• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Martins beach issue may go to the Supreme Court

Climber

Climber

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Location
Clovis/Fresno
Moto(s)
01 Goldwing GL1800
Name
Brett
Martins Beach billionaire owner takes fight over public access to US Supreme Court
The billionaire owner of Martins Beach in San Mateo County asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to let him keep its gates closed to the public, saying California is using its coastal protection law to violate his private property rights.

“No property right is more fundamental than the right to exclude,” lawyers for Vinod Khosla said in asking the court to grant review of the case. They said the states’ courts, in their rulings against Khosla, wrongly decided that “owners of private beachfront property in California may not exercise that right without first obtaining the government’s permission.”

Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, bought the picturesque beach near Half Moon Bay and surrounding coastal lands from their longtime owners for $32.5 million in 2008. He shut the public access gate in September 2010, citing the cost of maintenance and liability insurance. The previous owners had admitted the public for at least 70 years.

After a series of back-and-forth rulings, a San Mateo County judge ruled in 2014 that Khosla should have gotten a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission before shutting the gates. A state appeals court agreed last August, saying the closure was a type of property development that required the commission’s approval.
Click to expand...
He knew that there was public access to the beach when he bought the property, I don't know where his ownership ends at the shoreline, as I recall nobody is allowed to own the actual shoreline and by blocking access through his property he is essentially blocking access to the beach. Is that accurate?

What are people's thoughts on this? Any predictions on how the USSC is likely to rule on this? Given that it's a conservative court, I would expect them to rule on his side and essentially set up a precedence that Billionaires could exploit all up and down the coast.
 
I don't see a problem with closing the gates if people are cross over his private property. The "public access" does not seem to be an arrangement with the property owner and the government. It seems more like a private citizen's good graces but it is a shame that you forever lose your rights because of some good will.

Doesn't sound like he is blocking access to the beach, just the easement through HIS property when the beach can be accessed around his property.

This reminds me of the Mark Zuckerberg in Hawaii situation.
 
From my understanding, you can't get to the beach without going through the property, a little problem with cliffs on both sides.

He knew that going in and essentially wanted to buy his own private beach.
 
Looks like he offered easement with proper compensation. Just pay the man. Looks like the past owners offered access to their business through the years which was located on the beach.
 
KooLaid said:
Looks like he offered easement with proper compensation. Just pay the man. Looks like the past owners offered access to their business through the years which was located on the beach.
Click to expand...
He bought the property for $32.5 Million, he offered easement to the city for
$30 Million. That was a sick joke.
 
KooLaid said:
I don't see a problem with closing the gates if people are cross over his private property. The "public access" does not seem to be an arrangement with the property owner and the government. It seems more like a private citizen's good graces but it is a shame that you forever lose your rights because of some good will.

Doesn't sound like he is blocking access to the beach, just the easement through HIS property when the beach can be accessed around his property.

This reminds me of the Mark Zuckerberg in Hawaii situation.
Click to expand...

Fifty years of court cases say otherwise. I actually witnessed one of the first ones.
 
Climber said:
He bought the property for $32.5 Million, he offered easement to the city for
$30 Million. That was a sick joke.
Click to expand...

What do you mean?
That's called being smart!!! :later :later

Meh in theory has the right to offer for whatever money he wants.

But also in (apparently not yet conclusively appealed) theory he has the requirement to provide public access.
 
Last edited:
Haven't there been similar cases in Malibu where extremely wealthy people tried for years to restrict public access to public beaches only to lose in court every time?
 
Well property value is almost multitudes higher. If they government wants access via paved roadway through his property to a parking lot to access the beach then I feel he should be compensated for that lost land.

If it is a matter of just accessing the beach, then allow a long narrow trail along the property's edge. Environmentalists should be thrilled at the restored land and smalled footprint left behind. Marten's Beach trail. Done.
 
Map8 said:
Haven't there been similar cases in Malibu where extremely wealthy people tried for years to restrict public access to public beaches only to lose in court every time?
Click to expand...

True.

But when someone is extremely wealthy-er combined with egotistical selfishness then precedent can be ignored.

My beach, the prole masses should stay the f away.
 
