Billionaire told he can't block access to public beach

boing
41

The precedent this would set if he were to win would mean someone
wealthy enough could buy up land all around a piece of public land and
by denying access essentially make it private land (and yet not have to
pay property taxes on it.)

It doesn’t mean that at all, but thanks for injecting a good dose of hyperbole into the debate. :slight_smile:

In your hypothetical, they would still need to pay taxes on the property they own.

Also, if the State wants to control the disposition of that land, they have a path to achieve that without trampling all over his ownership rights - eminent domain. If the State wants to turn that trail into a public right of way, which he would no longer control, they can simply use eminent domain, pay him the fair-market-value for that land, and go on their merry way.

But having him own that trail (and pay annual property taxes on it, since he owns it) but have him NOT able to exercise control over it is trying to accomplish a taking without a compensation, and then asking him to pay annually for the privilege of such.

42

My favorite thing about libertarians is the way they blindly defend the actions of the rich through the use of principled and nuanced ethical arguments, even though the original actions in question are almost invariably neither principled not ethical.

8 Likes
43

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020379849_lakeburienxml.html

3 Likes
44

That should at least shift the strategies and demographics of civil forfeiture scams…

2 Likes
45

Thanks for reminding me to bow down before my Daniel Burnham altar today.

“The Lakefront by right belongs to the people," wrote Burnham. "Not a
foot of its shores should be appropriated to the exclusion of the
people.”

2 Likes
47

My and my friends used to call that pic ‘Dave Navarro Jesus’

2 Likes
48

“Some Guy” is confused about the beach (as others have pointed out here, the beach actually is private, the law being broken here regards change of use), nevertheless I don’t think it’s at all hyperbole that someone would or could buy up land around public land and thus try to close access to the public (see the comment on Lake Burien above.)

I have actually seen a number of stories over the last few years on people trying to close access to public beaches by locking gates and denying access where it had previously been legally allowed, so I am not surprised everyone here is confused on this particular incident, nor am I surprised that the former users of Martin’s Beach would get upset and litigious, since this kind of thing has been going on in California for a long time. It’s a tug of war.

2 Likes
49

My parent’s home owners association has functionally the same thing. The beach they’re on is at the bottom of eastern Long Island’s north shore bluffs, so a 60 foot sand cliff. Its sort of terraced to block erosion and there is a tall bulk head at the bottom of the cliff for the same reason. In practice the association property is considered to end at that bulkhead, as are the other private properties along the bluff. Maybe CA has a formal way of determining the average high tide mark. NY doesn’t, and from what I understand most states don’t attempt to get even that specific. Which is why disputes can come up. If the town says the average high tide mark is the bulkhead, but the property owner says its that rock 10 feet beyond the water line it ends up going to the courts. Who in the past have set the property line for these properties at the top of the bluff, not the bulkhead at its bottom.

But also we’re technically allowed to lock our beach access. The beach is still considered to be publicly accessible because you can walk 3/4 of a mile east or so from the beach at the town park that’s also in the neighborhood.That’s not always the case though. The stairs that head down the bluff are on 1/4 acre of park land the association owns, and most of the adjacent ones are directly in people’s back yards. So there’s the whole crossing private property thing. The town also has a large interest in keeping people off the bluffs for environmental reasons. Other “private” beach access, especially from businesses or less erosion prone areas, are typically un-gated. As there will typically be access to the side of whichever property you’re talking about. The bluffs sort of create a natural choke point, as its not possible to get to those beaches without walking around from a bluff-less beach.

50

It’s charming when it’s you, because I have to assume it’s charming when it’s me. Right? :wink:

1 Like
51

The abuse of periods and the boldface do add up to some apparently petty outrage. Good call on that one. Someone has sour grapes. You’re essentially correct, even about the Spanish land grant part being relevant, but this is not public outrage anymore. This was decided.

52

Just FYI about California easement laws: you may have to allow public access if the previous owner allowed continuous public foot, auto, or bike access for a number of years. If not, the new property owner can be sued for continued access unless it can be proven that access had been denied for a continuous period of years* (can’t remember exact number).

I’m not a lawyer, but I was juror on a civil trial and two new property owners tried to deny access to sections of their property that both previous owners allowed to be used as a neighborhood short cut. Four couples and 14 lawsuits and counterlawsuits later, we had to find in favor of access.

The new property owners from New York were understandably upset and had choice words for us, but previous owner had done his due diligence and the couple bought their property knowing about the easement.

*Even opening the gate for gardeners to drive through for five minutes resets the calendar to day one, if I recall correctly.

