable demand for public access to public property to calls for 3rd party confiscation of all coastal lands from their current owners.

4 Likes

love how it’s an anonymous ‘billionaire’ - no one else bothered by this?
steal a loaf of bread, you’re pictures all over the news - shame is a very intimidating thing, no?

-m

1 Like

Progress!

Power to the people!

Edit : so why is demanding public access to a public beach only fairly reasonable?

3 Likes

You should read the article, it’s there. It’s even in Mark’s summary, which is all of one whole sentence.

Reading: it’s totally FUNdamental!

Anonymous?

Here’s today’s douchebaggy plutocrat:

Oh, don’t just give it to him. Now he’ll never know how to fish.

3 Likes

Nice. But I think the authentic recipe calls for 2 tsps of ‘the tears of a crying child’.

3 Likes

It’s interesting … if a single individual had used that road to get to the beach, they might well be able to make a legal claim of adverse possession (though California is not an easy to state for that in any case). But because the use of the road is not exclusive (though it is ‘hostile, open, notorious and continuous’), but rather public, such a claim doesn’t seem to be possible. Seems like it really should be possible to file for adverse possession on behalf of John Q Public, though.

Well, that sort of thing’s subjective, innit? I thought it was fairly reasonable. It was strident, but didn’t call for murdering anyone.

I have an easement for through travel on my property. So I might have a different viewpoint from somebody who doesn’t have people throwing garbage into their yard every single day.

Wow someone who actually knows that they are talking about posting.

1 Like

Sarcasm, Medievalist. There isn’t a chance in hell that a billionaire’s home would ever be confiscated like that. (If you are responding to my post)

When people buy property they tend to want to believe that they can do what they like with it, regardless of the law. This is true in my town for both a local millionaire who built a golf course without the necessary permits, and my asshat neighbor who built a raptor house far closer to our mutual fence than codes allow. The situation is made worse by authorities who did the same in each case: nothing. So why blindly follow the law if there’s no punishment for ignoring it?

If there is no easement on this beachfront property, then there is no easement. The public will either have to create one or find another way to this beach.

If you keep going to the beach with a spade you can move the mean high tide line all the way to the billionaire’s door.

4 Likes

No, I was just observing the general trend of the thread (which seems to have morphed a little since I last read it, maybe that’s the “Edit” function or more likely just my lousy memory). We went from “jeez, what a schmuck” to “there oughta be a law” to “send thugs to take his stuff” to “nobody should be allowed to own such properties” pretty quick, didn’t we?

IIRC, in Scotland, ALL beaches and wilderness areas are protected as open access land, so at least one country is doing it right, and all the rich people haven’t run away (although, again IIRC, they’ve bitched about it a fair bit).

You’ll probably all have your own opinions about the relative merits of Scottish and Californian beaches.

1 Like

I’m close enough to Scotland, and have been dragged to enough February coastal excursions as a child, to be soured on beaches forever. They can keep 'em. I look fondly at auto-turret builds on Hack-A-Day, and dream of ack-ack units for herring gulls…

Good chance the beachgoers’ll push the case and prevail later. The judge took a particular interpretation of existing case law based on the original grant that may not hold up well under these odd circumstances.

Sometimes, it’s easy. I owned a property once where my neighbor kept using the back of my property as a driveway, and making threats when we told him to stop. Checked the deeds, turned out the County had an easement under eminent domain many years earlier while it built a roadway. They forgot to return title when they finished the work as agreed. I didn’t even have to go to court - just a quick trip to the county land office, the deed was handed over, and it was done. This one is different - maybe more complicated because it’s public access involved. But an action by the County or State will be presumed to hold the force of law until or unless Mr. Billionaire can mount a successful challenge.
(Personally, I like the flash mob idea, just for gp. Call it, ‘Occupy - The Beach, Byotches’.)

1 Like

People should boat in and…Occupy Beach!!! Camping on a nice beach would probably be lots more fun than camping on Wall St.

1 Like

Problem is that you can only Occupy Until The High Tide Line. So, while that gives you 11 hours or so to set up a tent, you might be awakened rudely by the Pacific.