"On the other side, numerous prominent organizations lined up to file briefs in support of Khosla’s position, including the Pacific Legal Foundation, California Farm Bureau Federation, California Cattlemen‘s Association, California Association of Realtors. and California Business Properties Association."
The realtors don't want stuff like this to devalue properties and make things a harder sell. Farmers and cattlemen don't want people with cameras to have an excuse to walk through their properties. Business property owners don't want the extra liability and upkeep costs associated with it. Lawyers just want to draw the fight out as long as possible since they're being paid.
Pacific Legal Foundation is a non-profit in Sacramento that files lawsuits to push the law in ways that protect private property and personal freedom (as they definite it; I'm neither a fan nor a supporter but want to be neutral). They're kind of an anti-ACLU or anti-Sierra Club in a sense that they use strategic litigation for political reasons.
For anyone new to this issue: keep in mind that when Khosla bought the property, California Law and prior Caselaw were crystal clear that there is absolutely no legal way for Khosla to close or reduce pre-existing beach access. This is not a case where someone is fighting a gray area of law. This is a tried-and-true legal rule system that has been in place for 50 years.
It is equally clear under California law that if he wants to develop any new structures on the land or augment existing structures, he will be required to open up access even further than it already is.
You can think this system of law is good or bad, but nevertheless it is the law.
There is a larger question as to whether that California law violates the US Constitution or not. I think not, but we will probably see what the USSC has to say about it.
If he wanted less surfers traipsing across his property, seems like the easier solution would've been to drastically increase the parking fees. As I understand it, it's almost impossible to walk to the beach down that road so access to the parking would've been much easier to restrict under the costal access law. So this is almost certainly done as a provocation to see if he can change the law via the courts
" but we will probably see what the USSC has to say about it."
Actually, we will probably not. They almost certainly will not take the case. This is a matter of state constitutional law, and well settled law at that. The big problem for Khosla is: It's been that way since 1976, and the supreme court has not, in that time period, said there was anything wrong with the provision.
This is part of the California constitution:
"No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage of tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose, nor to destroy or obstruct free navigation of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such laws as will give the most liberal construction to this provision so that access to the navigable water of this State shall always be attainable for the people thereof." - California Constitution, Article X, section 4
At worst, they will be forced to pay market rate.
They will then argue over market rate.
Khosla may be a billionaire, but bureaucracy generally doesn't care.
I appreciate your contributions in these Khosla threads. Thank you!
> Khosla may be a billionaire, but bureaucracy generally doesn't care.
I genuinely enjoy that California can outlast Khosla, and that access to the beach will return eventually. The level of wealthy arrogance is too damn high.
What ever happened with that ruling in, I think, 2013 that the Treaty of Hidalgo allowed him to close land access to the beach, and that the Treaty had priority over the California constitution? I remember reading that this was being appealed, but have not seen what happened to that.
You're kinda missing the point. We've had 50 years of very rich people challenging the law and losing. Many of them applied to the USSC. The USSC is not interested because this is basic mundane permit-condition stuff.
The only time the USSC has slapped down the Coastal Commission is when the Commission went overboard and required a lateral easement along a property for the purpose of views.
As for increasing the parking fees, the legal system is not stupid. You cannot hack around it.
California laws cannot violate the California constitution or the US constitution. Presumably, the land owner believes the law in question violates his rights as a citizen of the state of California and/or the United States. And when you're worth $1.5 billion, you can have these sorts of fights with the government.
This is true, but these laws are definitely constitutional under the california constitution.
See Article X, section 4, which specifically authorizes them.
I'm confused why so many people bring up the idea that it's unconstitutional. Right of way, access, easement, and eminent domain are all established government exceptions to strict private property rights. Hell, after the mockery that police can enter your front yard without a warrant if you don't have some kind of fence, and the government has the right to force you to sell your land so they can sell it to commercial interests, do we really think they're going to find beach access laws unconstitutional?
20 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 61.6 ms ] threadWhy?
One thing I've noticed is that questions of law are rarely straightforward. People often have genuine arguments for their side of the story.
It is equally clear under California law that if he wants to develop any new structures on the land or augment existing structures, he will be required to open up access even further than it already is.
You can think this system of law is good or bad, but nevertheless it is the law.
If he wanted less surfers traipsing across his property, seems like the easier solution would've been to drastically increase the parking fees. As I understand it, it's almost impossible to walk to the beach down that road so access to the parking would've been much easier to restrict under the costal access law. So this is almost certainly done as a provocation to see if he can change the law via the courts
Actually, we will probably not. They almost certainly will not take the case. This is a matter of state constitutional law, and well settled law at that. The big problem for Khosla is: It's been that way since 1976, and the supreme court has not, in that time period, said there was anything wrong with the provision.
This is part of the California constitution:
"No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage of tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose, nor to destroy or obstruct free navigation of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such laws as will give the most liberal construction to this provision so that access to the navigable water of this State shall always be attainable for the people thereof." - California Constitution, Article X, section 4
At worst, they will be forced to pay market rate. They will then argue over market rate. Khosla may be a billionaire, but bureaucracy generally doesn't care.
> Khosla may be a billionaire, but bureaucracy generally doesn't care.
I genuinely enjoy that California can outlast Khosla, and that access to the beach will return eventually. The level of wealthy arrogance is too damn high.
The only time the USSC has slapped down the Coastal Commission is when the Commission went overboard and required a lateral easement along a property for the purpose of views.
As for increasing the parking fees, the legal system is not stupid. You cannot hack around it.
Turns out that is addressed in the first part of the article:
> the State Lands Commission has been in negotiations with Khosla... to purchase an easement to allow public access over the private road.
Sounds like a huge mistake by the state to not have that set up as an easement decades ago. Could have avoided the whole mess.