53

Apologies for the thread derail, but old deeds are awesome. When I was shopping for my property (I live in a former 19th century water-powered factory, converted to a home in the 1920s or earlier) I read a lot of colonial era deeds.

“Being that property situated between the tracts of Erasmus Jameson and the heathen Swede, counting four chains and a rod from the spot where Missus Jameson fought the bear for her pudding, along the several courses of the stream to the fallen oak, and proceeding three perches south to the riven pine, then due east to the kissing stone…” et cetera and so forth. Generally at least half the landmarks are nonexistent or incomprehensible if the deed’s over 200 years old. Quite often none of the landmarks are fixed points - they reference streambanks and roads that have moved many times since the deed was written.

Deed restrictions (such as the keeping of pigs) are frequently superseded by law, though. Most deeds around my area have provisions that say unwed mothers and/or negroes and/or protestants aren’t allowed to own the land, and those provisions are completely unenforceable. New laws trump old.

OK, back to the subject at hand, sorry.

9 Likes
54

When you’re a billionaire they’re not fines, they’re fees.
Pay a fee to be able to lock the gate. Pay a fee to be able to park on a double yellow. Pay a fee to be able to fix libor rates and launder money.
And so cheap too. It’s a bargain.
No wonder it’s so popular.

7 Likes
55

Sorry, but this won’t match up exactly with the trial you were on. It’s more complicated than that.

@glenblank was the first person to notice why why this land wouldn’t fall under California Constitutional Law. (@some_guy - what I’m about to write explains why decisions about this land won’t set precedent for general CA state law.)

I posted a link above to an Oct 2013 article, explaining that this land is rancho property deeded from prior to the Mexican-American War. Because the deed predates California, the land has no public easement at the shore. Also, the deed was tested after California became a state, and found to be sound - so the lack of easement was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1859. (California became a state in 1850.)

The original owner of the property was Jose Maria Alviso, who received a provisional land grant from the Mexican government in the late 1830s. He later transferred the property to his brother, Jose Antonio Alviso, whose rights to the property were upheld under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War. The U.S. government challenged Alviso’s land patent, but the Supreme Court confirmed Alviso’s ownership in 1859.

That means this piece of land may be unique because the lack of easement is original to the deed. The shore was included in the property. You can’t force private landowners to make their private land publicly accessible - unless of course you use eminent domain - and that’s what this argument is coming down to, there’s already a bill in the works.

The reason for the bill is that beach in this case is surrounded on both sides by steep cliffs, so even areas not specifically owned by Khosla are prevented public access by his private landholding. There’s no safe way for people to make land on the beach, except via the road. This court document from an April 2014 decision clearly states that the Spanish deed doesn’t preclude the state’s right to acquire the land or make some coastal access available.

The only access is via the road running through his property. There’s currently a bill pending to acquire Martin’s Beach Rd. (or make a different access road) via eminent domain. Here’s SB-968, which is currently on Governor Brown’s desk.

I have found a good timeline on public access, and it shows a public use history starting in the 1930’s. That helps the argument that this beach is considered “public” and was at the time it was purchased by Khosla. Another plus for that argument - Khosla left the gates unlocked the first two years he lived there, and is now complaining it’s due to cost that he closed them. If the question is cost, then he needed to speak to the state about reimbursement for the use of his land - not lock the gates. If the argument was that it was a private beach, the gates should have been locked for the first two years he lived there.

6 Likes
56

Sorry for the confusion. It wasn’t my intention to suggest that both cases are similar (my experience was inland OC). I was making a general comment about non-utility easement vs. private property rights that exist in California.

57

No problem! :smile: I wasn’t trying to say anything bad to you, just wanted to make sure you got the head’s up that this tract of land is a pre-California Rancho deed, and that’s where all the problems are coming from. If it was deeded post-1850, the California Constitution would apply to it automatically, and then definitely non-utility easement vs. private property rights would get dropped in. As it stands, they’re seeking eminent domain.

1 Like
58

FYI: It was the largest asshole that I could find…

1 Like
59

“Boffo bit of business burying those beach bumming bodies in the sand, Old Bean!”
What? I didn’t bury anybody.
I thought I heard you to say you’d cleaned things up out there once and for all.
…
Ahh. Seems a lot more trouble than what I would’ve done, but well done all the same, old chap. Another claret?

60

Boy, that Common Law sure does like to make it up as it goes.

1 Like
61

Indeed.

Personally i feel all fines should be levied as a fixed percentage of your savings+assets. As it stands fines have little to no effect on the rich but are devastating to the poor.

2 Likes