In the sixties, we use to break the gate into Point Dume to surf. It is south of the Point Dume State Park. (And long before there was a park). The owners' would call the sheriff on occasion. Eventually, WE, the surfers, fought the arrests and closer in Malibu court. It was an early case of coastal access for the public, as far as I know. We prevailed on the grounds that it was regularly used as the engress to a public beach and public surf that was used before the gate even existed. The gate had to remain unlocked between sunrise and sunset.

Surfs up :party (I have no idea what is going on there, today.) https://www.google.com/maps/place/Little+Dume+Beach/@34.009679,-118.794351,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipP9Z7RslJLH4vQv_xKKWfzz4uIdFH0pJcuW_YV-!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipP9Z7RslJLH4vQv_xKKWfzz4uIdFH0pJcuW_YV-%3Dw203-h152-k-no!7i3984!8i2988!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x80e819041eb15609:0x23392029bc1aa5b6!2sPoint+Dume!3b1!8m2!3d34.0016746!4d-118.8068986!3m4!1s0x80e8191e6b255bc9:0x41c306ebb7f957e9!8m2!3d34.0113818!4d-118.7936479
 
^ I had no idea you were a salty old surfer. Your posts make more sense now. :twofinger

edit, yeah motherfuckers have fun getting your ass handed to you in court.
 
This case seems in line with the recently increasing movement(s) for the preservation of public land. TRCP, BHA, RMEF, and a number of other groups have fought against and worked with landowners, both public and private, to preserve public access to, as well as the public lands themselves. RMEF has a longstanding history of cooperation maintaining access and conserving lands to the benefit of wildlife and human recreation.
 
Climber said:
Martins Beach billionaire owner takes fight over public access to US Supreme Court

He knew that there was public access to the beach when he bought the property, I don't know where his ownership ends at the shoreline, as I recall nobody is allowed to own the actual shoreline and by blocking access through his property he is essentially blocking access to the beach. Is that accurate?

What are people's thoughts on this? Any predictions on how the USSC is likely to rule on this? Given that it's a conservative court, I would expect them to rule on his side and essentially set up a precedence that Billionaires could exploit all up and down the coast.
Click to expand...

They should rule on his side. If the man owns the property, he owns it, it rightfully should be under his dominion. The right of Landowners to control their private property is a sacred institution. If States want to protect their Beaches, Forests, and Lakeside, they need to take those Property Lines off the market and not sell them to people. It is shitty Government to try and collect the yummy money from people who can afford to buy the land, but still require it be treated like a Public Asset. You must choose which you want.
 
Eldritch said:
They should rule on his side. If the man owns the property, he owns it, it rightfully should be under his dominion. The right of Landowners to control their private property is a sacred institution. If States want to protect their Beaches, Forests, and Lakeside, they need to take those Property Lines off the market and not sell them to people. It is shitty Government to try and collect the yummy money from people who can afford to buy the land, but still require it be treated like a Public Asset. You must choose which you want.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Dont sell it if its not private property. $30mil is a huge sum for something thats not really yours. Id be pissed.
 
How bout the other way around? Don't fucking buy it if you want it to yourself and can't share? It's not like the buyer was told after the fact that he would need to provide an easement. Fucking cry babies.

PG&E dug up my back yard for the better part of a year and can pop into it any time they want. I knew that before I bought the property. Oh well I knew and agreed to it.
 
SM610 said:
I agree with this. Dont sell it if its not private property. $30mil is a huge sum for something thats not really yours. Id be pissed.
Click to expand...

Well, I mean, they could fucking use eminent domain to take the shit back if they really wanted to, but they would have to pay him for the cost of the land for the path and the loss of value to his property for bisecting his parcel. They are just don't want to pay. This is total abuse by Government.

Mike95060 said:
How bout the other way around? Don't fucking buy it if you want it to yourself and can't share? It's not like the buyer was told after the fact that he would need to provide an easement. Fucking cry babies.

PG&E dug up my back yard for the better part of a year and can pop into it any time they want. I knew that before I bought the property. Oh well I knew and agreed to it.
Click to expand...

No, dude, there was no easement on the parcel when he bought it. That is the thing. Government mismanaged this deal and now want to put the property owner on the hook for their mistake.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top